Brood Stock Program

[Jennie@ifish]

Would someone be so kind as to explain to folks what the brood stock program is all about?
I don't want to state anything incorrectly ... Is there a link on ODFW about the Broodstock programs?
I'll check.
I have received a couple e mails asking.
Jen

[fishhead5]

Jen,
Short version is they collect native stock to use for their hatchery fish.

Fishhead5

[ampersat]

i could be wrong but i thought the broodstock program involved taking native fish and using them as the stock for the next batch of fingerlings. the point is to avoid the supposed genetic bias of re-breeding hatchery fish for generations upon generations. also, most hatchery fish are strains taken from other rivers, which causes the run timing of hatchery fish to be different from the native run. over time, using broodstock for hatcheries will breed the transplanted strain out of the river.

frankly, i don't personally believe in the genetic bias theory. however, i do feel that the fry should be introduced into the watershed as soon as is feasible. the longer they spend in the hatchery pens looking up at the guy with the feed bucket, the less natural their behavior will be. the sooner they start to fend for themselves in their natural environment, the better.

also, since we're talking about taking native fish to breed, these are often line caught fish. if we selectively breed these fish, we'll actually be breeding the bite back into the fish.

[FearNoEvil]

amper is that a good thing?

[ampersat]

there was a thread here a while back about breeding the bite out of the fish by only reproducing the ones that made it to the hatchery without getting caught. my contribution to that thread was from an article i'd read regarding a study of commercial fishers on the east coast. the upshot of the study was that they were effectively breeding strains of fish smaller by taking the larger fish out of the gene pool. it would stand to reason that we would be breeding the bite out of fish by reproducing those that weren't caught. after all, we've created horses and dogs with specific traits by successively breeding those that exhibit those traits.
is this a good thing? the hatcheries are there to provide opportunities for sport fisherman to catch and keep fish. if we breed the bite out of the hatchery fish, what good is the program? without biters, the fish simply go straight to the hatchery, get recycled a few times, then get whacked. at best, their purpose in life would be to get airdropped in the upper watersheds for nutrient enrichment programs. laudable, but not really what the hatcheries are about.

[Joe]

Anglers collect native brood by hook and line. These adults are live spawned and returned to the river (hopefully to return again). The offspring are used for hatchery production.

Seems like a great program to me!

:smile: :smile:

[rob allen]

As was stated above a Wild Broodstock program is a program where wild fish are taken from the system spawned then the offspring are planted back in the river.
This really turns out to be only a very minor improvment unfortunatly. These "first generation hatchery fish" have virtually all of the same problems as any other hatchery program. Even in broodstock programs there is the loss of genetic fitness.
There is another idea being thrown around which involved capturing wild juveniles holding them till adulthood then breeding them. On the surface it sounds like a great idea but in a study by Michael Lynch of U of O he examined the issue and in all his experiments with this process it led to the extinction of the species in 100% of the cases and the time it took to achieve extinction was depended on how often a new generation was produced.

I hate having to nagg about this issue but if you choose to believe there is no difference between wild fish and hatchery fish you have to understand that you are believing that against all of the avaliable science. Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish but if you choose to believe that hatchery and wild fish are the same you have to do so by faith alone because there is no science to support that position. I have looked high and low for a scientifuc basis for that argument but have found nothing.

[Captain and Marie]

Just what I heard on TV awhile back.

There is no genetic diference between broodstock and hatchery fish.

From a professor of genetics.

Is this really true?

Sure would like to know for sure...

Marie :smile:

[rob allen]

just small relevant parts of some of the studies.

DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH

1) Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of
anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson,
and R. Naiman (eds.) In: Pacific Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman
Hall, Inc.


"Gene flow from hatchery fish also is deleterious because hatchery
populations genetically adapt to the unnatural conditions of the hatchery
environment at the expense of adaptedness for living in natural streams.
This domestication is significant even in the first generation of hatchery
rearing."
__________________________________________________ ___

2) Jonsson, Bror, and Ian A. Fleming. 1993. Enhancement of wild salmon
populations. G. Sundnes ed.) Human impact on self-recruiting populations,
an international symposium. Kongsvoll, Norway, Tapit, Trondheim, Norway.

"Thus, the use of supplementation to enhance populations should be
carefully considered, even when only a single generation boost to a
population seems warranted.
" Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild
salmon, with common genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single
generation in the hatchery. Hatchery females averaged 80% of the breeding
success of wild females and hatchery males averaged 65% of the breeding
success of wild males."
__________________________________________________ _____

3) Reisenbichler, RR. 1996. The risks of hatchery supplementation. The
Osprey. Issue 27. June 1996.

"Available data suggest progressively declining fitness for natural rearing
with increasing generations in the hatchery. The reduction in survival from
egg to adult may be about 25% after one generation in the hatchery and 85%
after six generations. Reductions in survival from yearling to adult may be
about 15% after one generation in the hatchery, and 67% after many generations."
__________________________________________________ _____

4) Verspoor, Eric. 1988. Reduced genetic variability in first generation
hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 45,
1988.

"Mean heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus were positively
correlated with effective number of adults (N) used to establish the
hatchery groups and averaged 26 % and 12 % lower, respectively, than wild
stocks. The observations are consistent with a loss of genetic variability
in the hatchery salmon from random drift caused by using small numbers of
salmon for broodstock.
"More hatchery groups appeared to be monomorphic than did wild stocks.
"Hatchery samples were 50% larger than those from the wild introducing a
bias in favor of detecting alleles in the hatchery groups compared with the
wild stocks. Thus the differences is probably underestimated.
"There is a loss of alleles in the hatchery groups with lower Ne (effective
breeding population numbers) values.
"Theory suggest that most (>99%) genetic variability will be preserved if
Ne of the broodstock is > 50.
"Losses of genetic variability can occur even in the first hatchery
generation if numbers of fish used for broodstock are not sufficient. The
average reductions in variability detected here are the same as those found
in salmon maintained in hatcheries for a number of generations. Stahl found
levels of heterozygosity to be 20% lower in Swedish hatchery salmon."
__________________________________________________

5) Waples, Robin. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. February 1999.
The American Fisheries Society. Fisheries Vol. 24. No. 2.

"In the Tucannon River in southeastern Washington, a (hatchery)
supplementation program for the depressed run of spring chinook salmon (O.
tshawytscha) was initiated in the mid-1980s. Founded with local broodstock,
this program aims to maintain genetic integrity of the natural population
and has a strong research and evaluation component. In spite of these
efforts, data for the early 1990s showed that, compared to the natural
adults, returning hatchery fish were younger, were smaller for the same age,
and had lower fecundity for the same size (Burgert et al. 1992). The
underlying causes of these somewhat surprising phenotypic changes are not
known; however, even if the changes were entirely an environmental response
to hatchery conditions, they still would represent a significant
single-generation reduction in productivity of the population."

[Amerman]

Rob,

I think you are missing the point. The people that started the programs on these rivers (me being one of them) never have tried to say these fish are the same as wild fish. What we are trying to do is improve the quality and genetics of our hatchery fish in these rivers. In all the rivers these programs are being done we are replacing an inferior out-of-basin hatchery strain of fish that has been inbred for many years from one line of genetics. We are replacing a strain of hatchery fish that has been breeding brothers and sister for 60 years with a strain of hatchey that is indiginous to the water shed they are dumped in, will be created from a new stock every year and never inbreed. These fish are hatchery fish, but we are hoping they are a better strain of hatchery fish than what we currently have. We are hoping these fish will do less damage to streams than the current hatchery fish. And I for one feel that this is the best alternative we have at this point.

What we have found through this program so far is: that the broodstock hatchery fish have a higher survivability rate, they come back as a larger healther fish, and have more of the aggressive mannerisims like a wild fish. If you look at these broodstock fish when they return, they are larger and fatter fish--much more like a wild fish looks. This is what we are excited about as anglers. We are excited because we know that the fish we may get to take home may be over 6 or 8 pounds (what are current out-of-basin stock runs) and that this fish may actually fight when hooked. Ask anyone who has fished for these fish ( Umpqua, Coquille, Siletz or any other). They will tell you. Look at the picture of the 20# one I caught off the Wilson the other day.

Is it perfect? NO. Is it the best thing if all we want to do is save the native strain? NO. But if we want to be able to continue to fish and be able to keep a fish to take home and eat, then this is the best option I see out there. Your other idea (and I know you were not condoning it) sounds asinine.

My .02

[Gone Fishin]

I have to agree with Scott 100%, while broodstock programs maybe aren't going to save the fish runs, as your studies on mostly Atlantic Salmon indicate, broodstock programs are essential for a healthier watershed.

If you are going to supplement a stream with hatchery-raised fish (which we need if we want to continue harvesting fish), why don't you use in-basin fish so you have the local genetics of the species? I don't give a ****, it's just common sense, it's better than something out of a book.

Of Broodstock Steelhead programs currently implemented, evidence is there to support a healther, better, more plentiful product returning than the original inferior out-of-basin stocks.

I too feel Broodstock Programs are the way to the future for our fish/fisheries and hatcheries. And it is my right to support them, and I do. I also applaud those whose efforts have got these programs going. Let's keep up the good work!

Anyone for a Kilchis Broodstock Program?

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]</p>

[FearNoEvil]

OK question!!! ALright... on most rivers the hatchery fish enter the rivers at different time.. i know for the puyallup the indians net up until middle to late january for steelhead.. and the natives enter the system more in march.. so if they used brood stock wouldnt they just have to net later, and catch all the native fish as well?
which in the long run could cause more harm to the native runs?

[Bubzilla]

Rob,

No offense, but you're not going to be satisfied with any hatchery operaton of any kind--and frankly, that's not a realistic position. Does the available science support the proposition that hatchery fish aren't the same as wild fish? Of course. Does it support the argument that hatchery fish are in fact inferior to wild fish in virtually every quantifiable manner? Yes it does. Does the available science indicate hatchery fish are actually a detriment to native fish stocks? For the most part, yes. Does any of that mean jack in the real world? Nope.

You see, there's this little thing called reality that most of us subscribe to on a daily basis. This phenomena prevents most of us from shopping for 50' yachts, asking super models out on dates, trying out for professional basketball teams, and generally otherwise expecting or asking for the impossible. Unfortunately, there are a number of anadromous fish advocates who don't play by the same rules. They propose things like breaching entire networks of mainstem dams--something with a multi-billion dollar price tag--closure of entire fisheries, and the wholesale elimination of hatchery stocking operations. A lot of the time, if not most of the time, they're right on the science--unfortunately, they're living in fantasy land when it comes to political and social reality. And, like most ideolouges, they generally lack the ability to grasp that it's impossible to view any issue in black and white.

At least one indisputable fact about broodstock programs that you ignored is that they don't rely on stocks from other drainages--a long-standing practice throughout Oregon's North Coast. It's a significant improvement, and its organizers and supporters should be commended. In addition, each of us who enjoys the fruits of this program should thank the many volunteers who make it possible.

For those of us who recognize that hatchery operations are not only part of our past, but an unavoidable part of our future, the broodstock program is definitely a step in the right direction. I don't know, maybe I should just take the day off and go fishing. Although, I could go work on my jump shot!!! :grin:

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]</p>

[Mad Mikey]

&lt;&lt;if we selectively breed these fish, we'll actually be breeding the bite back into the fish&gt;&gt;

This notion that some fish are biters and some are not is just an old fisherman's wives tale. They all will bite something sometime. You just gotta be in the right place at the right time!
Aggressiveness may vary due to light, water, temps,hatchery/wild, etc. Blah Blah Blah, they all bite sometime, if they didn't they never would have made it to adulthood. Don't overcomplicate it, as much as we love em' they are still just fish, miniscule lil' brains the size of a pea.
God love those big bad March natives on the Wilson, the ultimate cool in steelhead.

tite lines,
Mad Mikey

[Bubzilla]

Mad Mikey,

You might want to take a look at page 8 of the latest STS. The article entitled "Deschutes Steelhead Proves Wild Steelhead Best Biters."

[rob allen]

Thats exactly what I am talking about. Reality! In reality we cannot expect a broodstock program to do any less damage than any other hatchery program. Broodstock programs have all of the same problems as any other hatchrey program.
Here is what I would propose.

1.Manditory retention of the first 3 hatchery steelhead caught.. NO catch and release on hatchery fish with a permanent 3 fish limit.
2. As on the Kalama remove every single hatchery fish from the system and keep them from getting to the majority of the spawning areas.

3. Use the Keogh river as a model in salmon/steelhead restoration. In general all our rivers have excellent spawning habitat. What is missing is rearing habitat ie woody debris and side/back channels On top of that add serious nutrient enhancment and we can expect a 6 fold increase in wild steelhead production even in a time of poor ocean conditions.

I guess what I am saying is that our wild runs can be restored to historic levels!
They are doing it right now with great success on the Keogh river in BC and it's cheap!
They have spent 1 million dollars on the Keogh river project which is 35 KM long.
We can have our cake and eat it too but we can't do it by wasting all our money on hatcheries.

I am very glad there are people who care enough about our fisheries to spend their own time and energy for these broodstock programs. I just don't think people let alone ODFW should be promoting them as a means of helping wild fish. Producing these fish for harvest and sport is fine let's just develop ways to remove them all from the system before spawning and work towards real restoration at the same time.

[Bubzilla]

Rob,

One million for a river that's less than fourteen miles long? How much do you suppose that restoration at a rate even that "cheap" would run for even half of Oregon or Washington's anadromous fisheries? Before you answer, I think it's safe to say that it's many times what tax payers are willing to front--many, many times, actually.

Restoration is an excellent idea. Even if completely successful, however, it's unlikely that wild stocks could support consumptive fisheries of the sort we have now. And there's little to no political support among anglers for completely closing consumptive opportunities. There may be support among the public for ending hatchery subsidies, but those people aren't in favor of spending even more money on restoration attempts.

As for mandatory retention and increased limits, that won't change the fact that hatchery fish are going to still be introduced. Consumptive fisheries are here to stay. That means hatcheries are too. There will always be an escapement problem with hatchery fish--regardless of limits or retention requirements. But which is better: a first-generation escapee from native stocks, or a fish with hatchery parentage from a completely different river?

It seems, as I said before, that the only people opposed to broodstock programs are those who oppose hatchery operations of any kind. Rather than recognizing that broodstock programs are an improvement to a system that is not going to end, they argue against the sytems itself. Not very realisitic.

[rob allen]

Bubzilla

My point is that a broodstock hatchery fish spawning with a wild fish is no better(according to the science) than any other hatchery fish spawning with a wild fish. Not because of genetics but because of their reproductive success.
My point about the cost of restoration being cheap that is compared against the tens of millions of dollars per year that go to running the states hatchery system. This was a million dollar one time shot thing not an ongoing cost.
So far you have stated that 1. habitat restoration is not a realistic option and eliminating hatchery production is not a realistic option. and that eliminating hatchery fish from the system before spawning is unrealistic. What you are saying with thoes three statements is that saving and restoring wild steelhead in Oregon is unrealistic. That to me is extremely sad.
It will be even sadder when the time comes that there is a disease at a hatchery that kills an entire year class of fish and there are no wild fish left for a broodstock. Then there will be no fishery at all.

[AllThumz]

First of all, thanks to Scott and Marty for their explanations of the broodstock program.

Since I'm so good at asking the dumb question, here's one: If we are indeed breeding inferior hatchery fish, what are the alternatives other than taking the stronger wild fish for broodstock? They're inherently a stronger "species," and don't suffer the "inbred" characteristics of current hatchery strains.

Rob: I can certainly understand your concerns, and see a valid argument. In reality, though, it appears that the only way to restore a genuine wild fishery is to close the rivers and let Mother Nature take over. Period. Unfortunately, with so many nets in Washington rivers, that may be too much to ask for there.

I'm just trying to use some common sense here, even if it may be way off base.

It would be wonderful if there were an easy solution, but using broodstock fish for future generations seems to be the only viable answer (at the present time).

But then, these are only my essentially uninformed opinions.

John

[Bubzilla]

Rob,

Let's assume, for arguments sake, that restoration would be cheaper than continued hatchery operation--ignoring, for now, the extensive flaws in that logic. You're going to support a consumptive fishery, with say a two fish per day limit and a generous annual limit of say twenty or more per season, for wild steelhead? That's what we have now: a consumptive fishery with those sorts of limits. How long do you suppose all fishing, and certainly consumptive fishing, would have to cease in order for native runs to reach levels that would support a consumptive fishery of that kind? Once restored, how long do you suppose wild stocks could support that sort of pressure before being back in their current state?

The actual costs of restoration would necessarily include the expenses associated with watershed and critical habitat improvements, including: much more extensive limitations on logging, mining, road building, agricultural operations, hydroelectric project operations, and other general forms of development. What do you suppose those things would actually cost, and who do you suppose would support those efforts--over significant opposition from virtually every resource-based income-generating interest in the Northwest? When push comes to shove, do you think the general public is going to choose wild fish or economic viability? That's not a value judgment, it's a question of realisitic priorities.

I'm not saying, and never have, that it's unrealistic to want to save wild steelhead. It's a noble and worthy cause. It's not my opinion, but simply the fact of the matter, to say that it's impossible to restore wild stocks to pre-Columbian levels. Unfortunately, it's more than likely fanciful to hope for even restoring them to the levels seen at the dawn of the last century.

Let's be honest about what this all means: ending hatchery operations means ending anadromous fishing opportunities. How much support, among fishermen, do you suppose there is for that?

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]</p>

[FallRiverGuy]

Here is a report just put out by the National Acadamy of Science.
http://www.mainesalmonrivers.org/napsal.htm
http://www.mainesalmonrivers.org/napsal.htm

Genetic Status of Atlantic Salmon in Maine: Interim Report (2002)

(part of the conclusion)
If salmon in Maine are merely the local “farm crop,” rather than largely the result of natural processes, they might not be “Maine salmon.” We do not have data to answer this question completely.
We can, however, draw some inferences from comparisons of the watershed-specific samples of the current DPS rivers. If Maine salmon are an artificial construct of non-river-specific hatchery supplementation, then the separate watershed-specific populations should be genetically indistinguishable. The genetic evidence available for review indicates that the natural populations are distinguishable from each other. Moreover, their degree of distinctiveness is typical of that found throughout the remaining world distribution of wild Atlantic salmon. The data suggest that current Main salmon in the DPS rivers are not mainly hatchery mixtures but rather show the typical metapopulation structure that characterizes wild populations of salmon and their relatives in places where stocking has been absent or insignificant. Maine has wild salmon populations in the eight DPS rivers that are as divergent from Canadian populations and from each other as expected among wild salmon populations elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere.

--------------------------------------------------
Please note that I am not trying to say that the brood stock program in not useful because I personally think it is.

I think this is good news because this finding indicates that remaining wild fish should be genetically unpolluted from hatchery fish brought in from other watersheds. And that programs to enhance wild fish are a step in the right direction.

This is an interesting report.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: FallRiverGuy ]</p>

[Mad Mikey]

Bubzilla,

&lt;&lt;
Mad Mikey,
You might want to take a look at page 8 of the latest STS. The article entitled "Deschutes Steelhead Proves Wild Steelhead Best Biters."

You'll get no argument from me there as I think I did qualify what I said about conditions and hatchery/wild fish being in the equation.
I remember an old guy who is the father of one of my best fishing buddies saying that only one out of ten steelhead are "biters". I still can't figger out how that came to be or where they got the numbers. It's something that cannot be proven really either way. I just think they ALL will bite sometime, hopefully when I'm there!!!

:grin:

good fishin' to ya, MM

[rob allen]

Thanks Fallriverguy Excellent post.

Bubzilla you misunderstand me a little first of all if we are going to continue hatchery supplementation (and we are) some sort of brood stock is the way to go. Broodstock programs however should NOT be portrayed as somehting that is good for wild fish.

If we refuse to restore and maintain habitat, and we refuse to take hatchery fish out of the system we are essentially saying that we are not going to put any effort into saving wild fish. That to me is absolutely unacceptable. Of course that is exactly what we are doing now.

In B.C. there is very little consumptive sport fishing the anglers have learned that a fish in the stream is more valuable than a fish in their freezer. That is reality. Like it or not Northwest anglers better get used to the idea of practicing catch and release a lot more. They also better get used to the idea of going out with the intention of catching and releaseing. Catch and release is an extremely effective method of sustaining both native fish populations and fishing opportunity.
I say this because there is no acceptable reason for maintaining hatchery plants on any stream that has no hatchery complex such as the East Fork of the Lewis river!
I guess it biols down to a differing philosophy
I believe that the exsistance fish themselves is far far more important that our right to go and fish for them. If it comes to a choice between fish or fishing every angler should be willing to put down his rod. I say this as someone who fishes 200 days a year.

Thats all I have nothing more to say in this topic. I am sorry it strayed so far from the question posted by the origional poster.