This has been brought up on a tangent before, but can one of you guys/gals who are much smarter than me answer a question. The hatchery fish are less successful at spawing in a natural environment, right? So those of us who are anal retentive about C&R are not really doing much to support the runs by releasing clipped (hatchery) fish, so the logic goes. I caught a bright steelie on the lower Cowlitz last week, adipose fin intact. But there are not supposed to be any native steelhead on the Cow?? I released the fish, but is it a native, or simply an escapee? Bottom line, if we release even the clipped fish, AFTER the hatchery has their quota, will these fish reproduce naturally? I'm NOT, repeat NOT, trying to start another pissing contest here; just trying to get the facts straight. Knowledge is power, if they can reproduce with some success, maybe more of us will be willing to (preachin' now) limit our kill and not kill our limit. Mr/Ms/Mrs fisheries biologist, please enlighten us. -`

I hope I can keep it short and sweet. You basically have 3 types of fish. Lets use the Skykomish as a example. In the Sky you have 1-hatchery clipped fish 2- wild fish, which are dirived from hatchery fish spawning and possibly intermingling with natives 3-native, evolved specificlly for that stream or drainage over the coarse of thousands of years. The problem is when these 3 groups intermingle and spawn succesfully. It is thought that geneticlly inferior hatchery fish dont spawn as well as native fish. For example, a hatchery(skamania)summer run spawns with a wild tolt summer fish. This is weakening the gene pool of a fish that has evolved for running and succesfully spawning in the tolt specificlly. The gray area is with wild fish, how much of its genetic make-up is from inferior hatchery fish? You or I dont know. I do see on the sky though that there has been a middle ground with wild fish. It seems to me many of the wild skamania fish have done well to adapt in a short time frame. Remeber fish with fins intact perfectly probably are much more aware of there surrounding due to the fact they still had to fend for themself from as soon as they hatched, much like a native. Well its late and I'm sure I left some info out I hope you "catch my drift." This whole thread is why many of the SMART hatcheries are now using native brood stock. And thats a whole new topic.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: BK ]

I do not know if there are no natives on the Cow, but here is one possible explanation of how a native showed up on that river. It may have not been a native. If that river system uses those new machines to clip the adipose fins, rather then manually having a person clip them by hand, it clips alot of them short and they actually grow back making you think it was a wild steelhead. At least that was how it was explained to me by a gentleman I met on the river who worked for the Oregon hatchery system for eight years.

We have been wondering how many hatchery fish miss getting clipped. This year during the salmon season there were a ton of steelhead smolts in the rivers that had their fins intact that I know were just released. Makes me wonder if some fish are being let go with fins intact in a backdoor effort to pump up the wild fish counts and keep them off the endangered species list. ???? Probably not true but something to talk about when your in a drift boat for 10 hours.

For a simple answer, there are wild reproducing steelhead in the Cow. Native is not the word I would use, but certainly wild. If the fish you caught was wild or hatchery is anyone's guess.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT. EVOLUTION TAKES THOUSANDS OF YEARS, JUST CHECK OUT YOUR TAIL BONE. SO I WONDER WHAT THE REAL EFFECTS OF MIXING THE HATCHERY, WILD, & NATIVE FISH ARE? I'M GUESSING WE HAVE ONLY BEEN RAISING & PLANTING FISH FOR LESS THAN 50 YEARS OR SO. IS IT REALLY SO BAD? I HAVE ALSO CAUGHT UNCLIPPED FISH BUT THE DORSAL & TAIL WERE WORN OUT LIKE THEY WERE IN A HATCHERY POND. AND THOSE UNCLIPPED WILD FISH FROM THE COWLITZ THAT WERE IN GOOD SHAPE. I REALLY LIKE THE NATIVE BROOD STOCK PROGRAM, THEY SEEM BIGGER & STRONGER.

The East Fork Toutle has one of the only healthy wild steelhead runs left in that region. If you guys catch wild fish in the lower Cow they are most likely headed there. The yearly winter escapement on the E. Toutle is like 1,500 fish. I know it has wild summerruns too but I dont know how many.

Also known as the South Fork Toutle, right? The winter run in the winter's bigger than in the summer? Huh, didn't know that,cool. I know there's hatchery summers in there, but is there a hatchery run in the winter too?

It was proved with studies off the Umpqua river that native fish will enter other rivers than their own before returning to there true home river. It's quite possible that the fish you caught could have been destined for another river. It's sort of like some tributaries in the gorge. I've banked some real nice (native, wild?) summerruns in rivers there that according to the game department doesn't have a true native run. Follow me? In other words the fish you caught may have been destined for the lewis system, klickitat, or upper columbia regions...
As for the wild, native debate we can all make analagies of the situation, but who know's what really happens!
Keith

From NW Fishletter

[6] NEW PAPER RAISES QUESTIONS OVER FISH FITNESS

The use of hatcheries to supplement wild salmon populations is spreading throughout the Northwest as fish agencies and tribes attempt to restore salmon and steelhead populations listed under the End***ered Species Act. But the ultimate value of this strategy is still hotly debated, and a recent paper on the subject looks at the genetic tradeoffs such efforts can bring about.

Published in a recent issue of the ICES Journal of Marine Science, authors R.R. Reisenbichler and S.P. Rubin say that hatchery supplementation will reduce the productivity of naturally reproducing salmon. Recognition of its negative aspects may lead to restricted use of supplementation strategies, better conservation, and better evaluation.

The authors focus on just one of the negative effects from artificial propagation: genetic ch***es that reduce population fitness or natural propagation. Fitness is a term used to describe those factors important for the survival of the fish throughout their life cycle. Reductions in fitness reduce the productivity and viability of a population for natural rearing, the authors say, but these "potential hazards have not been universally accepted as real or relevant to management of Pacific salmon."

The authors note that two published studies and three in progress have shown that the survival of hatchery fish was less than that for wild fish. When developing survival models, fish management agencies routinely factor in a reduced survival rate for hatchery fish, based on survival information that shows wild fish survive at twice the rate of hatchery fish.

"All five of the studies in natural streams," says the paper, "suggest that same conclusion: hatchery programs that rear steelhead or chinook salmon for one year or longer before release genetically ch***e the population and thereby reduce reproductive success when these fish spawn in natural systems." These results are consistent and confirm eight other studies summarized in their report, the authors indicate.

"In view of this consistency, one conclusion seems obvious: substantial genetic ch***e in fitness results from traditional artificial propagation of anadromous salmonids held in captivity for one-quarter or more of their life," say the authors. "These conclusions imply that (hatchery) supplementation (wherein wild fish interbreed with hatchery fish of reduced fitness) will reduce the productivity of naturally spawning populations, and often may compromise conservation objectives."

The authors note that evaluation of hatchery steelhead showed, with time, that juvenile hatchery fish survival continued to decline compared to wild steelhead, which suggests that the fitness of the next generation would be low even before hatchery and wild fish have a chance to interbreed; and "continuous supplementation should progressively diminish the productivity (adult progeny per female) of the naturally spawning population."

Continued supplementation may reduce productivity of a population to such a degree that it is dependent on supplementation and cannot replace itself. This could defeat the conservation purpose of hatchery supplementation--to increase natural production.

The authors note one chinook salmon population suffered reduction in fitness after four generations in the hatchery, despite continuous gene flow from the wild population, where the wild fish made up 38 percent of the hatchery brood stock. Fitness in steelhead was diminished after only two generations, and numerous studies are showing a substantial ch***e in fitness in the first generation of hatchery rearing.

They recommend taking a number of actions to minimize or slow the loss of fitness in hatchery operations, but they conclude by saying, "The only responses known to substantially reduce the problem are restricting the number of hatchery fish and restricting the number of populations supplemented, i.e., designating a substantial proportion of the viable wild populations to remain completely wild." -B. B.

(Source: Reisenbichler, R.R. and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic ch***es from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56:459-466).

Regardless of wheather hatchery fish can reproduce in the wild it's not good to have hatchery fish spawning with wild fish. Therefore if you keep all the unclipped steelhead you catch you are doing a good thing for wild fish...
On that same token with the inability to know where an unclipped fish came from it's best to let it go and in most cases that is what is required by law.

In other words keep all the clipped fish you want there is no biological reason to ewlwase them and don't keep any unclipped..

some more food for thought:

For those of you that know the south fork of the sky. know that the WDFD reports a large number of native fish being shipped over sunset falls each summer. I may be wrong but it seems to me that there were never native fish that passed over sunset falls. thus a large number of hatchery fish have taken to the uninhabited upper river quite well. And most importantly: Perhaps this does no harm since the river was uninhabited when they introduced the hatchery strain.

Thanks for all of the replies. I think Keta's response which cites scientific studies makes it pretty clear that the hatcheries aren't doing us any favors in the long run.
Tight lines.

You need to remember that reseach scientists are paid by some group[private or gov.] and most have an agenda, some facts are sometimes left out.

Jerry G,
I agree with your statement that scientific studies can be influenced by the groups that commission them. The way to cast doubt on a scientific study is to research who financed the study and to point out their agenda and why their agenda would benefit from the results of the study. I think it is only fair that each study be looked at individualy for bias toward the organization that finaced it, and not suspect all studies becuase they are financed. If you have info on why or how the above studies are biased I would be interested in reading it.

A new development in the hatchery/wild/ESA salmon controvercy. http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr132.html#1
If hatchery fish are counted in with wild fish will we still be able to catch them? The future of wild salmon and steelhead in the PNW look bleaker every day.

Perhaps more directly on point:
I havent boated many steelhead in the Cowlitz, the only fish I've caught had intact adipose fins. Supposedly there are no natives in the river, but there may be wild fish.
Last winter I caught my biggest steelhead ever; a pristine, bright 18# buck, all fins intact. No pen or net scars, absolutely nothing to make me think it had ever seen a rearing pond or pen. I released him.
The next week, I caught a 6 or 7# fish, obviously a hatchery fish, pen scars, etc., but had an intact adipose. It got released, also.
Those were the only steelhead I got all year.
If I understand the reg's, it was legal to keep both fish, but there was, (and still is) some doubt. I've never asked anyone, and never looked at anyone else's catch in the Cowlitz, but I dont believe the hatchery there clips fins.
Any feedback?
It's about 4 weeks till my first trip of the winter, and I'm getting hungry...

A few years back I caught a hatchery steelhead on the lower Kalama that had a tag on a fin, a biologists checked the fish later in the day and told me that as far as he knew the tag wasn't from the Kalama hatchery, he said its possible for a fish headed up river to mill around in other tribs posibbly looking for cooler water then the main Columbia flows, if this is true, its possible those unclipped fish are headed elsewhere,just milling around till the urge hits them to move on. Just a thought.

Lot's of interesting thoughts, ideas, and information on this thread. If there is one thing I don't like it's fish that has been in the freezer too long. So, I don't keep any more fish than we can eat or smoke, right away. My thought is, never keep a steelhead with an intact adipose, and only keep as many clipped ones as you can actually use. I don't see any harm at all in releasing hatchery stock, they can always make someone else's day when they get caught again. Keeping every hatchery fish, just because it is a hatchery fish, is kinda like the, gulp dare I say it, snaggers usually do it. I don't really care for the idea of "over consumption" being the rule of thumb
I like the hunt and the battle, a freezer full of "burnt" fish flesh is not for me, thanks.