For your information. Some thoughts to ponder... - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-30-2005, 08:57 PM   #1
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default For your information. Some thoughts to ponder...

NATIVE FISH SOCIETY



NATIVE BROOD STOCK HATCHERIES ARE NOT A SOLUTION

FOR THE RECOVERY AND PROTECTION OF

WILD SALMON AND STEELHEAD

By Bill Bakke

November 30, 2005

________________



Hatchery reform is gaining momentum in the Northwest following several decades of scientific review of hatchery programs and their effect on native, wild salmonids. The emphasis on hatchery reform has been pushed along by the Endangered Species Act and the listing of most wild salmon and steelhead along the west coast. Before the ESA-listing of salmonids, conservation of wild fish populations was not a major concern among the fish agencies and tribes. Now that wild fish are a factor, saving the hatchery programs and creating a framework that justifies their continued operation has become a necessity.



It is no longer acceptable to limit hatchery evaluation to the number of juveniles released, but must include their survival, contribution to fisheries and their impact on natural populations. The ESA requires evaluation on the effect of hatchery fish on wild fish and the ecosystems that support them. This has lead to looking “beyond the hatchery fence” and has created the idea that hatcheries can be used to recover wild salmon and steelhead populations. Native broodstock hatcheries have become the new fad in the Northwest along with claims that the best way to operate a hatchery program is to integrate wild and hatchery fish populations using native, wild fish as the source for artificial propagation. But the fad is over-reaching the science. These native broodstock hatcheries have not been tested to see if in fact they can actually be used to rebuild wild salmonid populations and protect their biological integrity. In fact, the most recent scientific assessments indicate that these so-called conservation hatcheries create problems. However, that has not deterred the political enthusiasm for using hatcheries to rebuild wild salmonid populations.



I have compiled some of the assessments of conservation/native broodstock hatcheries. These assessments do not indicate that these hatcheries are risk free and in fact they expose this technology as harmful to the region’s declining wild salmon and steelhead populations.



However, the state agencies like the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife are converting their hatcheries to serve, in part, a conservation function along with production of fish to serve harvesters; the N.W. Power Planning and Conservation Council is presently advocating the integration of wild and hatchery fish in the region’s hatcheries; Washington’s Hatchery Scientific Review Group has developed a plan for hatchery integration, and NOAA Fisheries has drafted a new hatchery policy that promotes hatchery and wild fish integration. This is all being done in the name of conservation, but so far the technology is experimental and there is no scientific verification that it works as it is being sold.



The purpose of this type of hatchery is to reduce the risk to native, wild salmonids from genetic and ecological changes that reduce reproductive success, but does it?



The following scientific assessments review conservation hatcheries using native broodstock to rebuild wild populations.



Little Sheep Creek, Oregon:



This hatchery project is jointly operated by the tribes and ODFW and began in 1986. The purpose is to provide summer steelhead for fisheries and to supplement a natural population using hatchery produced fish to increase abundance. The wild summer steelhead in this stream are described as a depleted population.



“The natural origin summer-run steelhead population…has not recovered following nearly two decades of (hatchery) supplementation.” (ISAB 2003)



“Supplementing…summer-run steelhead since the early 1980s using endemic population for broodstock, has not achieved Lower Snake River Compensation Program or US v Oregon program goals nor increased naturally produced steelhead abundance. The low SAR (smolt to adult survival) for hatchery-produced smolts has prevented the program from achieving the 2,000 adult return performance standard.” (ISAB 2003)



This hatchery program releases 230,000 hatchery summer steelhead smolts per year into Little Sheep Creek and 100,000 smolts into Big Sheep Creek.



Clackamas River Wild Coho Broodstock Program:

In 1996 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a “rescue/recovery” hatchery program for wild coho in the Clackamas River in an effort to increase the number of wild coho. “This rescue program was initiated in response to the extremely depressed returns observed during the late 1990s” (Mark Chilcote, ODFW).

In his analysis of this native broodstock rescue program Chilcote made the following key points:

”The smolt to adult survival of “wild-type” hatchery fish was nearly 1/10 of the survival rate for wild smolts (97 and 98 brood year production).”



“Averaging the results of 5 brood years, the total return to the basin was not increased by using wild fish for hatchery broodstock. Just as many total fish would have been produced if there had been no hatchery program at all.”



“All the hard effort involved in collecting and raising these fish didn’t pay off. These results have very serious implications for the use of hatchery programs to help restore lower Columbia River coho.”



“We need to find out why this occurred (if we can). If there is no corrective solution, then our tools to help restore lower Columbia River (LCR) coho have been significantly reduced. We need to respond accordingly.”

“Removing wild fish and running them through the hatchery system yielded no more adult offspring than if they had been left in the river.”

“When spawner density begins to fall into the range that we might be concerned about the persistence of the population, we should expect egg to smolt survival to be at its highest. Under such conditions, there will be little benefit to bringing some of the wild fish into the hatchery environment if the resulting hatchery smolts will have ocean survival rates that are 1/10 of those for wild smolts.”

“…all indications are that hatchery fish, even from wild broodstocks, are not as successful as wild fish in producing viable offspring under natural conditions…”

“The survival rates for the hatchery “rescue” smolts were low; 0.7% for 1999 smolts and 2.2% for 2000 smolts. In contrast, survival rates for wild smolts in the same years were 6.6% and 15.3%. Although, hatchery smolts normally do not survive quite as well as do wild smolts, the difference is generally much less.”

Source: Mark Chilcote memo to Bob Hooton and others, February 1, 2002. ODFW



Hood River Native Broodstock Program:

In 1994 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribes began to evaluate the reproductive success of native broodstock and compared them to the wild fish they were derived from. Kathryn Kostow evaluated the data collected on wild, native broodstock, and old hatchery stock to determine whether there is a life history and behavior difference between them. The following is taken from the abstract in a paper published by Kostow in 2004.

Juvenile phenotypes and fitness as indicated by survival were compared for naturally produced steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), a new local hatchery stock, and an old nonlocal hatchery stock on the Hood River, Oregon, U.S.A. Although the new hatchery stock and the naturally produced fish came from the same parent gene pool, they differed significantly at every phenotype measured except saltwater age. The characteristics of the new hatchery stock were similar to those of the old hatchery stock. Most of the phenotypic differences were probably environmentally caused. Although such character changes would not be inherited, they may influence the relative fitness of the hatchery and natural fish when they are in the same environment, as selection responds to phenotypic distributions. A difference in fitness between the new hatchery stock and naturally produced fish was indicated by significant survival differences. Acclimation of the new hatchery stock in a “seminatural” pond before release was associated with a further decrease in relative smolt-to-adult survival with little increase in phenotypic similarity between the natural and hatchery fish. These results suggest that modified selection begins immediately in the first generation of a new hatchery stock and may provide a mechanism for genetic change.

Kostow notes in her study that ‘new hatchery fish’ derived from the wild population and called ‘native brood stock’ had poor survival.” She said, “Average smolt to adult survival for the naturally produced winter and summer steelhead were five to six times higher than for the new hatchery stock. “

“…large phenotypic responses by fish from the same parent gene pool to the differences between the captive and natural environments are consistent with the process of domestication.”

“This study demonstrates large average phenotype and survival differences between hatchery-produced and naturally produced fish from the same parent gene pool. These results indicate that a different selection regime was affecting each of the groups. The processes indicated by these results can be expected to lead to eventual genetic divergence between the new hatchery stock and its wild source population, thus limiting the usefulness of the stock for conservation purposes to only the first few generations.”

Source: Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 577-589, 2004



Deschutes River Native Broodstock Evaluation:

In 1977, Reg Reisenbichler published a paper comparing the growth and survival differences between hatchery and wild steelhead. In this study Reisenbichler compared crosses between wild and hatchery fish to hatchery and wild fish in both the stream and hatchery environments. He found that “there were genetic differences in growth rate and survival between the offspring of hatchery and wild steelhead.” The hatchery steelhead were derived from the wild fish in the river and at the time of this work, they were two generations removed from the wild gene pool.

He found that “The observed differences in survival suggested that the short-term effect of hatchery adults spawning in the wild is the production of fewer smolts and ultimately, fewer returning adults than are produced from the same number of only wild spawners.”

Even though the hatchery fish were only two generations removed from the wild population, the hatchery fish survived better in the hatchery ponds and their run timing had changed compared to the wild fish. In contrast the wild fish survival was higher than hatchery fish in the natural streams.

Source: J. Fish. Res. Board Can., Vol 34, 1977





Contribution of Hatchery Fish to the Natural Productivity of Wild Fish:

Ian Fleming and Erik Peterson evaluated the reproductive success of hatchery and wild salmon in nature and found that the hatchery fish productivity was less than that for wild salmon. The reasons for this reduced productivity were stated as:

“Hatchery adults appear to show reduced expressions of morphological characters important during breeding, such as secondary sexual characters (color, kype). Such reduced expressions of secondary sexual characters can have negative consequences for natural breeding success.”

”For hatchery females in competition with wild females, indicators of inferior competitive ability include delays in the onset of breeding, fewer nests, and greater retention of eggs. Ultimately, the breeding success of hatchery fish is frequently inferior to that of wild females.”

”The breeding behavior of males appears more strongly affected by hatchery rearing than that of females, reflecting the greater intensity of selection on male competitive ability during this period. Hatchery males tend to be less aggressive and less active courting females and ultimately achieve fewer spawnings than wild males. Hatchery males suffer more from inferior breeding performance than hatchery females. This pattern also appears to carry over into the wild, where gene flow between cultured and wild salmonids is sex based…”

“The most common form of release program is aimed at the supplementation of wild populations, i.e. the intentional integration of hatchery and natural production, with the goal of improving the status of an existing natural population. Such integration, however, entails significant ecological and genetic risks to the wild population.”

“…Despite large-scale releases…the supplementation programs must be deemed failures. In none of the studies reporting significant introgression, is there information on whether the release program resulted in improved natural production of the population.”

Source: 2001. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 75: 71-98.



Mixed Spawners Means Lower Natural Productivity:

In 2003, Mark Chilcote of ODFW published a paper that evaluated the effect on reproductive success by mixing wild and hatchery steelhead on the spawning grounds. He concluded the following:

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




Conservation and Evolution in Salmonids, Perspectives Over Six Decades:



In 2004, Fred Utter published a paper tracking his thoughts about fish culture over six decades. As a graduate student at the University of Washington he studied under Dr. Lauren Donaldson where he learned that salmonids were interchangeable and could be translocated to serve supply and demand for fish. However, other faculty held that each local population was genetically adapted to its own environment, but this insight did not become apparent to him until later. He makes a distinction between fish culture and conservation, concluding that:



“…efforts to reduce domestication by regular inclusion of wild fish in hatchery brood stocks homogenize wild and hatchery stocks and prevent formation of adaptive substructures in the wild.”



“…the loss of overall productivity through reduced fitness is associated with the mixed hatchery-wild breeding program. A system that prevents the occurrence of microadaptations impedes the full maturation of an ecosystem to the detriment of its stability and productivity.”



“Where the goal is interbreeding between cultured and wild fish (to reduce domestication), breeding and rearing goals include minimizing the phenotypic and genetic divergence of cultured and natural fish. An alternative strategy is to rear and release hatchery fish in a manner intended to minimize their interbreeding with natural fish and to permit separate harvests of the two groups. The comparisons of these two strategies indicates that the separate approach favors a goal for conservation of wild populations.”



Source: 2004 Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 125-144.



Hatchery Fish Impede Protection and Recovery of Wild Salmonids:



Independent scientific review of initiatives by fish managers is critical for evaluating the course of action in salmon and steelhead management and recovery. The NMFS appointed an independent science panel to review its salmonid recovery policy. The Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP) published a paper addressing the NMFS draft hatchery policy that calls for including hatchery fish to be counted in listing and delisting decisions. The RSRP (2004) disagreed and NMFS management tried to suppress the message, forcing the RSRP to publish their findings in Science. However, that paper is now available on the Internet http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrp.htm Go to the September 2004 report. The following are a few statements from this report:



“…even though genetic and fitness differences between wild and hatchery fish may not be statistically significant, it is possible, or even likely, that adaptation to the hatchery environment has reduced the fitness of fish spawning in the wild, and if hatchery influences continue unabated, evolution of the ESU will be substantially impeded or altered in direction, to the detriment of its long-term viability. For this reason, the RSRP suggests that in such situations hatchery fish, either should not be included as part of the ESU, or if included in the ESU should not be used to justify delisting from the ESA.



“Myers suggested that hatchery fish should never be included in an ESU. The main justification for this point of view is that hatchery fish experience a different environment than wild fish during their early life and inevitably undergo natural selection in a different direction than wild fish. Adaptation to the hatchery environment is similar to the well-understood process of domestication, which in the presence of gene flow from hatchery to the wild, generally reduces the fitness of the wild population and their ability to adapt to future changes in the natural environment. Except for extreme cases when a temporary conservation hatchery is necessary to prevent extinction of a small (possibly inbred) and declining wild population, hatchery fish should be regarded as impeding the future evolution of an ESU. For this reason Myers recommended that NMFS scientists should revisit the definition and application of the ESU concept. In the context of restoring wild self-sustaining populations of salmon, placing increased emphasis on the future adaptation and continued persistence of an ESU in a changing environment would justify the categorical exclusion of hatchery fish from most ESUs.”

“The criteria for similarity of hatchery fish are summarized in the Hatchery Broodstock Summaries and Assessments. These are (i) the degree of genetic divergence, based on molecular genetic markers as well as morphology, behavior and fitness, (ii) the origin of the hatchery stock, and (iii) status of the wild population(s). For the great majority of ESUs there is no information on potentially adaptive trait differences between hatchery and wild fish in morphology, behavior or life history (including fitness), and in many cases information on molecular genetic markers is also lacking, so that similarity must be judged solely on the origin of the broodstock and status of the wild population(s). This is a scant basis for a clear assessment of similarity. Even when substantial data exist to support similarity with respect to quasi-neutral molecular genetic markers, in the absence of information on morphology, behavior and life history, it is not valid to conclude that there are no adaptive differences between hatchery and wild fish.”

“In the absence of substantial information on potentially adaptive differences between specific hatchery fish and the wild fish in an ESU, a highly precautionary approach to the assessment of their similarity ought to be taken.”

“Final determination of the degree of similarity for including hatchery fish in a listed ESU was made by the fisheries management branch of NMFS rather than by the science branch. To the panel it appears that the proposed hatchery policy directly violates the thinking of leading NMFS scientists.”

The NMFS has included hatchery fish along with wild salmonids when listing wild salmonids under the ESA. The NMFS hatchery policy would perpetuate the claim that hatchery and wild fish are similar in their reproductive success in the natural environment. This claim paves the way for the development of native broodstock hatcheries as the tool to recover wild salmon and steelhead, even though the weight of scientific research does not support this claim. The NMFS position is indifferent to the science and serves as a clear example of politics driven by management over science.



Same Shed Different Tool:



The integration of hatchery and wild salmonid populations has been going on for 150 years and the Northwest salmon and steelhead runs have continued to decline and go extinct. In order to preserve hatcheries and the millions of public dollars that flow to the agencies and tribes to operate them, a new tool had to be found in the same old shed. It is called, surprisingly, hatchery integration. This is a re-tooling of the term supplementation that withered under scientific review. The stated purpose of both concepts is to save wild fish, but the unstated reason behind hatchery integration is to improve the survival of hatchery fish. And it does. The Hood River experimental results point out that the “new hatchery fish” derived from wild parents, do survive better than the “old hatchery fish” using fish cultivated for 48 years, but their survival and reproductive success is still not equal to wild fish. However, this carefully crafted hatchery reform subterfuge is working and has its public advocates, some of which champion the conservation of wild steelhead and salmon. The so-called hatchery reform group, Long Live the Kings in Washington has this to say about integrated hatchery programs:



“Integrated programs are most appropriate where conservation is a primary goal…A properly integrated program maintains fish that are adapted to the natural environment…therefore these fish may be appropriate for helping to rebuild declining wild populations and the functional habitats that sustain them. In this context a hatchery should not be seen as a substitute for habitat, but rather as an extension of it – a productive tributary of the watershed in which it resides.”



Source: Long Live the Kings: Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project, May 2005 Update.





Integration Of Hatchery And Wild Fish Will Certainly Not Increase The Wild Population:



Using hatcheries to rebuild wild salmon and steelhead populations is on everybody’s priority list. The Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) was asked by NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency with the authority to recover ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, to provide a scientific assessment of using hatchery fish to rebuild wild populations. An important question is whether the wild population is sustainable once the hatchery boost is removed.



The ISAB evaluated 97 integrated hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin and in Puget Sound. They found that “Only 2 of 97 natural populations appear to be self-sustaining at this time, and …there is little evidence of self-sustaining natural populations in integrated hatchery/natural systems.” The ISAB said, “The first step toward improving these programs is to improve the carrying capacity of the environment and the productivity of the natural-origin salmon and steelhead.” They also note that these programs fell short on maintaining criteria to help maintain the reproductive success of the natural populations: having 10% or more of the broodstock be of natural-origin and having less than 5% of the natural spawning adults of hatchery origin. These criteria were recommended by a science review panel for Washington hatcheries, but state compliance with those recommendations remains a problem.



Another concern that has been elevated by scientific evaluation is the loss of fitness or reproductive success of hatchery fish. There is evidence that hatchery fish fitness declines regularly with the number of generations in the hatchery and data indicates fitness is lost in excess of 20% per generation.



A summary of some consequences of an integrated hatchery-natural production system are listed by the ISAB. 1) Integration certainly will not increase the natural spawning fitness of the supplemented stock; 2) Integration will increase harvest, but once hatchery releases are reduced or terminated, the population will decline; 3) Integration will increase the number of natural spawners, but once hatchery releases are reduced or terminated the natural spawners will decline. 4) Integration “may” depress the natural spawning fitness and will continue for generations after integration is terminated.



The ISAB concludes by saying, “ …reestablishing self-sustaining populations is likely to be the exception, rather than the rule unless ecological/habitat/overharvest/ problems are solved and augmentation (hatchery) programs have been implemented in a manner that minimizes genetic/adaptive impacts on natural populations.”



In the ISAB review of Columbia River hatchery supplementation projects they commented on integrated hatchery-wild breeding programs. They say that even though these new hatcheries are an improvement over the old hatchery programs, “they do not eliminate domestication,” and “for that reason these programs still pose a risk to the viability of wild stocks.” (ISAB 2003)



The ISAB response is available at: http://www.nwppc.org/fw/isab/Default.htm

Go to the study 2005-2.



Source: Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2005





NMFS Advances Politically Designed Hatchery Policy:

The scientific studies referenced here are but a few of many that have been published, but they have a remarkable agreement; that is, hatcheries select for traits that do well in the hatchery environment but performance in the natural environment is poor and they contribute to the risk portfolio of wild salmonids. This information is available to decision makers and can be used to develop policies on hatcheries. However, by reading the following quotes of top administrators for NOAA Fisheries in response to news accounts on the draft federal hatchery policy, it is clear that scientific literature has been ignored. Bob Lohn, the Regional Administrator of NOAA Fisheries in Seattle, attended a scientific conference and was surprised to find out the number of times hatcheries do not increase wild salmonids. What is surprising is that he was surprised.



“In a surprising number of instances, hatcheries are being operated in a way that does not assist the natural spawning component of the run.”



-Bob Lohn, NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator
The Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon May 26, 2004



Three days later Lohn amended his earlier statement saying that hatcheries can “bolster” rather than “assist” naturally spawning salmon. The obvious difference is significant for hatcheries can increase the numbers of adult fish returning but they cannot increase the productivity of the wild runs. This retreat by Lohn came from his exposure to science and research, and in truth he could no longer say with conviction that hatcheries “assist” naturally spawning salmon.



“…used in appropriate cases, typically in the short term…(hatcheries) can bolster the naturally spawning runs. We know because it’s been done, and it appears to work.”



- Bob Lohn, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 29, 2004.



Lohn is correct in his statement. Since improvements in nutrition and disease control hatchery salmon survival has improved and fish are produced for harvest. Hatcheries have been used for this purpose for over 100 years. What has not been proven and appears to not work is the use of hatcheries to increase natural production of wild populations.



Even though Bob Lohn seems to have moderated, the hatchery policy he is advocating is not changed and continues the unsupported conviction that hatcheries can be used to save wild salmon.



The claims made in the quotes below about the benefits of hatcheries, of course, do not provide any specific supporting information. These statements and the new federal hatchery policy indicate that NMFS has changed from using the best available science to the best available politics.

“Run right, hatcheries can be of considerable value to rebuilding wild fish runs.”



-Bob Lohn, The Washington Post, April 28, 2004



“…use hatchery fish more aggressively to restore salmon runs would benefit timber-dependent communities and industries… Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers.”



-Mark Rutzic, Legal Advisor to NOAA Fisheries and
Past timber industry lawyer. The New York Times, May 9, 2004



“NOAA is encouraged by improvements in hatchery management, and is seeing their increasing contribution to speeding up the recovery of salmon.”



-Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. NOAA News Release on the Hatchery Policy. May 13, 2004





According to the ISAB (2005) the NOAA Fisheries Hatchery Listing Policy says that it is important to conserve natural populations, but it does not require that all natural populations be recovered under all circumstances in order to call the ESU recovered. This policy is not consistent with the latest science. “This concept of ESU viability does not accommodate the loss of populations or the anadromous or resident life history from any given ESU, because that loss would represent a loss in diversity for the ESU that would put its long-term viability at risk.” Also, an ESU should not be considered viable if the natural component of the population is unlikely to persist when hatchery stocking is terminated.



Re-Constructing The Salmon to Fit Social and Political Trends:



Our view of salmon is shaped by experience, observation, society’s values and political initiatives. This social construction of salmon has little to do with the salmon itself, its behavior, natural history, or adaptive evolution. We act on the salmon’s behalf through our own social viewpoints and those view points constantly change.



Prior to the listing of wild, native salmon populations under the ESA, there was little regard given to wild salmon, but once they were listed, wild salmon recovery became an industry. Our approach to pre-ESA salmon was to construct hatcheries to “mitigate” the loss of salmon habitat with hatcheries as the dams were built, but little evaluation was done to determine whether mitigation was successful in replacing what was lost. Mitigation for lost and degraded salmonid habitat with hatcheries has been a major failure given the fact that hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead abundance is now 2%-5% of historical levels.



After the salmon were listed as ESA protected species the primary response has been to develop a rationalization that would support using hatcheries to recover wild salmon.



In Oregon’s Grande Ronde River, non-native chinook salmon were imported and released prior to the native chinook being listed as a threatened species. After the wild salmon were listed, the biologists began an inventory and discovered there were six distinct breeding populations of wild chinook. The non-native hatchery fish were removed and the wild fish were moved into the hatchery to replace them.



The mainstem dams that kill the wild and hatchery salmon have been redefined by NMFS, the federal agency responsible for wild salmon recovery. The dams are now defined as a natural feature of the salmon ecosystem rather than a major impediment to salmon survival and recovery.



In his book Fishy Business, Salmon, Biology, and the Social Construction of Nature, Rik Scarce interviewed Pacific salmon biologists and gave them pseudonyms to protect them. The book is based on those interviews and it provides an insight into how we socially construct salmon.



Historically biologists constructed salmon to be seen as “interchangeable with one another…. Salmon become part of an undifferentiated, homogenized Nature…. The result is an oddly common place salmon – a mechanical, schematic, engineered fish – to many of those who know the most about them. The outcome is a highly engineered fish. The historical goal of hatcheries has been to create a homogenized salmon. Such fish are supreme examples of rationalization. They are the products of a predictable, calculable, efficient, productive process – fast food with fins.” (Scarce)



Conservation biologist at the University of Toronto, Mart Gross, adds to this, saying: “They have created an entirely new animal that lives for an entirely new purpose. The farmed salmon should be considered a new species – Salmo domesticus.”



Today some biologists see themselves differently, and their research has lead to viewing salmon in the context of its variable habitats and evolutionary history. Yet they argue that their research is not being included in management decisions.



“Owing to managers’ economically and politically powerful positions, biologists have effectively been kept out of the decision making process where, they assert, they and their studies belong, and they have a hard time getting their studies to be considered as integral to management decisions…(Scarce)



While powerful social and management forces have a strong influence over our definition of salmon, there is the accumulating evidence that “Raising salmon in hatcheries is fundamentally a waste of time. Biologists argue that hatchery salmon are inferior to wild ones because they lack the skills necessary to survive in the wild. Interbreeding between hatchery and wild salmon creates a third class of salmon, one of ambiguous parentage: fish neither of hatchery or wild origin. This is the natural salmon. Hatcheries need periodic infusions of genes from wild fish in order to avoid genetic problems…and may inadvertently doom themselves.” (Scarce)



Rik Scarce. Fishy Business. Temple University Press. 2000



Conclusion: What Is Not Stated, The True Value Of Native Broodstock Hatcheries:



A shift is taking place in our view of salmon. The view that salmon are interchangeable is being replaced with a view that salmon are locally adapted, a long standing debate in the Northwest, going back to the research of Willis Rich in 1939.



David Montgomery in his book King of Fish, said, “Rich noted the need to base hatchery programs on local stocks. He also said that state fisheries managers did little to protect wild runs that provided the genetic bank from which to draw robust local broodstock.”



Source: David Montgomery, King of Fish. Westview Press. 2003



The management of hatcheries and harvest are beginning to adjust to this change, but have not been fully converted. The native broodstock hatchery recognizes that local wild stocks can improve the performance of the hatchery fish; their survival and therefore their contribution to fisheries are enhanced. Claiming that native broodstock hatcheries are good for wild salmon recovery, and even essential, is another story that is not supported by the science.



The fish management agencies and the NMFS have sold the native broodstock hatchery as a recovery tool for wild salmon and steelhead before they have been fully tested to determine whether they work. The few on-going research projects are not promising, showing that the native broodstock hatchery fish are not equal to wild fish in survival and reproductive success. These hatchery fish diverge from the wild fish gene pool they were derived from in phenotypic traits in the first generation. The native broodstock hatchery changes the fish so that they have greater survival fitness in the hatchery than in streams. This change is due to both selective pressures in the hatchery and to relaxing selective pressures the fish would encounter in streams (Reisenbichler 1977; Goodman 2005). This domestication selection in the hatchery can be reduced but it cannot be eliminated, so the hatchery fish will always be different from wild fish in traits important for survival ( Reisenbichler et al. 2004 ). The only result that can come from integrating wild and hatchery fish in hatchery programs is a homogenized population that does not do well in the hatchery or in streams (Goodman 2005). The fish managers have coined a term for these homogenized creatures, they call them “natural” salmon and steelhead, and they have the institutional commitment to transform the region’s wild salmonids into mongrels.



Prior to the influence of hatchery releases which have largely homogenized steelhead populations in southwest Washington streams, there were only wild fish and each river had fish that could be easily recognized. Carl Gehman, owner of the Camas Sports Center in the 1950s, saw thousands of steelhead over the years brought into his store by local anglers. Carl said, “Before the hatcheries, those of us who had fished many of the rivers could generally win a bet by telling a less experienced angler where his catch came from when he would lay it on the counter for us to examine. We seldom lost a bet.” (Bill McMillan 2005)



McMillan said, “Although these native Washougal steelhead characteristics are now masked by hatchery returns, some segments of this diversity still exist including the very late June-July winter runs, some remaining large fall fish, but the very early winter runs, early spring fish, and particularly the small midsummer fish (the “Junies”) all seem to have different timing now by weeks or months or in some cases they are entirely absent and have been so since the early to mid 1970s.”



The unstated purpose behind the native broodstock hatcheries is to improve the survival of hatchery fish for harvest, but the stated purpose is to save wild salmon and steelhead. As long as the native broodstock hatcheries are not scientifically evaluated, the fish management agencies can escape accountability and perpetuate their deception.



For the last 150 years the fish management agencies have integrated hatchery and wild salmonid populations in the Northwest; fortunately the wild populations were largely resistant to this assault, but the result has been a loss of biological diversity, declining abundance, extinctions and reduced fisheries. They now claim that the best way to save wild salmon is to integrate hatchery and wild fish. The only change has been the sales pitch.



The only way to protect and recover wild salmon is to manage hatcheries as separate from wild populations. This means hatchery fish would not interbreed with wild fish and they would not compete for food and rearing space in the rivers. It also means the fisheries would be segregated and focused on hatchery fish. One objective of harvest management should be to increase the abundance of wild fish returning to their home streams. In this way their integrity and the productive capacity of both wild and hatchery fish are maintained by segregated harvest and hatchery management. Wild salmonids will always be needed to refresh hatchery fish to improve their survival, and without them, the hatchery programs cannot be sustained. This is a different proposition than merging wild and hatchery fish into a single homogenous population. The future productivity of the hatchery program and the benefits it provides society depends upon having abundant, healthy wild populations throughout the landscape.



In order to protect and restore wild salmonids, their habitat quality and quantity has to be restored. This is a more difficult task than stocking hatchery fish in the attempt to replace damaged or lost habitat. Wild salmonid recovery depends upon having the habitat capacity each population requires to successfully complete its life cycle and maintain its reproductive success. It also means having the abundant wild populations to fully occupy the habitat and provide nutrients for stream productivity. Therefore restoration must effectively address the habitat requirements of a wild population and make sure that the fish are healthy enough to use it fully and effectively.



Wild salmonid recovery would be on a sound scientific footing if all wild populations were identified. There is presently no complete inventory of the region’s wild salmonid populations. This inventory would not only identify the location of each wild population, it would describe its genetic and life history characteristics. With this baseline data, it would be possible to evaluate the various harvest, hatchery, and habitat experiments that flourish across the landscape. Until this is done, there can be no “adaptive management” and accountability, nor will we be able to describe successful management. Knowing the location and condition of the remaining natural biological diversity of native wild salmonid populations is a fundamental requirement of conservation management. Delaying this inventory is a testimony that the fish management agencies are not actually interested in serving their conservation mandate.



In the mid 1990s the Northwest Power Planning Council adopted measures that were never funded. These measures were not implemented because the fish management agencies and the Bonneville Power Administration opposed them. These measures followed the first listings of Columbia River wild chinook and sockeye under the Endangered Species Act. They included: Identify genetic and stock structure of wild populations; Collect data on wild salmon; Monitor wild salmon populations; Develop conservation policy for wild salmon; Establish a conservation program for wild salmon; and develop the means to protect depleted runs (NPPC 1994). At this time BPA funded a brief flirtation with wild salmon conservation and funded a working committee in the Columbia River Basin. After a few meetings the BPA pulled the funding. Ten years later Technical Review Teams are compiling information on ESA-listed fish for each Evolutionarily Significant Unit, but this work is not completed and does not, at this time, represent a cohesive basin-wide recovery strategy.



The native broodstock hatchery does not promote conservation and recovery of wild salmon and steelhead populations, it blends them into an ambiguous vegetable soup. The actual purpose of native broodstock hatcheries is to improve the survival of hatchery fish and their contribution to fisheries. While this goal is important, it should not be done at the risk of the remaining wild populations. A more comprehensive conservation program for wild salmon and steelhead is called for, recognizing that healthy and abundant wild salmonids are not only socially and biologically important; the hatchery programs will need them to remain productive. This is brought into sharp focus by Kostow (2004) in her review of the Hood River steelhead native broodstock program. The “old hatchery stock” has a smolt to adult survival rate that is 17% compared to the wild steelhead while the “new hatchery stock,” derived from the wild steelhead gene pool, has a survival rate of 80% to 85% of wild steelhead. It is obvious that the wild steelhead population is needed to maintain the productivity and cost effectiveness of the hatchery program. Considering that some hatchery fish cost $891,000 per fish harvested (IEAB 2002), cost effectiveness should be a major concern. The integrated hatchery is designed to improve hatchery fish survival and contribution to fisheries, and that is their primary benefit.



What remains out of focus is the impact from integrated hatchery programs used to “supplement” wild salmonid populations. “In the judgment of the ISRP and the ISAB (2005), the uncertainty concerning both the benefits and risks of (hatchery) supplementation is sufficiently great to put the merit of supplementation into question as a recovery strategy.”



Since the 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act (1980) the ISRP has been charged with providing much needed scientific review of fish and wildlife projects, including hatcheries. Resolving uncertainties related to these projects requires specific objectives and evaluation. The scientific committees recommended “specific constraints on supplementation operations including the use of local broodstocks; limits on the fraction of wild populations that are collected for use as broodstock; limits on the proportion of hatchery-origin adults that are allowed to mix with the natural-origin adults on the spawning grounds, and limits on the use of hatchery-origin adults in hatchery spawning.”



These scientific committees complained to the council, saying that “these recommendations have not yet been adopted as required policy…” According to council staff, this problem will not be addressed until the adoption of the next fish and wildlife program which may not be until 2007 or later.



In the mean time, the BPA is proposing a reduction in fish and wildlife program funding for research, monitoring, and evaluation in 2007. The Oregon members of the Power Planning and Conservation Council informed BPA by letter that “We believe, however, that you have settled on a figure that threatens to undermine our knowledge base for the overall effectiveness of the Program and will impair efforts to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program in reaching subbasin-levels goals for fish and wildlife recovery.” (Dukes and Eden 2005)



I provide this as an example of the stubborn resistance within the regional fish management and planning groups to adequately address hatchery evaluation. After eleven years of delay the scientific groups charged with evaluating hatcheries are still waiting for the policy direction to be adopted that would make evaluation possible. In the mean time new hatcheries are being built and operated even though a thorough examination of their risk to wild salmon and steelhead is stalled.



The NFS therefore concludes, based on the best available science, some of which is included here, that hatchery fish should not be listed along with wild populations. Only wild populations should be listed under the ESA. In terms of hatchery projects, integrated hatcheries will not rebuild wild populations, but they will increase the number of fish available for harvest which is their actual purpose even though much is said about their conservation value. Both conclusions are based on the fact that the hatchery environment changes the fish so that they do not have the same reproductive success as wild salmonids and this domestication selection cannot be eliminated. Consequently, integrated hatcheries will continue to mine wild stocks for an egg supply, the hatchery fish will continue to have an ecological impact on wild fish, the hatchery adults will interbreed with wild salmonids and reduce their reproductive success, and funding will continue to be diverted away from habitat protection, restoration and evaluation. All these factors can lead to only one conclusion: The integrated hatchery is detrimental to wild salmonids and should not be used in listing decisions or to rebuild wild populations. The funding for integrated hatcheries should be used to protect and monitor the health of wild salmonid populations and for habitat protection and restoration so that the productive capacity of our native wild salmonids is improved.



Additional reference on interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids can be found at the Native Fish Society web page: http://www.nativefishsociety.org/con...annotated.html









References:



Chilcote, Mark memo to Bob Hooton and others, February 1, 2002. ODFW



Chilcote, Mark. 2003. Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60:1057-1067



Dukes, Joan and Melinda Eden. September 7. 2005. Oregon Office of the Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council. Letter to Greg Delwiche, Bonneville Power Administration.



Fleming, Ian and Erik Peterson. 2001. The ability of released, hatchery salmonids to breed and contribute to the natural productivity of wild populations. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 75: 71-98.



Goodman, Daniel. 2005. Selection equilibrium for hatchery and wild spawning fitness in integrated breeding programs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 374-389.



Gross, Mart. The Oregonian. August 31, 2003



Independent Economic Advisory Board. 2002. Artificial production review economics analysis, phase I. N.W. Power Planning and Conservation Council. IEAB 2002-5. Portland, Oregon. http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/ieab/ieab2002-1.htm



Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2003. Review of salmon and steelhead supplementation. June 4, 2003. Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council document ISAB 2003-3. Portland, Oregon. http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2003-3.htm



Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2005. Viability of ESUs containing multiple types of populations. April 8, 2005. Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council document ISAB 2005-2. Portland, Oregon. http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2005-2.htm



Independent Scientific Review Panel and Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects. N.W. Power Planning and Conservation Council. ISRP&ISAB 2005-15. Portland, Oregon.

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2005-15.htm





Kostow, Kathryn. 2004. Differences in juvenile phenotypes and survival between hatchery stocks and a natural population provide evidence for modified selection due to captive breeding. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 577-589, 2004

http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conserv...4Phenotypic.htm





Lohn, Bob. The Washington Post, April 28, 2004



Lohn, Bob. NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator. The Statesman Journal, Salem, Oregon May 26, 2004



Lohn, Bob, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 29, 2004



Long Live the Kings: Puget Sound and Coastal Washington Hatchery Reform Project, May 2005 Update.



Lautenbacher, Jr., Conrad C. May 13, 2004. NOAA News Release on the Hatchery Policy.



McMillan, Bill. Personal Communication November 28, 2005.



Montgomery, David, King of Fish. Westview Press. 2003



N.W. Power Planning Council. 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, Oregon. 94-55.



Reisenbichler, Reginald and J.D. McInyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34:123-128.



Reisenbichler, R.R., Rubin, S.P., Wetzel, S., and Phelps, S. 2004. Natural selection after release from a hatchery leads to domestication in steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss. In Stock enhancement and sea ranching: development, pitfalls and opportunities. Edited by K.M. Leber, H.L. Blankenship, S. Kitada, and T. Svasand. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK. Pp. 371-383.



RSRP 2004. Report form meeting August 30-September 2, 2004. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrp.htm http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrpre...pt30_2004e.pdf



Rutzic, Mark, Legal Advisor to NOAA Fisheries. The New York Times, May 9, 2004


Scarce, Rik. Fishy Business. Temple University Press. 2000



Utter, Fred. 2004. Population genetics, conservation and evolution in salmonids and other widely cultured fishes: some perspectives over six decades. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 125-144.







Appendix:



Selected List of Integrated Hatcheries That Are Not Effective:



Steelhead



River Hatchery Date of Status Habitat

Program Culture Assessment

__________________________________________________ ___________________



Sandy Late winter 2000 At Risk Limiting

Clackamas Winter 1991 At Risk Limiting

Hood Winter 1991 At Risk Limiting

Hood Summer 1998 Critical Limiting

__________________________________________________ ___________________



Umatilla Summer 1992 At Risk Limiting

Deschutes Summer 1974 At Risk Limiting

Yakima Summer 2000 Critical Inadequate

Methow Summer 1982 Critical Inadequate

Imnaha Summer 1982 At Risk Limiting



Chinook



Nooksack Spring 1979 Critical Inadequate

Skagit Spring 1978 Critical Inadequate

McKenzie Spring 1930 At Risk Limiting

Chiwawa Spring 1989 Critical Inadequate

Methow Spring 2001 Critical Inadequte

SF Salmon Summer 1974 At Risk Inadequate

Catherine Cr Spring 1995 Critical Inadequate

Imnaha Spring/Sum 1982 At Risk Limiting



Coho



Clackamas Eagle Cr. 1957 At Risk Limiting

Sandy At Risk Limiting

Washougal 1985 Critical Inadequate



Chum



Grays Fall 1997 At Risk Inadequate

Washougal Fall 2002 At Risk Inadequate

Big Quilcene Summer 1992 At Risk Inadequate

SW Hood

Canal Summer 1992 At Risk Inadequate

W Hood

Canal Summer 1998 At Risk Inadequate

__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-30-2005, 09:30 PM   #2
Hare's Ear
Tuna!
 
Hare's Ear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: PDX, OR
Posts: 1,152
Default Re: at the least be informed

This is a very interesting, if disappointing, read. I had high hopes for the broodstock programs. They make a very good hypothesis. I have been reading snippets about the results for the past few years and feared that the hypothesis would be proved wrong. What you have posted confirms my fears.
Hare's Ear is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 09:48 PM   #3
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

Thanks for posting this Rob
I think a lot of people thought that the broodstock programs were the panacea for all the regions years of poor hatchery practices.
The broodstock programs are a better alternative than the out of basin hatchery plants but it's not without it's pitfalls,
Remember a hatchery fish is a hatchery fish
 
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-30-2005, 09:53 PM   #4
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Amen Brother Amen!

Sometimes the cold hard truth just hurts.

This excellent synopsis will be passed along to everyone I know concerned about genuine salmon/steelhead recovery, including all my ADFG contacts up in Alaska.

Good show Bill Bakke, and thanks Rob for sharing it here.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 09:55 PM   #5
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: at the least be informed

While I think broodstock programs have a lot of potential to provide substantial returns of quality harvestable fish, I agree that it is dangerous to think they can be used as a long term solution to rebuilding wild stocks.

All this research boils down to common sense. The very reason hatcheries are so productive is by removing selective environmental effects that occur in the wild. By "babying" fish from the egg through smolt stages, fish that would otherwise have been weeded out in the wild due to a wide array of genetic vulnerabilities, survive providing the "surplus" fish. Big suprise that genetic viability begins to degrade even within the first generation in the hatchery.

Don't get me wrong though, I believe hatcheries are here to stay (being politically invincible). I would just like to see them managed with minimal impact to what remains of our native stocks. Maybe if we put half the resources into habitat restoration that we put into hatcheries, native fish might begin to rebound.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!



----------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 10:13 PM   #6
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 15,452
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Maybe if we put half the resources into habitat restoration that we put into hatcheries, native fish might begin to rebound.
Ya got that right. As long as the agencies wring their hands and tinker at the margins, and as long as some anglers are willing to be vocal dupes for those that trash rivers and then offer hatcheries as the solution, we'll be distracted from fixing the fundamental problems.

We can have healthy rivers. And with healthy rivers come strong runs.
__________________
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"Our best hatcheries, our most resilient, efficient and lasting hatcheries are in fact healthy rivers."

"Keep Public Lands Public - Now and Forever"
garyk is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 10:28 PM   #7
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: at the least be informed

Okay, homies. Rule Numero Uno in my rule book regarding debate is "Address the arguement, not the arguer". If ya wanna step up to the Ifish podium and speak your peace you've gotta play by the rules. If you break the rules, I wield immense power in as much as I can edit your post to say truly extraordinary things. Things that might make the boys at the boat launch snicker the next time you stroll on in.

So, play nice and nobody gets edited.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 10:43 PM   #8
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Before this argument gets way out of hand, let me repeat a few things from a similar discussion some months ago.

GOOD: Wild broodstock programs have seen significant increases in naturally spawning populations in recent years.

GOOD: The progeny of wild broodstock programs fare MUCH better than traditional hatchery programs.

BAD: The progeny of wild broodstock hatcheries show diminished reproductive fitness (ability to successfully spawn in the wild) compared to the progeny of wild spawners.

BAD: The progeny of wild broodstock hatcheries diminish the reproductive fitness of any wild fish they spawn with.

HOW CAN THIS BE? Here's my explanation of how this paradox occurs:

Quote:
To all on both sides of this debate:

While the lambda analysis presented by sparkleboy predicts that natural run-sizes would become progressively smaller, I think I have an explanation for the paradoxical increase in wild fish numbers clearly observed by Travis and others who fish the wild broodstock rivers. Here goes.

The crux of this explanation is that the pool of naturally spawning fish is first artificially inflated by the influx of first generation hatchery adults. Basically the combined H + W spawning population is some number greater than 1.0 times the natural escapement of wild fish if there were no hatchery program in place. Let's say for the sake of argument that for the average year it is 1.25, ie the wild broodstock program contributes an additional 25% of naturally spawning fish to the system.

Now, let's say for the sake of argument that because of hatchery introgression, the reproductive fitness of the entire pool of naturally spawning fish is reduced to only 95%, ie for every 100 spawners, only 95 of their offspring will make it back to the spawning gravel.


The net production from this example is 1.25 times 0.95 which equals 1.2, meaning that there would be 20% more naturally spawning progeny than if the fish had just been left alone.

You get it? <font color="red"> As long as the the first generation of hatchery fish contribute enough natural spawners to offset their overall reduced reproductive fitness, then the whole thing is sustainable.</font> That's why the old programs were such a dismal failure. No matter how many thousands of hatchery fish were allowed to escape into the naturally spawning population, their reproductive fitness was so crappy that they never made ANY meaningful contribution to overall productivity. In fact, they diminshed natural productivity horribly!

Assuming that a wild broodstock program impacts the natural productivity of wild spawners by 5% or less (95%-plus reproductive fitness for the combined pool of naturally spawning hatchery and wild fish) then the population becomes self-sustaining as long as the first generation hatchery fish contribute at least 5.26% additional spawners to each escapement of naturally produced spawners. (1.0526 x 0.95 = 1.0). If the first generation hatchery contribution to wild spawning is anything greater than 6%, then the population actually begins to build up.

So basically, the points being waged by both sides of this debate are correct. Travis and his camp assert that wild broodstock hatchery fish are nearly equivalent to wild and they have observed firsthand an increase in "wild" spawners in their respective rivers.

Stew, Rob Allen, STGRule, sparkleboy (and myself) are also correct in pointing out that the population of naturally spawning hatchery fish do not replace themselves and may well be diminishing the reproductive potential of wild spawners, however small the effect.

There you have it! We're all right!

Just one cautionary note in this whole debate. The explanation I presented is ABSO-POSI-TIVELY DEPENDENT on continued hatchery operations. Without the hatchery, the whole scheme completely falls apart. That may either be good news or bad news depending on whether or not you like hatcheries.

For those who believe the goal of fish restoration is ultimately for the hatcheries to work themselves out of a job, then this ain't gonna get 'er done. Sorry Rob.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:11 AM   #9
wishin
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salem / Gleneden Beach
Posts: 1,113
Default Re: at the least be informed *DELETED*

&lt;We will change the title&gt;
wishin is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 07:31 AM   #10
finnman
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 1,086
Default Re: at the least be informed

There are no unbiased opinions and each camp will find "facts" to back their arguements. I believe hatcheries are like dams they will never go away. We need to keep making improvements and debates like this lead to new innovations. I personally like to have the opportunity to catch and keep Salmon and Steelhead and it seems to me that broodstock programs are less damaging than old methods in providing that opportunity. As of now I will support broodstock programs. Bottom line, let's keep talking, researching, and making improvements.

Finnman
__________________
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein
finnman is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:55 AM   #11
cosmo
 
cosmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,268
Default Re: at the least be informed

...This has lead to looking “beyond the hatchery fence” and has created the idea that hatcheries can be used to recover wild salmon and steelhead populations. Native broodstock hatcheries have become the new fad in the Northwest along with claims that the best way to operate a hatchery program is to integrate wild and hatchery fish populations using native, wild fish as the source for artificial propagation. But the fad is over-reaching the science. These native broodstock hatcheries have not been tested to see if in fact they can actually be used to rebuild wild salmonid populations and protect their biological integrity....

This is good stuff, but for the most part, broodstock programs in our area have not been implemented with the goals of "rebuilding wild salmonid populations"----that's where it goes sideways.
Most of the broodstock programs in the local area are there to provide a harvest fishery that is less detrimental to wild stocks than tratditional hatchery plants. That's why there is so much effort to keep broodstock fish separate from spawning wild fish.
Wish I would have seen a paper that compared the problems of mixing old-style hatchery fish with wild fish, versus broodstock fish with wild fish. That would have been something meaningful.
Certainly in places there are these "conservation hatchery" goals in place, but this broad brush stroke is just as one-sided as what we read from utilities.
cosmo is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 09:06 AM   #12
JohnB
Steelhead
 
JohnB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: north
Posts: 218
Default Re: at the least be informed

Thank you for the great compilation of data!

The question now is:

How do we get the decision makers (ie politicians) to read this stuff?

Science should trump politics but rarely does.
__________________
www.fishsponge.com
Please respect our fisheries and the environment
JohnB is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 09:27 AM   #13
Dragfreedrift
Tuna!
 
Dragfreedrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,154
Default Re: at the least be informed

The most disturbing trend I see is habitat destruction.
I am in favor of every reasonable effort to restore the quality of spawning areas and water quality.

Harvest issues must be addressed on those rivers that now allow wildfish harvest (Umpqua, Hoh, etc). I don't think the current harvest rates make sense at all in the long-run.
The Hoh river has excellent quality of habitat (Olympic Nat'l Park), yet the run is in a tailspin....overharvest &amp; management methods MUST be the reason....I cannot think of another one. That river should be teeming w/ steelhead, but it doesnt anymore.

When I look at the development occuring on the west coast, I fear that the public doesnt understand the seriousness of the problem.

The hatchery fish issue is a tough one. We all want a fish to take home, but how best to accomplish a harvestable # of fish? That is the question we face-- how are we able to help ourselves &amp; the fish at the same time?

Does anybody have data from the Vedder in BC? This river has had a broodstock program for far longer than any river in WA or OR.


DFD
__________________
Team Stealth Floats
Dragfreedrift is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 10:11 AM   #14
GoFish
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 490
Default Re: at the least be informed

Before just labeling broodstock supplementation a failure, I think a more nuanced analysis might be in order.

Certainly, habitat improvements would help wild stocks. But, how far can that go? What if the only level of habitat restoration that would allow for the natural rebuilding of native fish populations is one where the environment was returned to it's "pristine" condition. That is, before the hand of man was involved. If that were the level of restoration needed, it would not be feasible. (unless the bird flu, or the meteor, or the apocalypse, or some other thing dramatically reduces the human population)

I have no knowledge of most of the examples cited as failures. But, I do know that on the Clackamas, fish passage at the dams has been a major problem. One that PGE is only now willing to acknowledge due to their need for relicensing approval. There are vast amounts of habitat in that upper watershed that are under-utilized. That's in an area where fishing pressue has been eliminated now for many generations of fish. PGE proposes to rebuild the fish ladder because they now acknowledge the passage problems with the old one. They do want the new license period for operating the dams to run for 45 years insted of the 30 years of the last license, with no guarantees that the fixes proposed will even work. If they don't work, we can wait for another 45 years to be in a position to require them to improve the system again. Not good.

As far as the hatcheries go, it's my feeling that the current broodstock program is being implemented on a minimal basis. For it to work, it would probably need a wholesale redesign of the hatchery infrastructure to provide a more natural habitat than concrete raceways. I didn't see that aspect discussed in Rob's original post. There is some experimental work being conducted on hatcheries that more closely mimic the natural environment, including allowing natural predation as a conditioning tool for fingerlings and smolts.

The whole world of animal husbandry is undergoing a transition to find ways to re-habilitate endangered species, from the California Condor to the Chinese Panda Bear. I belive that humans are intelligent enough to help, as well as hurt, the survival of species. We just don't have enough experience yet to understand how much effort we have to put into it.

These fish are complex. No doubt about it. But, I can't imagine that they are so complex that we can't figure out a way to help them. We just have to be willing to spend the time and money to do it right. I don't see any other way, given where we are starting from, in a world where controls on human population numbers is so taboo.
GoFish is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 10:33 AM   #15
willametteriveroutlaw
King Salmon
 
willametteriveroutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 8,662
Default Re: at the least be informed

Look at the dates on the articles, only one is relevant. Second look at who is protraying the information, I &lt;don't&gt; think Bill Bakke is unbiased. Thirdly look at Authors who are writing the studies. If every study finds the same outcome from the author, but the same study from different researchers finds different out comes then think about it too. Remember big tobaccos researchers never found cigarettes dangerous to your health in published studies either.
This is the same group that declared the nestucca broodstock program a failure after 1 year, and only based there information on fish that returned to the hatchery. (low clear conditions, and the majority of the fish didn't return there) huh. Its just as important to evaluate the source as it is the information. You wouldn't get your how fish feel information from PETA would you?
__________________
The worst part is, now I have to agree with WRO. Which causes me much pain and grief.

-Flatfish
willametteriveroutlaw is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 10:53 AM   #16
KChookem
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas OR
Posts: 1,659
Default Re: at the least be informed

Here's another can-of-worms ...

... after so many decades of hatchery fish spawning in "hatchery" streams, probably intermingling with "wild" fish, are there any truly "wild" fish left?

Over the decades, have strays "contaminated" the non-hatchery streams?

Who can tell the difference between a "wild" fish and a "hatchery" fish? How?
__________________
...KChookem, Dallas, OR
KChookem is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 11:47 AM   #17
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 15,452
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
...habitat improvements would help wild stocks. But, how far can that go? What if the only level of habitat restoration that would allow for the natural rebuilding of native fish populations is one where the environment was returned to it's "pristine" condition.
A "pristine condition" is not required.

Broodstock supplementation in Oregon got it's start on the coast, so let's look at an area we're familiar with - the Tillamook Forest watershed.

A major limiting factor in the productivity of its rivers is the lack of large woody debris and the ensuing pools, shleter, side channels, etc. that these logs and logjams create, and were historically present.

The Oregon Dept of Forestry is the land manager. Despite the need to restore streamside conifers that will produce future large-woody-debris, this action is absent from ODF's highly touted management plan. Why? Because honestly fish don't positively impact ODF's bottom line, revenue from cutting trees does. ODF simply does not make money on fish. In fact, under current management, in the future, 50% or more of the Tillamook Forest will be stocked with hardwoods (source: ODF) moving the landscape even further away from the conifer predominated forest that generated robust salmon populations.

This is a great example of agencies being at cross-purposes.

ODF manages the landscape, and ODFW is left to tinker with projects that will produce fish to catch, but will not result in abundant self-sustaining populations. Yet, exactly that outcome is held out as the promise of brood-stock programs.

Once you appreciate that these programs will not restore fish populations because they are not addressing the fundamental, underlying biological problems, you're lead to the question of - "Is this never-ending expense the best use of our money?"

As a tight-fisted, fiscal conservative my answer has evolved to 'no'. While we can have hatcheries, we ought to be making more of an investment in places like the Tillamook where the watershed is generally intact and not damaged beyond repair.

The political reality is ODFW can't aggressively lobby for landscape management. So rather than doing what needs to be done, the department is relegated to tinkering with hatchery programs and to preserve the bureaucracy implies to us that these programs will restore fishing.

It's a misplaced hope.

And that's why it's so infuriating when the Legislature with the support of ODFW diverts $5-million of voter approved monies dedicated to habitat restoration to a 'research hatchery' that didn't even have a research plan.
__________________
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"Our best hatcheries, our most resilient, efficient and lasting hatcheries are in fact healthy rivers."

"Keep Public Lands Public - Now and Forever"
garyk is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 12:36 PM   #18
Spinitrode
King Salmon
 
Spinitrode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,540
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Here's another can-of-worms ...

... after so many decades of hatchery fish spawning in "hatchery" streams, probably intermingling with "wild" fish, are there any truly "wild" fish left?

Over the decades, have strays "contaminated" the non-hatchery streams?

Who can tell the difference between a "wild" fish and a "hatchery" fish? How?
This is an old argument that keeps popping up, but it has been debunked repeatedly for anyone who cares to do their homework and read the scientific literature. The genetic testing is done at the DNA level, essentially the same technology they use in crime labs to test the origins of blood or hair samples and such. It shows that most wild populations have relatively little "contamination" from hatchery stocks. I'm sure there's some, but most of the hatchery spawners don't propagate well, so they tend to weed themselves out of the population over the course of the next generation.

Remember, just because you see a hatchery fish spawning with a wild fish, does not necessarily mean they're doing it successfully. "Success" in this case is a function of how many of their offspring make it back to spawn themselves. We usually focus on the adults because they're more visible and after all that's what we're trying to catch, but the weakest link in the chain is typically egg-to-smolt survival. And surprise, this is where hatchery-descended offspring don't get it done because it's precisely the same part of the life cycle where the hatcheries have bypassed most of nature's selection factors. I think some folks want to ignore this research because it allows them to avoid the extra cost/effort of trying to maintain healthy wild stocks.
Spinitrode is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 02:03 PM   #19
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
I think some folks want to ignore this research because it allows them to avoid the extra cost/effort of trying to maintain healthy wild stocks.

So who do you trust here? The biologists or someones theory about how many fish they caught?
Do you honestly think that Bakke, after all the years he has fought for wild fish would deliberately mislead?
What would be the motivation? On the other hand those that think broodstock programs are the best thing since sliced bread and a cure all to wild fish woes usually have some sort of stake in the whole thing.
Sorry but I'm afraid I'm going to trust the biologists in this situation.
 
Old 12-01-2005, 02:18 PM   #20
Amerman
Ifish Nate
 
Amerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Monmouth, OR
Posts: 2,590
Default Re: at the least be informed

Anyone else wonder how one research firm can say 9 out of ten people prefer Coke to Pepsi and another can say 9 out of ten people prefer Pepsi to Coke. You have to stop and see who is doing the research.

Personally I like Pepsi.
Amerman is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 03:05 PM   #21
cosmo
 
cosmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,268
Default Re: at the least be informed

I read a lot of research and what I see in Bakke's release is pulling selections to make his point. His premise in the beginning is again false---the vast majority of broodstock programs are not in place to increase wild stocks--they're a less damaging alternative to the out of basin stocks so heavily used in the past.

I'd ask the Bakke fans to at least become informed also. Understand the premise, read the full studies Bakke sights and make judgements based on all the facts.

Man this gets tiring.
cosmo is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:01 PM   #22
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 15,452
Default Re: at the least be informed

Cosmo, ya have to admit it's easy for people to at least THINK brookstock programs are the cure when you pull stuff like this off the agency main pages:

Quote:
Broodstock technology needed to restore depleted Pacific salmon stocks

Problem Statement

Captive rearing is one of the most promising means by which to preserve and restore some depleted wild salmon stocks,...
__________________
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"Our best hatcheries, our most resilient, efficient and lasting hatcheries are in fact healthy rivers."

"Keep Public Lands Public - Now and Forever"
garyk is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 04:13 PM   #23
husker
Ifish Nate
 
husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: hillsboro
Posts: 3,191
Default Re: at the least be informed *DELETED*

Hole left by edits to the entire thread.
__________________
the 2nd most patriotic thing you can do for your country is go for a walk today
husker is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 05:41 PM   #24
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: at the least be informed *DELETED* *DELETED*

Hole left by edits to the entire thread.
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-01-2005, 06:22 PM   #25
hotslam
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 900
Default Re: at the least be informed

I sure do miss the glorious december hatchery brats that were so abundant! years ago! 3-4 yrs ago, wish they were still in the future, but i guess they want fewer fish that will run 2-3 months instead of 1 month of just hatchery fish?
hotslam is offline  
Old 12-02-2005, 08:09 PM   #26
STGRule
Qualified Sturgeon Hugger
 
STGRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oak Grove
Posts: 37,872
Default Re: at the least be informed

Okay, we will try this again. But with RESPECT people. Respect.
__________________
Former resident cat herder. And I have a cool crown.
Ifish Member # 943 (or 1426 in my other universe)
"Team Lutefisk"
STGRule is offline  
Old 12-02-2005, 08:12 PM   #27
Pete
Administrator
 
Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 41,220
Default Re: at the least be informed

STG, thank you for all the work editing this important post. I hope people will respect each other and the work you did to keep it available to all of us.
__________________
Report Game Violations!
Washington: 1 877 933-9847
Oregon: 1 800 452-7888
Pete is offline  
Old 12-02-2005, 08:18 PM   #28
JustCallMeDave
The Mods Must Be Crazy!
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Casting between the waves where dinner lies waiting
Posts: 24,995
Default Re: at the least be informed

Yes, thank you STG. I know that it will remain a civil debate from here forward.



__________________
JustCallMeDave is offline  
Old 12-02-2005, 08:36 PM   #29
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 15,452
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
STG, thank you for all the work editing this important post.
Word!
__________________
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"Our best hatcheries, our most resilient, efficient and lasting hatcheries are in fact healthy rivers."

"Keep Public Lands Public - Now and Forever"
garyk is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 10:28 AM   #30
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
His premise in the beginning is again false---the vast majority of broodstock programs are not in place to increase wild stocks--they're a less damaging alternative to the out of basin stocks so heavily used in the past.

I re-read the whole Bakke synopsis. He never stated that "the vast majority of broodstock programs are in place to increase wild stocks"

What he did state was that the native broodstock programs are being marketed as the end-all solution to replace the horrible hatchery practices of the past, without considering the reality that they still have a detrimental effect (however small it may be) on wild populations. He is just calling on the broodstock proponents to be honest with themselves.

The reality is that where these programs have been attempted to re-build depressed runs, the science shows that from a productivity standpoint, the wild fish would have been better off left in the stream than running them thru a hatchery program. Just as many (if not more) wild fish would have been produced if there were no hatchery at all. That is NOT a wise use of fish-recovery funds.

On the other hand, the broodstock programs are an excellent tool to help create large numbers of harvestable fish. The appeal is that the returning hatchery fish are almost like wild... they look beautiful, bite aggressively, and fight like their wild parents. Just ask any of the wild brood proponents who fish those streams. The problem is that they are still hatchery fish, and as such, any of them that escape to spawn naturally in the system can only diminish the reproductive fitness of the population as a whole.

Personally this is where I struggle understanding the merits of any "integrated" hatchery programs. The hatchery requires a constant infusion of wild brood fish, but the hatchery returns have inferior reproductive fitness, and yet the goal of the program is to integrate these inferior fish back into the spawning population. Does it even make sense?

As such, ODFW should be extremely cautious about starting these programs in any basin where wild fish populations are marginal or depressed.

In a basin with healthy wild stocks, the programs could be used to create large numbers of hatchery fish to support an intense harvest fishery that the "untinkered" healthy wild population could never support on its own.

And finally, wherever these programs are employed, every effort should still be made to segregate the hatchery fish from their wild spawning brethren. As I said earlier, integration can only diminish the reproductive fitness of the population as a whole.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 11:23 AM   #31
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: at the least be informed

Just as an example if you look at more than a sound bite of the Hood River study which is entilted "RELATIVE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF HATCHERY AND WILD STEELHEAD IN THE HOOD RIVER". You will find interesting facts not included in Mr.Bakke's report. Under the conclusion portion,article 2, it reads "Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish(less than wild in two years,greater than in the third year).The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses Hnew xW and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models;e.g.Lynch and O'Hely,2001).Thus the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences-atleast in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population(e.g.Ryman et al., 1995) but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggests that reduced effective size is not a problem." Once again these are the actual conclusions by those who did the research not some other party's analysis or opinion.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 12:00 PM   #32
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
"Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish(less than wild in two years,greater than in the third year).
The actual ranges of reproductive fitness observed in the study was 85-108%.

Let's not overstate what that "85-108% fitness" figure REALLY means. All the wild broodstock proponents will naturally focus on the 108% end of that range, while the detractors will focus on the 85% end. The tables on page 17 and 18 tell the whole story.

Only one year ('97) of the three reported actually showed an apparent hatchery fitness trumping wild. Even then, the 108% figure applied only to hens.... hatchery males showed only a 90% fitness. Furthermore the authors go on to explain that the return from that '97 brood year is incomplete.... only 66% of the recruits are accounted for, leaving 2 age-classes up in the air. If a greater proportion of wild fish from '97 return at older ages than their hatchery counterparts, it will obviously bring those fitness percentages down. So it really is too early to state that their fitness equals/exceeds wild. Since that paper was dated May 2003, there should be an updated report for 2005. (I will e-mail the principal investigator Mike Blouin to see if that report has been made public yet.)

If one looks at the two years with complete data in the 2003 report, the fitness percentages defintely lean toward the 85% end of things. The '95 brood brought back 90 males with a fitness of 85% of wild and 65 females with a fitness of 87%. The weighted average for all 155 fish is a relative fitness of 85.8%.

The '96 brood brought back 95 males at 90% and 153 hens at 85%. The weighted average for all 248 fish comes out to a relative fitness of 86.9%.

The weighted average for both years combined (403 fish) is a relative fitness of 86.5%.

Again, we must remember this is only two years worth of recruits.... not much to hang your hat on. However, it does suggest that the "new and improved" hatchery fish reproduce at some level below their wild counterparts, somewhere in the neighborhood of 14-15%.

Going back to my "megapost" analysis from several days ago, the only way to make up for that reduced reproductive fitness is by allowing enough hatchery fish to escape onto the spawning gravel. Assuming a fitness of 85%, hatchery fish would have to contribute at least an additional 18% to the natural escapement to keep the population stable. Anything less than 18% would send the naturally spawning population on a downhill course. Anything greater than 18% would allow the naturally spawning population to build up.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 12:11 PM   #33
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Just as an example if you look at more than a sound bite of the Hood River study which is entilted "RELATIVE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF HATCHERY AND WILD STEELHEAD IN THE HOOD RIVER". You will find interesting facts not included in Mr.Bakke's report. Under the conclusion portion,article 2, it reads "Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish(less than wild in two years,greater than in the third year).The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses Hnew xW and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models;e.g.Lynch and O'Hely,2001).Thus the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences-atleast in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population(e.g.Ryman et al., 1995) but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggests that reduced effective size is not a problem." Once again these are the actual conclusions by those who did the research not some other party's analysis or opinion.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 12:12 PM   #34
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Here's a nut/bolts analysis of wild broodstock programs that does not entail any mathematical mental gymnastics.

Courtesy of Todd (Ripley):

Quote:
Way back in my first post on this thread, I mentioned that my biggest concern with broodstock programs is that the people who run and participate in them don't have a specific goal in mind, or don't know the difference between supplementation and enhancement programs.

I'm seeing that play out here in this thread, too. When asked about how hatchery (broodstock fish are hatchery fish) fish have bad effects on wild productivity, someone shows a picture of a broodstock fish, or talks about the great returns of broodstock fish for harvest.

While it is a fine picture of a very pretty fish, and it may be neat to have lots of the broodstock fish return, those things have nothing at all to do with how those programs affect wild fish.

I think that before a broodstock vs. traditional hatchery program discussion is initiated for a specific river, I'd go through these questions:

1. Does the river need a hatchery program at all?

If no, don't do it. If yes...

2. Is the hatchery program for recovering wild fish, or creating harvestable fish? (These programs do not, and can not, do both).

3. If it's for creating harvestable fish, can the wild run afford the mining of eggs and sperm to create the harvestable fish?

If no, don't do it. If yes...

4. Is there a significantly higher productivity for every two fish put into the hatchery program versus every two left in the river?

If not, then don't do it. What's the point of spending money to create the same or less amount of fish that would have been created for free in the river? If yes...

5. What percentage of the hatchery fish spawn in the wild? What is the loss of productivity in the wild fish due to this interaction? Can the wild run afford this loss of production?

If no, don't do it. If yes...

Then have a hatchery broodstock program, and monitor it very closely to see that the answers to the above questions are continually asked and continually answered affirmatively. Don't get wedded to the idea of doing the program if it ceases to be needed, or ceases to be successful.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 12:28 PM   #35
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: at the least be informed

Sorry about that but as you can see I am new at this. The point that I am trying to make is that this is an actual quote from the conclusions porition of the study.This not a statistic pulled out of the study by any group but the actual conclusion reached by the researchers who did the study.These people are proffesionals and I am sure they looked at all the information available before coming this conclusion.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 02:19 PM   #36
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 15,452
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Again, we must remember this is only two years worth of recruits.... not much to hang your hat on.
Yes. It's a good experiment, however, the researchers themselve have made that caution. A lot of folks, including some magazine writers have over-stated the priliminary results far beyond what the researchers have - no wonder folks are are confused as to what this study means.

Couple of things about this study:

1. No attempt was made to conclusively determine what
factor(s) are limiting the natural production of wild steelhead.

2. Every fish was manually passed over a dam, making this a good river for effectively isolating broodstock origin fish from wild fish, and thereby reducing HxW inter-breeding if desired.

3. Non-migrating, native rainbow trout were apparantly making significant genetic contributions to the population.

More later....
__________________
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"Our best hatcheries, our most resilient, efficient and lasting hatcheries are in fact healthy rivers."

"Keep Public Lands Public - Now and Forever"
garyk is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 03:03 PM   #37
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

I found the latest Hood River update (Oct 1, 2004) published on the web. Results are now in for 100% of the 1995 and 1996 broods, as well as 96% of the 97 brood. Here are some of the substantive findings since the previous update.

Quote:

The main result is that fitness of hatchery fish relative to wild appears to be lower, and more variable from year to year, than previously thought. Nevertheless, conservation-stock hatchery fish still appear to perform better than old-stock hatchery fish.
As time goes on we see that the results on reproductive fitness are turning out to be a little more shakey than originally reported.

Quote:
In summary, we confirmed that old-stock hatchery fish of STW91 had very low fitness compared to wild steelhead (relative fitnesses of 0.11 and 0.098 for males and females, (respectively), while the conservation-stock hatchery fish of STW95-97 had higher, but more variable relative fitness (0.63-1.21).
GaryK also let on to another surprise finding in the study.... parental lineage could not be confirmed in a significant number of the returning fish. This has led the researchers to postulate that a good number of these fish were the progeny of resident nonanadromous mykiss.

Quote:
Blouin (2003) showed that a large number of parents are missing...

Also, we still observe many more missing fathers than mothers.....

The constant and clear difference in the rate of assignment between “Father-only” and “Mother-only” (Table 2) indicates that there truly is a significant number of missing parents, which are probably resident, non-anadromous fish. This result is consistent with that of the previous study.
And just as I had stated in an earlier post, the competing sides in this debate will differ on which end of the reproductive fitness range (0.63 to 1.21) they want to hang their hat on, but here's the real scoop. Broodstock fish were reproductively inferior to wild fish in almost every instance except for hens in the 97 brood year.

Quote:
Conservation stock hatchery males had relative fitnesses of 0.63, 0.89 and 0.71 that of wild fish in run years 95, 96 and 97, respectively. Hatchery female relative fitnesses were estimated to be 0.68, 0.89 and 1.21, respectively.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is this quote:

Quote:
Note that because there is no way to detect pairs that left no surviving offspring, our analysis is confined to the subset of pairs that left one or more surviving offspring.
What that tells me is if a (H x H) or (H x W) pairing produced no returning adults, there would be no way to confirm that, and that those failed hatchery pairings would not have been considered in the fitness determinations.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 04:06 PM   #38
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

I think you've hit the nail on the head Doc!
What is the purpose of wild broodstock programs? What are the goals? Does anyone who supports these programs really know?
If a native run of fish is in the recovery phase like for example the Wilson river, why in the world would you want to dump a bunch of hatchery fish into this population?
Scott Amerman seems to grasp this better than any other guide on the north coast. He says the broodstock fish are not meant to supplement or add to the wild spawning population. They are meant offer a better fish for harvest....nothing more.
All Bill Bakke is saying is basically to proceed with caution because the jury is still out.
 
Old 12-03-2005, 05:38 PM   #39
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: at the least be informed

Stew, guys such as Jack, Scott, myself and many others no exactly what the goals of the Broodstock program are. Its to put a better fish in the system to be harvested. A fish that has minimal to zero negative effect to wild fish. A fish that is far better than the out of baisn stock we have had forever.

For us it has never been a issue to increase the runs, but to provide the best hatchery fish possible. Consequently the relative fitness of Broodstock fish so closely resembles that of a wild fish that they do put fish back in the system. "And a fish that has no obvious genetic consequence." ( Hood River Broodstock Study )

Now I consider Scott A. a friend of mine we fish around each other 90 to a 100 days a year in the winter and he is right on track with the broodstock program. But to say he has the best grasp on it as any guide on the North Coast is kind of funny. Because that is the grasp we all have on the program. And trust me nobody has a better grasp on it than Jack Smith. No offense to you Scott at all, I know you know your stuff.

One thing that strikes me a little is that why those that challenge the broodstock program are always comparing how the wild fish tend to in most years have a relative fitness slightly better than BS fish. What is the point to that, do you think we are narrow minded enough to expect them to do better than wild fish? The fact is that they are so close that its effects are not dragging down the finess of Wild fish.

The broodstock program is like having your cake and eating it to. There are those that want a hatchery fish to take home, there are those that want wild fish to fourish. Hopefully most people want both. The broodstock program so far is providing us with that. Thats why we support it.

One other thing you need to remember without wild fish, there is no program at all. We hold habtiat and everything that follows the health of wild fish with the most importantcy. If wild numbers start to decrease, now this is my opinion the program would be halted. So to keep the program alive wild fish must prosper. And thats how most of us view the program.
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 07:17 PM   #40
Flatfish
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mulletville
Posts: 12,756
Default Re: at the least be informed

Stew,

not too long ago, your view on broodstock fish was a 180 degree opposite from where you appear to be today. You were all about losing the Alsea fish, and replacing them with BS fish.

I wonder what your opinion will be in 4 years--------------------------



Rob Allen thanks for another entertaining post. between you and Hustlerjim, I will be forever entertained. Thanks.

Mark and the dog.
__________________
A curious thing happens when hatchery fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions
Flatfish is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 08:13 PM   #41
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Stew,

not too long ago, your view on broodstock fish was a 180 degree opposite from where you appear to be today. You were all about losing the Alsea fish, and replacing them with BS fish.

I wonder what your opinion will be in 4 years--------------------------



Rob Allen thanks for another entertaining post. between you and Hustlerjim, I will be forever entertained. Thanks.

Mark and the dog.
You are absolutely right Mark and I even collected a few for the program. I am still all about losing the Alsea stock.
I have since taken the time to educate myself Mark that is what has changed. One question though Mark....is that all you have to add to this discussion? Is the fact that I've changed my stance and rob entertains you the best you can do? Everyone else has made some very good input here.
Instead of buying into this "pie in the sky" that the ODFW and other "used to be conservation groups" promote with out question, I dug a little deeper.
Of course broodstock fish are better than out of basin fish! I've always said that. I guess it's just a matter of how much better they really are
It comes right down to the undisputed fact that broodstock fish are still hatchery fish, raised in a hatchery environment, fed by hand and therefore they have the embedded characteristics of a hatchery fish.
Travis I appreciate your civil response to what we are talking about here. I could look in the archives and show where you have stated that since the inception of native broodstock programs you have noted a marked increase in the number of returning wild fish. You applauded that as proof that the inter-breeding of the two fish (wild/returning broodstock) is a good thing.
So that aside I could live with the broodstock programs if the returning fish were kept in the lower river and not allowed, using the Wilson as an example, above let's say MP15. They are not though and from what I understand they are actually planted as high up as the South Fork.
Now correct me if I'm wrong about that but that is what I was told by an area fish bio.
I know that there must be a harvestable fish for those who want to take a steelhead home to eat. That is just a fact of life but the way they manage those hatchery fish is the key and letting them go all the way up the river to mingle with wild spawning fish is not a good idea.
Could we agree on that?
 
Old 12-03-2005, 10:01 PM   #42
Flatfish
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mulletville
Posts: 12,756
Default Re: at the least be informed

That's pretty much all I had to add Stew.

My opinion has not changed. And since I have expressed my thoughts on this subject already in several threads in the past, I could not se the point in beating the same dead horse again.

Mark and the dog.
__________________
A curious thing happens when hatchery fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions
Flatfish is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 10:18 PM   #43
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: at the least be informed

Stew, in your response to Mark here is how much better broodstock or new hatchery fish are than the old hatchery ways.

Quote from the Hood River Broodstock Study
" old hatchery stocks have much lower total fitness thatn wild fish (17% to 54% of wild fish), but that new stocks have fitness that is similar to that of wild fish (ranging from 85% to 108% of wild fitness)"

That seems to be quite a bit better. Stew, I could also look up in the archives and find where you dismissed my observation of a marked increase in wild fish as arm chair biology. But that was before the results of the Hood River study that shows the similar fitness and return rates between broodstock and wild fish.

You are not wrong about the Southfork, Wilson river fish are distributed in several locations, some are put up the South fork. Personally I don't know if I applaud the inter breeding between wild and broodstock, but I don't think it is that bad of thing either. But weather I think its bad or not does not make it the goal of the program. Results of the study don't make it out to be a bad thing either.

Quote form the Hood River Broodstock Study
" The simialr fitnesses Hnew x Wild and Wild x Wild paris, suggest that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness fo the wild population for gentic reasons."

On several occasions including this thread you bring up the poor characteristics that these once removed hatchery fish are embedded with by being reared in a cement pond. First, what characteristics would these be. Second, these characteristics that were so easily picked up, how would they be passed on to a broodstock fish's offspring that were born and bred in the wild? Especially when the study shows there are no obvious genetic consequences.

The goal of most broodstock programs is to keep wild and hatchery fish seperate. And weather the fish that are going up the Southfork on the Wilson, Bays Creek on the Nestucca, or Palmer Creek on the Siletz, the attempt is to confine them.
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 10:36 PM   #44
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

You don't think the traits that a hatchery fish posesses because of his hathcery upbringing can be passed on to it's offspring? To me that seems to water down the whole wild fish gene pool don't you think?
One might note that the southfork of the Wilson will be opened up January 1st to fin clipped steelhead up to the first milepost marker so apparently the ODFW is concrened about this too! I've never fished up there but I am not sure this is a good plan because of other things it opens up.
What is your take on this Travis?
 
Old 12-03-2005, 11:26 PM   #45
SalmonJeff
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Keizer , OR
Posts: 4,922
Default Re: at the least be informed

do we need to do these post every month? it seems this is a constant argument lately?

I think the horse is dead but it keeps getting
SalmonJeff is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 11:39 PM   #46
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

Jeff this has been a civil exchange of opinions after SGTRule cleaned it up so what's the problem? What I see here is a few concerned sports fishers debating the pros and cons of this issue. No one is name calling or getting po'd so as ling as it stays civil let it ride
 
Old 12-04-2005, 08:00 AM   #47
SSPey
Chromer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 888
Default Re: at the least be informed

There sure is a lot of evidence that hatchery broodstock programs may be trouble.

Has ODFW admitted (at the administrative level) that we don't know enough yet to implement these programs everywhere?

Has ODFW recognized that we should proceed with caution in a limited number of rivers?

Do they have a stated plan for how they might apply results from different rives to aid decisions regarding wild fish recovery and/or maintenance of consumptive fisheries?

Has ODFW provided sufficient research funds that would enable them to rigorously determine whether these programs are "good" or "bad", and under what conditions?

As a tax payer and license holder, these are some simple expectations of what a management agency SHOULD be doing with my money. Often a push to produce fish in concrete rivers takes precendent over these simple but important things.
SSPey is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 09:51 AM   #48
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
Quote from the Hood River Broodstock Study
" old hatchery stocks have much lower total fitness thatn wild fish (17% to 54% of wild fish), but that new stocks have fitness that is similar to that of wild fish (ranging from 85% to 108% of wild fitness)"
Travis, as I stated earlier, there has been another Oct 2004 update published since the Dec 2003 article you are quoting from. Here are the updated fitness numbers again:

In summary, we confirmed that old-stock hatchery fish of STW91 had very low fitness compared to wild steelhead (relative fitnesses of 0.11 and 0.098 for males and females, (respectively), while the conservation-stock hatchery fish of STW95-97 had higher, but more variable relative fitness (0.63-1.21).

Conservation stock hatchery males had relative fitnesses of 0.63, 0.89 and 0.71 that of wild fish in run years 95, 96 and 97, respectively. Hatchery female relative fitnesses were estimated to be 0.68, 0.89 and 1.21, respectively.


When you consider the number of hatchery males included in the study were 106, 114, and 63 (1995, 1996, and 1997 respectively) and hatchery females numbered 72, 168, and 106, then the weighted average for the entire study cohort of 629 fish comes out to a relative fitness of 85.8%
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:27 AM   #49
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: at the least be informed

Jeff, I could not agree with you more, I cringe evertime I see the Broodstock topic brought up. I get involved not to change the mind of those who don't support the program, but to give others the true information about the program. Somthing to base there own opinion on.

Stew, you must be dismissing all the findings of the Hood River Study, I have quoted it several times that it is not dragging down the wild gene pool. Again I would still like to know what embedded traits that you are talking about. It does not really matter though because its the goal of the program to keep them seperated weather its harmful or not.

I would agree that making hatchery fish out of hatchery fish for 30 years like we have been doing would drag down its genetics. The study shows that, but it also shows that one generation hatchery fish has very little if any genetic consequences

SSpey, it is these type of posts that keep me coming back.

What evidence is out there that theses programs may be trouble? The only study completed on this matter says otherwise.

They are not implementing these programs everywhere and they are proceeding with caution on a limited number of rives.

As far as research they spent 13 years and 28 million dollars on the Hood River study. Which is a true broodstock program, the same program that 3 of are North coast rivers have implemented. The study is an ODFW project conducted under Michael Blouin, Associate Profesor Dept. Zoology, Oregon State University. And its findings are very positive. You may want to read some of the earlier quotes, they are strait from the study.
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:39 AM   #50
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:

Quote form the Hood River Broodstock Study
" The similar fitnesses Hnew x Wild and Wild x Wild pairs, suggest that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for gentic reasons."
The key words in that assertion are "probably" and "not obviously".... not terribly reassuring.

"Probably" implies there is still an element of uncertainty.

"Not obviously" implies that the reproductive fitness could be dragged down in more subtle, less obvious ways than one might appreciate at first glance.

Here's what disturbs me. If wild fitness (W) is 1.0 and the average hatchery fitness (H) is only 0.85, then each (W x H) pairing on the spawning gravel will only bring back 85% of the fish that would return from a (W x W) pairing. If two hatchery fish spawn with one another (H x H) then the productivity goes down to 72% of a (W x W) pairing.

In other words, even with the new and improved breed of hatchery fish, their introgression into the wild population would still diminish reproductive rates of each spawning event by 15-28%, depending on the pairing.

Is that an improvement over the miserable 10% fitness of out-of-basin stock? ABSOLUTELY. If you carry the same analysis through for the old hatchery stock, their introgression would reduce productivity by 90-99% depending on the pairing.

In either case, hatchery fish allowed to spawn in the wild compete with their wild counterparts for spawning habitat. Their progeny compete with wild juveniles for limited rearing habitat. In the end, these hatchery fish deprive their wild counterparts of space and forage, consuming limited resources, and bringing fewer surviving adults back to the system to keep the population going. And it's for that reason that fish managers should make EVERY attempt to keep these fish off the gravel.

Now don't get me wrong. If the goal of the program is to produce high quality fish for the masses to harvest, great, this is an excellent way to do it. BUT if the mechanism does not exist to prevent those hatchery fish from spawning naturally, then they ought not be planted in the system in the first place. It sounds to me like this is the Achilles heel of the Wilson program as I understand its operation from this thread. Encouraging the hatchery fish to spawn naturally throughout the basin is a losing proposition for the wild native population. Over time, they will suffer the consequences.

Think of it like your stock portfolio. As good as these wild broodstock hatchery fish are, they are under-performers. How long do you hold on to under-performing stocks in your portfolio? Would you continue to invest even more money in those stocks that continued to lose you money to the tune of 15-28% year after year after year?

Yeah, I thought so.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:50 AM   #51
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: at the least be informed

Eyefish, its still better than the old hatchery fish and that was the point I was making. And that is the point of the enite broodstock program. We get more fish per dollar spent, and we get a fish that without a doubt is better for wild fish.

The broodstock program is just a better way of doing things, I think most people can see that. Its not better than wild fish, how could it be? But it provides the best hatchery fish possible with the least impact. Provides a fish for harvest and allows wild fish to do there thing.

Your numbers are created in a bubble. Your numbes are coming from that all the hatchery fish are allowed to intermingle with wild fish. And that is not the case. No consideration that a large number of hatchery fish are caught and killed, and that the majority that don't get caught return to the areas they were intended to. To keep them seperate from wild fish.



Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:04 AM   #52
BCF
Sturgeon
 
BCF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: West Linn
Posts: 3,740
Default Re: at the least be informed

[quote]
Quote:
Think of it like your stock portfolio. As good as these wild broodstock hatchery fish are, they are under-performers. How long do you hold on to under-performing stocks in your portfolio? Would you continue to invest even more money in those stocks that continued to to lose you money to the tune of 15-28% year after year after year?

Yeah, I thought so.
The other analogy would be if you were one of the PGE workers who had their pensions wiped out by Enron.

One could argue that the money left in there accounts is not substantial enough to survive on. Therefore it ought to be dissolved into the settlement of Enrons debts. Leaving them no money.

Or they could settle for say a quarter on the dollar and hope that, that amount of money will sustain them long enough that it might grow into something that will support them in the future.

I'd take the 25 cents over nothing. What would you take?

I thought so.......

BCF
__________________
What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
BCF is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:10 AM   #53
All4TheNookie
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Walla2
Posts: 153
Default Re: For your information. some thoughts to ponder...

so...help me understand. the folks who are posting in support of the conclusions of this report seem to be arguing that any hatchery program degrades the overall system. are you saying "out with the hatcheries" and therefore "out with sport fishing for salmon and steelhead"?
__________________
The less a man makes delcarative statments the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.
All4TheNookie is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:17 AM   #54
Rubber Boot
Chromer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Anchorage AK
Posts: 558
Default Re: For your information. some thoughts to ponder...

Horse
__________________
Rubber Boot is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:19 AM   #55
SSPey
Chromer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 888
Default Re: at the least be informed

Travis, Mike Blouin is a personal friend and colleague of mine. I am well aware of his work, funded by BPA. The funding numbers you quote for his work are, well, wrong. That might be the total budget of something, and it might include his work, but it is pretty far out.

The studies that Benke cites (although only telling one side of the story), give pretty clear reason to be cautious. Genetic studies alone are not the only way to discern impacts, and the Blouin study had problems with discerning parentage (instream vs anadromous) of some of the females.

On top of that, the potential for loss of fitness that Blouin showed is cause enough for being careful and critical on the matter. Eyefish has done an admirable job pointing this out, so at this point you've chosen to believe the single year with 108% and you appear pretty convinced.

As a scientist myself, I suppose I'm not so prone to jumping on this or any bandwagon until there is clear scientific consensus on the issue. Right now, the signs say "proceed with caution because we don't have enough information to generalize."
SSPey is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:32 AM   #56
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

I think everyone on the board agrees that this is a wonderful program for harvest.

I think everyone agrees that the WBS fish are way better than the out-of-basin stock.

I think everyone agrees that the WBS fish are still inferior to wild stock.

The only point of contention left is how damaging they can be to the wild population. Some would like to believe that they are "probably not obviously" going to drag the wild population down.

That is only true if we can assure that virtually ZERO wild spawning by these fish takes place. The fewer of them that do, then the more the "probably not obviously" camp is correct.

The more these fish are allowed to intermingle with wild stocks on the spawning gravel, the greater the danger to the wild population. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it's still the same road whether we putt along at a crawl or cruise faster than the speed limit. How fast are we willing to go?

So what's the bottom line? After considering everything I've read on the matter, I have no problem with these programs as long as the returning hatchery fish are SEGREGATED from wild spawners. Without that assurance, it's all downhill.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:38 AM   #57
All4TheNookie
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Walla2
Posts: 153
Default Re: at the least be informed

so...is the answer to my question YES?
__________________
The less a man makes delcarative statments the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.
All4TheNookie is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 12:17 PM   #58
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,476
Default Re: at the least be informed

The short answer is YES... any hatchery program that allows its returning adults to spawn naturally in the river is degrading the system.

Does that mean hatcheries are bad and that they should all be shut down? NO.

It simply means that "integration" is bad and that "segregation" is the only way to avoid the perils of running a hatchery program. Run right, hatcheries could operate with little or no measurable impact to a healthy wild population.

It matters not to a healthy wild population whether the broodstock for the hatchery is in-basin or out-of-basin. What matters is whether or not the hatchery fish are permitted to co-mingle with wild, thereby degrading the reproductive fitness of the population as a whole. Both in-basin and out-of-basin hatchery fish have the potential to degrade wild populations, the only difference is one will do it faster than the other. And either will do it faster the more of them we allow to stray onto the spawning beds.

After studying this issue with an open mind, I have come to the conclusion that hatcheries operate with the singular goal of supporting harvest.

Anyone who wishes to believe hatcheries can be used to recover depressed wild populations has not read the available science or has conveniently chosen to ignore it. Anyone who claims that a hatchery is being run to save the wild fish is only fooling himself. The only reason to have hatcheries is to have harvest.

As I said earlier, hatcheries are only damaging if we let the hatchery fish spawn in the wild. No intermingling, then no damage, regardless of what broodstock is used. The value of using wild native broodstock is enjoyed by those participating in the fishery.... they get a higher quality fish to catch. There is ZERO value added to the wild population. We could just as easily use the old crappy broodstock, and the benefits to the wild fish would be the same.... ZERO.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking we are somehow helping the wild fish with the wild broodstock programs. We are doing it for us, not for them.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 12:34 PM   #59
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

Very well put Doc
Broodstock programs should be viewed as as harvest fishery only and nothing more.
I think whatever measures that need to be taken to segregate them from wild fish should be done and those precautions are not being taken on the Wilson and Nestucca rivers.
The Wilson broodstock smolt are released all the way up to the South Fork and that is some 28 miles upstream so anyone who fishes the Wilson knows that there is a lot of spawning done on the main river. I've seen it myself!
 
Old 12-04-2005, 12:40 PM   #60
All4TheNookie
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Walla2
Posts: 153
Default Re: at the least be informed

ok. thanks for clearing that up.
__________________
The less a man makes delcarative statments the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.
All4TheNookie is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:02 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.95389 seconds with 74 queries