You make some sound points, but I suspect you do not understand current hatchery practices here in the U.S. Your hatcheries are light years ahead ours. By and large we still use fish that originated in other rivers, (Chambers Creek and Skamania fish are found in rivers all over the state.) We do not take brood stock with hook and line; we do not try to use only wild fish for brood stock and our hatchery fish are of nowhere near the quality of yours.

I know Vancouver Island rivers are hurting and have no idea why. I do know that in most cases hatchery fish are not the problem, but I doubt they are the solution either. I think you should consider using hatcheries to sustain wild strain of fish from that river system. But I would caution against simply dumping the rivers full of hatchery fish.

Until a few years ago most Vancouver Island rivers produced considerably more fish per angler day than did our hatchery panted rivers.

I have had many 10 fish days on the Gold, and almost never have had that many fish on one of our hatchery planted rivers.

Remember too that some anglers tend to exaggerate. I have not looked at our catch record data recently, but a few years ago approximately 45% of our steel headers reported catching zero steelhead in a year. As I recall less than 20% caught more than 25 in a year. A few years back the catch per angler day on the Gold wild fish was near one per anglers.

You are right; we should be careful what we wish for. There is a reason so many U.S. anglers head to Canada to fish steelhead. and so few Canadians come this way.

What Sol said.

bodysurf. . .thanks for helping to put this all in context. I think it is starting to make sense,

fb

Dave Vedder said. "Remember too that some anglers tend to exaggerate"

I ressemble that remark! :p

Sol,

That was a pretty funny analogy...!

Fish on...

Todd

my older brother told me that boldt ruling was the law and that we had no other choice but to follow it. i read it to and i don't see how a hatchery helps an indian any moor then a white fisherman. so if all are fish gone how do to we keep fishing if not for hatcheryfish ?

if not for hatchery fish then what can we fish for ?
my brother said that Mr. Brannon was a teacher in his school and was well respected at the time. whats going on with him if he was the teacher of all our brothers students who are now saying he was wrong ? I am gettin concerned if this is what I am going to be taught and then be told that my teachers are all screwed up. what do the biologist think about Dr. Brannon and his past teachings ?

I really appreciate all the previous discussions although I wish we could have some input from the anti-hatchery advocates on that last cut/paste from Dr. Brannon by Locust; especially from Mr. McMillan from Washington Trout.

Dr Brannon seems to indicate that it has been poor management practices that have given the hatchery fish a bad name while the anti-hatchery groups want you to believe that any returning hatchery adult that spawns in the wild is typhoid Mary/John. Well, which actually is it?

Let’s take an integrated hatchery strategy on a river system with a depressed wild run but still enough habitat to support a larger population. A hatchery raised fry of “river of origin stock,” raised to smolt at the hatchery, domesticated to the extreme, is released. Now this fish, having the luxury to have escaped most of the selective impacts for the first, say 1/3 of its life, has made it successfully out to the marine environment, survived, and is now returning as an adult, and lets just pretend that it was imprinted good enough to make it back to it’s original natal stream/spawning area. So now this fish pairs up with another ripe fish, either wild or hatchery. They spawn in the river. What would be the egg to adult success of this spawning pair? Or in other words, what would the contribution be of this spawning pair (brood) to the next spawning brood (F1)? Then what would the F1’s year brood group (if any) contribution be to the following generation (F2)? Dr Brannon would seem to indicate that, in a properly run hatchery, with appropriate broodstock, there would be an adequate F1 generation spawning wild which would produce an increased F2 generation and so on. The anti-hatchery groups are adamant claiming that the original hatchery brood would produce few, if any; F1’s and even fewer or zero F2’s. Which is it?

Beezer, good points. The Cowlitz late winter run is a good example of your scenario. They started slow and are now rebounding. Point is, they are a locally adapted stock. The early run would have probably been as successful because it is also a locally adapted stock.

For that matter, the summer run would probably succeed, as it has been adapting successfully for 30+ years.

the skookumchuck uses local stock....and they seem to get good returns...but as far as the success rate of those guys spawning in the wild i'd have to say is near zero....i rarely ever see any wild smolts and haven't caught a wild/feral fish there in years...lots of hatchery fish though...but the wild/feral fish i have caught there stand out in memory for their fight and strength more than any of the hatchery guys..
i'm not anti-hatchery having worked in and around them for many years...but i know they are no panacea even when run well...

the Kalama Research Team has been releasing smolts from 'wild' parents for a few years now and they should soon be getting to the point where the spawning success etc. of those guys
can be pinned down....it'll be interesting to see...

something about southern BC steelhead returns. If you take 3 river systems out of the picture (stamp/somass,cowichan and chillawack/vedder) There are more steelhead expected to return this year to the Skagit and Snohomish systems than the entire south coast of BC including vancouver island. We routinely fish rivers with returns of 100-200 fish or even less. A local vancouver river was swam by our WLAP people counting steelhead at the end of February and they counted 3 winter steelhead in the entire river along with 11 summer steelhead. The river is open to steelheading with a 2 fish per day limit on hatchery fish. Good management or what. The ten fish days on the Gold river are a thing of the distance past with total run sizing below 500 winter steelhead. You guys may think your hatchery programs are poor and they don't help wild fish but you should come up here and fish over no fish abd see how poor it really is. I have purchased a washington state license because our winter steelheading here is so good. I just have to now get over US custom delays of about one hour checking out to see if I own my boat,truck,etc. I would fish washington more if crossing the border was less stressful.

More from Dr. Brannon,



The Salmon and Steelhead



Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part VIII



Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--March 14, 2005



Hatchery Management Reform





The objective of the series on the hatchery fish controversy has been to provide a perspective on the role of hatcheries in the recovery of salmon and steelhead populations. There is a striking contrast in the viewpoints that we see about hatchery fish in the Pacific Northwest. Some of the opposition to hatcheries is very curious. I understand the dichotomy that is politically driven, and unfortunately has engulfed our natural resources, and I under- stand the largely naïve academic and emotional opposition to hatcheries among those referred to as the green community that object to any alteration of the natural environment. What I don’t understand is the opposition of commercial fishermen and sport-fishing groups such as the Northwest Steelheaders, the ocean trollers and Trout Unlimited, who have clearly benefited from hatchery programs.



The logic of this opposition to hatchery fish is characterized by a recent guest columnist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who wrote: Hatchery fish are more likely to be eaten by predators and get lost in migration and they are less successful in spawning . . .in the wild their progeny are less likely to contribute to the next generation. . . . and by interbreeding with wild fish, harm the species ability to adapt to river and ocean cycles.



Such rhetoric, apart from being in error, obviously misses the point. Hatchery fish can’t be blamed for the mistakes of fisheries management. The culpability for most problems associated with hatchery fish is associated with the decision makers that use hatcheries in their management strategy, as mentioned in article 3. Therefore, the last article in this series is a perspective on the management reforms needed in hatchery programs.



The important point to remember is that hatchery fish represent the genetic legacy of their originating native stocks, and when they are used in conjunction with the wild remnants of their parental population, they can contribute to and assist in maintaining their wild kin. Although rather sophisticated and complex theoretical arguments can be proposed about the risks of artificial propagation, when the evidence is examined for biological meaningful effects, most of the problems with hatchery fish are where, when, and why we put them out in the first place. If artificially propagated fish are released in streams foreign to their origin, out of synchrony with their natural timing, released in large numbers, or released purely for increased harvest opportunity, major problems can be anticipated.



The genetic legacy of these fish is not threatened by conservation hatchery propagation when they are used to supplement their wild counterparts, and if artificial propagation follows the protocol to mimic the wild fish model, hatchery fish can be as successful as wild fish. That is the essence of recovery. Yes, there is a level of risk associated with culture practices that train the fish for the hatchery environment, but if the native timing patterns are maintained in the hatchery population, influences from fish culture are temporary and do not alter behavior of the progeny spawned in the wild. Also, the power and efficiency of natural selection to mold the performance of these fish in the wild should not be underestimated.



The fact that these species do so well when brought into captivity, and then rapidly readjust to the natural environment when released, speaks highly of their innate capacity and flexibility to meet such challenges. Measures can be taken in artificial propagation that buttress the sustaining ability of the wild salmon and steelhead populations. The key is to improve resource management by putting the biological needs of the cultured fish first-place in the management strategy. Attending to the biological needs requires knowledge about the carrying capacity of the system in which hatchery fish are employed, the size and age structure of the population being supplemented, and the timing of the various life history phases.



The brood stock and the breeding protocol followed by the hatchery must be selected to represent the genetic diversity of the target population. The eggs should be incubated in substrate, and rearing protocol should use the wild juveniles as the model for size and time of release to the natural stream. Lower rearing densities, actions to reduce domestication influences, and feeding regimes that fit the seasonal pattern experienced by the wild fish should be employed.



To maximize the performance potential upon release, out-plants of juveniles should not be released at one site, or released in large numbers at any one time. Nighttime releases of fish evacuated of food before hauling should also be part of the standard procedures for direct releases, and where possible acclamation ponds should be built where the fish can recover from the transportation stress and disorientation, and be allowed to emigrate volitionally from the site.



Research also needs to be part of hatchery propagation to resolve the uncertainties associated with the culture environment and to hone the process. Differentiating between domestication and temporary acquired behavior induced by the hatchery environment, and evaluating any affects of that environment, are necessary to improve the technology. New hatchery concepts, such as engineered streams, also need to be assessed as alternatives to standard hatchery designs, where more natural stream-like environments can be developed to accommodate the production of wild-type fish. Decentralization of production and redistributing much smaller facilities to the target streams is also a concept to pursue in future development of the hatchery concept. Using the natal stream as the water source and the sizing the facilities based on the local needs of the target population is the optimal approach in restoration and maintenance of wild salmon and steelhead.



In conclusion, denying hatchery fish from spawning in the wild or approving their extermination is to a disregard their historical lineages and to waste sources of genetic diversity that is important to the sustaining ability and adaptive evolution of the species. The progeny of hatchery fish from the local stock performing in the wild will be indistinguishable from their native counterparts if management addresses the biological requirements needed in the wild. Natural production in the habitat remaining is not sufficient to provide the recreational and commercial harvest fisheries that are important to the fishing public. The challenges of multiple water uses means that we have to manage smarter, and smarter means that we don’t limit our options to use artificial propagation as a tool for the betterment of the salmon and steelhead resources.



Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation.

These seem to be valid points. What he describes above is very nearly the way B.C. hatcheries have been doing things. Their hatchery steelhead seem far superior to most that we produce and I can’t prove this, but I suspect they are much more successful at spawning as well.

By using wild fish for brood stock and by catching those fish with hook and line, as is done in B.C. for most steelhead brood stock and some Chinook stocks, you get fish that are native to the river, that had wild parents that were biters. Unfortunately, many for the suggestion listed above may prove to be much more expensive than our current hatchery practices.

I believe we need to wait to see what our hatchery scientific reform group comes up with, and then implement their suggestions. (This is the most comprehensive look at our hatchery practices ever undertaken.) But we may find that improving overall hatchery practices will require much more funding or a cutback on production.

it's kinda funny in a way....try to rear hatchery fish in a 'natural enviroment'...which is exactly how many of the hatcheries are doing things now(nature ponds,underwater feeding,lower densities,predators allowed in ponds etc..) but for all the effort and extra space,money and labor needed to do that you hafta ask... is it worth more to devote that effort and energy into getting fish spawning in the river that will do well rather than getting wild smolts that survive in a hatchery?
there's one rub it seems....
or is this the 'wise use' movement trying to deter the issue from dealing with habitat issues instead(like dams maybe)....it's all about getting hatchery fish counted as part of the ESA fish and the ongoing lawsuit....

Sorry, I've been outta the country for a few days, will try and catch up here. Not to pick on anyone, but there are alot of misconceptions regarding population genetics that are important to clear up in the discussions here. I'll start with a quote from Fishbadger:
First of all, even under the worst cases of hatchery management, there is little in the published genetics literature to suggest that hatchery stocks are anything near homozygous "clones" as you call them. In fact, recent findings using DNA markers (not the ancient protein electrophoretic ones) suggest that hatchery breeding practices can easily maintain or capitalize on existing genetic variation and often demonstrate high levels of heterozygosity. Secondly, your wording indicates a clear confusion regarding population genetics terminology (whether it be human or otherwise). Random genetic drift is very different than "introgression" (BTW the population genetics term for introgression is migration), with drift not being related at all to crossing among or between populations, but is instead the random changes in gene frequency that occur normally in small populations. In fact your statement that genetic drift is a good thing from a natural selective standpoint makes absolutely no sense at all! Drift and selection are opposing forces, tending to maintain balance in populations. As for effects of migration (introgression), there are many examples of straying in natural steelhead populations. It is an important part of all salmonid biology. In fact, coastal Oregon populations show remarkable levels of straying, even to the point that fish will leave streams they have entered, head back to the ocean, and be later found spawning in systems miles away. It is a proven, natural way of maintaining balance in gene pools.

In conservation genetics literature, particulary as it relates to aquatic systems, intraspecific hybridization is often cited as a threat to the "genetic integrity" of rare native species. But what is genetic integrity, and how do we know it when we see it? Lately, the term seems to be used by scientists and laypersons alike as little more than a euphanism for genetic purity. In reality, there are great difficulties in applying these definitions in wild systems. I have, and continue, to propose that genetic integrity should have a strong functional component, and that it be determined case-by-case. There are recent good examples in the literature, particularly with amphibians.

Another misconception that appears through this thread (sorry to pick on you again, fishbadger) was seen in the following stqatement:

" You cite a statement that “Genetic diversity
in salmon and steelhead populations is extensive, and within-population diversity usually exceeds the diversity that exists between populations.” How do you support that statement regarding degree of diversity? I agree with Geoduck up there. It sounds backwards to me. Do you have any of your own material here? Sounds like there is a teleprompter nearby."

I'll respond to this one. In fact, there are many examples that show intrapopulation genetic variation to be higher than interpopulation variation. This has been shown in native populations of frogs (Scribner, et al. in Molecular Biology and Evolution 11(5):787), humans (YES HUMANS, you should know this one; Da Silva et al Am J Phys Anth 109:425, trees (Kara et al Silvae Genetica 46:2-3:155). That's just the ones directly at my fingertips, there are lots of others. For fish it is less clear, but a recent study of natural populations in Alaska (Olson et al Trans. AFS 133(2):476) show low interpopulation diversity and high intrapopulation diversity in chum salmon, while the opposite was true for coho. This suggests that no one approach will work for each species, and assessment of genetic variation must be done for each species under study.


I agree that the recent issues on Vancouver Island suggest that the health of our salmonid stocks are far beyond a hatchery or non-hatchery issue. We simply don't know enough to restrict our options at this point.

Lastly, why did Geoduck not respond to the chromosome numbers issue? I think that the chromosome numbers especially demonstrate that there could possibly be only a few large metapopulations.

I'll get outta the way here and await the shotgun blasts.

Ah, yes. I forgot to thank you for pointing out athat strains do have chromosome number variation. An interesting point.

Nontheless, all the strains you mention have less variation than steelhead as a species (58-64) exhibits . Thus I still think the within population diveristy being equivalent to the diversity of the entire population is a bit of fruity thing to say. How can this be true unless the population is efficitively one group? I don't see how part of a population can have more diveristy than the entire population. Perhaps I am just being dense.

The other issue is how one samples diveristy. With chromosome numbers of course it is simple and I think we have hashed over the issues. You just count them.
With genomic variation it is obviously much more complex and sampling becomes a huge issue. Do you count only coding single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or do you count them all. You malign electrophoretic techniques as being outdated. Certainly they are older and can only detect functional changes, but maybe its only funcitonal changes we should concern ourselves with. There are many non-coding snps in the steelhead genome. How many nobody knows, but way more than are practical to deal with. How do you decide which are accurate measures of diversity? I seriously doubt that outside of genome wide human and mouse studies there has been any effor to catalog the most comon polymorphisms let alone assess them in individual populations. The bottom line to all this is that even assessing genetic diversity is tricky and comes down to how you sample your SNPs.


As for hatcheries not screwing up fishereis. I agree that the documentation is limited at best. However, you want us to take the absence of evidence that hatcheries have caused problems as evidence for their utility. That is a ridiculously flimsy argument.

Here is an equally flimsy counter arguement. Hatcheries were in operation in this state during the declines of most major runs of chinook, steelhead and coho. Therefore they are the cause of these declines.

I believe neither of these weak arguments. The question really is did hatcheries play any role in these declines. I believe their role wa proably minor. However, my opinion is not the end all be all. We need facts. To do that we need to conduct some experiments.

Thus as I suggested before, we should conduct this integration of hatchery and wild populations on a selcet few systems (instead of statewide) and see how it goes.

The idea of doing this untested statewide is just plain irresponsible. The motivation is no doubt political exediency and/or greed.
The logic goes something like this:
Nobody wants more wild Chinook and steelhead runs to get ESA listed, why not just make hatchery fish politically equivalent (who cares about biology) to wild fish. Then everyoe can continue to fish, mine, log, develop, dam, and pollute with a clear conscience. Just go look at the hatchery trap there's lots of fish coming back things must be ok with the wild fish . . .

All I ask for is a simple experiment on one or two rivers that will never get done because political realities trump biological ones. Instead this will be done as a state wide experiment with all our wild runs at risk. The results maybe disasterous or benign to wild fish we won't know for years.

Fishologist, if I were you I couldn't in good conscience advocate such a widesweaping experiment without stronger evidence that it would work. I know you belive it will work, but what if you're wrong?

Steelhead (anadromous O. mykiss) with a 2n number of 64? Excuse me while I call BS. There are stocks of O. mykiss with different 2n numbers, but not with demonstrated anadromy in the NW.

As for "functional" differences in allozyme markers, you should know as well as I that these also are neutral markers that convey no selective advantage or disadvantage to the organism, indeed a "functioning" equivalent to an SNP. The point though I made earlier with allozymes is that even then, if you go back to the work of the "FREDS", there are "coastal" ans "inland" populations. NO MORE, NO LESS. Same as the chromosome data.

A human example. If I look at the genetic similarity within my own house, and compare it to that of the rest of the neighborhood, I find a unique population. Do I want to maintain the health of that population over the long term without migration? Absolutely not! That's the level I believe we've gotten with identifying subgroups on some of these populations in order to get them listed.

Am I willing to bet our fisheries future on hatcheries? If I look at an example (albeit extreme) of the sockeye populations in Redfish Lake, and the countless millions of dollars we're spending of yours and my money to keep a captive brood going from an effective population size of less than 30, I think its wrong. I served on the initial recovey team and suggested that representative samples from similar sockeye populations (long migration, etc) be taken, stocked, and let the fish sort it out since drift had obviously altered the population genetic makeup beyond repair. I was never asked back? WHY? IMO, its because there is equal hunger for power that a listing gives. Yeessss, there's the reality. Antidevelopment forces have obviously misused ESA listings in this country for power grabs as much as industry. SAME OLD STORY. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Bottom line for me, and many other scientists: each situation is unique and must be thoroughly examined on its own merits. Sometimes a "leave it alone" approach will be called for, sometimes a captive brood approach, sometimes a captured brood approach (note the difference), and sometimes a use of hatcheries to support a fishery.

The answer is always somewhere towards the middle.

Fishy-
You comments seem to indicate that you consider anadromous O. mikiss to be a different “species” than the resident form - interesting.

However more to the point regarding the chromosome numbers found in steelhead -

From - http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm19/hatch.html

“Chromosome karyotypes in steelhead and rainbow trout have also been extensively studied (see review in Thorgaard 1983). In a survey of steelhead from Alaska to central California, Thorgaard (1983) found that although chromosome numbers ranging from 58 to 64 were observed, a 58-chromosome karyotype was the most common in most samples. In contrast to results for studies of morphological and allozyme characters, Thorgaard did not find chromosomal differences between interior and coastal O. mykiss populations. All interior/redband trout populations had predominately 58 chromosomes, as did most coastal rainbow trout and steelhead populations.

The exceptions to the 58-chromosome pattern, however, provide insight into population genetic structuring in O. mykiss. Two geographic regions were characterized by steelhead with 59 or 60 chromosomes: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia region and the Rogue River/northern California region. However, the karyotypes of fish from these two regions were different; northern fish with 59 or 60 chromosomes had a different number of subtelocentric and acrocentric chromosomes than did southern fish (Thorgaard 1977). Farther south, winter steelhead in the Mad and Gualala Rivers from northern California and resident trout from the San Luis Rey River in southern California had 61-64 chromosomes (Thorgaard 1983).”

Tight lines
S malma

i guess a dog is a wolf and a wolf is a dog if a hatchery fish should be counted as an ESA fish....

...and then there is the question as to whether or not the samples drawn for the various studies were drawn from a large enough group to ensure that the data collected is truly representative of the population sets and subsets. Were they drawn from one years run cycle, two years, three years.....????

Add in to the mix data from the WDFW hatchery programs over the past 100 years and the blending of runs from different river basins because of a desire to get bigger fish or more eggs or earlier run timing and then add in that certain amount of straying that salmonids exhibit and one could ask if there is a truly unique population of "wild" fish or are the fish locally adapted "wild' fish.

We need to work towards the recovery of "wild" populations and we should continue to use our hatcheries for supplementation of existing runs. We also need to improve habitat conditions where economically and biologically feasible. There is no "silver bullet" and the answers are somewhere in the middle and they will involve many different techniques.

Fish are adaptable, maybe more so than some of the positions on both sides of the issue that get posted here. I think we need to work more towards basin management rather than continually cutting and splitting populations and issues to ever smaller groups. This kind of action leads to increasingly more complex regulations not to mention more money being spent on more studies and maybe even smaller splits in populations being "studied". We need to work within the appropriate arenas - ocean, Straits, Puget Sound and by expansion the Georgia Basin.

We know that we, as a species, are responsible for most of the freshwater/land problems. Can we solve them? Some yes, some no. Will we get back to the conditions of the 1850s? No, but we can try to improve runs and conditions where appropriate using the best available science.

Sport fishing is a $1 billion dollar economic motor in this state. We need to make sure our money is wisely spent.

that sounds pretty darn good! i like the way you think. that kind of talk people can understand. i wish more could do it as good as you just did

Fishyologist,

I'll deal with your last statement first as we agree. Each individual situation does merit considertion.

So, as I said before. We need more data before we use the once size fits all apporach of integrating hatchery and wild runs genetically speaking (that is the current approach favored by most politicians and industrialists right now).

I'm all for doing the experiment and finding out, but lets only do it in a river or two instead of every system in the state (at least until we have some sort of clue about what to expect). Just because previous hatchery reforms were often carried out with little forethought, doesn't mean we have to repeat the same mistakes over again.


As for the relationship of various techniques for determining genetic diversity and relatedness, we can get into that if you like, but I don't think it has much bearing on wheter or not the hatchery folks should blindly proceed down this path of genetic integration.

As for chromosome #s, what are you talking about? Now you're trying to tell me that only steelhead in the PNW count as steelhead. Give me a break. Anadromous or no, all O. mykiss are the same species.

Finally, you never answered. Do you support full scale integration of hatchery and wild runs ala the Bush administration's proposal?

As for the redfish lake thing. I don't know that much about it but I think I agree. 30 fish is probably not enough. Given the plasticity of salmonid genetics, I think introducing more fish may have been the way to go. However, without remedying the habitat problems that drove them to their current dire straights, I doubt that hatchery fish would fare much better (they still have to get over the dams).

People seem to forget that 10,000 years ago, all of the puget sound basin was under a mile of ice. All of our salmonids are threfore recently adapted to our very dynamic rivers. It is these continually changing environmental conditiouns that dictate what happens with fish genetic diversity. Think all this adaptation happend thousands of years ago? Think again, its goin on right now. Probably the biggest changes in the river systems in the PNW since the last ice age are the man made ones over the past 70 years. The fish are adapting. This is most obvious with the pink salmon, they are showing up in places they never were before. Look at the recent colonizaiton of the snohomish river with even year pinks and the new run of pinks in the green. The rivers are changing and the fish are responding. So far, it seems the pinks are the ones to benefit, from the changes we've made (clearly the chinooks have been hurt by these same changes).

Just my $0.02