The "retaining hatchery steelhead" thread has been very educational for all. Thought I'd start a related topic that should also generate some lively discussion. I have heard differing opinions on the "correct" way to plant a steelhead stream in terms of run-timing.

Is it better compress the plants to return with early run-timing so as to minimize interactions with later-arriving wild stocks?

Or is it better to spread the hatchery return over a greater diversity of run-timing to increase harvest opportunity over a longer season?

Does the answer change if the plant is strictly from wild broodstock?

I think the wild steelhead obsession is why steelheading is so bad in Western Washington.
No one wants hatchery fish. The Indians don't. The commercials don't. And the purist spotsman don't, so you end up with nothing because wild runs cannot suppport the numbers of fishermen out there.

A well run "Broodstock" program would get my vote. We'd still have hatchery fish for the taking and they would be of much higher quality. If they were of "nate" origin the run timing wouldn't be so critical. In order to make a program work the volunteers would have to be committed and walk the talk, and the state and tribal fisheries managers would have to trust the effort.

Go on down to Blue Creek or Reiter or the Wynoochee and then come on back and tell THAT line again.

Well, to answer your question directlty I would prefer a spread on hatchery returns. My reasoning is that yes some would spawn with native fish but the strongest would survive making a longer run with eventually stronger fish throughout the run. This is how species have survived. If the gene pool is so shallow for the hatchery fish then you have add to the mix somewhere and this would allow for nature to have a bigger part in the mixing.

Remember, that broodstock programs can potentially be pandora's box for when it come to the wild fish. With the introduction of broodstock programs, i.e Satsop/Wynooche, etc. word on the street is the tribes will pressure to put the nets in get their 50% of the harvestable run later in the season at the expense of wild fish returning. A good number of anglers seem to believe that wild broodstocks programs are just great. What I want to know is the major goals of these programs, to create more hatchery fish or to aid in the recovery of a wild run? If it's the latter how come we think we can do it better than the fish? If it's just to create hatchery fish don't we have enough hatchery programs as it is? It's funny how there are never any stated goals or objectives when it comes to these programs, why is that?

Right on Dan,
I couldnt agree more, yes there are some systems where the hatchery stock pales in comparison with the wild/native stock (Bogey comes to mind), but thats not always/mostly the case. The Nooch and Cow seem to kick out some very aggressive "brats". I can remember many very exciting hookups on both those rivers that will rival any other steelheading experience.
I approach hatchery and wild/native steelheading differently but both definately have a place. I would prefer to keep an earlier hatchery run and later wild run. I think if it were to go to a more spread out approach, more people (on a whole) would be likely to keep a wild fish due to lack of oppurtunity to keep a true hatchery fish earlier in the season.

RL

RE: "No one wants hatchery fish".

Not to pick on this comment, but we need to keep in mind that your average fisherman does not have the experience, expertise or success that many of you have had on steelhead.

The majority of you here are "hardcore" steelheaders, and forget (maybe) that many are just now entering the time when they are able (physically, financially and time wise) to learn how to pursue steelhead.

Your success and knowledge gained about this resource are to be greatly respected, but there are thousands who fish yearly for steelhead whose success is no where near yours, nor may it ever be. I know a bunch of fellows that have fished for steelhead off and on for years...hooked a couple but never yet brought one to the beach. Others that have caught one or two over the years, and still others looking to get that first hook-up.

Personally speaking, I would be overjoyed in catching a hatchery fish. Not as "elite" perhaps as a wild fish , but all the same it is a fish that grew (mostly) in the river, went to sea and spent time to grow, dodging seals, sea lions etc., munching all the treats the ocean had to offer and is now back where he started...meaner, bigger and looking to make more of his kind. Sounds like a steelhead to me.

These resources are managed for all fishermen, and while some of us get the chance to fish more, or we manage our lives to allow more time to fish and spend the time/effort and cash to learn, not everyone can attain the skill of some of you, and would be overjoyed at a hatchery or wild fish.

Not getting down on anyone...just offering a different perspective.

Mike B (a hardcore rookie)

I love to catch hatchery steelhead because I love to eat steelhead. Mike B brought up a related issue in a different thread and it really caused me to remember why the State tried to get an early return on hatchery steelhead. They really wanted the Tribes to target those fish and it has worked. The Tribal fishery is very much front loaded with effort being reduced as the wild fish come in. However, nature created a widely dispersed wild run in terms of timing and that early component of wild fish is virtually gone. One more reason that the wild fish remains the best hope for long term recovery of the resource.

I THOUGHT THE IDEA WAS TO MINIMIZE HATCHERY GENE INTROGRESSION INTO WILD GENE POOLS. . .

My biggest concern with this issue is how hatchery/wild interaction has been shown to diminish overall wild productivity. It seems any "natural" spawning by hatchery fish yields exceedingly few returning adults. In the meantime, hatchery spawners compete with wild spawners for prime spawning gravel, and the juvenile progeny of those hatchery spawners compete with wild fry for a limited amount of riverine carrying capacity.

The other big concern is how the presence of harvestable hatchery stocks means that a fishery will be created to harvest those stocks. Since half of that harvest (you know which half) is completely non-selective, wild fish will inevitably also perish in that fishery.

Seems to me that no matter how you slice it, the co-existence of hatchery and wild steelhead always works against the wild fish. This is supported by the observation that almost no early-run wild fish are left in rivers that have been heavily planted with early-returning hatchery fish. The fisheries that target those hatchery fish take too many wild fish, and those that actually manage to escape must compete with uncaught hatchery fish for spawning and rearing habitat.

Broodstock programs are really not much better when this same analysis is applied. Perhaps you might get a slightly better fish in terms of reproductive fitness (actually don't know if that is true or if it has even been studied) but if they return with a clipped adipose fin, then a fishery will be waiting for them upon arrival. Again, since half the harvest is completely non-selective, more wild fish would perish.

My vote for the "correct" stocking strategy is to limit plants only to those rivers with remnant or non-existent wild populations. Stock the crap out of them! Any stream with a viable population of wild fish should not be stocked. Hatchery fish should be retained in any stream they are caught to help minimize the negative effects of straying. No retention fisheries on wild stocks until escapement goals have been assured, nets included.

The error of our past ways has clearly declared itself. Let's stop trying to fix things with tools we already know don't work. Our wild steelhead deserve no less.

fishNphysician

In your comments, above, you stated:

" It seems any "natural" spawning by hatchery fish yields exceedingly few returning adults."

I don't doubt the fact of this statement, but is there a resource which shows the methodology by which they gathered this data?

Seems to me if they had a "managed/natural" spawn then it really wouldn't be all that natural. Also, since the returning adults from this "natural" spawn of hatchery fish would not be clipped or otherwise marked...how did they know whose kid was whose?

Again, not doubting your data, but any direction towards empirical studies would be helpful.

Mike

Mike B

Look at the references cited in S malma's last post on the other thread (retaining hatchery steelhead).

Thanks Doc and Smalma...

I'll gladly do some add'l web researching to see if there are other articles/studies available.

Mike

fN, I vote for keeping the hatchery winter steelhead seperated from the wild fish in their run timing. I also think that "imprinting" should be looked at closer. I've mentioned this on other threads however if there were more concerted effort to imprint the hatchery parr/smolt to specific return sites the adult fish could be collected or harvested at these areas much like they do at terminal areas like Reiter or Blue Creek. This would further reduce interaction with the wild fish. Another advantage, if the tribes would agree, would be to do all commercial harvest at these return sites via traps rather then netting mixed stock (hatchery & early wild) fish in the lower portion of the rivers. I realize that some straying will occur however I think "imprinting" the parr/smolts to specific sites rather than releasing them all over the drainage would help minimize hatchery and wild interaction.

Mike B,

I think this is the technique used on the Kalama...

First, if you're not familiar with the river, there is a waterfall that blocks upstream migration. They put a plastic barrier on the waterfall, too, just to make sure that no fish could jump it.

All the fish that went beyond that waterfall were weighed, measured, named and numbered, DNA sampled, and released.

This included both wild and hatchery fish.

When the smolts came back down the river, they were collected in smolt traps. Not only could they tell if a particular smolt was wild/wild, hatchery/hatchery, or hatchery/wild, they could even tell that a particular smolt came from "Wild Hen #24" and "Hatchery Buck #16".

The smolt sampling done at this point showed that all three crosses had good egg to smolt survival.

When those smolts returned as adults, the only adults that came back were the wild/wild ones, statistically speaking.

I think that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

The implications are as follows:

1. Wild fish always do it better, no matter how well we think we're doing it in the hatchery.

2. Hatchery fish can spawn in the wild, and can do it with wild fish. The problem with this is two fold. First, HxH crosses produce smolts that compete with the WxW smolts for food and space, but don't ever become adults. This is an unnecessary restriction on wild fish productivity. Second, not only do WxH crosses also do that same thing, they also remove a wild fish's genes from the gene pool for that year's run. If a hatchery fish spawns with a wild fish, that wild fish is as good as bonked...it's eggs or sperm almost never translate into an adult fish.

This doesn't just apply to Chambers Creek or Skamania hatchery fish...studies show that two fish taken out of the wild to produce broodstock program fish produce more smolts due to the hatchery protections, but return less adults than the two wild fish would have done if just left in the river.

Not only do they produce less fish, the ones they do produce are clipped hatchery fish that are harvested.

Again, it's the same as bonking two wild fish in order to gain a few (literally a few) hatchery fish for harvest.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd:

"All the fish that went beyond that waterfall were weighed, measured, named and numbered, DNA sampled, and released."

I had to figure that all the technology available would be brought into use. By using the DNA markers no doubt they could tell exactly whose kid was whose!

If the fish, genetically, are the same, then clearly there are other factors (like attitude?) that enter into the equation of the w/h crosses that survive the smolt stage but show such a poor (if any) return as adult fish, where the w/w fish do so much better. Sounds like Darwin might have been right about some things.

You explanation makes perfect sense, Todd. Many thanks for the most understandable info.

Mike

I think that by now the lines between wild fish and hatchery fish are so blurred as to be almost nonexistant. How many years did the state pump out unmarked hatchery fish? How many years have those hatchery fish had to 'hybridize' (if that's even an applicable term here) with wild fish? At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if every single steelhead and salmon, whether it came from the truck or the stream, were a mutt.

I would prefer an all wild system even if it meant not fishing for 6 years.

Other than that I feel as long is there are hatcheries sport fisherman will be fighting like dogs for the scraps of fish left until the system crashes. Unless we choose one way or the other. Just as we do trying to sustain a commercial fishery with hatcheries for Salmon and appease several groups with the left overs. One good year does not mean a rebound like most here tend to think.

That just simply isn't true. It may make sense, but it's not backed up with fact. Hatchery fish may spawn with wild fish, but their offspring don't survive to spawn themselves, so the mixed genetic material isn't carried on to future generations of fish.

The main concern is that wild fish spawn unsuccessfully with hatchery fish, rather than spawning successfully with another wild fish. That takes a wild fish out of the mix.