Wilson River summer steelhead hatchery plants

[Deleted User]

In 1999 there were only 15,921 summer steelhead smolt released into the Wilson River! At 1 to 3% estimated returns that around 500 returning fish at best! Am I missing something here? That seems like not very many fish coming back next year. Can anyone shed any light on this?
Stew

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

As I understand it ODFW was forced to reduce hatchery plantings of all salmonid species on this and other rivers to fall within guidelines set by NMFS. NMFS wanted to reduce the negative impacts to the diminished wild run of winter steelhead that large plantings of out of basin or non-indigenous salmonids could create. Besides high stray rates that can cause genetic homogenization large plantings of hatchery smolts have been found to out compete wild smolts by shear numbers for food in the river estuary. Historically dumping 50 or 100 thousand hatchery smolts in most rivers would yield low adult returns (one half to one percent). New data suggests that smaller releases with better release timing will increase survival to 3 percent or so.

I would like to see hatchery plantings reduced further with more emphasis placed on estuary habitat improvement, rearing habitat improvement, and nutrient loading to increase the productivity of our rivers. I realize this may not be a popular view but I feel it is time the local people be allowed to make their rivers as productive as possible and not let the hatchery manager decide for them.

*** Clerk

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the reply ***. First of all there are no native summer run steelhead in the Wilson that I or anyone I've talked to know of. These plants are more than likely Siletz strain and do not propagate themselves. They are not harvested for eggs and if they are spawning in the wild,which is doubtful,their offsrpings do not make it back.
Secondly the hatchery spawning with wild fish is a theory only. Nothing conclusive has been proven.
Stew

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Correct, summer-steelhead are not indigenous to the Wilson River to my knowledge. However the out-migration timing of the summer steelhead may, more than likely, overlap with the smolt out-migration of some wild component.

Hatchery spawning with wild fish may not have been proven to a scientific standard but I believe it currently meets the “preponderance of the evidence” criteria.

If the river estuary only has a fixed amount of food tossing in more smolts, regardless of return timing, will more than likely stress an already precarious ecosystem.

*** Clerk

[Deleted User]

The native run this past winter on the Wilson was extremely heatlthy so the summer run smolts had no effect on them that I can see. As for the hatchery spawning with wild fish preponderance of evidence I would like to see that evidence.
Stew

[SSPey]

There is, to my knowledge, little or no data to support the contention that productivity is nutrient limited in coastal Oregon streams and estuaries. These streams have exceptionally high P loading from basalt weathering, and high N from red alder N2 fixation. There is a real case to be made for possible light limitation of algal (and secondary) growth, and this distinguishes OR coast streams from streams in BC, which are comparatively nutrient poor. OR stream productivity is most likely organic matter limited (food limited, e.g. salmon carcasses) which provide a very different nutritional role than nutrients for aquatic food webs.

ooohh, I like this. images/icons/cool.gif

[First Bite]

*** Clerk
It sounds like you have some good knowledge on this subject...thanks for sharing your information. Do you know for a fact if the ODFW has also decreased the amount of hatchery winter steelhead smolts also? The reason I ask is it appeared the numbers of hatchery winter steelhead were noticeably lower then previous years too. Do you know where someone could find out more information on this subject?
Mark

[Grant Scheele]

By preponderance of evidence do you mean every river on the West coast that has ever received a hatchery plant has has had tremendous reduction in native returns and whenever a hatchery program ceases (ie:Summer Steelhead above the Siletz Falls 5 years ago) it's native return increases 10 fold. Is that what you mean by preponderance of evidence?

Last week I went to a meeting put on by the biologists that run the hatchery programs on the Siletz and they showed us the data to back what I just wrote. In fact data showed that before the introduction of hatchery fish to the Siletz system a healthy native run kicked out more fish than we get to keep today.

[Deleted User]

Pretty good argument but the evidence of wild and hatchery spawning and having offsprings who actually return is inconclusive.Could you send me a copy of the stuff you were talking about.
Stew

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: BIGSTEW ]

[Grant Scheele]

The only graph that I could get a hold of was the pre hatchery day catches and the 90s hatchery catches. I have a scanner so I bet that if I tried I could figure out a way to send it.

[Gone Fishin]

Stew,
One of the reasons the numbers were down was due to the fact that birds got a big portion of the smolts at the hatchery thus, not as many fish in the pond. (Are ya out there Joe?)

Another reason is the acclimation pond at Hughey Creek was down due to an error by some unnammed district STEP biologist.

Just thought I'd help shed some light.

[First Bite]

Hey Marty, How's it going? Do you know how many hatchery smolts were dumped into the Nestucca in 1999. It seems that the Stucca has a good return of hatchery summer steelhead this year. Also did the Wilson hatchery smolt numbers increase for the year 2000 and 2001 or did they go to the birds?
Mark

[SSPey]

Just a word of caution that most of you are probably already aware of. There are lots of factors that determine run strength, including the general health of the watershed and ocean conditions. Why are we seeing such great runs of coho this year? And chinook? And steelhead? Better ocean conditions most likely, not a change in stocking programs or drastic improvement in watershed health. The same can be said for periods in the past, especially through the period centered around the 1960's, when hatchery programs "appeared" to be so successful because runs were strong - they just happened to dump hatchery smolts during a time when ocean conditions were quite favorable and it seemed like they were getting direct payoff from hatchery smolt planting - but they weren't - it was luck. With a downturn of ocean conditions during the 1970's (starting in 1976) and through the 1980's, and mismanagement of watersheds through excessive logging, plus potential cumulative impacts of hatchery fish on native gene pools, things crashed and left us wondering what hatcheries had to do with it. In truth, fish returns for many species don't follow smolt production rates at all - they are tied to ocean conditions. With the recent upturn of ocean conditions, we will now have a chance to see if the other pieces of the puzzle are in place enough to ensure strong runs.

the moral of the story? the data just ain't that simple to compare pre and post hatchery runs on any river.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Pretty good dialogue so far. Bigstew, you and *** are both right. My take is that some wild fish do spawn with hatcheries, and some don't, depends on the fish and the system. However, rather than trying to prove that wild fish DO spawn with hatchery fish, it would be more an issue of trying to prove that they DON'T. It's a fine point, but there isn't any scientific evidence to support this view either.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: chnookie ]

[Grant Scheele]

If it is just ocean conditions, then native returns should go up when conditions are favorable, correct?

The new broodstock program on the Siletz appears to be doing great. With your theory, I am to believe that ocean conditions are strong(true)and that the native run that used to begin entering the river in mid November and peaked in December should be there(false). Those December fish are virtually gone and over 40 years of December returning hatchery fish are to blame.

There is only a small healthy run that enters in February and peaks in March and now we are planting hatchery fish(native Broodstock)right on top of them. When will we learn?

The biologists running the program convinced me that even though they are a genetically identical fish, the process of captureing,rearing and releasing them creates a non-native species that will eventually destroy the native run.

They also convinced me that if we put our money into habitat restoration instead of hatcheries we could have a sustainable harvest of native Steelhead better that we harvest hatchery today.

I am only familar with the Siletz but I bet the same story can be told up and down the coast. Can any old timers out there tell us about some great native fisheries that they used to fish that are no longer there even though ocean conditions are great?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Wow

There appears to be some very savvy people responding in this thread. Lets see where do I start…

The “preponderance of the evidence” regarding genetic mixing of hatchery and wild is my personal criteria for believing if it can occur. Mitochondrial DNA testing done in Washington State indicates that it has occurred to some degree in some systems. As to the original question I was responding to, large numbers of hatchery strays can also reduce the size of the wild run by interbreeding with wild fish and producing offspring that are less than ideal for survival in the wild. Where wild-wild mating may produce 3 or 4 returning adults per coupling, a wild-hatchery mating may only produce 0.5 to 1 returning adults.

Floatnfish

I am impressed with your knowledge of nutrient loading, however, when I speak of nutrient loading I am also referring to the organic forms of Phosphorus and Nitrogen. There are literally hundreds of ways to measure phosphorus but what agencies like DEQ are interested in is phosphate not elemental phosphorus. Phosphate (PO4) has two basic classifications- that which is bound up in organic material (fish chunks – bugs) and that which is free or dissolved PO4. Dissolved ortho-phosphorus can bind itself to soil particles but it is the free PO4 that most agencies measure because of problems it can cause with excessive algal growth. You are very correct about there being a difference between British Columbia and Oregon’s levels of PO4. It seems you too have read the Keough (sp) River study. But as you noted Oregon could benefit from higher amounts of organic materials. It is a pity that DEQ does not measure the amount of Marine Derived Nutrients or MDN. In several studies done in Alaska it was determined by measuring strontium levels in the tissue of salmonid smolts that as much as 80 percent of the organic nutrients that comprised the smolts body originated from the ocean. There is a study done by Jeff Cedarholm that explains how important spawning salmon and their carcasses are in providing organic nutrients for river and estuarine ecosystems. (of course I can’t find the link this minute)

As to your post regarding the ocean conditions fluctuating from good to bad, it is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or PDO. You are very correct how it controls the overall size of the salmon runs and not hatcheries. Nathan Mantua is the person to talk to regarding this subject. He posts at piscatorial pursuits and is always happy to discus this topic. As to what causes the PDO he indicated last week that it looks like it may be the manifestation of a feed back loop in ocean and climate conditions. ( I think it is somehow connected to the solar cycle but that’s a guess)

O.mykiss
It seems you and I believe that hatcheries are not what they seem to be. Although evidence like the steelhead above Siletz falls is anecdotal, I also believe that important lessons can be learned. Convincing everyone that hatcheries reduce the number of returning fish in the long run is going to be a hard sell but keep the flags of discontent flying, some are starting to listen. I did not get to attend the meeting in Newport but I did get a blow by blow regarding Bob Buckman’s presentation. Good news about the Cormorants and smolt predation. I was told that he mentioned a historical stray rate of hatchery fish on the Siletz as high as 60 percent, kind of contrary to the Siletz Basin Plan huh?


Big Stew

Genetic study - Gharrett, et al, 1999: The results of this study document the occurrence of outbreeding depression in salmon. These results suggest that persistent introgression of non-native genetic material has the potential to erode production and recovery. Such erosion may occur when genes of hatchery fish introgress into wild populations, particularly when hatchery stocks are derived from sources remote from the local population. (cut-n-paste)

*** Clerk

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Krome Brite]

Is 1-3% return average for most rivers? I heard somewhere it was less than 1% on most rivers, nowadays.

[Deleted User]

I'm impressed with the information that has come from this post you guys are great! So what is the solution? I'm convinced that hatchery vs wild genetics are a no brainer and we absolutely want to restore the native runs BUT what is the first step? Close all hatcheries right now? what does that do to the revenue generated from the sale of licenses and tags? You know there is going to be a series of down years while we wait for native runs to return. A lot of disinterested anglers are going to figure why bother if there are no hatchery fish to catch? I could forsee a gradual weaning away from such a heavy dependence on hatchery fish but it couldn't and shouldn't all come at once. The best thing to do is get involved in some sort of organization or group that advocates habitat enhancement. Here is another factor in all of this. What about tribal netting? Do you think they will stop while the native runs are in the process of making a come back? Doubtful
Stew

[Grant Scheele]

Bigstew, that is the $64 dollar question. It is just not feasable to just shut down all hatchery programs for the reasons you just named. I think a slow change makes the most sense as long as we all agree what the final goal is. I hope we are doing the right thing.

[Deleted User]

I agree 'Kiss. An educated public would be the first step.
Stew

[Deleted User]

Thanks for all the great info *** and others. Mark, 'Stew, and I wittnessed a very low return of hatchery winter steelhead on the Wilson this past season (as was reported about a lot of rivers region wide - despite the upturn in ocean survival rates). Then we experienced a great return of wild winter steelhead on the Wilson during the later C&R fishing we enjoyed. Following that we now have seen a lower return of hatchery summers in the Wilson; although not quite the 'crash' wittnessed of the winter fish. This has all occured during the last couple years of much better ocean survival rates that have lead to record runs of springers and coho and many runs of various wild fish as well. Without investigating the Wilson situation, my guess to Mark and 'Stew as to the reason was what *** has eluded to - the NMFS mandates to the states to lower hatchery smolt plantings in attempt to help increase the survival rates of wild fish; as per requirement of the Fed. ESA. This is acceptable except for one big factor - the ODFW (likely the WDFW too) did not publicize this to the fishing public because they didn't want to lose license revenue due to anglers learning of less meat to catch. I personally wouldn't mind seeing less anglers out there due to less meat availability - that's why I love the later native C&R season so much better than the early season crowds. But in fairness to those spending money on license and other fishing related heavy expenses, the significant reduction of hatchery plantings should have been more publicized and defended. They have the Oregonian and local TV news media for this purpose. There were a heck of a lot of guys spending a heck of a lot of money and taking days off from work to fish on greatly reduced stocks that were not told about this. images/icons/rolleyes.gif ...

As for the future of steelhead harvest, the shorter term answer still seemingly is the broodstock programs, wherein the indigenous genetics of hatchery aided propagation is kept more pure to separate rivers. The Wilson broods haven't made as good of a return yet as coastal rivers to the south of it. I hope to see a stronger return of Wilson winter broods in the years to come. We sure have the right ocean conditions currently. But where does this scenario leave the status of north coastal summer steelhead runs in the Wilson, Trask, Nestucca, Siletz, and Alsea?!? It would be a tough deal to lose those summer fisheries! I would like to see more studies on the actual impact of summer hatchery smolts on winter native runs before it's tossed down the drain.

RT

[Deleted User]

A note on hatchery fish. I was recently at the Bonneville dam fish viewing room and there was a real glut of hatchery summer steelhead going upstream. What intrigued me was the "cookie-cutter" hatchery fish that were present. They would move through the ladder in groups of 12-15 at a time but were almost all uniform in size. The sporadic lone natives would varie a lot in size and never seemed to group together like the hatchery fish did. Of course to my eye they were a more robust looking fish also. Anyone interested in this should by all means check out the fish viewing opportunities on both sides of the Columbia.
Stew

[hustlerrjim]

*** clerk ,looks like you brought all the bar stool biologiist out-- for starters i would like to find the imformatin you stated about differentiation of wid fish vs hatchery fish using dna tests.I am very familiar with dna and i have not heard of this test,please send the imfo.

[SSPey]

*** clerk,

Thanks for the great info. So some small clarifications to what you wrote, and one very large caveat, on nutrients, how they are measured, and what they tell us. I live breath and eat this stuff (call me Dr. Floatnfish if you like, though I like to keep classes informal).

First the small stuff. Your descriptions of Phosphorus have some very minor errors that I'll try to clarify. Phosphate is phosphate, there is only one form (PO4---), and it does sorb (stick) to mineral surfaces . The current colorimetric techniques favored by most labs take a water sample, filter it, and actually measure soluble reactive P (SRP) instead of phosphate. SRP is an operationally defined fraction that includes dissolved phosphate but also inadvertently includes some organic forms of P that get solublized by the Mo-Blue reaction. THe only way to measure true dissolved phosphate (PO4---) is with an ion chromatograph - but no one does it, too expensive, and SRP is close enough and quite useful. I think that when you talked of "fish chunks" you must have been referring to either total phosphorus (persulfate digested P, unfiltered, to break down particulate forms) or another form called dissolved organic P that is measured (operationally again) as Filtered total persulfate digested P minus SRP.

Now onto strontium. Can you please provide a reference for this AK work? Here is the major caveat I mentioned - exactly how close to the ocean was the watershed in which these smolts were collected? I ask this because a watershed that is anywhere near the coast - and AK has a lot of coastal watersheds - will necessarily have an oceanic Sr isotope signature because the Sr in rain, fog, and snow also originates from the ocean (that is, an 87/86Sr isotope ratio approaching 0.7092, the global ocean average). The nutrients in rain get taken up by trees and enters the food webs. SInce aquatic productivity in coastal Pacific streams is fueled overwhelmingly by terrestrial sources of nutrients and organic matter (not fueled by algae, the streams are too dark), this oceanic Sr signature can and does enter aquatic food webs from recycling of nutrients in rain. Here is the crux - there is no way to distintuish between Sr delivered from returning salmon carcasses vs. that from rain, fog, and snow.

SO why do Siletz biologists insist on sticking to their hatchery (oops, I mean broodstock) programs if they are failing? Is that not an ESA violation?

[Grant Scheele]

Right now the broodstock program is considered successful but the biologists don't think that it will last. If were up to the Siletz biologists they would can the project right now. The uproar that followed would have them canned right with the broodstock fish.

Their bosses are all very political people and when the public gets upset politicians have to have someone be the scapegoat and the biologist know it would be them. Right now they are slowly trying to bring the public around to the possibilities of having a sustainable native kill fishery without hatchery fish. I think that I am trying to help their cause as I really believe in it.

[Salmonator]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by O.Mykiss:
There is only a small healthy run that enters in February and peaks in March and now we are planting hatchery fish(native Broodstock)right on top of them. When will we learn?

The biologists running the program convinced me that even though they are a genetically identical fish, the process of captureing,rearing and releasing them creates a non-native species that will eventually destroy the native run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grant, knowing how you used to back the broodstock program I would now like to know how they convinced you so strongly that these broodstock fish will destroy the native run. Please share with the class! I think it's going to take some documented info to change peoples views on these hatchery practices, especially the ones that (at least on paper) make sense.

Skinny Alsea inbred fish that fight like a half frozen carp makes no sense to me. Thick, healthy Siletz broodstock fish makes much more sense. This is just an ignorant fishermans take on the subject. I think ODF had better start distributing info to licensed fishermen about the direction they're going to take and exactly what proof they have documented to show why they need to do it. I think it will make the pill a whole lot easier to swallow for everybody... Joe

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[Deleted User]

I side with you Sal, for the time being on the broodstock program. ...

And Floatnfish, that was exactly what I was going to post back to ***. images/icons/grin.gif Not. ... But since you get off on what Jim refers to as "armchair biology" I will try to get you excited with this very pertinent info that could have big implications for what we are discussing in this thread:

And these guys aren't "armchair"! ... In the most up to date study of the strontium factor in juvenile and adult anadromous salmonids (U. of M. fish scientists Kennedy, Klaue, and Blum), they have developed a method allowing for reconstruction of the environmental history of individual salmon and identify the juvenile habitat of an adult fish returning from the ocean to spawn. This will have major positive ramifications for bios and fishers. What they found is that the elemental strontium, so common to bedrock spawning streams they spawn in, accumulates in the bony tissues of salmon and steelhead and leaves a specific chemical signature. It was determined that this will likely reveal whether certain rivers or tributaries produce fish that are more likely to survive their time in the ocean and successfully make it back to spawn in the stream where they were hatched - wild or planted. This will be far superior to current methods of tracing fish movements and successes, and very pertinent toward answering Q's brought forth in this thread. This has major implications, so says Fishery Newswire and NSIA. ...

Says researcher Kennedy, "It's a natural tag. In addtion to linking adult fish to their juvenile stream, now we can look at juvenile movements between streams, so it gives us a really good indication of where they are spending their juvenile phase." ... I would think this will shed valuable light on how Wilson R. summer steelhead hatchery smolts are affecting Wilson R. winter steelhead wild juveniles!

At a given area in a watershed, strontium isotope ratios are very stable, and that will add to the credence of this new methodology. These ratios and other info are stored in the bony tissue near the fish's brain, called otoliths. Kennedy also says, "The great thing about this is the chemical information is laid down in the otoliths on a daily basis, and they can be 'read' much like tree rings are, but on an even finer scale." ...

Knowing which rivers produce salmon and steelhead that successfully make the round trip to sea and back will enable specific river habitats to be targeted for protection and should provide valuable information where to release hatchery fish, and how regional restoration efforts (which would certainly include our north coast broodstock program) are influencing adult survival. Kennedy claims this will be very useful for distinguishing fish populations in both wild and managed settings. ...

Voila! This sounds like it could answer many of the questions about our coastal dilemas in Oregon. I hope ODFW bios are aware of this study. I will look into whether it has been forwarded to them. ...

Also in the meantime, since several STS issues ago when Frank Amato revealed that recent studies have shown how very valuable tossing hatchery salmon carcasses in upper river watersheds is, many organized efforts have been ongoing to do this for our regional rivers - including last fall's ifish group effort on the upper Trask R. system. ...

BTW, what in the he!! is phosphate po4? images/icons/smile.gif Is that partly what I am throwing into the river in the form of frozen hatchery coho carcasses during these programs?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

It is late but I will try to respond to everyone

Krome Bright

The ten-year smolt survival average for coastal hatcheries is less than 1 percent. Last years data combined with this year’s data should push the rate up to 3 percent. I find it significant but statistically 3 and 5 year averages are better.

Hustlerrjim

One study I can remember is Reisenbichler and Phelps (1987)
They collected samples from four rivers on the northern coast of Washington and found what they considered minimal mixing of hatchery and wild. I was told that samples they used dated back as far as the early 80’s and that was why significant statistical variation was noted beyween hatchery and wild. I seem to remember a later paper that used data from newer samples found less variation but was then misinterpreted by Mr. Greer when he wrote one of his reports to the commission (that’s when I first took notice). It has been a while and the memory fades.

The other that jumps to mind is Utter et al. (1995) I believe it concluded that there was little genetic variation between hatchery fall Chinook and wild on the Columbia. To my knowledge the broodstock was of dubious origin and not a native broodstock.


Floatnfish

I like you already, but, hyper technical as you are you must realize this is a fishing BB and I did not feel that you and I needed to bore everyone out of they gourd. Having said that it seems you approach these measurements from a chemists point of view were I look at it from a water quality reporting angle. Phosphate is phosphate but how it manifests itself in an ecosystem is important enough that it is measured separately. Have you ever seen water quality data from DEQ and in what forms they measure ortho-phosphorus?

As to the strontium. I may have been inaccurate saying strontium. I remember it was and isotopic examination and assumed it was strontium because of all the otolith data I have been reading. If I was wrong I am sorry. It has become way too late to argue anymore, perhaps chnookie could chime in and help out with what is the exact isotope used to measure MDN.

Good night

*** Clerk

[Grant Scheele]

Salmonator, I am not ready to give up on the broodstock fish yet but they won't last forever. The skinny Alsea fish you make fun of used to be thick powerful broodstock fish on the Alsea. Granted the returning fish were bred over and over unlike the Siletz program where they only use native fish. The problem is deeper than I can even begin to try to explain due to the fact I don't completely understand it but I will try to sum it up what I do understand.

The main problem is with the 60% stray rate of the returning hatchery fish that they are most likely spawning on top of and with the natives. The argument might be, "but they are the same fish they just started in concrete" doesn't hold when you find out what the hatcheries have to do to these fish to get them to the river. By the time they are done with them they are just hatchery fish with great bloodlines.

I am going to get a hold of Bob Buckman and see if he will put together a small presentation that I can put on this site. It was his group that sold me on this. To be fair I was halfway there after I read Jim Litchatowich's (sp) book Salmon Without Rivers. Everyone that cares about fishing for these awesome fish should read this book.

[SSPey]

RT and *** -

thanks again for the info. "Kennedy" in the article is a friend of mine - Brian Kennedy. He's working - last I checked - with Atlantic salmon in CT and NH basins. He is looking at how the fish otoliths record the isotope signature of local bedrock, to trace if planted fish from basic "A" survive better than fish planted in basin "B" and to examine inter-basin movement. Cool stuff. but this is different from what *** was talking about. *** suggested (and retracted) using Sr isotopes to record Marine Derived Nutrients, and that simply does not work for near coastal basins, and so I speak up to set the record straight. I am not armchair, guys, this is the research that I do for a living - and I could be teaching it to your kids, so watch out! I speak up and bore people here to clear up misinformation, and so anglers don't go out and tell ODF biologists to do things that will not work.

The best tracing of salmon nutrients - MDN work - is done using multiple stable isotopes of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulphur solved with what are called isotope mixing models. Any work that relies only on one or two of these isotopes is sketchy (depending on the question asked) for reasons that I won't go into here - trust me, it is complicated and would REALLY bore you to death. But I'm not meaning to bore anyone to death, just to disseminate the facts on this technical stuff, because I like fishing and WILD fish, and want ifish anglers to be informed anglers. Much of what I read in STS and on this BB about the role of MDN's in sustaining the health of fish runs is well intended, but let's stick to the facts here - it only helps out case and arguments (notice how I stay out of arguments about genetics? I don't this stuff, so don't want to propogate misinformation)

Perhaps the easist thing to consider and recommend is to restore, and in some cases perhaps enhance, NATURAL processes in order to move towards good sustainable runs. To think that we could improve on nature is a bit presumptious, given our long list of failures to date

[SSPey]

oh year - Wilson fish - and about using Strontium (Sr) isotopes to examine how winter and summer Wilson fish interact. This could be useful only if the habitats occupied by summer and winter juveniles had different bedrock isotope signatures. The work that Kennedy is doing is comparing juveniles (and otoliths of returning adults) across a huge geographical area the size of lower CT, NH, and VT. There is a lot of geological variation in there across those states that gives rise to local variation in Sr isotopes. The variation within the Wilson basin is probably a lot smaller than that - but this can be looked into.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Sorry ***, can't shed any light on it really. I have read a little about strontium, but it's been awhile. I think even when you and I talked I had to refer you to someone else. Sounds like FNF has a much better handle on it than I ever will (or want to images/icons/wink.gif !). Good discussion here though. One thing I especially appreciate is how it has remained a discussion. This is great stuff, to see everyone asking reasonable questions and contributing what they can. A veritable model of BB discussion. Exxxxxcccelent.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Floatnfish

As you seem to be well versed in isotopes and otoliths could you explain how scientists are able to examine fish otoliths to look for the isotope signature of local bedrock?
Doesn’t the otolith primarily form in the eggsack from nutrients provided by the mother and collected in the ocean? I am sure there is a clever way of doing this, could you explain?

Why would fishermen want to talk to department of forestry biologists instead of department of fish and wildlife biologists? Have I been yelling at the wrong people? Rats….

You are very correct when you speak of restoration and not presuming to improve on nature. The improving on nature fallacy is what sent us down the slippery slope of hatchery management. We need to break this cycle and start doing what is best for our native fish and stop doing what is best for special interests.

*** Clerk

[SSPey]

ODFDubya....

the idea with the otoliths is to track migratory patterns of fish. The otolith is a bony structure that grows and lays down layer on top of layer of new "rock" in the inner ear of fish as it grows. As an egg the otolith is essentially unformed (an egg is an egg, a mass of goop and DNA, and contain only a small total amount of nutrients compared to what the fish will accumulate over its lifetime).

As a fry grows in the gravel and then as a juveline in the stream, the otolith also grows and lays down layers of calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate. If you look at a periodic table you will notice that strontium (Sr) is immediately below calcium (Ca) - it behaves similarly to calcium in biological and chemical reactions, and it has isotopes that reflect the local geology (calcium does not). Along with the calcium, there are small concentrations of strontium that are used to make otoliths, and it is this strontium that reflects the local chemical environment - which is then traced to the geological environment. When a fish matures and returns to spawn (or is captured in the ocean, or when it outmigrates), then a fish biologist can "peel back" (sand off and dissolve) the layers of the otolith to make a guess about where the fish spent its time.

[Deleted User]

Hey FnF & ***,

The thought just struck me that if you can isolate the mineral makeup of specific watersheds we could put some of those minerals into our egg cures. This might make the fish bite them more readily in a feeding response to eggs rich in mineral content specific to that river. On the other hand, using minerals from one watershed in some egg cures to be used in another river with a different mineral makeup might get the territorial striking instinct active and get fish to strike the 'foreign' eggs? There are some fish bios that theorize some salmon/steelhead strike eggs more due to an evolutionary instinct to 'eliminate the competion' (other's fish eggs), so that their eggs have a better chance at survival. Of course many do strike out of a feeding instinct or shere irritation by their presence. This 'eliminate the competition' instinct was of course developed over the milenium when the fish were thick and competitive for habitat. Hey, there we go - killer egg cure plan; with indigenious and/or oposition mineral bases! Fish on! ...

Naaaaaaaah. Couldn't be - could it?

RT

[Jellyhead]

Well RT, You know I've been working on that images/icons/wink.gif I've almost got the Magnesium scent ironed out, now it looks like I need to go down to the quarry and get some coastal basalt dust. In fact this ought to work so good I could just plunk any lure or bait. The fish would pick up the concetrated mineral smell down in the estuary and shoot right up to eat my bait. images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/grin.gif

I think I'll call it my "P-loading basalt" cure. Or how about my flax based "persulfate digested P minus SRP" scent images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/grin.gif

Actually, this stuff is a little over my head. But it is very intersting, Keep up the discussion boys!

Aaron

[birdhunter]

Whoa! Where have I been? What a great post.

Where oh where to begin?

Nurtient Dumping - I've got facts and figures (somewhere!) that estimate what the amount of Marine Derived Organic Material that would have been present in some river systems when salmon were at historic levels, as compared to modern measurements. There is really no comparison. The amount of nutrients that salmon carcasses provide for juvenile fish and other animals is astounding. As a result I am strongly in favor of nutrient dumping in the form of carcass dumps. Problems that can arise from this however, include spreading of diseases to wild stocks and ineffectual planting times.

I'm not a chemist and don't know too much about the strontium tracing techniques (only what I've read), but I do love the whole genetic discussion. Let's see if we can't steer the topic back that way.

*** Clerk - Don't know for sure which study you are refering too w/ Greer, but there have been several interesting, and IMHO inconclusive, studies in the NW recently. Of course the AFS will point you toward Waples study, but another work that I have had fun batting around is the Hulett Thesis.

Done in 1991 by a F&W major at OSU and overseen by Hiram Li and Carl Schreck this 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 (physical) traits in fry, smolts and adult wild and hatchery salmon from the Lewis river and Abernathy Creek (Hulett 1991). The author eventually 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 genetic differences may mean physiologically, but instead decides that since hatchery fish are different from their wild counterparts, they must be inferior (Hulett 1991).

In my experience, I would 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 as I will explain.

First of all, to test the biochemical traits in the fish one needs to take tissue samples from specific parts of 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 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 often 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 (Hulett 1991). The state of decomposition that an adult salmon when it dies is already severe. Compound this with several days or even weeks in the water before it was discovered and sampled. There is far too much enzyme degradation 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.

I work performing PCR at a viral diagnostic lab, so I do know a little something about genetics. For those who don't know (and don't feel bad, this is techno-jargon) PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction, is essentially the amplification of DNA from an organic sample. The process, theory and even the end result is way to complicated and off topic for this BB, but basically we end up with a section of DNA from an organic sample which we can use to look for specific genetic markers. Because this process involves amplifying small sections to get a picture of the whole thing, any contamination can be disasterous. The level of sterility that we have to undergo is very intense. Looking through this study I was aghast at what passed for sterile practices. I don't think any of the results could be considered reliable or reasonable.

There are other problems with the meristic trait too. These traits include counting scales, numbers of rays in the fins and so on (Hulett 1991). With small fish like fry, it can be too hard to distinguish different ray patterns from others. The same problem occurs with the wild adults; often there is too much decomposition to accurately gauge anything. Basically there is a lot of room for human error in this kind of work.

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 (Hulett 1991). The problem with that data is that 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. It is interesting to note that “the degree of generation overlap is comparable to the straying intensity” (Altukhov et al, pg 50). So strays from other rivers could have influenced the study.

I find that the study greatly exaggerates the differences between wild and hatchery fish because of the above issues I explained. This is the sort of science that some biologists are using to say that hatchery fish are inferior. There are differences, but they are exaggerated.

Whew! That is probably enough to stir up the pot a little. RT, sorry I missed ya today. Well, have fun boys, let me know what you think. Oh, and here are my sources.


Altukhow, Y.P.; Salmenkova, E.A.; Omelchenko, V.T. (2000). Salmonid Fishes: Population Biology, Genetics, and Management. Blackwell Science Ltd: London.

Hulett, P. L. (1991). Patterns of Genetic Inheritance and Variation through Ontogeny for Hatchery and Wild Stocks of Chinook Salmon. OSU thesis.

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[Deleted User]

Great post Bird! I would love to get together with you and discuss the wild vs wild debate. You are obviously more learned than I am on this so I can only go by experience out on the river. I'm currently delving through some old STS articles that discuss this issue. The thing that I really like about threads like this is we may differ on theory but I feel we are all united in our concern for habitat enhancement/restoration and wild fish restoration. Thanks to all for your input here.
Stew

[birdhunter]

Thanks for the kudos Bigstew. Really appreciate that. I by no means have all the answers, but really enjoy these discussion. I agree w/ you that we are all at least united toward a common goal, even if we differ in how to get there or what to do.

I too would love to get together w/ you and discuss some of these issues...while fishing of course. I'm supposed to put together a Clack evening trip w/ Steve later in Sept. If you're not busy you're more than welcome to come along. Keep ya posted. Will you be at ifishstock?

[Deleted User]

Sounds good to me bird! An evening of fishing would be great! As far as the ifish BBQ goes that is doubtful right now. Can you or any of the rest of you guys recommend some good books on this topic?
Stew

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Bigstew

I would like to recommend anyone wishing to understand the historical abundance of salmon carcasses and their importance to juvenal salmon’s survival read “Pacific Salmon and Wildlife: Ecological Contexts, Relationships, and Implications for Management”

You may find this electronically at the following link: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/salmonwild/

If you prefer you can obtain a free hardcopy from David Johnson at WDFW
e-mail johnsdhj@dfw.wa.gov

*** Clerk

[Hoosier Daddy]

Good points BH! How's things?
Couple of things, not necessarily related or directed at what BH posted. I've said it before and will continue to say it: there are no such things as ALWAYS and NEVER, especially when Ma Nature is involved. This applies to people that are pro-hatchery and wild fish 'nuts', and to people like me, who prefer to have both.
Do I believe that hatchery fish interbreed with wild fish? Yep, in some places and times.
Do I believe that hatchery fish are inferior to wild fish? Sometimes, usually in subtle ways. A hatchery fish could have a trait that has been selected for in the hatchery that makes it less fit than a wild fish (behavior, weird migration instinct, whatever). It could also potentially have a trait that actually helps (body size, fat storage, whatever).
Do I believe that hatcheries are not as effective as restored native runs would be? Yes.
Do I think we will ever have native runs that can be that effective again? Not likely, but we should try.
Do I believe hatcheries can help us get back to healthy stocks? Yes.
Do I think that hatchery practices should continue to be refined to reduce the effects of our intervention on salmonid genetics? HELL YES!

[birdhunter]

Good books eh? I've read several, and some of them get really technical. Here's what I can think of:

Bruce Brown's Mountain in the Clouds: a search for wild salmon. It's a bit outdated now, but it gives a good basic overview of some of the hatchery problems and is an easy read.

That first book I cited in my long post is excellent, but it is very technical. It was originally published in Russian so the translation isn't always perfect, but it is very current and full of information. Unfortunately it doesn't pertain to the NW as much as I'm sure we would hope.

The NW Salmon Crisis: a Documentary History. Long and somewhat dry book. Full of very pertinant info about Salmon in the NW and their legal history. Anyone who is going to discuss salmon and politics should read this book.

OSU Press just came out w/ another great salmon book. I forget the name of it, but it is brand new and very very good. Talks about habitat and the whole thing.

Here are some other interesting sites and papers:

“Answers to questions asked of ODFW Director Jim Greer by the Joint Interim Regulations Committee on Stream Restoration and Species Recovery on April 24, 2000. Answers provided on May 5, 2000” http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/sr2qa.html

Ford, Michael J. and Jeffrey J. Hard. “Does traditional hatchery production help conserve wild salmon --a comment on the Fall Creek coho hatchery controversy.” Northwest Fisheries Science Center: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/LannanResponse.pdf

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (2000). “Facts about Oregon’s Hatcheries” http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/InfoCntrFish.html

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1999). “The Facts About the Fall Creek Hatchery”. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/fallcrhatchfacts.pdf

American Fisheries Society (AFS) website also has a lot of sources about genetics studies which they claim prove that hatchery fish are inferior. I'm too lazy right now to look it up, but I know that there are a ton of sources that they have. Plenty keep anyone reading for a long time.

[birdhunter]

Okay so I guess I do have too much free time. Here is the AFS paper I was talking about. Their sight is also very interesting, albeit technical at times.
http://osu.orst.edu/groups/orafs/wildhatch.pdf

Hey Chnookie, long time no see. Hope you're keeping busy. Got a little one coming really soon don't you? Best of luck.

[Grant Scheele]

I talked to Bob Buckman yesterday and he said that he would try to put something together for me in the next week or two.

He wanted my to make one thing very clear. They are NOT in the beginning stages of shutting down the Siletz brood stock program. Right now it is full blast ahead.

The only thing they are trying to do is get some ideas as how to reduce the stray rate of the fish from possibly 60% to the mandated 10%. Anybody have any ideas?

[Salmonator]

Ok Grant I got one. Acclimate the smolts to the home river by placing some kind of "homing scent" in their ponds, stronger than what they use in nature to find their way back yet biodegradable and not harmful in any way. Before the beginning of the adult return run plant solid blocks of the stuff in the upper river to bring 'em back, and radically change the "scent" between rivers to keep them in the right system.

Yes i'm tired and underslept. I guess i'll find out how silly this sounds in the morning.. images/icons/tongue.gif

[Grant Scheele]

That would work but Palmer creek flows at about 5cfs most of the time. But I like your idea. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[Hoosier Daddy]

Some hatcheries (Umatilla River being one) have gone to using acclimation ponds. Ponds set up on the upper river where smolts are placed for a few weeks before release, so they can imprint on the river scent better. Not sure the success rate, but it makes sense, and I think it did help.

[Grant Scheele]

The Siletz has acclimation ponds about a half mile up Palmer creek. The problem is that the flow is to small for the fish to go up unless it has rained a whole bunch. There has been talk as to how to make the flow higher but it is a daunting task at best.

[Krome Brite]

Thanks for answerin' my question, *** Clerk.

[ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: Krome Brite ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Krome Brite

You are very welcome

*** Clerk

[Joe]

Big Stew,
The actual number of Summer Steelhead planted in the Wilson in 1999 was 42,035.

I don't know where you got your info but the 15,921 figure is only the direct stream releases. There were also 26,114 that were released from the two acclimation ponds.

Like Marty mentioned the release was down a little that year due to heavy bird predation but it was not as low as you thought.

How is the Summer run on the Wilson this year?

[Deleted User]

Thanks for the info Joe. I got my information from STS magazine. The summer runs is poor this year but the low water is probably responsible for that. Fish are scattered throughout the upper river and most have already moved above the Jones Creek deadline.
Stew

[First Bite]

Joe
Do you know how many summer steelhead smolts were planted in 2000 and this year? The summer run on the Wilson started out fine but it seems the number of fish returning dropped off rather quickly after June. As Stew said, there rare plenty of fish above the deadline and just a handful below. In years past I would see fresh fish throughout the summer regardless of water flow.
Mark

[Joe]

Stlhdr, Off the top of my head I think this year and last year were right around 50,000. 1998 was the only real low year with just under 30,000 due to some of the smolts having to go to the Siletz.

[HarpMan]

O.MyKiss.. you post many comments in regards to the Winter Siletz brood stock, but after reading all the post I'm unclear if your in favor or against the program...Just interested as to where you stand on the issue.

[Grant Scheele]

Plunker, I love the program right now as it's putting out some great fish. But at what cost to our natives? I am afraid that it is just a short term fix and we will be sorry in the long run. Because of these two different feelings that I have I don't even know if I am pro or con on the program.

I guess that for the time being the program is great but I would like to look beyond and try create or let mother nature create a sustainable native fishery that we can keep some fish on our tag. Sounds crazy, but i don't believe that it is.