Tag out!

[jbird]

Hi Ron

I love your non biased, non confrontational attitude

The best way I can describe my view on this issue is to quote from BigTJs post above...

excess hatchery fish in the system interfere with the wild fish spawning. Studies have shown that hatchery fish are dramatically less successful thatn wild fish at spawning fish in the wild, and their genetics contribute to inferior fish. Reducing the number of hatchery fish in the system actually improves the odds for the wild fish spawning successfully (which are the only fish that have a decent shot at success with wild spawing) and helps maintain the genetic diversity of the fish in the system. Increased harvest of hatchery fish every year (along with habitati improvements) could theoretically actually lead to an eventual REDUCTION in the number of hatchery fish released, if it has a positive effect on the number of wild returning fish, thus reducing the need for hatchery supplement of the runs.

To answer your question about "would there be any steelhead at all if they werent suplimented by the hatchery in light of dams" It depends on the river system, but by and large I would say yes, by the simple fact that most of the rivers in question still have a self sustaining population of wild fish. Hatchery fish obviously add a good percentage to the run in our rivers. They allways will as long as our hatcheries continue to operate. Killing a hatchery fish doesnt jeapordize the 1000's of offspring that killing a native will. A very large majority of hatchery fish eggs are "flushed down the toilet".

The way I look at it is like this, When I tag a hatchery fish, A. It has no chance of spawning with a native fish, adding problems to the gene pool stated in TJs quote. B. There is no concern whatsoever in the future stock of our steelhead because the fish is on a one way, dead end trip anyway. C. Fish is one of the healthiest things you can eat and my wife likes it.

I am a hipocrite cause I have been tagging less than 3% of the fish I catch. I have mentioned before that I think its a hassle and I'm not that crazy about eating them. Like everyone else here, I love them, I love to watch them swim away...its totaly bitter sweet tho.

As far as the comment above about not telling the difference between a hatchery and native fish by its fight.. Without trying to sound condescending, you will once youve caught a WHOLE BUNCH of each. Ive caught hatcheries that have blown my mind and Ive caught wild fish that just rolled over, but a good majority is noticable about 1/2 way thru the fight when the hatchery fish loses its will to live and the native keeps pounding the current.

Jay

[jhaquett]

I have some more questions that can be answered by anyone who knows the answers :

-A solid point that has been made throughout this post is the fact that hatchery fish supposedly taint the native gene pool.

I'd like someone to explain how this occurs? Hatchery fish come from native fish. This means alleles are passed from two native fish, making the hatchery fish 100% native, genetically. There is no such thing as chromosomes metamorphosizing into an inferior gamete just because its a hatchery egg. Meiosis is meiosis, doesn't matter where its done. If they were genetically engineering hatchery steelhead from carp I could understand this logic a little easier...

-I do understand the fact that they do not fight as well as natives, because they have the exact same life cycle I also agree that this would appear genetic, but just for the sake of it, think about if it was proven to be something not related to genetics. Which, to me, would make the most sense biologically.

-Technically most people have the same life cycles, yet we see very different phenotypes. Maybe its possible that the fish which are caught for the hatchery are inferior native fish? I don't know the process.

-Another point that is brought up is that hatchery interfere with wild's ability to spawn:

I would also like to hear the explanation for this? Its not like they are two different species; we've got the same species and an even mix of male and female with working parts, so what the issue?

-I think another good point to this thread is one as simple as Darwin's theories of natural selection. These hatchery fish are being released into brute nature, they are fighting evenly with native juvenile steelhead and they are surviving more successfully than many truly native fish who die in the process, so what makes them inferior?

My apologies for the breathiness, thanks to anyone with the answers!

[Ed Wahl]

I'll bite, even though I'm not a steelhead expert or geneticist. You could say I'm even talking out of my _ss. But since you did bring up Darwin, his main point being survival of the fittest doesn't it seem that allowing two SH to breed randomly, not the best mating with the best, would deteriorate the survival instincts of the race? In the wild only the best get to breed, either by making their way to the breeding grounds, i.e. being able to clear certain falls, or by driving off the "lesser males" surrounding the female. There's got to be tens of thousands of survival traits that successfully breeding SH must have to perpetuate the species. Hatcheries take none into account. When these "hatchery" fish mate with "wild" fish it stands to reason that the 50 percent of the gene contribution from the hatchery fish,being already compromised of an unknown number of survival traits, dilutes slightly the gene pool that once had 100 percent of those traits. The offspring just got shortchanged geneticly. Then maybe the offspring mate with another "wild" fish and it progresses through the generations. Sorry, just looked back at how long that went on. Jay, look what you started.

[Frank Alessio]

Wow ........ Compairing Fishing in California to Fishing in Oregon would be like comparing Hunting in California to Hunting in Montana..... Not a task I would care to undetake............

[sculpin]

It looks like Ed beat me to it above while I was typing this post


Jhaquett
I'm not going to spend much time on this thread because it seems to be going sideways.
Not all hatcheries have used the eggs from fish Native to the river they are released in and to my knowledge, few hatcheries get fresh Native fish for spawning each year. I don't know about how hatcheries are run down south. The survival ratio of Native fish far exceeds the survival rates of hatchery fish. Perhaps someone can give us some specific statistics about the survival ratios of hatchery and naive steelhead. I guess it's because of Mother Nature or Darwin's theory you mentioned. In Native fish only the best and strongest will survive to return to spawn. It's the same with all wild things. For instance, pen raised game birds, deer, elk ect. don't do well in the wild either.
Hey, if you want to toss hatchery fish back in because you don't like to eat fish or it makes you feel good, just do it.

Mark

[jhaquett]

Ed,

One of the questions I'm looking to get an answer to is something that you said in your reply about the offspring getting 50% of shortchanged survival traits. What I was asking was, if the fish survived, how is that survival trait a shortchanged one? A specific allele led to a successful genotype and I'm not understanding what the difference between a fit fish is, whether it be hatchery or native, it is still fit enough to survive.

Plus, I'm still looking to understand how these fish have lesser genes. Although, sculpin clarified that a bit by telling me that not all hatchery fish are from the river they will eventually be released into.

Sculpin,

Thanks for clarifying. I am not trying to TELL anyone anything here I am merely ASKING, I don't know how they go about choosing steelhead for eggs and sperm. I just made an assumption and if it was wrong I assumed that someone would correct me.

That is my point about the survival rates of hatchery fish being lower. That must mean they are not fit enough to survive. But, the ones that DO survive, why are they still considered lesser fish?

I still am yet to hear any answers about the background genetics to all of this and would really like to hear them from someone who knows, thanks.

Sorry to all who are tired of this post but it is very interesting to me and I hope I see answers to all of my questions.

[jbird]

jh

I dont have the scientific data you are seeking. I know a couple guys that probably do and will hopefully see this and make all our eyes cross with their plethora of knowledge on this.
Here in Oregon, we have a lot of rivers that do not have hatcheries, but they get stocked with hatchery fish. The hatchery engineers build a diversion site and release the smolts at this location. They set up "boxes" for the fish to return to. Why set up the boxes? so the fish DO NOT SPAWN with native steelhead. And so they can use these fish to reproduce a new run of hatchery fish. They actually collect the fish that return to the boxes. As you are aware, anadromous fish have a miraculous capacity to find their way home. The vast majority of surviving steelhead make it back to these boxes...with a few inevitable exceptions that end up who knows where.
We have a lot of operations that use hatchery fish to make hatchery fish. It is proven that this creates a downward spiraling gene pool and these same hatcheries do use native fish at certain intervals (I assume) to offset the complete deterioration of the hatchery gene pool.

If you do have a hatchery fish that was borne from say, 5 generations of hatchery fish that ends up in the sack with a native fish, The offspring are going to be retarded and as this goes on for generations, you have an ecosystem that is under some serious change. I know that doesnt answer your question as to "why hatchery fish are 'inferior'" But if science says they are, you can see where I'm going with this.

Rogue river fish (from what I'm told) are quite a bit larger on average now than they were prior to dams and hatchery influence. Is that a good thing? For me and you, its great, for the aquatic ecosystem? hard to say. But I would bet these fish are bigger because we have taken brood stock from elswhere to supliment our hatchery...I'm not saying the hatchery fish are just bigger, the wild ones are too. Whether you think that change is good or not, it is likely a result of meddeling with the ecosystem. And if science proves that hatchery fish are inferior in their ability to reproduce, you have a somewhat retarded steelhead population that could be very volitile.

I am really just thinking out loud here. I am not good at refering to scientific data and providing links and lecturing to the wise. but these are all thoughts that swim around in my head that I've picked up along the way from some very well educated individuals.

Are you still awake?!

Jay

[WinterrunRon]

I’m awake, Jay. I’m back…fishless tonight so I avoided the kill/release dilemma altogether!

I find this very interesting as well, so pardon my additional input, but I think I have something to add.

It seems with every posting, another question comes to mind. Or in jhaquett’s case, no one seems to be able to adequately answer his questions, which I find thought provoking. It’s my experience when someone asks a thought provoking question and no one answers… no one knows the answer.

But I feel that Jay has done his part to try and explain and support his position, to the extent he knows and can. Especially as it relates to his home water.

I’d like to provide a little education of my own for all who fish the Amercian, with the caveat that what I’m referring to ONLY applies to the American River.

Now I’m no expert. I’m claiming no first hand knowledge obtained as a result of personal research or investigation. I’m simply stating… restating, what’s been said to me by DF&G year in, year out, and asking you trust what I’m relaying is accurate, but not necessarily true. I tend to believe it’s true, however.

I spend a lot to time each year visiting with the well-intentioned people at DF&G down at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery. I ask A LOT of questions every y ea r of the staff, biologists, and game wardens. Here’s what they have to say:

The amount of eggs taken each year by DF&G is determined in advance from data obtained in previous years. When they’ve reached their quota, the artificial spawning of hatchery steelhead ceases. Sometimes this occurs in the spring, but I’ve seen them shut down in December! So they never take “as much as possible”.

They’ll also tell you 90% of ALL returning fish spawn naturally in the river system. In other words, DF&G supplements the existing population to the tune of 10%, or very little, and in fact, is not needed at all for the purpose of sustaining what they consider a healthy population of steelhead! HOWEVER, they are contracted by law to provide the level of support they do from contracts written and agreed to prior to 1955, resulting from the building of Folsom Dam. To my knowledge, there’s no “cease and desist” clause that states the DF&G can shut down operations when the population reaches a certain level. If fact, the opposite is true. Regardless of the population, they must continue to operate.

Therefore, a reasonable argument can be made that harvesting hatchery steelhead hurts nothing, because they’ll make more, whether it’s needed or not. From this level of knowledge, it doesn’t bother me in the least to see someone keeping a hatchery steelhead. The argument that retaining a hatchery steelhead is hurting the population of returnable fish is, well, not valid. Hatchery reared steelhead from Nimbus are like chickens, turkeys or cows or any other artificially bread animal. They are there for our enjoyment and consumption. And in fact, if you talk to DF&G, they want you…literally encourage you, to keep any hatchery steelhead caught.

I guess I just don’t see how the existence or interbreeding of a hatchery fish with a wild fish hurts the wild population by “diluting” the gene pool to a level I should be concerned with. So, once again, I’m with jhaquett when it comes to wanting to know more about this aspect of the wild v hatchery issue.

Are you awake, Jay?

[jhaquett]

I'm still awake and I'm happy to see that this thread is turning out to be a strictly educational rather than argumental one, it is excellent.

Thanks Jay, Ron & Tristan for some interesting information and points. Everyone has their own level and area of education here and its cool to see all of it combine.

This has helped a lot and I will definitely not care if someone takes a hatchery steelhead anymore (I may even take one for my grandpa every now and again) so thanks for all of the clarification there.

Like Ron & I agree on, I still really want to hear the biological evidence and the explanation for the the dilution of the wild gene pool. Any other example in nature shows that more variability results in a stronger hybridized individual (mutt dogs vs. purebreds) and a smaller gene pool results in quite the opposite (cheetahs).

Although I have taken in and believe everything else that has been said, at this point I'm thinking that the gene pool ideology may be falsified and could be a general misconception.

Until tomorrow

[OceanSunfish]

I do appreciate the elaborate and passionate dialogue regarding the subject matter even though my previous comment was rather flippant and tearse. I was reacting to, more or less, to the overall big picture, where I cannot ever remember a time where our fisheries were in such poor shape. Ocean salmon, rock fish, striped bass, low end food chain species, etc.

IMO, the hatchery reared stuff is inferior. It cannot be argued that man can replicate what would otherwise be accomplished my "mother nature". We know better than to fool "mother nature". But, does this make hatchery fish bad, per se?

If the hatchery fish are what are providing entertainment value for those that have been fortunate to fish a little after work these days, then hooray for these fish, I say. It beats having our rods and reels sitting idle like all those ocean salmon boats this summer or the rock fish boats after October 1st.

If the Feds and State are really concerned about mitigating the effects of dams and want to see the occupants of the river systems be 100% wild in nature, then I believe we would see a program geared more towards actually placing eggs directly into the river to hatch in lieu of hatcheries. We would also see a conscientious effort to control flows that favor the productiviy of redds. Gary Loomis' program in certain Washington rivers comes to mind. I'm not so sure this is really feasible here in CA due to circumstances here far different than those in Washington state. With our dams and ever growing population, we have a high roof, low ceiling. I think that's how it's put.

So, for now, the status quo seems to be providing entertainment value and opportunities for those that want to take home a fish for dinner. It's all good.

So what are we arguing about? I forgot.