Hatchery vs Wild - Revisited

I was reading in "Steelhead Flyfishing" a nice book by Trey Combs and I came across some comments by renowned floating line steelhead fly fisherman Bill McMillan. In talking about the hatchery vs wild fish debate. McMillan believes the decline in "quality fishing" is directly related to the decline in the native runs. He believes numbers are meaningless because of the poor genetics of hatchery fish and remember he fished mostly for the Skamania hatchery strain which were selectivley bred large fish. Of course this is just one persons opinion and I for one definately see the necessity of hatcheries BUT again doesn't it make sense to do all that can be done to protect and perperuate these wild runs? The argument about wild and hatchery is still inconclusive so we don't really know if the wild runs are pure or whether the hatchery fish that escape upstream intermingle with natives. I do know this much I hooked more natives this past winter than in any other year and I still believe there is no comparision between the two. Who can argue?
Stew

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: bigstew ]

[birdhunter]

I always like to argue Stew! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Very interesting stuff. Don't know too much about "quality fishing". Too me, that is just getting out there and getting into some fish. Hatcheries definately make that possible. I love catching fish, but I also like eating them too.

I have no doubt that hatchery and wild fish interbreed and that there aren't any pure strains left in Oregon anyways. Still that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do everything we can to help wild fish. I too see the necessity of hatcheries and agree that we should do all that we can to protect and perperuate wild runs.


Genetically we still can't differentiate between wild and hatchery fish. I would agree that when I hook a fish, there often is a difference in the fight between a wild or a hatchery fish, but we still can't differentiate w/out that little adipose fin. As far as genetic purity goes, hatcheries may have been pumping out fish for the past 100 years, but salmonids have been evolving for the past several hundred thousand years. To think that we can breed out eons of instinct and create a "domestic fish" in such a short time frame is an apparent exageration.

Don't flood the rivers w/ hatchery fish, but at the same time, don't turn them into a C&R wild fly-fishing sanctuary. Balance is all I ask.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

I disagree with the notion that it would take a long time to breed out wild instincts! Look at some breeds of dog for example. You may be convinced that wild and hatchery fish intermingle but there are many other notable biologist that are not convinced and I'm also skeptical about no genetic differences. This would be a great topic over a few beers!
Stew

[rob allen]

OK I have studies this issue more than any other facet of the decline in our runs...

Our wild Steelhead are pure because even though wild and hatchery fish intermingle and spawn together they produce no returning adults. This has been very well documented on the Kalama. Where the hatchery/wild issue becomes a problem is when large numbers of hatchery fish overrun the wild fish during spawning. In such cases most wild fiah will end up spawning with a hatchery mate because of the very low reproductive ability of the hatchery fish it can have an absolutely devastating impact on small populations of wild fish. This is very quickly becoming or has already become a fact not a theory.

From my perspective as a fly fisherman hatchery fish are poor gamefish especially during winter. They don't move to flies like wild fish do.

[jawbreaker]

I think one of the key differences between hatchery and wild stock is that "wild" fish are spread out more than hatchery fish as they are migrating. As a result, they aren't as sucseptible to being easily targeted. Hatchery fish, on the other hand, are more likely to be clustered together making them easy to target, vulnerable to commercial netting and overfishing. This can be attributed directly to the surroundings of hatchery breeding. Fry are raised in holding ponds where there is no place to hide and there is safety in numbers. This, unfortunately, can be a formula for disaster once they are let out in the real wild. From a behavior standpoint, there is no arguing this basic difference.
In conclusion, hatchery breeding
alters behavior, instints, feeding and survivability, thus hatchery fish are genetically different than wild fish. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: jawbreaker ]

[Hoosier Daddy]

Gotta disagree with one thing. I believe in many rivers, hatchery and wild fish can and do spawn and produce viable returning offspring. There is no such thing as always, but it does happen. Their offspring may not be great survivors, but some of them will return to spawn. For that reason alone, I have a hard time believing that we can ever say we have a pure "wild" strain anywhere. That's why I don't call them "wild", I call them "naturally produced" fish. Much more tedious, but more accurate also. Maybe someday, genetics testing will reach a point where this can be proven without a doubt. But right now, as there are no known "pure" strains to compare to, we just don't know if "wild" runs can sustain themselves with no intermingling from hatchery stocks. I think they can, for a while, but not forever. The longer they intermingle, and the more closely-related the stocks were, or the more they are alike in spawning timing and behavior, the more intermingling there will be.
So just like all other hatchery/wild fish questions, the answer is "depends....".

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Although this topic is one that is nearest and dearest to my heart, this particular forum with its administrators and moderators does not lend itself well to a truly open and frank discussion. This is a great bulletin board, do not get me wrong, for information and humor it is top notch. However commercial pressures do have a tendency to oppose radical out-side the box ideas.
Having said that, I would like to add just a little fuel to the fire that is this debate. I do agree with the points posted by Rob and Jawbreaker but I would like to be a little more to the point.

“ The only good hatchery is a closed hatchery ”

*** Clerk

[Phish_on]

The biggest part of preserving "wild" fish is protecting and restoring the quality of the habitat - - that has to be a good thing.

I like to eat fish too ... but look at what a success the Deschutes River is - I'm more or less thinking of the resident trout here. It's probably my favorite place to fish, and I know I will never kill a fish there.

But the "wild" steelhead are also doing pretty well, yet there are hatchery steelhead to keep and eat. So there is some kind of middle ground on this issue.

I agree that there are probably very few pure strains of wild fish anywhere in this area. And I agree that HATCHERY FISH MUST DIE.

Chnookie, how do you know this. Is this a theory or do you have proof? *** Clerk maybe in a perfect world we could do without hatcheries but I assume you are a sports angler so why buy a license if there are few if any fish to fish over? License revenue sustains these things and once you discontinue hatcheries where is the revenue going to come from because you will lose sports angler interset in a hurry. Of course if the ocean commercial and tribal netting were to end then maybe. I love the wild fish and wish I could fish over them exclusively because of their agressivness and acrobatics when hooked. An occassional hatchery fish is nice for the bbq but I don't have to kill fish to enjoy the sport. What is the reasoning for closing hatcheries ***?
Stew

[Thumper]

Anyone who advocates closing of our hatcheries has not fished the N.F. Lewis this summer. These guys are big (9-15 pounds), nasty and aggressive biters, and they all have a missing adipose. They are probably Fish First plants. Likewise, who can say that the Wind River hatchery salmon are inferior to any wild fish. Again, good fighters, aggressive and wonderful at the table. I'll take a future of fishing for quality hatchery fish over one that consists of very few natives. A no-brainer.

[Crusin]

I wonder what effect was made by all the early hatcheries, I know here on the Rogue there were a few hatcheries that were set up by the local big fisherman, Hume was one of them here, these hatcheries were set up long befor ODF was even formed, and there being used still,only ODF has the rule of the roost now. As much as I can figure these guys could fortell days to come and started to do something about it, then the state came along and put them back a hundred years.

[Mike H]

I love this topic. Thanks bigstew for getting it started. Here are my thoughts:

From what I read, some of you believe that if hatcheries are discontinued, all we would have left are "very few" wild fish. I believe the opposite to be true. Once the hatcheries are gone, the wild salmonids will have far less compeition and crowding from the hatchery fish. I believe they will make a full comeback (in a few years). I can forsee harvest of wild fish in the near future.... providing we eliminate hatcheries.

Here's some inside scoop. Keep you ears open because hatcheries in Oregon are about to go though a drastic change. Conservation hatcheries.........

I oppose hatcheries as much as *** Clerk does. I have seen what a hatchery closure can do for a dwindling run of wild fish. It's amazing. Give these incredible wild fish a chance and they will make a full recovery.

I like to harvest fish too. Many of us fish mutiple rivers and if hatcheries close on different rivers at different times, we will always be able to harvest hatchery fish. Maybe not on our "favorite" river but I guarentee there will be a river close by that is chocked full of hatchery fish.

For all you disbelievers that there is a genetic difference between hatchery and wild fish, look into a study conducted on the Kalama River. It shows there is indeed genetic varation between the two strains. I admit, every stream is different so there could be some without recgonizible differences. I think the vast majority should have genetice differences.

Mike H

are there 2 of anything that have the same genetic makeup ?

[birdhunter]

The only good hatchery is a closed hatchery????

Now ya done it!

Can someone give me some documentation on this Kalama study, like who it was done by, when and maybe some references. I just love ripping these things apart. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

This isn't another AFS plug is it? Waples, Bakke, or Myron better not have anything to do w/ this either. I not only disagree w/ their conclusions, but often their science and techniques.

To clarify once more: Hatchery fish and "wild" fish do show genetic differences. Often this is from the original hatchery stock being taken from a different river drainage than the native fish. Hatcheries select for a different sort of fish than natural river conditions select for. We can tell that there are differences when we compare know hatchery fish to known "wild" fish. However, if you were to take unknown fish, you could not differentiate anything genetically. You could observe differences, but you wouldn't be able to determine which were hatchery and which were wild. Also, we do not yet know what these genetic differences translate into salmonid behavior and physiology. Questions?

Stew - Poodle salmon??? Now I've heard everything!

Rob - you mean to tell me that after 100 years of hatcheries churning out fish into rivers, not one successful interbreeding has occured that produced returning adults? Now I find that hard to swallow. Also, just because a fish doesn't take flies well doesn't make them less of a fish in my book. Winter runs hatcheries are great on bait. Sure you may like to fly fish, but a whole lot more of us like drowning shrimp and soaking eggs. Would you take that away just so you can have YOUR fishery???

Seems kind selfish to me. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

As usual this topic always seems to raise the dander of us sport fishermen, regardless of which side we support. When someone hints at closing a hatchery we feel that somehow they will be taking something away from us, but what? How does a hatchery provide more fish than natural production? By dumping extra smolts in a river on top of the wild smolts that grew up in the river? What food will the hatchery smolts eat when they get to the estuary? What food will the wild smolts eat after the hatchery smolts are done?
Dumping 10 times more smolts in a river does not increase the productivity of the river it simply replaces wild fish with hatchery by shear force of numbers. If hatcheries are so successful why were returns so low in the 80s and 90s? Conditions in the ocean and conditions in the estuary together are what determine the size of the returning runs. A favorable PDO (pacific decadal oscillation) is more powerful than 1000 hatcheries.
Hatcheries have provided a false sense of security that has allowed us to over harvest our resource, the greatest majority from commercial harvest.

As to there being genetic differences between hatchery and wild, that is what debate is all about. Although there may not be a difference in “Genotype” between wild and hatchery of the same broodstock there is a difference in “Phenotype”. We notice the difference each time we hook a wild non-fin clipped fish. Boy do they love to fight…

This is a complicated and extensive issue that does not lend itself to easy or quick answers. I am always willing to discuss any aspect of this issue.

*** Clerk

[fisheromen]

You can't tell me that you believe that the first offspring produced in a new hatchery, bred from wild adults, wouldn't return and successfully breed with other wild adults. So, lets say the hatchery has been around a long time and they trap two adults, wild, hatchery, mixed, who knows. They produce smolt, only this time they clip their fins. Years later the adults return and are automatically "hatchery" fish? I mean, I can see that if you are marking the fish the genetic distinction will become clearer given multiple generations but have most hatcheries been marking them very long? In other words chances are your "wild" fish is a half breed arbitrarily deemed wild based upon when hatcheries began marking fish.

All I know is I have let over 30 "wild" Salmon or Steelhead go this year for my "contributions" to run survivals.

Dang the experience anymore, I want some FOOD! Five uprivers brights so far. Hopefully this will change after Aug. 1st. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Almost stopped at Cascade Locks and bought a couple of my own fish back yesterday, but said NAH.

[Thumper]

Wild fish outfight hatchery fish???? It just ain't so. In the last year we have caught dozens of each, from little weenie 3 pounder natives to 15 pound hatchery to 20-plus pound wild steelhead. The kind of fight has nothing to do with the nativeness of the fish. It has far more to do with the condition of the fish and its ocean habitat. Part of the problem with this subject is that people have been taught to believe that wild fish fight harder. In my opinion that is simply not true.

Jack as a rule they do! Of course I'm talking about the watered down Alsea strain vs wild spawning coastal steelhead but I've caught Skamanias,Siletz and other hatchery strains and I find it to be for the most part true. If I hadn't drank so much beer last night I would expand on this.
Stew

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: bigstew ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

There are other phenotypic traits native runs displays that are important over non-indigenous out of basins strains.
Data found at: http://www.teleport.com/~salmo/docs/cshasta.txt indicates that disease resistance is a trait that is more prevalent in native strains.

*** Clerk