Hatcheries vs. No Hatcheries

[Larry S]

Bump to top -



Just started reading "An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World" by Anders Halverson. A very interesting and detailed look at this
very question. I think you will be hearing a lot about this book in the near future.
Larry S

[Darian]

Loren,.... I'm not sure there's anyone on this BB that wouldn't support your idealistic sentiment. Also, I recognize and respect this as a personal choice.

However, the reality is that hatchery reared Salmon/Steelhead are here and it wouldn't be easy to reduce their population significantly and probably impossible to remove them entirely from any drainage they currently occupy. Since hatchery fish interbreed with natural spawners and become visually identical to marked/tagged fish, it would be impossible to identify which to eliminate on scene.

We could stop hatchery production of Steelhead but would that really change the fact that the original gene pool has already been degraded Further, if hatchery reared Steelhead were removed, many rivers and streams might be either barren or support populations so small in number that those waters would have to be closed for protection. IMHO, given the changes in their environment/habitat, native Salmon/Steelhead may not recover in the mid to long term anyway.

In the case of Salmon, hatcheries supported an offshore, commercial as well as recreational fishery and we're spending massive amounts of money ($140 million for BDCP so far) studying how to restore Salmon/Striper fisheries and farming activities in the name restoring the Delta. About 4 years ago, AB7 was passed which mandated that a specified portion of license funding be spent on hatcheries to keep them open (not sure if Steelhead hatcheries were included in that, tho). At any rate, I don't see your thought about altering how money is spent in this arena gaining traction with state government.

Finally, I'm wondering why you see it as somehow disappointing to fish for hatchery reared Steelhead but it's OK to fish for Stripers in the surf around the Bay Area Aren't a great number of those fish progeny of hatchery raised Stripers How many generations of interbreeding does it take for Salmon/Steelhead/Stripers to become acceptable to us as fisherman

[Nailknot]

Recent studies have shown extremely low reproductive success when hatchery and wild fish interbreed. And almost zero success when hatchery fish breed in the wild. Hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food and spawning gravel, but are not nearly as successful as wild fish. The idea that wild genetics have been replaced with hatchery genetics doesn't appear to be valid. In fact, when hatcheries are removed, wild fish repopulate at an amazing rate. Given this, why would we support more hatcheries, and not less? The above is steelhead specific.

[BillB]

Here is a question I have that someone is sure to know on this board. When discussing wild v. hatchery where do Vibert boxes fall in the discussion. Seems it may be a compromise from what I know, which is little.

[Loren E]

Finally, I'm wondering why you see it as somehow disappointing to fish for hatchery reared Steelhead but it's OK to fish for Stripers in the surf around the Bay Area Aren't a great number of those fish progeny of hatchery raised Stripers How many generations of interbreeding does it take for Salmon/Steelhead/Stripers to become acceptable to us as fisherman

Darian, I don't think many of our stripers are progeny of hatchery raised stripers, this is probably a miniscule percentage. Our stripers were introduced back in the 1800s and then took off as a wild population and spawned on their own with remarkable success, their population booming. In the 90s there was some stocking done, but in this case I doubt that the stocking played much of a role as it was done for a such a short period of time. (I just used this as another example of where stocking has been done, though in the case of stripers, redfish, and snook these populations are mostly wild). What I'm getting at is that although this was an introduced population and there was a very little bit of hatchery support back in the 90s, I think it is safe to say the vast majority of the stripers we catch today are wild-spawned fish that have been spawning in a natural manner for well over a hundred years, versus a steelhead without an adipose fin. In other words, hypothetically if steelhead were introduced to a river a hundred years ago and then turned into a 99% wild population I see the wild offspring many generations later as a different animal than a hatchery-spawned fish. This is my personal view and that alone.

I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

Nailknot, very interesting info, thanks for that, any chance you might be able to pass on any links to these studies? I'd be very interested to read more specifics.

[mr. 3 wt.]

[QUOTE=Loren E;90275]
I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

QUOTE]

Closing rivers? Bad idea. Poachers would still get out and do what they do. To many people fish. Bottom line. Hatchery steelhead and salmon = table fare. Without hatcheries we wouldn't be eating fish. Your whole outlook, may be refreshing and hopeful, but is a total pipe dream for this day and age.

[Covelo]

I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

Again you seem to be under the illusion that over fishing by sports has somehow caused the declines in these fisheries and that all we need to do is limit take. This is a false presumption. If this was the case then several of our rivers should be teeming with wild steelhead as they have had C&R regs in place for over a decade (decades in some OR rivers). You can keep waiting but these rivers will not ever come back unless they improve the habitat and flows, and stop implementing unsound policies, such as introducing hatchery fish in un-dammed systems.

As Nailknot pointed out, less fit hatchery genes would be greatly diminished from the population once hatchery introductions were halted. It makes no sense to risk healthy wild stocks on rivers such as the Smith with hatchery fish. This is especially true when the wild stocks are healthy and can sustain a controlled level of take, such as on the Smith.

[Darian]

Environmental/habitat degradation are the main causes of decline in these fisheries. Too many to name here.

In principal, I'm in agreement with removal of hatcheries and with the idea that given ideal conditions, naturally spawning Salmon/Steelhead could recover. However, there is little enthusiasm for removal of hatcheries in federal or state agencies and where is the money going to come from to accomplish this task The last I heard, the fed's/state are in deficit spending modes to the tune of billions of dollars.

I agree completely with Covelo that poor policy choices in where/when to stock hatchery fish have contributed to the current situation but don't see that changing anytime soon either.

IMHO, until the current water situation is resolved in this state, there will be little interest in stopping hatchery production of Salmon/Steelhead. Unfortunately, there are two major issues that the new Guv is faced with resolving (budget and water) before going on to any of the others.

[Mike O]

Okay I'm braced! I still believe that habitat degradation has a significantly greater impact on salmonid sustainability than fly fishermen.

And where did some of that habitat degredation come from? Clear cutting done by Private Timber companies on private land. Private companies are not better than the government, they just suck differently. The bottom line comes before the habitat.

[mikel]

Small groups of motivated individuals can have an impact on a river by river basis.

Look at the reg changes on Putah Creek. The Putah Creek Association, run off of Greg Bono's BB, made that happen ON THEIR OWN.

If the individuals up on the Trinity hadn't fought for their river decades ago after the dams were built, no one would be whining about only catching 1 fish per day. There wouldn't be fish or fishermen there at all.

The Kings River Conservancy has turned the lower sections of the river around with habitat, regulations, minimum flows and increased DFG presence.

Small groups in So Cal are banding together to provide volunteer enforcement of the regulations on their waters and doing so after training by the authorities.

so....if you live on a water and want the situation to change, there's a course of action that can work and is working in other places.

My daughters have taught me the mantra for environmentalists...Think global, act local...pronouncements about the state of the union and why big business is or isn't successful have nothing to do with the fishing on your home water.

Do you want hatchery fish or not? It SHOULD be a question asked about each water individually and acted upon by committed locals if anything is going to change....and that is regardless of statewide politics or policy.