Can interbreeding of wild and artificially propagated animals be prevented by using broodstock selected for a divergent life history?

Todd R. Seamons, Lorenz Hauser, Kerry A. Naish and Thomas P. Quinn

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Abstract

Two strategies have been proposed to avoid negative genetic effects of artificially propagated individuals on wild populations:

(i) integration of wild and captive populations to minimize domestication selection and

(ii) segregation of released individuals from the wild population to minimize interbreeding.

We tested the efficacy of the strategy of segregation by divergent life history in a steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, system, where hatchery fish were selected to spawn months earlier than the indigenous wild population.

The proportion of wild ancestry smolts and adults declined by 10–20% over the three generations since the hatchery program began. Up to 80% of the naturally produced steelhead in any given year were hatchery/wild hybrids. Regression model selection analysis showed that the proportion of hatchery ancestry smolts was lower in years when stream discharge was high, suggesting a negative effect of flow on reproductive success of early-spawning hatchery fish. Furthermore, proportions of hybrid smolts and adults were higher in years when the number of naturally spawning hatchery-produced adults was higher. Divergent life history failed to prevent interbreeding when physical isolation was ineffective, an inadequacy that is likely to prevail in many other situations.



Discussion

Our aim was to evaluate whether segregation by life history was an effective management strategy for minimizing or eliminating genetic interactions between wild and hatchery populations. Despite the earlier spawn timing in the hatchery population, our data suggest that hatchery and wild steelhead interbred and produced ‘hybrid’ offspring. Interbreeding between hatchery and wild salmonids is not uncommon (e.g. Largiade´r and Scholl 1996; Hansen et al. 2000; Araki et al. 2007b), but in this case, intentional selection for early return and spawn timing and use of a weir were thought to segregate the hatchery fish from wild conspecifics. Using estimates of mixture and admixture proportions, we found that the wild proportion of the annual number of outmigrating smolt and returning adult steelhead declined by 10–20% between 1998 (the first year offspring of hatchery fish would be detectable) and 2009 (our last year of sampling), or within about three generations. Estimates of the true proportions of wild adult and smolt steelhead also declined over time because of a reciprocal increase in the proportion of hybrid individuals.

More of the background intro....

Introduction

Goals associated with commercial and recreational use of wild animal populations often compete with conservation efforts. A common strategy to alleviate this competition is to release large numbers of artificially propagated individuals into the wild. Millions of insects, birds, trees, fish, and other animals have been released into natural habitats around the globe (Laikre et al. 2010). These releases are often intended to support declining populations, direct effort away from wild populations, mitigate habitat losses, and provide harvest opportunities (Taylor 1999; Waples 1999; Carroll 2011). The underlying philosophy is that activities such as fishing, hunting, and forestry might be sustainable if they are directed toward surplus individuals. However, the potential for negative ecological (Duncan et al. 2003) and genetic (Laikre et al. 2010) impacts of such releases on wild conspecifics is widely recognized, and methods of reducing or eliminating these impacts while allowing continued artificial propagation are increasingly important (Mobrand et al. 2005; Lankau et al. 2011).

Concerted efforts at reducing the impacts of releases on native populations are growing in fisheries management (Leber et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2005; Lorenzen et al. 2010). In salmonid fishes (Oncorhynchus, Salmo, Salvelinus spp.) in particular, captive rearing has occurred for over a century in part to offset losses from habitat degradation, overfishing, and climate-driven marine and freshwater changes (National Research Council 1996; Stouder et al. 1996). Hatchery-produced salmonids are routinely released to mingle and interact with their wild counterparts at some point in their lifetime, and considerable attention has been focused on defining and quantifying the benefits and risks associated with such practices (Naish et al. 2008; Kostow 2009; Araki and Schmid 2010). Reviews of the genetic impacts of hatcheries on wild populations (e.g., Hindar et al. 1991; Waples 1991; Busack and Currens 1995; Ryman et al. 1995; Naish et al. 2008) have identified three important processes: (i) effects of hatcheries on the fitness of hatchery fish, and (ii) direct and (iii) indirect effects of interactions between wild and hatchery populations.

Many studies have debated the risk associated with these effects (e.g. Waples 1999; Brannon et al. 2004), but interest currently centers on the degree to which this risk is realized, and what management steps can be taken to minimize the impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish (Campton 1995; Waples 1999; Mobrand et al. 2005; Naish et al. 2008). Recent analyses of hatchery practices have resulted in specific recommendations aimed at reducing the genetic risks associated with hatchery fish. Two main approaches have been suggested: hatchery populations should be either genetically integrated with, or segregated from, natural populations (e.g. Mobrand et al. 2005) by promoting or restricting gene flow.

‘Integration’ requires that each hatchery population be managed as a small, artificially propagated component of the local natural population, where broodstock (adults bred in captivity) is replenished frequently from the wild to minimize genetic divergence between the two populations.

Alternatively, ‘segregated’ programs are designed to maintain genetically and ecologically discrete hatchery and wild populations that can be managed as separate entities, thus minimizing interactions between the two components.

Segregation of salmonid populations is typically achieved by marking hatchery-produced fish and using migration barriers such as dams, weirs, or traps to selectively allow only unmarked wild fish access to spawning grounds (e.g. Mclean et al. 2003; Araki et al. 2007a). Weirs and traps may not exist on all rivers where hatchery salmonids are released and even when they are in place they are imperfect barriers (Quinn 1993). Moreover, hatchery-produced fish may adopt a nonanadromous life history (Christie et al. 2011a), further facilitating interbreeding with wild fish.

Notwithstanding these difficulties in segregating the populations, the use of propagated individuals selected for very different life history traits can enhance separation between hatchery and wild stocks (Lorenzen et al. 2010), but the efficacy of such measures has not been fully tested.

The winter-run (ocean maturing) anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hatchery programs of Washington State, USA, rely almost exclusively on the use of a single broodstock that has been artificially selected to have a life history pattern divergent from that of most wild winter-run steelhead populations (Crawford 1979; Mobrand et al. 2004). This stock, which originated from Chambers Creek in Puget Sound, Washington, returns to freshwater to spawn several months earlier than most wild populations in the Pacific Northwest (Chambers Creek, November–January; wild, February–May; Busby et al. 1996). This differential timing is thought to prevent interbreeding between hatchery-produced and wild fish, and to facilitate harvest of hatchery-produced fish with little to no impact on later-migrating wild fish. Ecological interactions might be further minimized because the hatchery fish spawn during the winter, when higher stream flows often scour the gravel nests, increasing mortality of developing embryos (Montgomery et al. 1999).

The combination of temporally separate breeding and maladaptive timing is believed to minimize or eliminate most risks to wild populations associated with hatchery production using this approach.

A new steelhead hatchery program at Forks Creek Hatchery was initiated in 1994 with the release of Chambers Creek ancestry smolts (juveniles ready to migrate to sea). We have genetically monitored the steelhead in Forks Creek since the winter 1995–1996, the first year that the early-returning mature hatchery adults (the survivors of the smolts released in 1994) were spawned at Forks Creek Hatchery. Monitoring provided the opportunity to observe the effects of this hatchery program on the natural population from its inception. The specific aim of this study was to determine whether segregation based on differences in migration and spawn timing prevented hybridization of hatchery fish and wild fish and minimized ecological impacts by preventing natural propagation of hatchery fish. To achieve this aim, we evaluated temporal trends in the relative components of hatchery and wild steelhead in the naturally spawning population over the first three generations of the hatchery program. We then estimated the proportions of hatchery, wild, and hatchery/wild hybrid individuals in each annual collection using individual assignment data and evaluated possible factors influencing variation in these proportions.

Hello everyone first and foremost, but does this mean the Snider program was terrible for wild steelhead in the Duc even though it has been going on for 30 years and the wild component there is stronger than anywhere else in the state? Do you really think a nice hen in the mid-teens would spawn with a 7-8lb hatch buck? That's like saying there's no natural selection in the wild. I get that people read what "people smarter than them" write, but at some point a guy has to look at what he has learned for himself and believe it. Alot of those "smart" people can't tell a buck from a hen even when buck snot is oozing out of it. Fish that spawn in April-May can't spawn with fish that are dead by March.

Reading material.

From: Jim Johnston
To: BAF1
February 19, 2012

Subject: Some background discussion and decision making history regarding the need for, the development of, and the use of the Chamber's Creek Winter-Run Steelhead broodstock, smolt production, and out-plants

Before there was ever hatchery-origin, winter-run steelhead smolts planted in western Washington streams, people had been killing and capturing native, adult, winter-run steelhead with thrown rocks, spears, bow and arrows, traps, and woven reed nets, and more recently by rod and reel with monofilament lines, as well as by flyfishing with Sprey rods. When there were few people the annual harvests of native steelhead and salmon seemed insignificant. It is hard to imagine how many fish once lived in the unaltered, unpolluted beautiful streams of Washington State. As human population increased, the natural habitat was altered or destroyed for all the reasons man can think up out of a concept of superior "Rights", or ignorance of consequences of actions, or to justify in the act of living, or greed. The fish lost their homes to power and irrigation dams, reservoirs that buried rivers, irrigation canals and fertilizer run-off, flood control diking, water diversions, massive clear-cut logging of whole stream drainages which included blocked streams due to perched road culverts, massive mud slides and silting-in of spawning beds, floods that tore baby fish from their nests, loss of shade cover resulting in warming streams and increases in fish diseases, loss of fish spawning habitat etc. etc. Over time it became obvious to the people catching the fish that the once great fish numbers were no more. In addition to loss of livable habitat, too many fishermen were killing too many fish. The anglers and commercial fishermen, using increasingly sophisticated fish capturing methods and gear (applies to commercial (tribal and non-tribal) fisheries and sport fisheries), too long a duration of for every fishing season, no uniform closures to taking fish off the spawning beds, a history of ineffective retrictions on taking immature anadromous fish as smolts (these were at one time erroneously called 'Spring trout fishing seasons in streams'), introduction of non-native species of fish (bass, pike, walleye, muski, perch, crappie, etc), swamping of the native species in tributary streams with smolt and pre-smolt coho salmon from WDF hatcheries etc. contributed to the loss of naturally sustainable trout and salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest. Some of the above obviously continue to this day. And still the populations of native fish decline or go extinct in tributary after tributary of our Northwest rivers.

In the years following WW II the popularity of sportfishing for native winter-run steelhead in the rivers of western Washington soared. Fisheries biologists, hatchery managers and agency administrators at the Washington State Department of Game began planning the development of a broodstock that would be able to produce smolts at age 1+ and return after two years in saltwater to a hatchery in the Puget Sound basin of western Washington. Chambers Creek Hatchery near South Tacoma was chosen to be the permanent home for the broodstock steelhead. At the very begining they developed several criteria for the establishment of such a broodstock that included: they would select earliest-returning-to-freshwater, earliest-sexually-maturing, native steelhead from several Puget Sound rivers each year for at least 4 years, then select from the returning adults for the earlist sexually maturing from which the next generation eggs would be taken and held until smolting. It was decided that the goal would be to genetically select for juveniles that would smolt at age 1+ and having imprinted on Chamber's Creek water be ready to enter saltwater. Any released juveniles that did not smolt would die when forced into saltwater upon release from the hatchery. That would select for genes favoring smoltification at an earlier than average age requiring saltwater entry and select against any genes favoring residualization in freshwater. Residualization in any stream these smolt would be planted in the future would result in probable competition for food and space with that stream's remaining native steelhead. That would be undesirable so residualization was selected against. After several broodstock cycles the goals set for Chamber's Creek hatchery-origin winter run steelhead were achieved. Inbreeding was avoided with additional broodstock collections in future years and data analysis of life-history stage survival rates. The Chamber's Creek winter run steelhead broodstock returned to Chambers Creek mainly from mid-November thru January with a peak in mid-December, 3 to 5 months earlier than most native runs of winter-run steelhead to Puget Sound Basin streams. The Chamber's Creek steelhead smolt up to one year earlier than their native counterparts. The earlier return timing in the Chamber's Creek adult steelhead return time, compared to the return time of native winter-run steelhead to their home streams, means hatchery-origin fish can be harvested by sport and tribal fisheries without endangering the native fish that return later. As extra precaution all hatchery-origin progeny are adipose fin clipped well prior to smolting. That identifies them when they return as adults as hatchery-origin. Unmarked fish (natives) can be required to be released unharmed. The younger age of the Chamber's Creek smolts is due to the earlier time of return and sexual maturation timing of their parents (peak December). These hatchery-origin smolts go to sea at the same time of the year as their native counterparts (April May June) which have usually spent 2 years in freshwater before smolting.

Once the broodstock returns to Chamber's Creek were dependibly established, the egg takes were increased and the additional eggs or fry were shipped to several Dept of Game hatcheries located on several rivers draining to Puget Sound. These fish were raised to smolt size and released into the river the hatcheries or rearing ponds drained into. When the steelhead reached the year of sexual maturation they returned to these new streams, usually pausing in the mainstem near the site they were planted (often a boat launch or park). The peak return time for these hatchery-origin adult winter-run steelhead is December, early January.

The main question is, "Do the Chamber's Creek Hatchery-origin winter-run steelhead hybridize with native steelhead?" Because their respective spawning times average about three months apart it unlikely they are ripe and ready to spawn at the same time. If the unlikely occurred how would we know? The genetic profiles of Chamber's Creek hatchery-origin steelhead have been homogonized over the years by taking eggs and sperm from age 2,3,and 4 adults and mixing them together. The smolt plants into any stream for any one year can also be profiled as a cross check. When the native adults return a tiny tissue sample can be taken to develop the native fishes' genetic profile. In the case of the Skagit River juvenile pre-smolt steelhead were collected from the mainstem and several tributaries and compared to the profiles of Chambers Creek hatchery-origin, winter-run steelhead. The results indicated there was virtually no survival of Chamber's Cr winter-run steelhead progeny in the Skagit River. You would think that since 50,000+ smolts of Chamber's Creek winter-run origin were planted from the Marblemount hatchery rearing pond and mainstem sites every year for over 15 years prior to the genetic sampling done in the mid-1970, large, significant numbers of Chamber's Cr hatchery-origin steelhead would have shown in the sampling; but they did not. The only conclusion can be that the spawning time and incubation timing and the early emergence from the gravel of these hatchery-origin eggs and fry spawned the the Skagit River were selected against by floods, temperatures and probably food availability at emergence. That data was written up in a Skagit River Steelhead Research Report, in the mid to late 1970's. Chuck Phillips was the lead author and project leader. I was supervisor of the Steelhead Research on the Skagit River, the Kalama River, and at Snow Creek. I read the report, signed off approving it and sent copies to the U..S. Fish and Wildlife in Washington D.C., The Department of Game Library, Chuck Phillips, Cliff Millenbach, and the Washington State Library. Apparently no one in Olympia WDFW can find a copy of that report as of this past year. I left my copy with the rest of my reports at the WDFW LaConner office when I retired in 2001. A lot of Skagit River data is/was in those files, including the annual catch data and time of harvest of Creel Checked winter-run steelhead. Because the hatchery run was so strong we could keep the harvest of the sport fishery and the tribal commercial harvest targeted to the time separated run of hatchery-origin, winter-run steelhead. The Chamber's Creek origin hatchery steelhead literally saved the Native Winter-Run Steelhead of the Skagit.

I want to refer you to one other report. We came very close to being able to build a hatchery for winter-run steelhead on the Skagit River, at Grandy Creek, back in 1997. I authored a Biological Assessment of Impact of Proposed Grandy Creek Steelhead Hatchery on Skagit River Dolly Varden / Bull Trout. This report was attached to the WDFW EIS (Environmental Impact Statement Biological Assessment). Please get a copy of that EIS on the Proposed Grandy Creek Steelhead Hatchery from WDFW (Request Under Public Disclosure Law if necessary). You will find enough information on DV and BT and Chamber's Cr. steelhead in that report to satisfy your interests. Why didn't we get the hatchery that the State Legislature had set aside $5 Million for constuction. Because the Director of WDW at that time, Mr. Curt Schmitch said "No." and gave no reason.....the Washington Dept of Wildlife had trouble with about 3 Commission Appointed Directors about that time.

Each of you reading this, within your life-time, has seen most, if not more than I have described. And we still want to be able to go fishing. And we long for the days when fishing rules were simple and understandable. Not long ago the Washington State Game Department Fishing Regulations pamphlet was 20 pages for the whole state. Now the Washington State Fish and Wildlife's Fishing Regulations book looks more like a medium-size city's phone directory! Rules upon Rules. Has anyone determined whether these Rules have resulted in increases in numbers of Native fish where applied? And we long for the days when State Fish Hatcheries still planted high mountain lakes, beaver ponds and hundreds more lowland lakes with resident trout that we and our children could experience catching together, or as just an excuse to get outdoors to be together. Most of those opportunites are gone today and many more will be gone tomorrow. Why? Were is the data to justify such actions. Somehow hatchery-origin winter-run steelhead have been branded as 'bad'. Why? Show us the data and biological justification for such a determination. And soon most, if not all, plants of hatchery-origin steelhead into Pacific Ocean coastal streams, Strait of Juan de Fuca streams and Puget Sound streams will be terminated. Why? Show us the biological data to justify such planting decisions. And finally, as a cumulative consequence of the above biologically unsupportable and questionable actions, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Dept will claim they have no choice but to close all western Washington's winter steelhead sport fisheries, for lack of harvestible adult hatchery-origin or native-origin winter-run steelhead.... Why? Again the agency must show us the biological basis for such a management decision. It is certain the Tribes will demand answers. Any lacking of biological reasons, it is almost certain each Treaty Recognized Tribe will receive federal money and assistance in developing Tribal hatcheries near the mouth of 'their' rivers and will release thousands to hundred thousands of smolt winter-run steelhead from their hatcheries every spring....and the courts will say these returning hatchery origin adults belong just to the Tribe. Wonder how much the Tribes will charge non-Tribal sport anglers to catch and keep the Tribe's marked steelhead? And how much will the State charge that same sport angler to fish that river? Will the last Director of WDFW please turn out the lights when the agency no longer plants hatchery fish to harvest in any lake or stream above anadromous barriers, when there are no native fish left to harvest or help survive, when all habitat protection regulations have been taken away and given to pro-business State Ecology Dept, and when there are no areas left in the state for special or general hunting by the general public (only hunt-for-a-fee($$$) on private eastern Washington ranches). I am sure many State Legislators will believe they can balance the State of Washington's budget for at least 3 weeks every year by terminating WDFW.

I hope the last few emails, and the referenced reports, will be of assistance to all of you. And, as always, feel free to forward any of these to anyone.. Jim Johnston, retired fish biologist

And more

In recent years, the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife rush has been to prove hatchery-origin steelhead were the villain causing wild/native steelhead to 'decline' where-ever the Chambers Creek-origin hatchery winter-run smolts were planted. In that fatally flawed agency's rush to judgement it has failed to scientifically prove its preconceived (and often politically based) claims against Chambers Creek winter-run steelhead. The growing institutionalized bias lacks a scientific basis, lacks vitually any literature review of Wash. Game Dept fish research publications from the mid 1970's to mid 1980's written by the Skagit River Steelhead Research Team (See genitics work done by Dr. Don Campton and project leader, Charles Phillips, under my over-all supervision), nor did WDFW University of Washington Fisheries Research Institute Masters and Doctorate theses on the impacts (food and habitat selection) on native steelhead from planting hatchery coho smolts in the same rearing habitat as steelhead, and when the two species occupied different habitat (MS Thesis by James M. Johnston and Ph.D Thesis by Dr. Brian Allee). WDFW would also benefit by reading Fisheries Research Board of Canada publications from the same time period. It may even be difficult for WDFW to access their own historic research reports (done by any of the following: Washington State Game Department, Washington State Wildlife Department, and/or Washington State Fisheries Department. I have tried to find out if the current agency (Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife) can access any of the 20 to 30 publications I wrote between 1972 and 2000. So far I have failed to find any references to them. I have personal knowledge that th Dept of Game and Dept of Fisheries both destroyed old reports and planting records when no longer considered useful and they could use the occupied space for higher priority goods. If the agency really wanted to find out what impacts hatchery fish have on wild, why have they not contacted retired bios and hatchery personnel and research personnel and asked? I can understand their hesitancy..."don't confuse us with facts when it comes to hatchery vs wild interations" is their 'factual-filter.' Sad.

Let me relate the bare-bones "research project" that the current WDFW carried out on the Samish River to study the genetic impacts of hatchery-origin steelhead (Chambers Creek) introduction had on that small stream's wild steelhead. The agency assigned a crew of theirs from the Columbia River Squawfish Cash Rewards program to do the 'research' on the Samish River. Any adult steelhead they captured from the Samish that was fin clipped was called a hatchery-origin Chambers Creek Steelhead. Any adult steelhead they captured that was not fin clipped was called a native steelhead. In the prosecution of this 'research' they also captured a large number of 'steelhead' that were much smaller than either the 'wild' or the 'hatchery-origin' steelhead. In their bias rush to prove hatchery-origin steelhead harm wild steelhead populations they concluded that these smaller, inbetween size fish were the progeny of interbreeding between 'wild' Samish River steelhead and Chambers Creek origin steelhead. Did they, or their Olympia based supervisors, ever consider that the supposed hybrids were not even the same species as steelhead? Had that Columbia River crew of samplers ever seen sea-run cutthroat? No they had not, and that was what the Samish River's in-between size "hybrid steelhead" were!!!! Many of these wild steelhead, hatchery-origin steelhead, and mis-identified sea-run cutthroat were captured at the WDFW's Friday Creek Hatchery. Couldn't the Hatchery Manager identify the species of fish correctly? The 'research' crew rushed to write-up and publish their erroneous findings that crossbreeding hatchery-origin steelhead and wild steelhead resulted in progeny that went to sea but came back as very small fish....At some point someone realized the error and the report was never published or distributed. It was buried. There was a publication I wrote back in the 1970's about sea-run cutthoat in Washington that included how easy they are to identify. Maybe that pub is now buried along with all the Samish River files I left at the ageny's LaConner office. Maybe the agency is still planning to only plant hatchery steelhead from their hatcheries so they can kill are the uncaught returning hatchery origin Chambers Cr steellhead at the hatchery racks when they return unharvested by anglers. Wonder how many sea-run cutthroat will be mis-identified and killed as 'hybrid steelhead' by uneducated bios or hatchery personnel?

The genetics part of the Skagit River Steelhead studies during period 1975 to 1982 found no evidence that crosses (if they occurred) between hatchery-origin steelhead adults, and wild or native-origin steelhead adults produced any progeny that survived to be captured as juveniles by the research team (as determined by electrophoretic analysis). That report appears to also have been lost by the current agency.

Ask the current commisions where they think they are leading the dept.

Sincerely Disturbed,
Jim Johnston; former WDG/WDW/WDFW Fish Biologist/ Head of Fisheries Research for Agency/ Regional Manager of all Fish and Wildlife Programs for Region 6 (Olympic Pen)/ Assistant Director of Agency in charge of Agency's Policies for all Fish and Wildlife Programs.,

Break out the polygraph!!

Want a new law? How about one that reads, "All public servants are subject to polygraph review."

Thanks RG and Eyefish!

I have had conversations with more than one retiree of the State's Fish and Wildlife....and some not yet retired. There seems to be one common thread........we are being lied to.....not that anyone shouldn't be able to deduce that from personal experience if they have been around these parts for more than thirty years (Myself....make it twice that).

Think about this....if you wanted for what-ever reason to create a new belief system, where would you take your case? Would you endure the questions posed by those with experience in the field......or would you take your case to those who knew no better? You would go to the classroom and teach those with the least knowledge, wouldn't you?

My advice....quit just swallowing what you're fed. Agendas kill the truth.

Bravo!!!!

+1

"The results indicated there was virtually no survival of Chamber's Cr winter-run steelhead progeny in the Skagit River. You would think that since 50,000+ smolts of Chamber's Creek winter-run origin were planted from the Marblemount hatchery rearing pond and mainstem sites every year for over 15 years prior to the genetic sampling done in the mid-1970, large, significant numbers of Chamber's Cr hatchery-origin steelhead would have shown in the sampling; but they did not."

Refreshing to hear another "science backed" opinion? What the hell are we do believe? All I read on this site is science backed arguments for the elimination of hatchery and wild broodstock programs, and how they negatively harm wild fish populations. Would like to hear Todds or Salmo G's comments on Jim Johnstons write.
In the end as sportsfishers, I think most of us would just like to have opportunities to fish for Steelhead on Puget Sound systems, from Dec.1st to March 31st. If hatchery fish do little harm as this read states, plant the bastards! If costs are to high to raise them, charge me more! Maybe shutting production down is an angle for the State to allow the Tribes to take it all over, because that is what will happen anyway. After 38 years of Steelheading, I would gladly pay for some privacy having more systems open, rather than battle the crowds for a run on the coast. The future?, I don't like it, but can you say "CLASS WATER DESIGNATIONS". My 2c

Neither the current study nor the conflicting account of the retired bio presented by RG make any conclusions about integrated programs like Snider.

The issue being debated is whether the conceptual strategy of temporal segregation of hatchery populations from their wild counterparts actually works out in real life. For the past 4 decades, this has been presumed to be the case.

The old Skagit reports suggest that in that system, it worked.... no detectable hybrids over 7 years.

The new Willapa report suggests otherwise.... with up to 80% hybrids!

This suggests to me that run-timing may not be representative of spawn-timing. The chambers fish get there earlier, but may not necessarily spawn right away. How else would the hydrids be created?

The other possibility is that there was significant overlap in the run-timing between the latest Chambers hatchery fish and the earliest Willapa native fish.

Either way, what the latest study concludes is that temporal segregation alone is NOT sufficient to prevent co-mingling of these populations on the gravel, even in the presence of a significant (though imperfect) migration barrier. One can logically infer that the co-mingling would only increase in the absence of any migration barrier.

versus



The Skagit experience really does NOT address hybrids... only that there was virtually no natural production of returning adult spawners from Chambers-origin parents.

The Willapa study looked at naturally produced (gravel-borne) smolts and found a significant proportion of H/W hybrids. They also observed some H/W hybrids in the returning adults. I saw no mention of H/H adult recruitment.

Doc:

Let's "cut to the chase".......tell me your solution..to the following rivers.....Steelhead on the Wynoochee, the Satsop, and the Humptulips...given the amount of QIN netting, if there was not a "hatchery plant", on these rivers?????

Well folks, there you have it. Any time you take a small amount of information about a subject, like hatchery / wild fish interactions, and ignore other sources of information, it's easy to reach a conclusion in support of either a positive or negative conclusion based on that set of information. The main flaw I see in the above posts is that in both cases, there is more to the story.

I haven't seen Quinn's paper or all the data regarding the Fork's Creek hatchery steelhead. Native wild steelhead in Fork's Creek are assuredly screwed because that's where the hatchery steelhead are reared and released. There is a weir at the hatchery, but every time it rains hard, which it does a lot every winter on this small coastal watershed, the returning fish just swim over the weir. The upshot is that the majority of steelhead spawners in Forks Creek are hatchery origin. I would like to know about the genetic profile of wild steelhead in the mainstem and other tributaries to understand if they are also significantly affected by the hatchery steelhead. That would be an important piece of the puzzle.

Rivrguy,

Talk about a blast from the past: "JJ" I heard he moved to Canada after retiring. Where'd you get that memo from him? JJ is a wealth of information, but it's wise to temper it with the advice I heard from a few of his co-workers. JJ often forms conclusions based on insufficient data, yet is often, BUT NOT ALWAYS, correct. I would suppose most of us are guilty of that to some degree.

What JJ reports about the 1970s Skagit genetic research is correct, as far as it went. That was the limit of our knowledge of steelhead genetics at that time. It was based on the laborsome electrophoretic genetic allozyme analysis, and the conclusions reached were based on a comparatively small sample size. Like others, I went went those conclusions and favored policies supported by that information.

Subsequently there is newer and more extensive DNA genetic analysis of steelhead, from the Skagit and elsewhere. Guess what happens when you significantly increase your genetic sampling? For one thing, you can find information that was missed in smaller samples. After stocking from 50,000 to 350,000 Chambers Creek steelhead smolts in the Skagit for over 50 years, you'd think maybe at least some small fraction of those fish successfully reproduced. And if you thought that, you'd be correct. Current genetic research of Skagit steelhead indicates some Chambers Creek genetic introgression with the native Skagit population. I think the average of all samples is about 16%, with a range from zero to 28%, varying significantly by geographic location.

For those who require simple black and white answers, I can only say, get used to disappointment. That ain't gonna' happen.

Mattie, if you're troubled with getting your information from . . . "people smarter than them,". . . I hope you're not recommending that folks get their information from people more ignorant than them, unless living in a world where ignorance is bliss is your gig.

Slab, I doubt you're being lied to. People, and agencies, can only report based on what they know. And no one has perfect knowledge. Some folks undboubtably do have an agenda, so they cherry pick their information sources and report accordingly, or in some cases, IMO, ignore the information that doesn't jive with their personal biases.

Aldo Leopold (one of those "smart" guys) wrote that intelligent tinkering means saving all the parts. Since it's pretty clear to me that we are always going to be a long ways from knowing all the answers, I want to save the parts. I want to save the viable wild steelhead runs in Puget Sound and elsewhere. And I want to keep the Chambers Creek steelhead program - at Chambers Creek, both as a laboratory and as a safety deposit box. The Chambers Creek fish cultured at the other PS locations are more or less expendable at this time when their financial and biological effectiveness is so questionable. I'm not suggesting getting rid of them, but that the near term loss would save money and not be much of a fishery loss in the systems where they cannot even return brood stock.

One last time, if you require a definitive conclusion that hatchery fish are
definitely bad or definitely good, you're gonna' be disappointed. Natural ecosystems are rarely simple.

Sg

Well said SG. I was trying to infer that just because someone writes a scientific paper, it should not be taken as the gospel. Trying to make concrete conclusions from statistical analysis is a flawed approach. One sentence in that paper that struck me as bold was "the proportions of wild steelhead also declined over time because of the increase in the proportion of hybrid individuals". Like you said, there is no black and white. Just too many variables. Thanks for your info.

Good summary Sg. Both of the reporters (JJ & Quinn) above are simply describing what they found. In my opinion, however, conclusions from the early 70's don't really have much bearing on current management decisions other than perhaps offering some historic perspective. As Sg points out, things are quite different now than when JJ made his observations. For instance hatchery releases in the Skagit increased dramatically from the 50K reported by JJ to ~300K annually from the late 70's through the 90's. In the early 2000's, they increased to over 500K annually (If some are good, more are better, eh?). They have now been "reduced" to ~225K per year. Even if the natural populations remained the same size, I would expect to see some different results in terms of contribution of hatchery fish. And as Sg points out, there has been - from 0% in JJ's time to ~20% now.

I doubt that even JJ would consider that a success.

JJ's stuff came running through my computer on some stuff on PS. I have his E mail i you would want it. I posted that so folks could see how things worked in the world of science and how it can be manipulated intentionally and unintentionally. A Nez P once hit me with this.

Glass of water is setting half full, or is it half empty? If you started with a full glass and consumed half then your half empty. If your starting empty and stopped filling then your half full. Now the glass still has the same amount of water in it but it is a matter of perspective and how, when, why you structure a question and interpret the the meaning of the answer. All can be right or all wrong just depends on perception which has a way of becoming reality.

OK... I went back to the actual study.

The key data is best encapsulated by a Figure 4 (sorry can't produce it here) discussed on pages 8-9 in the original paper.

Over the study period, the proportion of adult hybrids returning to Willapa increased from roughly 20% to 60% of the return. W X W adults decreased from 70% to 40%. H x H adults were undetectable in half of the 10 returns observed.... typically 10% or less in the years they were observed.

These observations are quite different from the Kalama data which showed very poor survival of hybrids. The extremely poor survival of H x H to adulthood was consistent in both studies.

What the Willapa study shows is that the longer a hatchery program operates, the greater the potential for hybridization over time.... yes, even when it's a "segregated" program. With the continual infusion of hatchery fish, the hybrids can eventually overwhelm the native population.... in direct proportion to the volume of hatchery plants introduced to the population.

If these are the observations for "segregated" hatchery populations, the genetic mixing of integrated populations is certain to be even greater. These findings are sure to have significant genetic implications for integrated programs.

For those looking for B&W answers regarding hatchery fish... it depends on your perspective. I think it's pretty easy.

If it's all about the well being of wild populations, then clearly less is best.

If it's all about harvest opportunity, then if a little is good, a lot must be better. If we're gonna have fish to harvest, hatchery fish are gonna be part of the game.

The tough part is striking a balance between those competing interests. So far the wild fish are losing.

Eyefish -
IMHO you are making way too much out of the Forks Creek study. As often is the case on these kinds of the issue the results depend on the circumstances of the situation. Clearly the segregation approach has some significant problems on Forks Creek but it does not necessaryily follow those problems will be the same in a different location and circumstances.

The fact that segregation is not working as desired in the Willapa example as you suggest indicates there has not been the environmental separation between the two stocks needed. Most commonly that lack of separation is due to the significant overlap in spwan timing and location. - Please note it is not run timing but spawn timing that is the determinate factor.

As some have suggested on a basin like the Skagit the Chambers Creek stock may be a more segregated stock. Why? because there is significant different spawning timing differences of the wild fish between Willapa River/Forks Creek and the Skagit. As stated in the study the wild fish spawn February to April on the Skagit the wild fish spawn from mid-March into July with a peak spawning activity typcially about the 3rd week in May. In fact on the Skagit one would not expect to see 10% of the wild redds to be have dug until late April (and in some years early May). I suspect an additional 6 to 8 weeks of separation in the timing hatchery and wild spawning may be a critical factor.

A WDFW study in the early 1990s looked at the genetic structuring of the Skagit steelhead sampled in various locations in the basin. As part of that study the genetists also looked the similiarity of the Skagit wild fish and Chambers Creek hatchery fish. They further looked how much that similiarity had changed from a previous study done in the mid-1970s with the results form the 1994 study. They found that there had been virtually no change over 3 fish generations in the amount of potential "hatchery influence" on the wild populations. A new genetic study in 2010 also looked at the potential "hatchery influence" on the Sauk from fish collected in the early 1980s with those collected in 2010. Again the results were similar - no change.

Without going into more detail at least in North Puget Sound the debate about hatchery/wild interaction have shift from a genetic concern to one of ecological interactions - are the hatchery fish spwaning in the wild producing juveniles that compete with the rear wild juveniles with a negative impact. The last study referred to above hoped to shed some light on that topic but it is too early for any conclusions.

BTW -
The Snider Creek program was not a segregated hatchery program. Rather it was a very poor intregrated program (the wild brood stock was hardly representative of the wild population as a whole) that was guaranteed to pass on any adverse hatchery effects to the wild population.

Tight lines
Curt

All I can say is there is a LOT more that needs to be done all the way around if the desire to protect genetic, original, wilds stocks If they still exist in any given system.

The perfect model doesn't exist and the perfect collection of data is far from existing. The science is based on the data available with the limited funds available to gather that data.

IMHO, the best step right now is to get politics out of management so some real science can be done and maybe some real management.

" the best step right now is to get politics out of management so some real science can be done and maybe some real management. "

That is the one thing that will not happen!