10-4-07

Salmonid Hatcheries Cause "Stunning" Loss of Reproductive Ability

By David Stauth, 541-737-0787



Contact: Michael Blouin, 541-737-2362



CORVALLIS, Ore. - The rearing of steelhead trout in hatcheries causes a

dramatic and unexpectedly fast drop in their ability to reproduce in the


wild, a new Oregon State University study shows, and raises serious

questions about the wisdom of historic hatchery practices.

The research, to be published Friday in the journal Science,
demonstrates

for the first time that the reproductive success of steelhead trout, an

important salmonid species, can drop by close to 40 percent per

captive-reared generation. The study reflects data from experiments in

Oregon's Hood River.

"For fish to so quickly lose their ability to reproduce is stunning,
it's

just remarkable," said Michael Blouin, an OSU associate professor of

zoology. "We were not surprised at the type of effect but at the speed.
We

thought it would be more gradual. If it weren't our own data I would
have

difficulty believing the results."




Fish reared in a hatchery for two generations had around half the

reproductive fitness of fish reared for a single generation. The effects


appear to be genetic, scientists said, and probably result from
evolutionary

pressures that quickly select for characteristics that are favored in
the

safe, placid world of the hatchery, but not in the comparatively hostile


natural environment.

"Among other things, this study proves with no doubt that wild fish and

hatchery fish are not the same, despite their appearances," said Michael


Blouin, an OSU associate professor of zoology. "Some have suggested that


hatchery and wild fish are equivalent, but these data really put the
final

nail in the coffin of that argument."




Even a few generations of domestication may have significant negative

effects, and repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild

populations "should be carefully reconsidered," the scientists said in
their

report.

Traditionally, salmon and steelhead hatcheries obtained their brood
stock

and eggs from fish that were repeatedly bred in hatcheries - they tended
to

be more docile, adapted well to surface feeding, and they thrived and

survived at an 85-95 percent level in the safe hatchery environment.

More recently, some "supplementation" hatchery operations have moved to
the

use of wild fish for their brood stock, on the theory that their
offspring

would retain more ability to survive and reproduce in the wild, and
perhaps

help rebuild threatened populations.

"What happens to wild populations when they interbreed with hatchery
fish

still remains an open question," Blouin said. "But there is good reason
to

be worried."




Earlier work by researchers from OSU and the Oregon Department of Fish
and

Wildlife had suggested that first-generation hatchery fish from wild
brood

stock probably were not a concern, and indeed could provide a short-term


boost to a wild population. But the newest findings call even that

conclusion into question, he said.

"The problem is in the second and subsequent generations," Blouin said.

"There is now no question that using fish of hatchery ancestry to
produce

more hatchery fish quickly results in stocks that perform poorly in
nature."




Evolution can rapidly select for fish of certain types, experts say,
because

of the huge numbers of eggs and smolts produced and the relatively few
fish

that survive to adulthood. About 10,000 eggs can eventually turn into
fewer

than 100 adults, Blouin said, and these are genetically selected for

whatever characteristics favored their survival. Offspring that inherit

traits favored in hatchery fish can be at a serious disadvantage in the
wild

where they face risks such as an uncertain food supply and many
predators

eager to eat them.

Because of the intense pressures of natural selection, Blouin said,
salmon

and steelhead populations would probably quickly revert to their natural


state once hatchery fish were removed.

However, just removing hatchery fish may not ensure the survival of wild


populations. Studies such as this consider only the genetic background
of

fish and the effects of hatchery selection on those genetics, and not
other

issues that may also affect salmon or steelhead fisheries, such as

pollution, stream degradation or climate change.

Blouin cautioned that these data should not be used as an indictment of
all

hatchery programs.

"Hatcheries can have a place in fisheries management," he said. "The key


issue is how to minimize their impacts on wild populations."




This research was conducted through use of 15 years of DNA tracking

technology of fish breeding in Hood River, a mountain stream that flows

northward off Mount Hood into the Columbia River. DNA analysis with
scales

was done with about 15,000 fish since 1991.

This research has been supported by the Bonneville Power Administration
and

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Hatcheries serve only one effective purpose in fisheries management.... as a feel good means of fueling harvest harvest harvest. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

The sad by-product of artificial fish culture is the collateral damage done to wild fish populations.... and it happens in two ways.

1) Way too many wild fish are "incidentally" slaughtered in our present-day fish managers' lust to harvest those hatchery fish.

2) Way too many wild fish are denied their reproductive potential when their seed is literally wasted when they are unfortunate enough to spawn with some hatchery mutant.

The only good hatchery fish is a dead hatchery fish. They should either be liberally harvested (using the most selective fishing techniques possible, of course) or liberally bonked and spread throughout the host drainage for nutrient enhancement.

Naturally-spawning hatchery fish = bad ju-ju, VERY bad ju-ju!

i've got a question for you guys -- if hatchery fish spawned, and created viable offspring, would this still be an issue to you?

If you looked out in your driveway tomorrow and saw a Ranger in place of your Toyota, you'd still have a truck. But now your truck handles like a shopping cart, burns oil, and the transmission drops every 2 years.

(my best attempt at a rvrfshr analogy, poor I realize...)

Hatchery fish have created viable spawning populations in some rivers. Skamania summers aren't bad at it. And once they do it, they compete with the native fish (winters and other summers) for food, gravel, and everything else they should have no part of.

Sad thing is that a lot of well-intentioned "recovery" funds are currently being filtered into broodstocking. Where's the hatchery demolition funding?

UF

I believe we've relied on hatcheries as a panacea for multiple ills, with poor results for wild fish.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder; if steelhead (or salmon) are so (genetically) mutable that they select for hatchery survival in only a couple of generations, why can't the reverse work for the surviving natural spawning generations of hatchery fish gone "native". It seems to me that this is already happening for the chinook in the Yakima R., but I haven't analyzed the return data for that river.

picture richard simmons and peewee herman as the remaining studs at the singles bar
sure they're offspring would be viable but?
well anyway
you need a mix of different genes to keep the species strong and when you limit the genetic combinations available all the recessive traits will show up like hip dysplasia in purebred large dogs

I realize I may have offended some folks with my stance about good hatchery fish = dead hatchery fish.

Here's an alternative if you happen to catch a hatchery hen that you do NOT want to retain.

Poke two holes in it's belly cavity with your fillet knife.... one forward, one aft. This will guarantee maximum "ventilation" of the belly cavity with river water. The fish will undoubtedly survive the insult (just look how many survive seal bites in the belly), but her eggs will not. Even if she spawns, the eggs will have already been rendered non-viable. However she will have penetrated deep enough into the drainage where her spent carcass can contribute to the nutrient biomass of the ecosystem.

You will have done the system two favors:

1) Ridding the wild run of a point source of genetic pollution.
2) Contributing another carcass to the nutrient load in the system... and naturally distributing said nutrients in a better location than human hands ever could.

LOL PnP! I think you should have just let your original post stand. I don't think anyone was offended and all this "knifing and releasing" (KnR) sounds a little creepy. I wouldn't know what to think if I saw someone actually doing that on the river? Would you have to mark that one on the card?

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm most surprised at the matter-of-fact, general consenus (so far) that hatchery fish are obviously inferior and actually harm native stocks. I think that is true but I don't think that would have been the case 10 or 15 years ago.

Hatcheries seem like damn expensive band-aids on a massive, gaping wound.

How is that any worse than what natural predators do to these fish?

click here

Except in the case I described, it is being done very selectively.

If anyone wants a copy of the study, send me your e-mail.

Fish on...

Todd

for angling purposes, they are one and the same. yeah, hatchery fish don't fight worth a damn...if you're talking about some chambers creek stock winter runs. if fighting qualities are all you care about, go fish for chums.

so, what would happen if all the hatcheries were shut down? would it really make that big of a difference in numbers of returning wild fish? i don't think any rivers in this state will ever see pre-boldt numbers of fish again, hatcheries or no hatcheries. i'm even pessimistic to the point of where i don't think even closing rivers to wild fish retention is really even helping all that much.

i guess in the end, i just want to go out fishing, and maybe bring home something for the bbq. is that really too much to ask?

Yeah...... but will she still dig a redd and dump her load? And if she does what if a 23 lb. wild buck wastes some of it's precious milt on those worthless eggs?

I still like Plan A, Seek and Destroy. I'll toss the carcasses back in the river, I promise.

Here's my fish-wish list:

I wish all fish were wild.
I wish there were lots of said fish.
I wish I could catch said fish all day long every day.
I wish I could catch said fish all day long every day, right here.
I wish all the above were true, or will be true in my lifetime.
I wish all the above were going to be true in your lifetime.
I wish all of the above would cost me only what I am willing to put forth in time, effort, and money.

Until then.....I'll take those 20 pound weaklings. They'll smoke up just fine.

Why would a fine stud like that bother wasting its time on low-life hatchery trash? Come on get serious!

OK seriously, any 23 pound wild buck is carrying enough jizz to spray every redd within a 5 mile radius with his load. That fish will spawn with as many hens as he can possibly bed with. Wasting a squirt or two on hatchery trash probably doesn't amount to much... there'll be plenty left to sow his wild oats with another hot wild hen.

On the other hand, a hatchery hen "spayed" by the fNp method has ZERO chance of perpetuating her inferior genetics. It's basically a genetic dead end for her entire brood... which is effectively what would happen anyway, except that the carcass gets put to better use.

The only other way to achieve live sterilization is by surgical oophorectomy. No eggs, no babies. Not sure anyone on this board has the kahunas or the skills to pull that off, though, especially if the goal is to make sure the "patient" survives the operation.

I see the bigger problem as being the wimpy yet hyper-promiscuous hatchery bucks, gang-banging and sneak-spawning every hen they get a chance at. Every wild redd they spray over will automatically lose a portion of the brood.

All the more reason to retain every last hatchery buck you can legally tag!

Would be interesting to see what would happen if a river with decent habitat and a wild fish population still somewhat making escapement was no longer planted with hatchery fish as a test case. More than likely it would take years to get any results. But I think we would have a better understanding of what affects they have. Until then I agree with Doc they need to be removed from the gene pool. The bigest issue I see getting away from hatchery raised steelhead is it would greatly reduce opportunity and most are not willing to give that up.

[quote=JoJo]Would be interesting to see what would happen if a river with decent habitat and a wild fish population still somewhat making escapement was no longer planted with hatchery fish as a test case. More than likely it would take years to get any results. But I think we would have a better understanding of what affects they have.[quote]


Unfortunately, the net and troll fisheries in the bay just outside the mouth of whatever river you tried it in would skew the real results...

First off no troll fisheries for steelhead and even if there was a gillnet fishery it wouldn't skew the results. You would have data with hatchery fish and a gillnet fishery and than without hatchery and a gilnet fishery There would still be some viable info there. Even w/ gilnet fishery some fish are making it back and you would be able to study there productivity without hatchery fish present. Obviuosly a system without a tribal fishery would be ideal, and there are a couple, But I think a study like this could be of some value.

Joe

Unfortunately, without hatcheries we wouldn't be allowed to fish.

Yup, I'm sooo pissed about nets these days that's twice in a week I've mentioned them in a steelhead thread...

Anyway, I have agreed with this idea forever. I think it should be widespread; pick 12-15 rivers statewide that have the best chance and do it. Take another 15 and only supplement with broodstock. Take another 10-15 that are just too far gone and 'old school Cowlitz' them...

Everybody (the meatheads, purists, etc.) gets something, including the fish. Just a thought...

Hopefully the ex-Region 6 Manager, now head of Hatchery Division, Ron Warren is lurking on this thread.