broodstock program

[eyeFISH]

I have been reading quite a few posts referencing the broodstock programs you are running in OR. Similar projects have been run in WA. The folks that run these programs should be accountable to answer a few questions.

Is the purpose of the program to help rebuild wild fish populations? Or is it mainly to obtain high quality parental stock for the hatchery program? Are the progeny of these broodstock fish fin-clipped?

If they are clipped, doesn't that mean that basically we are mining the river for wild eggs to supply hatcheries that eventually create returning adults that are available for harvest? Aren't we really just diverting wild fish from their natural habitat and compromising their natural productivity? And for what? To prop up artificial propagation that produces fewer returning adults than would natural production? Worse yet, if they are clipped, aren't these returning adults susceptible to harvest?

While they might give us a "feel good" sense, are we really doing wild fish populations any favors with such programs?

[ 02-25-2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: eyeFISH ]

[Gone Fishin]

Is the purpose of the program to help rebuild wild fish populations? Or is it mainly to obtain high quality parental stock for the hatchery program? Are the progeny of these broodstock fish fin-clipped?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We are trying to create a better hatchery off spring by using the same genetics that are already there in the first place. Here on the North Coast the hatchery programs were seeded with fish from the Alsea River, over years and years of inbreeding our run timming has gotten more and more condensed, the fish seem to be for the most part weaker and smaller. The average return of the Alsea strain hatchery fish is about 1 to 2 percent as well.

With local broodstock fish, you get fish returning throughout the season, bigger, meaner, healthy strong fish. They also return at a much higher rate than the Alsea strain at around 6 to 9 percent. And yes, they are raised in the hatchery enviroment and clipped as they are hatchery fish.

If they are clipped, doesn't that mean that basically we are mining the river for wild eggs to supply hatcheries that eventually create returning adults that are available for harvest? Aren't we really just diverting wild fish from their natural habitat and compromising their natural productivity? And for what? To prop up artificial propagation that produces fewer returning adults than would natural production? Worse yet, if they are clipped, aren't these returning adults susceptible to harvest?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">On our Nestucca Broodstock Program, it takes 36 fish total or 18 pair which are live spawned and released back to the river to make our program of 55,000 smolt. Out of an estimated run of 12,000 fish. I think the 36 fish is barely "scratching" the surface. We're not mining for eggs at all.

And yes, these clipped fish are available for harvest, that's what the program is about, to create a better hatchery fish that is genetically the same as what's already in the river!

And, unfortunately, you have it wrong, Man is very much more successful in the hatchery enviroment at raising fish than mother nature is in the wild.

So, what we're doing is increasing the length of the run, bringing back a much higher quality product and also more numbers of returning fish back by raising the same numbers as before and putting the same genetics back into the same local watersheds. It seems like a win-win
situation to me.

I challange you to do some research on some issues before you make posts such as this and see what you find out.

-Marty

[Salmonator]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Amerman]

Well said Marty. The only point I would add would be to address are we helping the wild fish or hurting them. I believe by changing our hatchery stock from an out-of-basin stock (Alsea fish which have been inbred for way to many years) to an in-basin fish from the wild stock, we are helping the wild fish. Here's why there have been studies and there is lots of proof that the out-of-basin stock have not spawned successfully. As an example, we have dumped out-of-basin Summer steelhead in these rivers (Nestucca, Wilson and others) for over 40 years; each year these hatchery fish spawn in the rivers, yet the first year we went to clipping 100% of the smolts, we had a 99% return of clipped fish. Meaning that after 40 years of spawning, there was no returning natural summer steelhead in these rivers. The proof is there also on the out-of-basin Alsea strain fish. The Alsea strain has gotten so bad that even the Alsea itself has switched to a broodstock program.

So our belief is by having a hatchery fish that had wild parents: that like Marty said we will have a healther and bigger hatchery fish thats return timing is more spread out, we also have found that the smolts from the wild fish have a better survival rate, in rivers like the Siletz we have had smoltz survivals that have reach 6%(meaning if we release 50,000 smolts we could see 3000 reurning adults) unlike the out of basin returns that reurn very low %. We also feel these fish will have better luck spawning in the wild and returning wild off-spring. Plus if the fish do inbreed with the wild fish, there will be no genetic loss. So ya I believe we are helping the Wild fish strive.

Just my .02 and again Marty, well said and thanks for all you do to makes these programs work.

[ 02-25-2004, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Amerman ]

[Gone Fishin]

A tip of the ball cap goes to you as well Scott, as well as the commitment of many, many others that help to make these programs a success!

Scott,

[slabhunter]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I would also add that on the siuslaw they keep a strict ratio of 7 returning hatchery brood stock fosh to 3 wild fish when they spawn them. this creats a closer to wild geen pool that way if any do spawn in the rivers or creeks with a wild fish that they are not diminishing the wild gene pool any.

also if anyone is concerned when they choose their wild fish there is a ratio they have to keep for escapement this means they have a set number of wild fish that have to pass up the creek before they can pull the 3 wild fish they will spawn.

on bad return years the number stays the same. they have to let 10 fish go up the creek before they can pull 3 fish for the brood stock program then wait untill another 10 fish go up the creek to pull another 3 fish this way they dont mine the creek dry of wild spawning pairs.


Quasi
.

[Rustyoar]

If I may ask some questions about this:

1.) Who and How decides which of these 36 get kept. Ovisouly guides but how do you guys determine this is a broodstock fish at this time.


2.)These fish can make it a whole day in a cooler with no airation? ie Scotts huge pig in that cooler doesn't have a problem?

3.) These fish are then taken to a holding pen or something and they swawn there natuarly? The smoltz are then caught and clipped in this pen then released in to the river??


Thanks in advance and I hope this program has a long long life with you guys at the helm.

If the tag buying public will have fish to harvest in the years ahead then the broodstock program is the best way to go about it.
In a perfect scenario we wouldn't need hatchceries of any kind becaue there would be plenty of native fish to harvest. Unfortunately, with the loss of habitat due to man's interference much of that habitat is lost forever and we'll probably not see any wild fish harvest anytime soon.

[Hogback]

I don't know the science behind the brood stock program, but when you hook into one of these fish you can really tell the difference. They are big healthy aggressive fish and I'm glad they are there. We have caught several in the teens and they really put a shine to a day on the river.

Randy

[Barviewrocks]

Since we are on the brood stock subject. I have always wondered why the stream based hatch box program was discontinued. I would think the hatchbox program using wild fish eggs would help make up for destroyed upstream habitat.

I believe the broodstock program is a giant step in the right direction to creating better harvestable stock. I am happy with catch and release coupled with restoring and protecting spawning habitat.

[Gone Fishin]

Rustyoar, to answer your questions:

1.) Who and How decides which of these 36 get kept. Ovisouly guides but how do you guys determine this is a broodstock fish at this time.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not just guides, it's open to all that want to participate. However, you must first be registered for the program through ODFW. We take a random sampling of the run, not just the trophy fish, but just nice healthy ones. On the Nestucca we collect just a few each month of the season and try to get a wide spread in our run timming.

2.)These fish can make it a whole day in a cooler with no airation? ie Scotts huge pig in that cooler doesn't have a problem?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm sure Scott wouldn't jeapordize the health of a beautiful fish such as that. In my boat, I had a custom holding tank or live well built. It holds 30 gallons of water and is 54 inches long. I have an 800 GPH pump installed, pushing water through pvc piping for airation. They do extremely well. I very rarely haul more than 2 fish at a time to the hatchery. And as I transport, I keep a regular check to make sure the fish is healthy. Never lost one or even come close! As I said, they do extremely well.

3.) These fish are then taken to a holding pen or something and they swawn there natuarly? The smoltz are then caught and clipped in this pen then released in to the river??

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes, these fish are held at the hatchery and checked frequently as they mature and get ready to spawn. They are then live spawned, held for a few days to make sure they are healthy, then released back into the river for a chance to come back once again. The smolt are hatched and reared at the hatchery for a year. While they are there they are clipped to identify them as broodstock hatchery fish, then released usually in early April.

Come on down and I'd be happy to show you, or stop by the hatchery and they'll be happy to show you as well.

[ 02-25-2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]

[Ty]

I think the "wild" broodstock program is great!

However, I notice no difference in they way "hatchery brood" or "wild brood" fight at all. I have noticed that most of the wild fish fight very hard, alse all of the fish I have caught in the last two weeks have been screamers, both hatchery and wild.

The idea of producing 55,000 smolts from 36 fish is still unsound hatchery science. These fish seem to much better because they are collected randomly and have more genetics variability than the hatchery fish .

What would be ever better is to integrate 36 "wild" captured fish a year and randomly mate them with 36 or more "returning wild hatchery brood stock". Survivials would be possibly even futher increased due to increased gentic variation in prodogeny.

At the same time some of the best survivals have been from the "wild" corssed with "hatchery" fish.

Just some thing for y'all to think about out there....

[Jerry Dove]

Marty is going to speak about the program at the 2004 S.T.E.P. conference in Tillamook March 26-28. Open to anyone that wants to register and join in. Come on down and talk about this program or any thing else dealing with fish,habitat,timber, regulations,allotments,etc.and the ODFW. There will be plenty of experts on hand to answer your questions. See ifish front page under announcements

[eyeFISH]

Marty

Down, boy, down. No need to be so defensive. I posed the same questions on a WA board and got a much more open-minded, analytical collection of responses.

I never said these programs are all bad. I only made the post because the questions I am posing need clear answers in order to know if these programs are all they are cracked up to be.

When I first heard about broodstock programs 6-7 yrs ago, I thought, "Wow, what a great way to help the fish." But after doing the research, maybe it's not so clearcut. For sure, these programs should have specific goals... i.e. improving the fitness of fish produced by the hatchery for the purpose of harvest, or alternatively, rebuilding a depleted wild stock. You stated:

On our Nestucca Broodstock Program, it takes 36 fish total or 18 pair which are live spawned and released back to the river to make our program of 55,000 smolt. Out of an estimated run of 12,000 fish. I think the 36 fish is barely "scratching" the surface. We're not mining for eggs at all.

And yes, these clipped fish are available for harvest, that's what the program is about, to create a better hatchery fish that is genetically the same as what's already in the river!

Sounds to me like the Nestucca program is definitely in the category of "upgrading" hatchery production with superior genetics, for the purpose of sustaining a harvest fishery. I don't have any problem with that as long as the wild stock from which the eggs are being mined is healthy enough to withstand it (i.e. consistently well above escapement goals). The loss of several dozen fish is inconsequential to the wild return. If that is the case, your program is on very sound footing to accomplish its intended goals without any serious harm to wild stock.

However, if the wild stock is hovering right around the escapement goal, or significantly below it, then it does NOT make sense to divert seed fish from their natural habitat into a hatchery so that their progeny can be converted to harvestable adults upon their return. That makes about as much sense as mass-capturing a bunch of outbound wild smolts and clipping them just so we can keep them when they come back upriver a few years later.

"And, unfortunately, you have it wrong, Man is very much more successful in the hatchery enviroment at raising fish than mother nature is in the wild...

I challange you to do some research on some issues before you make posts such as this and see what you find out."

I've done the research, and that is exactly what moved me to pose these very pertinent questions. Most every peer-reviewed study shows just the opposite, Marty. It is a dangerous conceit to believe hatcheries can just manufacture fish at will. Granted, hatcheries are very successful at producing fry/smolt from eggs... but they generally do a poor job of producing returning adults compared to naturally spawned fish. You speak from emotion and what sounds/feels good because your heart is probably very much into the project, but it sounds like it's time for you to hit the books and professional journals on this issue.

[ 02-25-2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by eyeFISH:
Marty

Down, boy, down. No need to be so defensive.

Did we read the same response?


Most every peer-reviewed study shows just the opposite, Marty. It is a dangerous conceit to believe hatcheries can just manufacture fish at will. Granted, hatcheries are very successful at producing fry/smolt from eggs... but they generally do a poor job of producing returning adults compared to naturally spawned fish.

Are your "peer-reviewed studies" based around broodstock hatchery fish or the inbred out-of-basin style of fish?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 02-25-2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Captn]

I'm sorry here Fisheye, but are you trying to come up with some kind of productive point about this or you just good at pointing fingers and showing how much you can type? Do you have some kind of one sentence point? I'm watching
Thanks

[crabbait]

I'm watching, too. People respond openly without defensiveness when they do not feel that they are under attack.

Let's keep this civil and about the topic, not the people.

[eyeFISH]

An example of one of the responses I received from another board:

"You are echoing the thoughts of several Oregon pals I have. They've been longtime proponents of steelhead broodstock programs there, and now have your same concerns.

Possibly, the increasing healthy returns of ESA wild coastal coho has shown them that stopping commercial and sport harvest helped. Decreasing hatchery plants helped, and working on habitat helped. These coho may be delisted. (too soon, IMO)

[ 02-25-2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by eyeFISH:
An example of one of the responses I received from another board:

"You are echoing the thoughts of several Oregon pals I have. They've been longtime proponents of steelhead broodstock programs there, and now have your same concerns.

and you consider the above enlightening?

Possibly, the increasing healthy returns of ESA wild coastal coho has shown them that stopping commercial and sport harvest helped. Decreasing hatchery plants helped, and working on habitat helped. These coho may be delisted. (too soon, IMO)

You listed four possible reasons for Coho to rebound and you decided to pick on steelhead broodstock programs to make some kind of point? To top it all off you started the last paragraph with "possibly" :smile:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 02-25-2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Born to be Wild]

Hang on there a minute boys and girls!
This thread is spoken with emotion and personal goals but not in the best interest of what science has shown us.

And, unfortunately, you have it wrong, Man is very much more successful in the hatchery enviroment at raising fish than mother nature is in the wild.
Marty

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Come on Marty, you didn’t really say that did you?
I could give you hundred’s of examples of where mother nature is and has been much more successful at raising fish than man could ever be!

So, what we're doing is increasing the length of the run, bringing back a much higher quality product and also more numbers of returning fish back by raising the same numbers as before and putting the same genetics back into the same local watersheds. It seems like a win-win
situation to me.

I challange you to do some research on some issues before you make posts such as this and see what you find out.
Marty

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Marty I have done the research and you are not putting the same fish as the wild fish back in the river!
You are putting a first year removed from the wild hatchery fish back in the river and they do not perform as well as the wild fish that they came from according to the studies.
And on top of that the broodstock fish spawn at the same time as the wild fish and everybody knows they will stray and spawn in the wild!
That my friend could possibly have some very detrimental effects to the native wild fish!

I only know of one report done on the influences of broodstock fish on wild fish and that was done by Mark Chilcote an ODFW scientist.
The same negative influence of domestic hatchery fish on wild fish was also present in the rivers with the broodstock hatchery fish!
So according to that report, broodstock hatchery steelhead do suppress wild steelhead!

According to most all reports in the last 20 years or so, hatchery fish are a negative influence on wild fish and have been shown to cause wild stocks to decline in North America and British Columbia.

Marty, Scott, Keta and everyone else, broodstock hatchery fish are still hatchery fish!
Better in some traits, but scarier in others!

I would suggest that some of you do the research instead of just jumping on the bandwagon because you were told this is good!

We also feel these fish will have better luck spawning in the wild and returning wild off-spring. Plus if the fish do inbreed with the wild fish, there will be no genetic loss. So ya I believe we are helping the Wild fish strive.
Scott

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So is this a good thing Scott? Hatchery fish spawning in the wild?
Sorry Scott but broodstock fish do not perform as well as wild fish at spawning or surviving in the wild so if they spawn with wild fish which is inevitable, that is not my any stretch of the imagination a “good thing”!

If the tag buying public will have fish to harvest in the years ahead then the broodstock program is the best way to go about it.
In a perfect scenario we wouldn't need hatcheries of any kind because there would be plenty of native fish to harvest. Unfortunately, with the loss of habitat due to man's interference much of that habitat is lost forever and we'll probably not see any wild fish harvest anytime soon.
Stew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Stew it is a proven fact that some of “man's interference” with wild fish are hatchery fish!
The thing you don’t see Scott or Marty posting is that the Nestucca River has a healthy enough run of wild winter steelhead that there could have been a harvest on them instead of this broodstock run!
That I believe would have been the "perfect scenario"!

And if we would have went with the wild fishery there would have been better wild steelhead production because you wouldn’t have the negative influence on the wild population caused by either the domesticated hatchery steelhead or the broodstock hatchery steelhead!

I am going to request a current intensive study done on the influences of broodstock hatchery steelhead on wild native steelhead in Oregon Rivers tomorrow.
This is getting out-of-hand promoting these hatchery programs when science is once again warning us that we have already made this mistake before!

Dano

[eyeFISH]

BTBW

Thank you for helping to lay out the real facts on this issue.

captn

There was no finger-pointing in my original post... just cause to reflect on exactly what it is we are doing with these programs. How's this for a one-sentence point:

Stripping wild fish to supplement hatchery production does nothing to "help" wild fish populations.

The thing you don’t see Scott or Marty posting is that the Nestucca River has a healthy enough run of wild winter steelhead that there could have been a harvest on them instead of this broodstock run!
That I believe would have been the "perfect scenario"!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So Dan where is the science backing this up? I fish these rivers and while the wild fish are making a comeback they are not ready to have even a limited harvest.
I just don't get it Dan You talk about saving wild fish then talk about harvesting them?
Yes you are right that broodstocks are still hatchery fish! I never said it's the perfect scenario but if ODFW is going to have money for wild fish restoration where is it going to come from? Yep! The sale of licenses and tags is where.
It won't bother me at all to see the out of basin
Alsea stock disappear altogether and the sooner the better.

[eyeFISH]

"I fish these rivers and while the wild fish are making a comeback they are not ready to have even a limited harvest."

If these rivers are not healthy enough to have even limited harvest, then we should really question the wisdom of harvesting wild eggs just to supplement hatchery production.

[Born to be Wild]

Stew,

The Nestucca River has had 10,000+ returns of steelhead the last few years or so and if you were to harvest up to 20% of them (approx. 2,000 wild steelhead), you would still have some 8,000 spawners or so which is more than enough.

But instead we decide to go with "another" hatchery program and will have the same old senario that wild steelhead in the Nestucca aren't the best that they can be because of negative hatchery influence!
And then you have the bigger concern on what these hatchery broodstock fish are doing to our native wild stocks that have been segregated from cross-breeding with the domestic hatchery stocks because of their different run/spawn timing.

I think that you are playing with fire!

Nobody knows all the answers, but the one thing we do know is that broodstock are not the same as wild fish, hatchery fish are detrimental to wild fish, and YOU CANNOT DUPLICATE MOTHER NATURE!

As I have posted for sometime, show me a report that says that broodstock are fish friendly to wild fish and I won't be so concerned!
There isn't one!

And before UG jumps on here promoting the very extensive, expensive Hood River CONSERVATION broodstock program, it was discussed in Central Oregon this last week at some type of seminar for fishery biologist and it isn't panning out or living up to expectations!

Very intense and very expensive and not like the other broodstock programs and yet it is still a dissapointment!

Someday we will realize that we can't duplicate mother nature and all we acomplish by trying is screwing things up.

Dan

[ 03-05-2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Salmonator]

Dano, why is the Nestucca run of wild fish doing so well after years and years of the negative impact out of basin hatchery fish?

[Captn]

Thankyou for the response.
So --- Stripping wild fish to supplement hatchery production does nothing to "help" wild fish populations.

Does this infer that we are hurting the wildfish population? Or that we are just not doing them any good?

I personally do not care if I ever kill another steelhead. I would be more than happy to go to any of our coastal rivers, fish all day, get 6 or so fish, release them all unharmed, and go home.

Where I am having a problem with this discussion is how collecting a few wild fish, using them in te hatchery program, and releasing them is going to harm in any way the native run. The smolt are then fin clipped, return in greater numbers, are harvested, and the other (as mentioned above) 9,980 native fish go ahead and spawn.

Is the real solution for us to just not fish the rivers at all, is that where we are going with this topic? If I have missed something, please inform me. I have never really been able to understand all the fuss about this topic.

[RichH]

Show me some studies that prove that broodstock fish are detrimental to the wild fish and I would support not doing it. Notice though that I used the plural, I never take anybodies word for it based on a single study.

I work in healthcare, specifically medical imaging, and everytime a study comes out I get to deal with the after effects. I recall one a couple of years ago that showed that mammograms cause breast cancer. Women went into a panic over that one, as they understandably would. Less than 3 months later someone else came out with a study that showed the first to be flawed.

This kind of thing happens in "science" all the time and because of that I tend to be very cynical of studies. If you put 10 scientists in a room and show them the same data you'll get 10 different answers. (This is not in any way based on a study)

My point is, I go by what I see. The jury is still out on the broodstock program in my book but from what I can see it is currently the most viable option for giving people the opportunity to harvest fish. I've seen the effects of not harvesting wild fish and the rebounds those fish have made in the last 10 years. We'll see what the next 10 brings us.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

hey eyefish and others that had worries.

as far as I understand it when the wild population shrinks for some reason on the creeks they take the wild pairs from the brood stock program takes less fish.

like I said earlier there is a set healthy population quota for wild spawning pairs they cant take any fish unless that quota is met.

a few years back fishing had dropped off on the siuslaw. the run was terrible. I spoke with the boi that runs our area and he said they had a poor return of wild fish so he was only able to take about half the wild adults he usually took and there for to keep the ratio of 3 wild to 7 returning broodstock fish he had reduce the number of smolts they produced.

as far as I can see everything possible is done to protect the wild fish in the collection streams and rivers. it really seems like a sound program to me.

the only side effects I have noticed with the broodstock on the river I fish is, the run timing seems to be creeping ever later and later. originaly it was a mid feb return now it is mid to late march when the bulk of the fish show up. there is also talk of allowing us to fish untill the end of april because they are still getting good numbers of fresh fish in mid to late april.

the run also seems to get its biggest pushes of fish when the water is blown out or on the first couple days after it starts to drop. by the time the river gets in prime shape the last couple years the fish that come in on the raise have already passed thru the system and are laying in the creek. I dont know if this has anything to do with the fish they choose to use for egg take or not it could be that we have just had a lot more igh waters in the last couple years then we used to.


Quasi.
.

[Rustyoar]

Does this happen every year? This is stupid....

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I would also like to add that the way amerman and the boys up in the tilly area are goig about it seems even better then our program here we take all of our wild pairs from 2 creeks so the brood stock fish blow right to those 2 creeks when they enter the river.

I could be wrong but it sounds like to me that they are taking the wild fish from all over the river system not just 2 small creeks.

I think this is a more healthy way and better for the fishermen it spreads the impact out to the whole system rather then 2 small creeks, and it seems to me that it could even work to slow the fish down as far as how fast they move thru the river system.

Quasi.

.

[RichH]

Rusty,

Do you mean this "debate"?

It happens about every 3 months with the same conclusion and nobody ever changes anyones mind.

[Lured In]

I feel I need to chime in here...

Born to be Wild...as I recall the Chilcote study only briefly discusses the broodstock programs. The overall thought of the study discusses the impacts of spawning success and ultimately the effects on the returns of wild fish where "hatchery" fish are present.

The study does offer some serious food for thought; however, I believe you are not taking the study for what its worth. It also points out several rivers (including the Rugue and Umpqua) that are doing well with both fish in the river. It is a study and not a definitive work on why hatcheries are bad. It only points out that there are clear instances where this is true and where it is not true.


Unless I am off my rocker, the 'usual' or previous means of taking eggs was from returning hatchery fish and possibly from some wild fish as well (depending on run health). The result was essentially the cloning of hatchery fish. By implementing a broodstock program, each year brings in 'fresh' genes not subject to years of repeat hatchery spawning. The result is a 'closer' to wild hatchery fish.

One of the keys here is was mentioned by both Marty and Scott. Genetic similarity. Broodstock programs are intended to not only accomplish this, but also to reduce the impact of 'hatchery' fish spawning with wild fish. (which does and will continue to happen)

As long as we raise fish physcically in hatcheries for harvest or supplementing wild runs, there will be adaptive differences in the fish.

As I see it, no one is claiming broodstock programs have all of the answers. But it is clear to me and many others, they are a step in the right direction and generally meet the needs of sport fisherman, while minimizing impacts to wild fish.

[Siwash]

Lured In, I second your thoughts. I generally support the broodstock programs, but they are definitely not a panacea, only a lesser evil. Stew is right, in a perfect world we'd have only wild fish in harvestable abundance. I do see the broodstockers as a reasonable compromise at this point in time, but then that's what we thought about previous hatchery practices decades ago. Like Rich said, maybe several years from now we'll look back and wonder what the heck we were thinking here and now. I fully respect and appreciate Marty's and Scott's obvious investment and committment to the broodstock program up north, but it worries me when anyone takes something as complex as fish genetics and appear to only see the positive side of the equation. Starts to sound like religion when they don't acknowledge any holes in the argument. I'm glad to see Quasi questions some of the practices in the Siuslaw program; doesn't mean it's a bad program, just that it's good to keep re-evaluating it and making changes as neccessary along the way (which might ultimately also include retiring the programs entirely if that's where the longer-term results lead us--and Dan could rightfully say he told us so all along).

[cosmo]

Sometimes the one liners are the best and Salmonator had it. If hatchery programs have been this huge evil, and the Nustucca was one of the most heavily planted coastal rivers, why is the wild population so robust now?

Flies in the face of how large a problem hatchery influence is and also is the question that gets sidestepped in every one of these excercises.

[Gone Fishin]

No finger pointing, no head shaking, I'm not going to debate...But if you want some good valid information on broodstock steelhead and wild fish look for the report that's come from the Hood River. 13 years of information ... It might open your eyes and minds to what we're doing does and will work.

Thanks all!

Now, I'm getting ready for tomorrow's trip.

-Marty

[Born to be Wild]

Dano, why is the Nestucca run of wild fish doing so well after years and years of the negative impact out of basin hatchery fish?
Salmonator

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So Salmonator, what is doing so well?
Or maybe refrase it to; why aren't they doing better?
As far as I know those Nestucca steelhead are pretty healthy.
One answer to your question might be that they have been protected from harvest because they weren't doing so well?
Now remove the negative effects of hatchery fish equation in the Nestucca and those same fish would be more productive.
Does it make more sense to manage a river with good habitat with hatchery fish that suppress the wild fish or manage it for the wild fish with no negative hatchery influence and harvest those?

Show me some studies that prove that broodstock fish are detrimental to the wild fish and I would support not doing it. Notice though that I used the plural, I never take anybodies word for it based on a single study.

My point is, I go by what I see. The jury is still out on the broodstock program in my book but from what I can see it is currently the most viable option for giving people the opportunity to harvest fish. I've seen the effects of not harvesting wild fish and the rebounds those fish have made in the last 10 years. We'll see what the next 10 brings us.
Rich H

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is my whole point Rich, the jury is still out!
That is my only concern that while the jury is out, we are moving forward and could be damaging the overall health of the nate's.
And you notice I said; could be.
Obviously you realize that there are numerous reports indicating the negative effects of hatchery fish on wild fish.
So there are many reports and what makes anyone think that broodstock hatchery fish are not going to have the same negative influence on wild fish.
They will!
They are domesticated to a degree and will attract predators to the wild fish.
They will compete with wild fish for food, spawning beds and rearing habitat just as the domesticated stocks did.
There is no question that they have a negative influence on wild fish but the big question is whether they will dilute the gene's of the wild fish because their spawn timing is the same.
Science has shown that when man selectively breeds wild salmonids that they are not the same and lack the performance of the wild stocks that they came from.
I along with everyone else think that the broodstock hatchery fish are great and far superior to the old domesticated hatchery stocks.
But that is only one aspect of the programs and you need to look at the whole picture before you can justify toying with mother nature once again.
I hope it pans out but presently I see nothing positive regarding broodstocks and wild fish.

I think this is a more healthy way and better for the fishermen it spreads the impact out to the whole system rather then 2 small creeks, and it seems to me that it could even work to slow the fish down as far as how fast they move thru the river system.

Quasi

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Quasi, I'm not clear on whether it is where the fish are caught in the system or where they acclimate the smolts later?
The guides promised the Three Rivers fishermen on a different broodstock thread a while back that these fish will stray and they will have broodstock at Three Rivers because of that fact.

Unless I am off my rocker, the 'usual' or previous means of taking eggs was from returning hatchery fish and possibly from some wild fish as well (depending on run health). The result was essentially the cloning of hatchery fish. By implementing a broodstock program, each year brings in 'fresh' genes not subject to years of repeat hatchery spawning. The result is a 'closer' to wild hatchery fish.

One of the keys here is was mentioned by both Marty and Scott. Genetic similarity. Broodstock programs are intended to not only accomplish this, but also to reduce the impact of 'hatchery' fish spawning with wild fish. (which does and will continue to happen)

As long as we raise fish physcically in hatcheries for harvest or supplementing wild runs, there will be adaptive differences in the fish.

As I see it, no one is claiming broodstock programs have all of the answers. But it is clear to me and many others, they are a step in the right direction and generally meet the needs of sport fisherman, while minimizing impacts to wild fish.
Lured In

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Genetic similarity and "closer" I agree with you on that Lured In.
But since they are just "genetic similarity" and "closer" are you confident that is not going to be a problem with the wild fish that they spawn with?
In other words, are you confident that the broodstock won't eventually drag these nate's down in overall health?

No finger pointing, no head shaking, I'm not going to debate...But if you want some good valid information on broodstock steelhead and wild fish look for the report that's come from the Hood River. 13 years of information ... It might open your eyes and minds to what we're doing does and will work.
Marty

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Marty as I posted earlier on this thread the Hood River program is a whole different program than the rest of these broodstock programs and is like comparing apples and oranges.
It is extremely expensive and the latest report on the program is it isn't living up to expectations.
Especially the spring chinook.
Better off removing the dam and let mother nature rebuild that run.

Dano

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
So Salmonator, what is doing so well?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Apparently doing well enough that a select few believe there should be a harvest on them

[ 02-26-2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

hey Born I am not sure what you question was for sure but this may answer it

the wild fish are taken from 2 creeks and 2 creeks only on our system they also aclimate and release the brood stock fish in only those 2 creeks.

my thought was that up in your neck of the woods your taking them from the main river so those fish could come from any creek on the system or even be main stem spawners. I think that even though your fish are aclimated in one place because of their wild genes the returning broodstock may slow down or even become a little confused and not move so fast thru the river system.

I have heard stories about old time hatchery practices of dumping smolts here and there when the fish came back they hung up in the areas they were dumped even though they were aclimated in a hatchey firther up the river.

I thought that maybe collecting fish from a scattered area might slow the fish down and give the fisherman longer to fish for them.

our fish down here seem to blow right up to the last mile below the mouth of the creeks they are collected from and aclimated in.

Quasi

.

[SSPey]

Some wild runs have done OK with hatchery fish intermingled because of segregation in size, time and space. I just hope that broodstock fish don't have reduced egg to adult success like the hatchery-hatchery fish. Reason being that the brookstock fish have a much better chance of intermingling with the true wild fish. In comparison, puny hatchery fish don't get much of a chance to interbreed with robust wild fish, due to segregation in body size, run timing, and run location. Consider that most of the Nestucca hatchery fish divert to the hatchery tributary close to ocean, which keeps most the Nestucca system loaded with nates.

[Jerry Dove]

It sure seem strange that you all do a lot of talking, on the web. but will not come out in public and talk about it, with experts. Last night I gave you all a chance to come to the STEP conference in Tillamook where the experts will be, and guess what I got 0 replies. Can you think what it would be like to set at a round table and talk about this issue and others like it. WELL?

[spinner53]

Originally posted by Gone Fishin:

With local broodstock fish, you get fish returning throughout the season, bigger, meaner, healthy strong fish -Marty

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think I met one of the meaner gals last Sunday, I could swear I heard a cuss word ( maybe it was mi fishing partner when it broke the leader )

Marty, Scott, you guys are Awesome.

Talk about a Barnburner [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] This topic sure raised a few hackles. Informative though, thanks.

Somebody tell me the rodeo isn't on March 7 th..

[Todd]

Hi, all,

I haven't chimed in for quite a while on a political/scientific question on this board, but since it was on the other boards and I did respond...here's what I wrote.

As a bit of a pre-emptive strike, those with emotional attachments to broodstock programs, specifically or in general, make sure you read and understand what I'm saying before you get too worked up. I think a properly executed broodstock program, run in the right river, can be a tremendously good thing. My concern is that most of the programs that I am familiar with are lacking in one or more significant elements that I would consider important to be one of those properly executed programs.

That being said...here's what I wrote:

***

I don't think you can really judge broodstock programs as generally good or bad. They need to be looked at individually, and judged based on what their goals are, and how well they are being achieved.

Supplementation programs are designed to help the wild runs by creating hatchery fish that are very similar to the wild fish, hoping that they will spawn in the wild with both the wild fish and their hatchery broodstock brothers and sisters. These fish are not created for harvest...they are created to help out ailing runs that do not have sufficient numbers to keep themselves going.

Enhancement programs are designed to create a higher quality hatchery fish for harvest, with the added byproduct of having hatchery fish that will not be as detrimental to the wild gene pool when they inevitably breed in the wild. I say "inevitably" because broodstock hatchery fish have very similar, if not identical, run timing as the wild fish.

Enhancement program hatchery broodstock fish are there for harvest.

I've spoken with folks who work on broodstock programs and they couldn't tell me what the point of their program was. Or worse, tell me that it's good for the wild fish, but then tell me that they are producing great fish to harvest.

For the supplemental programs, the idea is that due to environmental concerns the wild run cannot exist even at a replacement level. Look to Wenatchee and Entiat River programs as examples of runs like that. The hatchery fish are released and left to do their thing.

The enhancement programs have a wider range of issues. The biggest one for me is the incorrect belief that they are helping wild runs. They may, however, have much less impacts on wild runs than a traditional hatchery program would.

Here's the thing...broodstock programs are absolutely mining the wild runs for eggs and sperm. When the wild fish are removed from the river, and used to make hatchery fish, that is the definition of mining.

The question is not whether or not they are mining eggs, but whether or not it's a problem to do so. If we have a river that is not much over escapement, or at or below escapement, an enhancement program is damaging the wild fish. It's taking wild fish out of a run that can't afford to lose them to produce offspring that are intended to be harvested.

If a run is well above escapement, perhaps missing a few dozen wild fish is not a big deal for the run, so that's not a problem. However, this is where the having/achieving goals comes in; there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs do not return as many fish per two adults as the two adults would have done if they were just left in the river. This would serve the purpose of both reducing the wild run and the total run, in the name of having more fish to harvest.

I guess since it's not as dangerous to the wild run to miss those fish, it's more of a political decision to make; is it better to have a few less total fish, but more to harvest? Or is it better the other way around?

My final issue, which is becoming a big one on the Chehalis system, is that if there is a sizable component of late returning broodstock hatchery fish on a river with tribal fishing, then the tribes will net for their share of those hatchery fish. I think we can all agree that having nets in the rivers in March and April is a very bad thing for all the wild fish that would also be snapped up in the nets.

On rivers without tribal netting, this obviously wouldn't be a problem...and if it happened on rivers with large wild runs, they're going to be netting in March and April anyway (i.e. the Quillayute), it wouldn't make a difference.

It's rivers that are close to or below escapement where that would be a significant problem.

My ideal broodstock program would be...

1. On a river with no tribal netting, or one that already has late season netting;

2. With a wild run consistently over escapement;

3. Where the program produces a number of returning adults significantly higher than the fish would have produced if just left in the river;

4. Where there are collection facilities or areas to geographically separate the hatchery fish from the wild fish (i.e., Snider Creek, rather than tossing the fish right in the Sol Duc) to minimize natural crossbreeding;

5. And finally, within ten minutes of my house so I can fish there all winter.

I could probably bend a bit on #5, but the rest are pretty important.

*********

Fish on,

Todd

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Well I really, really did not want to chime in on this one but against my better judgment I am going to try…

Salmonator- cosmo

With regard to the Nestucca winter steelhead it is not a simple issue. I would ask that you stop looking for the “silver bullet” that is the One thing that has helped or hurt steelhead populations.
If we go back 10 to 12 years and look at what was happening on the Nestucca we would see many things different than now. In 1993 to 1995 the population of wild winter steelhead on the Nestucca was estimated between 350 and 500 spawning individuals. There was no catch and release of wild fish. Cedar Creek Hatchery released huge numbers of steelhead, fall and spring Chinook, and coho smolts into the river. Hatchery trout was released high up in the system and trout retention was allowed. Bait was allowed above Blaine. And the Ocean conditions sucked

Today…
11,000 to 13,500 wild winter steelhead on the Nestucca. We have no retention of wild steelhead, Cedar Creek Hatchery reduced steelhead plants, eliminated coho as well as fall Chinook plants(Rhoades pond started again in 2000 with fall Chinook) No hatchery trout are planted in the Nestucca and no retention. No bait above Blaine. And the Ocean is cranking…

In my opinion we went from doing everything wrong to doing nearly everything right


As to the argument about nature and hatcheries I think Dan and Marty are both right.
The HMP (Hatchery Management Policy) has the working policy that hatcheries are better than nature in egg to smolt survival rates because they remove most of the “random” mortality associated with living in the wild. The HMP also recognizes that Hatcheries also remove some of the “selective” mortality that nature uses to create the best and fittest juvenals that make up a population. The argument about more fish or better fish will not be solved on this thread…

[Born to be Wild]

That was a couple good post Todd and ***.

I only stepped in because this thread took off like a one-sided propaganda tour.
Ya know if your physician gives you some medication you'd expect him to tell you of any possible side effects.

We don't know if these broodstock fish are going to mess up the wild fish or not.
We do know that the wild fish would be better off without them.
As Rich said; the jury is still out regarding whether the fitness of the wild stocks will be effected.

It's a gamble with a resource that is not readily replacable.
A lot of biologist and non-biologist are concerned about these brood's as the data keeps rolling in.
Some of these guys have been studying and working with these fish and reports all their lives and I suggest it doesn't hurt to listen.

When the science on the detrimental effects of hatchery fish started evolving around the 80's fishermen had a closed mind back then also but now with the overwhelming data they are starting to listen.

I think we are jumping the gun and especially in a coastal river with good habitat like the Nestucca River that didn't need any hatchery steelhead!

Sounds like from what *** posted the Nestucca River is another good example of the good things that can happen when you reduce the big hatchery programs.
Although I am not surprised because that is the trend in all the reports.

It sure seem strange that you all do a lot of talking, on the web. but will not come out in public and talk about it, with experts. Last night I gave you all a chance to come to the STEP conference in Tillamook where the experts will be, and guess what I got 0 replies. Can you think what it would be like to set at a round table and talk about this issue and others like it. WELL?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'd love to Jerry but Longview is a ways from Tillymook and I wasn't aware of the event.
Who were the experts?
I talk with experts (bio's) all the time throughout Oregon and Washington in person and via the tellyphone and read critical reports. :grin:
I'd love to go to a round table depending who would be there!
As long as there were some good bio's there and not a politician being stirred by the local guides and retail stores.

Dano

[ 03-05-2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[cosmo]

***,
Thank you for basically validating the point that BTBW fingering hatchery fish as the downfall of wild fish is not right. A whole lot of factors are at play. Looking at coastal steelhead trends on the whole, anyone can see that ocean conditions put a serious hurt on wild fish. An unrealistic harvest rate in the past didn't help, either. And planting of hatchery trout was a huge mistake. You cannot sidestep the fact that if hatchery intervention had been the massive evil that is being portrayed in this thread, there would not be the wild population there is today. Or in other words, with all of the factors you mention, why is it that hatchery steelhead plants take the brunt of the blame? As a biologist, care to weight the differing factors?

[Uglygreen]

And before UG jumps on here promoting the very extensive, expensive Hood River CONSERVATION broodstock program, it was discussed in Central oregon this last week at some type of seminar for fishery biologist and it isn't panning out or living up to expectations!

Very intense and very expensive and not like the other broodstock programs and yet it is still a dissapointment!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Danno,

Enlighten me here! What is the difference between the Hood River steelhead broodstock program, and the steelhead broodstock programs on the Clackamas, Wilson, Sandy, Siletz, Etc...?

Please be specific as to why they are different.

Do they breed them differently?

Do they raise them differently?

Do they release them differently?

Why do you think there is a signifigant cost difference?

Also - who did you speak to regarding that seminar last week in central Oregon? Maybe you can email me a name and a phone number?

UG

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Cosmo

Quote “As a biologist, care to weight the differing factors?”…
No, ask a biologist. :grin:

Quote “You cannot sidestep the fact that if hatchery intervention had been the massive evil that is being portrayed in this thread, there would not be the wild population there is today”…
Actually, that is the one thing I would like to spend a lot of time discussing. The subtleties and nuances that are how hatchery intervention can have negative affects upon wild populations are numerous and can be difficult concepts to grasp. That does not mean that All hatchery programs are bad, it also means that there is always room for improvement. I have found that the evil that exists in many programs does not come from our lack of understanding but from the shortcuts and the oversimplification of biological issues found in the various district kingdoms of ODFW. :tongue:

Quote “A whole lot of factors are at play. Looking at coastal steelhead trends on the whole, anyone can see that ocean conditions put a serious hurt on wild fish”
That brings us to the very heart of the natural production – hatchery production debate.
If factors other than the number of smolts that exit a river are what determines the size of a returning population why do we spend so much time money and effort on hatcheries? What is or has been the limiting factors for each population? I have always felt that in the long run with the hatchery programs that we have had we would actually get less fish back than if we did not have them at all. That is not to say they can not be improved. Hatcheries must be used in a manner to eliminate as much impact on wild fish populations while trying to boost overall production. Anything less than that is a waste of our money. :depressed:

Regards

[ 02-28-2004, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Born to be Wild]

***,
Thank you for basically validating the point that BTBW fingering hatchery fish as the downfall of wild fish is not right. A whole lot of factors are at play. Looking at coastal steelhead trends on the whole, anyone can see that ocean conditions put a serious hurt on wild fish. An unrealistic harvest rate in the past didn't help, either. And planting of hatchery trout was a huge mistake. You cannot sidestep the fact that if hatchery intervention had been the massive evil that is being portrayed in this thread, there would not be the wild population there is today. Or in other words, with all of the factors you mention, why is it that hatchery steelhead plants take the brunt of the blame? As a biologist, care to weight the differing factors?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Cosmo,

How many times do you have to see the evidence before you believe it?
Take your blinder's off and see for yourself!
Would you like for me to post other reports like this one below that say the same thing?
The Nestucca wild fish would be doing better if it weren't for the hatchery programs as are the trends overall when you don't have hatchery fish!
You admitted that; "And planting of hatchery trout was a huge mistake"!
Hatchery fish are hatchery fish and "all" of them have a detrimental effect on wild fish, bar none!

So care to show me where hatchery fish haven't caused a decline or supressed state of wild fish?

Naturally Spawning Hatchery Steelhead Contribute to Smolt
Production but Experience Low Reproductive Success

KATHRYN E. KOSTOW*
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
2501 Southwest First Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97207, USA

ANNE R. MARSHALL AND STEVAN R. PHELPS1
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501, USA

Abstract.—We used genetic mixture analyses to show that hatchery summer-run steelhead Oncorhynchus
mykiss, an introduced life history in the Clackamas basin of Oregon, where only winterrun steelhead are native, contributed to the naturally produced smolts out-migrating from the basin.
Hatchery-produced summer steelhead smolts were released starting in 1971, and returning adults were passed above a dam into the upper Clackamas River until 1999. In the 2 years of our study, summer steelhead adults, mostly hatchery fish, made up 60% to 82% of the natural spawners in the river.
Genetic results provided evidence that interbreeding between hatchery summer and wild winter steelhead was likely minor. Hatchery summer steelhead reproductive success was relatively poor. We estimated that they produced only about one-third the number of smolts per parent that wild winter steelhead produced.
However, the proportions of summer natural smolts were large
(36–53% of the total naturally produced smolts in the basin) because hatchery adults predominated on the spawning grounds during our study. Very few natural-origin summer adults were observed, suggesting high mortality of the naturally produced smolts following emigration.
Counts at the dam demonstrated that hatchery summer steelhead predominated on natural spawning grounds throughout the 24-year hatchery program.
Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild winter steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.

[ 03-05-2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Born to be Wild]

Here's another one I have posted Cosmo:

Abstract: The proportion of wild fish in 12 mixed populations of hatchery and wild steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
was evaluated for its relationship to mean and intrinsic measures of population productivity. The population mean of
ln(recruits/spawner) was used to represent mean productivity. Intrinsic productivity was represented by values for the
Ricker a parameter as estimated from fits of spawner and recruit data. Significant regressions {p &lt; 0.001} were found
between both measures of productivity and the proportion of wild fish in the spawning population {Pw}. The slopes of
the two regressions were not significantly different {p = 0.55} and defined a relationship suggesting that a spawning
population comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish would produce 63% fewer recruits per spawner than
one comprised entirely of wild fish. Study findings were not sensitive to likely levels of data error or confounded by
extraneous habitat correlation with Pw. Population status assessments and conservation monitoring efforts should include
Pw as a critical variable. For natural populations, removal rather than addition of hatchery fish may be the most
effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">All the scientific evedence shows us that hatchery fish are detrimental to wild fish and yet some of us still have the mind-set that we need to clip, clip, clip even where they are not needed!

Sorry but I am going to go with sound science and I don't need any more proof that hatchery fish are artificial and a detriment to wild fish and fishermen.

I take the more cautious management point of view and go with what you know will work (mother nature) and have reservations about promoting full blown hatchery experiments.

Where we have been going back to basics and managing for wild fish and habitat we are seeing excellent results!

Get rid of the gill net fisheries and cut back hatchery programs where they are not needed in the Columbia trib's and you might find the right answers there also.

As far as the coastal rivers are concerned where habitat is good (but can be better), go with wild fish and manage accordingly.

But then you have the Jerry Dove's and local guide's and retail store's that for some reason think you need to have "hatchery fish" to make money and make everyone happy!



Dano

[ 03-05-2004, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Salmonator]

BTBW, were those studies done with in-basin native broodstock hatchery fish (which last time I looked is what this thread is about)? If not, please show all your science showing that in-basin native broodstock fish do not successfully produce natural born offspring comparable to existing wild (native) brood. Better yet, I'd like to see how our earliest broodstock rivers are hurting the local population of nates, coquille ect. If you want to convince me about your rants then show me something relevant.

[ 02-28-2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[Salmonator]

Please

[Born to be Wild]

BTBW, were those studies done with in-basin native broodstock hatchery fish (which last time I looked is what this thread is about)? If not, please show all your science showing that in-basin native broodstock fish do not successfully produce natural born offspring comparable to existing wild (native) brood. Better yet, I'd like to see how our earliest broodstock rivers are hurting the local population of nates, coquille ect. If you want to convince me about your rants then show me something relevant.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Good point Salmonator!
I would also like to see how our earliest broodstock rivers are hurting or helping the local population of nates, coquille ect.

I mentioned I believe on my first post on this thread that I was going to call and request that a study/report be done on the broodstock programs in Oregon including those first programs done in southern Oregon.

I didn't get the opportunity because I am very busy at the moment but I will try again Monday.
I think the guy I need to talk to is Charlie Corrarino.

I feel since we are jumping the gun with these programs and folks are not concerned about possible negative effects on wild fish that this study is essential.
I can't think of a more important study that needs to take place at this given time.

One thing I think you can bank on is that if and when the report is done you will see the same negative influence caused by the broodstocks.
Why wouldn't you?

Dano

[ 03-05-2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Born to be Wild]

I just don't get it Dan You talk about saving wild fish then talk about harvesting them?
Yes you are right that broodstocks are still hatchery fish! I never said it's the perfect scenario but if ODFW is going to have money for wild fish restoration where is it going to come from?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I will try to answer that and try to explain your confusion Stew.
Let me give you another scenario.
The Siletz River and wild chinook.
We no longer put any hatchery chinook in the basin.
The siletz chinook are extremely healthy, support a good harvest and are doing it on their own.
I am for the lack of hatchery chinook in that basin and I am all for harvest of those wild chinook in that basin.
Now you see, to me that is the perfect scenario.
A healthy run of wild chinook with both an ocean commercial fishery and ocean/freshwater sport fishery on them.

Now if you want to compare what is happening there to what is taking place up on the Tillamook/Nestucca Rivers where they are going nuts with there hatchery chinook, you're going to be in for a dissapointment.

And you have the same good scenario down on the Yaquina, Alsea and Siusala rivers.

Just another way at looking at different management strategies.

Dano

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:

One thing I think you can bank on is that if and when the report is done you will see the same negative influence caused by the broodstocks.
Why wouldn't you?

Dano

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Why wouldn't I. Lets see... first because to an unejeecated guy like myself it just seems to make sense. Much more sense than the previous hatchery practices. Second, I love to catch big, thick, native-looking hatchery fish. Third, even an unejeecated guy like myself knows that a higher hatchery return percentage means that you can release fewer smolts to compete with wild smolts resulting in a higher nate count with the same number of returning brats. Thats as far as my own personal "science" goes and I realize it's just one aspect of all the concerns that yourself, *** and STG Rule have, but I see it as enough to be cheerleading about because I see them all as positives that are happening right now. It's not speculation, it's fact. If some of the other factors turn up to be negative, (edit: more than or as negative than current practices) which I myself seriously doubt, I find it hard to believe we will lose entire runs of pure native steelhead genetics, even if such a thing does exist.... Joe

[ 02-28-2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[Born to be Wild]

I understand all the positive attributes of the broodstock Joe, but there are the negatives also.
One we know for sure is that the competition for spawning gravel and rearing habitat by the broodstock fish will have a negative effect on the nates.
The broodstock steelhead also compete with the wild steelhead for the avaiable food!
Also hatchery fish bring on predation to wild stocks also because of their size, lack of "street smarts" from being raised in a cement pond or concrete raceway.
And if they are successful at out-competing the wild fish at spawning you have lost out there also because they are not the same as the wild fish.

As far as negatively harming the wild fish genetic's or overall health over a period of time, the jury is still out.

I don't understand why the heck some folks can't accept wild steelhead doing it on their own as they are in some locations and used to do before we hammered them with hatchery fish.

Late for dinner.
Out of here.

Dano

[ 02-29-2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:

I don't understand why the heck some folks can't accept wild steelhead doing it on their own as they are in some locations and used to do before we hammered them with hatchery fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Because hatchery fish isn't the only thing they got hammered with

Does anyone have info regarding the numbers of coastal wild steelhead pre-hatchery? Of course with past environmental practices, ocean conditions and general human intervention it might be hard to pinpoint declines but I think those numbers would also be interesting.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Salmonator

Thank you for your post, I did not realize STG had been vocal regarding her opinions. I for one would like to see more of her opinions regarding hatchery programs.

I uploaded a few things from my computer that explain some of the reasons why some people are not comfortable with looking at Broodstock programs as the final answer
I am sorry the Chilcote study is the Draft version but that was the only electronic copy I had.

http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/Clack..._2-1-02-l1.doc

http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/chilcote.pdf

http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/Clack...h_genetics.pdf
:smile: