Resistance to fish hatcheries?

Ling Slinger

New Member
Hello, long time lurker who has a question that has been nagging me for awhile. Why isn't there more support of hatchery expansion across the entire west coast. Seems like the DFO wants no part of them and I don't even see where hatchery expansion gets a whole lot of promotion on sites like this. I just don't get the problem as long as you are harvesting a random selection of wild fish for new genetics each year? How many rivers are running well under their carrying capacity whose numbers could be boosted greatly with a hatchery? Seems like such a wasted opportunity and low hanging fruit. And the value add on millions of salmon would be pretty significant and likely offset much of the costs.

Isn't the strength of the US hatchery runs not a good example of what can be achieved with aggressive hatchery programs perhaps combined with some river habitat amendments? Am I missing something?

Thanks muchly for any background.
Cheers
LS
 

“Hatcheries are a vital tool in salmon recovery, not a target for removal.” PFA Response to David Suzuki’s “The easy way can lead to disaster”​



 
Link to Article Originally Published March 9th, 2021:

https://castlegarsource.com/news/column-easy-way-can-lead-disaster

In a perfect world Dr. Suzuki’s “The easy way can lead to disaster” article, which focuses on everything that is wrong with hatcheries, would make sense because the obvious question would then be: Why do we need them?

Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world and most likely will continue to live in an imperfect world for a long time to come. It is human nature to make mistakes, to choose winners and losers and to make trade-offs. In the case of salmon this has been the case as urbanization overwhelmed habitat, a century of overfishing reduced escapements and land based commercial activities degraded the capacity of natural systems to replenish fish stocks. In spite of sincere attempts, particularly over the last four decades, to protect critical salmon habitats from every man made impact, and to craft regulations to fish responsibly in order sustain salmon stocks and fisheries, we still have not succeeded which is why we find ourselves in a perpetual state of crisis.

No one disagrees with Suzuki’s vision of plentiful salmon supporting healthy communities and vibrant fisheries. Here’s the problem. Unless he can assure us that no more poorly designed roads will be built or culverts installed, no accidental spills will find their way into fish bearing streams, no more parking lots or subdivisions will be constructed, not another tree will be removed from riparian zones, no more important shorelines will be altered, no more water extraction for agriculture will be allowed, no additional hydro production will occur, population increases will stop and demands for more living space will cease- BC’s salmon will continue to decline. This is because almost every human activity from flushing a toilet to driving to the mall has impacts, and they are cumulative no matter how much mitigation is built in. We can slow it, but we cannot stop it. That does not mean we have to lose salmon because of it.

That is reality right now even before considering pressures of a warming climate, or the impact of disasters like the Fraser River Big Bar slide and the more recent Southgate landslide near the head of Bute Inlet, which on their own have the potential to wipe out entire runs of salmon.

So, it is baffling that, after over 150 years of use, hatcheries are now the boogie men for what is wrong with salmon. There is no question that hatcheries were originally built for the wrong reasons. They were seen as a means of making more fish to support bigger more prosperous fisheries, and as a mitigation tool so salmon habitats could be compromised for other purposes. The Columbia River is a good case study. Hatcheries were built into the planning process as mitigation so that the Columbia could meet hydro, agricultural and transportation needs and still have salmon. Of course, this creates another problem if you oppose hatcheries. What do you do with the Columbia? Close all the hatcheries? Remove all the dams? Restore it to a natural state? Perhaps some of it is possible on a small scale. But even the incremental loss of hatchery production, without an equivalent increase in natural production, will have dire consequences for salmon runs, dependent fisheries and marine mammals like fish eating whales. So, in cases like the Columbia, we are trapped in a no win situation, with extraordinary costs attached should governments embark on dam removals, legally ordered compensations and massive restoration activities. Is it a cost the public is prepared to bear? We have similar but smaller scale examples in BC.

Should we daylight all the paved-over small streams in the lower mainland or rip out all the dykes that protect the Fraser Delta’s farmland and communities? In some areas it’s possible to regain lost ground, but on a massive scale probably not. Good for salmon, but once again enormously expensive for obvious reasons. So, what are the options?

Since the 1980’s hatchery technologies have made significant advances. The goal for modern hatcheries, large and small, is to produce salmon by mimicking nature to the greatest degree possible. These technologies include but are not limited to staggered fry release timing, releasing fry in the evening so they can find shelter quickly under the cover of night, studying the survival of fry released at different weights and lengths, returning fry to their rivers of origin, selectively choosing the brood stock over the breadth of the run, matching breeding pairs, even educating fry at “predator avoidance school” where natural cover is placed in the rearing pens and fake predators are randomly introduced.

However, the message that the public receives about hatcheries is almost exclusively negative and this article is no exception. This is unfortunate, extremely short-sighted and wrong. Without concerted efforts to expand hatchery technology, for a wide range of endeavors, there is no way that salmon will be able to withstand the relentless pressure from population demands and now from climate change. Hatcheries are the insurance policies against disaster, and often the principal source of salmon production for regions that have been irreparably damaged by past activities.

Modern hatcheries, including large facilities, have an important role to play. If there are problems with specific programs or production protocols they need to be identified and resolved but not eliminated. The long term goal must include a move to strategic hatchery production that adapts to changing conditions on the ground. Hatcheries already compliment in-stream restoration all over the Province and have done so since the creation of the Salmonid Enhancement Program. There are scores if not hundreds of streams in BC that have salmon today not in spite of hatcheries but because of them; and because of the countless hours than volunteers contribute to keeping these facilities running so salmon still return to rivers.

If you really want to understand what goes on at a hatchery take the time to visit one.
Visitors are welcome at many sites and some facilities provide tours. At the same time hatchery opponents might stop for a reality check to evaluate where salmon will be without the promise of modern hatchery technology, as we move forward into very uncertain times. Instead of spending time criticizing hatcheries their energy would be better spent on improving their performance and cooperatively developing even better technologies. Hatcheries are a vital tool in salmon recovery, not a target for removal.

See the background information here: https://publicfisheryalliance.ca/open-letter-background/
 
There is concern that hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish will weaken the wild fish, and that hatchery fish will compete with wild fish for a limited food supply. There may be other concerns. This is mentioned in the referenced David Suzuki article at the beginning of wildmanyeah's above post above.
Here is what the NW Indian Fisheries Commission has to say:

"Also, many of the salmon that tribes depend on for harvest come from hatcheries. Every year, tribes release around 40 million salmon from hatcheries that contribute to sport, commercial and tribal fisheries."

More info from the tribes:

At least in the US I don't see hatcheries going away; the tribes have a court ruling (1974 Boldt Decision) & a treaty.

Hatcheries began on the Columbia River back in the mid 1800's or so and were used to mitigate man made environmental damage.

IMO another anti-hatchery concern is that hatcheries will be used so we don't have to restore the wild runs; most likely from habitat restoration.

IMO a bad aspect of hatcheries is that the abundance of hatchery run fish is used to govern how many Chinook the South East Alaska (SEAK), West coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) and Northern BC (NBC) commercial troll & sports fishers catch each year, a figure called the "Abundance Index". About 20+ reference Chinook populations (mostly hatchery fish) are used to calculated the "AI" & the catch quota's are set accordingly. This is known as Aggregate Abundance Based Management (AABM). This number they catch is probably close to 400,000 Chinook, many of these endangered wild Chinook. FYI Chinook catches in all other ares use an Individual Stock Based Management (ISBM).
 
Last edited:
I just don't see that big of a difference between wild and hatchery fish given proper procedures like varied wild broodstock. A fish that is bred from random and varied wild stock and returned to the stream early in its life to otherwise run the cycle like every other wild salmon. IMO is basically a wild salmon. Its not like these fish are genetically modified or inbred for generations before release to mix with the pure bloods. I get the concern of genetic diversity but I would think scientists could come up with a brood stock formula that would ensure genetics maintain enough variety to keep healthy stocks.
How exactly are they defining WILD, from a genetic perspective, in all this discussion? If I took two wild salmon, bred them in a hatchery, then released them with the rest of the wild brood without doing any genetic fingerprinting...would the scientist be able to ID those fish upon return to spawn because of some poor genetic fingerprint? I'm betting not. Suzuki's article mentioned "messing up" genetics. To me that sounds rather vague and really makes me wonder if there is a valid claim given decent hatchery practices. I suspect they are leaning on old and dated practices.
 
people seem to have very strong opinions on each side of the hatchery debate - and there's been a few threads on this forum discussing this issue.

For me - I see shades of grey rather than black/white on this issue. The hatcheries that were started back in the days where watershed restoration was funded thru HRSEP, and Fisheries Renewal and the Watershed Restoration Program were arguably the ones that had the best combined reasons for existence and often clearly defined goal(s).

But there are also large (and expensive), production-scale hatcheries as well (Robertson, Kitimat, etc.). Their reason for existence is to provide fish for opportunities/fisheries. Undoubtedly they provide important economic opportunities - but I don't see where the checks and balances were instituted as far as understanding impacts (e.g. introgression) to wild stocks. I think that is a glaring omission. I also don't see where they set long-term goals other than just pumping fish out, year after year, as long as they can.

And different hatcheries have different in-house triggers for release (size of release, timing & type of release, etc.) that are generally not validated or updated. Again - important missing components.

And the impacts to WCVI wild Chinook from hatchery/fishing focus are well documented - as are impacts to wild stocks from hatcheries in the states, as well.

I think these impacts need to be addressed.

And the answer to your question, LS - is yes they can - if they want to (PBT).
 
The biggest problem facing upper Fraser chinook is a lack of genetic diversity for what's left of the wild fish, even if they could somehow be captured for best practices hatchery broodstock. I think if hatcheries are to be used for these stocks it will have to be a mix from various rivers, and diversity be damned because it's too late.
 
The biggest problem facing upper Fraser chinook is a lack of genetic diversity for what's left of the wild fish, even if they could somehow be captured for best practices hatchery broodstock. I think if hatcheries are to be used for these stocks it will have to be a mix from various rivers, and diversity be damned because it's too late.
I would suggest watching the film Artifishal produced by Patagonia to get a different perspective on hatcheries. Now in regards to upper Fraser chinook you may want to take a look at the gill net fisheries on the Fraser during the migration period, combined with low ocean survival rates and a more challenging freshwater habitat due to logging, climate change etc...hatcheries contribute to a lack of genetic diversity and weakened genetics. To say that man can do better than nature is an antiquated view point.
 
I don’t think Dave needs to look at any of Thoes things I’m sure he’s got all that covered in his 50+ years of experience. I don’t no anyone more qualified than him on this subject. He’s well aware of the nets and all the thing you have mentioned.


All Thoes things you mentions are true teal and I don’t mean to take away from your comments but I think we need to be realistic about what we can change or have to most influence on changing.

even before the slide happened there were some streams that had less than 100 returning spawners and some with less than 10. Genetic bottle necking is already going to be a huge issue. Some are at risk of winking out ect... they are beyond a natural recovery, sure maybe in a 100 years but that’s not a near Or even medium term thing.

I’m sure if Dave could snap his figures and make every thing you said happen that would be the preferred root. Knowing tho how realistic an option of that happening is tho is why some targeted near term enhancement might be the most realistic option.

they need some targeted help, not factory hatcherys but recovery statagies for rebuilding. Part of an over all recovery plan.

frankly if they don’t get that I’m sure will see the typical do nothing narrative being sold and we have all seen how that helps salmon.
 
Last edited:
It is all about who controls the enhancement money. Nothing more. Unfortunately our volunteers are now being attacked directly from some of the same ones that were allies years ago. Like I said disgusting.
 
Bottom line is ...without hatcheries, We wouldn't be fishing. That is likely the TRUE Agenda of the "anti Hatchery" crowd.
Iv been at it for over 50 years now.. I cant tell the difference between a Hatchery or an unmarked fish either on the end of my line or on my plate.

CRGreg
 
I think it's pretty clear for most watersheds that the small amounts of fish released from the SEP hatcheries are pretty low risk wrt introgression. There is a formula that DFO uses in recent years to assess that risk when doing stock enhancement - and I believe is now a requirement (Proportionate Natural Influence (PNI) or "wildness”?) of the genetics for the aquaculture licence for SEP hatcheries (maybe you can confirm this Dave?).

All of this gets back to what is the purpose/goals for a hatchery? Public education? Strategic Stock Enhancement combined w habitat restoration (the purpose I believe is best supported)? To support a fishery? Emergency conservation (another supported goal - as Dave has mentioned)? For outplant to fish farms?

Each should have it's own set of of metrics to decrease risks and increase success. And these metrics (species of interest and why, SARA-listed?, numbers of broodstock and numbers of eggs taken, fertilization process, fish husbandry & disease testing, size at release, timing of release, location(s) of release, number of cycles of life history to assist though hatchery work, carrying capacity, bottlenecks, etc.) should be defensible and easy to upgrade as science finds new things out. The releases should be set-up to facilitate that science (e.g. PBT) & protocol updated as the results trickle in.

Those would be my critiques - not that we don't or shouldn't need hatcheries. Like any tool - it needs to be honed ev once in a while and used appropriately.
 
I’ll have to disagree aa wrt your thoughts SEP facilities have not affected salmon genetics regarding introgression. The hatcheries I am most familiar with, Chilliwack, Chehalis, Inch and Capilano all use hatchery produced coho for their broodstock and have done so for many cycles.

I know DFO SEP facilities want to use best practices ie wild brood, matrix spawning, run timing, etc but the reality is the bottom line is meeting production goals.
 
Thanks for the reply and your insights, Dave. I totally appreciate your experiences on this topic.

I guess the SEP hatcheries I have known over the years have been largely a public education hatchery with very limited egg takes (e.g. 20K-100K), and use wild broodstock only - unlike of course the numbers punched out by the big production hatcheries (+30M eggs). If the wild stocks are extremely depressed then that may even be a high number for outplant if one wishes the PNI to remain high.

Maybe you could comment (if you have time) on the areas you see are working well - and those that are not wrt hatcheries (and the PNI if that is used)?
 
It’s funny, if ocean survivals were ½ of what they were in the 80’s we wouldn’t be having these discussions. I think overall SEP hatcheries do a good job, a job that could be done better for sure by the above mentioned techniques and the new, evolving DNA work, but there is not the infrastructure, money and manpower to do them without cutting production. I think we all know how that would fly.

Most of my comments have been addressed to the upper Fraser chinook and sockeye problems, and I sure wish I had answers. I do not believe the present work being done (hatchery enhancement) will amount to anything measurable, but I don’t know what else could have been done and I admire those that are trying. If this was 20 years ago I would have been in the thick of it and damn proud of it.

Salmonid captive brood initiatives, like the Cultus Lake sockeye program have had limited success, and more often become financial albatrosses, so I don’t see that in the cards.

Sadly, I also don’t think any future hatchery program will work for the simple reason there is not enough readily accessible broodstock available. The area is huge with many streams … collecting sufficient gametes from all of them to maintain genetic diversity for a scientifically defensible hatchery program is impossible.

Having said that if there is to be an upper Fraser hatchery it will probably be at Likely, where there is existing infrastructure from a previous failed chinook hatchery. Imo, the only possible way this could work is if a donor stream stock could be enhanced to the point where future juveniles could be transplanted to imprint on different stream signals, to return as adults to those streams. 20 years minimum.

Imo, the future is very bleak for any salmon or steelhead populations above Big Bar.
 
Thanks for the reality check on the upper Fraser, Dave. Depressing. I think I'm gonna have to find a (small) bottle of Scotch after reading your post and stoke-up. I heard about 17 years ago we might end up here - and it's sad we have.
 
Back
Top