The tough part is that there is no steelhead river on the west side that does not have a mix of hatchery and wild fish. I want to catch hatchery fish and sometimes bonk them but I don't want to bonk wild fish. Certainly if I want to not stress wild fish, I should not fish for them but hatchery fish are present, so what should I/we do? If there were rivers with no hatchery plants, I would advocate shutting them down completely so that we could use that stream as an incubator of sorts. I just don't know of any. Anyone else?

Eddy - Most of the genetic studies have shown little if any mixing between native and introduced stocks.

A couple of proven sources of pure genetic stocks are the Skamania and Chambers Creek.

Why in the world would anyone want large populations of wild fish if not to eat them?

Plunker, two points.

1. I'm not talking about wild and hatchery intermixing or interbreeding, I am talking about them being in the same river at the same time thus making it impossible to close the river (for protection of wild steelhead) and to harvest hatchery fish.

2. Why do I want wild steelhead? Very simple, I want to insure that there is a relatively pure genetic strain of wild fish available if the hatcheries go gunnysack.

There is an interesting angle to all of this. What is the end game? Let's just say we do what alot of sports fishermen have said ...Stop fishing all together until fish rebound. OK so how do we know it has rebounded? When do we start fishing again? Do we continue to release all wild fish? If we stopped all hatchery operations and fishing would the hatchery fish all die off and only wild fish remain? If only wild fish are to be tolerated what do we do with all of them when they rebound? Do we start all over and fish them to the brink of extinction again or just keep them there so the kayakers and hikers can look at them? Do we all convert to veganism?

Interesting thoughts Grandpa. I'm not certain what the end game is. One thing I do know, it is rare for closed waters to reopen. I know that for myself, I come at this from wanting to have the following:

1. Opportunity for fishing.
2. Quality environment that benefits fish and all of us.
3. Opportunity for bonking fish.
4. A good feeling from being a steward for future generations.

I see WSR as being the best strategy to achieve my goals.

Grandpa, you ask what would happen to the hatchery fish if we stopped producing them. Hard to say, I'm certain that some rivers would become barren - but look at what happened in the Cedar with sockeye. Hatchery stops planting (back in the 30's or 40's??) and 20 or 30 years later the right match has been made from the returning remnants and voila, we have a new "wild fish" fishery. I put wild fish in quotes because some on this board will claim that they are not wild at all because they came from hatchery stock. Just for the record, I believe that any fish born in the wild, reared in the wild, and spawned in the wild fits my definition of a wild fish. I don't want to take this thread in a different direction, just want to be clear as to what I think a wild fish is.

So, to answer your question - my end game desire is for large quantities of wild fish that will support a catch and release fishery, and quantities of hatchery fish (on selected rivers) that allow me to take some fish home to eat.

Thanks Eddy, for the clarification on what you meant by mixing between wild and hatchery stocks. The confusion was my mistake but...

Again I am confused in how to interpret your latest post?

You stated that you consider naturally spawning introduced sockeye to be wild fish and that you would prefer a catch and release fishery for wild fish.

Would you prefer that sockeye in Lake Washington be managed as a wild sockeye release fishery?


RA3 - I wonder why the introduction of so many hatchery sockeye here has not wiped out the wild fish?

Plunker, As I understand it we now have a sockeye hatchery again on the Cedar. And yes, I would prefer a wild fish release everywhere on all species until we truly can see a sustained improvement in numbers of wild fish. I do not have enough faith in the science or operations of our Hatcheries to put all my eggs in that basket. I do consider the sockeye that are naturally spawning in the Cedar to be wild because even though several generations ago they were hatchery fish, they have adapted to the birth, growth, and spawn cycle of their native cousins. Hopefully I have been clear on this. We talk about native and wild and sometimes I don't see how we can carry on a conversation unless we have some common definition. And I am NOT suggesting that my definitions should be the right ones. I just share them so that folks can understand what I'm trying to say.

PS The fish in my avatar is not a hatchery fish, I am not holier than thou, I have killed my share of wild fish - I hope to never do it again.

I think the Sockeye are hatchery fish as they descend from hatcdhery fish and were never "wild" in the true sense in Lake Washington and the Cedar. That run was introduced here from hatchery stock. One of the practices of hatcheries that I think is positive is the practice of using wild fish eggs from Redds and simply ensuring a higher survival rate. As far as too many fish in a river I think you can look at Alaska for rivers so thick with fish you can't see the bottom of the river and they seem to spawn just fine.


Eddie..I noticed the adipose fin in your avatar and you certainly don't need to be ashamed unless , of course, you're worried about what Rob or Ramon think of you. There are tons of hatchery Chinook out there with adipose fins. It's ok....

Grandpa - Great fishing report from yesterday. I don't really care what Rob or Ramon thinks of me, I tend to be my own worst critic (other than CFM that is ). The sockeye run in the Cedar is a perfect example of why the wild fish/native fish/hatchery fish debate is so complicated. You are right, the Cedar's outfall has been changed by man so that it became sockeye habitat (river to lake, lake to river, river to saltwater). So, no question that this run is "man-made" but what do we call these fish when they adapt to the wild and succesfully have multiple generations of birth and death in the wild? I believe that we call them non-native wild fish. Because they have shown themselves to be succesfull adapting to the Cedar, I believe they become a more valuable genetic resource than a hatchery fish.

As you know, I love to steelhead fish most of all (well, actually I love to steelhead CATCH most of all!!). I also love to eat fish. As stated before, I want to maximize the opportunity for fishing, catching, and eating while maintaining the valuable genes that the wild fish carry. I think WSR is the best tool for this.

I heard that remark eddi!

Cowlitzfisherman

So if we successfully planted the Sockeye in the Cedar and they have adapted and are thriving why are we to believe that such hatchery initated runs of other species in other rivers are such a bad idea and that hatchery fish are to be eliminated in favor of "wild" only runs? Some of these arguments seem to be at odds with each other.

Good question grandpa

I too would like to hear the answers that some guys will attempt to come up with!! Most likely you hear a lot of BS….but little factual science!

Cowlitzfisherman

Interesting question that I will try to answer with another question. How many rivers, other than the Cedar, have a hatchery run that has been discontinued? The Cedar is so unique in that there was never a sockeye run in the river (to my knowledge) prior to the hatchery. I don't know of any other rivers that have this unique set of circumstance. But, one thing that is true (cue the Jurassic Park music), nature will find a way if given time. It certainly seemed to have found the way in the Cedar. Benign neglect as a management tool? I don't know. I have wrestled with the issue of the Cedar for some time and don't have an answer. I think it is probably true that the ancestors of the current "wild" run in the Cedar were a small percentage of the orginal hatchery plants. After all, in my recollection, the reason the hatchery plants stopped was that there was a consistently poor return. I do know that I would not necessarily be prepared to accept the lack of fishing opportunity that a total closure awaiting nature finding its way would entail. Hell, I don't know, I'm just a fisherman, I've got opinions and thoughts. I would love to see some science as well.

Grandpa -
interesting question.

Clearly hatchery fish have successfully established self-sustaining populations; however in most cases it has been in cases like that in the Cedar. The hatchery fish are introduced for one or more years and then the releases discontinued the natural selection process will proceed allowing each new generation to become more adapted to the environment. As I recall it took several decades for the sockeye in the Cedar to become very productive in their new environment. This is not unlike the process of colonization and re-colonization of habitats by wild fish that has been going on for 10,000s of years.

This is different from what we commonly think of hatchery and wild fish interacting in the wild. As most know the rearing of salmonids in a hatchery environment results in "domestication" of the fish. Thus hatchery fish tend to be less productive when spawning in the wild than naturally produced fish (whether hatchery or wild). The annual input of hatchery fish in the natural population continues this loss of productivity. Of course if the hatchery releases were to stop the offspring of this last generation would have the chance to adapt through the natural selection process and may become productive "wild' fish.

Tight lines
Smalma

So what you are saying is that if we had some really good science we could adapt hatchery salmon to a watershed and then restrict the release of new fish gradually until the strain of hatchery born fish adjust and thrive...something like that? Reform the hatcheries on an individual and unique basis as every situation is slightly different?

Grandpa-
No, what I'm saying is that if hatchery fish are left alone (no further introductions) in an acceptable habitat that is not occupied or under utilized they have a chance to evolve over time to become successful in that environment. Nothing to do with good science.

The hatchery fish would not have the chance to be successful if there is not a niche for them. That niche could be from fish gaining access to new habitat (removing barriers such as culverts) or in situations where over-fishing has occurred.

The question is why would anyone be interested in using hatchery fish and the number of generations needed for the fish to reach full productivity when the existing wild fish can do the job better is we would just give them the chance.

Tight lines
Smalma

those naturally spawning sockeye redds are frequently eliminated on purpose because of severe ihn infections...i bet if they were left alone the run would disappear completely....