Todd

You say;" Would you like to explain how the Cowlitz FHMP is going to work if what you have said is true? If it is true, why would both NMFS and WDFW and Trout Unlimited agree to how they are going to use "hatchery" fish for recovery on the Cowlitz?

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

The jury is out on how well hatchery fish can or can't help recover wild runs.

While all of the science shows that the interaction of wild and hatchery fish generally does not pass on any genetic material from the hatchery fish, there are specific situations where it has worked, to some extent.

It's a bit like talking apples and oranges, though, when we talk about those examples.

Situation one is the S.Fk. Skykomish above Sunset Falls. A fish trap and trucking program has opened up dozens of miles of spawning habitat that was previously not accessible by anadromous fish.

While there are no "native" anadromous fish up there, there are now wild, self-supporting runs of steelhead, silvers, chinook and pinks.

These runs don't have any native fish competition, nor any harvest fisheries, at least up there. The habitat is also in super shape, and there is a lot of it.

I'm not sure what the difference is with those runs...the fish that established those runs were mainly wild fish in the case of the salmon, but mainly hatchery fish in the case of the steelhead. Only time will tell, but it seems to be working pretty well so far.

Another example is the massive stocking of rivers such as the Methow and the Wenatchee, and others in the critical habitat of the endangered steelhead over there. They're supposed to be "supplemental" fish, those who are intended to spawn and create more "wild" fish. I haven't seen much that says it is working or that it's not...just that they get a lot of hatchery fish back, and that there still aren't very many wild fish.

A third would be the upper Cowlitz fish. I guess only time will tell there, too, if using hatchery stock to replenish wild runs will work. It looks like there are quite a few silvers and steelhead making it back up there.

The evidence is pretty clear that non-local hatchery fish, as they go through the generations, become less and less productive, even in the hatcheries. Look at PS hatchery winter run steelhead for evidence of that.

Using fish that are close to local fish may not have very good productivity, but maybe it will improve over several generations.

I guess the dependent factor will be if the numbers can reach a point where they can do more than just replace themselves (S.Fk Sky), and that they don't hit the point where they can no longer replace themselves (PS hatchery winter runs).

I think that using hatchery fish to help help out recovery of wild fish may have a few different reasons, like...

1. It might work.
2. It requires hatchery fish.
3. Hatchery fish are there for harvest, too, so fisheries are able to take place.

If they didn't use hatchery fish, then they'd be better off to stop stocking hatchery fish and stop fishing over the runs. I think we all know that would work better than anything else, assuming there's some habitat to use, than anything we can do with hatcheries.

However, that would mean no commercial fisheries and no sport fisheries...and that wouldn't fly politically.

Fish on...

Todd.

We all know that fish are 95% instinct and 5% experience. Nature has given them their survival instincts for millions of generations. Now those survival instincts are somehow negated by one generation raised in concrete tanks? To me, that doesn't make sense. Many other animals that rely on instinct have been re-introduced successfully to the wild. And that's basically the same thing that happens with hatchery fish. They raise them in captivity, and toss them out into the wild streams. The same happens with other gamefish such as bass, and they don't have any trouble reproducing. The carp and walleye that inhabit the big C originally came from hatcheries or captive stock, and they haven't had a problem reproducing either.

Do hatchery salmon reproduce with other wild salmon? That's the question. Going off of experience with other animals indicated that they would. I'm interested in where these facts come from. Can anyone point out specific studies?

You need to understand evolution to know the difference. It is little about their instinct and more about natural selection. The weaker genetic fish have been allowed to get to a place in their life cycle that they would not have been allowed by nature had they been raised 100% wild . They would have died. So you are increaseing the likelyhood of passing on traits that have been removed from wild fish breeding naturally. It can only mean a weaker fish strain. Conditioned responses like coming to the surface to look for food because thier food is broadcast into the pen and holding in open water regardless of bird predation have not been proven to be passed on gentically. Imune response,genetic abnormalities,etc are transfered. More hatchery fish surrvive right now that wild fish so they are more likely to breed with wild females. Also current research in Ore ( salmon not steelhead) shows that the wild males will move out of breeding areas when hatchery fish are present.

Arklier,

The studies that came up with those conclusions are listed and discussed in both this thread and the "Retaining Hatchery Steelhead" thread. They've also been discussed before on this BB, so a search of the site would probably come up with them and more.

The fact that it doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it not so. All the science points to the fact that it does indeed make sense, repeatedly.

Salmon and steelhead are not bass, walleye, or carp. They have life histories that are incredibly complex, and depend on many more factors than do warmwater fish life histories...more than we know, yet, I'm sure.

The "95% instinct, 5% experience" discussion doesn't mean anything to this discussion...the genetics that fish have, genetics that have developed hand in hand with the particular environment that the run of fish developed in, are not instinct, nor are they experience. Instinct rises out of the particular genetics, and are further modified by the experiences of the fish.

Scientific studies have borne these conclusions out repeatedly.

You wondered if wild and hatchery salmon interbreed successfully. I don't know of any studies that have specifically studied that yet. Until recently none of the hatchery fish have been marked, so it was harder to tell what was what, or even how many wild fish were among the hordes of hatchery fish returning.

These studies have been done on steelhead, though, and all have concluded that they do spawn together, but that they do not produce any (statistically) returning adults.

Also, it has been shown that one generation in hatchery ponds does indeed separate the wild fish from the hatchery fish...and more generations makes it even worse. That's why the broodstock programs which don't use fish more than a generation away from the wild fish are better, but still will never be as good as the wild fish.

When I have a bit more time than I do at the moment I'll post some of the most recent studies here, unless they get posted before I get a chance to.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

Stay with us a little longer!
You say Going back to the Cowlitz one more time! WDFW introduced winter run steelhead stocks that came from outside the basin, starting around 1936. They continued using these "outside stocks" (mostly Chambers) for over 31 more years. The smolt that were planted averaged 3.5/lb (meaning that they most likely had a very good return survival rate back to the Cowlitz). From 1957 to 1967, they planted an average of about 50,000 smolts each year until 1967. From 1967 on, they used only Cowlitz fish for hatchery production. They have used the interbreed prodigy of these fish in mass numbers in the Cowlitz from 1936 to 2000 to supply 100% of the hatcheries production.

During the years from 1972 thru 1979 they took no eggs from the wild native stock during March thru April (that 8 full years) that no eggs from wild native shock were used for all the production of Cowlitz winter steelhead. You have to remember that they were producing enough smolts to achieve a return of 22,000 adult steelhead back to the Cowlitz. Millions of smolt were produced during that time period. Tacoma operated there project in such a way that almost no natural production occurred in the lower Cowlitz below there dams. Harvest was and has been intense on any fish that ever was able to make a redd. In 1984, it was estimated that only 2% of the native winter run steelhead still spawned naturally in the Cowlitz. That was over 20 years ago!

No biologist that isn't on drugs would suggest that these "native" stocks of late winter run steelhead could have survived over this time period with the intense harvest, and hatchery interaction that has occurred on the Cowlitz for the pass 30 years.

If they could have, then no wild fish anywhere is in any danger of extinction! But now WDFW expects us to believe that a "special breed" of supernatural winter run steelhead now exists in enough numbers to be used for a recovery program because of there late return timing, and becuase they represent the true native winter steelhead.

Supposable WDFW did a genetic test that identified a "special" unique fish that only exists in the Cowlitz River! Isn't it strange that neither Tacoma nor WDFW would come up with any "original" DNA to verify that they "match" this supper stock of Cowlitz fish?

So much for that ONE GENNERATION of fish raised in a pond theory!


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

I guess this would be my speculation...if there are any wild steelhead left in the Cowlitz, they would be March, or later, fish, what with the zillions of hatchery fish that mainly have been running from Thanksgiving through January.

My guess is that there probably aren't any, or aren't very many, wild fish left. If there is going to be any natural production, though, it would make sense to try it with the later arriving fish so as to avoid overlapping "recovery fish" with "harvest fish", i.e., the "Boeing" run of fish that run during Christmas vacation.

Here are the two scenarios...

1. There are fish put there from the hatcheries for harvest, and that's it.

or

2. There are fish put there for harvest in the early season, and others which are allowed to seed the upper river for natural production in the later season.

I haven't yet read the stuff you were kind enough to send my way regarding the Cowlitz FERC relicensing agreement, but I'm guessing that this is the bone of contention.

Under either scenario above, there is the same amount of fish produced. Under #1 there are more fish produced at the hatcheries for harvest. Let's call that "X" amount of fish.

Under #2, the hatcheries produce, say, .75X amount of fish, and the other .25 X are to be created "naturally" in the upper river.

All things being equal, #1 produces more fish for harvest, while #2 produces the same amount of fish, but 25% less for harvest. This assumes that those .25X actually are produced in the natural river. This also would save Tacoma Power the money it would cost to produce the adcditional 25% of the fish.

Is this what you were talking about last week?

Fish on...

Todd.