MM, you've hit on one of the reasons for developing integrated programs. That is, where the straying of hatchery fish cannot be controlled (perhaps one should say WILL NOT be controlled), there is a far lower negative effect (at the same rate of spawning), with those strays being from hatchery fish derived from natural spawners versus Chambers Creek, Big Creek, Skamania stock, or any other pure hatchery population.

Todd is absolutely wrong in his absolute view of the results. If you want to find out the real science behind this and the real results of monitoring of numerous integrated programs (meaning places where people HAVE LOOKED), do not accept the "facts" that you read on BB's like this, but look into the literature and reports of real scientific groups like the HSRG, or the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) on the Columbia River. Their reports and summaries will provide different results than the simplistic dogma that you have in this thread.

My thought is if the nets are getting the surplus, why not use them to make a better hatchery fish, that when strays, does not help weaken the wild stocks any further, like those from out of basin stock. Those wild fish that mingle with out of basin fish... Are lost fish, and wasted opertimity... Might as well of been bonked, but if they mingle with F1's they still retain an 85% fitness, so all is not lost.

OncyT- I have read some of those finding, and I to believe an in basin hatchery fish, would help to strengthen the wild component when mingling happens. I also understand we are stuck with hatchery fish, so it is our responsibility to make a better, stronger hatchery fish, so when cross breeding happens it will not be as destructive as it currently is. In a perfect world we would not need mans intervention. But that world is long gone

I think this is a trick question. If you stated it as rhetorical, I don't think it is. Yes, more fish will return with a wild broodstock program supplying the hatchery fish, but a greater percentage of the returning fish will have reduced productivity. Over time, that's a big concern.

Here's another thing that concerns me about broodstock programs: They assume that all the wild fish entering River X are genetically equal. If it is the case that rivers from different drainages have fish with genes specifically advantageous to those rivers, is the same not likely true for each tributary? We pool and breed all the river's fish together (for the broodstock programs), but on a big river, there could be significant differences between subpopulations we have yet to discover. Off the top of my head, look at the Clackamas, the Wilson, and the Nehalem in Oregon. Those rivers get wild steelhead from roughly November-June, with many of them spawning in certain tribs during certain months. Often they vary in size, shape, time in the river etc. Yet on the Clack and Wilson, wild steelhead have been taken, for the broodstock program, from the mainstem, not knowing where and when they were destined to spawn. Do the resulting fish have 85% fitness on each individual trib? I doubt it.

In a way, I think the out-of-basin stocks may be a better bet because using them doesn't threaten the integrety of the wild fish's DNA. Given that habitat, not total spawners, is the most limiting factor on most NW rivers, I've reached a different conclusion about broodstock programs.

These reoccurring discussions are always fun to read. They always show a great interest in science, and which science to believe. When the discussion turns to genetics and evolution what Todd points out is important to remember. Evolution is a ongoing process driven by stress that an organism encounters. Salmon have been around for a long time, more than 5 million years. What we are talking about is only a 100 years or so. Sediment core work indicates that salmon went through long periods of low abundance in the past. It is true that humans are responsible for driving many species to extinction but I think salmon will outlast humans. Hatcheries maybe one of the reasons. As this discussion indicates we like our fish but what is lacking is the role of the fish. If the point of reproduction is to insure that some genetic suite is maintained then it is not so important where it takes place, just that there is an environment where reproduction is possible. While we humans assign some value to various life forms, food, weeds, bad bacteria, hatchery salmon, or wild salmon. Evolution is not dependent on what we value. One could say that salmon are evolving to reproduce in hatcheries as habitat for wild reproduction is degraded. Changes in habitat, pollution, climate change, disease, and harvest are all stressors at work in the ecosystem. If salmon can reproduce successfully in a hatchery they will. We could stop hatchery production but I suspect it would make little difference to wild fish populations.

Interesting twist on filling every available niche, WN1A... yes the critter is colonizing the hatchery environment to maintain its "genetic suite", but this occurs only with the "helping hand" of mankind.

Take man out of the equation and that hatchery life history instantly becomes a genetic dead end unto itself. Might some of those hatchery fish become reproductively successful in the wild. Perhaps a handful... but statistically difficult to distinguish from ZERO.

We've been genetically banking Idaho sockeye for decades. What would happen to Redfish sockeye if we pulled the plug?

Hatcheries are like people, you judge them one at a time.

To me hatcheries on big damned rivers makes a lot of sense. However hatcheries on small free flowing rives does not make sense.

The better we take care of these smaller watersheds the greater the chance of healthy runs. Those we abuse we won't see healthy runs. I'd rather take care of the watershed and let the wild fish figure it out.

I too enjoy the input of those here who bring a scientific slant.

WN1a...I was with you until the last sentence. Do you really think that management of hatchery stocks has not led to massive over harvest of wild stocks and loss of vigor of the wild fish genetics? Or that the effects of managing for hatchery fish has had no effect on wild production? If we stopped hatchery production, your argument would lead to recovery of naturally produced fish to meet the capacity of habitat. Unless you believe that habitat is already at capacity, harvest management to maximize hatchery stock utilization is dampening natural production. Do you believe that habitat is at capacity then?

milt roe - I think every thing you point out is true to some degree. My motivation for the post was to encourage people to expand their thinking about hatchery wild interactions. There are two kinds of interactions, genetic and ecological interactions. As eyeFish points out if hatcheries closed fish adapted to hatcheries would be at a genetic dead end just as when a dam is built without fish passage the fish adapted to spawn in the waters above the dam have to adapt to a new environment.What we humans do alters the path of genetic change of all fish.

This thread is centered around our local region, the northwest, and I think is mostly concerned with chinook and steelhead. The salmon ecosystem is the entire North Pacific region and in terms of populations chinook, and even more so steelhead, are a minor component. The total hatchery production of these two species is also small in comparison to North Pacific total hatchery production of all salmon. To understand ecological interactions of hatchery and wild fish one has to look at the big picture, the ocean is habitat. Chinook and steelhead spend a big part of their life in marine waters. They are also the two species of salmon that are declining (with a few exceptions) across their entire range. It is well accepted that pink salmon compete with steelhead for food in the North Pacific and impact chinook run numbers in Puget Sound. Local management is hampered by what goes on around the rest of the Pacific rim, some years it is effective and at other times not so good. Without some scheme to account for climate change, varying ocean conditions, and the increasing problems of pollution successful management is maintaining the status quo. I am not sure that ending hatchery production would lead to a significant increase of wild fish in all rivers with hatchery production. Alaska and Russia have large pink salmon hatchery programs even though wild pink numbers are huge. There is no need for these programs. Japan on the other hand has the largest hatchery program in the world producing chum salmon. Many years ago they made the decision to get rid of wild fish. Only a few wild chum runs remain and recently there has been some work to preserve/restore the wild chum. So often we humans think we can make things better through management and most often the goal of management is to maintain whatever is being managed in some stable state. Unfortunately to maintain a stable state sources of variability have to be minimized. Wild fish are a source of variability so a management regime that tries to balance hatchery and wild production will never be completely successful for any period of time.

I think that's part of the problem. I also think it's reason to try gene banks. If we cannot balance wild and hatchery fish in the same river, perhaps we can do better managing them in separate rivers.

Very astute, gentlemen.

Exactly why Todd keeps insisting you must choose one or the other. You CAN'T do both very effectively.

But you can, he is biased, a better viable hatchery fish gathered from surplus that is destined for net harvest, will pit a better gene in the pool when mingling occurs. This Is a win won for both situations.

Answer this one question. When a wild fish mingles with a chambers creek fish on the gravel. would you consider it a waste of a wild fish? And why or why not?

Yes…

The reproductive potential of the wild fish in that pairing is squandered.

For the record, I don't think we're putting any Chambers stock in any of the coastal streams except the December Bogi brats

Pretty certain NONE are used in the Chehalis basin.

OK I sort of mis-spoke about the Chehalis Basin.

Chambers stock is still used to plant the South Bay tribs (Elk/Johns). These really aren't Chehalis tribs, but they do dump into Grays Harbor, so some might consider that "coastal".

Currently, winter steelhead plants in the Chehalis Basin proper are all derived from local stocks…. and to the best of WDFW's ability, they are managed as integrated populations. The HSRG goal is to introduce at least 30% wild gene flow into the parental broodstock used each year and allow no more than 15% of gravel spawners to be of hatchery origin. I've NEVER seen a comprehensive document of how well these metrics are being consistently met, if at all. My educated guess is that they aren't.

Summer runs… Wynoochee, Chehalis, Hump… are all derived from Skamania stock. While the strains used are locally adapted, they are the only out-of-basin hatchery steelhead planted in any significant volume in the basin.

Yes, especially if the ancestors of that wild fish actually spawned in the river.

Are the skookumchuck skamania fish, and what are they in the hump. I to agree that they are wasted? But if that same fish mingled with an in basin Broodstock, it would have a reproductive fitness of 85%, and no longer be considered wasted. and their offspring would return to full fitness. A 15% mingle rate as was mentioned, in a return that might double or triple native escapement! could mean possibly 30% or greater of the wild escapement might mingle! and as you both mentioned, be wasted. That is a lot of wasted wild fish. But not wasted if all clipped fish where Broodstock gathered from surplus fish destined for the nets. So in essence Broodstock over out of basin does benefit the wild steelhead, and also can decrease the net days, as we claim some of the surplus.

I am for not putting anything in the river, but let the wilds work it out. But I know this is a pipe dream, and the forces to be, won't let that happen. So I look for the best answer to help both. Not increasing numbers,just making a stronger wild fish, when mingling occurs

I know on the Wynoochie, they collect the fish at the trap, and use the wild from there, And on the Satsop I thought they where just using what came back to the trap, which are generations removed from when we brood stocked, are they still collecting wild fish to integrate there?, how are the collecting in basin fish on the hump, the clipped,fish there have little to know resemblance to the in basin fish. Just asking.

According to HSRG 2004, brood fish for Hump winter steel program are the early-timed naturalized spawners derived from out plants of Quinault and Bogi hatcheries in the 1980's.

Out of basin, should be in basin Broodstock. Might say they are early timed, but we catch them all the way until it closes, and we catch early wild fish.