Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-06-2009, 12:55 PM   #1
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

ATTN: Neuronik, Todd, Steelbum, and Wild Oar.

After reading the posts in relation to the Clackamas broodstock program I have a question. Since you guys seem to be in the know about this stuff could you help me understand?

This question is based on the presumption that hatchery production of fish is not going to go away( I know, big presumption, but for the sake of discussion). Which is worse for Wild fish, a hatchery program that utilizes out of basin stock to create a catch and kill fishery or a program that utilizes Broodstock( first generation hatchery fish spawned from wild stock)for a catch and kill fishery?

Thanks,
John

Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-06-2009, 01:04 PM   #2
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Broodstock programs are worse.

Segregated programs where the hatchery fish are either all harvested or all collected out of the river to prevent them from spawning is the best way to have hatchery fish and wild fish in the river at the same time.

Integrated broodstock programs lead to fish that are not as fit...and in spite of the popular opinion out there amongst their proponents, even one generation removed broodstock fish exhibit very different behaviors and express very different genetic traits, and those traits and behaviors have been shown to be inheritable.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 01:21 PM   #3
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post
Broodstock programs are worse.

Segregated programs where the hatchery fish are either all harvested or all collected out of the river to prevent them from spawning is the best way to have hatchery fish and wild fish in the river at the same time.

Integrated broodstock programs lead to fish that are not as fit...and in spite of the popular opinion out there amongst their proponents, even one generation removed broodstock fish exhibit very different behaviors and express very different genetic traits, and those traits and behaviors have been shown to be inheritable.
So does that mean its better to have an out of basin hatchery fish spawn with a wild fish than a broodstock hatchery fish spawn with a wild fish?
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-06-2009, 01:35 PM   #4
neuronick
Coho
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 80
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
So does that mean its better to have an out of basin hatchery fish spawn with a wild fish than a broodstock hatchery fish spawn with a wild fish?
I believe that both of these scenarios would be approximately equally damaging to the wild genetics (fitness declines rapidly with generation). But, the broodstock fish, if their runs are timed closer to that of the purely wild fish, will have a GREATER LIKELIHOOD of spawning with the wild fish. Therefore, broodstock fish could be more damaging.
neuronick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 01:44 PM   #5
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: W.L.
Posts: 8,400
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post
Broodstock programs are worse.

Segregated programs where the hatchery fish are either all harvested or all collected out of the river to prevent them from spawning is the best way to have hatchery fish and wild fish in the river at the same time.

Integrated broodstock programs lead to fish that are not as fit...and in spite of the popular opinion out there amongst their proponents, even one generation removed broodstock fish exhibit very different behaviors and express very different genetic traits, and those traits and behaviors have been shown to be inheritable.

Fish on...

Todd
So hypothetically speaking;

Sandy River

You would support electrodes (or similiar) in the river forcing all Salmon/Steelies to the Cedar Creek Hatchery.

True Native runs would be sent upstream.

Hatchery or Broodstock runs would always be clipped and regenerated downstream for harvest, donated to charities etc etc..

Almost like it was with Marmot Dam in place.

You could support this ??
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 02:44 PM   #6
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

After reading the attached paper on the other post I still do not get it. First generation hatchery fish( i.e broodstock, bred from wild parents) show almost identical reproductive success, and identical genetics(no mutated alleles). Also, in a cited reference in that paper they state that first generation hatchery fish( W x W parents hatchery reared) are 2.2% more likely to be eaten in the wild by predators than wild reared fish. a difference, yes, but the catastrophic type of difference that its made to sound, probably not .

The conclusion of that paper is that continually breeding hatchery reared fish( second generation offspring of W x W) will cause genetic mutation and severely decreases the ability of those fish to reproduce, making it an ineffective way to bolster fish numbers.

Last edited by Im a Doughball; 03-06-2009 at 02:57 PM.
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 03:16 PM   #7
neuronick
Coho
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 80
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
After reading the attached paper on the other post I still do not get it. First generation hatchery fish( i.e broodstock, bred from wild parents) show almost identical reproductive success, and identical genetics(no mutated alleles). Also, in a cited reference in that paper they state that first generation hatchery fish( W x W parents hatchery reared) are 2.2% more likely to be eaten in the wild by predators than wild reared fish. a difference, yes, but the catastrophic type of difference that its made to sound, probably not .

The conclusion of that paper is that continually breeding hatchery reared fish( second generation offspring of W x W) will cause genetic mutation and severely decreases the ability of those fish to reproduce, making it an ineffective way to bolster fish numbers.
In the Araki et al. paper, the authors compare 1st and 2nd generation hatchery bred fish as a way to compare the effect of a single generation of captivity. Making this comparisson controls for all other possible confounding factors that would exist with a comparisson between completely wild fish and 1st generation captivity fish (ie breeding environments). Comparing 1st and 2nd generation in captivity instead was just a way to do a truely controlled experiment. The difference between these two fish is only ONE generation in captivity, and that is sufficient to render the fish less viable.
In addition, however, the authors also compare PURE wild fish to the first generation captivity fish, and find an almost identical result: reproductive success of 1st generation captivity fish is only ~ 60% that of the purely wild fish. This information is in a SUPPLEMENTAL table S1. Science Magazine is annoying like that, in that they rely on lots of "supplemental data" to keep articles short.
So, the conclusion of this study really is that even one generation in captivity makes the fish less viable. This is problematic of course for at least two big reasons: 1. In the case of broodstock programs, wild fish genetics are deliberately converted into hatchery genetics by the artificial breeding process, and 2. That any stray fish that breed with the natives (that must happen to a significant extent) will damage the gene pool.
neuronick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 03:26 PM   #8
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...18_100_F2.jpeg

Is this the one? The chart on the right shows reproductive success of wild fish marked with a "+", first generation hatchery fish next on the right( varying from .5 to 1.2 average of .8), and second generation hatchery fish next?

Araki also cites a previous paper .
"The use of hatcheries for supplementing salmonid populations has become particularly popular. Nevertheless, whether such programs actually increase the size of wild populations remains unclear, and predictions that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish remain untested. To address these issues, we performed DNA-based parentage analyses on almost complete samples of anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Hood River in Oregon (U.S.A.). Steelhead from a supplementation hatchery (reared in a supplementation hatchery and then allowed to spawn naturally in the wild) had reproductive success indistinguishable from that of wild fish. In contrast, fish from a traditional hatchery (nonlocal origin, multiple generations in hatcheries) breeding in the same river showed significantly lower fitness than wild fish. In addition, crosses between wild fish and supplementation fish were as reproductively successful as those between wild parents. Thus, there was no sign that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish by breeding with them for a single generation. On the other hand, crosses between hatchery fish of either type (traditional or supplementation) were less fit than expected, suggesting a possible interaction effect. These are the first data to show that a supplementation program with native brood stock can provide a single-generation boost to the size of a natural steelhead population without obvious short-term fitness costs. The long-term effects of population supplementation remain untested."

Last edited by Im a Doughball; 03-06-2009 at 03:48 PM.
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 05:22 PM   #9
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Each cycle through the hatchery machinery reduces reproductive fitness by 40%.

Let's look at the F1 generation. Clipped WBS fish straying onto the gravel have only 60% as productive as their wild cousins. Compared to a W x W cross (100%) a WBS x WBS pairing is only 36% as productive. A WBS buck spawning with a wild hen will diminish the reproductive potential of that hen to only 60%. If a wild run is struggling or teetering on the brink, it CANNOT afford that loss. If ten hens were fertilized by clipped WBS bucks, you may as well have killed 4 of those hens!

Here's what happens when hatchery fish are recycled for broodstock in a traditional hatchery program.

Suppose they took returning (60% fitness) clipped WBS fish into the hatchery for egg-take. Their F2 progeny would suffer another 40% reduction in reproductive fitness..... in other words the two-cycle hatchery fish would only be 36% as reproductively fit as their grandparents.

Run 'em a third cycle thru the hatchery (losing another 40% fitness) and the F3's would only be 22% as fit as their wild GGP's.

Run 'em thru a fourth cycle (losing another 40% fitness) and the resulting F4's would only be 13% as fit as their wild GGGP's.

Run 'em thru a fifth cycle (losing another 40% fitness), and the F5's are less than 8% as fit as the original stock they came from.

This is why recycled hatchery fish can't spawn worth a dam in the wild. In five generations, a hatchery will convert a perfect wild product into a reproductively worthless ****!
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 05:30 PM   #10
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Each cycle through the hatchery machinery reduces reproductive fitness by 40%.

Let's look at the F1 generation. Clipped WBS fish straying onto the gravel have only 60% as productive as their wild cousins. Compared to a W x W cross (100%) a WBS x WBS pairing is only 36% as productive. A WBS buck spawning with a wild hen will diminish the reproductive potential of that hen to only 60%. If a wild run is struggling or teetering on the brink, it CANNOT afford that loss. If ten hens were fertilized by clipped WBS bucks, you may as well have killed 4 of those hens!

Here's what happens when hatchery fish are recycled for broodstock in a traditional hatchery program.

Suppose they took returning (60% fitness) clipped WBS fish into the hatchery for egg-take. Their F2 progeny would suffer another 40% reduction in reproductive fitness..... in other words the two-cycle hatchery fish would only be 36% as reproductively fit as their grandparents.

Run 'em a third cycle thru the hatchery (losing another 40% fitness) and the F3's would only be 22% as fit as their wild GGP's.

Run 'em thru a fourth cycle (losing another 40% fitness) and the resulting F4's would only be 13% as fit as their wild GGGP's.

Run 'em thru a fifth cycle (losing another 40% fitness), and the F5's are less than 8% as fit as the original stock they came from.

This is why recycled hatchery fish can't spawn worth a dam in the wild. In five generations, a hatchery will convert a perfect wild product into a reproductively worthless ****!
If I had to pick one I would rather have first generation broodstock fish with 60% fitness spawning with wild vs 5 generation 8% fitness out of basin fish. Thats what it comes down to right? Which is less harmful to the wild spawning population?
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 06:09 PM   #11
Uglygreen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tigard, Oregon
Posts: 6,139
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Each cycle through the hatchery machinery reduces reproductive fitness by 40%.

Let's look at the F1 generation. Clipped WBS fish straying onto the gravel have only 60% as productive as their wild cousins. Compared to a W x W cross (100%) a WBS x WBS pairing is only 36% as productive. A WBS buck spawning with a wild hen will diminish the reproductive potential of that hen to only 60%. If a wild run is struggling or teetering on the brink, it CANNOT afford that loss. If ten hens were fertilized by clipped WBS bucks, you may as well have killed 4 of those hens!

Here's what happens when hatchery fish are recycled for broodstock in a traditional hatchery program.

Suppose they took returning (60% fitness) clipped WBS fish into the hatchery for egg-take. Their F2 progeny would suffer another 40% reduction in reproductive fitness..... in other words the two-cycle hatchery fish would only be 36% as reproductively fit as their grandparents.

Run 'em a third cycle thru the hatchery (losing another 40% fitness) and the F3's would only be 22% as fit as their wild GGP's.

Run 'em thru a fourth cycle (losing another 40% fitness) and the resulting F4's would only be 13% as fit as their wild GGGP's.

Run 'em thru a fifth cycle (losing another 40% fitness), and the F5's are less than 8% as fit as the original stock they came from.

This is why recycled hatchery fish can't spawn worth a dam in the wild. In five generations, a hatchery will convert a perfect wild product into a reproductively worthless ****!
Citation please?

- Brad
Uglygreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 06:22 PM   #12
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
If I had to pick one I would rather have first generation broodstock fish with 60% fitness spawning with wild vs 5 generation 8% fitness out of basin fish. Thats what it comes down to right? Which is less harmful to the wild spawning population?
But as others have said, that's not the only factor.

Segregation, in either space and/or time is a HUGE factor.

When do the hatch fish return to spawn?
Where do the hatch fish return to spawn?
What type of collection mechanism is in place to minimize straying of hatch fish to avoid co-mingling with wild fish on the gravel?

Genetically speaking, the inferior recycled hatch fish are such a poor fit for successful wild spawning, that any negative influence they have on the genetic integrity of the population simply dies out. They are literally a genetic dead end. Their progeny do not survive to pass on the legacy of **** genes. These fish are actually less of a genetic threat to wild populations. The only real way they currently pose any real danger to wild fish is by management swamping the gravel with tons of hatchery turds. Current hatch practices recognize that's not a kosher way of doing business so it just doesn't happen.

Segregation is the key!

That's not to say what few hatch brats escape to the gravel don't have an impact. If they happen to spawn with a wild fish, they basically snuff that wild fish's reproductive potential.... and that is an unfortunate shame. Hence the eyeFISH motto that all hatchery fish MUST die.

NEVER release a hatchery fish that you can legally bonk!
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 06:58 PM   #13
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

No, I don't want out of basin steelhead spawning in the wild...that's why I said I want them either caught or collected.

Period.

In the long run, they're not even as bad broodstock fish spawning due to the fact that they are terrible at it...they waste eggs and milt just as quickly as the broodstock programs do, but at least they return little to no genetic misfits to screw up the gene pool.

In Washington we're really starting to clamp down on "outplanting"...putting hatchery fish where there are no adult collection facilities to get them out of the river if they return and aren't harvested.

There should be no hatchery fish spawning at all, no matter if they are out of basin or in basin broodstock hatchery fish.

Both are bad for the wild fish...and as an added bonus, wild fish are better spawners, produce more returning adults, and do it for free, right in the river all by themselves.

Of course, the fish they produce are more wild fish...which is good for the fish, good for the fishing, and good for the fishermen...they just don't return clipped fish for bonking.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 07:37 PM   #14
Spinitrode
King Salmon
 
Spinitrode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,540
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

One scenario I don't often see addressed in the new broodstock programs is the possibility (probability?) that in some cases the wild fish collected for the hatchery spawning program is in fact a naturally-reared HxH offspring. I realize that HxH pairings are much less fit than a WxW, but I suspect their survival rate is still something greater than zero, so now we're re-introducing more hatchery genes back into the pool. The benefit of the broodstock was supposed to be elimination of the inbreeding that used to be so obviously detrimental, but really all we're doing is camoflaging or delaying it by a generation or two... The bogeyman is still waiting in the weeds.

On the other hand, people may say, "Look, if the HxH pairing is producing returning offspring, then that proves they're successful!" -- Uh, no, not really, unless those returnees can successfully reproduce themselves, and so on. Just because two fish appear to spawn successfully from an angler/harvest standpoint (whether harvested for the table or collected for broodstock) doesn't mean it's successful from a genetic/biological standpoint... if that chain gets broken anywhere down the line, it's still broken. Might as well have been broken right off the bat like the old-skool Alsea hatchery brat; at least that way it cleared the decks so to speak for Ma Nature to try and clean up the mess. Now, the genetic 'mess' lingers in the system for an extra generation or two while it continues to drag down the reproductive fitness of the wild population.
Spinitrode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 07:48 PM   #15
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Thanks for the insight everyone. Its a little hard to pick through the scientific data, especially when it starts to contradict or refute itself at times. Thanks.

So would it be a safe assumption that H x H or H x W occurring in the wild would regain levels of reproductive success by a % every generation?
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 08:39 PM   #16
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
So would it be a safe assumption that H x H or H x W occurring in the wild would regain levels of reproductive success by a % every generation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siwash View Post
"Look, if the HxH pairing is producing returning offspring, then that proves they're successful!" -- Uh, no, not really, unless those returnees can successfully reproduce themselves, and so on. Just because two fish appear to spawn successfully from an angler/harvest standpoint (whether harvested for the table or collected for broodstock) doesn't mean it's successful from a genetic/biological standpoint... if that chain gets broken anywhere down the line, it's still broke.
These two quotes speak to the concerns about future generations of fish derived from naturally spawning (WBS x WBS) and/or (WBS x W).

Bottom line is this....

If the fish's life history goes from gravel to gravel, IT IS WILD!

It was born in the wild, foraged in the wild and evaded predators through ALL of its lifestages (egg, alevin, fry, smolt, adult) in the wild..... it has passed the environmental screening of what constitutes the desirable genetics for that system. The wild environment weeds out the bad genes just as surely and swiftly in these fish as life in a concrete tank permits crappy genes to persist in hatchery fish.

Genes are not an end to themselves.

It's the environment that determines which genes will persist in the population. These are the desirable genes that are the best fit for the environment in question... and the genes that get passed on to the next generation. The genetics of each surviving generation is continually refined by the environment.

So yes, for WBS fish straying onto the gravel, each successive generation in the natural environment improves reproductive fitness in the wild.

Conversely for wild fish, each generation in the hatchery environment reduces reproductive fitness in the wild. But you do get a much better fish adapted for life in a concrete tank.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 11:06 PM   #17
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uglygreen View Post
Citation please?

- Brad
5 OCTOBER 2007 VOL 318 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Genetic Effects of Captive Breeding Cause a Rapid, Cumulative Fitness Decline in the Wild

Hitoshi Araki,* Becky Cooper, Michael S. Blouin


Captive breeding is used to supplement populations of many species that are declining in the wild. The suitability of and long-term species survival from such programs remain largely untested, however. We measured lifetime reproductive success of the first two generations of steelhead trout that were reared in captivity and bred in the wild after they were released. By reconstructing a three-generation pedigree with microsatellite markers, we show that genetic effects of domestication reduce subsequent reproductive capabilities by ~40% per captive-reared generation when fish are moved to natural environments. These results suggest that even a few generations of domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction in the wild and that the repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations should be carefully reconsidered.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 04:58 AM   #18
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

OMG!
I went back through the archives about 5 years ago and read some of the broodstock threads back then.
Some of the propaganda from some of the guides was unreal!
Me and eyefish really got picked on for our stance and concerns regarding potential, serious, negative effects of broodstock hatchery fish on wild steelhead.
And even though me and POSclerk posted some disturbing scientific reports regarding broodstock programs back then, Marty, Scott, Travis and the like turned a blind eye to the science available even back then.
Along with a few non guides also.

Take a look at the things I high lighted & underlined from Mark Chilcote's report on the effects of both domestic and broodstock hatchery fish on wild steelhead that we posted back then.
Mark is a scientist that works for ODFW and is kind of the Eienstein of the bunch.

This negative broodstock science is not new.
I talked with Mark Chilcote on the phone back then after a popular ifisher tried to discredit this report being a "suplementation" report or "non broodstock" as we know them.
It is what it is and it is about the negative consequences of using both domesticated and broodstock hatchery steelhead on the wild steelhead populations.

Quote:
The Adverse Reproductive Consequences of Supplementing Natural Steelhead Populations in Oregon with Hatchery Fish

Mark W. Chilcote

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

Between 1978 to 2000, depending on the steelhead population, regulations were implemented that made it illegal for anglers to keep wild fish. Based on information presented by Hooton (1987) and Reingold (1975) it was assumed that 10% of the wild steelhead caught and released under these new regulations died as a result of handling stress. Therefore, the fishery mortality rate for each population after implementation of the .wild release. regulations was calculated as 10% of the estimated harvest rate for the period prior to the regulation change.

Discussion
Natural productivity in 12 populations of Oregon steelhead was significantly influenced by 4 variables, one of which was the level of hatchery fish in the spawning population. It appeared the presence of hatchery fish depressed overall population productivity, reduced the number of recruits, and lowered the genetic fitness of wild fish. These negative effects were insensitive to the type of hatchery fish involved. Although the hatchery fish represented in five of the study populations were from hatchery broodstocks developed from the local wild population and managed in manner to avoid domestication, the advantages of this strategy as purported by (Cuenco et al. 1993, Flagg et al. 2000) were not apparent. Even if the acceptable statistical significance level for the hatchery broodstock variable was raised from 0.05 to 0.10, thereby enabling the inclusion of this fifth variable in the production regression model, its influence would have been minor (Table 2). For example, using this 5-variable model, the estimated reproductive success for .wild-type. hatchery fish would have been 0.335, whereas the reproductive success for .semi-domesticated. hatchery fish would have been 0.293. Overall, these results demonstrated that the use wild fish for hatchery broodstocks as a means to create hatchery fish that are reproductive equals of wild fish in the natural environment does not appear to be a promising endeavor.

The recruitment curves developed from the results of this study (Figure 3) illustrate that the number of naturally produced fish can be expected to decline as the presence of hatchery fish in the spawning population increases. It appears that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of broodstock type, are a potential impairment to the subsequent production of recruits. When more than 10% of the naturally spawning population is comprised of hatchery fish, this impairment is not trivial.

There has been considerable interest concerning the use of various types of hatchery programs to help rebuild and restore depressed populations of wild fish (Waples 1991; Olney et al. 1994; Cuenco et al. 1993). Sometimes described as .supplementation. (Sterne 1995) this approach has both intuitive and theoretical appeal as reflected by Cuenco (1994) and Flagg et al. (1999).
However, based upon the results of a variety of simulations using the productivity model developed from the observations of this study, it appears that supplementation may be an ineffective tool for recovering depressed populations of wild fish. Such depressed populations appear to respond weakly to the addition of more spawners if they are hatchery fish (Figure 4). In addition, a byproduct of the supplementation strategy is a decline in the genetic fitness of wild fish. Although the magnitude of this fitness decline is not large when the level intervention is low (-3.9% when Ph = 0.10), it rapidly increases once the resulting proportion of hatchery fish becomes greater than 0.50 (Figure 6).

The results of this study suggest that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of broodstock origin and quality, are ineffective at producing offspring that survive to adulthood. The observation that hatchery fish from .semi-domesticated. and .wild-type. hatchery broodstocks have essentially the same reproductive success makes a genetic explanation of this observation more difficult. It would seem that the .wild-type. hatchery fish should be genetically more similar to the local wild fish. Therefore, they should have better reproductive performance than hatchery fish from .semi-domesticated. broodstocks. However, as speculated by Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999), it is possible the genetic change that occurs as fish adapt to the hatchery environment may have more significance in terms of reproductive success in the natural environment than do the genetic shortcomings related to the geographic origin of the hatchery broodstock. Should this be the case, any genetic effect of broodstock origin may be difficult to detect.

An alternative genetic mechanism, unrelated to stock origin or selective changes, may be operating to create the reproductive differences between hatchery and wild fish. Genetic differences may arise from the common situation that returning hatchery fish are the offspring of substantially fewer parents than is the case for wild fish returning to the same basin. For example, approximately 160 fish are used annually as broodstock for the North Umpqua summer steelhead hatchery program. In contrast, the number of wild fish that spawn naturally in the North Umpqua basin is typically greater than 3,000 fish (Appendix 1). Therefore, the genetic base for the hatchery return is approximately 80 families, whereas for the wild fish it is roughly 1,500 families.

In summary, this study found that hatchery fish are poorly suited to reproduce under natural conditions and when allowed to do so have an adverse impact on the recruitment and productivity of natural steelhead populations. These results confirm the study supposition that hatchery fish are maladapted for reproductive survival in the natural environment. This confirmation is robust and applies to hatchery fish regardless of hatchery broodstock origin and various attempts to mimic the genetic and reproductive characteristics of wild fish. Further, it appears supplementation of depressed wild populations with hatchery spawners is an ineffective conservation strategy. Such efforts can be expected to yield only minor gains in the number of naturally produced recruits and cause a loss in the genetic fitness of wild fish. Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with the view that the most effective conservation role for hatcheries is one of impact avoidance, not direct intervention. It appears that limiting the proportion of hatchery fish in naturally spawning populations to less than 0.10 is an appropriate strategy to achieve this conservation role.


Last edited by Born to be Wild; 03-07-2009 at 05:01 AM.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 10:17 AM   #19
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

There's nothing new about it, and within the scientific world there's not even an argument about it anymore...yet the same tired arguments come out over and over again every time it comes up...no truly native fish left, the science is all wrong (and I'm right!), etc., etc., etc.,...

Eventually a full blown broodstock program will turn into exactly what we have now...an industrial 100% hatchery fish program...because we'll elminate all the actual native fish and be stuck with cloning returning hatchery fish.

That hasn't worked for the past 100 years, and it will continue to not work.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 10:25 AM   #20
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: W.L.
Posts: 8,400
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post
There's nothing new about it, and within the scientific world there's not even an argument about it anymore...yet the same tired arguments come out over and over again every time it comes up...no truly native fish left, the science is all wrong (and I'm right!), etc., etc., etc.,...

Eventually a full blown broodstock program will turn into exactly what we have now...an industrial 100% hatchery fish program...because we'll elminate all the actual native fish and be stuck with cloning returning hatchery fish.

That hasn't worked for the past 100 years, and it will continue to not work.

Fish on...

Todd


So hypothetically speaking;

hypothetic example: Sandy River

You would support electrodes (or similiar) in the river forcing all Salmon/Steelies to the Cedar Creek Hatchery.

True Native runs would be sent upstream.

Hatchery or Broodstock runs would always be clipped and regenerated downstream for harvest, donated to charities etc etc..

Almost like it was with Marmot Dam in place.

You could support this ?? in favor of broodstock programs ?
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 10:50 AM   #21
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

WBS programs for any salmonid species (salmon or steel) equates to siphoning off a portion of wild production and running it thru the hatchery machinery to convert that production in to a bonkable fin-clipped commodity.

At its very roots, A WBS program is a selfish endeavor whose sole objective is to mine eggs from the wild population to articifially prop up harvest harvest harvest!

Instead of investing in projects to boost self-sustaining wild production, management continues to invest its limited resources in programs that only drive wild populations toward further depletion... all in the name of maintaining harvest opportunities.

We've been doing it that way for 137 years, and the premise that man can produce these fish better than nature has simply not been borne out thru history.

Just remember that all of the early hatchery programs were essentially wild broodstock programs (they just didn't have a fancy name for it back then). They didn't work then, and they don't work now.

As the wild fish were depleted, so too were the hatcherymen's source of eggs. When they ran out of wild fish to mine, they simply resorted to collecting fish in basins far and wide throughout the PNW. This resulted in the mass transfer of wild eggs from one facility to another in hodge-podge fashion. The sole objective was to keep the incubators full.... never mind the health of the wild stocks from which the eggs were being mined.

Bottom line, every system in the PNW can use EVERY wild spawner it can muster. Stealing those fish just to make more hatchery fish is totally irresponsible.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:10 AM   #22
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
5 OCTOBER 2007 VOL 318 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Genetic Effects of Captive Breeding Cause a Rapid, Cumulative Fitness Decline in the Wild

Hitoshi Araki,* Becky Cooper, Michael S. Blouin


... These results suggest that even a few generations of domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction in the wild and that the repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations should be carefully reconsidered.
This last sentence seems to place emphasis on multiple generations of domestication, with captive reared parents. But the numbers clearly show a reduction in reproductive fitness in 1st generation WBS.

Reproductive Success of Captive-Bred Steelhead Trout in the Wild: Evaluation of Three Hatchery Programs in the Hood River
HITOSHI ARAKI*‡**, WILLIAM R. ARDREN*§**, ERIK OLSEN†, BECKY COOPER*, and MICHAEL S. BLOUIN*

Population supplementation programs that release captive-bred offspring into the wild to boost the size of endangered populations are now in place for many species. The use of hatcheries for supplementing salmonid populations has become particularly popular. Nevertheless, whether such programs actually increase the size of wild populations remains unclear, and predictions that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish remain untested. To address these issues, we performed DNA-based parentage analyses on almost complete samples of anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Hood River in Oregon (U.S.A.). Steelhead from a supplementation hatchery (reared in a supplementation hatchery and then allowed to spawn naturally in the wild) had reproductive success indistinguishable from that of wild fish. In contrast, fish from a traditional hatchery (nonlocal origin, multiple generations in hatcheries) breeding in the same river showed significantly lower fitness than wild fish. In addition, crosses between wild fish and supplementation fish were as reproductively successful as those between wild parents. Thus, there was no sign that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish by breeding with them for a single generation. On the other hand, crosses between hatchery fish of either type (traditional or supplementation) were less fit than expected, suggesting a possible interaction effect. These are the first data to show that a supplementation program with native brood stock can provide a single-generation boost to the size of a natural steelhead population without obvious short-term fitness costs. The long-term effects of population supplementation remain untested.

Yet, I find things like this that seem to dispute that WBS negitivly affect populations of wild fish through interaction on the gravel.

What am I supposed to believe?
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:17 AM   #23
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

You don't need electrodes...release them in Cedar Creek where they've been properly acclimated, and then get them all in the trap, then bonk every single one that is caught, and most of the problem goes away.

Araki found that one generation removed hatchery fish may have good spawning success, but the problem is that the progeny of those fish are now spawning together, or being brought into the hatchery, and then the problems really start.

The only way to avoid the cumulative effects is to do a one time infusion of broodstock juveniles, and then don't do it again...which would be kind of pointless, since the wild fish could do it as well, for free.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:22 AM   #24
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: W.L.
Posts: 8,400
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
WBS programs for any salmonid species (salmon or steel) equates to siphoning off a portion of wild production and running it thru the hatchery machinery to convert that production in to a bonkable fin-clipped commodity.

At its very roots, A WBS program is a selfish endeavor whose sole objective is to mine eggs from the wild population to articifially prop up harvest harvest harvest!

Instead of investing in projects to boost self-sustaining wild production, management continues to invest its limited resources in programs that only drive wild populations toward further depletion... all in the name of maintaining harvest opportunities.

We've been doing it that way for 137 years, and the premise that man can produce these fish better than nature has simply not been borne out thru history.

Just remember that all of the early hatchery programs were essentially wild broodstock programs (they just didn't have a fancy name for it back then). They didn't work then, and they don't work now.

As the wild fish were depleted, so too were the hatcherymen's source of eggs. When they ran out of wild fish to mine, they simply resorted to collecting fish in basins far and wide throughout the PNW. This resulted in the mass transfer of wild eggs from one facility to another in hodge-podge fashion. The sole objective was to keep the incubators full.... never mind the health of the wild stocks from which the eggs were being mined.

Bottom line, every system in the PNW can use EVERY wild spawner it can muster. Stealing those fish just to make more hatchery fish is totally irresponsible.

O.k. good info. - you are not on the Wild Broodstock bandwagon, fair enough.

But the question to summarize your opinion ?

Do you support Hatcheries using say mainly "Big Creek" stock or a similiar fairly robust, allbeit foriegn strain in rivers around Portland ?

Or..

Are you saying close all sportfishing & use nothing with mans involvement anywhere ?

I prefer to hear the bottomline suggestion, when a poster has a criticism.

???
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:25 AM   #25
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
This last sentence seems to place emphasis on multiple generations of domestication, with captive reared parents. But the numbers clearly show a reduction in reproductive fitness in 1st generation WBS.

Reproductive Success of Captive-Bred Steelhead Trout in the Wild: Evaluation of Three Hatchery Programs in the Hood River
HITOSHI ARAKI*‡**, WILLIAM R. ARDREN*§**, ERIK OLSEN†, BECKY COOPER*, and MICHAEL S. BLOUIN*

Population supplementation programs that release captive-bred offspring into the wild to boost the size of endangered populations are now in place for many species. The use of hatcheries for supplementing salmonid populations has become particularly popular. Nevertheless, whether such programs actually increase the size of wild populations remains unclear, and predictions that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish remain untested. To address these issues, we performed DNA-based parentage analyses on almost complete samples of anadromous steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Hood River in Oregon (U.S.A.). Steelhead from a supplementation hatchery (reared in a supplementation hatchery and then allowed to spawn naturally in the wild) had reproductive success indistinguishable from that of wild fish. In contrast, fish from a traditional hatchery (nonlocal origin, multiple generations in hatcheries) breeding in the same river showed significantly lower fitness than wild fish. In addition, crosses between wild fish and supplementation fish were as reproductively successful as those between wild parents. Thus, there was no sign that supplementation fish drag down the fitness of wild fish by breeding with them for a single generation. On the other hand, crosses between hatchery fish of either type (traditional or supplementation) were less fit than expected, suggesting a possible interaction effect. These are the first data to show that a supplementation program with native brood stock can provide a single-generation boost to the size of a natural steelhead population without obvious short-term fitness costs. The long-term effects of population supplementation remain untested.

Yet, I find things like this that seem to dispute that WBS negitivly affect populations of wild fish through interaction on the gravel.

What am I supposed to believe?
The paper you quoted above was based on the group's preliminary findings (BTW same Hood River group published both papers we are citing). It was published in 2006.

Quote:
Paper submitted January 9, 2006; revised manuscript accepted April 18, 2006.
As the group was able to complete its database from all returning age classes for each brood, a more realistic conclusion was reached.

Quote:
the first generation of captive-reared fish had natural reproductive success indistinguishable
from that of wild fish in two out of three run-years (17).
Moreover, they were perplexed by the original findings. Why was there no detectable difference? This is what they came up with...

Quote:
This comparison,however, neglected the fact that captive-reared and wild individuals experience different environments as juveniles, which might affect mating behaviors, fecundity, and/or fertility (18). Therefore, it is difficult to disentangle environmental effects from genetic effects for a difference or lack of difference in reproductive success (17).
That's when they came up with the idea for the second paper..... devising a study that isolated the effect of one generation of captive rearing (independent of all other genetic or environmental factors). What they found was that each generation of captive rearing reduced reproductive fitness by about 40% per generation. If you carry that over multiple generations of hatchery fish, their fitness plummets like a lead balloon.

One generation = 0.6 fitness of wild
Two generations = 0.6 squared = 0.36 fitness of wild
Three generations = 0.6 cubed = 0.22 fitness of wild
Four generations = 0.6 ^4th = 0.13 fitness of wild
Five generations = 0.6 ^5th = 0.078 fitness of wild

They are rendered reproductive turds by the second generation of recycling (1/3 as productive as wild). By the fifth generation they are functionally sterile.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:43 AM   #26
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverJohn View Post

Do you support Hatcheries using say mainly "Big Creek" stock or a similiar fairly robust, allbeit foriegn strain in rivers around Portland ?

Or..

Are you saying close all sportfishing & use nothing with mans involvement anywhere ?
In a perfect world we would have ZERO hatchery fish.

The world ain't perfect.

Given where we are today.... understanding the historic shortcomings of artificial propagation, using the available modern science, and yet trying to maintain some semblance of harvest opportunity....

I prefer the use of recycled turds for hatch production, maximally segregated in space AND time (to the extent humanly possible) to keep as few of them from co-mingling with wild fish on the gravel. In my view hatch fish are nothing more than biologic pollution... a free-swimming bio-toxin if they are allowed onto the gravel.

Where wild fish have been extirpated, that's where you run your balls out domesticated meat-market hatchery. Where wild fish have a chance at maintaining a stronghold... keep the dam things away... unless of course their is a mechanism for 100% sorting of fish passage where the turds can be selectively removed.

The idea of hatchery-free sanctuaries is LONG overdue. Let's pick a handful of worthy basins to give it a go. What we've done so far hasn't worked worth a dam... what have we got to lose?
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:54 AM   #27
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
The paper you quoted above was based on the group's preliminary findings (BTW same Hood River group published both papers we are citing). It was published in 2006.

As the group was able to complete its database from all returning age classes for each brood, a more realistic conclusion was reached
I know they are from the same group. The paper you are citing was published in October 2007(?). I wonder, if the results of the same study group could come up with such conflicting results in one year are either of them very reliable?
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:59 AM   #28
Kalama Fish Doctor
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

I definately have to chime in here-
but I'm on my way out the door to dip some smelt-

There are certainly "pros" and "cons" to both "types" of programs.
Without a hatchery program salmonid fishing opportunities would be mininmal, both sport and commercial. We need hatchery programs for the continued support of these fisheries.

Impacts to wild stocks are a different issue but at the same time inclusive.

The debate on which way to go- segragated vs. intergrated stocks is not so clear for salmon vs steelhead because of past management (over 100 years of harvest and hatcheries for slamon)of these species.

The study on the Hood is a good one, as are several others lik eon the Kalama.

more on that later-

as far as fishing goes for steelhead- brood from wild broodstcok fight harder and taste better and are around in the fishery for a much longer time. but they are much more difficult to raise in a one year hatchery program vs the traditional domesticated hatchery stock. Thus many of the brood fish don't become a smolt (grow big enough in one year). But if they do, then it's a good thing. and then it's a matter of what to do when so many brothers and sisters return from what are typically such a small program to begin with. Like 20 pair producing 2000 adults back-

got to run my son wants to go dip-
fish on
Kalama Fish Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:03 PM   #29
Kalama Fish Doctor
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

wild fish Sanctuaries are fine if you have habitat that can support them- like on the coast and in Idaho. But if you want fish you have to do something more than just make a sanctaury- choose your sancturaies carefully and then see what happens unlike the Grays River.
Kalama Fish Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:10 PM   #30
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: W.L.
Posts: 8,400
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
In a perfect world we would have ZERO hatchery fish.

The world ain't perfect.

Given where we are today.... understanding the historic shortcomings of artificial propagation, using the available modern science, and yet trying to maintain some semblance of harvest opportunity....

I prefer the use of recycled turds for hatch production, maximally segregated in space AND time (to the extent humanly possible) to keep as few of them from co-mingling with wild fish on the gravel. In my view hatch fish are nothing more than biologic pollution... a free-swimming bio-toxin if they are allowed onto the gravel.

Where wild fish have been extirpated, that's where you run your balls out domesticated meat-market hatchery. Where wild fish have a chance at maintaining a stronghold... keep the dam things away... unless of course their is a mechanism for 100% sorting of fish passage where the turds can be selectively removed.

The idea of hatchery-free sanctuaries is LONG overdue. Let's pick a handful of worthy basins to give it a go. What we've done so far hasn't worked worth a dam... what have we got to lose?
O.K. thanks eye !

I am Not too far off your thoughts. I agree we are past the point of really thinking natives have even a remote chance of satisfying anyone really. Though yes we should try and save what we have, if we can.

The part I agree with you the most on is...

a) Pick select streams with the highest chance of Native reproduction. Make them off limits - at a min catch & release only, this does indeed sway many to other rivers.

b) Pick streams with very good public access and very little odds of Native reproduction - boost them to legit numbers for anglers.

I have read that the Umpqua seems to be supporting Nates in good numbers, Havent heard specifics on too many others ex: Salmonberry, Mollala, Sandy.

I cannot say Broodstock is a bad thing (my own opinion) unless we start a better plan like mentioned above, each stream is entirely native or entirely Sportfishing. The sportfishing needs to be substaintial, not a half a$$ed excuse like what we get lately.

I remember in the 80's when you could actually have some sort of action almost every trip on the upper Sandy River (Summers). This does not mean I would like to pick the Sandy as a Huge sportfishing effort, just saying, if we do it on any stream, do it well.

Right now (imo) ODFW is trying to please both sides and failing on both. Native fish fans do not like broodstock programs and sportfishers dont like such reduced numbers of catchable fish.

I wonder, why are we not looking at defining streams as all one or the other ?
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:20 PM   #31
PinkMasta
Chromer
 
PinkMasta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sitka Alaska
Posts: 778
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverJohn View Post
O.K. thanks eye !

I am Not too far off your thoughts. I agree we are past the point of really thinking natives have even a remote chance of satisfying anyone really. Though yes we should try and save what we have, if we can.

The part I agree with you the most on is...

a) Pick select streams with the highest chance of Native reproduction. Make them off limits - at a min catch & release only, this does indeed sway many to other rivers.

b) Pick streams with very good public access and very little odds of Native reproduction - boost them to legit numbers for anglers.

I have read that the Umpqua seems to be supporting Nates in good numbers, Havent heard specifics on too many others ex: Salmonberry, Mollala, Sandy.

I cannot say Broodstock is a bad thing (my own opinion) unless we start a better plan like mentioned above, each stream is entirely native or entirely Sportfishing. The sportfishing needs to be substaintial, not a half a$$ed excuse like what we get lately.

I remember in the 80's when you could actually have some sort of action almost every trip on the upper Sandy River (Summers). This does not mean I would like to pick the Sandy as a Huge sportfishing effort, just saying, if we do it on any stream, do it well.

Right now (imo) ODFW is trying to please both sides and failing on both. Native fish fans do not like broodstock programs and sportfishers dont like such reduced numbers of catchable fish.

I wonder, why are we not looking at defining streams as all one or the other ?
One opinion I would throw out there if that plan were to take place is to make sure that there is C&R on the river. That keeps fishermen, people who care about those wild fish, on the river. That would be the enforcement against the poachers.

Its really sad to watch a stream that is completely closed to fishing for a species continue to decline because people are taking more fish out of the river than would be removed in a limited retention situation.

I have seen this first hand on the Indian River here in town (Sitka, Ak). There is a healthy ( more fish than people realize) run of Coho that go up there late in the fall. It is completely closed to angling for this species. That being said, you can walk up there and find all sorts of snagging equipment littered all over the ground. Treble hooks with lead wrapped around them and everything. I personally was walking up the river one nice day and stumbled upon 3 guys casting said "lures" and they had 35 dead dime bright coho sitting in plain sight on the bank! I, as quickly as possible, went to the nearest phone and called the fish and game, but by the time they made it there the guys were gone.

I asked what they were doing to protect the stock of fish and they admitted they didnt have enough staff to really do anything...

Sorry for the rant, dont mean to hijack and all. But hopefully, if that plan ever came into play in Oregon, Catch and Release would be allowed...
__________________
PinkMasta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:23 PM   #32
Im a Doughball
Chromer
 
Im a Doughball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 806
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

I love how this thread went form a discussion about impacts of hatchery and broodstock programs on wild fish, to I like broodstock fish, they taste better. Priceless
Im a Doughball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:29 PM   #33
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
I know they are from the same group. The paper you are citing was published in October 2007(?). I wonder, if the results of the same study group could come up with such conflicting results in one year are either of them very reliable?
I edited my original reply to you in post #25... that should answer your question about "conflicting" results.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 03:53 PM   #34
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
The study on the Hood is a good one, as are several others lik eon the Kalama.
I talked to a couple bio's a couple years ago that were involved in an extensive study there on the Kalama working with the different steelhead stocks.
I haven't seen anything from them yet.
Have you?
I know one guys name is Pat Hulett but don't recall the other.
If I remember right they work for WDFW, work out of an office here in Longview but spend most of their time on the Kalama.

It is a tough call on the hatchery fish.
Tough to wave goodbye to them.
But that is already taking place all around us here in SW Washington.
I think they are following Oregon's lead.

We do know the hatcheries have failed us.
We do know they depress the wild fish populations.
I think most of the big mess we are in right now is mostly due to hatcheries.
So what do we do?

I still say after all these years we need to take a good basin or two (like the Nestucca for example), get rid of all the hatchery programs there, manage it for wild, and see what happens.
Sure the guides would reject it, but it's our river too.
They have other rivers to guide on and they do that anyway.
Give us a river managed in a natural state.
No more artificial turds to polute the river.
Then if that works and satifies most fishermen, go do the same on a river like the Siletz.

In Washington, I'm not sure where you'd start.
I use to think one or two Columbia trib's would be a good choice but with that basin being so poluted with bazillions of hatchery mutts, not sure how that would work out.
You still would have those bazillion smolts causing the big predation problems down in the estuary.

I personally feel the hatchery problem in the Columbia is bigger than the sports & commercial fisheries inriver and ocean fisheries combined.
You fish some of those trib's and it just looks like a hatchery polluted wasteland.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 04:27 PM   #35
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Start with the Skagit...the hatchery returns there have been so dismal over the decades that you would hardly miss them if they weren't there any more...plus it's the only Puget Sound system to routinely make escapement goals.

Coincidence?

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 04:53 PM   #36
Slow and Low
Sturgeon
 
Slow and Low's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hood River, OR
Posts: 3,590
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Im a Doughball View Post
ATTN: Neuronik, Todd, Steelbum, and Wild Oar.

After reading the posts in relation to the Clackamas broodstock program I have a question. Since you guys seem to be in the know about this stuff could you help me understand?

This question is based on the presumption that hatchery production of fish is not going to go away( I know, big presumption, but for the sake of discussion). Which is worse for Wild fish, a hatchery program that utilizes out of basin stock to create a catch and kill fishery or a program that utilizes Broodstock( first generation hatchery fish spawned from wild stock)for a catch and kill fishery?

Thanks,
John
The missing question is why are we not focussing on habitat. They want to sell liscences....period. The guides want to sell seats...period. Where does that leave us. As usual, disregarding an irreplaceable resource. There are rivers in this state with no hatchery producing large numbers of steelhead dispite loss of habitat, irigation, and polution (see the John Day). There are also some zipper lip streams on the coast that produce wild stealhead in volume. We know the fish can breed if left to do so. We know the chances increase if we fix the habitat.

But still there are some who think there is a happy medium. See the dam counts at bonneville for 2009 270 total steelhead. Give me a break. Hood River Broodstock program is a loser. Take out the dams, fix the habitat, what do you think will happen? What percent of fish will they kill here this year to return 200 fish next year. Dumb, dumb, dumb!!


BTW, great thread;-)
__________________
Sam Sickles
Slow and Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 05:09 PM   #37
Jerry Dove
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 5,707
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

I have had a long day working at the Whiskey Creek Volunteer hatchery so I am tired. When I am tired I tend to say things that my wife says I should not have said. Oh well, here I go. Why don't we just give up this idea that we will ever see a really solid run of wild fish,,they are GONE. Things change, the world changes, and we change. We have spent trillions of $$$$$ chasing a wild dream that we can bring back something that has been gone for years, ie, wild fish. The state of OR spent MILLIONS OF $$$ this past year putting in bridges,,,hoping that maybe a fish or two MIGHT swim up a small stream that has not seen fish for years,,,if,,,EVER. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we are going to fish and catch fish to eat,,,,,we better take a long look at what we are doing with our tax dollars! Jerry Dove
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 05:40 PM   #38
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Wild fish are not only not gone, but are doing pretty well in lots of places...mining them to make hatchery fish for harvest is just one of the many things we do in our attempts to exterminate 'em.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 08:11 PM   #39
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
I have had a long day working at the Whiskey Creek Volunteer hatchery so I am tired. When I am tired I tend to say things that my wife says I should not have said. Oh well, here I go. Why don't we just give up this idea that we will ever see a really solid run of wild fish,,they are GONE. Things change, the world changes, and we change. We have spent trillions of $$$$$ chasing a wild dream that we can bring back something that has been gone for years, ie, wild fish. The state of OR spent MILLIONS OF $$$ this past year putting in bridges,,,hoping that maybe a fish or two MIGHT swim up a small stream that has not seen fish for years,,,if,,,EVER. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we are going to fish and catch fish to eat,,,,,we better take a long look at what we are doing with our tax dollars! Jerry Dove
WRONG!

We have spent BILLIONS of dollars saving dams and producing bazillions of hatchery fish to fuel the insatiable fisheries of the PNW and beyond (BC/AK).

Precious few dollars have actually been spent "chasing a wild dream" , i.e. actually saving wild fish. For example on the ESA-listed CR spring chinook, we set out to intentionally kill about 15% of the wild run each and every year (and oftentimes exceed that objective) just to have harvest access to hatchery spring chinook.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 10:35 PM   #40
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

We spend far more money pretending that technofixes and hatchery fish will replace wild fish than we ever spend on actual wild fish...the fact that they are still relatively healthy in some areas, and at least present virtually everywhere, is a testament to how strong they are...just think how well they'd be doing if we actually tried to improve their runs, rather than just treat them as an irritant that gets in the way of "progress" and hatchery fish?

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 12:50 AM   #41
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
Why don't we just give up this idea that we will ever see a really solid run of wild fish,,they are GONE. Things change, the world changes, and we change. Jerry Dove
Jerry, you need to take your blinders off with claims like that.
The fall chinook in your own back yard are predominately wild chinook.
The added hatchery fall chinook in Tillamook area sreams are not needed and the program is a joke.
Look at the numbers of wild vs hatchery chinook harvested in Tillamook Bay and area streams.
Very small percentage of hatchery chinook.
Get rid of them like they did on the cenral coast rivers.

You've probably read about the success of the Oregon coastal wild coho.
They were in dire straights back in the mid 90's not too long ago.
2002 we seen the highest counts of OCN's in over 50 years which was somewhere around 300,000 wild coho.
Now compare that number of wild coho to the number of hatchery coho that used to return to the coast back in the big hatchery glory days.
Now that we got rid of and curtailed the stocking of hatchery coho on the Oregon coast, we are seeing some impressive numbers of them.

In 2008 we have had close to 200,000 wild coho return.
Not the record return Ty claims but still impressive.
In 2009 I believe the forecast is for some 220,000 wild coho and I will be surprised if it isn't closer to 300,000 by the time it is all said & done.
This year (and probably last year) we will no doubt see coho exceed seeding capacity in some basins.
There is enough wild coho for harvest once again as there was back in 2002.
We will most likely have some harvest on wild coho this fall on the Oregon coast in selected areas.
That is a good thing!
Especially if the fall chinook don't show in much improved numbers again.

The success of the Oregon coast wild coho is unprecedented for a listed species and couldn't have taken place without radically reducing the large numbers of hatchery coho smolt stocking in the coastal rivers.

The Alsea basin was down to an estimated number of 200 wild coho somewhere back in the 90's.
The rest of the Oregon coastal rivers continued to rebuild slowly but surely during the tough El Nino years when they were afforded protection.
The Alsea basin did not.
At the same time, it continued to decline.
UNTIL, they ended the Fall Creek run of hatchery coho mutts!

Why didn't the Alsea River basin start improving when afforded protection from harvest like the rest of the coastal rivers?
The biologist had a good idea armed with science and video's of massive feeding frenzies taking place in the small Alsea estuary when 1 million big oversized hatchery coho smolt migrated into the small estuary.
They (hatchery coho smolt) attracted every harbor seal and every thinkable bird from all over and not only took a toll on the hatchery smolt but the wild smolt got hammered that were out migrating amongst them.
Another case & point like the Columbia etuary where we were enabling predators with our big, expensive, dumb hatchery smolts.

So they ended that Fall Creek hatchery coho program (Alsea basin) and the Alsea basin wild coho took off.
Wild coho are very resillient and given the chance, they will flourish.
Now the Alsea basin wild coho number in the thousands instead of a couple humdred.

I can't consider you a friend of wild fish with your attitudes towards wild fish like statements above and your willingness to promote more hatchery fish and kiss the wild fish goodbye.
Your statement above says just write em off.

In all your years on ifish you should have realized that hatchery fish are indeed detrimental to wild fish.
You should have also noticed that hatchery fish are not a win win sityuation.

I visited your Whiskey Creek clipping cerimony 4 or 5 years ago.
I don't know right off if that is a good or bad program but suspect it might not be all that bad depending on where those spring chinook are going (if I recollect, they were springers).
But it bout gagged me to see what was taking place and when I was asked to grab a pair of scissors, I just couldn't do it.
I was highly disturbed seeing all those folks, men, women and children having such a great time clipping away.
It kind of took me back in time about 50 years.
Kind of redneck biology to me.

I like catching hatchery fish and catch lots of them.
But I don't endorse choking our rivers to death with hatchery fish.
My favorite river the Elochoman just had it's hatchery coho and chinook programs cut this last year.
Sure I have great memories & pictures of fishing there, but am happy the wild fish will be given a chance there.
The Cowlitz hatchery coho program has been highly curtailed also reducing hatchery plants from 4 million/annually to 1 million.
So our record 70,000 coho runs will be gone and in all probability 6 fish limits will dissapear, but so what.
Who needs that many fish anyway and who needs 70,000 very expensive hatchery fish up at the Barrier Dam mostly going to waste?
Fine with me and it sure isn't going to hurt the remaining wild fish in that basin to cut way back on hatchery stocking.

The problems will remain until we start using our hatchery fish more responsibly and in far less numbers.
The problem is not going to go away by itself.

Even though I think the likes of the Bill Bakke's and Rob Allen's are a bit on the radical side, we should have been listening to them a little closer.
Bill has been telling us this for a lot longer than the 10-12 years I've been researching these fish and the hatchery vs wild issues.

Last edited by Born to be Wild; 03-08-2009 at 01:04 AM.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:01 PM   #42
hawg boss
Ifish Nate
 
hawg boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 2,050
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born to be Wild View Post
I still say after all these years we need to take a good basin or two (like the Nestucca for example), get rid of all the hatchery programs there, manage it for wild, and see what happens.

Give us a river managed in a natural state.
No more artificial turds to polute the river.
Then if that works and satifies most fishermen, go do the same on a river like the Siletz.

.
There are a lot of those already. Here is a list of a few of them.

Salmon river,
Neskowin cr,
Little Nestucca,
Tillamook river,
Miami river,
Nehalem river(?),
Yamhill river,
Rickreall cr,
Luckiamute river.

There are plenty more. How are these rivers working out for ya with no hatchery Steelhead in them.

With hardly any fishing pressure on most of them, you should be able to have a field day catching and releasing on the ones that are open.

ODFW does spawning surveys on most, if not all of these streams. Some of them had hatchery Steelhead 15-20 years ago, some did not. Check the spawning surveys from 20 years ago and compare them with the present ones.

I don't think it worked the way you thought it would.
hawg boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 08:59 PM   #43
met'lhead matt
Chromer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 599
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

If Broodstocked fish where raised in captivity and released early to be printed to the river and not the hatchery, And the rules allowed us to release with high fins, We could help supplement the wild run. This could help offset the low redd survival due to mother nature. It is not just Habitat that has caused a decline in the Numbers, Increased Pressure by all parties involved, Severe storms of late and Poor Ocean survival. If appox 1-2.5% of the escapement can be captured for Broodstocking and thus provide a return of Appox the 50% of the Gravel to Gravel counter part. Lets say the fingerlings where released about the same age as they would normally be clipping them. 30% could be clipped for the Sportsman and 70% released with high fins at the time of clipping. This would save money on feeding, Create a much stronger smolt with survival of the fittest playing a much larger role then the full run clipped smolts. But still helping to supplement the wild run which would greatly benifit the system. And the need for out of basin stock would no longer be needed or desired. The chance of the full run brood brat mingeling with the wild is more desired the the out of basin assassin continuing to weaken our wild runs. We have all seen Clipped fish breeding in the stream or caught spawners in systems where they are not recycled from the hatchery. A percentage breed in the wild and come back at random times, Not always as early as hoped. The risk of out of basin stock is not worth the reward of harvest. If you can help by increasing the run annually by 50% even with a 60% breeding success of the returning 1st Generation broodstock as doc indicated would be a great help to the wild fish. Mother Nature does not allow a 60% breeding success of any steelie. The more making a nest the higher the chances of some surviving her Rath..... let not use Supplementation as a last resort. We always sit back and hope for the best then try to fix it when it teters on the brink of extinction... Lets become Proactive and look beyond Habitiat. But knowing Habitat still needs to have our full attention.
met'lhead matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 09:42 PM   #44
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawg boss View Post
There are a lot of those already. Here is a list of a few of them.

Salmon river,
Neskowin cr,
Little Nestucca,
Tillamook river,
Miami river,
Nehalem river(?),
Yamhill river,
Rickreall cr,
Luckiamute river.

There are plenty more. How are these rivers working out for ya with no hatchery Steelhead in them.

With hardly any fishing pressure on most of them, you should be able to have a field day catching and releasing on the ones that are open.

ODFW does spawning surveys on most, if not all of these streams. Some of them had hatchery Steelhead 15-20 years ago, some did not. Check the spawning surveys from 20 years ago and compare them with the present ones.

I don't think it worked the way you thought it would.
The Salmon River still gets hatchery chinook and I've heard a lot of reports in recent years of fishermen catching significant numbers of hatchery steelhead there.
Supposebly there isn't any hatchery summer or winter steelhead stocked in there anymore and don't recall what the hatchery manager told me a couple years ago when I asked him about that.
Perhaps it is just getting a lot of strays from the Nestucca or Siletz.
Also the coho program was just recently shifted from there to Youngs bay.

The Little Nestucca is part of the Nestucca basin which shares the same estuary that gets hatchery fall chinook, hatchery spring chinook, hatchery summer steelhead and hatchery winter steelhead.
Unless things have changed.

The Tillamook River and Miami River are all part of the 5 river Tillamook basin where you can find hatchery spring chinook, hatchery fall chinook, hatchery coho, hatchery winter steelhead and probably hatchery summer steelhead.
Hopefully they haven't started a hatchery chum salmon program yet.
It's almost as bad as the Columbia.
I'd say let em keep screwing that one up with hatchery fish.
It's Portland's backyard playground.

The others aren't major basins capable of producing a whole lot.

I think that is the main reason the Umpqua does as well as it does.
That is one long, big river with many miles of habitat.

The Nestucca which includes the Little Nestucca has combined a lot of habitat and a lot of hatchery fish to boot.
I think it would be a prime canidate and is capable of producing some big numbers of steelhead and fall chinook.
Not sure about it's geography regarding coho.
It might be too gradient and basaltic for coho.
I do know there are wild coho in the Little Nestucca however.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 10:12 PM   #45
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by met'lhead matt View Post
If Broodstocked fish where raised in captivity and released early to be printed to the river and not the hatchery, And the rules allowed us to release with high fins, We could help supplement the wild run. This could help offset the low redd survival due to mother nature. It is not just Habitat that has caused a decline in the Numbers, Increased Pressure by all parties involved, Severe storms of late and Poor Ocean survival. If appox 1-2.5% of the escapement can be captured for Broodstocking and thus provide a return of Appox the 50% of the Gravel to Gravel counter part. Lets say the fingerlings where released about the same age as they would normally be clipping them. 30% could be clipped for the Sportsman and 70% released with high fins at the time of clipping. This would save money on feeding, Create a much stronger smolt with survival of the fittest playing a much larger role then the full run clipped smolts. But still helping to supplement the wild run which would greatly benifit the system. And the need for out of basin stock would no longer be needed or desired. The chance of the full run brood brat mingeling with the wild is more desired the the out of basin assassin continuing to weaken our wild runs. We have all seen Clipped fish breeding in the stream or caught spawners in systems where they are not recycled from the hatchery. A percentage breed in the wild and come back at random times, Not always as early as hoped. The risk of out of basin stock is not worth the reward of harvest. If you can help by increasing the run annually by 50% even with a 60% breeding success of the returning 1st Generation broodstock as doc indicated would be a great help to the wild fish. Mother Nature does not allow a 60% breeding success of any steelie. The more making a nest the higher the chances of some surviving her Rath..... let not use Supplementation as a last resort. We always sit back and hope for the best then try to fix it when it teters on the brink of extinction... Lets become Proactive and look beyond Habitiat. But knowing Habitat still needs to have our full attention.
You CANNOT make a wild fish in a hatchery.
It CANNOT be done.
They understand some of the reasons why and others they don't.
No matter what has been tried, it cannot be done.
You need lots of natural spawners to pick their mates and spawn in the wild.
And survival of the fittest starts right there and doesn't let up for one minute thereafter.

Now maybe you did or didn't read post 18 where I posted some of Mark Chilcote's studies regarding using broodstock for "supplementation" or fishing harvest purposes.
If you read it he talks about using "wild only" broodstock for both purposes and is basically reccomending against it or what I say is a "lost cause bro".

Here's part of it I copied from above:

Quote:
Post 18:

For natural populations, removal rather than addition of hatchery fish may be the most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience.

It appeared the presence of hatchery fish depressed overall population productivity, reduced the number of recruits, and lowered the genetic fitness of wild fish. These negative effects were insensitive to the type of hatchery fish involved. Although the hatchery fish represented in five of the study populations were from hatchery broodstocks developed from the local wild population and managed in manner to avoid domestication, the advantages of this strategy as purported by (Cuenco et al. 1993, Flagg et al. 2000) were not apparent.

Overall, these results demonstrated that the use wild fish for hatchery broodstocks as a means to create hatchery fish that are reproductive equals of wild fish in the natural environment does not appear to be a promising endeavor.

The recruitment curves developed from the results of this study (Figure 3) illustrate that the number of naturally produced fish can be expected to decline as the presence of hatchery fish in the spawning population increases. It appears that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of broodstock type, are a potential impairment to the subsequent production of recruits. When more than 10% of the naturally spawning population is comprised of hatchery fish, this impairment is not trivial.

Sometimes described as .supplementation. (Sterne 1995) this approach has both intuitive and theoretical appeal as reflected by Cuenco (1994) and Flagg et al. (1999).
However, based upon the results of a variety of simulations using the productivity model developed from the observations of this study, it appears that supplementation may be an ineffective tool for recovering depressed populations of wild fish. Such depressed populations appear to respond weakly to the addition of more spawners if they are hatchery fish (Figure 4). In addition, a byproduct of the supplementation strategy is a decline in the genetic fitness of wild fish. Although the magnitude of this fitness decline is not large when the level intervention is low (-3.9% when Ph = 0.10), it rapidly increases once the resulting proportion of hatchery fish becomes greater than 0.50 (Figure 6).

The results of this study suggest that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of broodstock origin and quality, are ineffective at producing offspring that survive to adulthood. The observation that hatchery fish from .semi-domesticated. and .wild-type. hatchery broodstocks have essentially the same reproductive success makes a genetic explanation of this observation more difficult. It would seem that the .wild-type. hatchery fish should be genetically more similar to the local wild fish. Therefore, they should have better reproductive performance than hatchery fish from .semi-domesticated. broodstocks. However, as speculated by Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999), it is possible the genetic change that occurs as fish adapt to the hatchery environment may have more significance in terms of reproductive success in the natural environment than do the genetic shortcomings related to the geographic origin of the hatchery broodstock. Should this be the case, any genetic effect of broodstock origin may be difficult to detect.

An alternative genetic mechanism, unrelated to stock origin or selective changes, may be operating to create the reproductive differences between hatchery and wild fish. Genetic differences may arise from the common situation that returning hatchery fish are the offspring of substantially fewer parents than is the case for wild fish returning to the same basin. For example, approximately 160 fish are used annually as broodstock for the North Umpqua summer steelhead hatchery program. In contrast, the number of wild fish that spawn naturally in the North Umpqua basin is typically greater than 3,000 fish (Appendix 1). Therefore, the genetic base for the hatchery return is approximately 80 families, whereas for the wild fish it is roughly 1,500 families.

In summary, this study found that hatchery fish are poorly suited to reproduce under natural conditions and when allowed to do so have an adverse impact on the recruitment and productivity of natural steelhead populations. These results confirm the study supposition that hatchery fish are maladapted for reproductive survival in the natural environment. This confirmation is robust and applies to hatchery fish regardless of hatchery broodstock origin and various attempts to mimic the genetic and reproductive characteristics of wild fish. Further, it appears supplementation of depressed wild populations with hatchery spawners is an ineffective conservation strategy. Such efforts can be expected to yield only minor gains in the number of naturally produced recruits and cause a loss in the genetic fitness of wild fish. Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with the view that the most effective conservation role for hatcheries is one of impact avoidance, not direct intervention. It appears that limiting the proportion of hatchery fish in naturally spawning populations to less than 0.10 is an appropriate strategy to achieve this conservation role.
And there is the big one to me:
Such efforts can be expected to yield only minor gains in the number of naturally produced recruits and cause a loss in the genetic fitness of wild fish.

That is the long term risk that so many folks are willing to gamble with.
I've been saying it for years!
But they want their hatchery broodstock fish and are willing to gamble away our wild steelhead.

And there is other science available on broodstock besides the Hood River and Mark Chilcote that I posted above.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this day & age we can't duplicate wild production in a hatchery.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 07:34 AM   #46
Bent Rod
Coho
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 80
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/skeena/fish...orts/sk141.pdf

Todd, please give us your sermon on the following facts.

The Chilliwack river hatchery captures 70 wild Steelhead, they LIVE spawn them(all released to the Fraser after) and raise them to smolts in the hatchery. These fish are then released at select locations very low on the system. This produces between 2500-3500 returning hatchery broodstock Steelhead.

The wild fish return at numbers of 3000- 5000 fish and produce about the same returning Steelhead numbers 3000- 5000 adults.
These numbers are stable and have been for many years.

Taking the numerous Canadian studies on the effects of hatchery brood programs, how can this be a bad thing. Especially when we consider the on going habitat **** and destruction in the river valleys we are talking about.

Take a long hard look at the Vancouver island situation, because leaving the wild Steelhead to do their thing there has pretty much seen the total collapse of one of the greatest Steelhead areas the planet has ever known. Washington is settting itself up for the same scenario.
Give the government the option to do nothing and you will have just that nothing.
Protecting wild Steelhead in rivers that have remaining good habitat and wild stocks is obvious to all of us.
But preaching about doing nothing and actually believing that we can slow down our pillage of the environment is a pipe dream and setting your children up for a life of bass fishing.

How was the Skagit last year Todd??. About as good as The Thompson I bet. Closed fisheries are the legacy of doing nothing.
Bent Rod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 07:44 AM   #47
Wild Chrome
Sturgeon
 
Wild Chrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In The River
Posts: 4,470
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
I have had a long day working at the Whiskey Creek Volunteer hatchery so I am tired. When I am tired I tend to say things that my wife says I should not have said. Oh well, here I go. Why don't we just give up this idea that we will ever see a really solid run of wild fish,,they are GONE. Things change, the world changes, and we change. We have spent trillions of $$$$$ chasing a wild dream that we can bring back something that has been gone for years, ie, wild fish. The state of OR spent MILLIONS OF $$$ this past year putting in bridges,,,hoping that maybe a fish or two MIGHT swim up a small stream that has not seen fish for years,,,if,,,EVER. We have to draw the line somewhere. If we are going to fish and catch fish to eat,,,,,we better take a long look at what we are doing with our tax dollars! Jerry Dove
I'm sorry, but the tax argument is upside down. Wild fish don't charge us a dime to spawn. Tax dollars are (were...when the government was solvent) being used to spawn hatchery fish. What have the tax dollars spent on hatchery operations yesterday done to help with fish and fishing today? Raised false expectations? What if half of that money had been put into permanent habitat improvements? We'd be reaping the benefits for generations. The hatchery-dependency we've had for decades has been all about ME! and NOW! GIMME, GIMME, GIMME! There's not an ounce of true conservatism in it. Besides, most of the tax dollars are federal, which mean people in Pennsylvania and Alabama and North Dakota have partial ownership. People in most of the country want salmon to spawn in streams, not buckets.
__________________
"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life.....in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." (Ronald Reagan, 1989)
Wild Chrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 08:36 AM   #48
Wild Chrome
Sturgeon
 
Wild Chrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In The River
Posts: 4,470
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawg boss View Post
There are a lot of those already. Here is a list of a few of them.

Salmon river,
Neskowin cr,
Little Nestucca,
Tillamook river,
Miami river,
Nehalem river(?),
Yamhill river,
Rickreall cr,
Luckiamute river.

There are plenty more. How are these rivers working out for ya with no hatchery Steelhead in them.

With hardly any fishing pressure on most of them, you should be able to have a field day catching and releasing on the ones that are open.

ODFW does spawning surveys on most, if not all of these streams. Some of them had hatchery Steelhead 15-20 years ago, some did not. Check the spawning surveys from 20 years ago and compare them with the present ones.

I don't think it worked the way you thought it would.
Boy, that's a pretty sorry short list of C&R rivers, don't you think? The whole idea is to let the fish recover in streams with GOOD habitat.

Keep in mind, that if C&R fishermen were doing really well on some of those rivers, nobody in their right mind is going to announce it on iFish!
__________________
"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life.....in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." (Ronald Reagan, 1989)
Wild Chrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 08:40 AM   #49
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Rod, that's the worse kind of program...you have no idea how many are returning, you have no idea how many are spawning, you have no idea how many fish those spawning hatchery fish are returning, you have no idea how many of them are spawning with wild fish...and you have no idea what effects that program may be having on the wild run.

The same "proof" that I hear from the guides around here...anecdotal evidence that "it works"...period...no facts, no numbers, no studies, no nothing...just more harvest opportunities, so it "works".

Skagit will have nearly 8000 wild fish this year, and even last year when it didn't open it had twice as many as you get in the Chilliwack. It'll have more this winter than the Thompson has seen in the last six years combined.

I'll take that just fine.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 09:00 AM   #50
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

The only thing worse than a program that actually collects data and shows that it's just converting wild fish into hatchery fish and potentially messing up the gene pool is a program that collects no data whatsoever and just keeps plugging along...

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 10:54 AM   #51
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

And again, I think if you managed a river for wild fish only, more folks would be interested in habitat restoration.
That is where I dissagreed with Bill.
I myself am not interested in habitat restoration if you are polluting the river with artificial hatchery fish.
Seems like a lost cause to me and counter productive.
What good does it do to improve habitat if you're only going to depress those same wild fish by choking them out with hatchery fish?
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 10:57 AM   #52
Born to be Wild
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Longview Washington
Posts: 3,904
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Hatchery fish make a convientient excuse not to deal with habitat problems.
They don't need any.
There might have been a book that dealt with that years ago called something like salmon without rivers or something to that effect.
Born to be Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:17 AM   #53
Wild Chrome
Sturgeon
 
Wild Chrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In The River
Posts: 4,470
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born to be Wild View Post
Hatchery fish make a convientient excuse not to deal with habitat problems.
They don't need any.
There might have been a book that dealt with that years ago called something like salmon without rivers or something to that effect.
They need good estuary habitat. The returns would be a lot better if there was cooler water and more food in the estuaries.
__________________
"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life.....in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." (Ronald Reagan, 1989)
Wild Chrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:32 AM   #54
fishing fanatic
Chromer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scholls
Posts: 900
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd View Post
You don't need electrodes...release them in Cedar Creek where they've been properly acclimated, and then get them all in the trap, then bonk every single one that is caught, and most of the problem goes away.

Araki found that one generation removed hatchery fish may have good spawning success, but the problem is that the progeny of those fish are now spawning together, or being brought into the hatchery, and then the problems really start.

The only way to avoid the cumulative effects is to do a one time infusion of broodstock juveniles, and then don't do it again...which would be kind of pointless, since the wild fish could do it as well, for free.

Fish on...

Todd
I think what you are saying is that if we only look at the first generation of WxW raised in the hatchery, the fitness is about equal, but those fish then spawn together in the wild (because you can never get all of them out of the system) and thats when the problems start?? Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

FF
__________________
Team "Shut up and fish"
fishing fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:35 AM   #55
Jerry Dove
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 5,707
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

wild crome,,Yes people from all over pay tax and people from all over come to Oregon with the thought of catching a fish and taking it home.
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:47 AM   #56
Wild Chrome
Sturgeon
 
Wild Chrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In The River
Posts: 4,470
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
wild crome,,Yes people from all over pay tax and people from all over come to Oregon with the thought of catching a fish and taking it home.
I think you're right! Probably about 1 in 10,000 Americans this year. How many of the other 9,999 Americans want their tax money and power bills to be spent on bucket salmon for Oregonians and tourests to catch? How many want their tax money and power bills spent on clean, healthy rivers?
__________________
"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life.....in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here." (Ronald Reagan, 1989)
Wild Chrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 12:18 PM   #57
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishing fanatic View Post
I think what you are saying is that if we only look at the first generation of WxW raised in the hatchery, the fitness is about equal,

FF
No! The Hood River study shows that fitness is significantly reduced!

That was the case in 4 out of 6 brood years studied.

When all six years were averaged together, the fitness reduction was 15% for the first generation WBS hatchery fish.

They are NOT the same as wild.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 12:30 PM   #58
Todd
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 1,001
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishing fanatic View Post
I think what you are saying is that if we only look at the first generation of WxW raised in the hatchery, the fitness is about equal, but those fish then spawn together in the wild (because you can never get all of them out of the system) and thats when the problems start?? Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

FF
No, not really..."good success" is relative...the wild fish are always better at it...and as successive broods from the hatchery mix it up, it gets worse from there.

That's why if you are going to plant hatchery fish of any sort you need to get as many as possible out of the river before they spawn...they do nothing but harm out in the river.

If you're going to go with science over emotion and do that, then there's no point in mining wild fish to make hatchery fish...just use the ones you already have and leave the wild fish alone.

Fish on...

Todd
__________________
Fish on...
Todd
Todd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 04:42 PM   #59
Ladyangler
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 417
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Jerry, with all the new anglers flocking to the state just to fish in the Tillamook dist. maybe you should inform the state of your find. With the current budget crisis the state is in I am sure that ODFW would love to embrace those new anglers from everywhere else other than here.

The broodstock program is not healthy for the wild stock that is supplying the brood either. The fact that these fish are straying at a larger rate is only part of the problem. We have a group of guides that have taken it upon themselves to sway the surveys, what other hatchery fishery has a stray rate as low as that on the Nestucca, NONE! Stray rates prior to the introduction of the broodstock were running around the 25 to 60% rate in the wild on and in the Nestucca system. The Alsea stock gave bio's the opportunity to survey these fish prior to the arrival of the wild fish and then once the wild fish reached their spawning grounds. What we have today is not only the hatchery Alsea stock arriving early we also have the Broodstock arriving during the annual wild steelhead migration of which is occurring at this point in time.

To assume that all of those broodstock hatchery brats are being caught is like saying dredging the Bay will solve all of the flooding problems. This scenario just doesn't add up.

The traps that are in place in the Nestucca should be used for the collection of adults, spawning of adults and acclimation of the smolt once they have reached their release size. Eliminate the collection of these fish by the guides looking for that easy welfare check. What other group of recipients can collect a wild fish a check and then decimate a wild fish population? Sorry but the guides are the ones to blame at this point in time they have their fingers in the jar and have thrown the lid away, when they run out of cookies/fish who will they cry to next. Well boys your crying will fall on people who could care less about your future and more about the fish.

I am not in favor of using the wild fish at all, whether it be the Fall chinook or the Winter steelhead broodstock program these programs do not help in the fishery and only deplete what fish we have left.

Thanks to those of you who understand the plight and the future that these fish are facing in such hard times.
Ladyangler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 05:13 PM   #60
hawg boss
Ifish Nate
 
hawg boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 2,050
Default Re: Hatchery Brat Vs. Hatchery Broodstock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born to be Wild View Post
The Salmon River still gets hatchery chinook and I've heard a lot of reports in recent years of fishermen catching significant numbers of hatchery steelhead there.
Supposebly there isn't any hatchery summer or winter steelhead stocked in there anymore and don't recall what the hatchery manager told me a couple years ago when I asked him about that.
Perhaps it is just getting a lot of strays from the Nestucca or Siletz.
Also the coho program was just recently shifted from there to Youngs bay.
Significant, and a lot of strays... Ask the hatchery manager how many stray hatchery steelhead are caught in their trap. 1 or 2 per year is what I remember when I used to work the trap with them.

They have not released any steelhead in that river since the late 80s I believe. There is your test river. Compare the spawning counts by river mile to whatever stream you want.

So it has hatchery salmon... They are released at the head of tidewater, they are not compeating for space with the wild Steelhead. They are not spawning with the Steel either.

The Little Nestucca is part of the Nestucca basin which shares the same estuary that gets hatchery fall chinook, hatchery spring chinook, hatchery summer steelhead and hatchery winter steelhead.
Unless things have changed.
I thought Steelhead did not spend much time in the estuary. Shouldn't be a problem there.
The Tillamook River and Miami River are all part of the 5 river Tillamook basin where you can find hatchery spring chinook, hatchery fall chinook, hatchery coho, hatchery winter steelhead and probably hatchery summer steelhead.
Hopefully they haven't started a hatchery chum salmon program yet.
It's almost as bad as the Columbia.
I'd say let em keep screwing that one up with hatchery fish.
It's Portland's backyard playground.

The others aren't major basins capable of producing a whole lot.
The Nehalem is good sized. The Yamhill is also fairly large. It has a lot of prime habitat in its tribs like Willamina cr, Mill cr, Agency cr etc. 20 years ago some of those tribs and the main Yamhill were open to retention of wild steelhead. You can look at the spawning surveys and compare then with now, or you can just look at the Willamette falls counts and see that there is not much improvement. Hatchery winter Steelhead were eliminated above Willamette falls some time ago, yet I don't see much improvement.

I think that is the main reason the Umpqua does as well as it does.
That is one long, big river with many miles of habitat.

The Nestucca which includes the Little Nestucca has combined a lot of habitat and a lot of hatchery fish to boot.
I think it would be a prime canidate and is capable of producing some big numbers of steelhead and fall chinook.
Not sure about it's geography regarding coho.
It might be too gradient and basaltic for coho.
I do know there are wild coho in the Little Nestucca however.
There are lots of Coho in the Nestucca.

Compare the ODFW redd counts for Steelhead from diferent basins. Compare the number of spawners per river mile from streams with hatchery Steelhead to those without.

You wanted an experimental basin. There are already a lot of them out there. The catch and eat guys have already made the sacrifice time and time again. Why keep asking for more? Go enjoy the ones that are already there.

When you remove the hatchery fish and the runs don't improve any more than the rivers that still have hatchery fish, I would look somewhere else for the problem.

I do not have any desire to participate in this discussion any further. I just wanted you to be aware of some of the many basins and sub basins that have no hatchery Steelhead.
hawg boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.94746 seconds with 75 queries