Derby
Crew Member
They do have a tad different hatchery system.. and have a lot of large fish to pick from... most of the DFO run hatchery programs are grab what ever size u can and spawn them....
Where do 40+ lb Chinook come from? (via PSF)
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
They do have a tad different hatchery system.. and have a lot of large fish to pick from... most of the DFO run hatchery programs are grab what ever size u can and spawn them....
Wild vs Hatchery
I have been see lot of hatchery Chinook weren't really big like over 25lbs but I have been see lot of hatchery Chinook were between 10 lbs and 18 lbs.
Wild Chinook are bigger, biggest are valuable our fish in the future.
I remember in few years ago in Fraser, DFO said you can keep under 15 lbs or something like that Chinook ( jack) what I think DFO wanted the anglers to catch jacks. DfO wanted to get Jack rid off.
In my option Jack might be affect genetic are damaged.
The hatcheties salmon do not enough food for their growth.
Not enough room for smolt grown ?
Other reasons?
I have been see lot of hatchery Chinook weren't really big like over 25lbs but I have been see lot of hatchery Chinook were between 10 lbs and 18 lbs.
Wild Chinook are bigger, biggest are valuable our fish in the future.
I remember in few years ago in Fraser, DFO said you can keep under 15 lbs or something like that Chinook ( jack) what I think DFO wanted the anglers to catch jacks. DfO wanted to get Jack rid off.
In my option Jack might be affect genetic are damaged.
The hatcheties salmon do not enough food for their growth.
Not enough room for smolt grown ?
Other reasons?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Guess you never fished the Kitimat river for Steelhead or springs.
Check out their hatchery results.
Check out their hatchery results.
spring fever
Well-Known Member
I know that the Conuma hatchery is finally starting to size their egg and milt take-- ie matching large females with large males. They had not been doing that but rather just indiscriminately putting the milt with all sizes of fish eggs so of course you got a homogenous size off-spring. The thought is now that perhaps this contributed to a smaller average fish size! DUH!!!! Obviously takes more work and a few life cycles to evaluate but sounds like a plan!
california
Well-Known Member
Jacks are not genetically damaged, where do people get this nonsense. There are various theories as to why salmon "jack' but it is believed they may be the fish that are doing the best and get to a certain size threshold and there is genetic expression that causes them to mature and to spawn early. As far as hatchery smolts go they are very well fed, and are typically bigger than wild smolts who have to try and survive the winter on whatever food happens to come along. While many wild smolts do not survive, something like 90% of the hatchery ones do, they are bigger and are all released just as the wild survivors make their way to the estuary. They then have to compete with larger hatchery smolts, who have been released in a huge pulse. Its not as simple as selecting the biggest fish. Hatcheries have many more issues than that, and even systems with large fish returning also have 4 year olds. We have no idea how growth rates , ocean conditions or other factors effect gene expression Hatcheries never choose jacks but hatchery rivers still have jacks, and at a much higher rate than natural rivers, the Columbia now has years where the returning jacks outnumber mature males. Hatchery deleterious effects on the gene pool are well studied. If you domesticate the river with a hatchery, the wild fish eventually become extinct.
Roderick Haig brown was a conservation visionary who foresaw the "easy" rehabilitation of fish stocks with technology (hatcheries) for the folly it has been proven to be. Despite all the evidence most fisherman still think of hatcheries as a way of preserving fish stocks. It has become obvious they are not. Certainly the facility on the Wonnock just proves we don't learn, always want easy fixes, and this hatchery will prove to be just as harmful, pushed and funded by special interests such a Duncanby Lodge and others. If you want to read a brief overview of the ills of hatcheries below is a link.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/12/21/Fish-Hatcheries-Warning/
carpeweekend
Crew Member
While this thread has digressed to a debate between hatcheries vs non-hatcheries, I think that we can all agree that it doesn't require us to take unsubstantiated swipes at both Duncanby Lodge and Rick Hansen to do so. Both Rick and Sid Keay at Duncanby have worked tirelessly for salmon enhancement and should be commended, not vilified for their efforts. They are both large contributors to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, support the release of hawg Springs and are some of the good guys in the effort to rebuild salmon stocks. And for the record, my experience as a guest of the lodges in Rivers Inlet is that they actively encourage their guests to release the really big Springs. Obviously, it is up to the guest so long it is within the fishing regulations (which it is).
I think that we all agree that going back to a world of plentiful huge wild salmon would be great, but realistically that ship has sailed. Roderick Haig Brown's comments were absolutely correct - over 40 years ago when he wrote them. Since then the continued destruction of spawning habitat, overfishing by commercial and native fisheries, and the decimation of the herring stocks have changed the conversation. I don't profess to have all of the answers but would prefer to have an opportunity to catch a 15 pound hatchery Spring than continuing on the path that we seem to be on.
By the way, the photo you posted of Rick Hansen with the big Spring looks to be at least 15 years old and is clearly wasn't taken at Rivers Inlet (looks to be a lodge in the Charlottes?). I guess nobody is perfect.
V
vic-tory
Guest
X2. Well said
california
Well-Known Member
"By the way, the photo you posted of Rick Hansen with the big Spring looks to be at least 15 years old and is clearly wasn't taken at Rivers Inlet (looks to be a lodge in the Charlottes?). I guess nobody is perfect"
Pic was from Good Hope Cannery, Rivers Inlet BC, 2010. I may not be perfect but at least in this case I'm accurate. The progeny of that fish might have been returning this past summer had it made it. I didn't say it was this year. We can agree to disagree on the role of the lodges up there. They primarily have a self interest, and the hatchery they pushed for with the PR campaign will contribute to the elimination of this strain of fish. If one is resigned to catching factory fish in every river from Alaska to California that's a viable position, and one that unfortunately may be inevitable. Personally I don't subscribe to it yet, as there have been vast improvements in forestry practice that could pay dividends in the future, combined with more sane herring management. Certainly straight of Georgia populations have been up, even seeing significant anchovy schools last year in Howe sound. Both commercial and sport takes are probably still too high on Chinook though. In the US there are even movements to remove dams , The Elwha in WA had two removed and now runs free, and there is a pact to have 4 removed on the Klamath River, although that one may never happen, but there is momentum for such initiatives. Some of the "hard work" envisioned by Haig Brown has been started, and in my opinion a unique strain like the Wonnock chinook should not have the towel thrown in and become just one more factory population.
Pic was from Good Hope Cannery, Rivers Inlet BC, 2010. I may not be perfect but at least in this case I'm accurate. The progeny of that fish might have been returning this past summer had it made it. I didn't say it was this year. We can agree to disagree on the role of the lodges up there. They primarily have a self interest, and the hatchery they pushed for with the PR campaign will contribute to the elimination of this strain of fish. If one is resigned to catching factory fish in every river from Alaska to California that's a viable position, and one that unfortunately may be inevitable. Personally I don't subscribe to it yet, as there have been vast improvements in forestry practice that could pay dividends in the future, combined with more sane herring management. Certainly straight of Georgia populations have been up, even seeing significant anchovy schools last year in Howe sound. Both commercial and sport takes are probably still too high on Chinook though. In the US there are even movements to remove dams , The Elwha in WA had two removed and now runs free, and there is a pact to have 4 removed on the Klamath River, although that one may never happen, but there is momentum for such initiatives. Some of the "hard work" envisioned by Haig Brown has been started, and in my opinion a unique strain like the Wonnock chinook should not have the towel thrown in and become just one more factory population.
The above picture aside, the lodges releasing the big fish seem to need to net them, them hold them for a picture before release. I'd say that's a ticket to a dead fish. QCI is thick with Sea Lions just waiting for a nice dazed salmon & scale loss from handling leads to infections.
The truth is as usual in moderation and somewhere between the extreme outlying positions. To outright abandon every salmon enhancement would be just as foolish as adding a hatchery to every river on this coast. Look where 15+ years wild salmon policy by DFO have gotten us with minimal financial support for meaningful salmon enhancement in BC (compared to past or US). Check the last 10-20 years of Chinook return rates in BC compared to US systems and to what depressed level the neglect of BC salmon enhancement infrastructure has brought our mighty BC rivers. Check all the rivers that had lost their once native salmon stocks only to be brought back by salmon enhancement and how these recovered stocks are continuously maintained by hatcheries to not lose them again. Face it, compromised near urban rivers will most often need help to sustain salmon stocks these days and into the future. To think you can have un-enhanced wild stocks survive long term in near urban areas (LM, SVI...) is wishful thinking. But I fully agree, pristine and uncompromised rivers with wild salmon shouldn't need a hatchery.
california
Well-Known Member
I dont think you are saying much different than I am. I realize where the big hatcheries exist they are unlikely to ever be removed even if they could be, and that there would be no salmon in many urban rivers like the Capilano where the water supply to Vancouver is the priority. My ranting is on the idiocy of allowing short sighted special interest groups who are primarily driven by profit and protection of their investments, inflict the damage it is known a hatchery will cause on a unique run of Wannock fish in a remote part of the province. While numbers may be lower than historically, The run isn't in collapse, returns seem to vary between 1,000 and 7,000 fish most years and it looks pretty stable since the 1980's. The lodges just want MORE and QUICKLY because its good for business, and they see a smolt factory as the way to achieve that. Habitat improvement, allowing clear cut forests to regrow and limiting fishing effort on these fish is what should be done to protect them, but these actions will take time to produce results, and the results may be modest. Not what the lodges want.
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
I am not a fisheries biologist, but I also think there is a risk of inbreeding if only the largest returning stocks at hatcheries are propagated. It would seem to me that after several generations this would lead to a narrowing of the gene pool. Diversity is what makes wild salmon so resilient. If you only breed the largest specimens pretty soon you will have an inbreeding problem. That is why humans are prevented by laws from inbreeding. Recessive genes get passed on to offspring with sometimes disastrous results. You have to be careful when you tamper with nature.
Good comments everyone.
I see hatcheries as but 1 tool in the stock assistance toolbox - including things like habitat rehab. I see them as shades of grey - rather than black and white. But, like any "tool" - there needs to be "best practices" applied - including assessment of success/failure. Unfortunately most hatcheries operate on a shoestring budget - and have historically been more focused on pumping out fish - rather than setting each batch up as an experiment with adequate controls to determine success and to actively avoid introgression. I think no stock should be on life support indefinitely, and exit strategies should be implemented once the level of success has been determined and reached. I think this last bit - is the obvious but often forgotten component. I think that kind of approach where efforts are rotated on stocks of concern for different watersheds for a limited time, and used in conjunction with things like habitat restoration is called "strategic" stock assessment. Many of the historic hatchery programs (e.g. the Columbia hatchery programs) have taught us lots - but there is an unfortunate time lag in implementation of recommendations.
I see hatcheries as but 1 tool in the stock assistance toolbox - including things like habitat rehab. I see them as shades of grey - rather than black and white. But, like any "tool" - there needs to be "best practices" applied - including assessment of success/failure. Unfortunately most hatcheries operate on a shoestring budget - and have historically been more focused on pumping out fish - rather than setting each batch up as an experiment with adequate controls to determine success and to actively avoid introgression. I think no stock should be on life support indefinitely, and exit strategies should be implemented once the level of success has been determined and reached. I think this last bit - is the obvious but often forgotten component. I think that kind of approach where efforts are rotated on stocks of concern for different watersheds for a limited time, and used in conjunction with things like habitat restoration is called "strategic" stock assessment. Many of the historic hatchery programs (e.g. the Columbia hatchery programs) have taught us lots - but there is an unfortunate time lag in implementation of recommendations.
Right now we are managing Chinook catches based on a few "indicator" runs. Most of these runs are hatchery fish. The vast majority of Chinook are harvested in SEAK (SE Alaska) & BC area 1 by commercial trollers. Their harvest limits are set by crystal balling largely based on what the returns of Hatchery fish will be. In this case, hatcheries are severely detrimental to wild runs as the harvest consists of a mix of strong (hatchery) & weak (wild) Chinook stocks. Out in the open ocean where the Salmon are growing to maturity. Last summer the average size of commercial troll caught Chinook in SEAK was under 12 lb's, so lots of immature fish are being harvested.
Your last assumption that enhancement should only be a temp measure is unfortunately unrealistic for many salmon streams in southern BC and in lower 48. This temp approach would be fine for a remote stream that got destroyed by bad logging practices or mining impacts which you can hopefully fix over some time, bring salmon back by enhancement to sustainable levels and then manage fisheries properly. This short term intervention will never work in near urban streams (eg. Sooke River). If you need prove of that look at many many central european rivers. I for one take a nice hatchery born salmon in Colquitz Creek or Craigflower Creek any day over the emptiness before dedicated stream keepers started repopulating these urban streams. And have no doubt, take these stream keepers away and these salmon will disappear again just like they did in the first place. Make no mistake, salmon stocks DO go extinct under urban pressures.
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
Too true AA. I sometimes get criticized on the forum for having a negative viewpoint towards our current fisheries. I guess that's because I've been fishing in the chuck for pretty much fifty years. I've never heard it referred to as shifting baselines before, but that is one way of describing it I guess. I grew up fishing when Tyees, forty pounders, and even 50 and 60 pounders could be caught without a high dollar trip to a remote lodge. My estimation of what good fishing is, is far different than someone born this century. It's easy to be labeled a negativist, by fishers who've only seen the local fishing conditions for a brief period of time. The decimation of our Salmon runs is really only apparent to people who've fished the coast for 40-50 years. My baseline still hasn't shifted, so I see the declines as being quite drastic. Getting old sucks, it just makes it all that more obvious how much you've lost over time.
agreed TBG. Inter generational history helps alleviate some of that shift Some info on that topic:
http://www.pelagicos.net/MARS6400/lectures/MarineConservation_Fall2015_Lecture2.pdf
https://sites.google.com/a/maine.edu/constraints-on-river-restoration-potential/shifting-baselines
http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_pauly_the_ocean_s_shifting_baseline
Stoisy
Active Member
The Wannock River has had hatchery activity on it since 1992 - this is not a NEW push by Duncanby and Good Hope, they are helping maximize the already present hatchery system. A lot of support and management by the local First Nations group have created the new hatchery on the Wannock, but other facilities had been used in the past to stock this river.
Similar threads
