Help with paper on Hatcheries

[Drakeblake]

I feel a little guilty about posting this and do not want in on this board if it doesnt belong. I am writing a paper about whether or not hatcheries are harmful or helpful and would appreciate any info you guys have on the paper. Please be as critical as possible but not to harsh and point out anywhere that my facts are astray. And if any of you have some more sources where i may find information on the topic they would be of great help. Thanks in advance. Sorry if its a little long.

-blake

Hatcheries Helpful or Harmful

In recent years the viability of hatcheries has been debated. Its true that hatcheries do produce more fish for sportsman, commercial, and tribal fishers alike but at what cost to the native stocks in our rivers and streams? Its been a proven fact that the introduction of hatchery fish into a system containing wild fish results in a lowered population of native fish. When hatchery fish are introduced into a stream system they compete with the wild fish for not only food and space but for the ever important breeding ground that the fish use to lay eggs to ensure the future stock of fish.
There are two general types of steelhead; The Summer Run and the Winter Run fish, the summer run fish typically enter the river in May through September and spawn in early spring. The Winter Run fish enter the river anywhere from December through march and spawn shortly there after. Even though these fish may enter the river at different times they generally spawn around the same time with the Summer fish spawning first and the Winter fish following. Since some rivers contain both winter and summer run fish they may compete for the prime spawning grounds. Where we encounter problems is in rivers where there are only winter fish and the Department of Fish and Wildlife introduced non native summer fish.
“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 winter-run 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 two 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”.(ODFW)

The problem with hatchery fish doesn't enlie in there ability to spawn but in the ability of the fishes progeny to successfully survive, grow and migrate to the ocean and back.
Another issue is when there are already either native Summer or Winter run fish in a river and the ODFW tries to enhance a the native run by adding to the Winter or summer run of fish. These fish also will compete with each other for food and if they are allowed to spawn, spawning areas.
One way that hatcheries have tried to eliminated spawning competition between wild and hatchery fish is to put in fish traps at the hatchery where the smolts were released. The traps at hatcheries consist of a fish ladder that the hatchery fish swim up to reach the hatchery where they are held in pens and not allowed to spawn. The hatchery fish go up these fish ladders because they were released from the pen at the top of the ladder and there natural instinct is to return to that point. This helps to eliminate the possibility of hatchery fish competing with native fish for spawning grounds and or interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish. The native fish will not go up these ladders but rather go up stream to there place of origin. There is still the possibility of hatchery fish straying away from the ladder and continuing up stream to the spawning grounds of native fish. The hatchery fish may also stray away from there river of origin all together and enter another river to spawn where there is no fish ladder and pen which allows the hatchery fish to spawn with natives.
Most hatchery fish that were released into a stream do not come from the eggs and milt of fish native to that stream. If the eggs and milt used are from a river like the Columbia witch is very long and large and these fish are released into a small coastal stream the salmon may become confused and lot as likely to reproduce successfully because they were not genetically designed for the small streams. Its like taking a City boy and putting him in a rural country setting he will most likely be lost and unsuccessful.
When a fish is raised in a hatchery they become tame in a way. They are used to being fed at the same time every day and do not develop the foraging skill that a wild fish would have. They also do not have to worry about predators so there alarm senses are weaker than wild fish. They may fall victim to one of many predators in a river system including birds mammals and other fishes. There is also question of weather or not hatchery fish do not have the capability of adapting and becoming smarter like there native counterparts.

“We find that the brains of hatchery reared fish are relatively smaller in several critical measures than their wild counterparts. Our work may suggest a mechanistic basis for the observed vulnerability of hatchery fish to predation and their general low survival upon release into the wild. Our results are the first to highlight the effects of hatchery rearing on changes in brain development in fishes.”(Marchetti)

One solution the genetically inferior hatchery fish is Broodstock programs. On some rivers fisherman are allowed to keep some native steelhead and transport they alive to the local hatchery where the fish are allowed to spawn in in the hatchery and then are let go.

“By using eggs and milt (salmon sperm) from only wild fish to make each generation of hatchery fish, hatchery managers can help prevent domestication in hatchery salmon, which in turn will encourage fishery managers to implement habitat improvements in the Columbia River Basin to help wild
stocks, according to ISAB.”(Henry)


These Broodstock fish are by far better than the traditional hatchery fish used to stock streams but they still lack the habits of truly wild fish. Since the Brood stock fish are raised in hatchery pens just like hatchery fish they too do not have the survival skills and foraging skills necessary for the to be very successful.
The estimated returns for hatchery fish are far lower than that of Broodstock fish. The number of hatchery fish that return to a steam is usually only 2 about percent of the number of smolts released into a stream. Compared to the 4-5 percent of Broodstock adults that return to a system. This may seem like a small percentile difference but when you multiply it time the 120,000 smolts that may be released into a single stream that is the difference between 2,400 and 6,000 returning adults.
The debate runs much further than weather or not hatchery fish are harmful to native fish most everybody agrees that they are, but the human survival aspect comes into play and that is where most people make there decisions about weather or not to continue hatchery programs. Many people depend on Steelhead and Salmon for there daily lives. “One group of salmon accounts for more than half of all hatchery salmon releases: fall chinook, mainly produced for ocean troll fishing.”(Rojas-Burke) Although hatchery fish do help to support Commercial tribal and sport fishing this is not the goal of hatchery programs. There number one goal is to help improve the status of anadromous fish in the Columbia basin and they are seemingly failing to do this.
There are Commercial fisherman who depend on anual runs of salmon for there incomes. A large percentage of those fish are hatchery produced fish.

“Tribal fishermen have the right to harvest 5 percent of the summer chinook entering the Columbia River, or about 6,000 fish based on the current forecast. Before, tribal members using dip nets and angling gear have legally caught a few hundred summer chinook, averaging about 1.4 percent of the run.”(Rojas-Burk)

The government has set up commitments and treaties with tribal fishermen allowing them to catch and retain a specific percent of the fish that enter a River. Without hatchery programs the government would not be able to keep these commitments to the tribal gill netter in the Columbia.

“Wild runs are so depressed that hatcheries represent the only way the federal government is currently meeting its commitments to tribal, commercial and sport fishermen, said Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.”(Henry)

The bottom line is that if you mess with millions of years of evolution you are going to have problems. In the mid to early 1900’s we started stocking rivers with genetically inferior hatchery fish that were engineered for there unique river system and when they are introduced into a foreign one they failed to be successful. Therefore the genetics of the fish are altered when these fish are allowed to spawn in these streams. Since different rivers have different cycles on which they enter the river and return to there breeding grounds. If a hatchery fish has an earlier returning time than the native fish of a stream they will reach the spawning areas first and have first dibs on the prime breading areas. Thus decreasing the likely success rate of the native fish. The hatchery fish that do spawn in a stream do not have a very good likely hood of making baby fish that will survive and come back to spawn in the same area so it is pretty much a one time deal. They will have to release hatchery fish every year in order for more fish to keep returning because they are not capable of producing a self sustaining population. Although hatcheries are not the cause of decline in anadramous fish they are also not the solution to helping them rebound.


-blake

[First Light Bite]

You make some good points and its plain to see you have done quite a bit of research. I don't think your emphasis on available spawning ground is as big a problem as you make it out to be. I fish a stream in Alaska that is about half the size of the Wilson only 16 miles long and this years fish counts were 90,000 sockeye, 3500 kings,
375,000 pinks and est. 40,000 coho. These counts have been stable for many years so they are finding places to spawn. Most come in the river about the same time except the coho are a little later and the sockeye spawn in a lake, still a lot of fish in a very small stream. My .02 Good job on your project. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Hattberg

“Its true that hatcheries do produce more fish for sportsman, commercial, and tribal fishers alike"

That is one of the most debatable questions of our time and should not be off handedly alluded too.

“There (hatcheries) number one goal is to help improve the status of anadromous fish in the Columbia basin and they are seemingly failing to do this.”
First, it should be “Their” . Second, de-listing criteria from NOAA Fisheries indicates that only naturally produced, wild population levels are what are to be considered for ESA de-listing. To my knowledge it is not or never has been the goal of the hatcheries on the Columbia to improve their “status”. Their goal is “mitigation”, replacing lost production of juvenal fish from the loss of spawning and rearing habitat. Until the passage of the NFCP ODFW hatcheries goals were smolt production and had “zero” concern for the number of returning adults.

Basically I agree with what you are trying to say but your unwavering certainty and unquestioning absolutes is derived from your youth. Generalities and trends are what comprises biology and in particular Fisheries Management. Absolutes are for those who study physics…


*** Clerk

[ 12-03-2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[ssteelheadsteve]

FLB
The REASON your Alaska stream does not compare to anything here in the NW is that you have failed to realize why that little stream continues to produce so well.One word. BIOMASS. Surely oversimplified, but critical to fish production.

[GOT2FISH]

Wow to intense for me lets fish.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by *** Clerk:
Mr. Hattberg

“Its true that hatcheries do produce more fish for sportsman, commercial, and tribal fishers alike"

That is one of the most debatable questions of our time and should not be off handedly alluded too.

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

How can that, in terms of short term, (year to year) production be debated? If we were to stop all hatchery production tomorrow, are you suggesting we would have as many or more fish in the Columbia system in three years as today? :shocked: :whazzup:

Mr. Hattbergg,

Please understand that you will be getting very biased and passionate opinions on this site. That is not something that should be cast away offhandedly in determining the value of this critique for your purposes.

[cosmo]

One other way hatchery fish are being kept from spawning with wild fish is the use of acclimation sites (like *****) with the smolts. Imprint them at a specific area and they'll return to it---not indefinitiely-- but everyone knows this is why the hatchery fish pause at ***** on the Wilson and many, many end their life there. The technique is also a part on the Sandy River plan for maintaining hatchery plants after Marmot is removed.
I agree with *** in that on the Columbia, the mitigation hatcheries were built to replace forever lost production due to industrializing of the river--never were supposed to be a recovery tool--no matter how many people try to put that role on them these days (and use that point to say they are failing their job).
Good Read!

[Drakeblake]

Thanks for all of the replies guys. I know know some areas that I can improve on. *** Clerk and Cosmo you both didnt agree with my statement on the goal of hatcheries this it the text that I enterpreted and got that idea from am I miss understanding it it some way? Thanks again keep the replies coming.

-blake


The report closes by saying, "Supplementation should be
used sparingly," and only in places where naturally spawning
salmon and steelhead are not replacing themselves, and where the
habitat capacity is able to accommodate additional fish.
Otherwise, hatchery salmon will outcompete wild fish. Hatcheries
should also only be used in areas where the landscape is "suited
to the experimental design," meaning an area where managers can
compare the use of the hatchery to supplement wild fish with a
similar "reference" area that has no hatchery, only a wild
population. And all hatcheries should be committed to closing
when supplementation has either met the stated objectives, or is
failing and potentially harming wild fish, the report says.

The number one goal of hatchery supplementation is not to
provide fish for commercial, sport and tribal fishing, according
to ISAB. That is a secondary goal. Nevertheless, wild runs are
so depressed that hatcheries represent the only way the federal
government is currently meeting its commitments to tribal,
commercial and sport fishermen, said Liz Hamilton of the
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. While some reform
may be necessary to ensure hatcheries are not thwarting
recovery, "hatcheries are here to stay in the Northwest," she
said.

"Hatcheries didn't cause the decline of wild salmon, and
they're not going to cure the problems," Hamilton said.

But American Indian tribes in the basin with treaty rights
to salmon and steelhead disagree that hatcheries can't help cure
some of the basin's woes. Many tribes are successfully using
hatcheries to bring back naturally reproducing salmon in certain
rivers. For instance, the Umatilla tribes in northeastern Oregon
reintroduced salmon to the Umatilla River, a tributary of the
Columbia River.

Tribal hatcheries function differently from state and
federal hatcheries. Tribal hatcheries do not clip the adipose
fin to mark hatchery salmon, so tribal hatchery fish are
indistinguishable from wild fish. In addition, tribal hatchery
managers acclimate juvenile salmon to the river so they return
as adults to spawn naturally in the river, not in the hatchery.

Chuck Hudson, spokesman for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission said the ISAB report is of little use because it
failed to mention successful tribal hatcheries. CRITFC does
agree, however, that all hatchery managers should be using
local, naturally spawning broodstock, as tribal hatcheries do.

[Born to be Wild]

I am writing a paper about whether or not hatcheries are harmful or helpful and would appreciate any info you guys have on the paper. Please be as critical as possible but not to harsh and point out anywhere that my facts are astray. And if any of you have some more sources where i may find information on the topic they would be of great help.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Perhaps Blake you should rename your paper; “Hatcheries are both Helpful and Harmful”?

Let us examine some of the ways that hatchery fish are both beneficial and detrimental in different situations.
But first I have to question yours or someone’s statement; “Although hatcheries are not the cause of decline in anadramous fish they are also not the solution to helping them rebound”.

I also believe that hatchery fish are not the solution to helping them rebound.
Wild fish are best off in most situations to be allowed to bebuild on their own with protection and habitat restoration if needed.
However I can condone the use of hatcheries in the prevention of a native run on the brink of extinction i.e. the Snake River Sockeye.
I don’t know if any hatchery program has ever been successful in saving a native run from extinction however.

Here’s an example of why I question your statement; “Although hatcheries are not the cause of decline in anadramous fish”.

Last year on the Oregon coast there was the highest numbers of wild coho (OCN’s) in approx. 50 years.
During that 50 year time span ODFW became successful in raising large numbers of large hatchery coho smolt I believe in the late 60’s.
In the 70’s there were massive hatchery programs on the coast and massive fisheries on both hatchery and wild coho.
Commercial fishermen and not excluding the less responsible sports fishermen harvested up to 80% of the OCN’s ocean escapement while they were out in the ocean.
I firmly believe the decline of the Oregon coastal wild coho was due to over harvest and the problems associated with planting large amounts of hatchery coho in basins where wild coho were present.
In that same time span logging practices were probably improved and habitat restoration was under way.
The unprecedented incline in OCN’s the last few years came only after the coastal hatchery coho programs were halted and curtailed.

As you have probably seen, there is science dating back to the 80’s and current reports (three of which I have posted on this board) that show a trend of declines in wild steelhead and coho where hatchery fish have been suspect.

In British Columbia they are coming to the same conclusions that after they took our lead in massive hatchery programs in the 70’s their wild coho populations are on a disturbing decline.
I’d be happy to send you that report.

You may have been one of those who requested one or all of the 3 current reports I posted on ifish which includes the
Kathryn Kostow Clackamas steelhead report entitled; "Naturally Spawning Hatchery Steelhead Contribute to Smolt
Production but Experience Low Reproductive Success”
that was partially used in your paper.
If not, I will be happy to send you the other two reports by Mark Chilcote; "Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead", and Tom Nickelson's report; "The influence of hatchery coho salmon on the productivity of wild coho salmon populations in Oregon coastal basins".

One of the factor’s you mentioned in your paper is competition.
Competition is problematic but one big factor I failed to see in these post is the hatchery induced predation that takes place with these "not so smart" hatchery smolts that takes its toll on the wild smolts as well when they are caught up in the onslaught.
This is a well documented factor.

I will copy/paste your paper and make some comments.

Hatcheries Helpful or Harmful

In recent years the viability of hatcheries has been debated. Its true that hatcheries do produce more fish for sportsman, commercial, and tribal fishers alike but at what cost to the native stocks in our rivers and streams?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I have to question that statement.
Hatcheries do produce more fish but at times I believe they are counter productive and create less fish over all than if they were not present.

Your next statement; “Its been a proven fact that the introduction of hatchery fish into a system containing wild fish results in a lowered population of native fish” I have to agree with and that is the reason why hatcheries can be counter productive.
Again if I were to allude to the Oregon coast, there is a much higher production of coho there now that the hatchery coho programs have been eliminated and curtailed.
The production of wild coho is larger than the total production of wild and hatchery coho when the wild coho were inundated with massive hatchery coho smolts.

When hatchery fish are introduced into a stream system they compete with the wild fish for not only food and space but for the ever important breeding ground that the fish use to lay eggs to ensure the future stock of fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again, don’t leave out the predation problem that comes with large hatchery programs.

There are two general types of steelhead; The Summer Run and the Winter Run fish, the summer run fish typically enter the river in May through September and spawn in early spring. The Winter Run fish enter the river anywhere from December through march and spawn shortly there after. Even though these fish may enter the river at different times they generally spawn around the same time with the Summer fish spawning first and the Winter fish following. Since some rivers contain both winter and summer run fish they may compete for the prime spawning grounds. Where we encounter problems is in rivers where there are only winter fish and the Department of Fish and Wildlife introduced non native summer fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I would suggest that you lead into the next paragraph by acknowledging Kathryn Kostow’s report I mentioned above.

“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 winter-run 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 two 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”.(ODFW)

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

The problem with hatchery fish doesn't enlie in there ability to spawn but in the ability of the fishes progeny to successfully survive, grow and migrate to the ocean and back.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’m not sure of the accuracy of this statement.
It is my belief through scientific studies and personal observation that hatchery fish are not as successful in spawning in the wild (attracting mates, etc.).
You are correct however that their progeny aren’t as successful at returning and reproducing.

Another issue is when there are already either native Summer or Winter run fish in a river and the ODFW tries to enhance a the native run by adding to the Winter or summer run of fish. These fish also will compete with each other for food and if they are allowed to spawn, spawning areas.
One way that hatcheries have tried to eliminated spawning competition between wild and hatchery fish is to put in fish traps at the hatchery where the smolts were released. The traps at hatcheries consist of a fish ladder that the hatchery fish swim up to reach the hatchery where they are held in pens and not allowed to spawn. The hatchery fish go up these fish ladders because they were released from the pen at the top of the ladder and there natural instinct is to return to that point. This helps to eliminate the possibility of hatchery fish competing with native fish for spawning grounds and or interbreeding between hatchery and wild fish. The native fish will not go up these ladders but rather go up stream to there place of origin. There is still the possibility of hatchery fish straying away from the ladder and continuing up stream to the spawning grounds of native fish. The hatchery fish may also stray away from there river of origin all together and enter another river to spawn where there is no fish ladder and pen which allows the hatchery fish to spawn with natives.
Most hatchery fish that were released into a stream do not come from the eggs and milt of fish native to that stream. If the eggs and milt used are from a river like the Columbia witch is very long and large and these fish are released into a small coastal stream the salmon may become confused and lot as likely to reproduce successfully because they were not genetically designed for the small streams. Its like taking a City boy and putting him in a rural country setting he will most likely be lost and unsuccessful.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Another way that hatcheries eliminated spawning competition between wild and hatchery fish to some extinct is through different run/spawn timing.
I do not know if this was done intentionally or accidentally through selection of using the first (early) hatchery fish to arrive at the hatchery.
This is why there is so much concern about the later returning broodstock programs that are more likely to spawn with wild fish once they stray.

Also as per your scenario, I don’t think a domesticated dog would stand as good a chance introduced into the wild as say a wild coyote.

When a fish is raised in a hatchery they become tame in a way.

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

They are used to being fed at the same time every day and do not develop the foraging skill that a wild fish would have. They also do not have to worry about predators so there alarm senses are weaker than wild fish. They may fall victim to one of many predators in a river system including birds mammals and other fishes. There is also question of weather or not hatchery fish do not have the capability of adapting and becoming smarter like there native counterparts.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It has been observed by hatchery personal that broodstock fry are more wily right from the egg than the domesticated hatchery fry.
This is a good trait I believe but the fact of the matter is they are still a hatchery fish and should not be allowed to spawn with wild fish.

“We find that the brains of hatchery reared fish are relatively smaller in several critical measures than their wild counterparts. Our work may suggest a mechanistic basis for the observed vulnerability of hatchery fish to predation and their general low survival upon release into the wild. Our results are the first to highlight the effects of hatchery rearing on changes in brain development in fishes.”(Marchetti)

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

One solution the genetically inferior hatchery fish is Broodstock programs. On some rivers fisherman are allowed to keep some native steelhead and transport they alive to the local hatchery where the fish are allowed to spawn in in the hatchery and then are let go.

“By using eggs and milt (salmon sperm) from only wild fish to make each generation of hatchery fish, hatchery managers can help prevent domestication in hatchery salmon, which in turn will encourage fishery managers to implement habitat improvements in the Columbia River Basin to help wild
stocks, according to ISAB.”(Henry)

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We do not know if broodstock fish are a solution even though in some aspects they are an improved hatchery fish.
They could be potentionally more detrimental to wild fish genes as they are changed and more likely to spawn with wild stocks.
That is my biggest concern with broodstock fish along with you still have the same situation of a hatchery fish competing with wild fish in the rivers, estuaries and ocean.

Also I don't know that "will encourage fishery managers to implement habitat improvements in the Columbia River Basin to help wild
stocks" but maybe the opposite senario as did the first hatcheries when some folks seemed to think we could have salmon without rivers.

These Broodstock fish are by far better than the traditional hatchery fish used to stock streams but they still lack the habits of truly wild fish. Since the Brood stock fish are raised in hatchery pens just like hatchery fish they too do not have the survival skills and foraging skills necessary for the to be very successful.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Broodstock fish loose more than “survival skills and foraging skills”.

The estimated returns for hatchery fish are far lower than that of Broodstock fish. The number of hatchery fish that return to a steam is usually only 2 about percent of the number of smolts released into a stream. Compared to the 4-5 percent of Broodstock adults that return to a system. This may seem like a small percentile difference but when you multiply it time the 120,000 smolts that may be released into a single stream that is the difference between 2,400 and 6,000 returning adults.

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

The debate runs much further than weather or not hatchery fish are harmful to native fish most everybody agrees that they are, but the human survival aspect comes into play and that is where most people make there decisions about weather or not to continue hatchery programs. Many people depend on Steelhead and Salmon for there daily lives. “One group of salmon accounts for more than half of all hatchery salmon releases: fall chinook, mainly produced for ocean troll fishing.”(Rojas-Burke) Although hatchery fish do help to support Commercial tribal and sport fishing this is not the goal of hatchery programs. There number one goal is to help improve the status of anadromous fish in the Columbia basin and they are seemingly failing to do this.
There are Commercial fisherman who depend on anual runs of salmon for there incomes. A large percentage of those fish are hatchery produced fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bingo! Politics.
As Straydog stated, there are going to be some biased opinions regarding this issue.
You have folks selling sporting goods, guided trips, charter trips, motel rooms, groceries, restaurant meals, etc.
Some of these folks will readily compromise wild fish with hatchery fish not understanding the consequences or just for personal gain over the future of fishing.
You’re best off evaluating sound science.
Lots of politics involved in fishing.

“Tribal fishermen have the right to harvest 5 percent of the summer chinook entering the Columbia River, or about 6,000 fish based on the current forecast. Before, tribal members using dip nets and angling gear have legally caught a few hundred summer chinook, averaging about 1.4 percent of the run.”(Rojas-Burk)

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

The government has set up commitments and treaties with tribal fishermen allowing them to catch and retain a specific percent of the fish that enter a River. Without hatchery programs the government would not be able to keep these commitments to the tribal gill netter in the Columbia.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This might be true with the problematic Columbia.
With much needed habitat converted to lakes and associated predators (bass, walleye, *********, etc.), the dams themselves, I don’t know that wild fish could be self sustainable for consumptive fisheries without hatchery influence.

The bottom line is that if you mess with millions of years of evolution you are going to have problems. In the mid to early 1900’s we started stocking rivers with genetically inferior hatchery fish that were engineered for there unique river system and when they are introduced into a foreign one they failed to be successful. Therefore the genetics of the fish are altered when these fish are allowed to spawn in these streams. Since different rivers have different cycles on which they enter the river and return to there breeding grounds. If a hatchery fish has an earlier returning time than the native fish of a stream they will reach the spawning areas first and have first dibs on the prime breading areas. Thus decreasing the likely success rate of the native fish. The hatchery fish that do spawn in a stream do not have a very good likely hood of making baby fish that will survive and come back to spawn in the same area so it is pretty much a one time deal. They will have to release hatchery fish every year in order for more fish to keep returning because they are not capable of producing a self sustaining population. Although hatcheries are not the cause of decline in anadramous fish they are also not the solution to helping them rebound.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very good analysis with the exception of the last statement (which I previously addressed), but you might choose different wording for “baby fish”.


On your last post as of yesterday (I’m without internet access so I copied it yesterday off the net) I will just make a few comments.

The report closes by saying, "Supplementation should be
used sparingly," and only in places where naturally spawning
salmon and steelhead are not replacing themselves, and where the
habitat capacity is able to accommodate additional fish.
Otherwise, hatchery salmon will outcompete wild fish.

And all hatcheries should be committed to closing
when supplementation has either met the stated objectives, or is
failing and potentially harming wild fish, the report says.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree with this whole hardely but have a question or two.
If the “habitat capacity is able to accommodate additional fish” why not let the wild fish take advantage of the additional habitat and keep the negative hatchery influence away from that area?


Also a question I have brought up several times on this board is why is hatchery Chinook supplementation taking place on the Nestucca and Tillamook area rivers when they are obviously not needed and in all probability negatively effecting the wild Chinook stocks and possibly others in those basins?

The number one goal of hatchery supplementation is not to
provide fish for commercial, sport and tribal fishing, according
to ISAB. That is a secondary goal.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Who is ISAB and if that is not the number one goal' then what is?

“Wild runs are so depressed that hatcheries represent the only way the federal government is currently meeting its commitments to tribal, commercial and sport fishermen, said Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.”(Henry)

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’m not sure what commercial commitments Liz is referring to here.
Does the Federal government have commitments to the gill netters?
I was under the assumption that the Fed’s were committed to protecting wild fish from extinction.
Some wild runs are depressed and some are not. Some are on the rebound.
I don’t feel that “hatcheries represent the only way” in this very broad statement.
As I mentioned previously the OCN’s are doing better than they have in many years now that the hatchery influence has been greatly lessened.

Again Liz is in a political position representing the sportsfishing industry and that is not always in the best interest of wild fish.
NSIA is promoting selective fisheries, and that is not always in the best interest of wild fish.

"Hatcheries didn't cause the decline of wild salmon, and
they're not going to cure the problems," Hamilton said.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I disagree with Liz on that statement and believe that hatcheries did cause a decline of many wild salmon and steelhead stocks.
The Clackamas winter steelhead report by Kathryn Kostow concludes that it is believed that hatchery summers led to the decline of the wild winters.

I also feel science shows us that hatcheries can cure the problems by either by eliminating or reductions in hatchery production.
Again, you’re better off listening to sound science than a politically motivated statement.

I’ve often stated on ifish that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
If you can’t have big hatchery programs and healthy wild stocks in the same basin then what choice are you going to make?

Do you want the present scenario where you have problematic fisheries composed of consumptive hatchery fish and depressed wild stocks?

Or would you rather strive for a self sustaining consumptive fishery on wild fish that are less expensive and less problematic and move forward from the problematic situation we are now experiencing?
Keep in mind that we do have self sustaining wild stocks in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of North America.

But American Indian tribes in the basin with treaty rights
to salmon and steelhead disagree that hatcheries can't help cure
some of the basin's woes. Many tribes are successfully using
hatcheries to bring back naturally reproducing salmon in certain
rivers. For instance, the Umatilla tribes in northeastern Oregon
reintroduced salmon to the Umatilla River, a tributary of the
Columbia River.

Tribal hatcheries function differently from state and
federal hatcheries. Tribal hatcheries do not clip the adipose
fin to mark hatchery salmon, so tribal hatchery fish are
indistinguishable from wild fish. In addition, tribal hatchery
managers acclimate juvenile salmon to the river so they return
as adults to spawn naturally in the river, not in the hatchery.

Chuck Hudson, spokesman for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission said the ISAB report is of little use because it
failed to mention successful tribal hatcheries. CRITFC does
agree, however, that all hatchery managers should be using
local, naturally spawning broodstock, as tribal hatcheries do.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’m not familiar with some of the tribal successes or lack there of.
Fact remains the same that if you use hatchery stock to rebuild wild stocks the stocks are not going to be as successful as if you had left the rebuilding to the wild fish alone.
Clipping or non-clipping, and acclimation don’t change the genetic make up of the fish.

Regarding the broodstock comments on your thread, both common sense and science both indicate broodstock fish are not the same fish as the wild fish from which the eggs and milt were selected and it is arguable whether or not broodstock programs are any kind of solution or just another threat to wild fish.

Some of the largest declines in wild fish coincide with the expansion of the massive hatchery programs in the last 30-40 years.

If you are interested in seeking some science on broodstock fish and other issues you might look at some of the work done by Bill Bakke of the Native Fish Society.
Even though I don’t agree with Bill on a lot of issues he is probably the pioneer of the hatchery vs. wild issues and has a wealth of information on his site.
Check out his article titled; “HATCHERIES CHANGE SALMONIDS IN ONE GENERATION” for some science references on broodstock issues.

SSteelheadSteve,

What do you mean by BIOMASS?
Would you mind under simplifying it?
Seriously I have an idea of what you are hinting at, but don’t honestly know.

*** and COSMO I have to agree with your comments.

How can that, in terms of short term, (year to year) production be debated? If we were to stop all hatchery production tomorrow, are you suggesting we would have as many or more fish in the Columbia system in three years as today?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Straydog, I don’t think anyone ever suggested; “stopping all hatchery production.


Dano

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Dan

I think you just wrote his paper for him… :grin:

And I believe that ssteelheadsteve is very correct… Biomass

[Born to be Wild]

Thanks ***.

I really don't have the time to deal with this but I feel very strongly about this issue.

Anyway, what are you and sstealheadsteve referring to as biomass?

Please enlighten me if not everyone else.

A friend of mine lives on the Harris River on Prince of Wales Island and he can catch and harvest 6 wild coho a day.
The area has been logged extensively and yet produces more than enough wild fish for the ocean and freshwater fisheries.
I've often wondered about some of the differences other than a lack of a big metro area fishing on the river.
The Harris River doesn't have any hatchery fish by the way.

Dan

[ 12-06-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[hustlerrjim]

AND THE BAR STOOL BIOLOGIST RAVE ON

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Jim, you are shouting again…

It’s the button on the left :grin:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by hustlerrjim:
AND THE BAR STOOL BIOLOGIST RAVE ON

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And on and on and on and on............

And then the seemingly self appointed head authority asks "what is Bio- mass?"!!



[ 12-06-2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

First Light Bite --- I know that river!!!

[boater]

blake, up here in washington the wdfg is going through the long task of writing HGMP`s for 79 hatcherys to be sent to noaa for approval under the esa 4-d rule, HERE is a link to that website and HERE is a link that tells you what the 4-d rules are all about.

[ 12-06-2003, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

[Drakeblake]

Thanks so much for the info guys it is helping out alot. Im stressing out because of finals week I have 3 on monday but this paper isnt due untill thursday. You all are saving me alot of time that i dont have. I think i just need to go fishing!! Thanks again.

-blake

[Born to be Wild]

AND THE BAR STOOL BIOLOGIST RAVE ON

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hey, hello Jim!
Did you learn anything? :grin:

I missed you at ifishstock. Didn't know you were there until after the fact.
See ya at the Christmas party if you're gonna be there.

Straydoggie, cut me some slack.
I'm not an appointed head authority but I have done a lot of homework on this issue for about 6 or 7 years or so because of all the barbershop biology and cafe science I encountered in my 10 years at the coast and 6 years or so prior to that in the Portland area.
I base my opinions in an honest fashion and am not biased or influenced by niether money or hatchery fish to catch which you obviously know I enjoy.

The science is there but often folks choose not to believe it or ignore it.
As the reports keep rolling in backing up what some biologist and others have been saying for some time now, I am rather willing to pass it on.

I took a lot of flack at the coast for many years preaching the science that said hatchery fish are a detriment to wild fish while explaning the reasons for cutting back and ending some of our coastal hatchery coho programs.
I told the charters and other fish guru's that our coastal wild coho would rebound now that we have relieved them of the hatchery coho influence.
Most had closed minds, laughed, shook their heads and mocked the science.
Some had open minds and are realizing the results.

No Straydoggie, I'm not the head honcho, but just a fisherman seeking the truth and always looking for answers.
We have some serious issues with hatchery fish and fishermen need to be aware of that.
The attitude of "just dump some more in and let's fish" isn't working anymore.
We have realized what we have done and the mistakes we have made and whether it was logging practices, hatcheries or over harvest it does not make good sense to continue making the same mistakes.

Fishing will always be political, sports vs. commercial, B.C. and U.S. issues, etc. but I am hoping it will become a bit less political when we all come to the same conclusion that hatcheries are problematic, have negative effects on wild fish and should only be used sparingly when needed.
Then perhaps we can all work together for the benefit of our future fisheries.

Dan