Ok, here goes...

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation, other than the couple I'll list after the question, why you should ever have to release a hatchery steelhead during any open steelhead fishery?

Reasons for...

1. They are there specifically for harvest. Last year's dismal hatchery winter run return on the coast proves that if people can't catch enough hatchery steelhead to fulfill their freezer filling needs, they will keep wild fish if legal to do so. While this is a slightly different issue, it still speaks to the point that there is no reason to release a hatchery fish (see caveats below). If someone catches and kills a hatchery fish in March, that reduces the chance that they will catch and kill a native.

2. An easy way to do wild steelhead a favor is to make sure that no hatchery steelhead ever spawn in the wild. Dead steelhead don't spawn.

Reasons against...

1. Like now on the PS streams...it actually may not be a bad idea to let a hatchery steelhead go if you are downstream from the hatchery and the hatchery may be in danger of not making its egg take for the year. I think this, too, is a different issue, though, because this deals with hatchery fish being caught during a hatchery fish season, not in what would normally not be a hatchery season.

2. Enforcement issues could arise if a fish is retained, say, on the Skagit River in March. Since enforcement is already spread way too thin, it's easier to remember that "any fish retained is poached", than have to check every fish for an adipose. While I think this is the most valid reason against, it doesn't seem to be an issue from November through February, so why should it be any more of an issue in March or April?

Here are a few anecdotes of mine that helped me come up with this topic.

Fishing the Skagit several years ago in April we managed to pull five fish out of one long run. One was a wild buck, one was a chrome and very fresh wild hen, one was a very ripe, either totally or mostly spawned hen. The other two were both spewing hatchery bucks.

While I wouldn't have eaten, or even smoked, either one of them, if allowed to keep them I would have. Thankfully crab bait is a legal use of sport caught fish...as they would have been frozen in steaks and used for crab bait, if I could have. I think crab bait would be infinitely more useful than those little bucks attempting to spawn with those wild hens that were in the run with them.

Any thoughts?

I think this issue will become more important as hatchery programs move more and more towards broodstock programs which provide hatchery fish throughout the winter/spring season, rather than just in Nov. and Dec., with a few in January.

Fish on...
Todd.

I let four hatchery fish go on the skagit saturday simply because I didn't have a need for them. Normally I keep them but this past year I got 50+kings plus countless silvers. I give a lot of fish away and eat even more but my freezer is pretty full and I don't think I have a need for more. During years with low returns (like this) it makes it that much easier for me to let one go. As for keeping a fish for crab bait I've never done that. If I need bait then I'll just freeze a few heads and backs.

rcl187,

I'm in no way advocating that you must keep the fish...I'm advocating that if you catch a hatchery fish during an open steelhead season and want to keep it, why should you not be able to.

Fish on...

Todd.

I usually just release most steelhead and most salmon in rivers. I have been known to keep the accational fish in a river; like last Augest when I caught a silver in the Quilleute (sp) that had sealice on it and herring in its stomach. Some places I get weird looks when I release a fish but I think it is for the better. Either somebody else can catch it or the hatchery could use it and if it is wild, in the case of salmon, it can go spawn so I can catch its offspring. Plus, why keep a fish in the river when its not the best condition when you can get salmon in the salt that have blood red meat and you have to be dumb not to catch them?

Since I prefer eating salmon the choice is easy for me. Unless I need a whole fish for a BBQ all hatchery steelhead are either released or bonked and given away. I have no problem doing either. Nates get released unless they are pumping blood.

Often a released fish can be caught again.... sometimes even by you!

.... double your fun, catch it twice!

OK, guys...

I think you all know my recored when it comes to catch and release...I've caugt a rash load of $hit over the years for my super-support of it. And I do release hatchery fish...lots of them.

I'll clarify a little more so you know exactly what I'm getting at.

Take yourself out of the context of Nov. through February hatchery fish fishing. Put yourself in March and April on streams that have CnR seasons for wild fish, like the Skagit or Sauk.

If in March you catch a hatchery steelhead, you are required to release it. My question is...

Why should you not be allowed to keep a hatchery fish during those times, if you would like to? It would satisfy a few things...the desire to keep fish that most fishermen have, and the protection of wild fish by removing potential hatchery spawners from the wild.

I will never advocate the retention of wild fish, and I will never say that someone has to keep a hatchery fish if they choose not to. I just don't like releasing a hatchery fish that is 1)not likely to make it to a hatchery, and 2) is likely to spawn in the wild.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

What about milking the eggs out of the hatchery females and the milt from the males... A hatchery fish spawning in the river = dead wild fish.
Hmm i am sure a gamie would have a problem with that but is there technically a law against it??? I wonder?

I have mixed feelings about this subject as it relates to limits. I hate to see limits increased for a couple reasons.

1. it doesn't allow more people to catch fish. It promotes a very few people keeping more and more fish.

2. it breeds the mentality of killing everything you catch. I think thats destructive to the sport and bad for sportsmans ethics in general.
On the other hand I am all for getting all the fish out of the river before they spawn. I don't think egg take should even be an issue. they all use chambers creek fish anyway just get eggs from a river that did better.. If all the rivers are bad ( like last year) well thats just how hatcheries are, unreliable.

I don't think there should ever be a season closed to the retention of hatchery steelhead unless the stream is closed entirely for that season.

I love catching and smoking hatchery steelhead but i wouldn't miss it if they were gone and if they were gone our rivers would , i believe be teeming with wild steelhead.
I don't know about the rest of the state but i think on the East Lewis and Washougal rivers that the p[lanting of hatchery fish or maybe just too many hatchery fish is THE primary reason steelhead stocks are not responding to improved habitat conditions. yet Chums are rebounding well. The difference? chums don't need the instream rearing habitat like steelhead do . Such habitats are already full of hatchery coho chinook winter and summer steelhead juveniles.. There is no room for wild steelhead..

Rob,

All your points are well taken...but you hit on the thrust of my entire question here:

Fish on...

Todd.

So you would rather "bonk" a small hatchery buck than let it spawn with a native female. What about those native females that have no wild buck to spawn with? Supposedly, the low wild returning natives need all of the help they can get, So my thought is that a particially wild fish is better than none. In Utopia we would not need to quible about such things, but here, where the fish traverse nets in the salt, and have to fight through the nets in the rivers, i would think that any wild fish would be better than none at all!
I will go a step further and say that because i think that most strains of wild fish have become diluted, i feel that there should be a choice on if you kill a wild fish or not. I agree with the limits that they have set on the peninsula rivers,(one wild fish a day, five per season). The reason that i do is because some will be caught in nets,some die from hook mortality, and others submit to poachers and the like, and if i am on a river that allows me the option, i will sometimes take that option.There i said, before i get flamed to death, remember that at least i had the b@lls to come right out and say it, NOT say one thing and do another!

Todd, let me put a different spin on this. You're fishing a stream that uses broodstock for their hatchery. It's January or February or March and you catch a downstream spawned hen. Since the fish is still in the river, you have to assume that this fish spawned in the river and is now headed back out to the salt. She's brightened up again, and ready to go. Do you retain or do you let her go? My vote - let her go. I don't think this scenario was exactly where you were headed, but it has happened to me several times on a small coastal stream.

todd ~ I've got to agree with the idea of being allowed to keep hatchery fish whenever a river/stream is open to fishing. I guess the only problem with this would be that most people don't catch very many brats in march/april. It happens but lets face it ~ the majority are nates. Being from woolley I know a lot of the attitudes around here are that "if I catch it I'm keeping it" regardless of what the regs say. I think this plays a big role especially in terms of enforcement. If a warden sees a fish getting tossed on the bank he will know it's illegal whether its hatchery or native. If people were allowed to keep the hatchery fish he would have to question the odds and might decide it's not worth his time to further investigate. The same pretty much goes for people reporting poachers. It's probably just easier to manage if people are allowed to keep fish when most fish are of hathery origin and are forced to release them when they aren't.

Todd (or ??),

Pardon my ignorance of the issue, but why don't we want the hatchery steelhead to spawn out in the river? Or a hatchery buck to spawn with a wild hen?

Aren't they essentially from the same stock? If not, why would it harm the run to have a bit of cross-breeding between hatchery and wild?

I am sure there is substantial science behind that position, but could someone briefly explain it to me?

Appreciate the replies, in advance, and again, my apolgies for the lack of education.

Mike B

You should be able to.! However, My assumption is that enforcement thought it would be easier to close the river down during times when there is a predominance of wild fish present, rather than enforce it.

Also,

If we had people out there fishing for brats during the times of the season when wild fish are known to be running and spawning, why would we want more people out trying to catch a stray brat? It would only serve to hurt the wild populations further. A CNR season for wild fish detours alot of fisherman from making the trip out to fish steelies, it isn't as attractive a fishery for some people.

Mike B - Conventional wisdom is that the hatchery fish are genetically inferior to the native fish. It's certainly not nearly as adapted to the specific stream as is the native. If we have that spawning activity, it is inevitable that there will be genetic weakening of the native offspring.

Todd, interesting point. If indeed incorporating wild brood stock is the future of hatch reform then it could mean the end of targetted C&R steelhead fisheries to replaced by total WSR, no exceptions, on certain systems. Of course the impact of hook mortality on wild stocks needs to be reexamined if seasons are lengthened to allow late brat harvest.

Whoops...Sky Guy just reiterating your last point.

I don't agree with that! IF (and thats a big IF) the natives are so much hardier than the brats, then why would spawning weaken the species. Genetics have time and again taken the strength from both parents and kept the Strongest traits. So it would seem that to bring more diversity into the mix would ulitmately make the whole run hardier, thus able to withstand the rigors of travel and survival.Perpetuating hardier and more plentiful fish.

Todd, I feel your pain. As previously stated, enforcement might be a key issue here. Another factor, at least in your Skagit/Sauk example would be a harvest issue with the tribes. As you well know, the tribes are pretty aggressive in netting Skagit system steelhead. If the recs are taking fish in March/April, even though they are only marked fish, the tribes might make a case for some harvest time during March/April. And we all know how selective their fishing methods are.

Maybe you should have Dr. Kevorkian with you during March/April for those ripe hatchery bucks...J/K

Interesting thoughts over nature vs nurture for steelhead.

Are broodstock offspring just as stupid as other non-broodstock hatchery offspring?

How come the WDFW doesn't employ avid broodstock programs on our rivers (for steelhead)?

Smalma? SalmoG? Cowlitzfisherman? (any conspiracies, here? ) Anyone? Just curious.

To Mike B. ..... do a search on this, Mike. I'm not putting you off, but this topic has been thrashed around many times and there have been some very courteous and informative replies. Eddie gave you the short version, but is correct.

Todd ..... you da man! I am surprised that you would initiate such a topic. Good one!!

My view is that hatchery fish retention SHOULD be allowed at all times, PROVIDING that ALL hatchery fish are marked.
As far as enforcement goes.......since when is it a concern that enforcement be easy??? You mean a warden might have to actually look to see if the dead fish has a fin clip?

Parker,

The research we have (primarily Kalama River) indicates that hatchery steelhead spawning in the natural environment produces few to no returning adults. Same for hatchery X wild crosses, which is why we'd rather not have hatchery fish spawning with a wild fish. It's wastes the production potential of one wild spawner. Wild X wild is what produces returning adults.

I've seen hatchery winter runs spawning in tributary streams in early winter, but those same creeks never get any subsequent "wild" early returning steelhead.

Now, regarding absolutes, never say never (see above). Some wild runs appear to have been developed by naturally spawning hatchery fish, mainly summer runs. Hatchery summer runs are more in synchrony with natural spawning times, and, I suppose, more likely to survive. And, to repeat an example, late winter hatchery fry have been planted in the upper Cowlitz River basin and appear to have developed a small return of native, naturally rearing, Cowlitz late winter steelhead.

To repeat Eddie, conventional wisdom has it that hatchery winter steelhead generally don't make the cut when it comes to successful reproduction in the wild.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I heard the same thing from Pete Soverel at the Wild Salmon Center. Hatchery fish spawning in the wild yield negligible numbers of returning adults. Why take a chance on wasting the reproductive potential of a native by "poisoning" it with a hatchery cross. They may produce juveniles, but damned few of them survive to adulthood. In the meantime those juveniles will just compete with wild ones, further diminishing wild productivity.

The big question is do these observations at the Kalama River hold up in the setting of a wild broodstock hatchery program? Salmo G?

If all the fish in a river are created using only wild broodstock than the only real difference is a missing adipose fin,can the missing fin really mean its a weaker fish not able to spawn ?
Is there proof that hatchery fish produced from wild brood are not able to spawn.
As far as killing wild steelhead its time that this practice was given up completely.Up here in british columbia you can really see how well the wild release system works when you look at the rivers in the northern part of the province.Killing wilds,sure glad i never witnessed this in my lifetime.

DK,

My understanding of the broodstock spawning in the wild issue is that they do better than non-local hatchery fish, but not as well as wild fish.

They are not the same as the wild fish, and any time spent in any sort of hatchery will create that difference. They are, however, much better than Chambers Creek fish.

The studies I have seen do not support broodstocking as producing more fish than wild spawning. In a nutshell, the wild fish removed from the river to enter a broodstock program would have produced more returning adults than the very same fish used in a broodstock program.

The difference is that the fish returning are now marked hatchery fish slated for harvest, removing the original wild fish's offspring from the wild gene pool as effectively as if she had just been bonked.

If you support broodstock programs because they produce higher quality fish for harvest and have a smaller bad effect on wild fish if they are allowed to spawn in the wild, then you are correct.

If you support them as a way to help wild fish, then you are not.

The Kalama studies have produced consistent results throughout the study period. WxW crosses have high smolt production and high adult returns, relatively speaking. HxH crosses have high smolt production, and statistically have no adult returns. HxW crosses have high smolt production, too, and while they have a statistically measurable amount of adult return, it is a significant reduction in productivity for the wild fish in the cross.

I just read that and it's not very clear, so I'll make an example.

If a wild male and wild female spawn, they produce X smolts, and return Y adults. If a hatchery male and wild female spawn, they also produce around X smolts, but return .1Y adults.

That cross just removed 90% of the wild female's productivity.

The other issue is that all those crosses do produce smolts that take up valuable habitat in rivers and compete with all the other smolts and reduce their opportunities. Then those crosses go out to see and never come back.

Those are the reasons why you are always doing wild steelhead a favor by bonking as many hatchery fish as possible, especially in rivers that do not have collection facilities and are outplanted there.

Fish on...

Todd.

Hatcheryfish and wild fish are completely different. You have removed the natural selection process from the hatchery fish even if they came from wild stock. So you do not know what they will be passing on genetically.
Hatchery supported fisheries in systems with wild stock are present is the worst thing that can happen to wild fish in that ecosystem. It will wipe all of them out when is the only question. The only thing that keeps the hatcheries open is the pressure from political groups and state and federal orgs protectiong their empires. If we really wanted to preserve wild strains they would all be shut down and all hatchery fish killed.

I don't know why anybody ever thinks about this: HATCHERY STEELHEAD AND WILD STEELDEAD ARE THE SAME! I do know that between different watershed fish can be longer, shorter, bigger etc. because they are specialized for that river. But what about natural straying? Why do peolple complain about hatchery plants? One reson fish stary is to make sure the species does not break appart into subspecies in every river drainage. I know wild steelhead grew up in the river and have better survival instincts, but an off spring from hatcher/wild parents would have the same experiences.

Think of it this way. You take two human twins and seperate them at birth. One is raised in New York city and the other is raised in the farm lands in Eastern Washington. One is raised in concrete surroundings with everything done for him, (sound familier?) the other one is raised in open land and has to work for an living. THESE TWO PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME GENETICS! Even though they where raised in different areas. Let's say this goes on for a few generations. Then one day, two people meet, one from the New York family the other from the Eastern Washington family and they get married and have a kid (you didn't know this was a love story did you? ). They then branch off and raise this kid in Southern China. This new kid is raised in compleatly different surroundings BUT STILL HAS THE SAME GENES.

Now, sombody tell me why this is not the same in steelhead?

Because the wildfish had to face many more adverse conditions to get big enough to head out to sea. The weak are removed at all levels by disease, predation, enviornmantal factors whatever. Hatchery fish are hand raised until they are big enough and you do not know which ones would have died in natural conditons so they get a hand up in returning to spawn. So ultimately if they are allowed to breed with wild stock they water down the gentics. Ultimately leading to more mortality and the system crashing if an event happens that pure wild fish would have been self selected to withstand.

Your twins example is not valid as an example. You would have to set one twin free to fend for itself in Bangledesh to be comparable?

rcl187 - I believe, "if I catch it I kill it" mentallity led to the early shut down on the lower skagit last season.

Todd - I think Beezer hit it on the nose for cnr on the sauk/skagit. I once read that when cnr begins on the skagit the Pow Wows pull there nets. But do you really believe everthing you read. Apparently if they don't kill we don't kill.

When I find a scanner I will post a pic of a hatchery fish caught during cnr that was more than capable of spawning. That is, with your permission Todd.

- A solution to the problem might be taking extra pictures. Like 50, or a 100. At least a 20 minute photo session. Pass the fish around let every one get a picture. If Parker's Wild Fish Handling Law goes into effect next season, you won't be breaking the law. Heck, its not a wild fish.

LT

Todd -
An interesting topic.

First you as part of your reason to keep fish you said "Last year's dismal hatchery winter run return on the coast proves that if people can't catch enough hatchery steelhead to fulfill their freezer filling needs, they will keep wild fish if legal to do so."

I remember the discussion we had on this site regarding that issue and the position that many took that reflected your position. However the creel checks from this year seems to continue to indicate that anglers still want to keep wild fish regardless of how many hatchery fish are around. In the 2002/03 season the anglers reported through the Janaury 19 keeping 74 out of 86 wild fish caught or 86%. In the same period they kept 274 out of 294 hatchery fish caught or 93%. This year through the Janaury 18 clearly the checks show the hatchery fishing much better. The anglers kept 88 out of 119 wild fish caught or 74% while keeping 1,159 out of 1,398 hatchery fish or 82%. With more fish available the anglers appear to be more willing to release fish with the % of kept down about 10% in 2003/04 from that in 2002/03. However it still appears that the majorit of anglers fishing the Quillayute still prefer to bonk some wild fish.

To the topic at hand -
When the first catch and release season were put in place in the Puget Sound region the hatchery fish were not marked. Believe that the first year that the majority of the hatchery fish were marked in the Puget Sound region were released in 1983. By the mid-1980s when there were easily identifiable hatchery fish (either late winter hatchery or early summers) as suggested by others the retention of the hatchery fish was prohibited in part for the easy of enforcement. However another factor considered at the time was that if the anglers knew going into the fishery that all steelhead must be released they were more accepting of the CnR philosophy and tended to handle the fish better, especially when they were not checking to see if it were hatchery or wild.

In the case of the Sauk/Skagit example currently there would be few un-spawned hatchery fish available in the March/April time frame. In the last decade or so the trapping information from the hatchery shows that the hatchery winter females (Chamber's type) have completed spawning by the end of the February and summers are no longer planted in the basin.

Tight lines
Smalma

Todd

Your last post jives with every credible discussion I have heard and read on the subject of hatchery productivity vs wild productivity. It really confirmed my suspicions about how even these "designer" local broodstock hatchery programs, while touted as a better alternative to old hatchery ways, still fall short of true wild production.

As I stated in the thread about MSY last month, at no time in the history of hatchery "enhancement" or "restoration" programs has it been shown that hatcheries come anywhere close to wild production. The question then is why do we continue to mine wild eggs from rivers with healthy wild runs, when all the data shows that production would have been maximized by allowing those fish to seed the gravel naturally? Salmo g? S malma? CFM?

Is the following really acceptable language here? Is it even literate? Just asking what your standards are?

[QUOTE] I once read that when cnr begins on the skagit the Pow Wows pull there nets.

Ok.....I'm calling B.S. .....I've heard this all before and there are a couple of points that don't ring true and are, in my opinion, completely misleading and erroneous.

First... Taking wild brood stock and spawning them and releasing them as fry should NOT constitute a hatchery raised definition!! All that has happened is that man has intervened and assured the highest possible hatch rate. It is ridiculous to think that these tiny fish have learned anything about their surroundings that will impair their natural instincts. If you hatch wild fish and release them as fry, all you have done is up the odds of more surviving the hatching process. To clip these fish and thereby classify them as "hatchery raised" does no justice whatsoever to their true origin. This process should be used ONLY for fish raised and fed in rearing ponds and held there for extended periods of time, not for hatched and immediately (or nearly) released fry. Would they require special handling during the release?...you bet....so what?

Secondly... Who can really buy the concept that only the weak and impaired offspring are lost in the "natural selection" process??? This concept is overplayed to the hilt! It is indeed "natural selection" when a log rolls through a redd, or a redd gets buried because a river bank slides, or a torrential rain causes a river to abandon it's old riverbed, BUT that does NOT mean that we can't do something to assist nature other than wring our hands. We have the technology, willingness, and ability to rebuild wild runs by insuring the highest possible survival rate.

Does it only seem odd to me that us humans go overboard to insure we do everything possible to assure the survival of our most crippled offspring, yet when it's convenient, declare "nature knows best?"

See why I don't like to wrangle with WDFW?

Doc,

I think it's pretty clear why, there are three reasons.

1. Harvest mentality.
2. Harvest mentality.
3. Harvest mentality.

There might be a few more, but they'll all be different variations on the first three.

The most time spent by both the feds and the state regarding recovery of depressed runs always comes with how to selectively fish around them while having harvest fisheries.

For a really obvious example, just look to the Columbia River. If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the allowable impact of a commercial fishery on endangered Redfish Lake Sockeye was FIVE fish. And they had a commercial fishery, with a buffer of FIVE fish. Not 5000, not 500.

FIVE.

Why? Because of all the hatchery fish there that are there to be harvested, must be harvested, and will be harvested, endangered sockeye, steelhead, and spring chinook be damned.

And I'm not just blaming this on the WDFW/Commerical Fishing Lobby relationship, the Feds are right in step, until they are sued by conservation groups forcing them to list fish that ought to have been protected long before, and should have been listed long before.

Why weren't they protected or listed? The protections, and the ESA, get in the way of all the fish that MUST be harvested.

Anyone know the name of the plan to recover listed chinook salmon in Puget Sound?

"Fishing our way to Recovery"

Now...there are ways to selectively fish around depressed fish. And no user group is better at it than sportfishermen. What with proper gear use (often required, and often used even not when required) and proper catch and release techniques (sometimes required, sometimes based on education), not to mention closures that suspend or end fishing in some places at some times.

Until the commercial industry starts using selective fishing techniques (NOT coho nets to selectively catch hatchery springers while catching and releasing 2/3 of the fish that swim into the nets, 1/3 of which are steelhead, steelhead that are the size of fish that are MEANT to be gilled by coho nets, not tangled), they have no business fishing over those Col. R. runs.

Using a net that catches two listed wild fish for every target hatchery fish, and that net is designed to catch and kill half of those listed fish, is not selective fishing.

Who will make it so? I'll be a bit cynical for a second, but I don't think that the commercial industry will adopt a more selective technique on their own.

The obvious answer is that WDFW must make them do it. Why don't they? I'll be cynical again, but I'd refer to reasons 1 thru 3 above for the answer.

Here will be the only way to prove me wrong that is available to WDFW right now. If NOAA Fisheries comes back and approves a 7% impact on listed ESA steelhead during the next two years' spring chinook fisheries, it will be up to WDFW to create a season doing so, and up to the WDFW Commission to approve it.

If WDFW is really serious about fish recovery, beyond lip service and continued restriction of sport opportunities, then they will not even ask the Commission to approve such an obviously irresponsible harvest mentality. And if they do ask, the Commission needs to say "NO".

Will NOAA Fisheries reopen the BiOp, study it, and approve a 7% allowable impact? I sure hope not...and they will receive a ton of science outlining the reasons why they shouldn't, from many, many different sources.

If they do approve it, and any legal challenges are unsuccessful, in spite of all the warm fuzzy feelings I have about it, I doubt WDFW would wait more than, oh, four minutes before going to the Commission and asking for it.

I hope the Commission will step up...I actually do have a lot of faith in them.

Doc, I guess that was a really long-winded effort at answering your question, and one that used a different context completely than the original situation, but it applies just as well.

Mining wild eggs, that are much more valuable and productive in the river rather than in the broodstock ponds, is done to create more and bigger hatchery fish for harvest.

That's not to say that all broodstock programs are bad, just that they need to be gone into with goals that can be measured, and use wild fish that the wild run can afford.

It's a balancing act, one that the benefits must outweigh the detriments. If two wild fish can produce six wild adults, and two fish in a broodstock program can produce four hatchery fish, that clearly is not right. If it can produce ten fish, and ten less fish are produced in response from a "regular" hatchery, then perhaps it is right.

The age of factory hatcheries attempting to live with wild fish is over...and everyone knows it. We either live without factory hatcheries, or we live without wild fish.

If my typing fingers had a throat, they'd be losing their voice by now. Sorry for the long winded rant.

Fish on...

Todd.

Lunch Time, go ahead and post the picture, or mail it to me and I will. If I remember correctly, that fish was caught mid-April?

F5A, it is against the law to NOT mark those fish when they are released. In spite of your opinions, they are indeed hatchery fish. And they are generally not released as fry. For most broodstock programs the only difference between them and regular hatcheries is the adult fish they spawn in the hatchery...the rest is identical.

Smalma, even if there are only a few fish left in the river to spawn, like in the case of the Skagit and Sauk, why should they be released if caught in March or April?

What if we're talking the Satsop or Wynoochee, or the Skookumchuck, where hatchery fish run much later than PS hatchery fish?

Fishjunky, not to put too fine a point on it, the reason people don't recognize hatchery and wild fish as the same is because they're not. Not even close, unless you're a farmer from Oregon or Northern California.

To make your example work, you would have to have one twin raised by wolves and one raised in Buckingham Palace, and the one raised by the Queen would have to bark and howl as well as the one raised by wolves, without ever meeting wolves. Or have one drop out of high school while one gets an MBA, and the dropout can do financial statements as well as the MBA.

It's not impossible, just really damned unlikely.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd.... With all due respect, the "against the law" argument is NOT a biologically sound reason....it's an excuse. How do we get it changed? and Why hasn't it already been addressed?

Same with... again.....Why?

Fun5,

I'll address them in reverse order from how you wrote them...

The reason they aren't released as fry is because then they wouldn't have a very high success rate...that's the big bonus of hatchery fish is that by the time they hit the river they are already too big to have to deal with the issues that kill 99% of the fish before they reach parr or smolt stage.

And...since that is true, the fish are not a lot different than regular hatchery fish, and the law requries them to be clipped so that they can be harvested or removed from the river pre-spawn by hatchery personnel at fish racks or other collection facilities.

The biggest concern about tribal fishing and tribal hatcheries is that they DON'T clip their hatchery steelhead, thereby making it all but impossible to count how many wild fish there actually are in the river, thereby not being able to use the reduced amount of wild fish in the river as a reason to curtail commercial netting.

Clipping hatchery fish is one of the easy and fundamental activities that must be used in order to accurately evaluate both wild fish runs and hatchery fish success, and to provide fish for harvest. Always remember that broodstock programs are for providing fish for HARVEST, not for anything else.

Fish on...

Todd.
Fish on...

Todd.

FishNDoc -
When discussing production one probably needs to be careful with that definition. If by production on means having more fish to catch there are many examples of mining wild fish to produce hatchery fish that produce many times more fish to be caught than if those fish were left to spawn. If by production one means natural production then you argue would have some merit though there are examples where wild populations have been "jump started" with hatchery releases - one that many may be familar with is the wild coho above Sunset Falls. That population exists above a historical anadromous barrier which was seeded with hatchery fish and now 50 years later produces 10,000s wild coho.

Fish5-
There is a 1/2 a century of fish culture history using steelhead fry releases from wild and/or hatchery parents that has shown that strategy produces very few fish. Attempts at steelhead hatchery production has been around for a century. There was little success until the late 1940s/early 1950s that the bios for the Game Department learned through trail and error (mostly error) that until the fish were reared to smolt size (6 to 8 inches) and released at the time of year that wild smolts migrate (spring) was there any measureable success (returns).

Fry releases can be successful with some other speceis - pinks, chums, sockeye and sometimes chinook. However their biology and behaviors are much different than steelhead.

Todd -
In regards in bonking those few fish that may be around in the late spring (the Skagit example). I guess I would flip the question around - If there are only few fish why potential increase the risk to the wild fish by having additional enforcement problems (heaven knows we need as efficient enforcement as we can get) or increase the potential handling of the wild fish.

You have railed quite eloquently against harvest impacts on wild steelhead from fisheries targeting other fish. Here you seem to be on the other side of the issue. The only reason might be if one thought that the risks from them spawning in the wild out weight the outer risks.

You concerns with "wild brood stock" programs using later time fish just touches on some of the potential harvest management problems that can arise from such programs.

Tight lines
Smalma

F5A

If you haven't read James Lichatowich's "Salmon Without Rivers" get a hold of a copy or borrow one from your local library. Todd's discussion will make a whole lot more sense to you.

Re: why not release broodstock progeny as fry? A little history is in order. It used to be that all hatchery programs in WA released their hatchlings as fry. This was done willie nillie with wild eggs mined by the millions from here, there, and everywhere without regard for the drainage-specific adaptations and traits of the egg source.

Hatchery managers felt their only charge was to "help" get those eggs past the perils of natural hatching, then turn bazillions of the little buggers loose into whatever river they wished to "enhance". These guys would pat themselves on the back and celebrate their ability to seemingly manufacture salmon at will. And why did they need to do this? As Todd already stated above, to feed an insatiable commercial fishery. The only problem is they measured their success solely by the number of eggs hatched, and never once considered how many (or more correctly how pitifully few) adults actually returned as a result of their efforts. As long as wild salmon continued to ascend the Columbia and other major salmon superhighways, fish managers could continue to take the credit for producing that bounty. WHAT A CROCK!

When runs like the Columbia began to crash, the answer was... you guessed it... mine more eggs for more hatchery "production." When runs still failed to rebound, someone surmised that perhaps we could do better by "helping" more of those bazillions of fry to actually make it to the ocean. Suddenly hatcheries were retaining their hatchlings all the way to smolt stage, and thus here we sit today.

Those in-the-know tell us that "improved" hatchery practices using locally adapted broodstock is the way to go. Now the question is whether to release them as fry or smolt? If we really want to mimic wild productivity (as measured by returning adult progeny), then the answer is obvious.... release them as fry.

The real question is whether those returns will truly fare better under a scenario of mining wild broodstock eggs for artificial hatching versus one of natural spawning. It is a dangerous human conceit to assume we can always "improve" upon Mother Nature. Before spending bazillions of dollars on ever more artificial propogation, the practice must held accountable. Hatchery mangers must demonstrate that technology can actually deliver on the promise of "improved" productivity over what would otherwis occur in nature. Sadly, such evidence is sorely lacking.

Sorry, I suffer from the same affliction as Todd when it comes to these long-winded posts. Hard to really get to the heart of these complex issues using 4th grade reading-level sound-bytes.

Smalma,

I think you're suggesting that leaving the Skagit open to harvest the few remaining hatchery fish during the usual catch and release fishery might increase the pressure there...as folks who wouldn't normally fish there might if they could possibly harvest a fish.

Were that the case, then I would be open to have my mind changed. I doubt, however, that if there were, say, fifty fish in the entire river system to harvest in March and April that people looking to harvest a fish would actually go there and try to catch them. They'd be better off buying a lottery ticket, as there may not even be fifty in the 120 miles of rivers to fish in that system.

I'll admit that I am assuming no increase in fishing pressure due to the possibility of harvesting a hatchery fish.

This idea is the exact opposite of what is happening on the Columbia...there, very, very few wild fish (relative to the hatchery spring chinook) are being snapped up as bycatch during a fishery targeting hatchery fish, albeit not very successfully.

My scenario on the Skagit would, perhaps naively, actually improve the plight of wild fish by not increasing the impact on them, but actually reducing it by removing the remaining hatchery fish from the river.

Smalma, will you please shoot me an e-mail as I have some stuff to ask you about that I'd like to take off the BB, and my operator error has failed to import my e-mail list from my old computer to my new one. I'd really appreciate it.

Doc, you've just described one of the more interesting aspects of hatchery production. I'm not sure who said it first, but I heard it first from Sinkitip...

Hatchery programs are evaluated by how many juvenile fish they produce, rather than by how many adults return. It's like paying farmers for how many seeds they plant rather than for how many bushels of corn they produce.

That is starting to change, but it is so ingrained in the hatchery mentality that it's dying a long death.

How many of you steelheaders check the last few years' hatchery returns, rather than looking at the last few years' smolt releases ?

Fish on...

Todd.
c_n_r_nates@hotmail.com

Todd -
You have mail -

My point above to be blunt is that experience has shown that if any fish retention is allowed (no matter how remote) the fishery draws a slightly different crowd which may not be as careful with released fish as those in a completely CnR fishery. Take a drive the full length of the Skagit during the WSR fishery and compare the anglers, methods, and attidutdes with those you find in the CnR season. Remember in the WSR fisheries generally the number of hatchery fish out number the wild while during a CnR fishery the wild fish out number the few hatchery fish - I for one think that is an important difference.

Tight lines
Smalma

Easy there, Lunch Time. Don't even remotely associate me with some poorly thought out excuse for a law. That would be Sparkey's Law, thank you. I am very much against that stupid proposal.

Uh oh, here we go again.

In commercial fishing, gear selectivity is defined for size, not species. Gillnets are the most selective fishing gear to be used. Small holes catch small fish. Large holes catch large fish. Medium holes catch fish in between. That is the definition of gear selectivity in fisheries.

The only real way I know how you can select for species is management, as I don't know of any fisheries gear techniques that can select for species (effectively). IE, don't allow selective gear fisheries to fish when endangered (or ESA) fish are present.

Stop saying gill nets are not selective. They are....just not for species..especially if your species are all roughly the same size!

As a fisheries dude, that's just one of my pet peeves....

Ok, back to the topic at hand - very knowledgable and enjoyable I might add.

One of the questions asked of me this week is the snider creek broodstock fish punched on your retention card as a native or a hatchery fish anybody know the truth? Here are some more statistics, the bogey hatchery this year is looking at about 10.000 fish returned, one of the better gillnetters in the Quilleyute had 24 fish for 284 # in one day! looks like big fish native wise this year for sure as I have experienced this week every boat had killed fish,natives that had caught fish and it is pretty slow with alot of boats catching zero but was kind of surprised by the catch and kill mentality already usually this time of year that is not the case you would think everyone has enough dead fish to satisfy that urge but guess what not. The best part is I don't personnelly think it is going to be a great year for natives on the pennisula this year so there is probably some changes on the way that will impact the fishery as Rich G has been saying all along it was only a matter of time

I would like to apologize to TwoDogs and any other person I may have offended on my previous post regarding this topic. I must say it was a very poor choice of words. I will attempt to keep my offensive, cynical comments to myself in the future. I am truly sorry.

LT

LT,

You're a bad boy...

Anyway, go ahead and post that pic...I don't look too stupid in the picture, do I? I seem to remember that there were a few dead soldiers in the bottom of the boat by the time that picture was taken.

Fish on...

Todd.

Smalma, You took the words out of my mouth. same goes for the selective waters on the peninsula streams. Attitudes are different.

Parker, With all your public outcry, I hope you sent in a letter in regards to Sparkeys Law. I have to at least give ol' Sparkey credit he's an advocate for the fish whether you agree with that proposal or not.

Yup, already did that DH. All I can do now is razz on Sparkey!

You should have heard the amount of crap I was flipping at him during the Snoopy Rod Classic when he landed that wild fish.

Ya know, to the (previously) uninformed you guys provide a heck of an education on a given topic.

The whole issue is much clearer now, but some things are stil a bit muddy...those will come in time.

After reading the entire thread there seems to be some commonalities..

1) Having hatchery fish and wild fish in the same waters, at the same time, is not always (maybe never) a good thing.

2) A potential exists for the spawning of a wild/hatchery pair...this potentially reduces the quality and strength of the gene pool in that particular strain of fish.

3) Almost all agree on complete non-retention of wild fish.

4) CnR fishermen typically show the wild fish more "respect" in handling and releasing. Those with "fishing pox" (like us) will provide the wild fish much more respect and care in handling and releasing, while the two day a year armchair fishkiller would be more likely to damage/harm the wild fish...public education is needed here.

A Question or two:

A) Would there be a benefit to have a much increased hatchery run in the rivers, but with a distinct time separation from the wild runs. Hatchery run in Nov./Dec. when the wilds are returning 2 months later? See if we can get the law changed so that all caught hatchery fish must be retained at any time, so as not to even take the chance on the gene-pool issue.

B) Increased awareness campaign for the (non-fishpox) public. Maybe a Public Service Announcement (aka PSA) funded in part by PSA (Puget Sound Anglers), TU and ?? and general donation AND WDFW funds.

A 30 second PSA can go a long ways towards gaining respect and awareness of the Puget Sound Anglers group and the increased respect of the public towards the resource.

I can think of numerous ways to raise the funds for this.

Benefits? The sportfishers gain greater respect from the WDFW, the resource gets far better treatment (we hope) and ultimately the steelhead populations (both wild and hatchery) will increase.

I am sure there are "issues" with both of the above suggestions...but, nothings going to change unless we make it happen. Setting a commonly agreed upon set of goals, and working towards them (vs. letting the ignorant, non-fishing public and ??? take the lead) seems to be our only option.

Mike

Mike, Good comments and you obviously have been doing your homework. The issue about having distinct hatchery and wild runs is an interesting one. Some will point to the fact that generally WDFW has managed to that philosophy and tried to seperate the runs as the reason that several rivers "early" wild runs are now virtually gone. One river that I fish, the Skookumchuck, has both an early and late run of hatchery fish that comingle with the wild fish returns. I guess the bottom line for me is that every time that we think we can control nature, she throws us a curveball. So many unintended consequences.... Todd started this thread with some questions about retaining hatchery fish, I retain most hatchery fish but there are some I let go - for a variety of reasons. I would hate to be a lawbreaker for letting a fish go. My $.02

Salmo g, could you provide a link to the paper that summariizes those findings. It would be interesting to know if these observations would hold up for other salmonid species. I am particularly interested in how hatchery/wild interactions affect the productivity of chinook salmon populations.

Alaska's Kasilof River is "enhanced" with early run kings. Last year the fishery went to WKR (wild king release) until ADFG can get a better handle on wild stock numbers and productivity. There is a perception that the wild component is in serious decline.

However, the glitch in the whole works now is that all surplus hatchery fish will be passed upriver thru the weir and allowed to spawn "naturally". The observations from Kalama steelhead would suggest this practice would be detrimental to long-term wild productivity of Kasilof kings. Does that assessment hold water?

TRBO, this issue is right up your alley as well. What do you think?

FNP,

Link? That's computer geek skill that I've not acquired. I can barely touch type. I've got the Kalama papers or excerpts somewhere in my sedimentary filing system, but I honestly couldn't put my hands on them right away.

Frankly, I'm somewhat baffled by the results. It's almost intuitive that Chambers Creek winter runs don't survive simply by being so out of sync timing wise. Timing of emergence from the gravel is a critical component of survival. The early spawn timing of CC fish has them emerging from the gravel at the end of the spring "bloom" instead of the second late summer bloom that normal timed steelhead encounter, so there feeding opportunities become limited before they achieve early critical growth.

What I don't understand is the poor performance of hatchery steelhead with appropriately timed spawning. A fry emerging from the gravel doesn't know he had poor parenting, and he eats anything that looks like it might be food, and by trial and error figures the process out. Why that fish doesn't subsequently survive to adulthood, I don't understand. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates that survival is poor for the hatchery steelhead. Some do survive, tho.

I forget the biologist's name from Oregon that has found much the same for coho salmon in coastal streams there. The hatchery coho are poor performers in the natural environment. I don't understand that one at all. My experience is that you can create a wild coho run from hatchery coho quite readily. I accept that the hatchery coho are perhaps less efficient at it coming out of the gate, but we've seen hundreds of thousands of "wild", or naturally reared coho smolts come down the upper Cowlitz that were from plants of hatchery fry. And the fry to smolt survival rate was quite acceptable. Of course, coho seem to be the most "plastic" of the salmonids. They take to hatchery culture quite well, and are easily reared, transported, and so on. So perhaps they can be returned to natural production more readily than the other species as well.

I'm not sure about chinook. I would expect that if the spawn timing is the same as natural fish that hatchery chinook could successfully reproduce in the wild, but really, I'm speculating.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g

Sounds like ADFG has a golden opportunity to initiate the study to answer the question regarding spawning productivity in hatchery-reared chinook. How would you go about setting up such a study? How do you measure the productivity (or lack thereof) when the progeny of those hatchery-reared spawners is not marked?

FishNDoc-
Unfortunately my computer skills are even more limited that Salmo's. However some of the authors that have written on survival of hatchery steelhead include: Leider et al. 1990, Blouin 2003, Kostow 2003, McLean et al. 2003, Hulett et al. 1996

For coho - Fleming and Gross 1993

For chinook - Reisenbichler and Rubin 1999

There are a number of ongoing studies as well as some literature comparing hatch and wild survivals for altantic salmon and anadromous brown trout.

The species interaction studies (several authors on the Yakima - (funded by BPA I think) would also likely have some information.

The short of it is that generally the longer the juvenile fish are held in the hatchery envirnoment (yearling smolts -steelhead, coho and chinook) the poor they perform in the wild. In addition the more generations a brood stock has been in the hatchery the poorer they do.

The poor survival is likely due primarily to the domesitication of the fish - that is the hatchey envirnoment selects for different behaviors than a free flowing river. The degree that the returning hatchery fish's spawn timing, behavior, run timing etc is out of sync with that exhibited by the wild fish also play a role in their survival.

To minimize negative effects of natural spawning hatchery fish on the wild populations the best bet is to catch the heck out of the hatchery fish. Two other general statregies have been commonly used. The first typcialified by the early Chamber's Creek fish is to have a large temporal and spacial separation in the spawning of the two populations. In the North Sound area the temporal separation of the two winter stocks is nearly 100%. The other is use native brood stock and to try to selective the brood stock so the smolts produced are representative of the wild population they came from - with prolong spawning and run timing that can be difficult. Any selection that occurs in the wild brood stock will likely result in a hatchery fish that is somewhat different that the wild population however there will be significant spacial and temporal spawning between the two populations.

Each of the hatchery programs present differrent harvest management problems as well. Which is better if any is likely best determined on a case by case basis.

Tight lines
Smalma

S malma

Thanks for the references.... I found the 1999 R&R article on the web but could only get access to the abstract.

click: R&R abstract

To see the whole study costs $30.00 to non-subscribers. OUCH!

Do you have a subscription to any of the on-line scientific papers that would allow you to download that article for free?

FishNDoc

No I don't - It has long been a problem getting hands on the various papers. The references I listed above were in a bibliography of a paper I was reading the other night.

Here is a paper the provides a summary on some of these issues.
http://www.lltk.org/hatcheryreform.html#publications

It is written by the HSRG group (hatchery review). While they may a pro-hatchery bent they and Long Live the Kings seems to have the respect of many.

You might be able to get copies of some of the papers by contacting the agencies that over saw some of the work - for example Lieder and Hullett were employed by WDFW.

While I'm swamped for the next couple weeks if I find a ready electronic source I'll try to pass it along.

Tight lines
Smalma

LT -- Thanks for the apology. No problem now. I appreciate it.

Smalma -- You could add to the list of references a paper by Kostow, Marshall, and Phelps, 2003, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, reporting on a study in the Clackamas basin wher hathcery summer steelhead spawning in the wild had much lower reproductive success than local native wild winter steelhead. The problem was that the offspring of the wild-spawning hatchery steelhead survived pretty well to the smolt stage. Apparently their poor survival was in the ocean. So they took up food, space, etc. in the river and thereby presumably diminished the survival of juvenile wild fish they were competing with. This study was comparing summer run hatchery fish with winter run wild fish so it might not have too much to say about using broodstock close to the wild fish in a hatchery program.

As far as those of us who have e-subscriptions to (some) journals sharing articles goes, I think this practice is usually prohibited. I'll look into it more and see if it's possible at all. I think there has been a very thoughtful exchange of ideas and information on this thread.

Twodogs -
The Kostow (2003) cited in the list above is the same as the Kostow, Marshall and Phelps paper you quote. I was just sloppy and omitted the other authors.

Thanks for the catch!

Tight lines
Smalma

Here's the fish described above...this obviously ripe hatchery buck was caught mid-April several years ago on the Skagit, below the mouth of the Sauk.



While admittedly rare, these fish are not insignificant. I believe that these "precocious" hatchery bucks are responsible for most, if not all, of the hatchery/wild crossover issues.

Fish on...

Todd.

S malma

I started chewing on that LLTK's hatchery reform recommendations for Puget Sound (2003).

I was a bit perplexed by the concept of rigidly designating 'integrated' vs 'segregated' hatchery programs, and the group's stance against any sort of 'intermediate' programs.

For the rest of the readers:

Integrated program: In a given drainage, the stocked fish are made to be as much like their wild counterparts as is humanly possible (ie in terms of genetics, morphology, run-timing). Co-mingling on the spawning beds is OK, but not necessarily desirable. No more than one third of natural spawners should be of hatchery origin... basically 2:1 ratio of wild:hatchery on the redds. Broodstock for the hatchery should consist of 10-20% wild fish ( in other words, 80-90% hatchery in-breeding).

Segregated program: In a given drainage, the stocked fish should be managed as a distinct stock with ideally no co-mingling with the wild stock. The genetics and run-timing would be very different so as to minimize pollution of the wild gene pool. Ideally no more than 1-5% of natural spawners would be of hatchery origin.

What do you guys think?

FishNDoc-
Science always wants to put biological systems into nice neat boxes - of course nature does not work that way. However we need to understand the simple before the complex.

Todd -
How long ago is several years. When the CnR season started on the Sauk in 1980 as much as 15% of the hatchery run was caught in March with unspawned hens ocassionally seen as late as the 1st of April. Through the continued spawn timing selection of the hatchery brood stock now (post 2000) no ripe hens are trapped at the hatcheries after late February. While there are still some spent and semi-spent males seen in the river in March. The likelyhood of seeing fish such as the one shown above spawning with any wild fish has been greatly reduced - the probability that occurring is likely only half of what it was 5 or 6 years ago.

The real question is how much impact or risk do such fish represent to the wild population. What genetic information that is available shows that on the Skagit that between the early 1970s and the early 1990s (5 steelhead generations) the wild fish become no more similar to the hatchery fish. Presumably with the overlap in spawning between the hatchery and wild fish reduced from 15% in the 1970s to less than 1% today that difference will continued to be maintained. I would expect that any mal-adapted hatchery genes are being quickly selected from the population by the harsh natural selection that occurs in basins like the Skagit.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

That fish was caught in April of 1997, or maybe 1998...I can't remember.

It's good news that the possibility of a fish like that fish being there this April is much, much lower.

On the concern of hatchery introgression, that's not really much of a concern to me. The studies noted above all pretty much say that cross breeding between wild and hatchery fish rarely produce any viable adult returns. The concern is the loss of productivity of a wild hen if she spawns with a hatchery buck, removing her productivity, or a lot of it, from the gene pool.

Doc,

A few months ago reps from LLTK and the HSRG came and presented their work at a Wild Steelhead Coalition meeting, and it was very interesting.

Integrated vs. segregated hatchery programs is a difficult choice to make. If run properly, both are much better than what we've done over time.

Segregated should have the least likelihood of hatchery/wild integration, but would go against the chances of trying to recover the early returning component of the wild run.

Integrated would spread the fishing out over the season, which would also put more fishermen on the rivers in March in April, putting more pressure on the wild runs. These fish would also have a much higher chance of spawning in the wild, and even if they are closer to the wild fish, they are still hatchery fish. All the discussion above shows what the possible results of that could be.

The key to having segregated runs is not only to separate them temporally, but to have excellent collection facilities to get nearly every fish that doesn't get harvested by fishermen.

If such collection facilities or techniques could be utilized, why couldn't they also be utilized in March and April to catch broodstock from the integrated type of hatchery fish, thereby reducing the chances of those fish spawning in the wild, too?

Fish on...

Todd.

On the issue of segragating the runs (wild vs. hatchery), would it not be possible to imprint the hatchery fish with a distinctive home?

This may already be a practice, but if the hatchery releases (or hatcheries) were to be located just upstream in a feeder (Like the Baker), would not those smolts be imprinted with the Baker smell, vs. the Skagit?

I don't know how many fish might spawn elsewhere besides their "home" waters, but in the case of the Baker there is a clear (actually muddy) separation of the waters for quite a ways downriver, so much so that I am told the hatchery fish hang to the North side of the Skagit as they come upriver, as it smells like "home".



If the wild fish are spawning elsewhere, it makes sense to create a separation using the natural flows of feeder streams, making them "home" for the hatchery fish and an obvious spot for sportsmen/hatchery to control the returning population.

This *may* already be a practice of the hatcheries...seems logical. (and that's dangerous..LOL)

Mike

That's a great lookin fish!!!!!!! I was hoping that it would show up in this thread. Good times!!!!

BR

S malma

I found my way to a long bibliography of papers on wild:hatchery co-mingling compiled by Bill Bakke that contained many of the works you cited.

In reviewing some of these abstracts on steelhead and chinook, it is unclear to me whether the observations of poor productivity by naturally spawning fish of hatchery origin would still hold up in a program where locally adapted wild broodstock was used for artificial propagation.

Is there any more recent work out there that looks specifically at the natural productivity of hatchery fish derived from locally adapted wild broodstock? The results from the Kalama studies should be no surprise as a poorly adapted non-local broodstock was used.

I have seen the use of locally adapted wild brood stock advocated repeatedly, but is there any hard evidence out there that shows it really makes a difference?

FishNDoc-
I'm not aware of any peer review published studies on the relative productivity of hatchery fish using native brood stock. Some of the prelim info that I have heard about seems to indicate that those hatchery fish are not much less productive than the native fish - the numbers that are kicked around is about 90% as productive for the HxH and HxW crosses. I suspect that it will be several more years before there is more detailed information. The ultimate answer will likely depend on how different the selective pressures are on those fish raised in the hatchery and those that are produced by the natural system.

Clearly those established hatchery brood stocks are less productive and any new brood stock; even those using wild fish have the first step down that slide of lost productivity cause by domestication.

Tight lines'
S malma