This information was included in presentation by Bill McMillan and thought it interesting for for sharing.

The economics of hatchery programs: "What you spend is what you get". WDFW is heavily invested in hatchery programs, much more so than in habitat/wild stock programs. In the early 1990's, WDFW was spending about $26 million a year on hatchery steelhead programs, but only about $1.5 million on wild fish programs.

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me one bit.

While I'm not a supporter of the elimination of all hatcheries ... I think the opportunities they create in some situations are definitely a big boost for the angling public.

But hatchery fish will never be an adequate replacement for wild fish where the runs are still viable.

$24.5 million disparity between the two programs?? It shouldn't cost that much to figure out that in some cases reducing harvest on the wild stocks is probably all that's necessary!

What was even more staggering was the number that Bill gave that covered 25 years or so of hatchery production.

Dont remember the exact number but I believe there is over a billion dollar disparity between money spent on hatchery production and money spent on habitat restoration.

Just imagine how much better shape our wild salmoninds would be in, if that disparity was not so damn large...

...and for those that regularly attend the WSC meetings, you know what comment I get in every meeting when the WDFW is brought up "...its because they are b*stards!"

I just wanted to throw this into the mix but any river that has hatchery(s) that produce steelhead have probably eliminated most if not all of the wild fish on that particular river(s) in Washington and other states. What is a wild fish now-a-days? Hatcheries have been around for about 25 years and have produced cycle after cycle of steelies. Interbreeding different strains of fish from different rivers etc. Those wild fish that do return (some of which are wild on certain rivers and streams) have the genetics of hatchery fish or a different strain alltogether. Not only that but those that spawn naturally have most likely spawned with a hatchery fish. In fact I know of many rivers that produce steelies and dont clip the fins of some, or just plain miss them. Which brings me to another point. What is the difference between native and wild fish. I would say that a native would be a "true to strain fish" in that particular river, since who knows when. A wild fish on the other hand can be catergorized as what? An "in betweener." Most likely yes. Dont get me wrong some rivers still have substansal runs of wild fish, but I am afraid that the true native fish are long gone.

I will say this as well... hatcheries are great. They can be wonderful things when ran correctly and the people working them care about what they do. They have provided many oppurtunities on many rivers. Take the Cowlitz for example. Lots of fish return every year and the Cowlitz remains the top steelhead river in the state with some exceptionally huge metalheads. The funding, i agree is split incorrectly. It sure would be nice if more money was allotted to hatchery programs and funding would quit getting cut. Anyhow thats, thats.

Pautzke

I kind of have to agree with you on this one!

Cowlitzfisherman

Pautzke,
while many people believe that decades of hatchery production has eliminated truly "native" steelhead in Washington, have you ever seen evidence that this is true? Recent peer-reviewed research into the success of hatchery fish at spawning in the wild shows that hatchery origin spawners are extremely ill-suited to natural reproduction. Such studies have been done on Forks Creek WA, the Kalama River, and in several Oregon streams. All the studies are finding the same thing: hatchery "strays" produce fewer offspring than the adults that spawned them. If that holds for successive generations of hatchery origin fish, those "family trees" have dead end branches.
Hatchery fish have been selectively bred to return and spawn in December and January, great for life in the hatchery but apparently not suited to natural reproduction. There are some obvious ecological reasons for the bulk of the native/wild fish spawning in March-April-May (avoiding winter floods, cold stream temps, etc.). There are likely a lot of not so obvious reasons for this preferred spawn timing.
Do you (does anyone?) really believe that the bright 20-30lb unclipped fish folks catch in March and April are from hatchery strays?

NM

I am concerned about what you have stated to "Pautzke"


You have stated ; "While many people believe that decades of hatchery production has eliminated truly "native" steelhead in Washington, have you ever seen evidence that this is true?"

Well yes, according to the genetic tests that WDFW have supposedly done on the Cowlitz, I have to say yes! If not, pleases tell and explain to us what the hell happen on the Cowlitz if that isn't true? Even "Salmo G" has pretty well stated that the "early" native run of winter run steelhead have been tonally wiped out by the introduction of hatchery stock of chamber Creek fish.

Come on Salmo, let hear the BS now!

I will wait to hear your explanation before I go on any further!

Cowlitzfisherman

CF, I didn't mean to imply that we haven't lost *any* native steelhead stocks, because there seems to be plenty of evidence that some are gone. What I have a hard time believing is the notion that we have lost *all* native steelhead in Washington state.

Seems pretty clear that the early native winter-runs on most Washington streams have taken a beating. It shouldn't be that surprising given the exceptionally high harvest rates for November-February that are typical on Washington streams. Those harvest rates are thought to be appropriate for hatchery fish, but are way too high for a naturally spawning population. Perhaps inbreeding between hatchery and wild fish has also contributed to the declines of the early returning fish, but overfishing has surely been a big factor.

I hope Salmo chimes in on this too...

NM

Replies such as yours are more than welcome with me! I have no problem with fair and reasonable positions such as yours.

But…

You just stated "Those harvest rates are thought to be appropriate for hatchery fish, but are way too high for a naturally spawning population. Perhaps inbreeding between hatchery and wild fish has also contributed to the declines of the early returning fish, but overfishing has surely been a big factor." You are dead right NM!

Yes, over fishing has been a "factor" but who do you think really contributed to that "over factor". Do you really believe that sport fishers are the ones, or do you believe like many of us do; the "commercials" are the ones (well, maybe a few crazy Indians tribes depending on the water shed that you are talking about) are the real ones to blame?

Grant it, we all play a part in the decline of our fish runs, but just look at the overall numbers of fish that are harvested each year and by whom they are harvested by! Sport fishermen normally have the ability to harvest selective fish and release the ones that are not meant to be harvested. What other fishers have such ability? It will certainly not happen in any kind of a "net fishery"…right?

Can you explain how that works in a "commercial fishery" or any type of other fishery?

Don't give up; my reply to your post is only a questioner one, becuase I need to see where you are going!

Making minds think is our biggest chanledge.

If Salmo, is out there, I am more than sure that he will jump in and voice is opinion...and that's a good thing!

Cowlitzfisherman.

Well here we go NW. Let talk aobut the Kalama since I am more familar with that river than any other. First I will say do you believe everything you hear, especially by people that work for our government? I hope not because they do control the masses... Anyhow back to the Kalama. I will say that my cousin worked for the Kalama hatcheries for years and now works on the Lewis so with that ..... I will stand by what I said and repeat that in almost every single situation where hatchery fish have been intorduced, native strains have been in every way diminished.

On the Kalma they have a program which is a WILD broodstock program. They produce fish from the wild fish they catch at the trap and created a "broodstock". These fish have the genetic makeup of hatchery and wild fish. THese fish do not return until late winter, early spring as do the wild fish. If you did not know all fish are pretty much stopped not once but twice at fish traps throughout the course of the river. Here, regardless of wild or hatchery, they are handled a tremedous amount while being measured, weighed , scale sampled and recorded. Not something a wild fish should have to endure.

Anyhow these broodstock fish, are released above the second trap at the 2nd hatchery along with all of the wild fish. These fish will now go toward kalama falls and Gobar creek to spawn "together", integrating genetics with eachother over the past umpteen years...

How can they tell the difference between wild fish and broodstock you may ask, well in todays day and age they implant micro chips in the snouts of many fish. Almost all broodstock fish, so then at the hatcheries they can wave a little wand over their heads and determine whats whats. Again let me say that these fish are hatchery fish and are put up stream with the "wild" fish to spawn.

I have caught many fish in the kalama clear till May that are mint bright hatchery fish and are big. Broodstocks. These fish return the same time as do the wild fish and are winter runs. In fact a friend of mine FLoyd, causght a 28lb hatchery steely at the mouth of the kalama while trolling for spring chinooks in march years ago. This again is a broodstock fish. Hatchery genetics though....

What i'am saying is that just because these fish are big does not mean that they are "natives" because they aren't. I hate to burst your bubble NW. They are wild fish that have spanwed naturally but have spawned with hatchery fish over the course of many years. Over the course of 20 or more years you cant tell me that the native strain of fish has avoided spawning with these half and halfs. Not all hatchery fish are genetically geared to spawn in Dec. and Jan. That is ignorant to say. however the core of fish are as were 45000 elochaman strain fish were planted for this return in the Kalama.

Take a look at summer runs for example. They stay in some rivers 6 to 8 months before they spawn. These are hatchery fish. Ex. Kalama...

Hatcheries have tried, revolving in cycles to try and get better returns. Dont think that they have not messed with the Native fish at one time or another or that genetics have been mixed on some redd on a river. Anyhow that is that. If i did not cover everything please feel free to ask. Pautzke thanks CF

Pautzke, the following abstract was for a presentation that Pat Hulett, WDFW fish biologist with the Kalama Resarch Team, gave at the 7th Pacific Coast Steelhead Management meeting in March 2000. By the way, do you know when the wild broodstock program started on the Kalama? Were the first smolts planted in 1998?

Legacy of 30+ Years of Potential Hatchery Stock Introgression on Kalama River Steelhead: Still Wild After all These Years?

Patrick L. Hulett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Allozyme genetic marking approaches were used in two long-term studies to estimate the reproductive success of non-locally derived stocks of hatchery summer and hatchery winter steelhead spawning naturally in the Kalama River. Results of the recently completed winter-run study yielded results that are qualitatively similar to those from the previously published summer-run study. On a per-spawner basis, natural production by the hatchery steelhead was substantially lower than that of the wild adults, particularly as measured to the returning adult stage of their offspring. The disparity in reproductive success was increasingly pronounced at successive (subyearling, smolt, and adult) life history stages of the offspring. These results are believed to reflect genetic differences between the wild and hatchery stocks, though some influence from environmental effects cannot be ruled out. In turn, the genetic components of the reproductive performance differentials likely include both non-local stock source and domestication selection effects.

Continued natural spawning by those non-local stocks poses both ecological and genetic risks to wild steelhead. Significant smolt production by hatchery spawners (with relatively poor adult returns) may hinder wild stock productivity through competition for limited resources in the stream. Moreover, the wild stocks are at risk of genetic introgression because of temporal and spatial overlap in spawning of hatchery and wild stocks. However, genetic analyses from recent brood years demonstrate discrete stock structure among the four spawner groups. This suggests that wild stocks have substantially resisted genetic swamping effects despite 30+ years of potential interbreeding with hatchery stocks. Specific mechanisms responsible for maintenance of stock structure are not well understood, but likely include cumulative effects of both the variable degrees of reproductive isolation between hatchery and wild fish and low rates of adult production from hatchery fish. Importantly, these results DO NOT demonstrate that genetic introgression has not occurred, only that the degree of introgression has not (as of yet) lead to homogenization of hatchery and wild stocks.

Because of continued concerns for ecological and genetic risks to the wild stocks, adults from the genetically dissimilar hatchery stocks are no longer permitted access to the principal spawning areas in the Kalama (upstream of a barrier falls and trap at Rkm 17). In addition, new research has been initiated to evaluate stock performance and the wild stock conservation merits of using locally derived wild broodstock as a source for hatchery steelhead production.

* on the web at
http://home.gci.net/~trout/steelhead/2000abstract.htm

CF, the Cowlitz is not a river any more that steelhead can reproduce in - it's a series of slack water impoundments upstream of a diked ditch with huge aquaculture facilities on it. Of course the wild fish disappeared - all of their habitat is gone.

Now the Quillayute system has large steelhead production facilities, but it also has intact habitat. The hatchery fish are distinct from the wild fish as the brats are all bred to spawn out by January and the wild fish never even think about it before March. This was by design and seems to have worked pretty well. As long as hatchery steelhead stocks are kept temorally seperated from wild stocks by spawning time - and of course as long as wild fish are released to hold up their end of the deal - I see no problem with wild fish disappearing.

Double Haul -
You must have like the information that Bill McMillian had presented to WSC as you have used it several times. If you wish to continue to do so you may wish to use correct information. The 26 million $$ figure in 1990 was likely the entire hatchery budget (steelhead represent a small portion of the production) for the then Department of Wildlife. In the year 2000 WDFW's entire hatchery budget (for all species) was 56 million $$. This is the combined budget for the two old agencies (Wildlife and Fisheries) which were historically were more or less equal in size.

In 1990 the Department Wildlife's total steelhead smolt plant was about 8.5 million - 3,728,800 winters and 4,818,400 summers. The likely cost for such produstion would have been less than 4 million.

In addition more than 35% of the winter production and 60% of the summer production was for the Columbia system. That production is mitigation for impacts from various dams. That habitat is not likely to restored in our lifetimes. We as a society decided to trade our wild fish so that we would have water to grow potatoes in the desert for our french fries, cheap power so we can make aluminum bear cans, and be able to ship goods by barge to and from Idaho.

Bottom line the discrepancy between hatchery spend and wild fish protection may not be as great as you painted.

The real shame is that we have missed an opportunity to make meaningful headway in the protection of river habitats. The recent federal ESA lisitng, habitat conservation plans (HCP) and re-licensing of various dams all presented opportunities to lobby for habitat protection, restoration and generally more fish friendly land management practices. Instead we anglers choose to spend our time and energy arguing over who can catch what, pointing fingers at each other, and bemoaning past mistakes that can't be changed.

Those missed opportunities will be the next generation's lost.

Tight lines
Smalma

That is some good stuff NM. Have not got a chance to see that yet. I am familiar with Pat and his group studies of wild fish on the Kalama. I have had a few conversations with him in the recent years and have been kept updated on results etc. by my cousin who worked on the Kalama for about 6-8 years.

Let me just say these few things... Hatchery fish release above the 2nd fish trap was just stopped a few years ago. Before then many fish traveled past the trap and were allowed to spawn. This is where I am concerned about the report saying that "studies of Summer run fish and their results are very similar to those of the Winter run". If this is true it will support this...

If you are familiar with Gobar creek on the upper reaches of the Kalama you will know that hundreds if not thousands of summer run steelies returned to this little creek each year (up until recently). This creek was a perfect spawning habitat for them as well. Both hatchery and wild fish bred together for years "integrating genetics". The wild fish swam freely with the hatchery fish and were allowed to spawn with whoever. Same goes for up at the Kalama Falls. Wherehauser had rearing ponds about seven mile up the creek in which they released thousands of steelhead smolt. This was done because Wherehauser logged too close to the river, destroying vital habitat for spawning success. They in return started this program to keep runs sustained and to release unclipped hatchery raised fish as well as clipped, to keep the so called "wild fish population" stable. If not done Wherehauser would be looked at for destroying natural spawning habitat for the steelhead. 'Let me say that they logged right up to the waters edge in most places.' Habitat has slowly been getting better over the years. Also logging around the creek has stopped as well.

The spawning that took place in these areas "suggests" that genetic integration has occured... no one can argue that it has not. Just as said in Pats report "These results 'are believed' to refelct genetic differences . . . Though some influence from environmental effect can not be ruled out." Or perhaps "Importantly, these results DO NOT demonstrate that genetic introgression has occured." Pat and the people who did this presentation sure left it open ended. Sounds to me like they are telling pople what they want to hear. If I am correct the state pays Pat and his group alot of money to do these studies. So to leave such an issue "open ended" shouldnt convince anyone of a truly native strain. The equation just doesnt add up.

However I will say this... It is quite obvious that both hatchery and wild fish have spawned together for years without interference of man. So it is obvious that many redds have been successful in these spawning areas and produced "wild" offspring. These fish were born in the wild, grew up in the wild, and came back as wild fish. Probably with the same size, tempermeant, and genetic makeup as a wild fish as well. This has happend for many years. So, although wild fish, they still have hatchery strain in their genetics.

Since this thread started with a reference to dollars spent on hatchery fish in comparison to wild fish I'll toss this one out on the table.
Combined Federal, state, and local dollars spent per year on wild fish restoration is approximately 500 million $ per year( reference is former Wash. Senator Syd Snyder) now and has been at that level for several years. So yes the WDFW budget is as DoubleHaul posted but that isn't truly representative of the reality of what is being pumped into wildfish restoration throughout the Northwest. Please lets use the whole context of the picture when discussing this issue? <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

This is a good discussion.

Smalma, I thought McMillan's presentation was thought provoking and an interesting study. The main reason I posted it was to stimulate some discussion. I appreciate fact that you took the time to eloborate on the validity of the statement. Perhaps this information should be feedback to McMillan.

Posting this statement was a attempt to get anglers to think further about the issues. I agree we cannot point the finger at just one issue there are many, right? The reason I posted the statement on the Hatchery Closure thread was to stimulate some perspective on the issue at hand instead of dragging along a boring argument blaming Eymen or praising him. On your last paragraph, I couldn't agree more.

Goose, that was also a interesting point.

Double Haul -
I agree Bill's observations are of interest and thought provoking. He has raised some valid issues that deserve consideration. I prefer not to get into a indepth critique of his document here (have provide comments in other discussions).

I raised the issue about the amount spend on hatchery steelhead here as one of the implications of your post of "excessive" hatchery spending is that cuts can be made without major impacts. Remember the backlash from the fly fishing community when the North Fork Stillaguamish was not planted with summer steehead one year. You would of thought that WDFW had attacked their families!

Let's look what the elimination of hatchery plants might mean to some of the streams in your backyard - that is the Snohomish and Stillaguamish systems. Certainly given the current status of wild winters (yes Pautzke I'll get to that in a minute) without hactchery returns those systems would be closed to all steelhead fishing during the winter/spring! The same might be the case for the summer fishery - though it would be an interesting discussion about whether fishing for cutthroat in the late summer/fall or salmon in the fall could be structured so that steelhead weren't targeted. Are you or others willing to not fish those systems at any time?

Goose has hit the nail on the head. There is a considerable costs to wild fish protection that doesn't show up in WDFW's budget. In fact the legislature (us?) has structured WDFW doesn't have primary managment responsibility protecting much of the habitat needed by the fish. They have permitting authority over only that work that occurs in the wetted stream. The up-land work is controlled by Counties, other agencies, etc. The best tool for wild fish production is protection of existing habitat - this has no direct budget attached to it. There are costs (often large costs) but it is usually in the form of lost ecomonic opportunity and as such doesn't show up in a budget statement.

Pautzke -
There has been genetic work in a variety of areas in the state. One area that I'm familar with is that in North Puget Sound. Some of the very earliest genetic work down with anadromous fish was with steelhead by Dr. Allendorf (?) in the early and mid 1970s. Because of the early work it was possible to go where some of that work was done (in this case the Skagit) and compare how much more like hatchery fish the wild fish had become. WDFW (Phelps) was able to measure the genetic distance between the hatchery and wild fish in the Skagit in the early 1970s and 1990s. After 5 generations of interactions the wild fish were no more like the hatchery fish than in the early 1970s. There remain considerable differences between the two populations. The age structure, run timing and spawn timing diffrences between the two populations remain, that is they remain very much wild fish. (I can supply more details if you wish). It should be noted that separation was not maintianed in some other areas (especially where wild fish spawn early and/or the hatchery spawners greatly outnumber wild fish.

WDFW's earliest genetic studies of hatchery/wild interactions were done on the Kalama beginning in 1978. Some of your concerns with the mangement on the upper Kalama may be due in part to the need to complete various aspects of those studies. It is an unfortunate reality that collection of information to support changes often buts the burden on the wild resource.

Tight lines
Smalma

I know this thread started out with hatchery vs. wild fish spending, but the genetic interaction direction is certainly more interesting!

Many threads have been discussed on this BB over the last few years on this topic, and it seems the same arguments keep coming up about every few months...

Bob, you're certainly right about genetic interference on the Cowlitz...there hordes of hatchery fish in there year round, there is no semblance of temporal separation, and there is very poor habitat. Hatchery fish placed upstream from the dams are spawning and returning "wild" fish.

However, the Cowlitz is a poor example of a river to compare to any other river in Washington State due to the damming, diking, super-factory hatchery conditions, etc.

Pautzke, there has been a pretty good separation of genetics between hatchery and native fish runs...but not necessarily for any of the points made above, and certainly not without consequences, sometimes severe, for the native fish.

In any river where there are both hatchery and native fish, there will be overlap of spawning times ranging from not very big to almost complete overlap. Fish spawn in relation to a lot of different environmental factors, and a date on a map such as Feb. 28, or March 15, is not one of them.

Where there is overlap, hatchery and native fish will spawn together. They will produce smolts, and they will head downstream with the other naturally spawned smolts.

Here's the rub, however...they aren't likely to be back. Two hatchery fishing spawning in the wild are likely to result in the return of almost no adults. Statistically I believe the number is so low as to be pretty much "zero".

A hatchery fish spawning with a native fish will return more fish than two hatchery fish, but not many more.

Two native fish will return the highest amount, by far.

An important aspect of this to remember is that the "highest amount" returning by two native fish spawning is still not very many fish, in fact it's damn few. And they all are necessary to sustain the wild run.

That factor is of utmost importance when genetic drift is considered, because you can't stop looking when you find that there is a pretty good distinction among native and hatchery adults. The problem lies in the loss of native fish that results from the spawning of a native and hatchery fish together. It's actually worse for the native run for that to happen than if the native fish were caught and killed by an angler.

The problem is that the NxH cross creates several thousand smolts that compete with native smolts while in-river and on their way out. This competition for food and space is tough on all the fish in the river. And almost none of those fish return.

Whatever reproductive potential the native fish in the above hybridization had has been lost, but the competition created by additional smolts in the river has not been lessened.

It's a double whammy for the natives, but it doesn't cause much genetic drift between the natives and the hatchery fish. Maybe it's even a triple whammy, since the HxH crosses and HxN crosses are also competing directly with other NxN crosses for holding water and spawning gravel, too.

I believe that the studies done by Hulett, Phelps, Chilcote, and others have backed up those above assertions, especially those done on the Kalama River where upriver adults are genetically checked, as are all the smolts going down.

Of course, there are exceptions...but they are clearly exceptions to the rule. The aforementioned Cowlitz River is an obvious one, but obviously an exception due to significantly different conditions than anywhere else around here, except for perhaps being a small scale example of how the Columbia River hatchery system works.

Places like the S.Fk. Skykomish are exceptions, as well, but with reason. Miles of spawning habitat have been opened up due to the trucking of fish over the previously impassible falls...and hatchery fish are creating a "wild" run up there. However, there never were native anadromous fish there to begin with.

There are other exceptions, but rather than go through each and every one, I'd just assert that the above "rule" about genetic interaction problems is just that; a "general rule" for the problems caused by hatchery/native interaction in streams.

Fish on...

Todd.

Smalma, I don't disagree that hatcheries create opportunity. Your right, with out supplementation of the hatchery releases on the NF Stilly there would be no fishery for summer steelhead, it would end up closed because of pressure on the Deer Creek fish.

My question is do hatcheries hurt the wild fish runs in a system and what can be done to hatcheries, without closing them, to reduce their impact on the wild fish and still provide opportunity? Is it in your eyes possible to have both?

Double Haul -
Yes hatchery fish hurt wild fish. The question is how much? and in what way? and are the costs (impacts)worth the benefits? You asked about the summer program on the Stillaguamish so let's look at the specifics of the summer steelhead program on the North Fork Stillaguamish and its interaction with the Deer Creek fish.

Generally the three areas where hatchery impacts can be the greatest on the wild stocks are: 1) additional fishing pressure with potential wild fish mortalities (kept fish and/or hooking mortality), 2) genetic impacts from hatchey fish spawning with wild fish, and 3) lost of productive of natural spawners due to mal-adapted hatchery spawning with the wild fish.

Without a doubt having hatchery summer steelhead in the North Fork increases fishing pressure. The regulations requires the release of all wild steelhead thus the concern from the increased fishing pressure would confined to hooking mortalities. With Deer Creek itself closed to all fishing the returning adults have sanctuaries in which to escape the fishery. Adults begin entering Deer Creek in July and by early September most of the population is out of the North Fork thus out of the fishery - most of the returning adults would be exposed to only a month or two of fishing pressure. On the other hand because of the habitat problems in both Deer Creek and the North Fork stream temperatures are high than I or the fish would like. These higher temperatures means that hooking mortality could higher than normal. Bottom line there is some impact on the wild population from hooking mortality though that hasn't seen to have limited the populations from bouncing back from the horrible habitat problems in Deer Creek in the 1980s. They have rebound from less than returns of less than 100 fish a year in the late 1980s so that the returns in recent years (since 1996) have been in the 500 to 1,000 fish range.

The other 2 impacts are related and depends on the amount of hatchery fish that are spawning with the wild fish. In the case of the North Fork the hatchery fish are planted well upstream of Deer Creek (Whitehorse is more than 10 miles upstream) and the Deer Creek fish spawn well up in Deer Creek (above the Canyon). The limited sampling of adult steelehad in Deer Creek itself have not found any hatchery steelhead. This is support by the genetic information that is available (the steelhead (juveniles to limit the impacts on the population) were sampled over 3 years in the early 1990s. What was found was the Deer Creek fish were unique (different than any other popualtions) with good genetic diversity with little or no evidence of interactions with hatchery fish.

In summary the evidence under current conditions is that the Deer Creek fish are experiencing some limit hooking mortality with no apparent genetic or productive impacts from hachery and wild fish spawning together. That could change of course of conditions were to change (higher stream temperatures may push mortalities higher or some catastrophic event may cause hatchery fish to divert into Deer Creek). The question for each of us to consider and answer for ourselves is whether these "minor" impacts or risks worth the fishing oportunities.

What can be done with the hatchery program is look at the spawn timing to minimize the potential interactions with the wild fish. The native summers in most of Puget Sound spawn from early March to mid May. The hatchry stocks (Skykomish) currently spawn in January and Febraury. It appears that potential interactions are small. The other thing to consider is the magnitude of the releases. Are the number of smolts released so large that the number of hatchery adults escaping the fisheries greatly outnumber the wild population. In this case the season structure on the North Fork (switching from fly fishing to regular gear the first of December) means that the most of the hatchery summer fish are caught and killed (exploitation well over 90%) before they have had a chance to spawn. The number of fish being release doesn't seem to be producing many fish that survive the fishery.

I suspect in this case most would agree that the benefits (the fishing supported by the hatchery fish) are greater than the wild fish costs (limited hooking mortality and low likelyhood of hatvhery/wild genetic interactions). This type of evaluation process what is needed to answer your question and needs to be done case by case as every situation has its own unique twists.

Tight lines
Smalma