Why does "wild' steelhead appear to survive better then hatchery fish, or do they really?

We all know about the "habitat", interaction, and competition issues, but do we all know about what happens when a hatchery fish gets a body part removed?

We all know that numerous studies appear to show that wild steelhead apparently appear to survive better then hatchery fish, but is there other reasons why they survival is better?

Most of the studies that I have seen require that the "hatchery fish" are the ones who always have had their fins or body parts cut off "in the long term" studies. Do you think that over the years, that the cutting off of these body parts has turned the scales between hatcheries vs. wild survival rates, and if so why? Anybody have any science that shows how the cutting of fins or body parts off affects the survival of that species?

Do some species survive better then others do?

This tread IS NOT about hatchery vs. wild fish, it's about science only! So please bring in the science, and not your emotion, so that we all can all make our own judgments on the facts that we read!

I have spent over two years in a Fishery Technical Team (FTT) during the relicensing of the Cowlitz River and have worked with numerous biologists from WDFW, NMFS, USFWS, and Tribes. Never once, have I they fully answered this question. Isn't it about time that we all know what some of the "answers" really are?

P.S. Who ever "Chuck" is out there, lets see if this time he's got the balls to join in and contribute his vast world of unlimited knowledge on this issue.

Worse scenario, we may all learn something new!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook???

Good way to approach this cowlitz....

Based on the studies I have read ,just as hatchery fish survive poorly in the wild , wild steelhead survive poorly in the hatchery setting.

The hatchery process weeds out genes that are adapted to life in the wild by thoes fish not surviving, all of the wild survival traits are breed out of the hatchery stock and the problem gets worse with each generation in the hatchery until there are none of thoes traits left and we are left with a hatchery fish that is maladapted to life in the wild. this is all based on studies done on the kalama and Deschutes rivers if you'd like me to post the actual studies I will..
tight lines
Rob

After the great hatchery returns this year and then the slow return of our natives one has to wonder

I just spent three weeks at the quilicene National salmon hatch clipping addys to get a look inside.

CF, you are right about getting a the state or the US people dierectly involved in the hatcheries to give you the whole picture.I think it is a mix of old school and job preservation.

There is nothing in the hatchery program to prepare a hatch fish for wild survival.There is nothing to recreate a river in its natural state exept water current.No cover, wild food,wild predation,and way to much human intervention.The hatchery fish have become pets of sorts for the first part of there life.I am sure that after generations of breeding and being raised in the hatchery envirement that the weeker fish have become the prominant fish.The reasons are obvious and have been stated before.

I think that the fin clipping process adds to this scenario even more.When you are a kid you dread going to the doctor for a shot as you are generally deathly afraid of getting a shot.As you grow older you get used to getting a shot and it becomes easiar...

I tried once as a kid to put wild fish into an aquarium in my bedroom.This aqariaum was a long fifty gallon with a pump for current and substrate from the creek that I grew up on and the smolt came from.The first batch that I put into the aquarium jumped out the first night.I put a top on the aquarriaum and added some more.All I heard all night was
thump...thump..of the fish trying to get out of there.Putting a wild fish fry straight into a hatchery enviro is going against all its instincts.It would surely suffer if not die from the stress.

I talked to a bio on the op this week that had an interesting point concerning hatchery fish actually raising the natural predator population by not having the wild survival instincts.Abundant,easy food is going to suport a larger population.

I dont think that the fish are adapting to a hatchery as much as the fish with the weaker survival instincts have survived and the fish with th strongest survival instincts have not been able to handle the stress of the hatchery enviro.You walk up to a raceway full of the coho smolt and the fish would swim right up to you hoping for food...scary.Cast your shadow on a wild smolt and it will bolt for cover.A fish with those instincts cannot survive in a hatchery.If it does it has lost a crucial reaction for survival in the wild.

I do agree that they do have the ability to adapt back to a wild enviro though as I have seen a hatchery run become a wild run on my home stream.They have diferant behavior patterns from the wild fish in the stream that clearly reflect there hatchery rearing in there instincts.I can't seem to find a state bio that wants to have anything to do with this,they do not even want to talk about it..funny.

With present purpose of hatchery fish how much do we actually want to change this present scenario?I see the present purpose of hatchery fish as a subsidy to supply the demand of our ever growing population.We have more people wanting less and less fish.As our wild stocks decline and become extinct the role of the hatchery fish will change.That is where the facts from discusions like these will become important.Of course it will take a billion dollars of studys to discover these answers!

And yet the fish geneticists tell us there is no discernable difference in the genotypic characteristics of these fish. They are, by all available genetic and immunochemical tests, absolutely identical.

ltlcleo,
Check your PM. I sent you some info about Ixtapa. You never read it.

Thumper I would like to see a scientific paper that supports that.

I've been helping on a natural rearing channel for coho. A lady from nmfs came out and sampled the naturally reared fish vs. the hatchery fish for color. She determined that there was a significant difference in the color between the two groups of fish. If hatchery fish have never been in a dark environment like most of them haven't then they don't have the ability to darken up like naturally reared fish. Fish that have been in a natural environment have the ability to both lighten and darken up so they can blend in better. I'm too tired to go on about the differences.

~ Dr Pepper

Rob, I question a couple of your comments.... first, just because critters adapt to thrive in one environment doesn't necessarily mean they lose all capability of surviving in the other, does it? I can't imagine it's a straight across exchange, one environment for another. I'm not pulling from data, I'm speculating. Can you corroborate, or prove otherwise?

Secondly, isn't it a good thing that hatchery fish do poorly in the wild? We don't want those whimpy things spawning, do we? I guess my question is driven by your comment about it getting "worse" with each generation. Seems to me that in a river with both hatchery and native fish, as long as we keep them separated (maybe that's where you're thinking we're failing), we've got nothing to worry about.

Again, cowlitzfisherman gots me thinking again, dammit.

According to thoes few published EX fisheries bios who are not genetisists... They can and do on a continual basis tell hatchery fish from wild fish via genetic testing.
they are genetically the same asn you and I are genetically the same. However your genes may make you more resiliant to certain conditions ald less resilliant in others.
For instance a person who is fair skin is not adapted to lots of direct sunlight and may be at more of a risk for certain skin diseases caused by excessive sun. If that person mates with someone who is also fair skinned and that continues to happen throughout the generation you'll develop a race of humans who are increasingly vulnerable to sunlight. They'd still genetically be human and very similar to us but their genetic traits would make them not survive as well in constant direct sun..

That is what has happened to our hatchery stocks. We have unknowingly selected fish that are geneticallt "designed" for life in a hatchery and they do wonderfully there. but as soon as they are turned loose in the river they have a poor survival traits. They when they spawn in the wild their offspring have no choice but to be of the same genetic makeup that does not allow them to survive in the wild..

Hmm i don't know if i explained that well but I tried..

Skywalker there really isn't a way to keep them seperate; there will have to be some overlap. Over time we have selected for early returning fish and they became somewhat seperated by time. I caught colored up hatchery coho in the Dungeness this year above the hatchery that were probably going to spawn in the river. Below the hatchery I've watched hatchery coho spawn in the side channels.

~ Dr Pepper

To the original question, you can look at it this way. Wild salmon and steelhead represent the surviving offspring of fish that survived in wild surroundings, most relevantly the spawning and stream rearing habitat. Hatchery salmon and steelhead represent the surviving offspring of fish that were bred in concrete ponds with nets overhead to keep predators away, with food delivered at regular intervals and diseases controlled by antibiotics. Each one is the result of fish that survived, and therefore lived to pass on it's genes, traits, and characteristics to its' young. Compare it to a society where, if you killed off everyone who wasn't blond, in a few generations you would not expect very many blond children. In hatcheries, fish that get scared when people throw food at them become pretty scarce.

This is like asking why a a new York City Catholic High School freshman is going to have a harder time surviving in the Serengeti plains than an African Bushman. One is native to the territory, one isn't. Doesn't mean that the other is bad or wrong, just more likely to get eaten by a predator.

And, if you take the Bushman, and turn him loose in the Concrete Jungle aka hatchery, he is likely to do poorly as well.

Returning from the metaphoric frenzy for a moment, individual wild fish have often done poorly in a hatchery setting, which has resulted in the hatchery strains either intentionallly or accidentally having been bred for hatchery tolerance. This has meant that the hatchery strains don't get as stressed by the appearence of predators, they tolerate crowding, and they aren't as aggressive towards each other as wild fish. Thse traits contribute to survival in a hatchery, but they may not be the best traits for survival in the wild.

Now, to the geneticists saying that these fish (wild and hatchery) are indistinguishable. I must marvel at the statements I have recently seen quoted, that the biologists can't distinguish between the fish. Is this perhaps similar to saying that Ray Charles can't distinguish between a blonde and a redhead?

Biologists can't look at Ichiro's cells and tell us why he plays baseball so well. They can't tell us why Tger Woods plays good golf, or why he likes to wear red on Sunday. They can't look at Brittany Spears' genes and tell us why she's vapid. They struggle to locate the most basic of recessive and dominant genetic traits on our, people's, chromosomes. They can't tell the difference, genetically, between wild fish and hatchery fish, because they are blind as the proverbial bat in these matters. They conveniently omit this fact when trying to sway our opinions.

So, before you take that statement too seriously, think about whether these folks have told you that they can differentiate between a Holstein and an Angus cow genetically.

Because they can't.

What's the difference? Coupla minor things. One gives high milk production, low meat production, and looks like the Gateway commercial. The other hardens your arteries with great steaks and burgers, and is red or black. And they are indistinguishable by the folks who would tell you that wild and hatchery steelhead are indistinguishable.

Not everything that is worthwhile can be measured.

Not that I have an opinion or anything.

Cowlitz - You pose some interesting questions, many of which have been debated at length on this BB and around the PNW for years. The debate is not likely to end anytime soon for reasons that you've probably already recognized. That is, the science surrounding these issues is not clear, at times conflicting, and is open to differing interpretations. But then again, virtually all science is subject to the same limitations. Fishery science is no different. Additional research will help answer the questions but it will also likely engender new questions which we haven't thought of and may be as important from a management perspective.

Having said that, I will try to provide you with my view. Note: These are not scientific facts, just one biologist's view based on a reading of those facts.

Regarding fin clipping (or as you say "removing body parts"). Up until the past several years, most hatchery fish were not clipped. A percentage have almost always been marked for management purposes but for practical purposes, most were indistinguishable from wild fish. Recently, mass marking of all coho and steelhead has become an important management tool. Chinook will be next. Fin clipping does not appear to have adversely affected overall suvival. However, this doesn't mean they aren't affected by the extra handling/clipping. But it doesn't seem to show up in the form of additional mortality.

Do wild fish survive better than hatchery fish? The answer is yes and no. The consensus answer seems to be yes since wild fish are better adapted to their environment. That's reasonable and is backed up by studies on the Deschutes and Kalama Rivers. But if that's the case, why do we have so many more hatchery adults? If hatchery fish don't survive as well, why are we swimming in hatchery fish in some tribs? Clearly they seem to be doing quite well while the wild ones are not. Plus, we cannot ignore that for a significant portion of their life history, both wild and hatchery fish are subject to the exact same environmental conditions. For example, wild fish have no more or less experience in an ocean environment than a hatchery fish. In fact, if the hatchery fish are released after they've reach the smolt stage and are migrating downstream, both wild and hatchery are experiencing conditions which niether have encountered or are experienced for. So why should there be a difference?

My view is that our rivers and streams can no longer support viable populations of native salmonids regardless of whether they're hatchery or wild. That's the problem. Hatcheries can resolve the survival issue for those limited species that are raised in a hatchery. But for everything else, they're sunk. So let's use hatcheries to rebuild the wild runs, let's improve the stream habitat for all fish and aquatic species, and minimize or eliminate fishing mortality on the wild (unclipped) fish.

On an unrelated note, I noticed that FERC issued a 35-year license for the Cowlitz Project last week. I read the license order but couldn't really determine what is being improved. Perhaps in a different thread you might be able to enlighten the membership on what Tacoma will be required to do in the future. It's hard to believe that Mossyrock and Mayfield were relicensed with hardly a word.

Cohoangler,

I can relate to your way of thinking. Good job!

I have to take the wife out tonight, but tomorrow, I will extrapolate on what you have given to this board to think about tonight! Anybody else, feel free to jump in with your commits too!

Let's see if we can "separate science" from "emotion" and resolve a part of this ongoing problem!

People, please re-read what "Cohoangler" comments were.

P.S. This guy, "Cohoangler" could become dangerous to this boards way of thinking. Again, good job Cohoangler!

"On an unrelated note, I noticed that FERC issued a 35-year license for the Cowlitz Project last week. I read the license order but couldn't really determine what is being improved. Perhaps in a different thread you might be able to enlighten the membership on what Tacoma will be required to do in the future. It's hard to believe that Mossyrock and Mayfield were relicensed with hardly a word."

Cohoangler, after our (CPR-Fish, Friends of the Cowlitz, and the Cowlitz Tribes) hearing with the PCHB on April 11, 2002, I will be more then glad to bring you and this board up to speed on what is happening to the Cowlitz.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

Thanks Cowlitz. However, I'm just following in the footsteps of another member who has a knack for providing information that doesn't always sit well on this BB - Salmo g. We would all do well by reading his posts very carefully.

Since my e-mail/Internet here at work has been off line for the past three months, I haven't been able to keep up on what's been happening on the BB. But we're up and running again so I'll continue to chat. If you ever get out, I can usually be found somewhere on the Kalama River.