Sounds like Stew has it in for anyone who is a bait fisherman or bait fishing guide and doesn't fish the way he does or think like he does?

Nope just the greedy ones

Stew,

I have never run a single guided trip for steelhead anywhere. So you can disclude me for those reasons. Secondly, I fish for steelhead lots. I like to fish rivers that don't get hatchery influence, but I will do the ones that have a broodstock program. Just as you do.

However, you, nor anyone else can prove anything bad about a broodstock program without data. Not that there isn't a chance to have the programs be wrong. I'm just not ready to jump on that wagon until some data is completed.

Here is my whole reasoning. I know you have fished the Nehalem. I fish it in the winter alot. It has one of the nicest runs of wild fish in the state with the least amount of access. There are years when it is tough to find many steelhead in this river. Some years it is like a hatchery pond. Why is that. It has been left alone and managed for wild fish and yet it has no better of a run than the Trask or Wilson. I know you are aware of this as you fish the Wilson. You must agree that the Wilson has a nice population of wild steelhead.
I know that there are guides that make a living from the catch and kill fishery, but is it wrong to want to feed you kids and make your house payment. If I needed guiding income to make all my bills I'd be right there fighting with them to help make a difference. You should thank those guides who have given us all an opportunity to catch a fish we can take home.
Take the word "greedy" out of your sentence, or look in the mirror.

Does this published results constitute the negatives of broodstock programs? I my book it does:
Hood River Native Broodstock Program:

In 1994 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribes began to evaluate the reproductive success of native broodstock and compared them to the wild fish they were derived from. Kathryn Kostow evaluated the data collected on wild, native broodstock, and old hatchery stock to determine whether there is a life history and behavior difference between them. The following is taken from the abstract in a paper published by Kostow in 2004.

Juvenile phenotypes and fitness as indicated by survival were compared for naturally produced steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), a new local hatchery stock, and an old nonlocal hatchery stock on the Hood River, Oregon, U.S.A. Although the new hatchery stock and the naturally produced fish came from the same parent gene pool, they differed significantly at every phenotype measured except saltwater age. The characteristics of the new hatchery stock were similar to those of the old hatchery stock. Most of the phenotypic differences were probably environmentally caused. Although such character changes would not be inherited, they may influence the relative fitness of the hatchery and natural fish when they are in the same environment, as selection responds to phenotypic distributions. A difference in fitness between the new hatchery stock and naturally produced fish was indicated by significant survival differences. Acclimation of the new hatchery stock in a “seminatural” pond before release was associated with a further decrease in relative smolt-to-adult survival with little increase in phenotypic similarity between the natural and hatchery fish. These results suggest that modified selection begins immediately in the first generation of a new hatchery stock and may provide a mechanism for genetic change.

Kostow notes in her study that ‘new hatchery fish’ derived from the wild population and called ‘native brood stock’ had poor survival.” She said, “Average smolt to adult survival for the naturally produced winter and summer steelhead were five to six times higher than for the new hatchery stock. “

“…large phenotypic responses by fish from the same parent gene pool to the differences between the captive and natural environments are consistent with the process of domestication.”

“This study demonstrates large average phenotype and survival differences between hatchery-produced and naturally produced fish from the same parent gene pool. These results indicate that a different selection regime was affecting each of the groups. The processes indicated by these results can be expected to lead to eventual genetic divergence between the new hatchery stock and its wild source population, thus limiting the usefulness of the stock for conservation purposes to only the first few generations.”

Source: Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 577-589, 2004

Or this one:
Deschutes River Native Broodstock Evaluation:

In 1977, Reg Reisenbichler published a paper comparing the growth and survival differences between hatchery and wild steelhead. In this study Reisenbichler compared crosses between wild and hatchery fish to hatchery and wild fish in both the stream and hatchery environments. He found that “there were genetic differences in growth rate and survival between the offspring of hatchery and wild steelhead.” The hatchery steelhead were derived from the wild fish in the river and at the time of this work, they were two generations removed from the wild gene pool.

He found that “The observed differences in survival suggested that the short-term effect of hatchery adults spawning in the wild is the production of fewer smolts and ultimately, fewer returning adults than are produced from the same number of only wild spawners.”

Even though the hatchery fish were only two generations removed from the wild population, the hatchery fish survived better in the hatchery ponds and their run timing had changed compared to the wild fish. In contrast the wild fish survival was higher than hatchery fish in the natural streams.

Source: J. Fish. Res. Board Can., Vol 34, 1977

Or this one:
In 1996 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a “rescue/recovery” hatchery program for wild coho in the Clackamas River in an effort to increase the number of wild coho. “This rescue program was initiated in response to the extremely depressed returns observed during the late 1990s” (Mark Chilcote, ODFW).

In his analysis of this native broodstock rescue program Chilcote made the following key points:

”The smolt to adult survival of “wild-type” hatchery fish was nearly 1/10 of the survival rate for wild smolts (97 and 98 brood year production).”



“Averaging the results of 5 brood years, the total return to the basin was not increased by using wild fish for hatchery broodstock. Just as many total fish would have been produced if there had been no hatchery program at all.”



“All the hard effort involved in collecting and raising these fish didn’t pay off. These results have very serious implications for the use of hatchery programs to help restore lower Columbia River coho.”



“We need to find out why this occurred (if we can). If there is no corrective solution, then our tools to help restore lower Columbia River (LCR) coho have been significantly reduced. We need to respond accordingly.”

“Removing wild fish and running them through the hatchery system yielded no more adult offspring than if they had been left in the river.”

“When spawner density begins to fall into the range that we might be concerned about the persistence of the population, we should expect egg to smolt survival to be at its highest. Under such conditions, there will be little benefit to bringing some of the wild fish into the hatchery environment if the resulting hatchery smolts will have ocean survival rates that are 1/10 of those for wild smolts.”

“…all indications are that hatchery fish, even from wild broodstocks, are not as successful as wild fish in producing viable offspring under natural conditions…”

“The survival rates for the hatchery “rescue” smolts were low; 0.7% for 1999 smolts and 2.2% for 2000 smolts. In contrast, survival rates for wild smolts in the same years were 6.6% and 15.3%. Although, hatchery smolts normally do not survive quite as well as do wild smolts, the difference is generally much less.”

Source: Mark Chilcote memo to Bob Hooton and others, February 1, 2002. ODFW

I am all for reading data so can you provide me the published data that says that broodstock programs don't have an impact. Studies can have biases so I would like to read the other side too. So you asked for some data I guess I am asking for some too.

JJ

JJ,

The data you give is for LCR coho, not steelhead? They are a little bit different. Can you give us some examples from coastal steelhead.

Lund, the nehalem is a dangerous river to boat with hardly any fish I would recommend sticking to the wilson.

They're doing it all wrong. They need to do Hatchbox-Hatchery Coho like they do in Cedar Creek on the NF of the Lewis, then claim those returning fish to be wild..... Then shut us boaters out of the most popular hole on the river, the meat hole which ironically sits right below Cedar Creek. We need to protect those "wild" coho that came from the hatchery but were hatched in a hatchbox.... Friggin JOKE.......

Oh and the reason neither program works is because the CR Commercial nets "MOPPED-UP" on the returning population. Ask Gary Loomis himself, he knows.......

Keith

And there's more fish going over the dams now, than before they were built, dams are not coming out anytime soon...............

Keith that thread got locked. Don't go there. Salmon bake- out...... Hooray for the umpqua victory! Those are the biggest baddest wild steelies I have ever hooked down there. Hog quest did a show and glen and his buddies were killin high finners, sad show really. Glen tried to say it was the "locals" right to bonk wilds. No guide in their right mind would promote their clients to bonk wilds, unless of course you go on a guided trip on the quinallt.

Broodstock programs are just a harvest crutch, and not a recovery tool.

You are turning a blind eye if you believe broodstock programs do more good than harm in the long run of eventual "recovery" to wild steelhead.

OTOH, if it's between a well run hatchery and a well run broodstocking program, the lesser evil of the two would be the broodstocking program.



Funny you should mention the Quinault. One of the best examples of a once-quality river that has been completely tainted by it's broodstocking program. Good luck finding a true native steelhead on that river.

Parker,

There is a chance that years of inbreading hatchery scum has caused this problem?

Take a pair of true wild fish and breed their young in a hatchery and let them go. The offspring are less fit than their original wild parents.

Catch one of those returning fish and breed it with another wild mate.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Year after year after year.

You tell me what's left in the river now.......

I'm not a big fan of a hatchery *or* a broodstocking program when it is used as a "recovery" tool. It's not.

As I said, if you think it is, the wools are being pulled over your eyes.

Even better, I hear the UW School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences is accepting new undergraduates. Some of you could use the 4-5 years of fisheries education.....

If it's "so" bad on the wild fish then why does ODFW and WDFW support doing it? They're about to utilize a brood stock program on the NF of the Lewis for the wild winter steelhead. They collected fish this past winter for the program and as far as I know it's underway.

Keith

They do it to provide harvest opportunities.

The response is that "wouldn't you rather have these broodstock fish spawning in the river rather than the out of basin Chambers brats?"...and the answer for me is, "probably not".

Thanks to the virtual destruction of the early component of our wild winter runs, there are very few chances for the hatchery fish to interact with the wild fish, and the Chambers Creek duds spawning with each other produces statistically "zero" returning adults, so their impact is minimal.

Having the broodstock fishing returning with and spawning with the wild fish does them no favors whatsoever, and the science has been very clear on that over the years...there is an immediate reduction in fitness, and it may even compound itself over the next few generations.

The problem with that is once that Genie's out of the bottle, you can't get it back in.

Fish on...

Todd

All in all makes sense, other than DFW trying to create harvest opportunities is there any other reason they'd support it?

Keith

I'm not too sure I'm on parr with that last sentence.

Are you telling me that if man were to completely disappear off of the face of this earth, that the wild steelhead on the Quinault (or any) river wouldn't fully return (gene wise) back to their original, or close-to-original state?

Actually, kinda funny in that the Quinault will probably be under a kilometer of ice in 10,000 years or so....so it probably don't really matter any ways.

The steelhead will have migrated south to the "new" Mecca of Steelheading - Southern California.

Gotta love Geologic Time!



Harvest Opportunity and Recovery tend to be used in the same sentence with the WDFW.

We want our cake AND our ice cream, too.

Honestly, I don't believe we really can have both. True recovery means to complete STOPPING of all harvesting and fishing on a system. So, now it's about compromises.

As I said, if you gotta have the opportunity to harvest, I'd vote for a well run broodstocking program over a hatchery.

Lund,

The last of the three studies was coho the other 2 studies I posted were steelhead. So please read those also. It was to post information. You wanted some data and it was provided on both steelhead and then coho. So please provide somer data on how the broodstock programs are good. I would love to have a more well rounded view.

JJ