Ike,

After sitting on the sidelines, reading some of the rather remarkable efforts at convincing yourselves that "wild" is always right, I've finally been forced to become a member and join in the fray.

Don't think for a minute that some of the anti-hatchery "science" that you may have read is actually unbiased. Our fisheries universities have been pumping out "scientists" with a non-hatchery bias for many years now, and only recently is the pendulum beginning to swing back.

As a trained geneticist, I'm often very confused over the attitudes expressed by folks advocating the total non-use of hatchery systems to help restore runs of fish. For anyone that has worked in situations that allow you to actually view what is happening on a river system from a genetic integrity standpoint, you quickly find that once populations drop to the point that they can no longer sustain themselves, the factor that contributes most to the "unique genetic identity" of a population is what is termed genetic drift. That is, in simple terms, defined as genetic changes accumulating in populations due to random samping of spawning adults. As population size gets lower, this drift can cause genes to become fixed, or locked in, even though they confer no advantage. Yet, to those not understanding this, the population can look like a genetically unique group of fish.

So how can a hatchery alter genes of a group of fish? The reality is that hatcheries CANNOT CHANGE THE GENETIC MAKEUP OF THE GENES IN A POPULATION OF FISH THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE PARENTS THAT WERE USED TO FOUND IT. Sure, forces within the hatchery system (that remain undefined by most recent experimental results) can provide some domestication selection, but in the less-than-one-generation it would take to produce a smolt from wild-caught or captured adults..? Give me a break. Those fish cannot by definition be GENETICALLY inferior. If they prove to be less fit, it has to be either environmental effects or some sort of genotype by environment interaction, which simply means that we've got to understand hatchery systems more completely. To think in this day and age that we can recover fisheries across the board without supplementation is simply being blind to science.

Fishyologist,

Thank you for "supplementing" this discussion with some good points about the loose use of the term "genetics" and what hatchery culture can and can not do.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Fishologist,
Great post!!!
Glad to read some common sense on the issue.

You mean that Lamarck wasn't right after all? How about that...

For those who say that hatchery fish don't return...how do you explain the Cowlitz? There hasn't been a substantial run of natives in the mainstem for over 35 years. Yet it's one of the top producers...

I think there is a LOT to learn about salmon and steelhead restoration, and Ernie Brannon is someone to listen to. His father started, I believe, the Elwha hatchery system waaay back and did his utmost to preserve the genotype in that river--to the point he would go out in an old Indian dugout and gaff returning kings, tether them to a bush until they were ripe and then spawn the fish. If his son has the same commitment and common sense, then his word and his thinking is worth a lot.

I was at a presentation Ernie Sr. gave in the '70s, and he pulled out a freeze-dried carcass of a chinook typical for the Elwha. I can't remember what the said it weighed, but it was well up there-- something like 80 pounds or more.

Keith

I see a 1000 miles of difference between the rehab of a system with a hatchery program and a hatchery program designed to sustain a take fishery commercial or sport. If there is not then there should be no issue with calling all fish equal and managing them that way. Seems to me most of the scientists went into a tail spin when the Bush admin said wild and hatchery fish are the same?

Yea at least the ones on the payroll of the enviormentalist groups.

I think there’s some miscommunication going on here. The professor primarily seems to be saying that when we plant fish they return. There’s no argument that we can always get fish back if we keep the hatchery churning them out... It looks to me like most of his examples do not qualify as reestablishing a healthy run that no longer relies on hatchery supplementation.

The real question is, can hatcheries help reestablish wild runs? I think the answer there is a qualified maybe. I believe prudent hatchery practices have, in limited instances resulted in reestablishing wild runs. I believe some Hood Canal summer chums have been recovered with the help of hatchery programs.

To avoid semantics games, in my mind, it’s a wild fish if its parents spawned naturally. To the extent hatcheries can help with that, I’m all for them. And in urban areas or those so degraded that it is unrealistic to reestablish wild runs, I believe large ongoing hatchery plants are the way to go. There is also a place for hatchery supplementation of healthy wild runs IF we take great care to assure that the hatcheries are not operating in a way that damages the wild runs. That is what hatchery reform is all about.

But I do not believe that it is reasonable to count hatchery raised fish when determining weather the stock are endangered.

Hell yes there is a legitimate place for hatcheries!

The problem is that pro-development interests like the water nazis (love that term!) are still trying, after all these years, to use hatcheries to justify raping the habitat. That's what the Bu****es attempts to equate hatchery and wild fish is about.
SS

I think discussing hatchery programs on PWS pinks, Columbia kings, and WA steelhead at the same time is incorrect. They are apples and oranges.

In terms of hatchery steelhead:

Man, I thought just last month we came the general conclusion that hatcheries served only one purpose - a crutch. That's all they are. Supplementation is truly the key word. They provide more fish to harvest. They do not enhance the spawning productivity of a river. i.e. they make ZERO fish for the future.

Broodstock programs, discussed at length on this board, may have some place on enhancing some wild runs on some rivers.
But if you are relying on the 30th generation of Chambers Creek fish to save the day, you better not hold your breath. Smolts from H x H and H x W crosses DO NOT MAKE IT BACK! So how then are they going to help any run recover?

Fishyologist - thanks for joining the foray. Your comments will always be appreciated on this BB. How much genetic diversity is there between a native (not wild, but native) Skagit River steelhead and a native (not wild, but native) Hoh River steelhead? Compare the genetics in 1905 (prior to white men messing everything up) to 2005 if you could. And how do those genetics of those native fish on those two rivers compare to a Chambers Creek hatchery fish? That would really help me out a lot.

Hope I can sleep tonight.....first trip to OP this year comes tomorrow.....in search of....

Ike

Fishyologist -
Welcome - great handle!
It appears that you bring a valued and interesting prespective to our discussions - looking forward to additional input from you.

It is important in discussing hatchery versus wild to remember that the fish reared in the natural and hathcery envirnoments are exposed to a very different selective pressures. This is especially acute when talking about fish that spend extended periods of time in freshwater.

For a fish like steelhead it typical that 5% or less of the wild eggs to make it to be a smolt while in the hatchery maybe 80% will become smolts the role of selective pressure can be huge. This means that natural selective pressure operates much more severely on the wild stock than hatchery.

These selective pressures don't operate directly on the genetics of the fish but rather on the various phenotypes of the populations. To illustrate take a trait like swimming speed; obviously the following example isn't a real world one but I think it will illustrate on the selection process may work and what the consequences may be. If the wild environment puts a high value on high swimming speed we would see only the 5% that were the fasts surviving to be a smolt while if the hachery didn't vvalue swimming speed (no advantage in a rearing pong) the slow and the quick would survive equally. I think one can see that the resulting offspring would have different swimming speeds. After even a few generations the hatchery fish would be notably slower.

The big thing with hatchery fish spawning in the wild is whether they are as prodcutive as the wild fish. In the above example the hatchery fish would be slower and therefore less successful in the wild. There a plenty of info one the decreased productivity of first generation of hatchery fish when spawning in the wild. Generally the longer the fish are reared in the hatchery (either as a smolt or the number of generations the broodstock has been in a hatchery) the poor they do in the wild.

In the article at the start of this thread the "success" was where hatchery fish were introduced into vacant habitats and after the initial introduction the returning fish were allowed to adapt (natural selection in operation) to the local environment. The mal-adapted traits are quickly selected against and disappear from the population resulting in a successful population. That is a very different situation that an annual hatchery program where less fit hatchery fish are constantly be infused into the population limiting the selection process.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Not so much that the phenotype changes don't occur, more that all the changes (other than run timing) were not the fault of the fish. Rather a flaw in management practices, man made.

Do you agree?

Locust/Fishyologist,

Do either of you have a relationship of some kind with the Salmonid Foundation?

I sense an agenda.

SS

I believe Locust has a relationship with a different web-site

Can anyone tell us anything about the Salmonid Foundation? I have done a bit of Internet digging, but can't find much. Who are they. Where do they get their money. Do they have an adgenda?

The Salmonid Foundation.

“Who are they?”
- -If asked, would they tell the truth?

“Where do they get their money?”
--How could we ever know that?

“Do they have an agenda?”
--Yeah. They clearly have an agenda.

Tis’ a strange world in which we live, fisherfolk.

Recently a journalist in the White House Press Corp was revealed as being no journalist at all, rather a prostitute for the Bush Administration, planted in the Press Corp to lob soft balls at press conferences. The strangest quirk of all…. he also turned out to be a prostitute in the sexual sense, peddling hard balls on the internet, $200/hr or $1200/weekend.

The Forces of Darkness are spending gadzillions, directly and indirectly, on controlling the public discourse.

There was a time when one might reasonably assume that people on political boards were what they presented themselves to be. That is no longer the case. The Dark Side has paid agents whose day job is participating in online boards, sitting at the keyboard all day pretending…….spinning the party line. The person you think you are having a honest political discussion with may be an intellectual prostitute on the payroll of a right wing organization. Sad.

This board has been political of late.

This thread started with a link to the Salmonid Foundation, which appears, from their rather awkward website and mission statement, to be a front organization for the water nazis. They seem to be pretending to be about Steelhead and salmon, while what they may really be about is getting and/or keeping control of Snake River and Columbia River water.

Suddenly here are new people posting on the board, ( who seem to be supporting the Salmonid Foundation position?) , who may, let’s emphasize “may”, also be only pretending to be about fish.

Considering the way the world works now, it seems only responsible to ask about a possible agenda and where they are coming from. Maybe my intuition is totally off-base and these guys are just honest Steelheaders and salmon fishermen like the rest of us. If so, I’m sorry for questioning their creds and I apologize for my cynicism and insensitivity.

(Hey Guys, how about telling us where you fish and how, your insights into technique and giving us a fishing story?)

Maybe, like many of the rest of us, they are just waiting for the rain. Maybe it’s a coincidence they started posting just now, in a political thread involving the Salmonid Foundation at a time when this board has taken a (possibly {hopefully?} temporary) turn toward the political. Maybe they too are just spending this dry time, this down time, brooding and talking about issues of crucial importance to all of us.

Terribly important issues...vital issues.. issues deserving our full attention year round. But issues that sure as hell won’t be getting any attention from me if it ever rains…… RAIN!….. RAIN! ……COME ON! ……RAIN! ….DAMN IT! …RAIN!

NW Fishermen

Salmonid Foundation

writers@pacifier.com



TU Question
Trout Unlimited asks, "At issue is a central question for all anglers and Trout Unlimited members in particular: is there an essential, fundamental difference between fish raised in hatcheries and those spawned in the wild? Or is it possible, as some are now proposing, to lump together both hatchery and wild fish and make decisions about a species' overall health based on these total population numbers?" Yes, now your getting it TU. You have now entered the new paradigm which is devoted to science without sloppy emotions. --C. Voss


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

Harvest Time
Well, there must be a harvest otherwise the fruit will die on the vine, will it not? So, if we don’t harvest the salmon, what then? According to the Green People we should not harvest any “wild” salmon. It’s OK to harvest those alien hatchery fish, because they are for killing and eating.

However, in most cases the killing of “wild” fish is against the law because they are needed to maintain their particular genetic code in their progeny. In other words, the “wild” fish has a different genetic code, which is missing in the hatchery fish, right?

Well, I’m a fisherman that lives on the river and I enjoy chasing salmon and steelhead. I have lived here for 35 years and have caught my share of salmonids. And I’ve put back more fish than I have killed to eat.

Of course, for the last several years the law tells me that I cannot catch and kill “wild” steelhead because they are to be allowed to go upstream and spawn in the river.

But wait a damn second. What about the hatchery fish returning to this river to spawn in the gravel? What say you about her children…her progeny?

Remember, the state and federal agencies tell us that her progeny will be “wild” salmon…….Say what? Are the fishery agencies telling us that when tens of thousands of hatchery steelhead return and spawn in the river gravel that those fish have a genetic change and immediately receive the honor and glory of the “Royal Order of Wild Fish?”

Well my fellow fishermen, this is why the feds and the states spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to save the wild fish. This is the fatal flaw in the entire system, which keeps them hung up and unable to formulate a program that will separate the wild from the unwild.

Many biologists call this the “Great Conundrum.”

On one side, we have the tendentious belief by the Green Gang that there is a great deal of difference between the wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead. On the other hand, there is a very strong argument: Campton (1995) characterized the same problem in a comprehensive review on what was known about the genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations in the early 1990s. Reviewing the relevant hatchery studies, he concluded that what was generally perceived as problems with hatchery fish was actually the result of fisheries mismanagement.

He stated that the absence of baseline data for most wild populations and pedigree data for hatchery populations precludes being able to unequivocally draw conclusions about hatchery effects on the genetics of wild fish.

Ten years later we have little further insight on hatchery effects. Despite the lack of empirical evidence, hatchery fish are still the scapegoats for errors in fisheries management that overlook or disregard the importance of stock structure and biological requirements of anadromous salmonids. Effects of artificial propagation have to be separated from management effects. (American Fisheries Society, “The Controversy About Salmon Hatcheries, " Vol. 29 no 9.)

The problem lies with the unknowing fishermen who believes everything they hear from the Green gang that the salmonid fisheries are being destroyed by alien hatchery stocks. Well, if that is true why are 80% of the salmonids being harvested, hatchery fish?

But even more importantly, why are we allowing the managers of these fishery resources dumb down the populations of wild fish. The answer to protecting wild stocks cannot be found in allowing gillnetters more time to harvest spring chinook salmon at the expense of killing more wild steelhead….But that’s what they are going to do!

By the time the Indian nets work over those wild steelhead one has to ask. Where is the protection for the wild fish?

The answer is: Keep the sport fishermen away from ’em.

So, if you are one of those fishermen who thinks that hatchery fish are hurting the wild stocks….wake up and look at whose wrecking this boat…management.

Ed: C Voss
Salmonid Foundation


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

Contact: Chuck Voss writers@pacifier

The Salmonid Foundation was established to advance the development, conservation and wise use of the steelhead, trout and salmon resources through programs of research and education. 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. In addition, environmental enhancement, protection of wild stocks, artificial propagation and improved management based on better resource knowledge, will serve to increase the abundance of salmonid populations


*EDIT* Just FYI, Chuck Voss started the first Washington chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Salmo,

Not to discount the accuracy of your comments about studies being slanted in favor of who's paying for the research, but, Dr. Brannon was not paid one dollar for his contributions. He volunteered his services.

The foundation is not made up of "Water Nazis". The board is comprised of sport fishers, and sports fishing organization members.

Here's a few more points of interest from another site.


"First off the NW Fishermen Salmonid Foundation was founded by Chuck Voss. Chuck has been a well known sport fisher since I had came to Washington back in 1986. I believe that Chuck was into sales, and sells promotion advertising at that time. He used to do much of the sales promotion for Limaglas fishing Rods when I first met him. Chuck also was responsible for starting up the first chapter of Trout Unlimited in Washington State in the mid 70's. As you can see, he was and still is a dedicated sport fisher who cares both about the fish , the resource, and the future of our sport fishing. Chuck was a major avocate and player in fighting the Bolt decision.

The Director of the foundation is currently Mr. John Kelly. John is a recognized sport fishermen of long standing in Washington State. John also was the President of the Salmonid Foundation. John's back ground and history to serve the sport fisher is undisputable. He is a retired professional Research / Manager. He is a member of The Steelhead Club of Washington. He was appointed a member of the WDFW Steelhead / Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group (SCPAG) and as been reappoint from 1993 to 2005. John also is a Director and Steelhead Chairman for the King County Outdoors Sport Council (KSOSC) which has over 900 members.

And lastly, when I asked Mr. Kelly if the Foundation had paid Dr. Brannon for his research, his response was that he was not paid a single penny by the foundation. He told me that Dr. Brannon peronally feels that the science has been misused and that he wanted people to know just how bad it's been abused. Mr. Kelly will be seeking funding soon to Have Dr Brannon flown out here to attend one of the up coming SCPAG meeting later this year. He will be willing to answer question at this special meeting when it occurs.

If all others could be so open, we just might resolve many of the myths about our hatchery fish and how they can or can't be co-mingled. "

Hey B

Lucust wrote

"Mr. Kelly will be seeking funding soon to Have Dr Brannon flown out here to attend one of the up coming SCPAG meeting later this year."

I'm a member of SCPAG I haven't heard this, we always have a heads up about what is going on, I bet you got this info from Cowman (Bob Reid) the same guy that said SCPAG didn't have rules to go by after his first meeting with SCPAG which he was wrong again, which I proved he was wrong with minutes from and earlier SCPAG Meeting did Cowman tell you that?