Natural or Hatchery Bred....

[Fish Guru]

My point is there would not be a fishery there without the hatcheries...All the rest on this coast is only guess work... Once man took the first step into the Forest and the River it changed the Game Forever.... When I fished the Grand Rhonde you could not tell what you had until you landed it.....The Planters in Dunsmuir fight great...When you call a Fish a turd I think you are operating on emotion and we all know where that gets us....

I see your point Frank but for this discussion it's like arguing apples to oranges. And plenty of studies have been done in regards to effects of hatchery fish in rivers that have existing wild populations, the proof is out there. I do agree that once man got involved that the game plan has changed forever, I'm just not sold that what were going is the best approach. I think that people often assume that having hatchery steelhead provides more oppurtunity for anglers to catch steelhead, and in some cases this may be true, but more often than not it just provides anglers with more oppurtunity to harvest steelhead. If the money invested in hatchery programs was spent towards restoring native habitat, I think we would see a resurgence of wild fish numbers on many rivers. On the other hand rivers like the American need hatchery fish to have anything to fish for, and that's the pickle. Cases like the American are prime examples of where man has changed the gameplan forever.
And I have had some hatchery fish provide decent to good fights, but can't remember any that have put up the spirited fights from the majority of the true wild fish that I have been fortunate to tangle with. Turds may have been an emotional response, but dissapointing fights with chrome bright fish over and over will do that.

[Fish Guru]

this is incorrect, genetic make up will not change how you spawn, nature prevails. I have no idea how this idea has ever taken hold. animals will spawn it is inate, and as a geneticist it is simple DNA is DNA there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ...

Gonna have to disagree with you on multiple fronts here David. Many studies have been done that scientifically disagree with what you are saying. Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening.

[Walter]

Interesting thread. Since the Elwha and it's wild trout were mentioned earlier I thought others might find this steelhead study interesting. This wasn't just a few year study, but took place over 15 years with thousands of steelhead involved.
It seems that wild rainbows may if given the chance will play a key part in wild steelhead recovery.
I say may because states such as Washington still allow limits of two trout over 14" on many streams with wild steelhead runs.
As far as the Elwha goes, there are a ton of politics involved. Unfortunately with the large new tribal hatchery that was built, I personally don't think we'll get to see what mother nature can do on it's own. That is a shame because it is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity since so much of the river habitat is within the ONP.
http://ecotrope.opb.org/2011/01/stud...rainbow-trout/
SF

You are correct! The opportunity lost here, to study wild fish recovery, cannot be understated.

[Darian]

Just to mention that we shouldn't confuse genetics with environmental conditions or other external factors....

" Originally Posted by DAVID95670
this is incorrect, genetic make up will not change how you spawn, nature prevails. I have no idea how this idea has ever taken hold. animals will spawn it is inate, and as a geneticist it is simple DNA is DNA there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ..."

" Fish Guru
Gonna have to disagree with you on multiple fronts here David. Many studies have been done that scientifically disagree with what you are saying. Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening."


Fish Guru,.... If you could provide a link to any of these "Many studies...." you mention I would appreciate it. I'm not saying they don't exist, just can't find any. A link(s) would help.

I'm not aware of any studies that say that contradict Davids assertion that, "....there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ..." Not a geneticist, but I believe David is correct on this. Gotta add/subtract some genetic material to cause a mutation. Neither does genetic make-up dictate where a fish will spawn. At a high level, genetic make-up determines if something is a fish and of what type, sex, etc. Fish live, breath/feed and reproduce in water. They produce eggs/milt in order to procreate. That's a strategy for procreation. Genetic make-up doesn't dictate where in a watery environment spawning will take place. Just that it takes place.

"Fish Guru (again)
Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening."


Skamania Steelhead (a desirable, naturally spawning fish) were distributed over several watersheds where they were non-native long ago. According to Shawn Kempkes in a prior post, their genes were no longer as widely distributed as some have said they are. Could that be due to genetic mixing, habitat loss, straying, fishing pressure??? Who can say. At any rate, they're not restocked to maintain their genetic integrity.

IMO, Adaption/survival rates for hatchery reared fish after introduction are probably more impacted by external factors than DNA. Along that line of thinking, maybe a large number of hatchery reared fish do survive to become natural spawners. The Idaho study would appear to say that they don't. But that was on resident brooks/rainbows and still doesn't change the fact that there're so many fisherman pounding the Rivers/streams of this state, that one of many reasons hatchery reared fish (and natives for that matter) are not surviving in numbers is that they're caught and removed. Maybe their habitat is so screwed up that they're unable to survive. Then there's then issue of predation and we haven't even began to touch on oceanic conditions.... Too easy to say that they're "....exponentially inferior."

[Fish Guru]

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archiv...gle-generation
http://projects.registerguard.com/cs...7-41/story.csp
http://nativefishsociety.org/conserv...propgation.htm

There's quite a bit more info that is readily available that states hatchery fish are genetically inferior to native fish. Perhaps it has to do with the mixing of strains to find what people think would be ideal for a specific watershed or maybe it is that natural selection is absent in hatchery fish, I dunno. But the evidence is definitely available that they are indeed different and affect native fish negatively.

[Darian]

Thanks for the links....

[winxp_man]

I didn't read to much of this thread but some things that stand out to me with hatchery fish is the fact that......


1. They are hand feed and they end up developing bad habits. ( Same thing can be said for any animal on this planet) Captivity basically takes away the feeding instinct that a wild fish has. THIS IS NOT SAYING ALL HATCHERY FISH ARE LIKE THIS! But simply saying that when they are released in the wild they don't have the instinct to eat what is out there so they have to figure it out by themselves. This in return makes survival harder having to learn that hey will not eat from some ones hand anymore.

2. The hatchery fish are safe guarded by nets and other sorts of protection measures thus bringing up the issue that they stop trying to keep an eye out for danger. ( Take a look at the turkeys and deer in the American river parkways they are not afraid of humans at all. Now try to relocate them in some national forest that allows hunting they will not survive long if hunting pressure is way up there.) So now we have fish that once released have to learn to protect themselves by looking for placed to hind and how to do it good. This AGAIN!!! ........ does not mean that all will die and parish. But it does make it harder to be like the wild counter part.

So now if people in charge of the natural resources would get on it and instead of lining their pockets with money make a stride to fix thing then we can just maybe save the wild fish of any state.
Its really simple how hard would it be to make a natural hatchery?? I say let the natural elements still happen (that is birds and such that prey on fish have access but at the same time build under water protection pockets for the little ones). Then maybe try bringing in natural bugs of the original river so they can feed (like this cant really be done) and things of this sort can be tried and I know would work and thus making these young frys and smolts work at what they need to do to learn how to survive and making it there natural instinct to do what they do instead of learning what they learn in a hatchery.......


Now if the Hatchery fish make it back to spawn (in the river and not go up to the hatchery) after 2-4 years then that fish will pass on good genetics making the offspring just fine for a wild steelhead. And the way I see it is if you try to argue that its all opinion. Because you just can not say 100% its still inferior to a wild fish. Take this for example I have German Shepherd dogs imported from Germany. Now I have been watching very close for this. The offspring from a German Shepherd that has had training like a dog should all come out being super smart and know their left from right. Then when I first got German Shepherds from a person locally that did not train them...... well these pups were not the brightest in the world. But to make it better I managed to train the pup from the not so trained little and its offspring were actually picking up the traits that that Sire and Dam that I trained learned and did know left from right better then the parents did when they were pups from untrained parents.


Hope this made a little sense I can speak better than I can write but this is a interesting topic after I saw a couple of the posts in here.


Oh and imagine humans if everything went in a collapse and needed to survive off instinct

[winxp_man]

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archiv...gle-generation
http://projects.registerguard.com/cs...7-41/story.csp
http://nativefishsociety.org/conserv...propgation.htm

There's quite a bit more info that is readily available that states hatchery fish are genetically inferior to native fish. Perhaps it has to do with the mixing of strains to find what people think would be ideal for a specific watershed or maybe it is that natural selection is absent in hatchery fish, I dunno. But the evidence is definitely available that they are indeed different and affect native fish negatively.

Guru,

I know 100% its the natural resources that ruin the hatchery fish not the fact that they are breed through a hatchery. My father owns lots of Homer Pigeons and all are breed in a cage of some sort. Now the ones that he decides to let go out will learn the ways of the wild and know how to get away from a hawk. Now the ones that are kept inside do not thus making them easy targets for hawks and will die if they do not learn fast. I see it the same with any animal kept in captivity. Animals learn to be wild pretty quick but thats if they survive to learn it.

[Darian]

After a cursory review of some of the studies mentioned, the general consensus is that, in general:

• hatchery bred/reared fish are inferior to natural spawners,
• some genetic mixing does occur,
• hatchery fish do not last as long in the system,
• hatchery fish don't always occupy the same places in rivers/streams as naturals,
• interbreeding between the two is more likely as males (both types) were determined to be able to mate with females many times during the season (females tend to spawn only once per season), and
• genetic differences have been noted.

Now, if you recall, the original studies mentioned pointed out that impacts of hatchery fish on the natural spawners in the same systems were overstated due to the observations that the incidence of genetic mixing was actually low as stocked fish didn't stay in the system long enough to be a major factor. So, it seems to me that in many ways, the conclusions from current studies would tend to support those of the Idaho study. The only real differences to resolve seem to be the rates at which the negative impacts apply. For me, this is a satisfactory answer to the original questions in this thread. No Need to resolve genetics issues.

I'll make one observation, here. Bill MacMillan once wrote in an article titled "Limitations To Seeing" for Washington Trout, "the human mind seems to work best when it focuses on a particular subject. Much of science is based on that ability to focus. The danger is that peripherals may go un-noticed." (italics added)

His point was that these studies very often do not take into account environmental, habitat, economic, development, and political, etc., factors that are equal to or more important to preserving a species than whether a fish is hatchery bred or natural. Yet, these concerns are not often considered as part of the study process. The article he wrote also includes his observations about trips to the Kamchatka Peninsula area of Russia where he felt that the rivers/streams there were most likely one of the last places remaining unchanged since the origination of steelhead. Russian fisheries biologists believed that the original Steelhead strain started in that area.

As a practical matter, it's probably too late for all but a few places in lower 48 states to be returned to any level of full restoration....

(Yikes!!! I just re-read what I wrote and decided to edit, clarify it....)

[winxp_man]

His point was that these studies very often do not take into account environmental, habitat, economic, development, and political, etc., factors that are equal or more important to preserving a species than whether a fish is hatchery bred or natural, yet these concerns are not often considered as part of the study process. The article he wrote also includes his observations about trips to the Kamchatka Peninsula area of Russia where he felt that the rivers/streams there were most likely one of the last places remaining unchanged since the origination of steelhead. Russian fisheries biologists believed that the original Steelhead strain started in that area.

As a practical matter, it's probably too late for all but a few places in lower 48 states.

Darian well posted !!! And its what my though process is to. The fact that most studies look at just the basic fish and its actions while forgetting about other factors that have to be added to see the true origin on how to fix the issue. I say it all starts with money. If money is put in the right placed instead of the wrong then we will start to see improvements with our wild fish.


The one that gets me about animal is when my father told me of a few cases where he had unhatched homing pigeon eggs and when the pigeon baby got older it flew off to the original owners house that that right there is freak genetics But awesome at the same time.