Check out the link below for a summary of an ODFW report looking at the effect of hatchery spawners on a wild steelhead population. I haven't read the report so I can't comment on exactly how the results were obtained, but it seems pretty discouraging. Pretty much says that all hatchery spawners, broodstock included, are bad for a wild population. This seems anti-intuitive, so I'm gonna see if I can get a look at the report.

By the way, been lurking for a while, but thought this article would be interesting to some people on this board so I took the plunge and registered. I'm looking to actually get out and do some fishing this year instead of fishing vicariously through the people on this board, so hopefully will have more to say in the near future.
LDR

http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/#6

Welcome aboard LDR! And thanks for the interesting article. I knew Mark when I lived in Oregon - good scientist, and I suspect that he is right, for the following reasons:

Basically what happens when you put fish in a hatchery environment is that all the fish with "wild" characteristics, ie: shy of disturbance, terratorial, aggressive towards each other, bothered by overcrowding, etc., wind up dying out, while all those with domestic characteristics, those that follow the fish feeder around and don't mind being crowded and not having any place to hide, survive. Of course, when released, 90+% of them die instantly, either they starve or they get eaten the first time they run up to a heron on the shore to be fed! But those few that do survive pass these domestic characteristics on to their offspring, which, if they are unlucky enough to be born in the wild, are not real good characteristics for survival. Wild fish, on the other hand, since 90+% of them die in the wild before reaching smolt size, are custom made for survival in the wild, being survivors and the best of the best themselves. They will pass this on if given the chance.

I worked with fish in a severely manipulated environment for years (ever hear of Oreaqua?). We could completely change the characteristics of fish populations in one generation by selecting for the characteristis we wanted, like early return and ocean bright condition at return. Salmonids are severely mutable. This is why you can destroy all the wild characteristics in one generation by raising them in a hatchery, and why Mark sees these results.

There are a couple of ways to deal with this. One is to put hatcheries on streams with no habitat left, like those with impassable dams, or those that are gutshot by development, and leave the streams that support wild fish alone. The other way, which is what is done for the most part in Washington, is to have a strain of hatchery fish that spawns too early for any offspring to survive in the wild, and too early for them to outcross with wild fish. This is not a perfect solution - early wild runs of steelhead go extinct for example. Early winter hatchery fish also get mixed up with summer fish, which pretty much spawn at the same time, and produce morphodite runs with horridly compressed timing. Again, the solution is to have summer hatcheries and winter hatcheries but not on the same river. Finally, we need aggressive removal of hatchery fish and complete release of wild fish - lets do what we can to even the odds. And lets give up on sacrificing valuable wild fish in misguided hatchery broodstock programs.

Hey, everybody on this board doesn't go off like this, so don't regret signing up. And go catch some fish - except a trip or two to the OP in my buddy's drift boat I'm into blackmouth for the next few weeks, and then I descend upon the Columbia to do my damndest to remove those 460,000 inferior hatchery spring chinook from the gene pool singlehanded

Thanks for the reply spawnout. I took some time to think about this last night, and I think I understand what's going on. With the hatcheries you no longer have natural selection, like you said the unfavorable traits for survival in the wild are being selected for. Leads to bad news for the population as a whole. I agree, unless there is no habitat available, it is better to let wild fish spawn in the wild. Before moving to Washington last year, I worked for ODFW in Newport so I am a little familiar with Oreaqua. We used to do beach seines near the ladder.
Tight lines!
LDR

Best first post I have seen in my short stay on the fourum!Usual first posts are what river or where are the fish? welcome

I never did understand why fishermen and bioligist figured that wild broodstock were a good thing.The only advantage I saw was the native gene in the broodstock fish instead of an out of town gene in the traditional hatch fish.beyond that it seemed to me that you were taking away from the wild fish that which makes it superior.

There are a couple of rivers here in my neck of the woods that had hatch programs pre 70,s[Washington].The fish from those projects still return like mentioned,before the bulk of the natives.They also still for the most part return to the old hatch site.These fish do not look like the wild fish in these rivers night and day difference.These fish also return with the bulk of the silvers on these rivers,and have to share the spawning reaches with the silvers.These rivers realy only have a few locations to spawn in.Is it posible for steelhead and salmon to comingle during there spawning process?

The Vedder River in B.C. has a broodstock program that seems successful , at least on the surface.

ltl cleo, I think that in a situation where the spawning habitat is limited, the coho and steelhead would compete for spawning sites. Generally steelhead dig deeper redds and spawn later, so there could be danger of the hatchery steelhead digging up the coho redds. The two species usally spawn in different areas, so my guess would be there wouldn't be too much to worry about unless there is very little spawning gravel. But, I don't know the area and if you have seen them in spawning areas at the same time, they are probably competing for redd sites. I just don't know enough about these early runs of hatchery fish, other than they have very poor reproductive success, to make an educated guess of how they interact with coho. It is an interesting question, you should give the WDFW a shout, maybe they can start a research project to give a definitive answer to this question
Get out and fish!

Look at the Satsop or Snyder creek programs and they are doing well, Hmmmm If the scientist didn't have anything to do they wouldn't make a living. I think native brood stock is far better then just a straight hatchery fish..... for one there offspring will have a longer return time which will mean increased opertunity for you and secondly if they should happen to spawn in the system they are really of wild parents anyhow and would not have the same result if a true hatchery spawned in the system with a wild fish....I feel it is a good idea. Just my thoughts

Check out the new Salmon Trout Steelheader. there's an article about the Kalama and the studies they've done on this subject. By reading this it sure dosen't seem to be to large of a problem with the hatchery stocks spawning with wild fish. Even though it might be a small majority it sounds like they're going to use wild broodstock there now. I'm a member of Trout Unlimited in Whatcom county and there used to be a broodstock program on the Nooksack about 12 years ago. The program was prety sucesful but, the state bio's shut it down. Lately we have been working on a new submital to the state to reintroduce it but, we still have the same bio's from the stae in place. The only good point and it is a strong one is that on the Nooksack the tribes get 50% of the hatchery fish. Curently the tribes quit netting about Jan. 15th because the hatchery fish are of the early returning stock. If we were to broodstock the fish would arrive at the same time as Natives and the tribes would net in Feb., March, and April. We all know what would happen to theNatives then. Thanks alot Judge Boldt.

Steelhead and coho rarely use the same water to spawn given the choice - steelhead are mainstem, big water spawners like chinook, and coho prefer to spawn as far up the system and in the tiniest rills possible.

The Snyder and Satsop programs do appear to produce survivors, but both of these systems have decent habitat, large refuge areas, are not netted except at the mouth, and the Satsop is all wild fish release while on the Duc most people release wild fish and bonk the brats. Wild fish populations by and large are already healthy in these systems, and are likely the majority of spawners. This promotes diversity and prevents genetic drift towards undesirable hatchery traits.

Contrast this with those rivers, like the one in the Oregon study, that have mostly hatchery fish and have habitat problems, like dams. Hatchery fish likely comprise the majority on the limited spawning beds most years, thus perpuating domestic traits that lead to lower survival.

Now I ask you this - in a river with good habitat and wild fish release, is a hatchery stock desirable? I would say no, not for the fish but hell yes for the fishermen! That being the case, would it be better for the wild fish to have a hatchery stock that spawned too early to co-mingle with them, or one that spawned right with them. I would say the former. Myself, I like it that way - catch my chrome keepers all in a pile and get the fish processing over with, and fish for fun the rest of the season. I start getting hungry for fresh meat mid-Feb? Well I'm going blackmouth fishing tomorrow

I think the handwriting is on the wall.NO Broodstock Fish capable of spawning with natives.No Hatchery Fish capable of spawning with Natives.No Hatchery's period unless they directly benefit the Tribes or Commercial Fishers in a target fishery.Pessimist ? yep and ALL my predictions over the last 25 years have come true to haunt me.With tight budgets and an aproaching El Nino I will predict that in 4 years your $35,000 jet boat will sell for 8,000-10,000.2 year old drift boats will sell for $2,500.Salmon fishing will be worse than it was in the early 90's Oh yeah most of the hatcheries will be operating at far less than capacity.Broodstock programs will NOT save the sport angler. There are NO successful hatchery programs anywhere in the World.

what is the definition of a 'successful hatchery program'? just curious..

Spawnout where steelhead spawn depends greatly on the riversystem and the fish themselves. I think that the main reason a lot of steelhead are mainstream spawners is because steelhead have been largely eliminated from small tributaries. here on the Washougal river most of the spawning occurs in tributaries, very small tributaries! The same tribs that the coho use. native steelhead in the tributaries below the hatchery hve been pretty much eliminated and wild steelhead above the hatchery are holding their own(barely)
This is the same with most of the river systems I have had the opportunity to look at. Steelhead will spawn anywhere they can find good habitat most of that habitat now occurs in the mainstream.

This is an interesting post and certainly brings out a large list of unanswered questions.
Certainly all of us want to see strong populations of wild fish remain, however, we must also realize that interaction of fish from various locations has gone on forever. Think about it, the salmonid populations we see today, didn't just drop out of the sky and populate all rivers at once, they likely entered mainstem sections and over thousand of years colonized or "strayed" into other areas. ODFW has "wild fish policy" which essentially allows for a small number of "out of basin" fish to stray, any above that get thumped! I have always thought it ironic that if an elk or eagle travels hundreds of miles from one basin to another it's "migration", but if a salmon does this it's "straying"!!

I also find it very hard to believe that one, two,or even 25 yrs of hatchery parenting will effect the long-term gene compliment in offspring. Salmonid fish have adapted to what we see today over literally thousands of years, do you think that a few years in a hatchery is really going to change that much? Every year for many, many, years each of us has been removing the most aggessive biters in the population, are they still biting? Of course they are, so why would this be any different? Some things will not be selected out that easily, natural selection occurs over thousands of years, not over 10 generations. Of course if we select for certain attributes in a population such as size, or return time, we will likely see a big change. But if the fish are collected in a manner that mimics a natural return, from early to late in the cycle, big and little, etc., the entire genetic compliment should remain.

So if a hatchery female and wild male spawn in a river, haven't they both proven themselves worthy? I certainly am an advocate of wild fish but also recognize that I would like to have a chance for myself and others to harvest fish. Some scientists would like to preserve wild populations that are so low none of us or our children will ever see a fishery in these areas.

I might mention that there is some exciting research beginning this year that will evaluate hatchery/wild interaction. Adult fish will be injected with an element that is transferred to the juveniles. Juveniles will then be sacrificed and tested for its presence/absence. If it works as expected, the same test can be done on wild/hatchery interacting populations in real life to determine the level of success for each group, wild to wild, wild to hatchery, hatchery to hatchery, interesting stuff.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

RM

Hey Bilgerat I guess the Vedder in B.C. isn't a succesful hatchery program. It is a broodstock program and the divesity and actions of the hatchery fish do not differ from the natives. They also get fish returning from Dec. to April and fish over 20lbs not bad for hatchery fish. Maybe the WDFW need to learn from the boys to the North.

Bodysurfer hit the nail on the head - "what is a successful hatchery program?"

The tread started with a report from Oregon that hatchery fish are not very successful spawners in the wild. In other words relying on hatchery fish to seed our rivers maybe a flawed approach.

Baitchucker - The fact that the Vedder gets fish back to the river may or may not mean is it a successful program - depends on your definition of a successful program! If it is just to get fish back to the river to catch then it certainly seems to be working. However, I haven't seen any information from BC that is refutes the Oregon findings on the inability of hatchery fish to be productive spawners.

There appears to be growing evidence that two factors need to be considered to evaluate whether a hatchery broodstock can be successfully used to supplement wild production: 1) acceptable genetic backgroud and 2) behavorially adapted to the wild envirnoment. Even when the fish have an acceptable genetic background (wild brood stock) they can still fail (measured as being less productive than naturally produced fish) as natural spawners because the fry/parr/smolts/or adults have "hatchery behaviors" rather than "wild behaviors". This "behavioral problem" is likely related to the length of time spent in the hatchery.

Robert Allen -
Your observations of the steelhead spawning just in the small tribs is interesting. Typcially it is common to see the various salmonids using different portions of a watershed. Cuuthroat seem to most commonly found in the small "step across" tribs, the coho in larger streams (after several "step acrosses" come together. The steelhead downstream of the coho. As with all fish issues there is substanial overlap. Steelhead in most of their range are large trib and mainstem fish. I would define "large trib" as one where more than knee boots would be needed to wade the stream. The other salmon tend to be found in areas than the smaller tribs.

In a typical coastal tributary stream with cutthroat, coho, and steelhead the fish distribution typicaly all cutthroat in the headwater areas, then cuthroat/coho, then coho, then coho/steelhead and finally steelhead. The above assumes that all three are relatively healthy stocks. If some reason one is lacking or severely depressed then the others will fill in the void. For example if coho were missing then one would expect to see the cutthroat distribution extend downstream and the steelhead upstream.

Tight lines
Smalma

That article is written by Bill Bakke (former leader of Oregon Trout). Oregon Trout would like to see all hatcheries shut down and stop all harvest of salmonids! No matter what the majority of people want.

In fact hatcheries have existed in Oregon for over 100 years. In many cases wild steelhead returns remain strong in the very same rivers that get the most hatchery fish. On the other hand many rivers that have never had hatchery programs also have weak wild runs. I find it hard to believe hatcheries are that detrimental to Wild fish and the evil a few extremist would like to make them out to be.

BilgeRat aka Summer steelhead Steve,
Thats the third time I have seen you make that statement yet you never seem to be able to define what is a succsesful hatchery program? Please explain the wordwide failure of all hatchery programs, as they seem to be working just fine from my perspective. They do provide over 75% of all harvestable fish in Oregon you know!

Don't hatchery and wild/native fish spawn during completely different times of the year? I didn't read the whole article, but it seems like hatchery fish that are spawning in December/January and then leave would be little bother for a native that is spawning in March/April.

Hatchery winter steelhead do on average spawn earlier than natives, but some overlap occurs. If summer steelhead are present, they may spawn at the same time and interbreed. Keep in mind, one of the biggest problems with hatchery steelhead and salmon is that the rivers have a limited capasity to harbor all the juvenille salmonids. If you throw 100,000 hatchery smolts into a section of river with say, 5,000 wild smolts, you've just decreased the wild smolts' ability to eat, hide and survive.
Another factor that has been well documented in rainbow trout is that fish stocks from different basins have differing genetic resistance to diseases. Oregon's Metolius River is a prime example. Before the stocking of hatchery trout was discontinued in the mid 90's, ODFW documented a 75% decrease in genetic resistance to a particular parasite found in the area, in wild rainbow trout. They were able to document this by comparing wild fish above and below an impassible falls which the hatchery trout could not get below. Since discontinuing the hatchery program, the wild trout population in the upper Metolius has strongly rebounded. Steelhead are genetically identical to rainbow trout, so the same genetic disease resistance problem is believed to occur with them.
I've got to say, I find it disturbing and hard to accept that so many people dispute that hatchery fish stocks harm wild fish stocks. To a large extent, it's obvious and logical. If you disturb the natural order of things, you're going to disturb the natural order of things. I can except that some people want more (hatchery fish) and other people want better (wild) fish. To deny that one type has an effect on the other is to deny basic laws of science (for every action, there is a reaction).
This brings up my final point : Why don't we leave it up to the fisheries biologists to decide fisheries issues. Contrary to what a lot of fishermen think, they really do know a lot about fish. Those fisheries biologists that I know personally are all over this issue (with real science, not Fisherman-Joe's personal opinion. Their opinions deserve our attention and respect.

Dr. Waechter,

Very good post, disease resistance is only one of the many negative impacts hatchery fish can have on a wild population. As to the joe-fishermen remarks it is my personal belief that when given all the correct information regarding salmonid lifecycles and hatchery production most joe-fishermen types can make a good decision. Bad information, poor science, and politics have created some of the most stupid decisions of all time and they were made by biologists…

Everyone needs to get involved with these issues…

POS Clerk

Regarding the "joe fisherman" remarks, thank you Wild Chrome. I am a fisheries biologist, and have made my living as such for the last ten years. In my business, everyone is an expert. If a person is not feeling well, they might ask a doctor what's wrong, and generally if he or she provides an answer they listen. But in my profession, everyone knows better than the scientists/biologists what's wrong with the fish and how best to fix them.

It's important to realize that biologists are working within the confines of the political sytem. How else could the Corps of Engineers come up with a "no take" ruling for mainstem dams? Do you sincerely believe that biologists working for the COE, NMFS, and USFWS, feel that a monstrous cement structure impeding all natural migration is a good thing?

It's very clear to all biologists what needs to be done to restore fish. Remove all dams, eliminate all water withdrawals and pollutants, restore all riparian coridors and upland areas, and stop all fisheries. The reality of things, however, is that people are not going away and certain things such as the need for electricity, roads, railroads, irrigation, industry, etc., are here to stay. The trick is finding a balance, a strategy that will recover fish but not take too much away from our way of life. Unfortunately, there are also a great number of emotions involved with fisheries because of Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act that must be considered. Landowners, loggers, farmers, and industry are now feeling threatened by laws that may "change their way of life" for the sake of "fish and wildlife".

A coworker of mine said it best when he likened being a biologist to a being a mechanic. This mechanic though can do anything he likes to make the car run better except he cannot open the hood and get at the motor. New wheels, new paint job, new stereo, seats, etc. Now we've spent all this money on the car and it still doesn't run worth a damn, hmmm, sound familiar?

RM