Why such a bad rep with hatchery fish?

I do not know why hatchery fish are so hated.

Is it because of the genetics?

I am assuming hatchery fish are not derived from native stocks and "outside genes" are where the stocks come from.

If they used native stocks to fill the hatchery pens would that be acceptable?

Is using native stocks to fill hatchery pens not good enough for the purist?

If native fish are so low in "natural" conditions would it not be beneficial to use native stocks to fill hatchery pens be beneficial to helping natural stocks recover ?

I know I may be uninformed but this is why I am making this post.

the response for your post could be a 20 page essay... haha

Good Luck.......and consider the sources of your information.

I read Doc post that said hatchery to hatchery in the wild returned zero, hatchery to wild returned minimal. We'll if you have an escapement of 1000 fish producing 1-2 million eggs and you struggle every year to meet escapement. Is that not minimal. Look how stream beds change after every high water, and all those redds are lost, they are barley reproducing the yearly escapement or not, brood stock 50 pairs and release early so they imprint into the section you released them into, And watch the yearly escapement go up 400% in a very short time. Only breed out of high finners, either true wilds or F1's that where early released with fins, to create that strongest will survive arena. Taking flooding and Redd loss out of the equation.

It is easy to point the fingers at Habitat, But look no farther then the Queets, She lays mainly in the Park, she is protected from urbanization, cattle grazing, and so forth. But she to struggles, but on a good belly washer, she can go from 3k CFCs to 60k+ CFCs in a very short time! creating a new river! and major redd disturbment.

I disagree with your basic assumption. As would alot of folks on this BB. I love hatchery fish. On the grill, in the smoker, in a good salmon chowder, or almost any other method that lands them on my plate. Indeed, hatchery fish are the only fish I get to take home. All the wild fish get released.

Don't get me wrong, I like wild fish too, but those are more valuable in the river than in my freezer. So back they go, if I'm fortunate enough to hook one.

So, yes hatchery fish are great! And no, I don't hate them. I believe almost everyone on this BB feels the same. But maybe I'm missing something.

dont forget hatchery fish can introduce disease and add competition for eating food with the native smolt.

but this is a touchy subject, a lot of opinion vs opinion

but despite the facts on how they can hurt the native fish, most everyone would agree they prefer to have some hatchery fish options then none at all.

Phil - Regarding fish diseases, it's actually the other way around. Wild fish carry lots of diseases that hatchery fish do not. Hatchery fish are innoculated against a variety of diseases while they are in the hatchery since a hatchery environment is a perfect place for a catastrphic outbreak. So hatchery fish get alot of health care while their wild cousins get none.

Coho, I did not say clip, I said suppliment, if you wanted to clip a small percentage, that is another thought, but if a pair can only look to reproduce themselves. And this what is happening, this is why the escapement every year is about the same. We are never going to get ahead, if we can suppliment and create a 400% increase in the escapement! we just took the rivers self 1 to 1 reproduction rate from and escapement of 1000 fish to 4000-5000 fish, if you clipped half of what you raised and released the other half early, your benefit would still increase the wild escapement from 1000 to 3000 with 2000 being F1's based of of just self reproduction. Now I understand that F1's are only about 85% as viable as the pure wild component. This percentage is what Salmo and Doc mentioned afew years back. But still the status que is 100% of 1000 what we have now, with an added 85% of 2000 of the less viable first gen removed Broodstock fish, still supplements an additional 1700 fish above escapement with fins to breed in the wild,
And their offspring will come back at the true wild self reproduction rate. It is the only way to increase the wild component.

As far as compitition for food, not buying it, that area also needs help, the Queets, should have the ability to produce to same food for smolts as it did 50 years ago, when the escapement was in the 10 of thousands, what was lost where the high amount of decaying carks, creating less food, so we really need to get the carcuses back, from the hatcheries, processors, make pucks and feed the Eco systems, in our rivers. This would help with your compitition for a lack of food thought.

MM - My apologies. I was not responding to your post. But I can see why you thought so. My fault. I should have been clearer.

I was responding to the originator of the thread (Fishyfeller) who expressed some confusion as to why there is so much hate directed to hatchery fish. I was just saying that I disagree since I really enjoy hatchery fish.

However, your point about wild fish vs hatchery fish is a long, on-going, contenious debate with no end in sight. I may join the debate, but it takes more time than I have, so I will forego the discussion for now.

Regarding the Queets. The gillnetting of the river is a huge issue. You can see the gillnets stretched across the whole river under the Clearwater bridge. Same with the Ho. They use power boats on both rivers. Sort of reverse natural selection, kill the fish that made it all the way down and back.

They use them on all coastal systems, not going to change that. But if a percentage make it past, and we increase the return number considerably, then the percentage (remains constant) that hits the gravel will be much higher,

pastor todd~mod must be in a coma, cause he's very willing to step atop the soap box and spew a hell fire brimstone sermon on topics like this.

very surprising that he's MIA sofar.

Doc, I want just F1's to suppliment the wild component.To have more hit the gravel, if they can be hatched with our care then transported to stream side natural rearing ponds, or concrete raceways, so be it. The problem is 2000 eggs hit the gravel from a nice big hen and you can expect 2 fish or fewer to return. Some redds have higher success, some have none, but in the end it is 2 or less on average per pair. Much due to Mother Nature and severe flooding. If it was higher then are escapement would rise, but it doesn't. The problem is natural hatchability, we can help this with minimal impact. 100 fish used, on their own would only bring back 100 fish on average, with help, and understanding the 85% reduced reproduction fitness of the returning fish! those same 100 could bring back 2-4k that could hit the gravel
And spawn at a reduce 85% vitality rate. Hmmm 1 for 1 on a natural spawn wild or .85 to 1 on an F1, but with a 200-400% increase in what hits the gravel. Even at 85% it seems like a win! win situation.

Met'lheadMatt,

It looks like you're over-looking a critical aspect of fish management in WA and how the ecosystem works. First, as the prospective run size increases above the spawning escapement goal, then the harvest goal increases, not in proportion, but by whatever number of fish are forecast greater than the escapement goal. Fish over and above that number (I think it's 8,000 for the Quilayute system, for example) are defined as surplus production. Surplus production is available for harvest, and so long as the state and tribal co-managers are wed to the MSH/MSY management mantra, there will be no increase in the number of natural spawners, except by coincidence.

Second, the aquatic ecosystem has finite production potential. A spawning escapement goal intended to maximize production won't produce more fish by having more spawners hit the gravel. The habitat will be fully seeded, and the maximum number of smolts will be produced. The escapement goal under MSH/MSY is lower, because the maximum number of harvestable fish always occurs at lower overall productivity than the maximum, at which point the conversation drifts a bit.

A third point is that with native broodstock programs, and a majority of the treaty tribes making the policy/science decision that hatchery and wild fish are equal means there is no discounting of productivity of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment by those tribes.

Sg

Salmo, I understand that anything over is considered harvestable, but why always settle for the bottom of the barrel, not enough for retention, so we let the tribes cream of the excess, mind you I wouldn't keep them if I could, but we are barely making escapement every year, why not have fish grace our water like 100 years ago. So why is everyone all high and mighty for a wild steelhead coal, if we can not increase the numbers. Habitat improvement, feeding the Eco-system ect, do nothing more then increase the numbers above escapement and allow for additional harvest. Continue to do what you've always done and you can expect the same result Good by Native Steelhead.....

well they failed with last years returners on the bogey... all killed by a virus, had to get smolt from makah tribe

Nothing wrong with catching hatchery fish. Hell, I love it! The trouble with hatchery fish is that when they escape harvest (some always will), they do what comes naturally, meaning they spawn in the river. Every study conducted to date indicates that hatchery genes mixing with wild reduces the productivity of the wild spawners at an ever-increasing rate. Obviously, that's bad, and that's why many of us tout the "all hatchery fish must die" mantra. Of course, that mantra is shared by those who manage commercial fisheries, and it does a lot to explain why we lose so much opportunity, both wild and hatchery-bred, at the hands of gillnets.

There should be no doubt that hatcheries, hydropower, and habitat (and maybe most of all ocean conditions) are limiting factors in productivity, but the ultimate culprit, in my mind, is the same today as it was when the first "supplemental" hatcheries were built: overharvest, which was, after all, the very reason for the first hatcheries. As Salmo g. said, any fish over the paltry escapement goal is a dollar sign with fins. As long as that's true, no stocks will ever see a meaningful, long-term increase. I guess it's my opinion, but even as a not-so-opinionated person, I can't seem to be convinced of anything else. If fish weren't so remarkably more resilient than land-based wildlife species in the face of constant overharvest, I'm pretty sure they'd all be extinct by now.