I agree with Stam, just want more of them

Ah there it is.

"Just want more."

Thanks for the clarity. Being intellectually honest about our positions and arguments helps to explain a lot.

The problem as I see it, is that what is viewed in the field by the average fisherman (er...make that "above" average) doesn't gel with the "scientific" version of what is being peddled.
And statements like HxW crosses result in zero offspring doesn't help with the believe-ability......why?.......because it is BS. I can only see one way that such an event is feasible, and it would be cherry-picked data from early return wild fish spawning early with the hatchery fish and having the redd washed out by Winter flood events.
The genetics arguement......the one that says hatchery fish are genetically "different"......you know that one?.......is pretty much difficult to grasp for me. This is why. I think it is entirely possible to determine whether or not a fish came from a hatchery through genetics........what was that? Like a tree growth ring, one can tell something of the tree's past and what was going on year to year. Do you think that feeding fish the same thing day after day after day will show in their "growth rings"? Why, I'll just bet they will. Now, will the fact that hatchery fish ate hot dogs make them less fit, and dependent? Sure, it will.......for a time. If they take too long to adapt, they're going to die. But the ones who figure out to fend for themselves, feed themselves, avoid being eaten, and return to spawn are as fit as any fish. If they are "tuned" to return and spawn too early and their redds are washed away, well that is not a factor of their fitness, nor of their ability to produce......it's a factor of man's interference in the smolting process.....which is controllable.
I know it is cool to use anacronyms and many think it lends "professionalism" to a conversation. It doesn't. It only lends itself to aloofness, which doesn't wash with a lot of folks. Especially when what is being peddled is difficult, if not impossible, to sell with logic.

just my 2

Where to begin....

The hatchery environment is significantly different from the natural. Water temperatures are different, water velocities are different, food arrives in different locations (surface vs. benthic), and so on. Disregarding the domestication issues, like not having to deal with predators and so on, the fish that survive in the hatchery are different from wild fish because the environments are different. In order to survive in the hatchery the fish must evolve, and this involves different genetics. When those genes are injected into the wild, the result is poorer performing fish; exactly what we see time and again.

Some hatchery reared fish do survive in the wild. They evolve each generation, so long as "bad" genes are not re-introduced.

The best information we have on "natives" is analysis of the genetics of the various stocks. In many places, there is no evidence that hatchery genes have been incoprorated into the wild. In others, they have been successful. In at least a few places, the hatchery fish have established a separate sub-population within the watershed. They are staying separate, probably due to spawn timing and maybe spawn location.

If you want wild fish, naturally reproducing and evolving within the watershed, then the best thing (genetically) is to keep mal-adapted fish out. If it really is not imporatant to have naturally spawned fish the plant the heck out of the system and fish the heck out of it. For whatever reason it appears that hatchery and wild steelhead can not coexist in the same watershed; IF ones wants to have a large wild fish population.

I dont like eating them.

I could care less if I killed another.

So why is is so important for simple minds to have fish to kill?

I just want to fish.

Respectfully, I ask this. Genes can be transformed in one or two years? I would think that fish have to adapt to anything thrown their way, just like in Nature......and their genes are changed when we have a La Nina event?.....or do they adapt?


edit: I'm not talking about repetitious incestuous spawning here.

Genes are exchanged with each spawning. The fish has a set that it lives or dies with. The genes don't, as far as I know, change within a fish.

The combination, the entire genome, degtermines if that fish lives or dies. Say a fish receives genes for warmer water, and we have a year when water in the stream is warm. The fish lives. If another fish had genes for cold water, and the stream was too warm then it would die.

I'm gettin' that deja vu' feeling all over again.

Met'lheadMatt,

Why don't you tell us about your background in genetics? You might add some veracity to your claims. Or not. I suppose you do all your own medical and dental work on yourself too, since getting service or information from those who know what they're doing or talking about doesn't seem to be your style.

Sg

This is how it has been explained to me. Salmon genetics can and do express themselves in a fairly plastic manner. They can adapt quickly, or develop characteristics that are detrimental to survivial quickly. This isnt the same as a human having one offspring at a time. A salmon has a couple thousand offspring. Each one expressing somewhat different characteristics. Those that survive are rewarded with reproductive opportunity. Those that dont survive are not. So a cross with a fish that skipped a step in the survival fitness test (hatchery rearing) have survivors that would not have otherwise made it to reproductive age. These fish are less fit for survival in a natural cycle of reproduction after a single generation. Repeat, repeat, and you have our current dilemma.

Slab (again), and Matt...just do a search here...the science for what you are battling in your mind has been explained...ad nauseum...over and over again.

It just seems that someone reads the science repeatedly and still doesn't get it (Slab), or doesn't bother reading it...it's all out there, and in spite of a lot of very non-biologist types who just can't believe it's possibly true that the introgression is very slight...it is just that, very slight, and often nonexistent.

Use the search function to read the science, Matt, if you'd like...

Fish on...

Todd

Not done reading yet.....

LMAO...Made my Friday night....

Sg strikes again.............

Yes the genetic makeup of the brood changes in one generation.

A group of wild fish are brought into the hatchery, are artificially spawned, and subsequently produce a diversity of genotypes in their offspring. A small minority of those genotypes would flourish in the wild, the rest would perish. A large majority of those genotypes would flourish in a hatchery tank, very few would perish. Among those that perish in the hatchery might be genotypes that produce, for example, fish that prefer to forage near the bottom of the tank rather than at the surface. These could well be fish that would thrive in the wild, but instead die out in a hatchery tank because their surface-feeding brethren snarf up the lion's share of the available food.

It's easy to see how the genotypes of surviving smolts produced in the wild, after enduring the relentless selection pressures of the natural world, would be very different than the overwhelming majority of the genotypes of smolts surviving the cushy-a$$ hatchery environment. Note however that a very small number of the surviving hatchery fish will have genotypes IDENTICAL to the wild fish. If these survive the marine phase of the life cycle, they would be genetically identical to wild adult spawners. It is this tiny fraction of the original hatchery brood that maintains any measurable reproductive potential in the wild. The rest are simply reproductive turds.

So in the end it's not that the hatchery magically transforms "good" wild genes into "bad" hatchery genes in any given fish. What's really happening is that genes that are valuable to survival in the wild during the egg-to-smolt phase are being weeded out of the brood in the hatchery. At the same time, genes that would have been weeded out of the brood in the wild during that same egg-to-smolt life stage are allowed to persist in the VAST majority of hatchery-raised juveniles.

What goes out to sea from each environment is VERY VERY different. And yes, it happens in ONE generation.

There ya go.......it says the resident males are a lot like us......some sneakier than others....but the fish version is pretty much a June activity only.

Ah yes, let us remember in this hatchery / wild thing what species your talking about and the history of the stock is a real driver as to the product of the discussion. If your addressing the subject in present terms as a snap shot in time then your missing the mark.

So let me share this and the tittle will be HOW I KNOW I AM A DUMBASS. Years back I was invited to be in a private bulletin board do to my knowledge of tree farms that has on average 16 to 20 people of varying back grounds that exchange views on fishery issues. So I decided to put forth a little ditty on why the hatchery wild interaction was a driver on Chinook declines. Well now I got all my references, bullets, and quotes and I must say a did one hell of a 4 page paper. Off it goes and a couple of days later I see a reply post that kinda went like this.

The points you bring forward regarding hatcheries for discussion and present as the possible root cause of Chinook population reduced spawning success, tell me now were they :

Before or after the ocean fisheries removed the 5 & 6 year age group

Before or after the ocean fishery has substantially reduced the 4 year group.

Before or after the preveous two items resulted in a reduction in the average size thus reduced spawning success rates.

Before or after human activities permanently altered the the estuary rearing areas.

Before or after tree farms turned forest land into long term agriculture permanently altering the hydraulics of streams as to surging and low summer flows.

Well he had a MUCH LONGER list but I think you get the drift as the Chinnok runs of today are not as large as in the past but the creature itself does not faintly resemble the Chinook of 100 years ago let alone 200 years. Then he dropped the hammer. My writing that took one part of the history of the human interaction , the present hatchery issue I addressed, and ignoring the massive and unalterable changes imposed upon the creature in the last two hundred years by human interaction be it harvest, environment, or hatchery was lacking. In addition as the human desire to catch and consume the creature for food was most likely to increase with the population, then a manner of producing Chinook for harvest that affords protection to the creatures survival must be developed and utilized.

He closed that my inability to identify and grasp the full magnitude and nature of historical and future human impacts on the creature made me a dumbass. Well one thing about it, judging by this thread I have a lot of company in the " dumbass category ".

You sound like one of those elitist, I'm smarter than the rest of you, fly fisherman types.

Salmog, what I was asking is would it be better to use in basin stock or out of basin stock to dilute the gene pool any further.
We are not going to rid ourselves of hatcheries
My experience is from 40 years of fishing these fish. Vol work building weird 30yrs ago on the Smith, vol work doing reds counts on numerious rivers. Assisting in broodstock programs. vol work with spawning surveys, flying once amonth doing elk studies ,building the elk transport platforms in my garage. Assisting on more then one capture. I have not takin a wild fish in 22yrs. Catch triple digits almost every year. And Isee what is happening. Some have degrees and never leave the office to see what is going on, just believe what they read. I catch my share, keep very few, but yes I would like to catch more. I don't know your back ground, nor do I care. But if you think they are not breeding in the wild then put the figures down, and go for a look. The question is which is better for the wild fish, in basin or out of basin stock. That is the question. Segragation is not happening. They are mixing

Stray rates vary from minimal one year to up to 30% the next year. Genetic diversity from strays happens across systems and across states on a regular basis.

Closing a system to only the systems fish is asking for genetic failure.

Add a bit more here

Lets do it this way with Chinook as the main discussion and Coho in the mix. If you utilize 100% ( ideal ) natural brood down to 30% ( minimum ) in the hatchery population, spawn one to one or three on three, do not alter the life cycle but mirror the natural processes ( as in raising Chinook past Zero's to yearlings is not natural in most stocks ), and utilize descent rearing vessels, what have you done to alter the genetics of the fish? Nothing at all BUT yes you have and not by rearing the fish in the hatchery ponds. In the last 30 years the feeds and knowledge of how to rear fish has drastically expanded AND REDUCED moralities. So when someone says that what makes a good hatchery fish is not the same as what makes a good natural spawner not so much. In fact if you do what is outlined above not much variation at all. Behaviorally yes, genetically NOPE.

How's the blood pressure guys? Hey now put those buggy eyes back in the sockets! So hatcheries do not effect genetics, right? Wrong, oh yes they do. What hatcheries do if run correctly ( big if here ) is THEY REMOVE NATURAL SELECTION. Mother nature is a tough bitch and the weak, stupid, slow, lazy they are food for something. Nature only allows the strongest to survive and a hatchery gives everyone a break. That is the weakness in hatcheries, they simply coddle the creature and nature DOES NOT.

But as I posted above it must be viewed in a historical context. Through harvest, forest land environmental alteration, and urbanization the Chinook of today is a remnant population that has been altered to such a extent that it has little genetically in common with its ancestors.

Interesting problem don't ya think. How do you save whatever is left and still eat em. Study that a bit!

Fish 4 all, but if you contain the geneticts on your end to one system, and mother nature takes care of the rest with stray rate ranging from minimal to 30%, then an inbred condition should never be reached, and we should never see genitic failure. Our finned fish of today resemble our hatchery turds moreso then the Wild Native fish of the past, Sure some are still carrying the majority of the genes of there wild ancestors, But most appear to be severly diluted. As was stated before if they hit the gravel they become hatchery wild, there returning offspring are Native wild, and the delution has begun. So i think the majority would fall under Hatchery wild opposed to an other .