uh-oh, House Bill 3014 lives!

[Phish_on]

Remember HB 3014 - hatchery fish are wild ?

The committee sent it to the full House, not sure when the vote is ...

(news story) http://www.oregonlive.com/public_life/oregonian/index.ssf?/public_life/orego nian/lc_42fish23.frame (http://www.oregonlive.com/public_life/oregonian/index.ssf?/public_life/oregonian/lc_42fish23.frame)

(text of bill, amendments don't seem to be on-line if there were any) http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/hb3000.dir/hb3014.intro.html

Time to remind your rep if you care.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh! Guess I should read other threads first??? See - "attention"

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: Phish_on ]

[Firedog]

Ok Just to play devils advocate here for a min. Why is letting hatchery salmon and steelhead spawn a problem. They were
allowed to spawn for years before. There are very few truly native runs left because of this. The gene pool that once was our
native runs is gone.There are a couple of rivers that still have pure native runs like the salmonberry and it is a strong run. A lot of
rivers had heavy hatchery runs that spawned every year, the fish they resulted in are now considered natives because they were
born in the river. just thought I would look at the other side for a min.

[finclipped]

Firedog, at times this has been a very heated topic on this board. I am pro-native fish.

Studies have found, native fish are better suited to spawn and propogate their own species better than a hatchery fish. I am sure this is going to open a huge can of worms, but the bottom line is I have heard both sides and I based on what I have seen/heard native runs have better chance of propagating their species than hatchery fish. Here are a couple problems as I see with hatchery fish:

1.) Hatchery fish by-bass the natural selection process. Thus can pass on inferior genes that would have otherwise been killed them in the wild.
2.) Hatchery fish are less successful at spawning and some studies suggest that Wild fish prefer to spawn with other wild fish.
3.) Hatchery fish carry deseases not seen in the wild.
4.) Wild smolts return to their rivers at a much higher rate than hatchery fish. (Better suited)
5.) There are still viable native runs that are genetically seperate from hatchery runs. They should be preserved.
6.) Both the states and Feds have concluded the Wild stocks need ESA protection, thus there biologists have concluded there is a difference. (Lets face it, they carry the biggest stick.)
7.) Some hatchery stocks have used "out of basin" which weakens the ability of the fish to survive.


Having said that, without hatchery's I wouldn't have any thing to bring home. I don't think the difference between Hatchery and wild is huge, but my preference is to have a stronger wild run and smaller supplements of hatchery. (We have almost replaced the wild fish with hatchery's. Hatchery returns should continue to be clubbed to death and deposited in the river as food for wild smolts.

[Firedog]

Finclipped, I agree with what you have to say and I also am very pro native run. Would suit me just fine to have strong native runs and no hatchery fish even if that meant I didnt get to bring any home. Would miss that dinner once in awhile but I fish for fun not food.I just wanted to get the other side out in debate and see some differing views.

[Phish_on]

Who is more qualified to manage fisheries ? Biologists or politicians ?

[Deleted User]

There is no way this bill should pass. Hatchery fish are genetically inferior in every way. To let them mingle with native runs would be a disaster in monumental proportions. Take a look at the Alsea strain of winter hatchery steelhead and compare them to the native runs, there is no comparision. This bill is just an easy out and simplistic solution! It would gut the ESA status of our wild fish runs.
Stew

Join NW Steelheaders

[birdhunter]

Hatchery fish are genetically inferior in every way????!!!!

Oh Bigstew, why did you have to say that? Now I feel like I have to weigh in on this issue. I've kept quiet all day, but this is too much.

Disclaimer: I would be probably the first one to say that this bill shouldn't pass. All hatchery fish should be finclipped!! We are already implementing brood-stock programs and developing our fry plants. This bill is nothing but politics!

With that said, what I really really really have a problem with is the constant references to hatchery fish being inferior. Genetically or otherwise, it hasn't been scientifically proven!! There are recognizable differences between strains of fish, but you have to also realize that hatchery fish have been mingling with "native" runs in Oregon for decades now. Can you think of a river system left in the state that hasn't had a hatchery influence in it? Don't forget that returning hatchery fish have a stray rate of around 10%. For years none of those fish were fin-clipped and there was no reliable way to tell the difference. The sad truth is that we don't have any truly "native" fish left. That doesn't mean we can't save our "wild" fish however.

Fin-clipped brings up some excellent excellent points that I completely agree with. However the problem points to the hatchery practices and not the hatchery fish. I don't have time to write a lot more about this so I'll cut and paste from a previous post on this same bill and respond more later.

Okay, as far as the whole genetic differences between wild and hatchery fish are concerned, the problem is exagerated. I don't know exactly to what extent, but I have to say that the scientist are making this into more of a apocalyptical situation than it really is. Bottom line is that hatchery fish and wild fish are genetically different because hatchery practices inadvertantly select for fish that are better suited for hatchery life. This does not mean that they do not survive in the wild. Obviously these fish do in enough numbers to come back and "neccesitate" clubbing. Inferior (are you listening Bill Bakke or Jim Myron?) is not a good word to use when describing hatchery fish.

Let me just give you an idea of one particular study that I have been tearing apart lately. This is an undergraduate thesis that I have seen cited before which supposedly proves that there are differences between hatchery and wild chinook salmon. While I agree with the conclusions that wild and hatchery fish possess genetic differences, I strongly disagree with the methods used to collect the data and the analysis.

First of all, the thesis explores "patterns of genetic inheritance and variation through otogeny for hatchery and wild stocks of chinook salmon". This means that they look at 9 biochemical traits, or allele frequencies in this case, and 12 meristic (essentially physical) traits in fry, smolts and adult wild and hatchery salmon from the Lewis river and Abernathy Creek. After about 50 pages of waxing and waning, the author comes to the conclusion that hatchery and wild fish are different because he found differences in some of these traits. He does not guess as to what these differences may mean, but instead decides that since hatchery fish are different from their wild counterparts, they must be inferior.

Now then, as I have said many times now, I agree that hatchery fish are genetically different from wild fish. Current hatchery practices essentially ensure that this will happen. I do NOT agree with his conclusion that these traits are necessarily inferior or that they are as different as he claimed. There are many flaws in this type of study and I will explain why as simply as I can.

First of all, to test the biochemical traits in the fish you need to take tissue samples from the animal. This isn't too much of a problem to find tissue in a smolt or an adult, but when you start looking for liver tissue in a fry, you run into trouble. In a fish that underdeveloped and small it is very very easy to mislabel internal organs. For that reason there will be more genetic differences between the fish in their fry stage because very small and virtually indistinguishable organs have been mistakenly labeled as something else.

This same problem with taking tissue samples also occurs in adults. The tissue samples taken from the hatchery fish were taken immediately after the fish were spawned and killed. This is okay because the tissue is still all very fresh. The wild tissue samples were taken from spawners from the creek and river that he found dead. Now I'm sure all of you know the state of decomposition that an adult salmon is in when it dies. Compound this with several days or even weeks in the water before it was discovered and sampled. There is far far too much enzyme degredation from such a fish for any results to be considered reasonable. Everything is breaking apart and as a result the enzymes will appear radically different than they would have when the fish were alive. This accounts for the "severity" of genetic differences often found between wild and hatchery fish.

There are other problems with the meristic traits too. These traits include counting scales, numbers of rays in the fins and so on. With small fish like fry, it is really too hard to distinguish different ray patterns from others. Same thing with the wild adults, too much decomposition to accurately guage anything.

The numbers of fish used in this study were also too small to be considered reasonable for any survey or study. The hatchery fish used in the study from the Lewis river comprised only 15 in number. The researcher went back the next year and collected another 105 hatchery fish to use for his data. Does anyone else see a problem with this??? Those fish are from different years, different parents and so will invariably be different fish. This study also didn't take into account that salmon all don't come back at the same year and that there is straying. So even among the fish he tested in the same creek, there will be differences.

There are actually a couple more problems with the study, but this is enough for you to get the idea. The study greatly exagerates the differences between wild and hatchery fish because of the above issues I explained. This is the sort of science that some biologist are using to say that hatchery fish are inferior. There are differences, I don't know anyone who would say otherwise, but they are exagerated.

[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[hustlerrjim]

firedog
I have to correct you on the salmonberry being a native fish river
there was a huge hatchery on the salmonberry from 1910 to 1935 they planted millions of steelhead fry in the upper n. fork salmonberry and all through the system
whats the difference between a hatchery fish and a wild fish, it all depends on the interpretation of the observer ,there is no lab test to seperate wild from hatchery fish -for years they been claiming dna tests could tell but i was one of the pioneers with dna testing with acrilimide jell loading and there is no dna test or any oter test to seperate wild from hatchery fish its all observation and the interpretaion

[Hookset]

Great post birdhunter! I really appreciate your in depth understanding on the issues between hatchery and wild stocks.

Personally, I hope fish are co-managed to include both wild and hatchery fish for years to come. It's the best of both worlds and really is sound mangement in the times we live in.

thanks,

hook

[Firedog]

husterlerjim, my mistake on the salmonberry thing, just going on everything I know and have heard about the river. This brings
up the point from other posts that there are no true wild stocks left anymore, haven't been for a lot of years. I grew up fishing
the Kalama and that river was very heavily stocked and the hatchery fish were allowed to intermingle with wild fish up until a
few years back. Now we all now that they spawned together and the so called native fish nowadays more than likely have
hatchery blood from some point in there genetics. Now only "wild" fish are allowed above the upper hatchery, this has severely
limited what if any fishing that goes on in the upper river. They are pros and cons to both sides. I would prefer to have strong native runs and not have to worry about the hatchery issue but at this time it is unrealistic.
[ 05-23-2001: Message edited by: firedog ]

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: firedog ]

[Deleted User]

Good post birdhunter but I would still disagree. First of all just ask the fish biologists at any hatchery, they deal with the hatchery Alsea strain fish all the time. Then explain to me why the native fish are a bigger,for the most part, and heartier fish than the cookie cutter hatchery fish? They fight better too as you probably know. I'm sure these is some "dilution" of the wild and native fish but the current "cookie cutter" hatchery fish are so far removed from their wild roots that the are inferior to anything that would be spawned in the stream. I know of Bill Bakke but did'nt get my opinion from him or anyone else other than those biologists I have talked to, I am capable of forming my own opinion images/icons/rolleyes.gif The wild broodstock program is a huge step in the right direction for a better more "ocean survivable" fish. The return rate for wild broodstock fish would be estimated at between 8-10% while the Alsea strain is estimated at less than 3% so there must be a difference huh?
Stew

[TheRogue]

The Rogue River was heavily "farmed" by R.D. Hume, the "Salmon Baron" from around 1890 to the early 1900's. Millions and millions of Lower Columbia stock chinook eggs were raised and hatched and distributed into the Rogue, to supplement the native stock. These Lower Columbia stock were longer and leaner, with a lower fat content than the Rogue fish, which tended to be short and fat.

If you fish the Rogue long enough (born and raised there), especially for the springers, you'll notice a distinct difference in some of the fish. Some are long and "muscular", some are what we always called "Rogue River Footballs". It's obvious that even with the incredible amount of hatchery fish that have been poured into that system, there is still some sort of genetic difference between the two strains of fish. It's obvious that neither strain is "inferior", but there is a difference.

Now steelhead are obviously different. More fragile in some ways than salmon, more prone to genetic problems, as some would say. The Alsea strain of steelhead, planted on darn near every river on the west coast at one time or another, may seem to be "inferior" to what is obviously the "native" stock for a river. But are the Alsea fish really genetically "inferior"?? Nope, I submit that they are just not adapted to that specific river. And by just collecting and utililizing those returning hatchery fish every year, the strain isn't allowed to adapt to the specific river.

Look what's happening with the broodstock programs, on the Coquille in Southern Oregon for quite a few years, the Siletz, some Washington rivers, and now beginning on the Wilson. By many people's definition, these fish are "inferior" because the natural process has been supplemented by man's interference. But in reality, it has supplemented the strains in each individual river with it's own fish.

Should the Alsea strain be eliminated from other river hatcheries?? Yup, but do so by a change-over process which integrates the "native" strain.

As long as the wild stocks are not "healthy", hatchery(broodstock) fish can and should be utilized and FINCLIPPED to provide harvest numbers for sportsmen, as well as to supplement and maintain native strain numbers. Allow the natural spawning of as many supplement fish as necessary to maintain a healthy "native" stock. Kill the rest of the supplement fish, and fill the rivers with their carcasses.

Sorry I rambled on.

T.R.

[Hoosier Daddy]

First off, good post up there BH.
Second, BIGSTEW. I would agree with you if you inserted the words "usually" or "generally" in your statement about hatchery fish being inferior to wild fish. Following is the one catch-all statement I believe to be false -- _______is always _____ all the time. You can insert pretty much whatever words you want in the blanks and it still works.
Phish_on: way to boil it down for us!

This is the crux of the matter. If fishermen and biologists can't agree on what makes a wild fish and hatchery fish different, or what the importance of those differences are, why in God's name would you want politicians, some of whom have never seen a fish, to make that call? First off, they can't; they aren't qualified to make that kind of call. Some of them may be fishermen, and may have some background to draw on, but not all. Second, if this bill passes, it WILL get Oregon in BIG trouble with the feds, they have already said so about similar efforts in Washington. Do you want your fisheries to be even more restrictive and convoluted than they already are? I don't . Thirdly, firedog was right on. I would say the majority of this effort is strictly to try to get Oregon out from under the ESA, so businesses and farms, and whoever else, can go back to business as usual. I don't mean this as a slam against the businesses and farms either. But if we try to skate past these federal laws through the efforts of a few power hungry legislators, WE WILL PAY FOR IT. One way or another, it will bite us in the ass, bigger than Dallas. And I can guarantee you it won't be the legislators that get bit, it will be the people of the state of Oregon, mostly the fishermen.
Done.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]

[birdhunter]

Bigstew, I did not mean to insinuate that you were taking your opinions from Bill Bakke. As I'm sure you and I both know he is not the kind of spokesman sportsmen want. I completely agree with you that the wild broodstock program is a step in the right direction, but hatchery programs still need to change.

I don't know anyone who would disagree with you that wild fish return in a higher percentage than hatchery fish, but the number in current literature are somewhere around 7% for hatchery and 10% for wild. Keep in mind however, only 5% of wild fry even survive to travel to the ocean while 95% of hatchery fish do. These numbers have more to do with the lack of natural selection that occurs in hatcheries than the "genetic inferiority" of hatchery fish. The hightest mortality in all salmonid species is in the fry stage. Hatchery smolts are protected during this forative time so there is very high mortality to the smolts upon release. Those that make it to the ocean generally have very high survivorship and make it back to spawn.

As far as your response about cookie-cutter fish being inferior, TheRogue hit it right on with his post. It is a little simplified, but I think he does a good job of expressing the basic principle behind specific adaptation of salmonids to their home river:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The Alsea strain of steelhead, planted on darn near every river on the west coast at one time or another, may seem to be "inferior" to what is obviously the "native" stock for a river. But are the Alsea fish really genetically "inferior"?? Nope, I submit that they are just not adapted to that specific river. And by just collecting and utililizing those returning hatchery fish every year, the strain isn't allowed to adapt to the specific river.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree that hatchery fish are not the best suited fish to start a breeding program with. But that is not their intended purpose. They are bred to provide harvest for fishermen. In that respect many of the traits we consider inferior are actually beneficial. Take for example the early return times of many hatchery runs. These fish return at a time where their fry would be less likely to survive. This is due to hatcheries using the earliest returning fish of every subsequent generation. While these fish are not suited for highly successful breeding, they are seperated from wild fish enough to allow anglers to focus on them during the peak of their run with less risk of hooking a wild fish. This also helps keep hatchery and wild fish from interbreeding. They can't spawn together if they are not in the system together.

What hatcheries have designed fish for is to provide harvest for anglers. In that respect they have succeeded. Now that we are becoming more aware of the complicated role salmonids play in the ecosystem of our rivers, we are converting our efforts to restoring wild runs of fish. Brood-stocks and fry plants will be the way to go. It's not the hatchery fish but the hatchery practices that need to be changed.

[Phish_on]

But ... does anyone have an opinion? Here is a link to the current version of the bill.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/hb3000.dir/hb3014.a.html

It's different but still more or less EVIL

[Deleted User]

I'm not talking about when the fish return or hatchery managmement I'm talking about the genetic differance between the two. Would'nt every agree that the hatchery fish is an inferior fish? FOR THE MOST PART You would have to! Yes I would agree it's good hatchery practices to have the early returning hatchery fish come into the river so as not to intermingle with the natives who return later. But it sounds like some people consider them almost an equal, I think they are far from it. According to the fish biologist on the Cedar Creek hatchery on the Nestucca their Alsea strain of fish are inferior. The hatchery fish serve their purpose for sure and I enjoy catching and keeping them but in my book the wild Wilson river fish I caught and released were a superior fish hands down.
Birdhunter you may know the answer to this better than me but I understand the fish biologist really don't know how many if any hatchery steelhead spawn with wild fish. I'm sure if they don't know some politician does not know either. This whole bill #3014 smells to me like a way to gut the ESA.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Phish_on:
I hadn't read the "new" version, so thanks for posting it. Guess now I have to write more letters. First off, I would really like to know what the "specified conditions" they are talking about raising fish in are. My guess is they aren't very specified at all. Secondly, (and I am not a tribal basher), this new provision that says only hatcheries co-managed with the tribes don't have to clip fish, but harvest is still restricted to clipped fish, is a little troublesome. So this would mean that all the fish that get raised at Umatilla Hatchery, for example, would be unavailable for harvest by non-tribal fishers? Hmmm. State tax and license money is used for these hatcheries (I believe) as well as cooperative funds from the feds, but now Oregon fishermen will not be able to harvest these fish? Nice. How again is this supposed to help?

Finally, I guess I just have trouble with the whole concept here. This is another attempt by people who don't know what they are doing to make things seem simpler than they are. Yes, in a lot of cases, broodstock based programs are more "successful" (at least in smolt-to-adult survival) than traditional programs. However, as I have said before, the one always false statement is _______is always _______ all the time. In this case you can insert broodstock hatcheries. While it may be a better way to go in some, or even most, cases, it WILL NOT work EVERYWHERE. Therefore, REQUIRING it to be done EVERYWHERE is a bad idea. If you want to require testing and research to see if it will work with each hatchery, fine. Probably a good idea. But a blanket statement saying basically, "You dummies, this is the way to go, says us, and this is what you are going to do" is a VERY bad idea. Lets pass a bill requiring test raising of broodstock-based fish for each hatchery in Oregon individually, say for two or three small releases (of sufficient size to get returns), compare the smolt-to-adult return rates with the same hatchery's traditionally-raised fish from the same years. If the broodstock-based fish do better, then use them, if not, do something else, or stick with what works.
Another thing, just semantics, I don't believe we have enough "wild" fish to do this with in the first place. But I guess the "new" definition of "wild" given to us by the legislature will take care of that, huh? Thanks guys, you are doing a bang up job. Losers. (Hey, at least I'm not bitter and close-minded!!) images/icons/wink.gif

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]
images/icons/mad.gif

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]

[Hoosier Daddy]

I suspect that those that favor it could come up with a few places as examples of positive results, but none for negatives. I know of a couple of streams in Idaho where total returns went down quite a bit after a switch to local broodstock only.

[DanS]

From The Rogue:

"But are the Alsea fish really genetically "inferior"?? Nope, I submit that they are just not adapted to that specific river. "

This is the whole point. A "native" fish's genes reflect the system in which they live. They have been genetically "engineered" to have physical traits that will maximize their ability to survive in THAT particular system. With that in mind, hatchery fish ARE inferior because their genes make them more likely to survive in THEIR system of origin, not where we decided to plant them.

A 7% return on hatchery fish? Where? I'd like to see those statistics becauses NONE of the systems I fish have gotten a return like that from their hatchery stocks.

Can someone post a link to info on gentic "dilution" by hatchery fish? An article I read in STS recently on the Kalama river stated that even though hatchery fish had been present in the system for decades, the genetic material of their natives was largely unaffected. I'd like to read more on this subject, anybody have a suggestion for reading material?

Wildlife management via politics is a dangerous thing, but if the politicos want to ban nets, then I'm all for it (call me 'hypocrite'). images/icons/grin.gif

[ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: DanS ]

[birdhunter]

DanS,
The number 7% for returning hatchery fish is taken from Dr. Barbara Shields at OSU. She is a fisheries geneticist here on campus and a wonderful lady. I have had the pleasure to talk and deabate with her for a long time. In my research on hatcheries in the state I have found that number to be very reflective for rivers in Oregon. It may very well be different in Washington, but as an average 7% is an acceptable number. Some systems get more and some get less. Maybe you're just fishing the wrong ones. images/icons/wink.gif

You want to hear about the dillution of "native" fish or bash hatcheries then go to Bill Bakke's site for the Native Fish Society or check out Trout Unlimited. I'm sure there is plenty of propoganda and skewed facts there to satisfy even the most zealous salmon clubbers. Remember though Mark Twain once said, "there are three kinds of lies in this world: lies, damn lies and statistics."

(and yes you can apply that quote to me if so inclined)

[Deleted User]

I would agree 'nookie. The broodstock program may not be for every river and we do need the hatchery runs until that fact can be established if it ever can for that matter.
This bill seems to be an attempt at a quick fix but the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I would be interested in knowing the figures from the rivers here the broodstock program has been in effect for a few years....does anyone know? I know this is an effort to thwart this program on the Nestucca river and maybe Marty Peterson can fill us in on that.
Stew