Natural or Hatchery Bred....

[Darian]

OK!!! I chose to post this under the Salmon/Steelhead Forum to get maximum affect. It could've just as easily gone into the Trout Forum but the result wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting.

Before I finish the balance of this post, I must confess that I'm trolling to stir things up but, here it comes, this troll is based on an article that appears in the latest issue of American Angler magazine and might be applied to Salmon/Steelhead as well.

On page 51, there's an article about upper mid-west trout fishing titled, "The Holdovers." On the last page of this article is a discussion box in which the author tries to make the case that, "....hatchery-raised, stocked trout have virtually no impact on wild fish."This based on a recent study conducted by the Idaho Game and Fish agency. Some points from that study:

• "Stocked waters showed no difference in abundance, growth rates, or survival than those in unstocked streams."
• "Stocked trout have high mortality rates.... They just don't last long enough to have much of an impact."

The author also cites a study conducted by a biologist at Washington & Lee University that examined genetic makeup of trout in 3 streams that have both hatchery and naturally reproducing Brook Trout in them. The professor said, "Of the 98 fish tested, only 4 showed genetic mixing." The trout tested came from streams that have been stocked for 20 years.

Controversial???? Maybe. It does seem to fly in the face of a lot of other recently developed info....

SOooo,.... En garde!!!!

[JasonB]

OK!!! I chose to post this under the Salmon/Steelhead Forum to get maximum affect. It could've just as easily gone into the Trout Forum but the result wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting.

Before I finish the balance of this post, I must confess that I'm trolling to stir things up but, here it comes, this troll is based on an article that appears in the latest issue of American Angler magazine and might be applied to Salmon/Steelhead as well.

What, the steelhead forum too civil and calm lately for ya? You could try and post this in late March or early April for some really entertaining results... likely to be quite a few disgruntled steelheaders at that time...
JB

[Larry S]

Darian,
Lots of studies; such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0610091224.htm
As an aside, one of my favorite stories is of the efforts by the Mattole River project. Haven't checked
on their progress lately.
Best,
Larry S

[rippinstreamers]

Darian, nobody is taking the bait, lets hear your take. How do brown trout in the fit into this, and is this only for the u.s., how do we explain new Zealand?

[Darian]

I guess this subject has been discussed in the past whether in a civil manner or not.

Not sure about the New Zealand reference???? Clarification please???

Thinking out loud, here.... I don't think this new information is going to change the opinion of most anyone on this BB. As for me, I found it interesting to note that the new study concluded that impacts of stocking hatchery reared Brook/Rainbow trout was seen as insignificant. In addition, I'm wondering how this new info applies to anadromous fish??? It conflicts with the conclusions arrived at in the Oregon State study (link provided by Larry S). I'm a bit confused by these differences as Rainbow and Steelhead Trout are, apparently, genetically indistinguishable. So why differing results/conclusions based on studies involving the same species; habitat, geography, study design, prejudice, resources, funding???? IMO, these studies all seem to have a narrow focus. Maybe they're both right.

That said, the new info has probably has already been taken into account by our own F&W people. whether I believe they're good at what they do or not, they're still better informed/trained on this than I am.

At any rate, until someone can tell me with more certainty than our current estimates how many naturally spawning Salmon, Sea Run Cutthroat and Steelhead are left in each river/stream in CA, I'm not going to vote for shutting down hatchery operations. In the back of my mind, I can't help thinking that most natural populations are so low that they're either close to being or no longer viable, yet, are still being pounded by commercial/recreational fisherman.

The people who conduct these type studies probably have an overall view of environmental concerns involved but may not be allowed to or be interested in addressing them in completion of same. Stocking programs are dependent on facilities usually located at the base of dams. These dams and hatcheries represent a substantial investment on the part of governmental/private agencies/operations. Their products and the employment they provide have substantial value as well. Without stocking programs, we'd all be fishing Carp, Squawfish or other warm water species. So, I don't see any of it going away anytime soon whether I agree with all of the new info or not.

[JasonB]

At any rate, until someone can tell me with more certainty than our current estimates how many naturally spawning Salmon, Sea Run Cutthroat and Steelhead are left in each river/stream in CA, I'm not going to vote for shutting down hatchery operations. In the back of my mind, I can't help thinking that most natural populations are so low that they're no longer viable, yet, are still being pounded by commercial/recreational fisherman.

Ok I'll comment on that little bit. First off, I honestly have no real scientific knowledge to say for sure the precise impacts that hatchery salmon and steelhead have on wild populations. I kinda doubt that most anglers do when push comes to shove, and I even have my doubts about just how solid or conclusive the scientific data on the subject may be. It's pretty complex to say the least. Furthermore while rainbow trout and steelhead may be genetically identical, they are hardly the same animal when you think about them from a life cycle perspective... not even all that similar really.

The sticky part of all this is that the hatcheries "insulate" the low populations of salmon and steelhead, in both positive and negative ways. For one thing, it is entirely likely that without them a lot of fisheries would have far more restrictions/closures if there were only wild anadromous fish (this could be viewed as a good thing and a bad thing). In fact it they may even be partly responsible for helping to drag out the "harvest" mentality that is changing much too slowly imo. The other side of the coin is that where fishing is allowed we can hope that more of that impact is absorbed by the hatchery fish, rather than being focused directly on the wild population. Of course if the numbers weren't as high, would there be as many people out fishing for them? If there were less people fishing for them, would there be as much passion and concern over their status...Etc, etc, etc.

I'm hesitant to rush to eliminate hatchery programs outright, but on the other hand I think that it is kind of masking real problems. I also don't think that hatchery fish are any solution, so in the mean time I think you could argue it both ways. They are probably doing some very minor and temporary good, and also likely some insidious harm right alongside it. I wish it were as simple as just throwing money at the problem, or just pulling all hatcheries and saying catch and release only; but I don't think it's nearly that simple.
JB