Hatcheries

[reelfast]

Hatchery fish aren't some genetically modified species. They should be able to live and spawn alongside the "wild" salmon just like it was in the past. So many other variables playing into the loss of wild salmon. Can't just point the finger at hatcheries.

earth to dave S, say what???????????????? hatchery fish are not genetically modified???????????????? where have you been for the last decades????????????????????

of course they are genetically modified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! moreover, what past hatchery management amounted to was finding a specific strain of fish that were easy to raise in concrete tanks to be released in all drainages irrespective of what native fishes could be found. you do know that there is a genetic difference in the specific drainages as to the fishes which inhabit each, right??? so the 'management' model was a cheap to raise fish to be released everywhere.

now hatchery fish success rate in spawning is something like 20% H->H. H->W about 40%. W->W about 80%. the net impact of hatchery fish overcrowding redds is the limiting factor here as they displace the wild fish leading to an escalating decline over the course of time. the question becomes what to do with this data, obtained from dozens of quality research studies. how to balance all of these needs is not an easy thing to deal with against the backdrop of lost habitat and such.

but the bottom line question is: do we have the desire to save wild fish from extinction.

FYI, I hung up my salmon gear for 2 decades as I watched the coastal anadramous fish collapse. so would I do it again, sure thing. this is recreation for me and anything in the freezer a real bonus. that said, I will actively, as in past years, seek out and kill every single hatchery fish I encounter, period.

 

[Cuba Libre]

Reelfast.. I am afraid you dont get it-- Its not just hydro and agriculture that have necessitated the need for hatcheries. Look in the mirror... Its ALL of us as a species and contrary to the wishes of some , we are not going away soon. In MANY cases we have the option of hatchery fish or no fish. What would you prefer? Its not just the effects of dams and water diversion-- it the very fact of how our society operates that affects salmon.
Road construction, road runoff, deicing chemicals, infilling of the little stream in the new subdivision so that the developer can build one more house. Extensive clear-cut logging, the autobody shop that has floor drains that dump directly into a cutthroat/coho stream. Infilling of wetlands so we can have more big box retail or warehousing units. Alteration of mountain run off patterns by ski resorts, using streams for society's waste disposal. And global climate change? And then there is fishing... but if we did not value them as commercial, Native and sports harvest opportunities, the Moran dam on the Fraser River would have been built decades ago.. It just needs constant oversight and resources given to the managers so they can do a better job for us and the fish... You want a prefect world where we have just wild fish? It will not happen.

Now-- about pinks. Good to hear that you have an expanding population down south... but up here on the east coast of the Island, they get around by truck! And I have to challenge your statement : the pink runs have expanded simply as a result of how they spawn. low river spawners, coming out of the gravel triggers an immediate response to head to the salt. the quality of the water in the drainage of choice is of not much concern to the pinks. the estuaries are more critical to their survival. down this way, no hatcheries for pinks, but they are spawning and spreading throughout Puget sound pollution and down the coast and into Oregon, amazing.

They are not concerned about water quality??? WHAT???? Nonsense. Winter flushes caused again by vegetation removal lowers O2, buries the developing eggs in silt or rechannels the stream leaving the eggs high and dry Ever heard of the Mount Washington copper mine disaster that eradicated the Tsolum River salmonids?? And how about the devastation of pinks milling around the estuary by harbour seals because water removal made them easy targets? And also for the record-- pinks spend little time in the estuaries in Georgia Strait. Research trawls have found pinks in mid strait almost as soon as they hit the saltwater. How do I know that? Because I did some of the field work many years ago.

Also you stated that there has never been a hatchery program that restored a wild run.... Lets see now--- how about the Puntledge River fall run chinook. They were virtually extinct before major hatchery intervention. Man played God here, because there was no other choice and the run was hybridized with Big Qualicum and Quinsam River chinooks... guess what, we now have a viable run. Similarly, the Rosewall Creek hatchery matures SUMMER RUN Puntledge chinooks because high water temperature and lack of access to the cold water reservoir almost killed off the run.
The Quinsam River hatchery is also a good example of a facility that has managed to offset the damage done by hydro. 61# chinook taken in the estuary this fall. his facility has been a leader in research on how to improve returns (matching the smolt/fry releases to the plankton blooms etc) If DFO tried shutting this facility down, there would be an uproar from all sectors.

As far as the commercials controlling the DFO up here.... nope-- just look at the evolution of the west coast troll fishery for coho and chinook. Damn near gonzo! But I do agree that the management in AK is still driven by the interests of the pollack fleet etc. The bycatch issue has been address in Canada.. but still the trawl fleet in AK continues to kill 100's of thousand of juvenile salmon. DFO now is fixated on open netpen rearing of atlantic salmon... they seem to care less about our wild fish. So-- as I said previously , given a choice between hatchery fish and no fish-- I know which I choose...

edit-- just saw DaveS post and your reply that .. of course they are genetically modified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! moreover, what past hatchery management amounted to was finding a specific strain of fish that were easy to raise in concrete tanks to be released in all drainages irrespective of what native fishes could be found. you do know that there is a genetic difference in the specific drainages as to the fishes which inhabit each, right??? so the 'management' model was a cheap to raise fish to be released everywhere.

You may well know a lot about US hatchery practices, but you dont know much about the practices here in BC. Other than the pink program and a couple of "rescue operations, where do you see transfers of hatchery fish into watersheds other than where they came from? BC uses fish from their home streams.. we have a Fed/Prov Transplant Committee that carefully scrutinizes movement of ALL eggs and fish. Even school incubator educational programs have to be approved prior to any movement of fish

 

[reelfast]

run restoration: introduction of hatchery fish for some defined period of time with decreasing numbers planted year to year. eventually, zero hatchery supplementation and a clearly stand alone, self reproducing, river full of fish.

down this way, that does not exist. are you telling me the puntledge meets this definition? by all means post up some quality research links to support your contention.

the individual troll fisherman does not have much if any say. that said, the commercial lobby has much to say about seasons, quotas and virtually everything else related to fish harvest. the sea food industry is running these hatcheries for their benefit. their factory ships are the big concern for all species of fish and that's where they make their money.

pinks use the lowest levels of all drainages to spawn. once the fry come out of the gravel, away they go. the quality of the drainage is of much less consequence than for Coho and Chinook who must spend years in quality water of the appropriate temps and flow. we see an increased emphasis on estuary rehab down this way with the tribes playing a positive role. these fish, pinks and chum are their bread and butter nowadays so they have a vested interest.

but the fact is, hatchery fish are GMO products just like corn, wheat and whatever else we are forced to consume. planting easy to raise strains of fish has contributed to the demise of wild fishes in many, many drainages on this side of the border. if DFO has learned from this, I would be shocked and surprised.

 

[bigbruce]

reelfast - I'd like to understand how you define "genetically modified" as it refers to fish. In the scientific world, genetic modification entails manipulation of DNA. The process is known as cisgenesis when a gene is transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred, or transgenesis when a gene from one species is added to a different species. Gene transfer into the genome of the desired organism, as for fish in this case, requires a vector like a lentivirus or mechanical/physical insertion of the altered genes into the nucleus of the host by means of a micro syringe or a gene gun.
I'm not aware of any hatcheries, particularly the volunteer led ones on this side of the border, that are involved in this kind of genetic modification.

 

[reelfast]

reelfast - I'd like to understand how you define "genetically modified" as it refers to fish.

just as with cattle, breeding to achieve certain characteristics. I can't comment on the processes you posted, only the end result. in the case of hatchery raised fishes, selection of those who pack on the pounds rapidly and adapt well to concrete environments. in steelhead land, this has resulted in the Skamania strain of fish, which remains a distinct strain and subjected to multiple law suits to keep them from being planted. same strategies were underway with Coho and Chinook. selective breeding for specific characteristics. and I would assume since these selectively breed fish continue, their DNA must have been modified over time, just as is the case with cattle, pigs chickens, etc. perhaps I have used the incorrect terminology. hope my meaning is more clear.

 

[Cuba Libre]

and I repeat-- you know nothing about BC hatchery practices. if anything its exactly the opposite here.

 

[bigbruce]

At the hatchery that I volunteer at, we simply take fish from the stream beside the hatchery, strip the eggs and milk the sperm, mix and incubate, then rear the result in tanks until they reach about 22 grams (on average) then release back to the stream. There's no "selection" or "breeding to achieve certain characteristics", but rather an attempt to enhance the survivability of the species in this particular stream.
We have also removed fry, in the Spring, that have hatched in the stream but are not ready to go to sea and held them in tanks as the streams tend to dry up in the summer. Once the fall rains hit the streams, we release these fish back into the streams they were pulled from.
As a result of our efforts, we are seeing significant increases in the returns of salmon to the streams - no doubt due to fact that a higher percentage of eggs/fry survive to maturity in the hatchery than they would in the stream. To my knowledge, this is how the majority of volunteer hatcheries in BC operate. Our group is also extensively involved with "stream keeping" - the maintenance and enhancement of habitat.
We're not supported by the fishing industry, but rather by groups of people interested in helping to counteract the negative effects of industrial and "other" pollutants on the ability of the fish resources' survival.
I'm having a whole lot of difficulty figuring out how our efforts will result in "genetic modification", certainly by the definition I suggested as well as by yours, Reelfast.

 

[searun]

I think some on here are missing Brian's point. I think what he's trying to get across is simply leaving things to Mother Nature will not work. There have been too many human sourced insults to these fish for them to recover naturally. Not at hatcheries in and of themselves are "the answer" however they are an effective tool when used properly in combination with other augmentation strategies like habitat construction, fertilization, water flow management etc.

Anyone who seriously thinks we should stand back and do nothing is simply kidding themselves. Just look at the decades of how that strategy has worked for the province on steelhead. We have that strategy to thank for all the barren rivers IMO.

 

[finaddict]

At the hatchery that I volunteer at, we simply take fish from the stream beside the hatchery, strip the eggs and milk the sperm, mix and incubate, then rear the result in tanks until they reach about 22 grams (on average) then release back to the stream. There's no "selection" or "breeding to achieve certain characteristics", but rather an attempt to enhance the survivability of the species in this particular stream.
We have also removed fry, in the Spring, that have hatched in the stream but are not ready to go to sea and held them in tanks as the streams tend to dry up in the summer. Once the fall rains hit the streams, we release these fish back into the streams they were pulled from.
As a result of our efforts, we are seeing significant increases in the returns of salmon to the streams - no doubt due to fact that a higher percentage of eggs/fry survive to maturity in the hatchery than they would in the stream. To my knowledge, this is how the majority of volunteer hatcheries in BC operate. Our group is also extensively involved with "stream keeping" - the maintenance and enhancement of habitat.
We're not supported by the fishing industry, but rather by groups of people interested in helping to counteract the negative effects of industrial and "other" pollutants on the ability of the fish resources' survival.
I'm having a whole lot of difficulty figuring out how our efforts will result in "genetic modification", certainly by the definition I suggested as well as by yours, Reelfast.

In addition Bruce, I suspect that you are fertilizing the eggs with the milt from either 3 or 4 males as in the norm for volunteer programs. In addition most programs always take first generation wild fish for their spawning programs. While its not "survival of the fittest" scenario, it does attempt to instill a little more opportunity for genetic variance and combination. . It isn`t a perfect system, but in trying to mimic natural selection I am not sure there ever could be. I know that in some of US hatcheries they used to blend 1 to 1. I am not sure if they still do

 

[reelfast]

and I repeat-- you know nothing about BC hatchery practices. if anything its exactly the opposite here.

so fill me in if you please.

current practices are limiting the numbers of fish pairs that are spawned to a minimal number. all fish returning to hatchery ponds are killed, however. they are marked by removing their heads and returned to the water. this helps in the redd counts so these returnees are not counted again. currently, fish pairs are simply spawned and that's it. this is far different than the manipulation that has occurred in the past. even with that said, this sort of hatchery reform, limiting numbers, is doing nothing to help return native runs. I certainly don't have a solution but it is abundantly clear that hatchery fish inhibit wild fish returns. can they recover on their own?? well that's the important question and one that has no answer at the moment. probably has much to do with how degraded the specific stocks might be on an individual drainage as compared to another. combine that with the rec angling community lacking any patience for recovery and what you get is intense pressure to plant hatchery smolts.

I thought the Elwha might provide some answers but the plan that is in place has too short a time line to determine much of anything. after spending 1.5 hours with the salmon manager for the state, it is clear to both of us that the plan is doomed to failure. not much that can be done about that as the number of stake holders are too great to come back at it and modify was poor thinking to begin with.

 

[bigbruce]

so fill me in if you please.

current practices are limiting the numbers of fish pairs that are spawned to a minimal number. all fish returning to hatchery ponds are killed, however. they are marked by removing their heads and returned to the water. this helps in the redd counts so these returnees are not counted again. currently, fish pairs are simply spawned and that's it. this is far different than the manipulation that has occurred in the past. even with that said, this sort of hatchery reform, limiting numbers, is doing nothing to help return native runs. I certainly don't have a solution but it is abundantly clear that hatchery fish inhibit wild fish returns. can they recover on their own?? well that's the important question and one that has no answer at the moment. probably has much to do with how degraded the specific stocks might be on an individual drainage as compared to another. combine that with the rec angling community lacking any patience for recovery and what you get is intense pressure to plant hatchery smolts.

I thought the Elwha might provide some answers but the plan that is in place has too short a time line to determine much of anything. after spending 1.5 hours with the salmon manager for the state, it is clear to both of us that the plan is doomed to failure. not much that can be done about that as the number of stake holders are too great to come back at it and modify was poor thinking to begin with.

It's apparent to me that the hatchery practice in Washington State is quite different that in BC. I'm not aware that we do anything like what you have described. Maybe Brian can comment further.

Steve - yes, the milk used to fertilize the eggs will come from more than one donor.

 

[Dave S]

earth to dave S, say what???????????????? hatchery fish are not genetically modified???????????????? where have you been for the last decades????????????????????

of course they are genetically modified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! moreover, what past hatchery management amounted to was finding a specific strain of fish that were easy to raise in concrete tanks to be released in all drainages irrespective of what native fishes could be found. you do know that there is a genetic difference in the specific drainages as to the fishes which inhabit each, right??? so the 'management' model was a cheap to raise fish to be released everywhere.

I'm not sure what hatcheries are doing in the States, but here in Canada, there are no genetic modifications being performed. In order to modify genes, that would require genetic engineering and tweaking of the fish DNA. That is not happening.

My experience around hatcheries has shown me how dedicated and hard working the volunteers are, and I know they are not in any way looking to wipe out wild runs. If there was proof of this, they would not be doing it. I can recall you getting fired up over hatcheries in the past, and I'm sure you will continue to push your agenda, but don't expect everyone to follow.

PS. using lots of question marks or exclamation marks will not get your point across better.

 

[GLG]

I'm no expert but I don't think we know what most small community based hatcheries are doing to the genetics of the fish we raise for enhancement. Do we cross brothers and sisters? I can't tell. I do know when I get a Jack I'll use that for sure. That way I know they are not closely related. I remember reading a paper on a study they preformed by building an artificial spawning bed to let the fish sort out who pairs with who. They then used that pairing of eggs and milt and if memory severs they had better success on ocean return. I do know for the Coho hatchery that I volunteer at our wild fish are doing better then our hatchery fish. We count the wild smolts in the spring and release a set amount of clipped enhanced smolts. We count the adults coming back in the fall and the wilds are always, by percent, doing better. Mother nature is doing a better job then us. We have a goal to fix the river so we wont need the hatchery. It may take us ten years but without a goal we will just continue to do the same old same old. Someone once posted on here that its far cheaper to protect a river and it's run then it was to rebuild it. True oh so true.

 

[reelfast]

My experience around hatcheries has shown me how dedicated and hard working the volunteers are, and I know they are not in any way looking to wipe out wild runs. If there was proof of this, they would not be doing it. I can recall you getting fired up over hatcheries in the past, and I'm sure you will continue to push your agenda, but don't expect everyone to follow.

I am sure the volunteers believe in their mission of propagating fish at their small facilities. unfortunately, they ARE impacting wild runs of fish. when I have some time, I will cobble together a short list of quality research which is conclusive in this regard, hatchery fish displace wild fish leading to the further destruction of wild runs. that short statement about sums up the work of many, many scientists who have been involved with this research for decades.

the latest efforts down this way have combined hatchery reform, significant cut backs in the numbers of smolt being released, with gene bank river systems where zero supplementation will be allowed to occur. this lead, as an example, to the closure of a volunteer hatchery on the Sol Duc which was funded and operated by the guides association. right now there are perhaps 6 river systems that are now designated as gene banks. they will be left alone to see if any recovery is possible.

unfortunately, the notion of 'maximum sustained yield' over the course of years is going to interfere with this lofty goal. I do believe, but have no evidence to support my belief, that once you over harvest any wild population, you take it to the point of no return. so no matter what you think you are now doing, there are simply far too few returning fish to rebuild the run. then throw in habitat, and the rest of it and the nail is in the coffin. if this proves to be the case on selected river systems, I would argue they are prime candidates for heavy hatchery stocking.

 

[reelfast]

here is a web site that has accumulated tons of research: http://nativefishsociety.org/index.php/science-research/wild-vs-hatchery-salmonid-interactions/

if you are interested, you can spend hours reading what has been investigated in detail with regard to impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish. read and learn for yourself.

 

[seadna]

While the fish in hatcheries are not being genetically modified, the process of rearing fish in a way that removes much of the natural selective pressures that a fry would experience in the wild does impact the genetics - e.g. fish which would be selected against in a natural environment live in the relatively "easy" environment of a rearing pond.

 

[Cuba Libre]

And all salmon dont have similar pressures once they head out??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aL-WRQgYGc&feature=share

 

[seadna]

And all salmon dont have similar pressures once they head out??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aL-WRQgYGc&feature=share

They certainly do once they're on the way out, but the hatchery fish are missing the pressure that happens between egg and fingerling.

 

[Rockfish]

I am sure the volunteers believe in their mission of propagating fish at their small facilities. unfortunately, they ARE impacting wild runs of fish. when I have some time, I will cobble together a short list of quality research which is conclusive in this regard, hatchery fish displace wild fish leading to the further destruction of wild runs.

You view this in black and white absolute terms which seem to me to be simplistic. We have smaller volunteer hatcheries on rivers which have reintroduced species of salmon such as Chinook that had gone extinct in the river. Many of the hatchery fish are able to reproduce on their own in a river where the hatchery has reintroduced and restored a run of salmon . The original genetics for that river are gone although I understand effort was made to locate Chinook for the hatchery with similar genetics to the runs that were lost.

Without some of these hatcheries there would be no Chinook for example from these river systems at all and I don’t see these hatcheries as being anything but a good thing.

Further, reintroducing salmon through hatchery provides motivation to protect not only the salmon, but the river, streams and creeks resulting in the single largest driving force to protect and restore these natural water ways which provides homes for a great many other species and benefits the environment in general. Without the hatcheries and the salmon they provide those motivated to protect the salmon and who benefit from them, may feel they have nothing to protect and far too quickly those streams become little more than heavily polluted drainage ditches and culverts for the most part devoid of life. I have watched it happen. Our small hatcheries not only keep salmon in streams but in some cases put salmon back in streams which protects the streams and entire ecosystems and drives their restoration.

If you have been paying attention you have some understanding that our current federal government has gutted our habitat and fishery protection legislation. However the one thing even they view as having value are fish species such as salmon that have economic value. Their value system seems to be if a species can be exploited for profit, it has value and they are grudgingly prepared in some instances to protect them and their ecosystem even if that impairs profit generating industrial development. Without a species of value in a stream however it would seem other species, such as fish viewed as not having value and their ecosystem can be sacrificed in the cause of development.

Our hatcheries keep salmon (a species of value) in our streams and even restore salmon to ecosystems and that protects the entire ecosystem from being sacrificed to other economic interests, at least in some cases. I am not so naïve to think that if it comes down to a conflict between some large industry with deep pockets and money to spread around, that the fish will actually win, even if they are species of economic value, but a least there could be a court case about it.

 

[GLG]

This paper is worth reading

http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/theriault-et-al-2011-RRS-H-W-Coho.pdf