Dr. Ernest Brannon has done a series on hatchery issues. I'm sure that you will find his series interesting. There are no easy answers and there will always be folks on both sides of the fence. The 6th in his series is entitled:

" Hatchery Fish Performance - Success in Natural Streams "


GO TO: http://www.nwfishermen.org

The full series is linked at the bottom of the website.

Thanks!

A fault in his argument!!

His argument is that the goal is to return spawners to spawning grounds. I would disagree with that goal. Our goal should be to have our spawners producing offspring at a rate that increases the population to the maximum possible..
Spawners mean nothing if what they produce is nothing!.. In all the cases he mentiones in his articles every one of them that I am aware of are on systems that are still heavily planted with hatchery fish.. No distinction was made as to the origin of the spawners that return! The could just as easily simply be stray hatchery fish, particularly with the chinooks in the columbia, most of which are not clipped...

The real and ONLY way to evaluate the effectivness of a hatchery fish in the wild is to stop planting hatchery fish!!! Only then will you know if you have achieved restoration...

He complains about politics,well his position also is a political one NOT BASED ON SCIENCE only his interpretation of the data.. His interpretation being Hatchery fish spawning makes them wild... Don't be fooled that's ALL ge said...

I read all five of his articles too. I was impressed that he was able to cite 17 examples where hatchery fish were used to establish or rebuild self-sustaining runs.

But I would have to agree with RA3.... the ultimate test of whether or not those runs are "self-sustaining" is to stop planting them with hatchery fish.

I would feel much better about this research if I knew more about the funding. Who is the Salmonid Foundation and what are their goals? I note that some of the publication's listed at the site are VERY political in nature. This makes me a bit skeptical.

The Salmon and Steelhead



Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part VI



Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--February 26, 2005



Hatchery Fish Performance Success
in Natural Streams



It is too bad that our salmon and steelhead resources have become so politicized. Once that occurs, and politicians promote or degrade different recovery strategies, the resources are the losers. The May 12/04 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer “Salmon recovery efforts must be based on science,” by two King County officials is an example. Apparently they wanted to politicize the National Marine Fisheries Service decision to reconsider hatchery fish in listing determinations under the ESA. The County officials' allegation was that hatchery fish were genetically inferior, more susceptible to disease, and less adaptable than wild fish. Unfortunately, none of their allegations were based on science. They got it wrong, but such allegations are common because political pundits don’t really consider the science. I admit that if good records were kept on hatchery introductions in the Pacific Northwest they would undoubtedly show mixed results, but that is not the fault of the fish. The problem has been fisheries management and how hatchery fish have been used in various applications.



So lets turn to hatchery fish performance in the natural environment and look for genetic inferiority, disease susceptibility and poor adaptation. Most noteworthy among recent hatchery programs is (1) the pink salmon in Prince William Sound (PWS), Alaska. Mean annual adult pink salmon returns to PWS from the 1920s to the 1970s were around 5.2 million fish. Since hatchery production started, the mean adult return has been in excess of 26 million fish annually, and the largest run in the history of PWS occurred in 2003 with 57 million fish. Analysis of otolith marks of hatchery fish in streams relatively close (20 km) to the hatcheries have shown the majority of spawners have been hatchery strays, and there is no evidence of reduced productivity of the wild populations in those streams. Hatchery fish originated from the Sound and are genetically compatible with wild fish.



Other hatchery programs show similar integration. (2) Sooes River just south of Cape Flattery , had fewer than 100 fall Chinook reaching the spawning grounds in some years. Since the Makah National Fish Hatchery program started in 1982, the population has built up to well over 8,000 fish returning to the system. (3) White River with spring chinook salmon dropped to less that 10 adults in the mid-1980s. The hatchery program has been successful in returning over 400 adults annually to the hatchery through the 1990s, and over 2,000 untagged adults returned to their historical spawning grounds in the fall of 2001. (4) The Sacramento River winter-run chinook project is also successful. The program to recover these unique salmon has stabilized and perhaps has even increased the effective population size of the winter-run chinook population previously listed at risk of extinction. (5) And finally, the Oregon coastal hatchery coho have shown no negative impacts on wild coho returns, suggesting no genetic or disease interactions.



Supplementation in the Columbia River Basin has also been noteworthy. (6) Genetic analysis of rainbow trout in the Yakima River and (7) Carson chinook salmon introduced to the Methow River in the mid-Columbia have shown these fish are integrated with the wild populations. (8) Chinook salmon out-planted in Lookingglass Creek in the Salmon River system from the Rapid River hatchery, tributary to the Little Salmon River, have shown spawner-to-spawner return rates similar to wild fish. Successful hatchery fish introductions also include (9) spring chinook in the Methow basin and (10) fall chinook in the Yakima River, (11) chinook in Lake Coeur d’ Alene , and (12) coho in the Yakima River , and (13) coho in the Umatilla. Yakima coho demonstrate increasing survival among second- and third-generation progeny compared to first-generation hatchery fish, which verifies the expectation as hatchery fish adapt to their receiving stream.



There are other successes that add to the record. (14) The self-sustaining chinook salmon populations originating from Sacramento River hatchery transplants to New Zealand streams, and (15) chinook and (16) coho transfers to the Great Lakes provide strong evidence for the potential of hatchery fish to do well and adapt to new circumstances.

And then there is (17) the Hidden Falls hatchery on Baronoff Island , Alaska , propagating coho over the last 15 years. Out-of-basin coho reared under natural conditions in Deer Lake experienced smolt-to-adult survival rates of 5 to 24%. The same coho stock propagated under standard techniques at the Hidden Falls hatchery, have shown smolt-to-adult survival rates from 6 to 29%, every bit as good as the fish raised in the wild.



The above 17 examples of hatchery fish successes are not experimental results, but long-term circumstantial evidence of populations that have become established using hatchery fish. The point is there is positive evidence that artificial propagation can contribute to naturally spawning, self-sustaining salmonid populations over the long-term, even from conventional hatchery programs and transplanted stocks. There is no corroboration of genetic inferiority, greater susceptibility to disease, or less adaptability associated with hatchery fish.



The key to success is making sure that the biological needs of the fish are provided for, and when hatcheries can be reformed to better provide for those needs, even better performance can be expected. The problem is that the hatchery controversy has been exaggerated out of all proportions. It is not just that the arm-chair biologists have misinterpreted the data on hatchery fish, but that there has been the even more insidious strategy to purposefully misrepresent the information in an attempt to benefit some political agenda. There is no question that hatchery fish can fail if they are not adequately provided for in hatchery environments, or are applied in ways inconsistent with their genetic predisposition. Those problems require management reform and can easily be corrected. The problem of using hatchery fish, or spotted owls, or wolves for hidden political agendas, however, will never be resolved, and the public should beware when they see opinions masquerading as science.



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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not have agree with it, but if you are honest, you can at least acknowledge the fact it does contain quite a bit of accurate information.

I agree with Dave Vedder.

The "Salmonid Foundation" may not be what it presents itself to be. The articles "Lying leftist Lunatics Loot Oregon Taxpayers" and "Democrats Poised to Seize Water (and Power) in Washington" indicate a strong bias.

Another clue is that the statement of purpose by the editor contains the term "wise use".
"Wise use" is a code word for what many would call reckless exploitation of resources.

Also in the statement of purpose: "The Foundation encourages projects which would improve opportunities or salmonid recreational fishing to its highest potential, consistent with other uses of the fishery resources and their environment."

The qualifying phrase "consistent with other uses of the fishery resources and their environment." looks like a key to where these folks are coming from.
SS

Hatcheries are a fact of life in fisheries management. I won't deny that there are problems, but they can be worked through. Using locally adapted stock can help. Re-building "wild" stocks by using hatcheries as a supplement to natural production in another option.

Keep in mind that private individuals, the states, the federal government, and the tribes have been involved in hatchery production for more than 100 years across the country. At the same time, all of us have contributed to the decline in habitat conditions. In many cases, the local hatchery is the only reason we still have fish to pursue.

In the "good old days" the state and the feds blended stocks and moved fish around. If one looks through WDFW hatchery records or other agency hatchery records, it quickly becomes apparent that there are very few locations, if any, that you can make an argument for a truly unique, wild run. Folks have been blending stocks for years. It is only in the past few years that more consideration has been given to building on locally adapted fish.

Fish, given the chance, are remarkably resilient and adaptable. Not all fish return to the hatchery they were released from. Some show up at hatcheries in different river basins.

We need to build on the work done by the HSRG and tune our hatchery programs so that "wild" runs can be sustained/built up and also to allow for production to allow recreational and commercial fishing to continue.

Try to imagine what our fisheries would look like if there was no hatchery production and I mean no hatchery production including put and take trout for the lakes. Then think about the economic impact to the state.....it wouldn't be pretty.

Bushbear, it's my conention that hatcheries regardless of the broodstock CANNOT be used to supplement wild spawning. In ever case I have read about hatchery fish, even wild broodstock, showed such low abilities to reproduce in the wild that their offspring could not be detected in subsequent spawning runs.

to determine the effectivness of hatchery spawners is to have a genetic database from each individual that spawns then compare thoes with every fish that comes back from that years spawn, this would allow you to identify the parents of every fish that comes back and thus you'd know how many adults returned from a pair of hatchery spawners..

The problem? not all hatchery fish return to the hatchery to spawn. therfore you can never be certain that the fish spawning in the wild were born in the wild, this is especially true since we have such low clip rates in the upper Columbia.. My point here is that we don't know where these wild spawners come in most cases. What we do know is that in every case where it is well studied and documented hatchery spawners produce extremely poorly, so much so that they do not contribute to the wild run size, this includes wild broodstocks...

I thought they had a hatchery program specifically to recover hoods canal chum runs. It was my understanding that they had grown the run to a healthy size and stopped hatchery production. Assuming that these fish persists over multiple generations with good returns that would be a good example of the good a hatchery can do.

i think Dave Veddr hit it on the head...... way biased and using misleading terms to confuse and mislead the reader. definately politically funded from the water nazis of that area.

their attitude is that if they want to grow rice over there, then they should be able to take as much water out of the river as needed to grow rice. the area is perfectly suited for dry farming over there but they want to screw everyone with water oppression. yes my position is biased as my familly runs a dry farming wheat/brewing barly farm over there.

sorry about the tangent but i am soo sick of politically funded junk science.... it reeks of NOAA

Ernie Brannon was one of my favorite and best fisheries profs at UW. I respect him. Please understand that university profs are expected to do consulting work, and their papers and reports usually tilt toward the funding source. I don't think that comes as any surprise to most of you. I think what Dr. Brannon is doing is selectively pointing out examples of apparent - circumstantial evidence mostly, not scientific study - hatchery success in enhancing, restoring, or developing naturally reproducing populations.

He, or another fisheries expert, could also select examples where the results were negative, or even a complete disaster. In fact, I think he did once in Fisheries 401. So, you see, it's a mixed bag; therefore, it's wise to be critical and examine as much of the best information as possible.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G.,

It's discouraging that respectable fisheries scientists tilt their papers and reports toward the funding source.

The "water nazis", as Lupo colorfully described them, have a lot more money to buy favorable scientific testimony than we do.
SS

SS,

Although there are some biostitutes who can be bought, it's not usually that way. The "tilt" I mention might also be called selective science, and since there's at least two sides to most any story, favorable results are reported.

It might have gone like this: "Dr. Brannon, are there any examples of hatcheries successfully recovering wild or naturally spawning populations?" His job then, is to search the scientific literature and question his associates seeking an answer to the question. He wasn't asked to report on hatchery failures, and depending on his search, he might not find any of those examples. It's pretty clear that in his search, he found several examples that provide at least circumstantial evidence consistent with a "yes" answer to the question he was consulted on.

Academia may be an ivory tower, but a whole lota' the money that comes there has strings of one sort or another attached.

Further, most people read information through some kind of biased lens. I can write a report and get feedback that I'm being brutal to power companies, that I'm extremely objective and reasonable, and that I'm in the power company's hip pocket - all from the same work product. People are funny, and it keeps life interesting.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

There are always two sides to an issue. Where the truth lies is why we need to look at the big picture. Somewhere on either side of the middle you will find an answer to your questions. How we balance the final decisions will be the legacy we leave for future generations.

I don't think we'll ever get our rivers back to the conditions of the 1850s, but we can try to improve them as much as possible. We can set seasons/bag limits to protect those species that need protection while at the same time, we can work towards enhancing recovery efforts.

I'd hate to think that the battle might be lost on our watch because we refused to consider enhancement options that are available to us.

Bushbear..

In our attempts to be reasonable with salmon recovery efforts we have destroyed many runs.. THe only thing that i'd be willing to accept is thurough restoration and protection of salmon habitat and restoration based on already exsisting wild stocks.
I do not believe it is possible to restore wild salmon and steelhead runs using ANY hatchery technology. There is no scientific precidence for restoring wild runs using hatchery stocks OR EVEN captive rearing or wild brood stocks.. The only thing that is scientifically supportable is wild fish spawning by themselves ig good quality habitat. That is the only thing that has every worked and that is the only thing that shows any signs of working...
I desperatly wish it was as simple as planting hatchery fish. It's not!
If we are not willing to save the habitat and save the wild fish we have left there is no point in spending any money on doing anything to help salmon we might as well crank up the chainsaws . clearcut the whole state, build dams and generate as much electricity as we can through the lakes we create.. Because if we WILL not save the habitat and the wild fish we still have we might as well make our state good for something else.

The Dungeness Chinook recovery program is looking promising based on a captive brood program where eggs were pumped from redds, incubated and hatched in the hatchery, and the fish then raised to maturity at the hatchery and spawned. The offspring were then raised to various sizes and released. The returns this year - using "hatchery raised fish" were estimated at just over 900 fish. It is possible, and advisable, to use locally adapted stock in recovery efforts. Other states, Colorado for one, have established hatcheries dedicated to recovery projects of listed species. .... and lets not forget what captive breeding programs did for other species such as the condor and peregrine falcon. Hatcheries are a tool of wildlife management. Science (good science not political science) needs to drive the process.

The habitat is still an issue and work supported by the county, state, and Jamestown S'Klallam tribe is planned to help re-establish as much "natural" habitat as possible.

Time will tell, but without the captive brood program we still would be looking at limited returns if we were totally dependent on natural production.

bushbear,

I'd be happy if the Dungeness program works out but again we will only know the extent of it's effectivness when they quit planting them and the run survives on it's own. The studies I have read suggest that there are serious problems with the captive rearing process with migratory fish because they rely on all the same technologies as regular hatchery fish..

I'm not too impressed. His main point seemed to be: if you plant fish in a river that has little or no fish, there will be more fish in 2-5 years. Really? We have known that for a long time.

And take the Steelhead out of the title of this "study" please. His 17 examples of successfull hatchery introductions did not include one of o. mykiss .

In terms of steelhead, if I remember correctly from prior discussions on this board, smolts produced naturally (?) in the rivers from hatchery/hatchery crosses and hatchery/wild crosses are obviously genetically inferior because the adult return from the crosses is virtually zero. They just don't make it out and back........

Ike