Hatchery Fish A Threat To Wild Salmon

[Barbender]

14 May, 2012 - A new collection of more than 20 studies by leading university scientists and government fisheries researchers in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Russia and Japan provides evidence that salmon raised in man-made hatcheries can harm wild salmon through competition for food and habitat.


Published in the May issue of “Environmental Biology of Fishes,” the research brings together 23 new peer-reviewed studies carried out across the entire range of Pacific salmon, including some of the first studies describing the impact of hatcheries on wild salmon populations in Japan and Russia.

The studies provide new evidence that fast-growing hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food and habitat in the ocean as well as in the rivers where they return to spawn. The research also raises questions about whether the ocean can supply enough food to support future increases in hatchery fish while still sustaining the productivity of wild salmon.

“This isn’t just an isolated issue,” said Pete Rand, a biologist at the Wild Salmon Center and a guest editor of the publication. “What we’re seeing here in example after example is growing scientific evidence that hatchery fish can actually edge out wild populations. The scale and magnitude of our current hatchery production system is enormous. Five billion juvenile salmon are released each year worldwide, and the prospect of additional increases in hatchery production is worrisome for the long-term survival of wild salmon.”

 

[reelfast]

these impacts are well documented over the course of many years of investigation. other interesting study was how long does it take for wild fish DNA to be modified. the capture of wild fish taken to hatcheries to be raised in order to 'save' wild fish. the hood river study found that the smolt adapt to the concrete ponds immediately and that the DNA is modified in a single generation of fish. the conclusion, '...trying to save wild fish by propogation in hatchery ponds does exactly the opposite...'

the political arguement is that hatcheries are there to mitigate loss of habitat, etc. etc. and are therefore necessary. the fact is the mitigation is in place to prop up the failed commercial fishing industry who first over harvested and then wants tax payers to prop them up. corporations and big business lobbying efforts, once again, are what we are all dealing with.

 

[chris73]

That is all nice and dandy desk science, the matter of the fact is that wild salmon survive well in wild rivers. But there are hardly any wild rivers left. Compromised rivers need salmon enhancement or there won't be any salmon - simple as that. First hand proof are several bleak rivers and a first class failed DFO Wild Salmon Policy. DFO under the disguise of that exact type of science tried to save money by leaving the wild salmon on their own and making drastic cuts to the Salmon Enhancement Program. Let's see how well that did for the salmon pops? Well, I see crises over crises in southern BC rivers - that have of course the greatest human impacts. To sum it up, do you want salmon or not? I take a hatchery salmon any day over no salmon - even if the no salmon would be a wild no-salmon!

BTW, the argument that the ocean can't sustain all those hatchery fish is utter non-sense. Do you have any idea how many wild salmon were in this ocean 150 years ago? Current salmon pops probably run between 10 and 20% of what once was. Of course raping the herring and other food-fish stocks does not help maintaining a healthy ocean habitat....

 

[Rockfish]

Very good post Chris. I would add that after a hundred years of habitat degradation, commercial overfishing and now fish farms,that if DFO was actually concerned about enhanced salmon populations competing on the spawning beds with whatever small amounts of completely wild salmon still exist in our south Island streams, they would be insisting that all hatchery salmon be clipped so that they are not returned to the ocean when caught to then go up rivers to compete on the spawning gravel. So much for a little money and effort to help out the multimillion dollar south island sport fishery by allowing us to keep hatchery Chinook by clipping them. I wish Harper would care a little more about our economy.

Instead, I understand that DFO refuses to allow hatcheries to clip most Chinook despite having a budget close to two billion because it adds a little work and cost to checking the heads for information tags which would not be present.

I do note that after a review of Barbender’s past posts it is clear that many have been posted for the express purpose of defending the Norwegian fish farm corporations.

This posting appears to be another defense of fish farms because his industry is afraid that the fish farm corporations will get the boot out of our waters and we will adopt the much less risky model that Alaska uses. The Alaska model involves the enhancement of native pacific salmon not the alien Atlantic salmon his industry has cursed our coast with.

As far as I am concerned any possible very small risks that Pacific Salmon Enhancement may pose, pales into insignificance compared to the huge threat that introduced farmed Atlantic Salmon represent.

Want to do something serious for Pacific Salmon; get the alien Atlantic salmon into closed containment and if they can’t or won’t (less profit) then close them down and ship them back to Norway along with a bill for the cleanup and restoration of our fragile coastal inlets. We don’t want the mess they left in Chile when disease outbreaks (you know, the ones than never happen) made their industry unprofitable and collapse there.

 

[bushwackin]

Very good post Chris. I would add that after a hundred years of habitat degradation, commercial overfishing and now fish farms,that if DFO was actually concerned about enhanced salmon populations competing on the spawning beds with whatever small amounts of completely wild salmon still exist in our south Island streams, they would be insisting that all hatchery salmon be clipped so that they are not returned to the ocean when caught to then go up rivers to compete on the spawning gravel. So much for a little money and effort to help out the multimillion dollar south island sport fishery by allowing us to keep hatchery Chinook by clipping them. I wish Harper would care a little more about our economy.

Instead, I understand that DFO refuses to allow hatcheries to clip most Chinook despite having a budget close to two billion because it adds a little work and cost to checking the heads for information tags which would not be present.

I do note that after a review of Barbender’s past posts it is clear that many have been posted for the express purpose of defending the Norwegian fish farm corporations.

This posting appears to be another defense of fish farms because his industry is afraid that the fish farm corporations will get the boot out of our waters and we will adopt the much less risky model that Alaska uses. The Alaska model involves the enhancement of native pacific salmon not the alien Atlantic salmon his industry has cursed our coast with.

As far as I am concerned any possible very small risks that Pacific Salmon Enhancement may pose, pales into insignificance compared to the huge threat that introduced farmed Atlantic Salmon represent.

Want to do something serious for Pacific Salmon; get the alien Atlantic salmon into closed containment and if they can’t or won’t (less profit) then close them down and ship them back to Norway along with a bill for the cleanup and restoration of our fragile coastal inlets. We don’t want the mess they left in Chile when disease outbreaks (you know, the ones than never happen) made their industry unprofitable and collapse there.

Wow, amazing post

 

[declining stocks]

Another concern about hatcheries is that DFO is replanting Bacterial Kidney Disease feed fry back into the wild system. Doesn't this practice continue the BKD? and won't the feed fry contaminate the wild stocks with this?

 

[Little Hawk]

You got it Rockfish!

Barbie is like a rash: he shows up, we put ointment on him and he goes away... but (like herpes)... he keeps coming back.

BTW Barbie, if you're still trying to prop-up the fish-farmers on here, you might have picked a better article for this latest appearance:

"The research also raises questions about whether the ocean can supply enough food to support future increases in hatchery fish while still sustaining the productivity of wild salmon."

One of the primary reasons for decreased ocean-productivity is due to the salmon-feedlot industries continuous rape & pillaging of countless mega-tons of herring/sardines/krill etc. to mash into fish pellets to feed farm-fish around the globe, of which they feed a whopping 4 to 5-pounds of it to grow 1-measly pound of Atlantic salmon.

Not sure if things are the same - I suspect they are - but it used to be that the same companies that harvested the fish to make pellets were owned by the salmon farmers. Tidy little arrangement.

 

[Charlie]

14 May, 2012 - A new collection of more than 20 studies by leading university scientists and government fisheries researchers in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Russia and Japan provides evidence that salmon raised in man-made hatcheries can harm wild salmon through competition for food and habitat.


Published in the May issue of “Environmental Biology of Fishes,” the research brings together 23 new peer-reviewed studies carried out across the entire range of Pacific salmon, including some of the first studies describing the impact of hatcheries on wild salmon populations in Japan and Russia.

There is actually a valid concern there; however, those studies are mostly about Japan and Russia’s Pink, Chum, and Sockeye and how those fish interact with U.S. salmon in the Prince William Sound and in the Bering Sea. Really has nothing much to do with our U.S. west coast or BC salmon populations and hatcheries – NONE of our fish not even go to the Bering Sea!

“A number of studies addressed interactions occurring at the time of adult return migration and spawning. Recent research was presented on straying of hatchery produced pink, chum and sockeye salmon in Prince William Sound, Alaska. This helps frame some of the challenges in minimizing adverse effects of hatchery populations on wild salmon in this region (Brenner et al. 2012, this issue). The first comprehensive salmon escapement survey of chum salmon in Hokkaido, Japan, provided evidence of natural reproduction in a region that has focused for many decades on hatchery development (Miyakoshi et al. 2012, this issue). The unique history of hatchery development in Sakhalin, Russian Federation and the emerging understanding of interactions between wild and hatchery pink and chum salmon provides insight into potential competition between wild and hatchery salmon in this region (Kaev 2012, this issue). New evidence was presented on trait divergence between wild and hatchery populations of chum, Chinook and sockeye populations in southern Kamchatka, Russian Federation and the first documentation in the literature on the contribution of hatchery chum salmon to the natural spawning population of chum salmon in this region (Zaporozhets and Zaporozhets 2012, this issue).”

Three additional papers address reproductive interactions and demonstrate the power of genetic tools in understanding the nature of ecological interactions between wild and hatchery salmon. Shifting demographics of hatchery Chinook salmon populations to earlier male maturity may influence overall DNA pedigree-based estimates of reproductive success in natural populations supplemented with hatchery-reared Chinook salmon (Schroder et al. 2012, this issue). A study of genetic markers reveals how a rare lake-type chum population
is being swamped by a rapidly expanding hatchery chum salmon population in a small island in the Kurile archipeligo, Russian Federation (Zhivotovsky et al. 2012, this issue). Genetic differences among cultured and wild populations of masu salmon in Hokkaido, Japan
were highlighted in another study, and the authors urged fisheries managers to consider the risk of fitness loss in wild masu populations that might interbreed with hatchery fish (Yu et al. 2012, this issue).

A number of broad reviews were presented on different dimensions of the conference theme. A succinct summary of enhancement of Alaska salmon fisheries noted many of the positive benefits to the fishery and the state (Heard 2012, this issue). A summary of five case studies provides a rich description of the history, ecological dimensions, and the interplay between emerging scientific information and the creation of public policy in the US
Pacific Northwest context, concluding with some practical suggestions on how to effectively contain risks in the future (Kostow 2012, this issue). A cogent argument for developing and implementing a new wild salmon policy in Japan was introduced (Nagata et al. 2012, this issue), emphasizing reforms needed to conserve remaining natural reproductive components of Japanese salmon and to restore degraded salmon habitat. Theory and
empirical studies highlight the risks of hatchery fish eroding the potential for adaptation in wild salmon, and underscores the importance of protecting wild populations to achieve sustained harvests of Alaskan salmon (Grant 2012, this issue). Finally, a regional synthesis paper summarizing the state of understanding of ecological interactions across the diverse North Pacific region highlighted efforts underway or planned to increase our understanding and identify needed actions to minimize negative effects in the context of fisheries management (Rand et al. 2012, this issue).

We were encouraged by the positive testimonials that we received during and following the conference. We hope that this special issue will further inspire collaboration among scientists, managers, conservationists, indigenous peoples, fishers, business people, and politicians and serve as a long-term record of the conference. Furthermore, our hope is that through collaboration we can increase our understanding and advance the management of ecological interactions so that beneficial interactions can be facilitated and detrimental interactions can be minimized.”

http://www.stateofthesalmon.org/conference2010/

 

[GLG]

The studies provide new evidence that fast-growing hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food and habitat in the ocean as well as in the rivers where they return to spawn. The research also raises questions about whether the ocean can supply enough food to support future increases in hatchery fish while still sustaining the productivity of wild salmon.”

Interesting... I wonder if the 100 million Fraser River Sockeye run a couple of years ago read that study. If so they must not have eaten while they were out in the ocean. GLG

 

[Charlie]

 

[chris73]

Let's not exaggerate, GLG, it was 35 Millions. There used to be 100 Million Socks regularly > 100 years ago. But your point was made.

 

[GLG]

Let's not exaggerate, GLG, it was 35 Millions. There used to be 100 Million Socks regularly > 100 years ago. But your point was made.

I stand corrected as Chris73 is correct.
Should have fact checked before I posted.
thanks Chris73 for catching that.

 

[Charlie]

Think about those MILLIONS of “young” Fraser Sockeye smolts that “DIE” passing those Norwegian fish farms and don’t even make it to the feeding grounds? Might I add… there is absolutely NO problems with "overpopulation" or “Ocean Conditions” on the Fraser River feeding grounds!

Which btw, DFO knows exactly where those Sockeye go (and have for years), it isn’t even close to the areas discussed in those studies:






Numerical Simulations of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon
Homing Migration Routes in a Dynamic Marine Environment

Dale Kolody and Michael Healey
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Oceanography
University of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd.
Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4, Canada

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin No. 1/page 118-128(Kolody).PDF

 

[reelfast]

That is all nice and dandy desk science, the matter of the fact is that wild salmon survive well in wild rivers. But there are hardly any wild rivers left. Compromised rivers need salmon enhancement or there won't be any salmon - simple as that.

common urban legend. fire up google maps, look for Portland, OR. then trace the willamette river from its confluence to the head waters. what you will find is urban development, coupled with agriculture grass fields with their pesticide and fertilizer run off. the Portland harbor was a super fund site not that many years ago due to WWII ship building, mercury, lead and all sort of other nasty stuff. you will also note that the upper forks are all dammed 'flood control'.

stocking of springers was stopped decades ago, decades.....a totally impacted urban river with a self sustaining run of spring and fall chinook and a very healthy run of fall steelhead, all on their own, no hatcheries involved, on an eco system that has been blasted by mankind over the centuries.

urban legend says this can't be done. think again. mankind has zero clue regarding fish DNA and what they are genetically programmed to do. all WE have to do is get the hell out of the way and let them return on their own. hatcheries are what is keeping these runs from returning and the justification, as noted above, is not only urban legend but also a PR job supreme by the commercial fishing interests to keep your and my tax dollars involved with producing hatchery zombies for these folks to harvest. now do the ROI, <1% return rate is considered stellar for hatchery returns. so how much/pound are you willing to throw at hatcheries???? step right up 'cause the days of a free ride are rapidly diminishing as budgets are slashed down this way.

 

[Rockfish]

common urban legend.

Your somewhat extreme environmental religion is showing. But glad to hear you have one urban river with a modest salmon recovery despite being totally devastated.

I can tell you with certainty that where I am right now we would have no Chinook fishery at all if it were not for US Hatcheries and commitment to river restoration.

I am thrilled and thankful for the huge efforts and financial sacrifice that the American people have made towards the rehabilitation of your rivers, wild salmon and pacific salmon enhancement and wish we could get our government to do the same.

It goes without saying that I dread the future should your position on this ever prevail; luckily that would seem unlikely.

 

[Englishman]

common urban legend.

Your somewhat extreme environmental religion is showing. But glad to hear you have one urban river with a modest salmon recovery despite being totally devastated.

I can tell you with certainty that where I am right now we would have no Chinook fishery at all if it were not for US Hatcheries and commitment to river restoration.

I am thrilled and thankful for the huge efforts and financial sacrifice that the American people have made towards the rehabilitation of your rivers, wild salmon and pacific salmon enhancement and wish we could get our government to do the same.

It goes without saying that I dread the future should your position on this ever prevail; luckily that would seem unlikely.

Rockfish, I am not sure Reelfast's environmentalism is that extreme. I accept that hatcheries are probably required on some rivers for now. But I consider it extreme hubris and arrogance to believe that mankind can "do better" than nature. Nature has had thousands of years to "perfect" the system in the case of salmon and millions of years before that in the case of fish in general.....

Yeah run augmentation is required and valuable for now, but the ultimate long term goal should be to restore rivers to enable natural production and get the hell out of the way.

 

[Rockfish]

Rockfish, I am not sure Reelfast's environmentalism is that extreme. I accept that hatcheries are probably required on some rivers for now. But I consider it extreme hubris and arrogance to believe that mankind can "do better" than nature. Nature has had thousands of years to "perfect" the system in the case of salmon and millions of years before that in the case of fish in general.....

Yeah run augmentation is required and valuable for now, but the ultimate long term goal should be to restore rivers to enable natural production and get the hell out of the way.

We are certainly on the same page with the need to protect and restore fish habitat and on the importance of hatcheries in the short term and I think most likely in the long term.

50 years ago there were 3 billion people on the planet and in thirty years there will be 10 billion. Some theorize that human population growth may begin to stabilize at that point as the entire planet becomes developed (developed countries have slower population growth than undeveloped countries) but many others do not think so.

In Canada with our current governments we seem hell bent on poisoning our rivers, extracting water and spawning gravel and turning every salmon river and stream into a power plant while introducing alien species such as Atlantic salmon.

I do not subscribe to the environmental dogma that man should never intervene in nature and should just stay out of the way and nature/other species will recover although I acknowledge it is a widely held belief.

This belief seems to be based in guilt for all the negative impacts on other species humans have caused because we evolved to invent technology and as a species cannot control our own population growth which has lead to a great many negative consequences for other species.

Man will never become just an observer of nature. We are a pinnacle predator and will continue to be a part of nature. We will continue to grow our population most likely until we exhaust resources and food supply and in so doing continue to negatively impact most other species. Most other species on the planet (plant and animal) are or will become a food source or other resource for humans. Dig up a copy of an old movie called "Soylent Green". It was thought provoking even in its day and the premise may be even more relevent in todays world now that our population curve is almost vertical.

I believe not only that we should in some circumstances further intervene in nature, but that we have an obligation to attempt to do so where we can to mitigate, reduce or at least delay the damage to other species our own species uncontrolled population growth has caused.

In fact we have done it successfully many times and are doing it daily. For example, the endangered Vancouver Island Marmot captive breeding and release program. In doing so we have brought back a significant number of species from the brink of human caused extinction and captured, transported and restored some species to ranges they were once eradicated from by man such as wolves in Yellowstone Park which was an attempt to restore historical balance to that ecosystem.

Perhaps we should not have intervened and let some of those species go extinct but I disagree with that point of view.

Sure nature will eventully rebalance for mans population curve but I think it is going to take one of histories largest mass extinctions including possibly that of humans to do it. That is natures way; it won't be pretty and it won't be the planets first mass extinction. 99+% of all species that ever existed on this planet are now extinct.

 

[Charlie]

Well I hate to inform anyone who doesn't like hatcheries, but when it comes to salmon “wild” or “hatchery” “clipped” or “unclipped” really should not be the question anymore, here in the Pacific Northwest! Just for simplicity sake, you might as well consider any salmon in the Columbia River Basin, Puget Sound, or even the Fraser a direct result of some type of a hatchery production!

It is currently believed (I do believe) that over 80% of the Chinook population in the Columbia is now a direct result of “hatchery” production. Even the so-called “wild” Chinook listed on ESA are currently enhanced by “hatcheries”! The Puget Sound Chinook were mismanaged and crossbred so much that IMHO there cannot be any “wild” Chinook left in Puget Sound; to include, those listed on ESA. Most of the Fraser populations have been enhanced and cross bredding with the remaining "wild" has been going on for years.

So, the real questions should be: 1) Do want salmon spawning in their natural habitat were they support other species of life that depend on them for existence? 2) Continue hatching them in cement ponds where they can’t support the other forms of life, that is except us humans? 3) Let them, and the rest of the other species that rely on them just die off and leave us eating “farmed Atlantic salmon”?

common urban legend. fire up google maps, look for Portland, OR. then trace the willamette river from its confluence to the head waters. what you will find is urban development, coupled with agriculture grass fields with their pesticide and fertilizer run off. the Portland harbor was a super fund site not that many years ago due to WWII ship building, mercury, lead and all sort of other nasty stuff. you will also note that the upper forks are all dammed 'flood control'.

stocking of springers was stopped decades ago, decades.....a totally impacted urban river with a self sustaining run of spring and fall chinook and a very healthy run of fall steelhead, all on their own, no hatcheries involved, on an eco system that has been blasted by mankind over the centuries.

urban legend says this can't be done. think again. mankind has zero clue regarding fish DNA and what they are genetically programmed to do. all WE have to do is get the hell out of the way and let them return on their own. hatcheries are what is keeping these runs from returning and the justification, as noted above, is not only urban legend but also a PR job supreme by the commercial fishing interests to keep your and my tax dollars involved with producing hatchery zombies for these folks to harvest. now do the ROI, <1% return rate is considered stellar for hatchery returns. so how much/pound are you willing to throw at hatcheries???? step right up 'cause the days of a free ride are rapidly diminishing as budgets are slashed down this way.

Concerning DNA… You just touch a salmon and that is subject to change its DNA. Think about loading those “wild” Snake River ESA Chinook on barges and transporting them – don’t think that changes their DNA? Everything changes and modifies a salmons DNA it is how they have evolved over that 50 million years of their existence.

IF… we humans were to get out of their way giving salmon a chance, meaning we do not continue to poison, block and/or destroy their spawning grounds – they WILL adopt and survive! Until then, if we were to “just get out of their way” without those hatcheries there simply would be NO salmon, including on the Willamette River.

I am also for protecting and restoring salmon habitat and doing just that; however, those hatcheries are going to be around for a LONG time! What we humans are doing has nothing to do with “nature.” Unfortunately, one needs to remember salmon need access to spawning grounds to survive! Once we humans destroy their environment and habitat in an area there really is only a few choices left. 1) Restore their habitat 2) Build a hatchery 3) Let that particular salmon race go extinct. Make your choice, as the choice really is yours. It has nothing to do with what “nature” can or can’t do!

Not so sure I would have used the Willamette River as an example of “totally impacted urban river with a self sustaining run of spring and fall chinook and a very healthy run of fall steelhead”? Don’t know about the “common urban legend” comment either, but if you do “fire up” Google, point it in this direction:
http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/hatch.html

Total Released in 2011 was 1,660,426 “Spring” Chinook yearlings and breaks down as follows:
Willamette Hatchery, Dexter Pond, Released 539,469 on 01/28/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, Dexter Pond, Released 654,437 on 02/11/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, South Fork Santiam River, Released 126,169 on 02/23/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, Mollala River, Released 103,809 on 03/01/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, Dexter Pond, Released 236,542 on 04/13/2011 byODFW

Total Released in 2011 was 157,401 Steelhead:
Willamette Hatchery, Santiam River & N Fk released 65,516 on 03/08/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, Willamette River released 30,870 on 04/11/2011 by ODFW
Willamette Hatchery, Dexter Pond released 61,015 on 04/13/2011 by ODFW

The Willamette River Chinook and Steelhead is currently and has been enhanced, since 1925. That is currently to the tune of over 1.5 million Chinook yearlings annually. The reason is simple, salmon need spawning grounds to survive. Build a dam that obstructs their return and/or destroy the spawning grounds, they simply cannot exist in that area:

“This facility was built and annually funded in part by the US Army Corps of Engineers to compensate for the loss of spawning and rearing areas above the dams on the South Santiam River.

Hatchery is located downriver at north end of Foster Dam.”
http://www.santiamriver.com/

Want to take a look at their visitors center?
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/visitors/dexter_pond.asp

Decades and self-sustaining?

FYI… Salmon have been around much longer than most think and will probably outlast us? Atlantic and Pacific both originated from one species. Here is part of an article I put together a few years ago:

There are five species of Pacific salmon (Onchorhynchus spp.) of what we refer to as Pacific Northwest Salmon they are: Chinook, Coho, Sockeye, Chum, and Pink. However, in the Oncorhynchus family you will also find Steelhead and Sea-run Cutthroat trout. So, if someone happens to say seven different species, they would be correct in that statement!

Salmonidae have been around for Eon(aeon), in comparison our primate ancestors showed about 4 million years ago - The oldest salmon fossil is Eosalmo, (which actually lived in fresh water) and lived about 50 million years ago. Think about that, salmon have lived on this Earth over twelve times longer than “humans”! Ten to fifteen million years ago salmon grew to ten feet and actually had fangs, some weighing in over 500 pounds. Now that is a “salmon”!

The salmon’s ancestral species Oncorhynchus is believed to have evolved during the Meiocene Epoch.

No links for that, as I wrote it based on some research a few years back; however, if interested information can be found by “firing up Google” and looking under and for the names: ‘Smilodonichthys rastrosus’, ‘Sabretooth’, ‘Eoslmo’ all followed with salmon.

 

[Little Hawk]

"So, the real questions should be: 1) Do want salmon spawning in their natural habitat were they support other species of life that depend on them for existence? 2) Continue hatching them in cement ponds where they can’t support the other forms of life, that is except us humans? 3) Let them, and the rest of the other species that rely on them just die off and leave us eating “farmed Atlantic salmon”?"

There you go. Good job Charlie. Rendered to the bare essence of it all.

 

[reelfast]

you are huddled down sitting in your favorite comfy chair, snacks at arms reach, all is well. the big yellow hatchery bus pulls up in front of your place and 100 noisey clones jump out and pile into your favorite room. in an eye blink, anything that can be eaten is gone, you are pushed into a corner by your well fed but clueless new room mates............so what to do, you leave town never to be seen again.

the DNA is still embedded down deep in anadramous fishes. where i sit and type was under 1,500' of solid ice. over the eons it took for that ice to recede, the salmon came back. from where? how? only the arrogance of mankind would attempt to control this event. only the fish know how and mankind needs to get comfortable with not knowing.

environmentlism? no i don't think so, just willing to read and understand the science involved is enough to convince me that hatcheries are THE major deterent to anadramous fish recovery. sure the environment has been screwed sixteen ways from sunday, but somehow, and this is the sticking point, the anadramous fishes survive, repopulate, spawn and come back another year. we can't explain this and never have been able to, only the fish know and all mankind needs to do is give the fish a break and let them do what they are programmed to do.

fish farming is here forever, sorry, the reliance on this food source has grown to astromical proportions as the world population of humans has expanded. what can be argued is responsible fish farming but that is another matter entirely. what the super markets need is an 'everymans' fish, cheap to produce, not too fishy in taste, nice white meat......that is the role atlantic cod used to play but we all know what happened with that fishery. so enter the vegetarian fishes, talapia as a great example. salmon, in all of its forms, is too expensive to fill this role and i believe will eventually assume the position of 'dinner treat' fish.

so lets all give the anadramous fish a break, start cutting hatchery production by 50%/year until we reach zero zombies released anywhere. is that going to impact my rec angling? well of course. will this basically close down commercial fishing for anadramous fishes? i believe it will. but our grandkids will give us thanks along with their kids as the fish survive and come back. think about it.....................