FISH IS A FISH DEBATE

[Snakebite]

One major concept most people fail to grasp about whether decades of stocking has diluted the wild strain is that only wild x wild spawning produce viable offspring capable of replacing the parent generation. Wild x hatchery or hatchery x hatchery offspring just can't cut it. They go thru the motions, spawn, some eggs hatch and some fry and even smolts may result. But 4 years later the replacements are missing in action.

WHAT?
Show me the data! There is none! We don't even have the technology to produce data that show those philosophised trends. It's a great concept, but it aint been proved yet!

[GutshotApe]

I don't have my copy anymore but I read about some studies at the upper Kalama hatchery using the new electrophoretic analysis technique that indicates the truth of what I posted. Check with WDFW for details.

If not true, then why aren't all the rivers chock full of hatchery-derived, self-sustaining runs? Even the Umatilla River's supposedly resurrected chinook run can't survive without constant hatchery inputs. Left alone, that "run" would collapse.

One of the best and clearest cases is the Malheur River redband trout. After 50+ years of stocking hatchery rainbow trout, electrophoretic analysis shows no trace of the hatchery genes in resident Malheur redband trout. Check with R.Behnke of Colorado State Univ. for details - I don't have a copy of that study anymore, either. :wink:

[rob allen]

Not only can the bio's tell wild fish from hatchery fish they can by genetic sampeling determine the exact parents of any individual smolt or returning adult. The Kalama research team does this in a daily basis. Gutshotape is 100% correct.
Studies on the Kalama have shown that the Skamanina Stock summer runs and Chambers creek winter runs failed to produce measureable returns of adults even though the vast majority of outmigrating smolts were the result of hatchery fish spawning in the wild. The term used to describe the return of these fish as adults is " not statistically different from zero."
The same tests are now being done by the Kalama research team using a Kalama wild broodstock we will see where that goes..

My big concern about broodstocks is that they increase the amount of fishng pressure on stocks of fish that are already depressed. Depending on the outcome of this Kalama river research i support temporary brood stock programs for the purpose of restoring runs NOT for increased harvest or sportfishing.. Seeing as how the current rounds of tests won't be finished until 2008 I think it is foolish to rely on any hatchery program even wild broodstocks.

Of course when it comes to hatcheries we have always gone forward before the research was done. Hmm maybe thats why we have such big problems with out hatcheries..

[The Fishing Geek]

Great cloud 'o gray, mykiss. Now, would you be so kind as to continue with iFish tradition and post a fishing story to aide us in warming up to ya?

Most appreciated. *tip of the hat*

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mykiss

The point that needs to be made over and over again is that a hatchery cannot change the DNA of an individual. Hatcheries can alter the genetic make up of a “population”. If we took all the people in the state of Oregon and for 3 generations sent everyone who has red hair to Washington, at the end of the 3rd generation the genetic make-up of both Oregon and Washington would be altered. In Oregon the occurrence of red hair in the population would be less than before, in Washington it would be higher. Even after the removal of redheads ceased the population that is left in Oregon would be less likely to produce redheads because the makeup of the population has been altered. The artificial selection that occurs in the hatchery environment leads to changes in specific allele frequencies found in indigenous populations.

The State of Oregon (DOJ) and the ODFW have come to grips with this issue during the NFCP. In a letter from the DOJ to Ed Bowles it was declared:

“The debate over the virtues of hatchery-produced fish versus naturally produced or wild fish is both lengthy and emotional. The Department agrees that the weight of credible scientific evidence shows that hatchery-produced and wild fish differ measurably in many traits, including physiology, disease response, morphology, breeding success, and predator avoidance. At the same time, the Department believes hatcheries can play a role in producing excess fish for harvest and, in some cases, supplementing or rebuilding depressed wild fish populations. We fully recognize that this latter role is highly controversial. Nonetheless, we neither need nor intend to resolve this biological controversy for the purpose of this letter.” Shelly McIntyre - DOJ

Although this artificial selection can be deleterious on the fitness of salmon born and raised in hatcheries I believe it is secondary to the damage done by creating entire hatchery populations from 50 to 100 individuals. Genetic bottlenecking from limited parental populations is what will be discovered to the real culprit to hatchery problems.

By the way, you still owe us a story…
:wink:

[mykiss]

The following is a response to a claim about hatchery and wild salmonids and interactions. I asked several biologists to respond to this and share one that has a detailed response but which is consistent with other comments from biologists.

This issue is important because Don Amend and others have been promoting a point of view that has captured the interest of law makers and anti-salmon and steelhead advocates that oppose protection of wild fish and their habitats. This issue is hot in the Oregon and Washington legislatures.

FISH IS A FISH DEBATE

So what do you say to the following?

"A widespread perception is that salmon from hatcheries adversely affect the genetic diversity and fitness of wild fish. Most of the attack on hatchery salmon is based on comparisons between divergent stocks of fish, which is not a true comparison between wild and hatchery fish from the same stock. There have too few well-designed studies to provide the hard data needed to test this assumption.
All hatchery salmon have descended from naturally spawning fish and possess all the genes found in wild fish. Hatchery fish would only be 'genetically different' from wild fish if DNA occurs in hatchery-bred fish that does not occur in wild, naturally spawned fish.
No such DNA segments are known to exist, and there is no genetic mechanism that would result in the creation of DNA that could be found only in artificially propagated hatchery fish."

- Don F. Amend PhD., Fisheries Biologist

I will take it piece by piece, because to me there are a lot of half-truths that need to be dealt with in just about each sentence. As always, my comments are my opinions, and mine alone, and do necessarily reflect the opinions of my peers or funding agencies. All opinions subject to change without notice (but hopefully not without new information or revelation).

"A widespread perception is that salmon from hatcheries adversely affect the genetic diversity and fitness of wild fish. Every individual fish that contributes genetically to a population, whether it originated from that population or from another wild population or from a hatchery population, adds it's unique combination of genetic material (through it's offspring) to the next generation. Each of those genetically unique offspring are bound to have at least slight variations in their fitness in a particular environment, and therefore will (by their contribution to the new "mean population fitness") affect the fitness of the population. It stands to reason that fish adapted to environments (different river systems, or a hatchery, for example) that vary substantially from the prevailing environment of the wild fish are more likely to be less fit in that wild environment, and therefore, have a tendency to reduce the overall fitness of the wild population by their genetic contributions. Those genetic contributions may have very minor and short term affects on the fitness (e.g., small numbers of immigrants and/or for only a short time). Alternately, they could impart a substantial "load" on the wild population (e.g., large numbers of immigrants contributing their less fit genetic traits into the wild population year after year) by continually reducing that population's mean fitness (and realized productivity). There is a parallel influence of the unique genetic traits of individual fish on the genetic diversity of the wild population, but the outcome of contributed diversity a bit more tricky to pin down. On the one hand, diversity is necessary to sustain good overall fitness of a population in an environment that varies temporally and/or spatially (not one size fits all). On the other hand, diversity that imparts fitness traits that don't fit anywhere into that diverse environment in space or time are not likely to be tolerated by natural selection: unfit diversity gets rejected. So immigrants can add to the diversity of the wild population while detracting from the overall population fitness, and I would guess that most of the time that is exactly what immigrants do. But on occasion, immigrants might also add diversity that is useful, and thus have a positive influence on population fitness. So salmon from hatcheries (that spawn in the wild) must certainly affect the genetic diversity and fitness of wild fish. For a moderately healthy wild population, I maintain that the effect of the hatchery fish would at best be neutral, and in most cases would be negative. What can a hatchery population offer (in terms of diversity that imparts fitness) that the healthy wild population needs?

Most of the attack on hatchery salmon is based on comparisons between divergent stocks of fish, which is not a true comparison between wild and hatchery fish from the same stock. True on both counts. But let us remember that the vast majority all the genetic introgression that has already occurred and that continues to occur today is between hatchery and wild stocks that are genetically different. Relatively few hatchery programs have been developed with the goal of avoiding divergence from the wild stock(s) that they will affect (and never mind that we still don't know if such a goal is even attainable). Careful review of hatchery egg take and transfer records usually turns up a fair amount of mixing of populations, either at the outset of founding the stock or over time as outside donor populations are used to make up shortages. While this may be more true of Columbia basin hatchery programs that I am more familiar with, I have a hard time believing that it is much different for the majority of stocks of coastal Oregon or Washington (and thank God for the exceptions!).

There have too few well-designed studies to provide the hard data needed to test this assumption.
Amen. Let us all do our part to remedy this unfortunate fact. Collaborate on study designs. Lobby funding agencies to make this a high funding priority. In the mean time, we must be careful to remember that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.

All hatchery salmon have descended from naturally spawning fish and possess all the genes found in wild fish. Genes, yes. Genetic combinations of particular alleles at each gene, no (goes back to the first issue about fitness and diversity). Holsteins are also descended from some wild bovine, but they are now vastly genetically different from those ancestors: in ways that make them much superior from their wild ancestors in milk production in the dairy farm environment and much inferior to their ancestors in surviving in the ancestral wild environment.

Hatchery fish would only be 'genetically different' from wild fish if DNA occurs in hatchery-bred fish that does not occur in wild, naturally spawned fish. Poppycock and balderdash. The DNA (structure and sequence of genes affecting fitness) need not be fundamentally different to allow for the existence of fitness differences among individuals (whether from same or different populations). Different combinations of alleles at those genes occur in every individual and that is enough to permit differentiation to occur.

No such DNA segments are known to exist, and there is no genetic mechanism that would result in the creation of DNA that could be found only in artificially propagated hatchery fish." To suggest that such a mechanism, and the resulting novel DNA, are necessary for differentiation among stocks and strains is ludicrous. The considerable historical record of successes in breeding plants and animals to obtain more desirable traits depends on a genetic mechanism that permits differentiation. Variation in alleles (at individual genes that influence the observed phenotype) provide that mechanism.

Thanks for being interested in my opinions!

-- Pat, a research biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

[Snakebite]

You're missing the point. The reason that wild stocks are so important is because the environmentalists are using them to champion their efforts and as a result become a controversial subject. It's not the gene pool that is really affected. It's the competition between artificially(accidently) introduced populations in an environment that is not used to such invasion. All of a sudden some fish spawn where they are not naturally supposed to be, and the result is a shift in the ecosystem mechanics. On the other hand, a hatchery reared fish that strays to a foreign spawning area may not produce offspring that can compete with wild fish that are adapted to that place. The bottom line that you have pointed out is that there is not enough research data to come up with a good answer. Lack of data is a viable reason to list a species endangered under current federal law, and the environmentalists are going to run with that ball....whether they really care or not!

[GutshotApe]

That was great Pat, now where's your fish story? :whazzup:

Seriously, I agree with everything you said. I'm not a fisheries biologist or geneticist but I know a little about the topic. Twenty years ago I supervised my company's part of the Evil Empire's - er, the timber industry's - Douglas-fir genetic improvement program. Started with selected parent trees, tested their progeny, went back to the best parents, controlled pollenation, obtained pure seed, established grafted seed orchard, etc, etc, eventually produced improved seed for reforestation. All the general principles that apply to tree genetics also apply to fish genetics.

One major concept most people fail to grasp about whether decades of stocking has diluted the wild strain is that only wild x wild spawning produce viable offspring capable of replacing the parent generation. Wild x hatchery or hatchery x hatchery offspring just can't cut it. They go thru the motions, spawn, some eggs hatch and some fry and even smolts may result. But 4 years later the replacements are missing in action.

[GutshotApe]

Well stated, ***. Another good example of genetic bottlenecking is represented by The Fishing Geek's new :grin: avatar. :shocked:

[lost_sailor]

I really resent the implication that "environmentalists" are concerned about the environment for the sheer sake of self-promotion.

Guess what? The "environment" is WHERE WE LIVE !

Survival of wild fish is a very accurate indicator of the quality of OUR environment.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

lost_sailor

Snakebite’s views are often skewed by the political pressures placed on him during his daytime job, try not to be offended by his correct portraying of current “perceptions”. Right or wrong this is how the situation is perceived by a segment of the current shareholders. Your views of the environment are also correct but from a more philosophical approach.

Snakebite

Can you expand on your last post? I would really like to fully understand your views on hatchery and wild introgression.

[Straydog]

Well said *** and Lost Sailor.

I have a hard time feeling guilty about caring about the world I am leaving for my kids and grandkids.

As the most hated Enviro. I know of, Andy Kerr is attributed to having said, 'Environmentalists may be a pain in the butt to many but we make very good ancestors....' (paraphrase.)

[ 01-02-2003, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Mojo]

One major issue that I haven't seen addressed is what has happened in Idaho over the last 20 years. Steelhead eggs from California and the Oregon coastal rivers have been used to establish hatchery populations in our rivers. The strains were chosen not because they are best adapted for life in Idaho waters, but because they had the best survival rate in hatchery (cement) ponds. These fish (at least some of them) are spawning with our wild fish, and when a 7 lb brat spawns with a wild 20 lb B-Run, the progeny are not going to be 20 pounders. Those babies stand a much lower chance of surviving to reach adulthood, and returning. If the fish that are selected to establish hatchery populations are indeed from native stocks, and genetic augmentation (adding wild fish to the spawning population from time to time) occurs, then the problems stated above (ie genetic bottlenecking etc.) will be lessened.

I have observed hatchery spawning operations, and never have I seen genetic sampling prior to spawning. For all the hatchery workers know, they are breeding brothers with sisters. That isn't good for any population.

My .02

[wiser]

Not posting on this issue,yet, but certainly enjoying reading. I know Mykiss has lots of stories and I hope he can share a few with all. Just wanted to share thoughts that we all know to little about this issue that is of critical importance to health of our salmonids and the fisheries they support.

[ 01-02-2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Wiser? ]