HATCHERY SUMMER STEELHEAD IMPACT ON WILD WINTER STEELHEAD

Kostow, K.E. and Steven R. Phelps. 2001. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Ore. In Press.

ABSTRACT: Hatchery summer steelhead were introduced into the Clackamas River, Oregon, USA in 1973. This study demonstrates impacts to the productivity of the native wild winter steelhead population caused by the passage of large numbers of hatchery adults into natural spawning habitats. The impacts are ecological since interbreeding between the hatchery and wild fish is precluded by differences in life history. Genetic admixture analysis was used on naturally-produced out-migrating steelhead smolts to demonstrate that the hatchery fish were producing a substantial portion of the smolts leaving the Clackamas River, even while these smolts had very poor survival to adulthood. The productivity of wild winter steelhead, measured as the production of both smolt and adult offspring per parent, declined substantially with the onset of the summer steelhead hatchery program. We conclude that the natural-spawning hatchery adults failed to produce adult offspring but still occupied natural spawning habitat and produced juveniles that occupied natural rearing habitat and thereby depressed the productivity of the wild population through density-dependent mortality.

QUOTES FOR THE TEXT: Previous studies of the ecological risks and influences that hatchery fish may impose on wild fish focused on interactions between hatchery and wild juveniles immediately after the hatchery fish were released. This study demonstrates that the ecological risks caused by natural spawning by excessive numbers of hatchery adults and by the juvenile offspring they produce should also be taken into consideration.
The natural productivity of the basin, as measured by smolts produced per parent and by pre-harvest adult offspring produced per parent, promptly declined as the number of natural spawning parents abruptly increased. It appears from these relationships that the Clackamas basin has a steelhead carrying capacity of about 2,000 to 2,500 spawners. The number of adults passed into the natural spawning areas above North Fork Dam exceeded 2,500 fish 65% of the time after the start of the “Skamania” hatchery program, and in some years exceeded 4,500 adults, which are abundance levels not observed prior to the hatchery program.
Fewer smolts from wild parents translate into fewer adult offspring per wild parent. The number of adult offspring produced per wild winter-run parent dropped to very low levels immediately after the start of the “Skamania” hatchery program and remained below replacement in most years. The wild population had been able to substantially increase the number of adult offspring per parent when population sizes fell below 2,000 prior to the implementation of the hatchery program. Likely poor ocean survivals during the 1980s also influenced these results, producing a double impact of lower freshwater productivity and lower smolt to adult survivals. Meanwhile, the number of adult offspring produced per summer-run parent was very low throughout the program, consistent with our earlier observations of very few unmarked summer steelhead in the basin.
The hatchery parents were able to produce smolt offspring, although they did so with less success than wild parents. However, they were very unsuccessful at producing adult offspring. The wild Clackamas steelhead remained much more successful at natural reproduction than the hatchery fish, even when their productivity was substantially depressed. The hatchery parents produced only 66% and 51% as many smolts per parent as did the wild fish, and only 3% and 34% as many pre-harvest adult offspring per parent as did the wild fish.
It is remarkable, but evident in this study, that the hatchery fish were able to spawn and produce smolts, the two life stages that are captive in the hatchery program. The biggest die-off occurred from smolt to adult, the life stages of hatchery fish that occurs in the natural environment.
The decrease in wild fish productivity was not due to genetic effects caused by interbreeding in this case because of the different life histories of the hatchery and wild adults. We conclude that the “Skamania” hatchery adults occupied spawning habitats and their juveniles occupied freshwater rearing habitats thereby impacting the productivity of wild steelhead through density-dependent mortality.

GENETIC EFFECTS OF TRANSFERING FISH

Waples, R.S., In press. Pages 51-69 in D. Philip, editor. Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 3. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

ABSTRACT: Genetic variation can be partitioned into differences between individuals within populations, differences between populations within species, and differences between species or higher taxa. Although species-level differences have received the most attention with respect to biodiversity, the hierarchical levels are not independent. For example, just as population viability depends on maintaining genetic variation among individuals, so to may the long-term viability of a species depend on conserving multiple, semi-independent populations (or stocks). In addition to contributing to the erosion of between-population genetic diversity, stock transfers may lead to reduced population fitness through outbreeding depression. These risks are discussed with examples involving freshwater and anadromous fishes in North America. Studies of largemouth bass provide perhaps the clearest evidence of the negative effects of stock transfers on the fitness of local populations. Further more, genetic markers used in these studies demonstrate substantial introgression of foreign genes into local populations, indicating that the effects of stock transfers may be long lasting, if not permanent. In Pacific salmon, local populations exhibit considerable diversity in life history traits such as age structure; ocean migration patterns; and time of spawning, emergence, and outmigration. This diversity can be expected to buffer total productivity for the species against periodic or unpredictable changes in the environment. Extensive stock transfers, involving the exchange of eggs among hatcheries and intentional or unintentional release of hatchery fish into the wild, have contributed to a decline in between-population genetic diversity of these species.

ECOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WILD AND HATCHERY SALMONIDS

Einum, Sigurd and Ian A. Fleming. 2001. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 75:56-70.

ABSTRACT: The common management practice of introducing artificially produced fish into wild populations has raised concerns among fishery biologists. In part, these concerns arise from the observation that hatchery-produced fish commonly differ from wild fish in ways that may influence ecological interactions between them. In this review, we use a meta-analytical approach to provide quantitative tests for such differences and show that the hatchery rearing of salmonids results in increased pre-adult aggression, decreased response to predators, and decreased survival. Changes in growth rates are common, but less consistent. Changes in other fitness related traits such as migration, feeding, habitat use and morphology also occur. Based on the presented evidence we conclude that differences between hatchery-reared and wild fish may have negative implications for the success of stocking programs. A number of studies reporting population responses to stocking support this, suggesting that the performance of hatchery fish and their interactions with wild fish is of such a character that many of the current stocking practices may be detrimental to the recipient populations.

TEXT QUOTES: Genetic changes due to relaxed and/or altered selection are likely to accumulate in stocks being cultured over multiple generations (e.g., when brood stock is consistently chosen from adults originating from hatchery produced smolts). Multi-generation hatchery stocks are thus likely to differ more from wild fish than first generation stocks where most of the changes are likely to be of environmental origin.
Studies suggest that hatchery fish differ from wild fish in levels of aggression and predator avoidance behavior. In most studies, the effect of artificial rearing appears to result in an increase in levels of aggression (5 out of 9 studies). In the three studies where the origin of the difference was predominately environmental, hatchery fish were consistently more aggressive than wild fish.
Hatchery fish do differ from wild fish in levels of anti-predator behavior. Hatchery fish are observed to differ from wild fish in their timing of migration, which may influence both their susceptibility to predation and their energetic costs (i.e. due to different temperature and flow regimes). If this effect on timing of migration also influences breeding time, offspring survival may be compromised due to inappropriate emergence timing from nests.
Hatchery populations may also differ from wild populations in feeding behavior and habitat use.
Salmonid populations exhibit differences in morphological traits, and these differences have been suggested to result form local adaptations to environmental conditions. Furthermore, morphological traits are important determinants of breeding success. Thus any deviation in morphology from the local population may be expected in decreased fitness.
If hatchery fish differ from wild fish in so many respects, how successful are the released fish likely to be in the wild? Assuming that the wild populations have undergone natural selection for ten thousand years (since the end of the last ice age) to become adapted to the local environment, one would predict that these changes in fitness-related traits are a potential problem for released fish, and may influence their ability to survive and reproduce. Their performance in the wild should therefore be expected to be inferior to that of wild fish, a pattern that is commonly observed.
The success of hatchery-produced fish after release appears to be constrained by phenotypic divergence from their wild conspecifics. This is not surprising given the potential importance of local differences among wild salmonid populations in fitness-related traits and the evidence we have presented concerning the effects of hatchery environments on development and selection.
One might speculate that hatchery fish are to some degree able to displace naturally produced fish (in streams), but that they are unable to cope with the high cost associated with this behavior in terms of risk of starvation or predation. If so, net fish production may actually decrease as a result of stocking.
Releases of hatchery fish can also attract predators and thus may cause the intensity of predation on naturally produced fish to increase.
The effects that released hatchery fish can impose on naturally produced fish should make us cautious toward implementing stocking programs to compensate for habitat degradation and to increase fisheries. Indeed, under certain scenarios, theoretical models suggest that long-term stocking may lead to extinction of the native population. Existing empirical studies clearly show that fish density in stocked streams may not show the desired positive response to releases. In fact, in some cases a negative trend in population density has been associated with releases. Perhaps the best evidence for such an effect comes from a controlled study where populations of coho salmon were monitored for five years in 15 stocked and 15 unstocked streams. Stocked streams had higher densities of juveniles after stocking, but the number of adults returning to the two types of streams did not differ. Furthermore, spawning success of released fish was reduced, causing a lower density of juveniles in the stock streams than in the unstocked ones one generation later.
The performance of hatchery fish and their interactions with wild fish appear to be of such a character as to suggest that many of the current stocking practices may be detrimental to the recipient population. The present synthesis should incite caution in our attempts to mitigate negative effects of habitat degradation by releasing hatchery -produced fish.
A critical question we might ask ourselves is whether something can be done to avoid negative ecological effects of stocking. The answer to this question is yes and no. Better broodstock collection and mating protocols, more-natural rearing conditions, wild-fish-friendly release strategies and more focus on local broodstocks can improve the quality of hatchery fish released and reduce their impacts on wild fish. Released juveniles should be within the size range of wild juveniles, if not of a similar size distribution. The number of fish released should not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, which varies spatially within the river and through time.
However, as Waples points out, it is a myth to believe that these changes will make the problems disappear altogether. This is because (1) environmental and genetic changes to fish in hatcheries cannot be avoided entirely; and (2) many of the risks are negatively correlated, so efforts to reduce one risk simultaneously increases another. Clearly we need to, first and foremost, be cautious in our use of hatcheries, particularly when releases are to be used in supplementing wild populations.
ABILITY OF HATCHERY SALMONIDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATURAL PRODUCTIVITY OF WILD POPULATIONS

Fleming, Ian A. and Erik Peterson. 2001. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 75: 71-98.

ABSTRACT:
The success and implications of hatchery release programmes are intimately tied to the reproductive capabilities of the hatchery fish in the wild. Moreover, reproductive interactions are important in understanding the ecological and genetic threats that hatchery fish may pose to wild populations. Reproductive success is a key to self-sustainability, shaping natural and sexual selection, and influencing the genetic diversity of populations. In this paper, we review the determinants of breeding success in natural populations and the implications of parental traits and decisions for offspring survival and success. We then address how rearing and release programmes affect the reproductive traits and performance of fish. A review of such programmes reveals that in the few cases where adequate assessments have been made released fish frequently fail to attain self-sustainability and/or contribute significantly to populations. Clearly, new approaches based on sound scientific research are needed and these need to be tailored specifically to the management objectives.

INTRODUCTION:
Deliberate releases of salmonid fishes appear to take two main forms: (1) fisheries releases to increase population size for fisheries; and (2) conservation releases to save populations at risk of extinction…
One of the main premises/goals upon which many of the above concepts of fish releases are built upon is that they can provide a positive long-term benefit to natural populations. Yet, there appears to have been little or no attempt to find out whether this goal is achieved.
The role of fish releases in the conservation of wild salmon populations is intimately linked to understanding the dynamics of breeding and ultimately, reproductive success between wild and hatchery released salmon. The aim of this paper is to review the determinates of breeding success and its close link with offspring success (reproductive success) in salmonid fishes…
We examine the close relation between reproductive success and the desired goals of release programs, and how they may affect the reproductive traits and performance of fish. Finally, we provide an analysis of release programs where direct and indirect information about the reproductive success of released salmonids and their potential effect on natural productivity exist.

REPRODUCTIVE PATTERNS OF RELEASED FISH:
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…

REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF WILD AND HATCHERY FISH: 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.
All ecological evidence points to diminished lifetime reproductive success and abilities of hatchery-released salmonids to contribute to natural productivity… released fish have approximately a tenth the ability of wild fish to contribute to natural productivity.

CONCLUSIONS:
If the goal is to re-establish or rebuild wild populations for conservation purposes (i.e. conservation releases), current hatchery practices appear to result in competitively and reproductively inferior fish that limit their effectiveness. Long-term application of such releases will moreover inhibit local adaptation and thus natural productivity. On the other hand, if the goal is to supplement wild populations to increase fisheries (i.e. fisheries releases) while reducing impacts on the wild populations, such reproductive inferiority could be advantageous, limiting the negative effects of introgression. However, the threats of ecological interference and altered selection regimes associated with the introduction of hatchery fish remain.
Poorly managed hatchery programs can alter or even destroy biological diversity of species/populations.

THE ABILITY OF RELEASED HATCHERY SALMONIDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATURAL PRODUCTIVITY OF WILD POPULATIONS

Fleming, Ian A. and Erik Petersson. 2001. Nordic J. Freshw. Res. 75:71-98.

ABSTRACT: The success and implications of hatchery release programmes are intimately tied to the reproductive capabilities of the hatchery fish in the wild. Moreover, reproductive interactions are important in understanding the ecological and genetic threats that hatchery fish may pose to wild populations. Reproductive success is a key to self-sustainability, shaping natural and sexual selection, and influencing the genetic diversity of populations and the implications of parental traits and decisions for offspring survival and success. We then address how rearing and release programmes affect the reproductive traits and performance of fish. A review of such programmes reveals that in the few cases where adequate assessments have been made released fish frequently fail to attain self-sustainability and/or contribute significantly to populations. Clearly, new approaches based on sound scientific research are needed and these need to be tailored specifically to the management objectives.

EVALUATION OF HATCHBOX FRY RELEASE PROGRAM

Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rogers. 1998. Project Number: F-125-R-13. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

INTRODUCTION Historical Background and Rationale For Hatchboxes:

The use of coho salmon hatchery fry and fingerling to supplement wild populations has a long history in Oregon coastal streams. However, the evaluation of the success of these programs has been problematic, at best.
Juvenile coho salmon have been released into Oregon streams and rivers since about 1890. Until 1910, all the fish released were unfed fry. Beginning in about 1910 an experiment was set up at Central Hatchery (now Bonneville) to evaluate the effects of pond rearing the fry to a larger size prior to release. Returns of adult fish between 1914 and 1919 were at or near historical levels suggesting that the new rearing strategy was successful. The first coastal releases began about 1890 by R.D. Hume on the Rogue River. His self-proclaimed success led to the development of 10 coastal hatcheries or egg taking stations by 1915. By 1938, over 30 million coho salmon fingerlings and fry were being released into Oregon coastal streams.
By the early 1940s, the first smolt releases (fish larger than 25 fish per pound) were beginning. As the number of smolts released began to increase the numbers of fry and fingerlings released began to decline. The major reason was that larger fish were shown to survive better than fingerlings or fry. Other reasons cited include a major advancement in disease control (pasteurized feed), nutrition, better broodstock development and improved hatchery practices.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of adults spawned exceeded the capacity of the available hatchery rearing space, and the excess offspring were released as unfed fry. During this period, the first attempt to evaluate the success of the fry-stocking program was completed. An analysis of the relationship between hatchery coho salmon fry releases and adult escapement (McGie 1980) for the 1961 through 1971 broods, suggested that the release of fry “had no measurable influence on adult escapement.” Fry and fingerling releases subsequently began to decline.
In the early 1980s, a legislatively directed program of presmolt (2000/lb.) releases was initiated. An evaluation of this program (Nickelson et al. 1986) suggested that the increased number of fish released did not result in increased production of adults in streams where the fingerlings were stocked. Because of this evaluation and decreased numbers of excess adult fish returning to coastal hatcheries the number of fry and fingerlings released in recent years has declined.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began using hatchboxes on a large scale beginning in 1981 with the creation of the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP). This program was begun under legislative directive (ORS 496.430 to 496.460). The goal of the STEP program is to restore native stocks of salmon and trout to their historic levels of abundance. One of the techniques used to achieve this goal has been the use of volunteers to raise excess eggs in hatchboxes. ...The unfed fry are then released directly from hatchboxes or transported and released into local streams and rivers in an attempt to bolster depressed stocks. Approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for volunteers to obtain eggs from state hatcheries to incubate in hatchboxes is administered under OAR 635-09-090 to 635-09-140. Section one of this rule states that “all projects must comply with fish management goals and objectives as set forth in OAR 635-070-501 through 635-07-830, and species and/or area management plans adopted by the Commission.” It further states that a project will NOT be approved if it is not based on sound biological principles and is not supported by physical and biological stream survey information or if it proposes to use inappropriate methods to accomplish the project objectives.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will support the use of hatchboxes only in certain areas and under certain specific conditions. The areas where hatchboxes are most likely to be appropriate are streams historically inhabited by the juvenile fish of the species of interest, but where they are not now present. In some cases, hatchboxes are used in areas above artificial barriers that block passage of adult salmonids. Hatchboxes may be used to supplement existing populations only if information from a physical and biological survey of the stream suggests that the local population is extremely depressed and that there is sufficient habitat available to support the hatchbox fry without having a detrimental effect on the local population. Except for small projects that focus on education, releases into a stream is limited to one life cycle of the species. Hatchboxes are an inappropriate tool in areas where the available rearing habitat is already fully occupied by juvenile salmonids, or where the appropriate egg source (brood stock) is not available.
Social interactions between hatchbox fry and native wild fry generally result in displacement of the hatchbox fry into marginal habitats where survival is low, however, some wild fry are also displaced. Evaluations of salmon fingerling releases...suggest that the release of large numbers of fingerlings and fry into coastal streams does not result in increased adult production. Nickelson et al. (1986) documented a detrimental impact on wild adult coho salmon production from fingerling releases, partly because of the use of an inappropriate broodstock that spawned too early.

STEP HATCHBOX EVALUATION
During the early 1980s, we evaluated the effectiveness of using hatchery presmolts to rehabilitate naturally spawning coho salmon populations in coastal streams (Nickelson 1981; Niclelson et al. 1986; Solazzi et al. 1983, 1990). We found that the numbers of juvenile wild coho salmon were reduced in streams stocked with hatchery presmolts. We also found that, although the total number of spanwers in stocked and unstocked streams were similar in the years that the hatchery fish returned, the late-spawning wild adults in the stocked streams were 50% less abundant than in the unstocked streams. We concluded that the hatchery presmolts reduced the wild populations through competition and that the early returning hatchery fish failed to contribute significant numbers of offspring to the next generation. Two factors contributed to this result: 1) early spawning time of the hatchery broodstock, and 2) large size of the presmolts relative to wild fish.
The purpose of the STEP hatchbox evaluation program was to evaluate the effectiveness of coho salmon fry that result from late spawning broodstock incubated in STEP hatchboxes, to rehabilitate wild populations of coho salmon...

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Adult Abundance:
The number of adult coho salmon returning to the study streams during 1985-1987 was not significantly different between the treatment and reference streams. Because there was no difference in adult abundance between the reference and control streams, any differences in juvenile abundance should be due to the effects of stocking the hatchbox fry.
Juvenile Density:
We did not find an increase in juvenile coho salmon density as a result of stocking hatchbox fry for two years in the six study streams.
Results from sampling juvenile coho abundance and outmigration suggest that the hatchbox program was not effective at increasing the rearing density of juvenile coho salmon in the treatment streams. Our estimates suggest that 13% to 26% of the juvenile coho salmon fry stock in Oxbow Creek migrated our of the stream within four days after stocked.

SUMMARY
There is little argument that good artificial incubation techniques can have egg-to-fry survival rates of well over 95%, a significant increase over values reported for naturally incubated eggs. However, there is little evidence that egg-to-fry survival rates are limiting the adult production of most salmonid fishes. (emphasis added) One exception to this may be with chum salmon, which migrate into salt-water almost immediately after emerging from the gravel. For salmonid species with extended freshwater rearing (coho, steelhead, cutthroat, and some chinook stocks) factors other than egg to fry survival rate are probably more important in determining adult production levels. Recent studies by Nickelson et al. (1992) for coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams suggest that winter habitat may often be the limiting factor in the freshwater environment, especially for juvenile coho salmon.

REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS IN THE WILD

Andrew Hendry, John Wenburg, Eric Volk, and Thomas Quinn. 1999. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists AnnualMeeting 1999.Organized by Andrew Hendry and Drew Hoysak.

ABASTRACT We demonstrate that sockeye salmon populations can exchange many migrants each generation and yet remain genetically distinct, owing to reduced reproductive success in strays. We studied a small beach population that receives strays each generation from a much larger river population (both in Lake Washington, Washington). Site-specific otolith microstructure patterns were used to determine which beach spawners had been born at the beach (residents) and which had been born in the river (strays). In each of two years, about 1% of the river population strayed to the beach but these strays composed 35 - 44% of the beach spawners. If strays and residents had similar reproductive success, such levels of gene flow would prevent any neutral genetic divergence of the populations. However, allelic variation at microsatellite loci revealed that beach residents were distinct from the river population and from river fish that strayed to the beach. Strays were morphologically similar to river fish but quite different from beach fish, suggesting that local adaptation may play a role in their reduced success at the beach. Local adaptation of residents and declining success of strays can arise early in a population’s history (the beach site was colonized less than 14 generations ago).

NATURAL EPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF HATCHERY AND WILD STEELHEAD IN THE KALAMA RIVER

Patrick Hulett, Cameron Sharpe, and Chris Wagemann . 1999. Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists AnnualMeeting 1999.Organized by Andrew Hendry and Drew Hoysak.
ABSTRACT: 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 winter-run study corroborate those previously published from the summer-run study. Reproductive success (offspring produced per spawner) of the hatchery steelhead was substantially lower than that of the wild fish. Also, 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 non-local hatchery stocks. Because their natural spawning poses genetic and ecological risks to wild steelhead, the non-local hatchery adults are no longer permitted access to principal wild Kalama steelhead spawning areas. Moreover, new research has been initiated to assess the wild stock conservation merits of using locally derived wild broodstock as a source for hatchery steelhead production. Specifically, the reproductive success of hatchery-reared steelhead spawned from wild Kalama summer-run broodstock will be compared to that of their wild-reared counterparts by relating microsatellite DNA profiles of naturally produced offspring to those of their prospective hatchery and wild parents.

HATCHERY-WILD INTERACTIONS

Mart Gross, Bryan Neff, and Ian Fleming.1999. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists AnnualMeeting 1999.Organized by Andrew Hendry and Drew Hoysak.
ABSTRACT: Although salmon supplementation and conservation programs often use hatchery fish, there is a lack of empirical knowledge about their behaviour, ecology and reproductive success in the wild. We now present the results of several experiments in which we studied their behaviour and ecology and quantified their reproductive success. Both wild and hatchery coho salmon were allowed to freely breed within a spawning channel in the wild. The behaviors and interactions of the fish were recorded and after all spawning had been completed we collected the alevins from the nests. Using microsatellite genetic markers, we determined the parentage, including maternity and paternity, of the fish. Several important relationships emerged, including that between male position in the mating hierarchy and paternity, between male size and reproductive success, between stock type (hatchery or wild) and paternity, and between mating partner and success. Overall, hatchery males attended fewer mating hierarchies, obtained lower paternity within a position, and made up only about a third of the male contribution to the next generation. Hatchery females were also significantly less successful than wild females. Hatchery fish were therefore relatively maladapted and decreased the wild population’s effective population size. Finally, our measures of reproductive success within hierarchies may be widely applicable to studies of salmon in the field. This research is supported by NSERC and DFO of Canada, and NINA of Norway.

I dunno, they all look like WT commies to me...

Can somebody please come up with the science that says hatcheries have no impact on our wild fish? {I seem to remember cw having some info to the opposite?}

I have seen lots of studies that say that the introduction of non native fish have a negative impact on our struggling native fish but have not seen any science to support alot of the thought on this board at present.

People keeping pointing fingers at all the other factors,logging habitat degradation,too large of comercial quotas,etc,all important factors, but do not want to acknowledge that the hatcheries are one of them.Hell even long live the kings acknowledge that our hatcheries have serious problems.

I dont think anyone has said the hatcherys are 100% perfect. Improvments can always be made. But in my opinion they are not the root cause of the problem. There are alot of other things that cause more harm than they do. And if you beleive the science in this post you may have to ask yourself if there are any 100% wild/native fish left to save. After 108 years of hatchery operations and from what I have been able to find no fin clipping for the first 70 or more years. Who knows for sure what we are calling natives are indeed native or some kinda mutt. Without the genetic code of a fish older than the first hatcherys how can it be proven that our native fish even exist.

Rob,

Good question, but does it matter? I mean, the conclusions of science, even if absolutely correct, don't have much effect on a close-minded audience; i.e., smoking causes cancer and heart disease; yet people keep smoking; poor diet causes poor health and obesity; yet people continue to eat poorly. People like their hatcheries. Angler's have caught hatchery fish, and often times a lot of hatchery fish. They see the "good" thing, and may not be open-minded to any evidence of hatchery downsides. The legislature is requiring WDFW to downsize in response to the state budget crunch, but you can be sure they will not allow any hatcheries to be closed as part of that budget reduction. These things are visceral, not rational, to the public. You might as well debate religion, abortion, or politics with such an audience. There's no point (perverse recreation aside) in discussing this with anyone but the open-minded.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Rob,

thanks for all the scientific information.

It is funny a bunch of people kept asking for it and here it is but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to comment on it.

JJ

PS: Salmo great post and all too true

speak for yourself salmo....we may be more open minded than you think...

One thing that jumpted out at me was:

CONCLUSIONS:
If the goal is to re-establish or rebuild wild populations for conservation purposes (i.e. conservation releases), current hatchery practices appear to result in competitively and reproductively inferior fish that limit their effectiveness. Long-term application of such releases will moreover inhibit local adaptation and thus natural productivity.

On the other hand, if the goal is to supplement wild populations to increase fisheries (i.e. fisheries releases) while reducing impacts on the wild populations, such reproductive inferiority could be advantageous, limiting the negative effects of introgression. However, the threats of ecological interference and altered selection regimes associated with the introduction of hatchery fish remain.
Poorly managed hatchery programs can alter or even destroy biological diversity of species/populations."

I think the second goal addresses a more palatable position that a well managed hatchery can address sustaining wild stocks and increasing fisheries releases. Rather than bashing science or suing the government, I say let's figure out the means to make a broader vision happen and not be too narrow in our objectives.

Jeff,

Please don't read in something I didn't say. I didn't specify you nor any BB member as being close-minded. However, I have read many posts on this BB that evinced something of a "My hatchery/Country - love it or leave it" mentality. It's usually not a simple thing. Often a person is very open-minded with one topic and closed to another, some are open to most anything, and others already have their minds made up about almost everything. Those are just the dynamics of a diverse population.

There are things I like about hatcheries and things I dislike about hatcheries. Perhaps I have multiple-personality disorder?

Hope you didn't take my post personally.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G and Jeff

you are both correct.. and goes to prove my opint that more change is needed. people seem to have this impression that hatchery operations have changed a lot here in Washington when infact they have not, at least compared to the amount of change that is needed.

It is my opinion there should be 3 kinds of rivers in Washington.

1. rivers managed mostly for hatchery production. Cowlitz North lewis and other rivers where dams low in the system block the majority of the habitat. These are your put and take plant them full of fish rivers..

2 then there are rivers we can manage for both hatchery and wild steelhead together.
A river that comes to mind is the Kalama (sorry for the regional bias). The Kalama has a reasonably good barrier above which only natives should be passed giving them reletive resproductive isolation while the lower river can be managed as a sport hatchery fishery. ( of course this only addresses the issue for steelhead and not chinook or coho

3 . then there are rivers that should be set aside entirely for wild production and no harvest. These are rivers on which there are no hatchery facilities or where such facilities offer only a marginal fisher.. I understand there would be some serious debate with hard consessions on both sides on this one Some rivers that come to mind here are the Wind and the East Fork Lewis river and South Toutle.. These three could be closed down with the closure of one hatchery , that being Wind river Spring chinook ( i can hear the moaning now) What i would propose is that thoes fish not be taken from production but that they be planted elsewhere so as not to minimize opportunity on a popular sport fishery.. plant them in say the White salmon and the little white salmon. And the steelhead from the East fork and Toutle be planted in the North Lewis and Cowlitz..

These may not be perfect examples but i think you can see where i am going.. Thats the kind of managment we need..

JJ

"It is funny a bunch of people kept asking for it and here it is but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to comment on it. "

So true

I don't usually get involved with arguments on the hatchery vs wild fish debate, but things are getting out of hand on this board. I was going to start a thread on the science involved, but it looks like Rob already beat me to it. If folks really want to learn about the hatchery vs wild fish issue, it's just a matter of doing a simple google search. A few google searches will yield more information than most people can read in a month. I know a lot of it is pretty dry reading, but how better to become informed and make an intelligent decision for yourself. The only suggestion I'll make is to stick with the professional peer reviewed information. Too much of the other information is driven by emotion or politics and usually isn't very accurate. As a professional biologist I feel there's just too much information out there indicating hatchery fish are causing problems with wildl fish.

Oops the last sentence should've been "As a professional biologist I feel there's just too much information out there indicating hatchery fish are causing problems with wild fish to ignore.

Rob Allen that last post was right on the money and I don't see where such changes to the current management scheme would be that difficult to make.

Gooose i told ya i wasn't unreasonable:)

Yes you did Rob but you worry me sometimes :p !

Thanks for the clarification Salmo. I think your comments have raised the level of understanding on this "hot button issue." The frustration for me is it seems that salmon returns are finally on an upswing and sport fisherman who fish for salmon in Puget Sound finally seem to have a viable resource or atleast the potential of one, yet if the WT lawsuit were to have gone to court and it was decided that "all hatcheries were to be closed", we would be going back to a very depressing state of affairs.