Natural or Hatchery Bred....

[JasonB]

Jason,.... I'm curious about this one: "....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." Let's compare what we know about rainbows/steelhead:

They appear identical, physically.

They easily interbreed.

Spawning/use requirements (technique and spaces) are the same.

Genetically, they're the same (not considering biological taxa here).

Anadromy(??) appears to be a choice (I seem to recall reading that some rainbows migrate and some don't, even from the same watershed).

Water requirements are similar.

Spawning occurs during the same overall time period (regardless of when they enter rivers/streams).

They eat the same food (depending on where they are at the time).

IMO, The bright appearance of a salmon/steelhead that has recently entered a river/stream is more a condition brought about by living in the salt water environment and the type food available there. I do agree that steelhead are magnificent and that I'd rather catch one of them than a typical resident rainbow, but I'm not sure that there's that many real differences between the two.

Thanks for the observations and info, guys. Good stuff so far....

Darian,
Agreed on all that. My point was that I don't think that you can assume that the effects of hatchery fish on wild populations would be identical between rainbows and steelhead. Given that one of them is a resident in a very small area, and the other ventures back and forth from stream to sea. The habitat issues in stream are very much the same, but the habitat issues out at sea are a whole other set of concerns as well.
JB

[Darian]

I'm having mixed feelings about this one (anadromy/choice of habitat), too. True, that choosing to migrate to the salt and what happens to them there represents a difference between the two having external, physical impacts. When I mentioned that anadromy was a choice, I was thinking that the choice of habitat (salty or fresh water) did change them but the changes improved their physical size and conditioning (flesh color and stamina) due to the difference in the type of food but after adjusting, both rainbows/steelhead can tolerate salt water.

It'd be interesting to find out if all steelhead actually migrate each year after the first year in the salt or do some fish choose not to migrate year after year (assuming no physical blockage to migration)???

Back to the original question. Are the conclusions in the recent Idaho study about negative impacts of stocked fish on naturally spawned fish being overstated, correct??? As I said earlier in this discussion, I don't know.... Maybe they're both right. Got a lot more reading to do....

[Walter]

The mere presence of hatchery fish is competition for wild fish. If hatcheries are to be maintained than best available science should be used to make their goal to aid wild fish recovery, and not just to provide catchable fish. The current goal of hatchery programs is maintaining put and take fisheries. This behavior has been show to a statistically significant level, that hatchery trout and steelhead are basically "a cancer to the genetic survival of wild fish."

[Darian]

So, Walter.... I take it that you do not accept the conclusions in the recent Idaho study that says that there're some negative impacts on naturally spawned fish by stocking hatchery reared fish but that those impacts are overstated. That genetic mixing is not extensive and that stocked fish do not remain in waters where they're introduced long enough to become a major competitor. Since the Idaho study is a recent one, it would seem to be the best available science.

I guess knowing the study authors definition of what constitutes a significant negative impact might help. The people who conducted the Idaho study didn't think that stocked fish had significant negative impacts on naturally spawning fish.

To me, the studies mentioned in the article was focusing on resident brook/rainbow trout. No Salmon/Steelhead were included. Hence the discussion about the differences/similarities between resident rainbows and steelhead in order to find out if there is any application here.

[Walter]

I can imagine an Idaho DFG sponsored study on hatchery fish is like one Phillip Morris does on nicotine saying that its harmless.

The Oregon Study is probably more objective, I'll read the Idaho one when I get a chance.

[lee s.]

I understand the hatchery/native, oops!, wild conflict. It really bugs the poop out of me and shows some assininity when someone makes a blanket statement or opinion. Here on the Russian we have virtually no wild trout, hence no wild steelhead. It is my belief that we do have many unclipped hatchery fish to augment the 13 wild fish left in the system. Sarcasim intended, accuracy not.
Point being, without the hatchery we would have NO steelhead fishery left due to the enviriomental changes allowed to prevail in our watershed.....which WILL continue due to economics....period.
Now I DO know there is VERY little competition between hathery steelhead and wild fish here unless the wild fish are feeding on pellets in the raceways too. Once a fish is released it MUST move hell-bent for the salt, as our river envirioment is LETHAL to salmonoids. Temps too high in summer due to water robbing....bugs dead too? Chemical polution due to vineyard run-off.....bugs dead too. No (damn few) wild spawn due to 18-21 days if silt instead of the customary (historic?) 7-10 days silt due to vineyard run-off and damn dam controls....again, dead bugs? And the fish will starve because of no (damn few!) bugs. We WILL lose this fishery without hatchery intrusion. We WILL lose our wild fish, hatchery or not, C/R or C/kill or not. We WILL NOT restore the envirioment....we WILL NOT restore the fishery. And I DO NOT mean "restore" the fishery/envirioment with stick and rock replacement....I mean restore by changing the water BACK to CLEAN, COLD, and PURE.
IF you have a self-sustaining resource and viable fishery, be damn sure you treasure it and let NO one get their fingers detrimentally into it! I also DO believe that we CANNOT impact such a fishery with a stick and a string.....especially when the occupants of said fishery are not actively feeding at our time to pester them.
Obviously it is the place you speak of that determines the proper use of "concrete" streams.
....lee s.

[jbird]

OK darnit! I was gonna stay away from this one, but im bored

The data Ive read that made the biggest impact on me regarding the downside of man made fish, is the weakness therein. From embryo to fingerling is a very trying period of a wild fishes life. This is where the weaker are more likely to be removed from the gene pool. Hatchery fish spend this critical age in a pool being fed til their heart's content. No predators, floods, droughts etc... to wipe them out. In simple terms, hatcheries are breeding lazy fish. Back-o-the pack fish. The will to survive is a deep genetic imprint that is instinctive in wild fish and tested to the hilt at this fragile age.
Now you get a few disoriented, horny hatchery fish sharing sheets with native fish and the gene pool loses that native vigor. that wild ability to survive come hell or high water. The offspring of such encounters breeds half-breeds. And the scenario snowballs as it continues over generations. the result is there arent any wild fish left. Even fish that are non clipped and breeding in the wild can be nearly 100% non native. At which point the watershed is relying on hatcheries 100%

These studies were anadromous specific and may very well not apply to resident trout as they do not face the same survival challanges.

[Walter]

Excellent summary jbird. And you are correct. The Oregon Studies show the half breed fish have the same "spawning success rate" as pure hatchery fish. That is the dilution of the genepool.

And Lee, your points are well taken. Isn't there the potential for resource competition at sea even between hatchery salmonids and wild fish? As DFG is actively planting adult hatchery fish in the Russian tribs, it will be hard to determine what is really wild. And they maintian the good genetic profile of those fish, but according to the Oregon Studies, they are diminishing the genepool even further.

[Darian]

I'm not sure that the Idaho study would differ in recognizing that hatchery reared fish spawning with naturally bred fish contributes to dilution of the gene pool. It says that the rate of successful spawning between the two is overstated as hatchery reared fish tend to remain in rivers/streams for a short period of time. I do agree that there're some differences between the challenges that resident rainbows, whether hatchery bred or not, face and those that steelhead survive over the course of their lives.

The durability (if you will) of hatchery bred fish is not really at issue here as everyone agrees that they are not the equal of naturally spawned fish. Hatchery fish are the direct product of in-breeding, albeit with infusion of wild eggs/milt on occasion. Their lack of durability does lend some credibility to the idea that the impacts of stocking hatchery fish on natural stocks are overstated and insignificant as they're not in the system long enough to have major impact. I'm wondering is how many genetically pure, naturally spawning rainbows/steelhead actually remain in California rivers/streams; given all of the hatchery bred/reared fish are released each year??? Are we even able to determine that any longer. For some isolated populations, maybe but in the valley or places like the Russian River, CA??? I doubt it....

IMO, the problem is that each study focused on one type of the same fish (rainbows/steelhead) and arrived at conclusions that tend to contradict each other. Which is correct??? As I've said before, maybe both are. Maybe they only apply in the geographical area where they were conducted....

LeeS made a couple of very good observations about the difference between where these studies were undertaken/completed and conditions in California. For example, the Russian River was one of the premier salmon/steelhead rivers in NorCal up thru the 60's. Over time, a combination of factors (e.g. development {agricultural/community}, water diversion, placement of summer dams, and construction of Dams for Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma) have taken their toll.

Undoubtedly, there are fish that still spawn, naturally, in smaller tributaries of the Russian but I'd bet those fish are a product of hatchery bred and naturally spawned fish. With the hatchery at Warm Springs producing more pen reared fish, annually, the rate of mixing of the two types has continued and will continue until all fish in the system are a product of that cross and none of the genetically pure, naturally spawning fish remain. Sadly, the conditions described are what is left in many California rivers/streams; especially in Sacto/San Joaquin Valley rivers. So, without hatcheries, many rivers/streams would have very few Salmon/Steelhead to fish for.

I'd bet that if either of those studies had been conducted in this state, the result would've done nothing but confirm that hatcheries are necessary for maintaining a fishery as mitigation, here.

[Walter]

Darian,
When was the last time you even got out and fished for a trout or a steelhead? Some of the best rivers for quality fish dont even have hatcheries, for steelhead or trout.

Hatcheries dont just maintain something to catch, they destroy wild fish survivability and make the ignorant and naieve think they are dependent on those hatcheries just to catch fish.

It doesn't matter what state you are in.

I can see the scenario where a small SoCal creek looses (most of)its fish and its population can be restored with a yet unseen wild fish broodstock rearing pools as well as hatchery supplimentation but other than that hatcheries give the massive populous a fish to whack and roe for bait to use to catch more fish.