Here's the link....I was wrong It was 550 pound chinook in a New Zealand lab.

I put it up there earlier, and I'll put it up again...I have a copy of the paper if anyone would like it, just get me your e-mail.

Fish on...

Todd

[quote=backlash2][quote=JoJo]Would be interesting to see what would happen if a river with decent habitat and a wild fish population still somewhat making escapement was no longer planted with hatchery fish as a test case. More than likely it would take years to get any results. But I think we would have a better understanding of what affects they have.

Some point to the John Day as an example of this. I don't have the figures around, but apparently the numbers of steelhead in the John Day exceeds 15k fish?

I hadn't looked at this thread earlier but had a few comments .
1. Koalas and Pandas are not bears, they are slothes.
2. A hatchery manager at the Garrison creek hatchery (flows into Chambers Bay by Steilacoom ) did in fact raise a bunch of chinook a few years ago to remain in Puget Sound and not migrate out. Not wanting to get him into trouble if it was not for publication I will not mention his name but I do have it and discussed this with him at length. He would hold the fish until they dropped thier freshwater scales and got the salt water scales. Then hold them through another cycle until they had salt water scales again. His claim was that the fish would not leave the sound, but were also sterile so would live and eat and grow until they died about 8-9 years later. This talk came about when I was questioning him as to why the hatcheries dumped the excess smolts that were hatched. The hatcheries do this only because of the amount of feed they are allocated for the year due to thier budget.He claimed that he had done this before (holding over) on a coast river with another manager years before. The last I talked to him he was no longer doing this as he had been told to stop.
I know this is off thread but felt the need to answer that point.
3. I am somewhat appauled that someone would seriously mention or even consider mutilating a fish no matter what the origin. This smacks of genicide and where do you draw the line in the sand that enough is enough? I too feel the hatcheries and felt need to put as many fish into a system is the wrong approach. If we eliminated the hatcheries and went to all "wild" fish we could buy our fish at Safeway and practice C&R for the remainder of our time.
I for one like to bring home one of these inferior fish for the table or smoker.
Enough said.

sorry, but i can't agree with that at all. how about no more commercial harvest? it worked pretty damned well for game animals in this country, after they were pushed to the brink of extinction 100 years ago.

i just find it wrong that me, the sport fisherman would have to buy fish from a store, rather than keeping a couple from the river every so often.

i hope that quote was sarcastic, if not i'm scared.

Laterun,

Your story about Garrison Ck hatchery loses some traction with me. Either you or your source - glad you kept his name off the BB - are way off on some fish basics. First, the smolts wear the same scales from freshwater to saltwater and back again. However, smolts are characterized by loose scales, and any that are lost from that point on will be regenerated as a new scale. But they don't just lose all their scales at smoltification and grow new ones for saltwater.

What made those fish sterile? As far as I know it isn't caused by holding them to a delayed release. Delayed release does cause a high percentage of the chinook to become PS resident. I don't think any PS chinook have been documented living to 8 or 9 years, sterile or not.

I don't know about panda bears and slothes, so I hope you got that part correct.

Sg

Laterun,

I too hear and FEEL the frustration in your post. I also don’t claim to be a fishery biologist (though at one time that was my goal). I can’t even claim to be one of the most intelligent sport fishers on this board. As far as biology goes, my knowledge is confined to basic AP high school and beginning college biology classes (Mendel 101) I suspect that is at least as good as most here, so most likely many have the same questions as I do.

As a sport fisher, I would like the politicians, managers and biologists to get their act together, so I can go out catch some fish, bonk and eat them (My interest is as a natural human predator in the natural system, and given the state of the habitat, the prospect of no hatcheries scares me) I have read every word on this thread and many similar others on this board and a couple of others, with the intention of trying hard to understand where our biologists and advocates are coming from. Yet there some things that I can’t quite grasp, and I have couple of questions for the real resident biologists, managers and folks way more intelligent than I will ever be.

Are people, and/or their studies, claiming that fish being raised in a hatchery are affected at in intercellular level with different DNA sequencing (due to the fact that they are artificially fertilized and raised in a hatchery?

It seems that I hear people saying that somehow hatcheries ARE affecting the actual DNA of fish that is then being passed on to both future hatchery generations and natural stocks that by chance are contaminated by their seed. My understanding is that DNA is comprised of the amino acid sequences A,G,H and C. The genetic code for any trait is made up the sequence of these and is replicated through Meiosis in reproduction and Mitosis in growth. Genetic mutations result in the change of amino acid sequences and result in different DNA at the intercellular level and at the Meiosis level. Phenotype manifestations are a result of different genotype sequencing, so would still require intercellular changes.

How does the physical conditions of a hatchery affect these chemical DNA changes? Even if one can concede that mutations are occurring from chemical usage (hormones etc), this is a hatchery practice that can be changed, not necessarily an inherent hatchery flaw.

I can accept that hatchery fish raised in the absence of natural predators or fluctuating natural conditions may have substantially reduced survival rates, but isn’t this a learned behavior? If so, how can they pass a non chemical, learned behavioral trait to their offspring ?

Darwin, made the hypothesis that Natural Selection, or survival of the fittest, selects those most equipped for survival to best reproduce and therefore pass on their genetic traits to succeeding generations, chemical DNA traits. These changes are the result of many generations of selection. There are some instinctual behaviors, nest building in birds as an example, but does it really make sense that these behaviors are learned and passed on in the historical course of our hatchery programs, maybe a hundred years at best? It took eons for nature to affect such changes, do we really think we have that ability?

It seems to me that as we try to correct the mistakes of the past and grasp for straws, we need to be careful of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I want to be able to go out and catch fish and bring them home and eat them! At 50 years old, I can’t wait for several generations for this to be corrected. That is my/our interest as natural human predators, as sport fishers. I don’t see how we can do this if we don’t have hatcheries.

Why does any of this really matter?

It seems that there are some, conservationists and animal rights activists that would have us close down hatcheries and reduce or eliminate our ability to harvest fish in the name of rebuilding the natural runs or protecting ESA stocks. If they are wrong in their interpretation of these “studies” and hatcheries are not evil, then we can produce fish for our harvest (have our fish and eat them too) and still use the best science (selective fishing and hatchery/artificial boosting of natural stocks) to improve, restore, or at least save natural (ESA) runs. There may in fact be many ways to enhance our fishing ability and preserve natural runs. Our sport fisher representatives have to be knowledgeable to represent our interests and the rest of us need to do what we can to both select those representatives and influence political decisions in our favor.

If these studies are right, and hatcheries do cause actual DNA change, then we need to ensure that hatchery fish do not mix with natural stocks. (we may have to close down hatcheries and/or harvest ALL hatchery fish) This also could mean that only those with financial means who can drive all over the State to fish non-threatened stocks get to fish, and I will have to learn to like farm raised salmon and golf.

Sorry for the long post, I got carried away.

SAlmo g.
I would be very happy to supply you with the name of the man I talked to and I am quite positive as to what he told me about his efforts. Perhaps it was the delay that caused the salmon to not leave the sound in thier lifetime.His goal was to establish a better fishery in the sound that was not subject to the predation by nets and other commercial interests . It would seem this would be of extreme interest and importance to the state in terms of ecomonic impact. I did not,nor do not understand thier supposed rejection of his proposal. I stand corrected on the Panda, I was using old info and it has been classified as a bear. The Koala is not. My appology.
Dolphin
A case in point for the "hatchery " fish spawning in the "wild" in large numbers. Some years ago, the WDFG started a run of laterun hooknosed coho in the Willapa river using stock from the Satsop as I was told by the manager of the hatchery and the local gamewarden Jeff Wickerstam. It is the practice to clip these fish. As we fish this river now for this run, we will a lot of days release 3-4 times as many non-clipped as clipped. Does this mean the "hatchery " fish are spawning in large numbers successfully or are the hatchery personel not clipping the majority of the fish? Maybe we are just catching a few non-clipped over and over the same day? The manager told me he was directed to keep the clipped fish from going up Fork Creek but we have seen them jump the spillway in high water and continue up. Makes me wonder about the seemingly high amount of non-clipped in the system.This in part to the fact that they were introduced to the system. They also have said they are going to try to eliminate them as a "non-native" species. That would be a shame.

Laterun,

My gut instinct is that hatchery fish should be able to spawn as well as native fish, if we discount the natural selection idea of them even making it back to the rivers. I think I'm hearing that studies are showing them to be genetically inferior and unable to successfully spawn. Or at least if they do spawn, their offspring can't do the same. That is what I am having a hard time understanding.

I also remember being told and reading, though I can't site the source, that there have been successful programs that delayed release of Chinook in the South Sound resulting in blackmouth that stayed year round. I have enjoyed some trophy 15-20lb blackmouth caught in mid winter over the years that I attributed to this kind of program. I also have noticed the reduced number of blackmouth since these pens projects were cut, and am very worried about the future of our Central Sound blackmouth with the closing of the MacAllistar Creek hatchery. My understanding is that this was due to budget concerns. If this is the only reason and the hatchery doesn't negatively affect natural runs, I want my tax money to put it back on line.

My earlier post regarding triploids in the Sound was with the idea that if hatchery fish spawning do cause DNA harm, then the non reproductive ability of these fish could provide sport opportunity without damage to the natural runs. Why wouldn't sport fishers support this idea?

BWP your opinion is at least as good as mine for sure. Reading the studies and the interpretations of these studies, that is what one has to conclude. I find it interesting that the mutations are only showing in some non physical reproductive capability. If mutations were indeed happening, I would think there would be more evidence. (I could go for the 500 lb variety)

Just doesn't make sense to my simple brain. Maybe I have been eating too many hatchery salmon and it is causing DNA mutations in my thinking ability????

Dolphin
I have to agree with you as to why the WDFG or any other entity would not want a program that would help make our sound into a top fishery instead of the almost barren wasteland that it has become.One has only to look at Hood Canal to see how much trouble our waters are in now.
I also don't understand how anyone can tell the difference between the origin of a true native and a non-clipped second generation steelhead. I have caught lots of steelhead and don't know how to tell if it is not clipped which one it would be.

Gee Steve, I'd say that's one helluva nice alternative way to say in more plain spoken English, "My bull$hit meter just red-line."

Sorry... couldn't resist!

I will contact him if I can in the next little bit and see if he will clarify what I stated. Seems as if i hit a nerve with the comment about it being totally wrong to poke holes in fish. Does not change my thoughts on that.

Not at all. I was totally oblivious to your original comments when I posted the reply funnin' at Salmo G. My sarcasm aside, he's just too much of a true gentleman.

In fact I had to go back and re-read your post to search out your objections to mutilating fish. Some would consider inflicting penetrating wounds to the mouth with a hook point as "mutilation" especially when doing so leaves a gaping defect, a torn/avulsed maxillary plate, or other oral disfigurement. Not sure that's a train of thought you want to carry to its logical conclusion.

Regardless, I still stand by original recommendation. A "speyed" hatchery hen is way better than a free-swimming source of toxic genes.

Point taken.

Dolphin,

Regarding your comment, "I would like the politicians, managers and biologists to get their act together, so I can go out catch some fish, bonk and eat them." I won't try to convince you that the aforesaid group has its act together, but just want to remind you that they serve multiple masters. WDFW is required by legislative mandate to preserve and perpetuate fish and wildlife resources and also maintain viable commercial fisheries as well as recreational fisheries. If that isn't impossible enough - and it is impossible with the human population increasing like rabbits and fish and wildlife decreasing - they also have to comply with US v WA treaty fishing allocation requirements and ESA requirements from the feds. Anybody in that situation is truly between a rock and a hard place. As a consequence, they do provide you with some fishing opportunity and a chance to bonk and eat a few fish. If you want a significantly better fishing condition for yourself, you need a whole lot fewer people in this state and an environment that can produce vastly more fish than is possible at present.

I haven't read the study, but I doubt the authors are claiming DNA modification at the intercellular level. I believe the claim is limited to saying that one generation of hatchery experience very significantly reduces reproductive fitness for the natural environment. In the simplest terms, it's like saying the fish lose their "street smarts" and are now better fit to survive in a protected environment like a hatchery rather than the brutal world of the natural ecosystem. I don't think we have steelhead DNA mapped anywhere near to the point that we can associate a specific behavioral characteristic with a particular DNA sequence.

The McAllister hatchery was closed because the creek is infested with nanophytes, and the chinook smolts suffered very heavy losses as a result. Hatchery fall chinook (same Green R stock) are reared and released from the Deschutes and Nisqually. The Deschutes used to have delayed releases also - see comment above about one of the reasons why that was discontinued. I think Deschutes (Percival Cove) also has some parasite problems in the delayed release program.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Laterun,

WDFW has cut back on various delayed release chinook programs because they tilt the treaty:non-treaty chinook harvest allocations out of balance. The program appeared to have strong merit in response to recreational fishing interests, but could not be sustained without cutting back on other non-treaty chinook harvests. Or treaty tribes would have to initiate a major PS net fishery on blackmouth, which the state tried desparately to avoid when some tribes first proposed that in the 1970s. Call that one an incident of recreational interests being trumped by federal case law.

Yeah, the Willapa hatchery has issues. The barrier doesn't work during high water, which unsurprisingly is when all the hatchery fish swim right over it and go upstream to spawn naturally. A point of interest here is that hatchery coho in western WA seem to reproduce fairly well in the natural environment. Probably not as well as wild fish - I don't think we know, but certainly well enough to produce subsequent recruits. Just the opposite with Chambers Ck winter steelhead. They spawn in the wild. The spawn produces fry. And eventually some smolts. But the number of adult recruits time and time again is statistically zero. Best to keep species in mind when discussing the reproductive fitness of wild and hatchery fish.

Salmo,

Thanks for the reply.


I guess my biggest hangups are the term genetics and what could potentially be the ramifications of acceptance that hatcheries are responsible for producing genetically harmful fish.

Genetics to me means genes and that means base sequences on DNA strands. I just can't fathom how being "fertilized in a bucket" and being raised in a concrete raceway can change the genetic makeup of any of our fish species.

If hatcheries are detrimental to natural fish, and worse to ESA listed stocks, how can we justify their funding and operation, espeially when money is tight. Closing the hatcheries means a severely reduced, or no harvest opportunity, for the average sport fisher, at least no bonk and eat.


I only read parts of the study that were posted on another board, and the reaction by most of the regulars. My main concern is that there seems to be general agreement that "somehow" the genetics of hatchery fish are inferior and passed on to successive generations, thus harmful to natural fish, and a tool that should be curtailed or eliminated. I can buy that natural selection severly reduces the survival rate of hatchery fish when exposed to the natural environment, but isn't that also true for wild\naturally spawning fish? I thought that is why natural spawning fish have such a low rate of return. I like being the consumer that takes a hatchery fish rather than a grebe.

If there is no genetic change, and these genes supposedly controlling behavior (lack of street smarts) were present in the population all along, wouldn't natural selection quickly return the situation back to normal if hatchery fish contaminated natural stocks? If so, then why not increase hatchery production to provide for harvesters and the economic benefits and institute almost universal selective fisheries to rebuild natural runs.

Obviously I don't know if the folks who did the study had a bias or a political agenda, but it was funded by BPA, which I aways thought of as pro hatchery.

Salmo, thanks for the wisdom. I get very frustrated with the WDFG and tend to be short sighted on some issues and overly opinionated on others. I would hope that in my lifetime we see that this nation within a nation is very self distructive to all species we need to protect.
Bill