First off don't get me wrong I don't want this to turn in to a C&R argument. But some of you say hatchery fish are inferior. I will be the first honest person to say I have only caught 5 steelhead and personally I don't care if it is hatchery or native. I just want to the joy of catching fish(which dosn't happen that often). So what do you guys mean when you say hatchery fish are inferior???

Chris

Chris,
I really doubt anybody could tell the difference between hatchery and non-hatchery less the cropped fin. I know a lot of the guys would like to think they can.

I believe the argument against hatchery fish is not due to discrimination of their origin or taste, but rather due to the fact that hatchery fish are "genetically" inferior which gives them less opportunity to survive the extremities of nature.

The more we rely on hatchery fish as a replacement, the more diluted the gene pool gets. This will eventually lead to a weaker strain of Wild Steelies.

Admittedly I am not familiar with Washington's hatchery practices, so I couldn't comment on their methods one way or the other.

After catching many hatchery fish I do believe they are a weaker fish...they tire much quicker than the Native in my experience.

Having caught more than a few of each I can say without a doubt that a wild steelhead is a lot hotter fish than a hatchery fish. You can usually tell the difference even before you see the fish. Hatchery fish are fine but not to be compaired to the real deal. So I guess that makes me one of the guys who think they can??? I think most that have caught many fish will agree with me.

the only real difference to me is that one is missing a fin and hatchery fish are usually smaller, generally, but i cant say i can tell the difference between a hatchery and a wild fish of the same size, except the fact of the missing fin.

~Duke

I have to agree with B-Run, the exception is early hatchery summer runs especially 3 salts, but that is due to warmer water temps and sexually immature fish. My main beef with hatchery fish is their propensity to stack up at hatchery locations instead of spreading out through the river system creating a circus fishery.

There are no absolutes in this argument. In winter, under typical winter/spring conditions here on the Washington coast, wild fish are, on average, much superior in fight and stamina. For whatever reason, I've observed much more of a difference between hatchery and wild in the winter. However, I did have one humtulips hatchery fish last winter go berserk with 4 jumps and as many long runs with the outcome much in doubt.....there are no absolutes.

In summer fish, I've observed little if any difference in fight and stamina between hatchery and wild. Water temperature may play into this but again, there are many variables. I've caught both hatchery and wild summer-runs in the Wynoochee, Kalama, Toutle and Green (toutle trib.)Some have faught like toads but most(hatchery and wild) over the years have given a great account of themselves. I caught a hatchery fish on the Wynoochee a week ago that faught as well as a fish can....in fact, it's stamina was above average. A memorable fish!!

I just hope we still have hatchery summer-runs to fish for in years to come. I live for these fish. Great sport, great fish and great weather.

Sure seems like meaningful numbers of plants are becoming scarce in more and more rivers though. My fingers are crossed.

Chris,

The guys above summed it up pretty well. I guess you'll just have to increase your catch numbers and draw your own conclusions. I feel that one must land a pretty fair number of fish to get any feel for any difference in the two. Each fish puts up it's own struggle and in different water temps and flows, so an accurate comparison is difficult to make. One fish might fight remarkably hard, but the reasons why aren't always clear. Rich said it well that hatchery fish run up and park at the hatchery holes, making you bring your own rock to stand on to fish for them. This is less true for summer-runs which tend to spread out and hold more.

My experiences have led me to believe that, in general, native fish fight harder and longer on average. That doesn't mean a hatchery fish can't or won't put a whippin' on you, but I sported a nice blister om my thumb from trying to stop a 5-6lb. summer run hen on the Hoh, and no hatchery fish of that size that I ever hooked was able to get a reel humming like that.

I guess you shouldn't look at it as a "which is superior" thing. Rather, just get out there and spank a few fish and you can make up your mind for yourself about it. Look at it this way; all hookups are good, each fish fights differently from the last one, and you'll never be pissed that you landed one versus the other.

Fish on............

I agree with the above regarding nates fighting better I also think the summer run hatchery fish do fight better than ther winter run brothers.. but, winter run steelie 10lb nate v 10lb bonker - no contest the nate will be a sronger fish (in my experience). The one time I have seen the hatchery fish go nuts in the winter is down in the good old tidewater drift, nice and fresh those guys will do pretty good.

Chris, that's really a good question. I feel there is quite a difference in the fight a winter nate puts out compared to a winter hatch. I have no comparison for summer time fish on the coast.
Also, I have spent some time watching fish go through the fish passage facilities at a local dam (lower granite dam) and there really does seem to be a diffreence in the fish. Wild fish look stockier,(which I think makes them look stronger to me) and their fins are usually shaped perfectly. They just plain look healthier.
Hatchery fish, in comparison often have rounded fins and look like they're just worn out by the time they reach this dam. I also notice more "defects" in hatchery fish, such as a crooked tail.
Another problem with hatchery fish in these parts is that they do not reproduce well in the wild if at all. If they did we probably would not be having the problems we are having now.
So, are the hatchery fish different? Well, I'm still not sure. They look different, fight different reproduce different but are they really "genetically" different? I don't know.
Here's a theory I've been tossing around. I think that the environment that the hatchery fish grow in when they are young has a large impact on their developement. Wild fish grow up in an envroinment where they have to work for their food, hatchery fish mill around in a pond for the first part of their life picking up handouts. Just like the kid who grew up working on a farm verses the kid who grew up watching TV making trips to the fridge. Which one do you think will be more healthy in their adult life?
I had the opporitunity to go to a seminar last winter here at Washington state U. about some of the new hatchery practices that some people are researching. I found it extremely interesting that they are now trying to go away from the traditional "pond like" atmosphere and they are now trying to make the hatcheries more "riverlike". The speaker (sorry I forget his name) was running hatcheries that had fish runs with rocky bottoms and obstructions such as brush and logs in the run just like a natural river with natural streamflows. Also, they were experimenting with lower fish densities. They even went as far as adding predators such as a caged merganser so that the fish may learn predator evasion. Even fed the fish from subsurface to keep them lower in the water (more natural feeding style and may help predator impact). The research is not complete so he didn't have a final assesment as to whether this is the hatchery of the future but I think it may be on the right track.

So what does everybody else think? is it really a genetic difference...

Oh Just found the guys name, who was working on this research, Robert Iwamoto, from the Northwest Fisheries Center.

Sorry this is so long, I kinda got carried away.

Duke

This research sounds pretty interesting, but I think raising the fish in this more 'natural' manner is to increase outmigrant survival, rather than make it a stronger fish. Teach the fish how to feed and that there are things that will kill it before it reaches the ocean.

Pure and simple, most hatchery stocks are not nearly as robust as wild stocks because they are up to 40 years removed from their wild ancestors with very little reinjection of wild genes. It would be nice if in every 2 or 3 generations, eggs and milt from wild fish were mixed in.

The downsize to this is that fish managers do not want these less robust hatchery fish to reproduce in the wild. You're right about these guys not being very successful at natural reproduction. Same thing at work--these fish haven't sniffed out good spawning water and dug a redd in generations. Hatchery managers also artificially select for early returns so as not to overlap with the later returning wild runs.

To preserve the genetic integrity of wild runs, you either have to select for an early returning, non-reproducing, weaker hatchery fish to minimize interaction with wild fish; or use wild fish as brood stock year after year so it doesn't matter if these "hatchery raised natives" reproduce with there purely wild counterparts. The latter is done on the Quinault River and in Canada. Its also a lot more expensive to operate.

All in all, I'm grateful for both the summer and winter 'brats'. On a good year, I'll catch 4:1 hatchery to wild fish so there's just no incentive at all to kill a wild one.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 06-22-2000).]

At one time we had good numbers of native fish that returned as early as November and December. I don't think there was any effort to select early returning fish in order to separate them from later returning wild fish. The hatcheries simply took the earliest fish that returned to the hatchery as their egg and milt donors in order to fill their quota and get the job out of the way. It resulted in a sort of unintentional selection for early returning fish. Then of course, the harvest, both by sportsmen and tribal netters, of the early returning wild component of the runs along with the hatchery fish (which will continue until we eliminate the bonking of natives) further accentuated the imbalance. We've always been pretty arrogant about messing with natural balances that we are only now beginning understand.

While I agree with Dan S.' post very closely, I am suprised that there wasn't any mention on a Wash. BB of the hardy fighting & genetically superior Skamania strain of hatchery summer steelhead. These stocks originated in the Washougal River. I have spent many years fishing for these fish there, usually driftfishing for them from mid-march thru April & when the water warmed some switching to flyfishing in May & June. They take to flies well and fight as well any any comparably sized nates. Their superior genetics were kept fairly well intact considering the entity handling them. They have faired better than any transplanted strain that I know of. To the Kalama, Lewis, Wind, Oregon's Cascade rivers and the best to make it in the Great Lakes region.

Preston

I read in an interview with Kurt Kramer(Dist. biologist - Puget Sound)that the hatcheries took specific ratios of fish by month concentrating on December/January. Back when they started, hatchery stocks ran from mid-November through April, but they made specific efforts only to collect a small percentage of those late fish. At least thats what he said.

Your right about the selection against early returning natives by netting and C&K fisheries. I doubt this was done deliberately to maintain separation of hatchery and wild stocks, but at least on PS streams with pretty healthy wild runs like the Sky, Snoqualmie, and Green, WDFW won't budge on their early C&K seasons.

Reel Truth

Your right about the Skamania summer-runs. I don't know how they propogated this run, but they do seem more robust than the winter brats, at least comparing the two in Puget Sound streams. Two-salt Skamanias seem to be bigger, and there also appears to be a higher percentage of three-salts from year to year. Its amazing that these fish originated from a single stock and seem to maintain good sport qualities and ocean survivability throughout the range they've been planted. The fish are doing well in the Great Lakes as well.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 06-23-2000).]

Anyone ever been to West Virginia? Familiar with inbreeding?
This never seems to be brought up so i thought i would take a shot at it. Everyone says genetically inferior, but does anyone ever explain what that means. First of all, you could compare most hatchery broodstock collection as inbreeding. Imagine if the Smith's from portland were chosen to participate in a people hatchery program ( heaven knows well always have enough people in the northwest, however) The smith's or "smith strain" will be pretty diverse at first. The smiths have ancestors from Italy . Norway, Germany, and Tasmania. But after twenty years The populations of Smiths have multiplied into the millions, thanks to hatchery production. Unfortunately, what the US F&W didn't realize is that the Smith's carry the genen for heart disease, asthma, and diabetes, also this rare disease that only comes around every 100 years.
Being that the smith strain has had no new members join their family for 100 years their immune system has weakened and they are suseptable to many new diseases also. Dont get me wrong; they can "fight like hell," "I never seen a person jump like those Smiths do." The only problem is that if a disease that they are not ready for "the kalama influenza" is now in their population. It is irradicating much of the Smith's population. The only people that have survuved, are the native Kalama family. The native Kalamaonians are very small due to smith competition. ( 1 million Smith's in a river with 1 thousand natives) So now we are down to a total population of fifty Native Kalamaonians, and fishing season is closed.
My point is inbreeding of fish is as ridiculous as inbreeding of people. There are modern ideas that are being implemented. such as wild broodstock hatchery programs, that collect wild eggs, and increase the wild populations. Anyone heard of other types of modern hatchery practices. When I was out at the Imnaha a couple of years ago I noticed their weir system for wild broodstock collection. Also, according to Wa F&W there is an operating wild broodstock system on the kalama.

Interesting analogy, but it would be more accurate to characterize a hatchery strain as say the 'Tacoma Strain' as oppose to the 'Smith Strain', since the original stocks were from entire watersheds as oppose to just a few handfuls of fish. But given the very little influx of new genetic material over the 40 to 50 years that many hatchery stocks have been around, they are indeed less robust--smaller, weaker, lower ocean survival.

But its important to point out that the genetic diversity present in the original stocks are such that they haven't succumbed to disease or the inability to survive in given habitats and conditions. A more accurate analogy would be that we have taken a town of folks and put them on the planet
Hatchery, where they can only reproduce with each other. Eventually they will change from the rest of us 'wild' folks, but die out? Not necessarily.

This is not inbreeding, but selective breeding. In this case, genetic attributes are not being specifically selected, except maybe early return, but dictated by hatchery costs and efficiency. This again makes for a less robust fish. After all, a hatchery on a budget is no substitute for mother nature.

I guess my point is that our hatchery programs are far from perfect (in the genetic sense), but I would certainly not characterize it as 'ridiculous'. The fish our hatcheries produce are not 'inbred' and after 40-50 years of hatchery production, there has yet to be a catastrophic genetic failure that has eliminated a run.

If there were, maybe the State could shake a little more money this way and begin State-wide wild brood stock programs.

thanks for the insightful response. good points!

Howdy Steelhead Addict,
Your mention of W. Virginia reminds me of an artical on an albino strain of rainbows that was developed there when a hatchery worker noticed one albino in a rearing pond. This fish was spawned and wouldn't you know some of its offspring were albino also. Now a large amount of the trout stocked in tailrace fisheries are these fish. The anglers love the fact that they stick out like a sore thumb giving away their location and that of normal colored trout. Pretty fish though.