Can someone explain the government's reluctance to....

Kinetic

Well-Known Member
Increase the hatchery programs on the West Coast?
I understand that in a perfect world we'd have healthy creeks/rivers pumping out wild salmon, but it' not the case now a days.
Is it the shrinking of the genetic pool their worried about?
It seems like a no brainer to pump out more hatchery fish and fund more net pen projects.
 
Money.
And trying to sell spending more on hatchery fish for sports fishing, would not be an easy sell to the public.

Selling the public on more hatchery fish for killer whales should be easy.
 
Science, which has shown time and again hatcheries cause more harm than good.

With the billions of salmon being pumped out into the North Pacific as “Ocean Ranching” by Alaska, Russia, Korea and Japan many studies have recently been published, and some posted here, that strongly suggest that there are just too many juvenile and sub-adult fish competing for too few groceries. When smolt to adult recruitment is low, the surviving fish would historically be large and fat or, conversely, if smolt to adult recruitment was high you’d see smaller size/ condition factor due to natural competition. This cycle we’re seeing now of low returns and small, poorly conditioned fish is a direct sign of poor ocean conditions and/or too much competition.

Pumping even more fish into a failing system is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
It was explained to me by DFO a few years back that they were not interested in producing Fish as they were not interested in the political fight between FN, commercial and recreational as to who gets the fish.

I will have to disagree with Ukee in that sitting back while the other countries send millions of smolts out is not the right approach. Alaska has had huge returns of sockeye, pinks and chums through the ranching program. If there is a shortage of food in the pacific then those fish should have starved.
 
Studies do suggest the chum and pinks that get to the North Pacific first do ok at the expense of other stocks spp. Some Alaska sockeye stocks have done well, like Bristol bay, but not all, and their chinook are almost as bad as our stocks.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
Science has come a long way and if what they have learned was applied at hatcheries they would be much more successful. Found out recently that because DFO can now do DNA testing quickly onsite (mobile) and cheaply they have discovered that wild salmon never pair up with close kin. In other words smolts from the same parents never mate up in the river. Makes sense that if they did those offspring would be much more likely to be inferior. How they know the difference is a mystery. So now with onsite mobile DNA testing they could make sure that hatchery fish are also not being paired up with brothers and sisters.
 
I'd like to see hatcheries experiment a bit with the S1 smolt. Fish that are held back a year longer than normal S0 smolts. Supposedly the S1 smolts have a higher suitability rate. But that's expensive.

Also, hatcheries are all fine and dandy, but what about salmon nurseries? Eel grass and kelp beds. I'm starting to think that the loss of these two key habitats are the #1 threat to juvenile salmon once they hit the open sea.
 
Science, which has shown time and again hatcheries cause more harm than good.

Science and economics. As Ukee mentions there is extensive research on degradation of the genetic diversity of the stocks due to inbreeding and studies showing survival of naturally spawned smolts is much higher than tank raised ones. Long term viability of a stock is not maintained by inbreeding them and taking away the natural selection forces that helped them evolve and adapt to changing conditions. Economics as they have tried increases in production with minimal increases or even decreases in returns before. The most successful system as far as rebuilding chinook runs is the Cowichan, and runs are increasing there despite a large reduction in chinook smolt output. In the 1990s the egg take was 3 million eggs, the target now is 700,000, and there are maximum targets for % of the fish going to brood stock and the total return of hatchery fish. Overall smolt survival fell to 0.5% at its worst. Flooding millions of pellet fed tank raised smolts into an estuary may be good for the seals, mergansers, gulls, sculpins, rockfish hake and anything else that eats them, but not so good for the taxpayer.
 
I see hatcheries as neither black nor white. I see them as but one tool in the toolbox - and like any tool - honed and used appropriately - are an asset. The debate for me is - how do we do that? How do we ensure that we are doing as much good as we can - rather than ignoring what is often termed "measures of success". I see that today - we have additional tools to check-up on that "success" - and we should be using them more often in order to "hone" the tools that hatcheries can be. Such tools include things like parental-based tagging, as but one example.
 
Science and economics. As Ukee mentions there is extensive research on degradation of the genetic diversity of the stocks due to inbreeding and studies showing survival of naturally spawned smolts is much higher than tank raised ones. Long term viability of a stock is not maintained by inbreeding them and taking away the natural selection forces that helped them evolve and adapt to changing conditions. Economics as they have tried increases in production with minimal increases or even decreases in returns before. The most successful system as far as rebuilding chinook runs is the Cowichan, and runs are increasing there despite a large reduction in chinook smolt output. In the 1990s the egg take was 3 million eggs, the target now is 700,000, and there are maximum targets for % of the fish going to brood stock and the total return of hatchery fish. Overall smolt survival fell to 0.5% at its worst. Flooding millions of pellet fed tank raised smolts into an estuary may be good for the seals, mergansers, gulls, sculpins, rockfish hake and anything else that eats them, but not so good for the taxpayer.


This is actually a very good point and one I am starting to believe more. I used to think just running a hatchery on a system was the way to go. What I am finding though is is hatchery should be used initially to subsidize a system. Then at same time while its going on steps should taken fix habitat and estuary. You also need to closely monitor water quality, flow etc. If over a period of time the runs are increasing you slowly start putting brakes on the output ( you don't stop but back off slowly). So I still believe in hatcheries, but not by themselves. We need to focus on repairing the creeks/rivers as well.

The Cowichan river made some significant changes in last few years in some areas . The bigger item is the Crofton mill started a close round table process on water management of river. The aim to ensure they had adequate flows and water quality. It pulls all the stakeholders in the community. I don't know if some of you remember there were literally 5 houses in Cowichan Lake that were essentially blocking any retention weir due to losing some of their prime waterfront. Many of these were on cliffs if you can imagine.

The estuary was worked on with introduction of eel grass and a cleanup, and some banks were fixed. In upper section The Cowichan Lake Salmonoid Enhancement t team lead by Bob C. has been doing some great work on its own projects, and also spearheads monitoring of watching for sections in summer in case they dry up. Essentially moving fish as they get stranded. There also many others that are happening on there such as garbage removal etc.

So did these changes bring the fish back? I think partially the other is nature. Many of these systems if you look back at data ebb and flow. The ocean survival is still something we just don't fully understand.

So to original question why doesn't DFO fund it? Its money pure and simple. Governments always want a return on investment, and they also already know a number of enhancement groups are already running with little money/community donations. I will also say this one. You can give all the money in the world but we all lack volunteers across BC at these projects. Go to any group many of volunteers are over 50+, and many retired. There are few like myself in 30' s and 40's but not many under that. If people want to do something pick up your phone and talk to your local groups and do some volunteering. That helps just as much as money alone.
 
Last edited:
I see hatcheries as neither black nor white. I see them as but one tool in the toolbox - and like any tool - honed and used appropriately - are an asset. The debate for me is - how do we do that? How do we ensure that we are doing as much good as we can - rather than ignoring what is often termed "measures of success". I see that today - we have additional tools to check-up on that "success" - and we should be using them more often in order to "hone" the tools that hatcheries can be. Such tools include things like parental-based tagging, as but one example.

I agree hatcheries are a tool, the question at the top of the thread though was why don't we just pump out more smolts, it seems like a no brainer. The Cowichan is a good example. The previous thought there was just pump out more smolts, eventually 3 million per year which didn't work as survival fell the higher factory production became. Eventually other tools were utilized like increasing water flows, spawning habitat restoration, bank protection in erosion areas, fishing restrictions, and cutting back on smolt production to levels where estuary and ocean survival improved to 2%. Now the brood stock take is 10-15% and hatchery fish have made up less than 20% of the returns the past few years. That is using hatcheries as a tool, not the only tool. And it seems the Cowichan would be a candidate to further scale back chinook hatchery production and perhaps end it completely at some time in the future if present trends continue.
 
To answer the question, they do not really care. Its about, optics, politics and BS only. More votes on a dumbed down general population so they can remain in power doing nothing except getting paid.

If this was not true then the science and answers given on here would be listened to and actioned properly. New chinook rules coming to save the SRKW when smart people understand the small impact sport fishermen have on them? Leave FN to rape rivers, gravel removal, seals, stream degradation, no increase in hatcheries and on and on. Only proves my first statement as the only feasible answer. Its the manage to zero, nothing, extinction plan. Who thought sunny ways was our savior??? Of course we are also to blame, we are a group of individuals, not united.

HM
 
I would like to see an experiment of paired streams with some treatments receiving hatchery “enhancement “ and the others receiving habitat protection and proper habitat restoration including optimized flow and possibly having a third treatment that applies both. I’d be betting the hatchery enhancement would be a neutral effect, at best, to long-term poulation recovery.

California, do you know if the “less than 20%” of returns made up of hatch fish is a real # corrected for the marking rate or if it’s DFOs typical practice of calling every fish with an adipose “wild”even though they know they only mark 10-30% of their fish? Big difference between 80% wild vs 80% adipose present, knowing 70-90% of the adipose present are also hatchery fish.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
optimized flow

I see this brought up quite a bit and while I agree it's a very important thing. I know of one Lower Mainland system that experiences very erratic flows. flash flooding in october/november to almost zero flows in the same time, The fish all move up during the high water events. do to its small size. The chum in the system have a larger than average size. Some contributed that larger size to the fact they have had to develop to deal with that erratic flow. Ones that are larger have more body fat, able to stage longer and wait and also spawn in larger creek gravels. This system is enhanced by the hatchery that is volunteer run and and i've seen the stream packed for of chum and coho both hatchery enhanced. literally thousands of chum. It's also unclear historical if this system actually ever even had a run of salmon in it pre the hatchery. the stuff I have from from the early 1900's only mentioned dollys and steelhead being in the system.

Pink salmon were extirpated sometime in the 1920-1950 to free up spawning habitat for more valuable salmon. However pink salmon started showing back up in the system in the early 1990 and in 2015 is seen its largest run of pinks of over 100. Without zero intervention pink salmon increased 10 fold. Who knows if pinks have actually established a run or if their just fraser river strays from other tributaries.

IF you are going to remove a hatchery on a system you better give yourself a history lesson to see if that system historically supported a natural run of salmon.

From my own research it seem chinook need to be part of a system that has a lake on it to be really successful. Harrison, Cowichan, Seymour (damned now nearly zero natural production but historically a big producer) same with capilano its natural run all but expropriated by the dam, Campbell River, Nimpkish, Alberni ect.. Lots of good historical natural producers , Some now, most actually not nearly as productive as they used to be, or have been dammed.

Hatcheries do a poor job at natural selection but they most definitely have a place it today's world. I personally don't think increase hatchery production rate for traditional methods will work. mainly due to the high rate of predation in rivers. Net pens look to be a really good way to increase production.
 
Chum and pink have no juvenile rearing time in freshwater so can thrive in coastal systems with winter flows that allow access, spawning and incubation but that don’t support summer flows. Stream type chinook, coho and steelhead rely the most on freshwater stream productivity and need sufficient summer rearing and overwintering flow.

This is also the reason pink and chum are the darlings of ocean ranching - strip eggs and milt, incubate in heath tray stacks or bulk incubators and dump fry by the millions into an estuary.

Wild man, some of what you describe is reflected in Alaska’s hatchery policy- they won’t let hatchery fish anywhere near natural producing streams but do allow enhancement and ranching at barren streams as long as the buffer from a salmon stream exists. Not a bad model imho.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
I would like to see an experiment of paired streams with some treatments receiving hatchery “enhancement “ and the others receiving habitat protection and proper habitat restoration including optimized flow and possibly having a third treatment that applies both. I’d be betting the hatchery enhancement would be a neutral effect, at best, to long-term poulation recovery....
x2 Ukee - exactly what I envision - tagged differently - and in addition different release times/sizes. Use science to hone the tool...
 
I would like to see an experiment of paired streams with some treatments receiving hatchery “enhancement “ and the others receiving habitat protection and proper habitat restoration including optimized flow and possibly having a third treatment that applies both. I’d be betting the hatchery enhancement would be a neutral effect, at best, to long-term poulation recovery.

California, do you know if the “less than 20%” of returns made up of hatch fish is a real # corrected for the marking rate or if it’s DFOs typical practice of calling every fish with an adipose “wild”even though they know they only mark 10-30% of their fish? Big difference between 80% wild vs 80% adipose present, knowing 70-90% of the adipose present are also hatchery fish.

Cheers!

Ukee

Ukee, I believe it is corrected for actual hatchery returns vs naturally spawned returns, not just marked fish. Most of the information is on this site http://www.pacfish.ca/Cowichan/
 
Looks to me to be DFO numbers, which would not be corrected most of the time unless a specific study design dictated otherwise.

Cheers!

Ukee
 
Back
Top