Sent to me by Dennis Richey

[Jennie@ifish]

This is one of the efforts that we have been working on w/ the Citizen's Forum (of Columbia R. users- power producers, wheatgrowers, barge owners, commercial fishermen, the Tribes, etc.). Oregon Anglers is working on bringing all the factions who depend on hatcheries, for their varied interests, together to support sensible salmon recovery.
This paper, or parts of it, may be a key part of our developing white paper.
Comments are welcome. This is a working draft.
Denny
---

Hatcheries Paper, with 5/24/02 Revisions

Salmon recovery efforts within the Columbia River Basin have become mired in the continuing debate regarding the relative merits of “hatchery vs. wild.” The debate itself is all too often used as a thinly disguised attempt to advance unspoken agendas such as harvest restriction and habitat restoration. It is our position that these agendas must be debated upon their own respective merits and that the responsible use of hatcheries is an issue, which should be put to rest. State and federal salmon policies should promote optimum and sustainable fish populations for their biological, harvest and aesthetic values.
It is imperative that we use all recovery and conservation tools available. Current and proposed policies, which ignore the utility and importance of hatcheries have produced significant disruption and have hindered progress in salmon recovery efforts across the Pacific Northwest.
Hatcheries cannot and should not be considered a panacea for salmon recovery. Countless other impediments are unaffected by hatchery construction or operation. The reality of our current situation requires that all available tools for the rebuilding of anadromous fish stocks should be available for use. Hatcheries are one such tool. Arguments that discourage their use in a biologically and genetically responsible manner are ill advised and short-sighted.
A holistic overview of the Columbia-Snake River would have to include its role as an immense and magnificent natural hatchery. For the immediate and foreseeable future the responsible use of artificial habitat (hatcheries) to replace some lost natural hatchery functions must be employed to forestall continued extinction and to maintain the livelihoods of communities which are dependent upon harvestable salmon for their spiritual and economic well being. We are compelled to use supplemental habitat to support rebuilding efforts and community health.
Salmon recovery plans that oppose the use of hatcheries base the majority of their opposition on a four-fold premise: (1) Salmon and steelhead, which are native to a watershed, have evolved over centuries to be ideally suited to survive within that unique environment; (2) Hatchery-reared juvenile salmonids are genetically inferior and physically weaker than their “wild” brethren; (3) Upon release, hatchery fish compete with fish spawned in-stream and negatively impact the survivability of the “wild” offspring; and (4) Interbreeding between “hatchery” and “wild” stocks will weaken the “wild” fish and reduce the likelihood of recovery.
No one denies the amazing impact of natural selection. Evolution fine-tunes characteristics necessary for survival and is a basic requirement for all species. The biological mechanism resulting in slow alteration of genetics would be a seemingly inarguable game-ending point in favor of anti-hatchery advocates. A perfectly evolved animal living in a distinct and discrete environment is clearly the ideal. The fallacy of using this argument to discourage the use of hatcheries rests in the environment itself. How many watersheds within the Columbia Basin have survived into this century unaltered? What salmonid species has had the necessary generations to evolve to match today's ecosystem niche? The clear answer to survival of any salmon or steelhead within the Columbia Basin lies within the fish themselves. The resiliency and adaptability of these magnificent creatures have allowed the survival of the species in the face of untold harm and unimaginable loss. Even the most biased observer of hatchery-bred salmon adults spawning in countless watersheds could not deny that resiliency and adaptability are not removed at the hatchery.

Studies indicating higher adult return percentages from smolts originating in-stream as opposed to smolts released from a hatchery are used to illustrate the inherent superiority of “wild” fish. In reality, these studies highlight a totally different effect. Fish culturists are very aware that hatchery practices protect large numbers of juveniles that would not survive in the stream environment. Consequently, a high percentage of hatchery-reared smolts are unable to meet the natural challenges presented upon release. It is a fact that nature will not be denied. Natural mortality that is delayed in the hatchery setting is accelerated upon release. We are unaware of any study comparing the relative survivability of eggs hatched in-stream versus those within a hatchery. Pending the results of such a study, we will discount this erroneously drawn conclusion of the anti-hatchery forces.
The inconsistency of supposedly weak hatchery smolts out-competing their stream-hatched brethren is curious in itself. It is unclear how an unfit animal forces a specifically evolved, fit animal out of its niche environment. The competition argument also fails to account for fish behavior following smoltification. The remarkable metamorphosis of smoltification triggers the first act of anadromy. A hardwired biological imperative directs smolts to begin their seaward journey. Properly sized hatchery reared fish released at optimal times will treat the waterway as a migration corridor rather than a feeding environment.
Genetic issues are the single greatest road block to the use of hatcheries as a recovery and mitigation tool. We do not subscribe to the idea that “a fish is a fish.” However, we can all agree that no fish is no fish. Genetic integrity is a basic principle that must be preserved within the recovery effort. The use of genetic strains native to watersheds as parent stock should be mandated whenever such fish still exist. Successful restocking of many endangered species has employed artificial habitat. We advocate continuing the model for salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Interbreeding ceases to be a concern when genetic integrity is maintained. We support a program of genetic selection that most clearly matches the indigenous salmon population for those fish runs that have been extirpated.
There are several models of responsible hatchery operation within the region. The program of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the soon-to-be-operational Nez Perce hatchery are prime examples. Professional fish culturists within state and federal agencies have developed programs that meet the highest standards of recovery and supplementation. We applaud their efforts and seek to advance their work through increased and stable long-term governmental funding.
Extinction is not an option that we will accept. Living museum remnants of once great salmon runs are not an option that we will accept. Continued degradation of the economic and spiritual quality of salmon-dependant communities is not an option. Valuable tools designed to prevent extinction and provide abundance must not be eliminated.

[crabbait]

Excellent. Very well said. In my opinion this really captures the debate. You have my whole hearted support.

[TheRogue]

Applaud their efforts if you want to however be honest about why you are doing so. It has nothing to do with restoration it's about having fish for harvest please just be honest about that and quit trying to debunk thoes who are working very hard to have some real restoration happen..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And, exactly, what is wrong with that????????????????????????????????????

I'm not going to get started again.....we all know where this is going to lead.

[ 06-03-2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[rob allen]

The Rogue

There is nothing wrong with that. However it is not a model of what to do where populations of wild fish still exsist therefore it is not a project to be duplicated all over the state as suggested by the author.
providing fish for harvest is one thing and restoring fish populations is something completely different and we should not be confusing the two and he should not be badmouthing real fish restoration efforts and the science behind them based on his own persona agenda.

[Pete]

This discussion has some interesting aspects. First, I commend any group trying to bring together competing interests to work towards solutions. Particularly in the Columbia system, millions have been spent and unfortunately, the objectives have not been achieved. (Does anyone remember Norma Paulus's promise of 2 million salmon a year?) The difficulties are well known - no point relisting them here.

On one hand, yes, it would be nice to have enough free flowing rivers to support all the fish we want. That just doesn't seem likely. Habitat loss, changes in the dynamics of stream flow, perhaps even thermal and chemical changes in our rivers all suggest that we will not successfully reestablish significant numbers of fish without some assistance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to preserve the viable habitat we have. We should certainly prevent any further degradation of river and stream habitat, limit water withdrawals and control both point-source and non-point-source discharges. We should look to recapture viable habitat whereever and whenever it becomes available. But efforts in that direction haven't produced sufficient results.

On the other hand, it can be argued that hatcheries (and science) haven't done a good job. Science is still just our best effort to explain and predict what we observe. Historic efforts to raise fish haven't been as sensitive as possible to negative impacts on river spawned fish. But progress has been made. Sensitivity to basin specificity, recognition of run timing and other efforts have moved practices towards lower impact hatcheries. There still remains an enormous amount of work to fully understand how a hatchery can successfully supplement a fishery without damaging the free spawning fish in the river. But that certainly doesn't mean we should stop trying to understand what we observe or stop improving hatchery practices.

Denny's article provides a vision of what we might have, but it doesn't provide a road map to get there. What science do we need to be working on now? How can we address Rob Allen's concerns for reproductive integrity and still maintain fishable quantities of fish? I don't know that we can answer those questions at this point.

Isn't the idea that we should have as many wild, free spawning fish as possible where the habitat can support them, but also provide supplementation in ways that don't detriment the original genetic stocks in a stream?

[TheRogue]

rob.....

As much as his post is pro-hatchery, and "pump up the volume", your's is NO-hatchery, and "dump 'em".

Much of what has been accomplished over the years in terms of habitat restoration and enhancement has been done by volunteers. Nearly all of these volunteers have been and continue to be avid fisher-people, including commercial fishers as well as sports. The commercials have a monetary interest in it, the sports fishers more of a "passion".

What do you suppose would happen to the total volunteer time, effort, and $$ donated to habitat restoration and enhancement, if you completely take away the ability to catch and KILL??

No, we don't need to fill every river with hatchery fish. We just let 300,000+ go over Bonneville, while severly restricting the harvest...and the vast majority was hatchery stock!!!!!!!! If they can't be harvested, then don't raise them.

But to gut programs simply for aesthetical reasons?? We all know that what would be the BEST for just the FISH would be for everyone to move to southern CA, and nobody come back for a 1000 years. Mother Nature would have everything us puny humans put back to rights by then. Since that's not going to happen, let's use the knowledge we have to keep those historically hatchery-dominated rivers supplied with a HARVESTABLE level of hatchery(or broodstock) fish.

I always enjoy the discussions!!

[BillH]

:smile: I'm impressed with this well balanced commentary on the hatchery issue but get a bit angry at rob allens one sided anti-hatchery response. I get the feeling that rob applies any past or present lacks of success in hatchery programs as unsurmountable warnings that hatchery programs should be discontinued in their entirety.

I for one am "pro- hatchery". I feel they have their place alongside with wild fish recovery programs. I get the feeling that the wild fish purists want the future of our fisheries to be totally nonconsumptive exclusively. Are we headed for the day when lines of yuppies in their bright colored sportswear and hiking boots, equipped only with binoculers, await their turns at viewing platforms to "look" at the remnant wild fish? This is the chilling nightmare I envision. I for one, want to keep feeling that live strike and pulsing of great fish responding to my hookset! I want to enjoy biting into a filet of spring chinook that I know I caught.

I'm about a year short of having fished for salmon and steelhead a half century so I've seen a lot of change in our fisheries and the biological science that manages them. We have come a long way in recognizing and acting upon water quality and other habitat problems that have so negatively affected our wild fish populations. No matter what we do for the recovery of wild fish populations, the population explosion of humans has put us past the point where traditional consumptive fisheries can exist on wild fish alone.

If we are to have any consumptive fisheries, we must have hatchery fish! If we are to also have wild fish we must run our hatchery programs in a manner sensitive to some problems which are created by the blending of wild and hatchery gene pools.

The purists would have us believe that all hatchery fish are genetically inappropriate to reproduce naturally. Are we to believe that there is some monstrous dissimilarity between Willamette River basin Spring Chinook that are naturally spawned and those originating from hatcheries? Get real! Those fish have been mixed for more years than any man still alive. The only difference of signifigance is whether or not they are adipose clipped! Necanicum River Fall Chinook, which seem to be reproducing and thriving as best its man shrunken estuary will allow it, were non existant until brought in a few decades ago as an out of basin stock. I'm sure there are other examples of both success and total failures the history of hatchery programs. I just don't feel we can judge the whole concept of "hatcheries" based on a few proven mistakes.

Living here in a county facing probable closure of its four closest state hatcheries, I am extremely unhappy that the wild fish purists seem to have taken over the governors office. I'll never forget the comment by Professor Jay Long at OSU to a classroom full of hopeful future fish and game biologists over 40 years ago that dealing with people and politics would be the most difficult challenge we would face.

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[rob allen]

Bryan thank you for being honest.

I have always been clear about where i stand on this issue and i figured everyone would know where I stand. For thoes that do not know I will repeatmyself. I think that we should manage all runs thatcurrently have a naturally reporducing population of fish as wild catch and release fisheries. ( I am talking mainly steelhead here). I think that in thoes areas hatchery fish need to be eliminated from the system before they spawn!! In such cases where that is not feesable hatchery plants be eliminated.

Just so you know genetics is more complex that just the genetic code. if it were not so ever steelhead in the world would have exactly the same genetics, which to an extent they do. However what you do not understand is that each indiidual has it's own set of genetic traits. These are not behavioral they are genetic. In numerous studies it has been shown that concrete hatchery ponds weed out fish that have traits for natural survival (they die) and selects fish with traits that help them survive in a hatchery(they live). A fish is not a fish is not a fish. That is exactly the idealology that got us to where we are today.

Please state the evidence you have that suggests Sandy and Clackamas river wild steelhead ever dissapeared. or necanicum river chinook for that matter..

[boater]

rob, have there ever been studys about passing genes to wild fish through using eggs out of a hatchery as bait for them ?, it may sound stupid but after reading on a thread here that some guides use 2000 pounds of eggs a year out of hatcherys you would think that somewhere down the line there would be a wild smolt chomping down on remnants of a hatchery egg...

[Thumper]

Rob --- I really want to hear what you are saying. It would be very helpful if in your long posts (e.g., your reply to Mr. Ritchey) you could set off by "quotation marks" the quote you are referring to, as opposed to your own words. As it is now the words just all run together and there is no way for us folks to distinguish between what/whom you are quoting and what you are saying.

Thanks.

[ 06-03-2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[rob allen]

Thumper Try it now I put all my responces in astericks and corrected a couple spelling mistakes of which i am sure there are plenty more.

Boater I am not aware of any such studies.

When we talk about changing genetics we are not talking about having the fish change from one thing to another we are talking about the loss of genetic traits.
That is how we ended up with hatchery fish with an early run timing. They took fish genetically prone to coming in early for our hatchery stocks we therefore almonst eliminated late run hatchery steelhead

Same things is true with the ability to reproduce adult offspring. The hatchery enviroment kills off thoes smolts with the best natural survival traits which are genetic and promotes fish with traits better adapted
to a concrete pond. So when a hatchery fish spawns in the wild it passes thoes concrete tank survival traits along toit's progeny.
Which fail to survive in the wild. These are called deletrious alleles.. The hatchery process exagerates the effects of deletrious alleles by using few adults to develop a broodstock.

if you notice on Washingtons hatchery escapment numbers you'll see that for all the fall salmon species and winter steelhead that they take their eggs long before the entire run returns.
That is why we have (my theory) fish that when they hit thier natal river make a bolt for the hatchery. especially coho! This decreases the opportunity for harvest.

A lot could be improved in our hatchery systems to make things better for everyone including wild fish. However we should not consider hatcheries as the answer for sustainable fisheries...

[ 06-04-2002, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[Salmonator]

Bryan, Rogue and Bill, very well put. I wish I had the brain capacity to explain my views like that (sigh). They say fish is brain food but it doesn't seem to be working for me :depressed: :grin:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Bryan

This will be my somewhat feeble attempt to explain the genetic consequences of hatchery strays on wild populations. It is important to note that not all concepts are easily understandable and just like many issues in life there can be many ways to provide examples.

First, let us agree that run timing (how soon a given population will return to spawn averaged over time) is a product of genetics as it is impossible for salmonid offspring to learn this quality from their parents. Further, there should be no way to learn from other migrating fish what is the best time to head up river to spawn. Run timing is selected by natural selection in rivers by allowing more offspring of later spawners to survive to the smolt stage than early spawners. This type of success does vary from year to year as well as by river to river depending on river habitat but it is possible to see trends in each river basin. It is a common understanding that many of our hatchery runs of salmon have been changed with regard to timing. Many people (myself included) believe that poor hatchery practices have artificially selected earlier run timing. Because hatchery managers were judged not on the number of adult salmon created by their hatchery but the number and size of smolts released, it was common practice to use the earliest fish that returned to the hatchery for if the eggs were spawned earlier the offspring would have more time before release to gain size. Your indication that hatcheries cannot change the genetics of a population is false. You are confusing individuals with populations, and in this instance they are not the same. You are correct that there is little evidence that hatcheries can “change” the genetics of and individual fish born into that environment but how that individual was “selected” to be raised in this environment changes the genetic make-up of the given population.

With respect to hatchery impacts on wild populations I would offer this explanation regarding probability and statistics and genetic variance. Current understanding of healthy populations of salmon indicates that to reduce risk from genetic mutations an ESU should contain no less than 1000 individuals. In a river system that had a self sustaining population of naturally produced fish that had 2000 returning adults it could be said that this population is based on 1000 families. No matter which generation the offspring came from they would have come from a pool of 1000 families. But what would happen if hatchery salmon were introduced into the spawning matrix? Lets say we take 100 fish to create a hatchery run of fish (that’s 50 families). Although these 100 fish had a possible 1000 families they could have descended from their offspring could only come from these 50 families. What happens over time when hatchery fish spawn in the wild? If a large hatchery operation created a 70 percent stray rate of hatchery fish within the wild spawning population the genetic variation would quickly bottle neck. The first generation of returning adult wild fish from this hatchery influence would no longer statistically come from 1000 families but from an average of 335. The second generation of naturally spawned fish would statistically now be limited to 135.5 famillies. The third generation would be reduced to 75.65 possible family lines. In three generations this wild, naturally selected population has gone from a possible 1000 different family lines to 75. Do you think that is good? When all the fish are related to themselves do you think they will sit on a porch somewhere and learn to play the banjo?

The following is a link to data showing the disease resistance of different types of salmon stock.
http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/docs/cshasta.txt

Ceratomyxa-shasta is a naturally occurring disease. When hatcheries used out of basin stock to create hatchery runs and then allowed them to stray and spawn with indigenous fish they may well have reduced the wild population’s resistance to this or other diseases.

There are many ways hatcheries can and do affect the genetic make-up of both hatchery stock and wild runs influenced by hatchery strays. If these issues were simple we could have solved them long ago.

*** Clerk

[rob allen]

OK now my comments are surrounded by astericks....

*********** No offence Jennie but what a load of crap!!

I am really tired of people using science that does not exsist as a reason for a course of action. I wish people like him would just come out and say what they really think and that is they want fish to catch and harvest and they don't care where they come from. The guy would have a lot more integrity that way.*********************

Hatcheries Paper, with 5/24/02 Revisions

Salmon recovery efforts within the Columbia River Basin have become mired in the continuing debate regarding the relative merits of “hatchery vs. wild.” The debate itself is all too often used as a thinly disguised attempt to advance unspoken agendas such as harvest restriction and habitat restoration

******************What the hell is wrong with harvest restriction and habitat restoration when the species is in imediate peril of becoming extinct????.******************

It is our position that these agendas must be debated upon their own respective merits and that the responsible use of hatcheries is an issue, which should be put to rest. State and federal salmon policies should promote optimum and sustainable fish populations for their
biological, harvest and aesthetic values.

********************Fish populations should be maintained for their biological importance their esthetic importance and if there is any left after that then there should be harvest. That is how you have something that is sustainable!!!***************

It is imperative that we use all recovery and conservation tools available. Current and proposed policies, which ignore the utility and importance of hatcheries have produced significant disruption and have hindered progress in salmon recovery efforts across the Pacific Northwest. Hatcheries cannot and should not be considered a panacea for salmon recovery. Countless other impediments are unaffected by hatchery construction or operation. The reality of our current situation requires that all available tools for the rebuilding of anadromous fish stocks should be available for use. Hatcheries are one such tool.

**************Hatcheries are not and have never been restoration tools there is no science available that would suggest they could ever be used for such purposes. Hatcheries are for replacing lost stocks for the purpose of harvest and have absolutely nothing to do with restoration!!!***************

Arguments that discourage their use in a biologically and genetically responsible manner are ill advised and short-sighted. A holistic overview of the Columbia-Snake River would have to include its role as an immense and magnificent natural hatchery. For the immediate and foreseeable future the responsible use of artificial habitat (hatcheries) to replace some lost natural hatchery functions must be employed to forestall continued extinction and to maintain the livelihoods of communities which are dependent upon harvestable salmon for their spiritual and economic well being. We are compelled to use supplemental habitat to support rebuilding efforts and community health.

*******************Wrong!!!!! Arguments against using hatcheries are based on the fact that there is no way to operate one in a biologically and genetically responsible way!! Hatcheries breed fish that are adapted to life in hatcheries. There is no way around that. The responsible way to operate a hatchery is to make sure that every single adult is removed from the system when it returns. Wild steelhead in the upper Kalama were under a great turn around during the years no hatchery fish were allowed above the Kalama falls hatchery and we see that same thing happen every time hatchery fish are kept from spawning in the wild. "supplemental habitat" ?? *LOL* that is funny it is habitat that selects fish based on their ability to survive in a hatchery! it is not supplemental habitat it is replacment habitat.***************

Salmon recovery plans that oppose the use of hatcheries base the majority of their opposition on a four-fold premise: (1) Salmon and steelhead, which are native to a watershed, have evolved over centuries to be ideally suited to survive within that unique environment;

***************This premise is true that is why hatchery fish after a single generation in a hatchery do not reproduce well in the wild they have become adapted to life in a hatchery because thoes adapted to life in the wild do not survive in the hatchery as evidenced by the study of the Deschuted river wild broodstock steelhead.**************

(2) Hatchery-reared juvenile salmonids are genetically inferior and physically weaker than their “wild” brethren;

*************** In terms of reproducing in the wild they are genetically inferior. A species cannot survive if it does not reproduce!!! and almost every angler will tell you that they are 1. less agressive and 2 not as strong physically as wild fish.************

(3) Upon release, hatchery fish compete with fish spawned in-stream and negatively impact the survivability of the “wild” offspring;

**************DUH !!!! when smolts are released 100,000 at a time they do outcompete wild smolts because the wild smolts are spread out and less numerous what animal can survive at odds 1000 to 1 ????***********

(4) Interbreeding between “hatchery” and “wild” stocks will weaken the “wild” fish and reduce the likelihood of recovery.

************Very little interbreeding has occurred although they have spawned together for decades they have not successfully interbreeded except on extremely rare occasions. Occassions which have even been lessening over the last 20 years. However when a wild fish nad a hatchery fish spawn together they produce no adult offspring. That is why we need to keep hatchery fish from spawning in the wild! So we can regain the productivity of our wild fish.!!!! Hatchery fish spawning in the wild are one of the main reasons we are not recovering out wild steelhead stocks!***************

No one denies the amazing impact of natural selection. Evolution fine-tunes characteristics necessary for survival and is a basic requirement for all species. The biological mechanism resulting in slow alteration of genetics would be a seemingly inarguable game-ending point in favor of anti-hatchery advocates. A perfectly evolved animal living in a
distinct and discrete environment is clearly the ideal. The fallacy of using this argument to discourage the use of hatcheries rests in the environment itself. How many watersheds within the Columbia Basin have survived into this century unaltered?

****************Well take the South Fork Toutle as a prime example It had an extremely rapid habitat alteration back on May 18 1980. In fact it was quite likely the most rapid habitat alteration any species of salmonid ever had to deal with. Yet by 1985 it was the only stream meeting it's escapment goals for wild winter steelhead. Spawning at least 2000 winter fish as opposed to a couple hundred in other southwest washington streams. 5 years for complete species restoration to the watershed. Numbers dropped when MSY came into affect and a kill fishery was established. Then they started planting the south toutle with Skamania stock summer steelhead. ansd even though the kill fishery was eliminated the wild south fork run has not recovered. The Washougal is another example 3 dams massive loggin/mining/ spash dam opperations and a paper mill at the mouth that dumped raw affluent straight into the river and yet it maintained 1500 summer steelhead until 1964. What happened in 64?? The Skamania hatchery came online and even with the elimination of the kill fishery on wild steelhead they have not rebounded!!! The elimination of hatchery fish to the Wind river has caused a rebound in it's wild summer run population.. It is clear that wild fish recover when they do not have to interact with hatchery fish even in marginal habitat!*****************

What salmonid species has had the necessary generations to evolve to match today's
ecosystem niche?

*********** ALl of the wild ones and almost none of the hatchery ones.. Even wild brood stocks which are more accuratly called first generation hatchery fish..************.

The clear answer to survival of any salmon or steelhead within the Columbia Basin lies within the fish themselves. The resiliency and adaptability of these magnificent creatures have allowed the survival of the species in the face of untold harm and unimaginable loss. Even the most biased observer of hatchery-bred salmon adults spawning in countless watersheds could not deny that resiliency and adaptability are not removed at the hatchery.

*********That is exactly where it is removed, because the hatchery enviroment selects for behavioral and genetic traits besu suited for survival in the hatchery enviroment. That is why hatchery smolts have such a low survival rate oonce released!**********

Studies indicating higher adult return percentages from smolts originating in-stream as opposed to smolts released from a hatchery are used to illustrate the inherent superiority of “wild” fish. In reality, these studies highlight a totally different effect. Fish culturists are very aware that hatchery practices protect large numbers of juveniles that would not survive in the stream environment. Consequently, a high percentage of hatchery-reared smolts are unable to meet the natural challenges presented upon release. It is a fact that nature will not be denied. Natural mortality that is delayed in the hatchery setting is accelerated upon release. We are unaware of any study comparing the relative survivability of eggs hatched in-stream versus those within a hatchery. Pending the results of such a study, we will discount this erroneously drawn conclusion of the anti-hatchery forces.

************What a moot point!! Who cares what percentage of the eggs do not survive. Fact is what counts is the smolt to adult ratio and all studies indicate that on such a basis wild steelhead are much more productive that hatchery smolts! He is measuring hatchery success at the wrong life stage the only thing that matters is how many adults return and what thoes adults are capable of!********

The inconsistency of supposedly weak hatchery smolts out-competing their stream-hatched brethren is curious in itself. It is unclear how an unfit animal forces a specifically evolved, fit animal out of its niche environment. The competition argument also fails to account for fish behavior following smoltification. The remarkable metamorphosis of smoltification triggers the first act of anadromy. A hardwired biological imperative directs smolts to begin their seaward journey. Properly sized hatchery reared fish released at optimal times will treat the waterway as a migration corridor rather than a feeding environment..

*****************100,000 unfit animals will outcompete a few thousand fit animals 100% of the time. This is a complete misrepresentation of the realist of the situation. Everyone in this firum has seen clouds of hatchery smolts migration downstream yet no one has seen a cloud of wild smolts. Why is that? because 1. wild smolts don't migrate in schools and 2. there are never hundreds of thousands of them migrating at once!**************

Genetic issues are the single greatest road block to the use of hatcheries as a recovery and mitigation tool. We do not subscribe to the idea that “a fish is a fish.” However, we can all agree that no fish is no fish. Genetic integrity is a basic principle that must be preserved within the recovery effort. The use of genetic strains native to watersheds as parent stock should be mandated whenever such fish still exist.

****************Wrong exactly the wrong approach unless all you want is a maximum number of fish for harvest! Thoes areas where such stocks remain should be managed for the protection of thoes stocks. developing a first generation hatchery fish system does not protect the genetic heritige of the native stock as all that integrity is lost during the first generation in the hatchery because the hatchery produces fish adapted to spending the juvenile stage in a concrete pond not a wild river!!!********************

Successful restocking of many endangered species has employed artificial habitat. We advocate continuing the model for salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Interbreeding ceases to be a concern when genetic integrity is maintained.

**************Wrong this shows a complete misunderstanding of the entire issue the issue is not the genetic integrity it is the reproductive integrity of our wild fish. When a hatchery and a wild fish try to interbreed there are no adult offspring in the vast majority of cases. This takes the wild fish out of production and eliminated our best opportunity for real recovery!*************

We support a program of genetic selection that most clearly matches the indigenous salmon population for those fish runs that have been extirpated. There are several models of responsible hatchery operation within the region. The program of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the soon-to-be-operational Nez Perce hatchery are prime examples.

******************Prime examples of what??? providing lots of fish for harvest! That is all the Umatilla's have done they have restored absolutely nothing! They have simply placed a hatchery of a stream with extinct runs of salmon. Althogh there are lots of hatchery fish spawning there there is no evidence of any natural reproduction to the adult lifestage. As soon as they do that and no longer need the hatchery to maintain the run then and only then will they have restored something... However their efforts to get increased flows to the Umatilla river and it's tributaries has been a big boom to the very few native steelhead to the system.****************

Professional fish culturists within state and federal agencies have developed programs that meet the highest standards of recovery and supplementation. We applaud their efforts and seek to advance their work through increased and stable long-term governmental funding. Extinction is not an option that we will accept. Living museum remnants of once great salmon runs are not an option that we will accept. Continued degradation of the economic and spiritual quality of salmon-dependant communities is not an option. Valuable tools designed to prevent extinction and provide abundance must not be eliminated.

***************LOL* "" professional fish culturists"" *LOL*
thats funny Applaud their efforts if you want to however be honest about why you are doing so. It has nothing to do with restoration it's about having fish for harvest please just be honest about that and quit trying to debunk thoes who are working very hard to have some real restoration happen..**************

[ 06-04-2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[TheRogue]

My Gosh!!! Don't you people sleep!!!

Rob and *** (I wondered where you were at!!)......to be honest with you, I agree with most of what you both say (I can't believe I put that here!!), in terms of what's "best for the fish".

However!!!! You don't address the issue at the root of it all....How to keep sustainable, harvestable populations for us humans! I've asked more than once, on pretty much every topic like this....if we go "wild" fish only, at what point in time to we get to catch and KILL fish?? Do you suppose a state bio writes a letter to the feds to get a species in an ESU de-listed???? NOT!!!!!

Once we go down that road, there's no turning back. Once the hatcheries are closed, there will probably never be the money to rebuild and re-open them. Maybe, 50-100-1000 years in the future, we (our descendants) will be able to go out and take our 2 or 3 fish limit of "wild" fish. Of course, this will be after we blow the foreign trawler fleet out of the water, blow up the dams, ban any sort of ground disturbance from any sort of watershed, ban all pesticides, herbicides, perfume, gas powered vehicles, yada, yada, yada.

Past hatchery practices got problems?? Absolutely! Have they changed the genetics of each single fish?? No, it don't work that way. Have they changed the overall genetic make-up of a population?? Probably.

Can we improve on hatcheries, and how we raise fish?? You bet!!

I firmly believe it's good to have people that are on the opposite ends of the totem pole discussing these issues. We definitely have that on this board. Keep things civil, and maybe we can all learn something. :grin: :grin:

[rob allen]

The Rogue

I don't believe I have ever said I wanted all hatcheries closed. There are some hatcheries i want closed immediatly and some hatchery plants I want ceased immediatly but I do not want all hatcheries closed. However I am looking at hatchery closures as an eventuality because there is no money to maintain them properly and the bills associated with them will continue to grow and thoes bills are something that most northwesterners are not interested in paying.

As I said before I have fished for salmon and steelhead for 25 years (I am 31). I love eating salmon and steelhead as much as anyone but with the eventual hatchery closures the days of consumptive salmon and steelhead fishing will be over. It is time for all steelhead sport anglers to embrace the idea of catch and release just like our brothers to the North have on almost every river in Canada. Every other world class fishery in the world is sustained through catch and release fishing. For a group of anglers known for their conservation efforts northwestern steelheaders are hanging onto killing fish far to strongly.
Not saying do strictly catch and release now Ii am just saying get used to the idea because it is coming and unless funding is secured for hatcheries all we are going to have left is catch and release fishing for wild fish.

[Jennie@ifish]

You may visit Oregon Anglers by clicking here.

[TheRogue]

It is time for all steelhead sport anglers to embrace the idea of catch and release just like our brothers to the North have on almost every river in Canada. Every other world class fishery in the world is sustained through catch and release fishing. For a group of anglers known for their conservation efforts northwestern steelheaders are hanging onto killing fish far to strongly.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sorry, Rob, you just lost me there. Sounds beyond radical to me.

[ 06-04-2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Bryan

On behalf of Rob and myself I would like to apologize for wasting your time and effort with this topic. It is apparent that you need to apply all your energy in the momentous task of lugging around all of your emotional baggage.

Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.

*** Clerk

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[crabbait]

Neutral corners gentlemen. It's about the fish, remember?

[garyk]

Rob and ***, thanks for taking so much time to write so much about the realities of modern fish management.

One of the most painful things in life is the truth.

BTW, regarding C.Shasta, the effect of hatchery/wild genetic introgression leading to wild poplulations becoming susceptible was documented on the Metolius River in the native redsides.

One more aside, it seems like so many of these arguments were played out 20 years ago in trout management/policies. It's like deja vu all over again.

PS. Bryan, the Steelheaders do need and will appreciate your money, just be aware that at recent Annual Banquet, the keynote remarks had to do with the value of wild fish and how the northwest is at the crossroads with respect to maintaining viable populations. Sounds like even the Steelheaders are getting RADICAL. (radical: to come from the source; the root)

[Thumper]

"......with the eventual hatchery closures the days of consumptive salmon and steelhead fishing will be over."

Rob, ***, Gary ---- I'm afraid you folks are swimming upstream on this subject. Hatcheries are there as part of a commitment on the part of society to mitigate for the losses of habitat, specifically to replace at least a part of the wild runs of salmon and steelhead knowingly lost through development. Those hatcheries will only go away if we let down our guard and let liberals convince us that hatchery fish are "too expensive." And that ain't gonna happen.

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultim...c;f=1;t=009747

There's no need for name calling just becasue someone has another opinion. People are known by the words they write here. Words are only two dimensional. It is impossible to hear tone, attitude and inflection that give speach the thrid dimention or the full meaning of context. My advice and yes I am only on my third real post and perhaps the youngest of the "brothers" here but give the benefit of the doubt. Especially if it's the persons first post. Friends don't let friends engage in McCarthyism.

Yours Truly,
Bryan

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">*** Clerk

[Bryan]

*** what's you point? I guess I am slow on the up take?

[ 06-13-2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[rob allen]

Bryan

Calling me radical left proves one thing. You do not know me.

Also..

You speak of balance regarding hatchery and wild fish managment. Where the hell is the Balance now?? There is non. What we have now is massive reliance on hatchery fish!!! If you want it balanced we need to get rid of more hatchery programs. What you mean by balance is for me to shut the hell up about wild fish altogether.. How can there be balance on this issue if you don't want to give up any hatcheries at all??? I'll tell you one thing the wild fish are the only ones who have done any sacrificing at all. I'll tell you one more thing I want better fishing in my future. it is becoming ever so clear that current hatchery practices are not and cannot provide that for me. In fact hatcheries make my steelhead fishing worse because they kill off wild fish.

You call me a radical leftist who reminds you of the ****'s. How is that not a personal attack Bryan??? SO your saying I am a person in favor of sensorship, anti semitism and radical nationalism who views murder as a viable means to an end? When you say I remind you of a **** that is what you are saying!! That is extremely offensive! Yet I'll not hold that against you because nothing is that important to where I'd hold a grudge.

As far as being a democracy.. I hate to point it out we are Not a democracy we are a democratic republic. What the majority wants they do not necessarily get and it was never ever designed to be that way. The reason it is not that way was to keep the"majority" from ruleing over minorities. We are a democratic republic under the law. That means that ( in the most basic general terms) the majority gets what it wants when what it want does not infringe upon the rights of others.. I'll tell you one thing the majority of oregonians could not care less if hatcheries exsisted!!!

I stand by every word of what I have said before.

Thumper.. I think it was you that brough up the point about the purpose of hatcheries in terms of mitigation for lost habitat... You are very correct.. It is society's responsibility to provide thoes fish to commercial, sport and tribal fishermen but when did mere responsibility keep society from doing anything?

The best thing the individual angler can do to help wild steelhead is to kill as many hatchery steelhead as they legally can!!!

[crabbait]

Seems to me that hatcheries will continue to exist as previously and eloquently stated. It also seems to me that we are not bound by past hatchery management principles.

I think that we should concentrate on improving the hatchery product by updating methods whereever feasible.

I also think that we should be doing all that we can to improve habitat for wild fish to propagate. To me, that does not mean banning hatchery fish from every river that has a wild population.

The most important thing is that we remember that our strength lies in our union, not in devisive factions fighting with one another.

None of us will get all that we want but all of us can get some of what we feel is really important if we work together.

Compromise. Find the middle ground. Work for what you can live with instead of tearing down everything that is not exactly to your liking.

Let's put all this energy into something useful, please.

[ 06-05-2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[rob allen]

ok here is my point about balance..

How many river systems do you know of that are wild fish "sanctuaries". By that I mean a place where no hatchery fish are planted? I know of one in all of Oregon and that one has some of the most degraded habitat many of it's tributaries get dewatered and yet it has the healthiest population of wild summer steelhead in the state The river is the John Day! One river for the entire state! Washington as far as I know has no rivers that they do not plant. Ohh I take that back they no longer plant the Wind river not with steelhead anyway.

Back in the 1980's our club proposed to Washington state the idea of having hatchery rivers and wild fish rivers. The idea was completely and flatly rejected. It took us ( our club I was a kid at the time) years of hard fighting to establish wild steelhead release here in southwest Washington. The state opposed it and most local fishermen opposed it. I say that because i used to walk up and down the Washougal river and I talked to most of the local fishermen.

So you gave up the Sandy river above Marmot dam hmmm well ok I know you loved that fishery and sincerely miss it and i can sympathize with that but no offence but thats a pretty miniscule sacrifice. There is a fish ladder at Marmot dam, how effective it is I don't know but remember marmot dam is coming out and one thing we have seen with our fish restoration projects is that "if you will build it they will come."

Why is it you only want small rivers to be for wild fish some of the best available habitat is on large rivers specifically the Sandy river. Are you saying you'd be willing for the sake of wild steelhead to give up hatchery plants on say the Trask, Wilson,Nehalem, Nastucca, necanicum(sp?) or any of these rivers???

I am more than willing to meet on middle ground on this issue however I do not think we would agree on where the middle ground is. Although I think *** clerk brought up the facts about not being able to determine a person's tone of voice and body language, I think we would disagree less than we seem to here.

I have never said I wanted to make every river a wild/catch and release river. I was simply stating that every world class fishery in the world relies on catch and release fishing for naturally reproducing stocks of fish including steelhead in Canada. All I meant by that is it works there therefore it would work here as well. What I advocate and have always advocated is 1. to keep hatchery fish low in our river systems 2 remove as many adult returning hatchery fish as we can 3. there are some rivers that should not be planted at all
If we want more wild steelhead we have to keep hatchery fish from spawning in the wild.

If you want to hear a success story that is going on right now you should be aware of lower Columbia wild chum salmon. This fall there were I believe around 1000 wild chum salmon spawning in the Main stem Columbia near Bonneville dam and at the I-205 bridge.
These fish are on the rebound because they have good habitat ( spawning gravel) and no influence form hatchery chums. These fish recovered all on their own with no help from anyone. I just want to see that same opportunity afforded to wild steelhead where now it is not!
I just do not think that no fish in the upper Sandy and no hatchery fish in the John Day is anywhere close to the middle ground.

Just out of curiosity and this is off the topic. How would you feel if the hatchery fish planted in your river absolutely would not grab anything fished on drift gear? No matter how hard you fished they wouldn't take a corky , sand shrimp eggs yarn or jigs?? How in favor of that hatchery program would you be??

[blackdog]

I find this discussion fascinating and encouraging, if for no other reason than to know there are others who are genuinely concerned for our fish populations and will go to great lengths to support them, whatever the direction that may be. Rob, for you I have an ignorant question for you: You state in your last response that "every world class fishery in the world relies on catch and release fishing for naturally reproducing stocks of fish including steelhead in Canada", and if this is the case, how do you explain the steelhead run on the Quinalt in Washington? Is that not a hatchery-supported run? From what I remember it seems to be, and though I have never had the fortune to fish it, from the reports and pictures I have seen, I would consider it to be world class, in terms of pure numbers and size of fish. I would even rate this higher than some of the Canadian rivers you refer to, just in the fact that your chances at a true trophy fish are high, and in addition, you have the chance to keep fish as well.

[garyk]

On the question of 'balance'. Simply follow the money and it leads you to the policy. Look at where ODFW's fishery budget is spent, hatcheries and hatchery related expenses consume the vast majority. There is only one shellfish position for all of Oregon. The Natural Production, Research, and Enforcement departments have been gutted in favor of keeping money in artificial production. There is simply no balance.

On 'radicals'. Change happens at the margins. There's nothing in the middle-of-the- road but a yellow line and roadkill.

On 'the left'. Conservation is championed by the political center and left because it's been abandoned by 'the right'. Who took the 'conserve' out of conservatives?

[ 06-06-2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]

[Thumper]

Well I'm offended that you are offended that I am offended. In fact I offend myself. How offensive!

I need to go catch (and brutally kill!) a steelhead.

[ 06-06-2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Bryan]

[ 06-13-2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

[rob allen]

Bryan... My comments about what a hatchery fish will or will not hit was totally and completely aside from my entire argument. My main purpose in wanting hatcheries managed better is not to improve the hatchery fish but to improve wild fish populations. I don't just want fish that will take a fly I want wild fish even if I cannot fish for them. There value to me goes way beyone my ability to swing a fly for them. If I could quit fishing today and have it save our wild steelhead I would do it and not even blink. Having said that I love steelhead fishing at least as much as anyone else on this forum. it is what I live for. Everything in my life is secondary. Most of my friends think I am nuts because I gave up a good job in the middle of trout fishing mecca so I could have marginal steelhead fishing and a job that pays nothing.
All I am saying is that no matter how much I love steelheading it is not my motivation in regards to conservation. As I said it is about the fish NOT my ability to go catch them.

[Thumper]

Rob, if all that is true you are going straight to heaven when you die. You are truly a conservation saint.

I just like eating steelhead. Leave the hatcheries alone!