Intersting and Insightful Take on Hatcheries (B.C.)

Since hatcheries and their policies for the enhancement of salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific N.W. have come under more rightful criticism in recent years, and because a slow but sure switch in policies to one of broodstock programs instead of max transplanting hat smolts, I think this following piece by Dave H. of the SportfishingBC discussion board is both intraspective and very interesting; for what has gone wrong with B.C. hatchery programs. Thanks Dave. Copy:


Sadly, tyeeman and unlawful bidding mackeral, while noting a few salient points, seem to have a very superficial depth of knowledge regarding the history of and the ramifications from our intensive hatchery "enhancement" of salmon, which are most likely the fish to which Paula was referring when she posed the question initially.

Tyeeman noted that the first hatchery programs date back to the 1800's, and he is corrrect. The Bon Accord hatchery at what is now Port Mann started production in 1884. This hatchery and the ones that follwed shortly were initially aimed at sockeye production, although some chinook were also produced. As our forefathers were a bit dense when it came to fish and their life cycles etc. it took nearly 50 years before they realized that sockeye don't do well in hatcheries and by 1930 or so sockeye hatcheries were discontinued. By 1937 all hatcheries were closed, due primarily to the Depression, as noted by tyeeman. Hatchery enhancement languished for several years but efforts to rebuild salmon stocks, primarily sockeye for the commercial industry, continued, mostly in the area of fish ladders and then man-made spawning channels. The first one was built at Jones Creek, circa 1953 or so, and then others followed at Robertson Creek, Big Qualicum, Weaver Cteek, Seton Creek and on the Babine system at Pinkut and Fulton. Millions of dollars in capital outlay plus the ongoing costs of maintenance (annual) have been required to keep these facilities going. During the past decade these costs have exceeded the value of the commercial salmon industry so in effect enhancement programs have been a net loss to the taxpayers of Canada. By the 1970's, the focus returned to hatcheries, even though the feedback from over 260 groups and individuals at meetings held throughout the Province showed clearly that other methods of "enhancement" were favored, ie. stream rehabilitation, better fisheries management, better streamside logging practices, lake fertilization (sockeye) and a myriad of other preventitive measures. Alas, the "quick fix" of hatcheries came to be favored by those in power and hatcheries began to be built again.

There are countless problems that have arisen from the "hatchery fix" and most of them are well documented. In the interest of not carrying on too much longer I shall quote a few items that are relevant. It was early noted that,"enhancement of one stock could result in a detrimental effect on other natural stocks as a result of the increased fishing effort for the enhanced stock". Perhaps the most noticeable area where this came true is on the Skeena system, where increased fishing effort for enhanced sockeye wreaked havoc on lesser sockeye stocks (Morice et al) and steelhead stocks. It is obvious that the reduced commercial efforts of the past two years (to protect coho) have resulted in a manifold increase in steelhead making it upriver. In other areas commercial efforts have decimated many small and discrete stocks while targetting either hatchery enhanced or spawning channel enhanced stocks. Biologically speaking, hatcheries cause dilution of the gene pool which weakens the stock as the variety and genetic diversity is removed through unintentional "selection" by hatchery methodology.

It is sad that these factors are accepted under the guise of "bringing the communities economies alive for charter operators, hotels, campgrounds etc," as stated by unlawful bidding mackeral. Perhaps unintentionally, he best stated the truth in one sentence: "Hatchery is very important to give impression to the world that we still have fish". That is perhaps the saddest statemnet I have read in a long time. What all this boils down to is that we, ostensibly the most intelligent things inhabiting this planet, are quite willing to destroy a resource that is perfectly capable of renewing itself at no cost to us, in order to make the easy buck, (mining, logging, pulp pollution, irrigation,over fishing,etc.) Then, we take tax dollars that could well be spent on much more important things, and spend them on a way to artificially produce that which was once free. In addition, we weaken the very gene pool that once gave us this incredible resource for free and claim that it's ok because some people can still make money from the resource.

I believe there should be a big sign at each and every hatchery in the Province that states something like the following:

This hatchery stands as a monument to human stupidity and greed. Why else need it be here?

Anyway, hatcheries and enhancement programs are so ingrained in the mentality of the population and are so absolutely required in the heavily populated urban areas of the province that they are here to stay. It's all a part of what is commonly called "The Tragedy of The Commons". If you don't know what that means then you had best look it up. Dave H.



------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

[Pilar]

Wow! What he said. The church of greed strikes again. We don't have to look far to see the influence of commercial interests here at home. Man is obsessed with controlling anything bigger than himself and cursed with ignorance. Where do you find this stuff, RT? Thanks for sharing it with us.

The bend is your friend.

[happybrew]

I've got to say, he hits the nail on the head. While I think that hatcheries have their place, think about it: All those returning fish in the Columbia that we couldn't fish for.

happybrew

[Hairball]

Very well said. Better management you *******!!!!

[Centerpin]

Dave Hadden the same guy who wrote that post wants bait banned on Vancouver Island. He means well but always gets hung up on the details. I wish he would show up for some friendly banter. He has been known to get awfully heated. Just go to www.sportfishingbc.com and say Guppy your presence is required on ifish.net


Things should get interesting then.

cp

[DanS]

While I agree with the premise of the statement, there are parts of it where the writer takes some liberties I'm not sure he should. From what I've read, the documentation of any "dilution of the gene pool" is questionable, at best. Wild fish genes have remained largely intact even with the presence of hatchery fish in the same system. The problem lies more in the competion between hatchery smolts and smolts of native origin. This problem is probably made worse due to sparse food items in many northwest river systems (a problem addressed in the latest STS by Frank Amato). Of course the "incidental" bycatch of steelhead by commercial fishers targeting hatchery-bolstered salmon runs is a huge issue that gets very little attention from our fish managers. They turn a blind eye while this bycatch goes on, and even drag their feet in getting observers on commercial boats to see just how big this bycatch is.

Sure, hatcheries are no fix for the condition of our fish runs. But they can't be condemned altogether, as I think they do serve a purpose. But happybrew made a good point. What good is a monster hatchery springer run if you can't fish for them? They are now being used simply as a tool to avoid tribal lawsuits regarding the dwindling native salmon runs. It's too complex an issue to just say "Hatcheries are fueled solely by greed, and serve no purpose". I think that's too broad a statement to make.

We now can see the errors in the ways of our hatcheries and harvest practices. The question is can we do something about it? I say do the little things that add up to big things. Turn loose the native steelhead you catch, fix your oil leaks in your car, lay off the fertilizer, tell your grocery store manager that selling wild steelhead will force you to shop elsewhere, write an email to the WDFW or ODFW, and try to be good stewards of the land. Your own effort won't be enough to make much difference, but the sum of our actions CAN make a difference.

Sorry to ramble............Fish on

[meyersbilly]

One of the largest problems we face in Canada is user expectation and dependence. We have established kill fisheries (put and take fisheries) in many of our watersheds and people have relied heavily on the continuance of these kill fisheries. Commercial sport and native fisheries are so influential within BC that stocking and hatchery programs have continued for many years against strong biological advice. Stocks are managed so that fish populations yield the best catch over time.

I stand upon my soapbox surrounded by an empty field.

These hatchery issues are very complex; as are fish allocation issues. Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock to the early 1900's and do things better in regards to fish managment! Can't; and yes fishermen have become somewhat dependant on hatchery enhancement. However, I agree with points that both Dave and Dan have made.

I get the feeling that many of you aren't aware of the rapidly changing scenarios in the N.W. hatchery issues. It isn't only funding issues that are reducing the number of hatchery plants in the region; it's also the start of a slow phase out of transplanting salmon and steelhead, thus genetics to a degree, between watersheds in response to fisheries biologist's recommendations for doing this for quite some time. Coming in it's place are 3 worthy programs of anadromous fish enhancement. First is efforts toward habitat restoration (too long to post about all these; suffice it to say that they will fall short of desired fishery goals, especially with the Bush in the Whitehouse instead of the woods, but will help recovery somewhat). Second is the voluteer and state combined program of returning fish carcasses from excess hatchery stock to the upper watersheds of anadromous fish rivers to enhance native spawned fry/fingerling/smolt survial rates. This is what several of our Ifish members just took part in recently near Tillamook, with plans to do more. Third is the growing broodstock programs in which guides and other trained volunteers catch and capture live native fish for holding in sterile hatchery ponds to use their methods to maximize the progeny of returning nates to give nate recovery a good shot in the arm for a few years until sustainable native runs return to health. These broods are essentially going to be native fish, at least as we know them today, because they will have the genetics of the natives indigenous to given watersheds. And they will be released as smolts at times that won't put them in as much direct competition with native fingerlings and smolts. Some will likely be finclipped to have some fish to bonk for the table, while releasing the unclipped broods and nates. Not perfect science at all, but a better way of correcting the wrongs of the past.

A good read on these subjects is "Salmon Without Rivers", to give you an interesting and good background.



------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT