Hatchery and wild fish

[Derby]

Washington and Oregon and above us Alaska with record returns of Salmon and Steelhead then us in between crying the blues because we have no fish





http://vimeo.com/85505685

 

[Sculpin]

Great video. I just finished watching the whole thing.

Thanks for posting .

 

[rockdog]

Cool video..
If you look carefully, at the 23:30mark, they have an underwater shot of fish spawning, and one of them looked like it had a lure in it's mouth. Broke some one off I guess, pretty cool....
Did you guys notice it? Looked like a buck tail or something..

 

[Sculpin]

The thing to notice here is that these fishery programs are run by the Washington, Oregon, and Alaskan States. Not Federally run. Hmmmm.

 

[hambone]

Great video! Thanks for sharing

 

[reelfast]

The thing to notice here is that these fishery programs are run by the Washington, Oregon, and Alaskan States. Not Federally run. Hmmmm.

there are several federally run hatcheries on the Columbia and Snake rivers. they are monster facilities put in place as a part of mitigation resulting from the dams. but, the majority are state run at this point. with hatchery 'reform' solidly in place, the numbers of smolt being released has been drastically reduced. and when you consider the normal return is <1% you can see where this is going. litigation in a couple of arenas has pointed out that the F&W agencies have been in violation of the ESA for years now. so instead of trained professionals managing the resources, we have federal judges stepping in to take charge. little wonder as these agencies are politically run and directed by the sea food industry so folks with degrees are not apt to take that on and fight for the science involved. with dramatic decreases in wild stocks, this is going to become just that more tense in the coming years with the ESA dictating the terms for all hatcheries.

 

[Sharphooks]

At the risk of coming across like a Rain Maker, there was some serious editing going on --- this vimeo had good intentions but it also came across like a brazen attempt by the guide industry to create support for what in essence has been shown over the last 30 or 40 years to be a short-term fix---hatchery production and the law of diminishing returns ---like it or not, the two concepts are bed partners, often found in the same sentence.

A guide bemoans the closure of the Snider Creek "hatchery"? It started off with good intentions (the initial program was going to use wild brood-stock and plant the eggs in the Sol Duc using Vibert boxes (as close as you can get to mimicking what spawning fish do in the wild) The eggs ended up getting trucked to a full-blown hatchery with egg trays. They tried to cut-short the hatchery exposure but a hatchery is a hatchery, egg trays, diseases and all.

The question fish managers had to answer: why were the juvenile steelhead from that hatchery program staying in fresh water two years after release instead of heading straight to the ocean like a normal hatchery fish (remaining in the river would guarantee potentially negative interactions with wild steelhead smolts)

And the biggest question of all: would the Sol Duc River ecosystem have been better off allowing the wild steelhead to spawn naturally instead of stripping the eggs in a broodstock program and rearing them in a hatchery?

Those questions were conveniently not addressed. Nor did any of the guides bring up the fact that there IS a significant salmon hatchery on the Sold Duc. It is supported by the Quilleute Tribe and if weren't for that hatchery, the coho and fall spring fishing in that system would be a whisp of smoke. The guides make a ton of money guiding their clients in September and October beating up on those fish---it's interesting that in this vimeo, these guys made it sound like unenlightened State managers drove a stake into their livelihood by shutting down the Snider Creek steelhead broodstock program. If you read the data associated with that program, it was shut down for very specific reasons, most importantly, it was strongly suspected that the broodstock program was negatively impacting the Sol Duc wild fish (which happens to be one of the strongest wild fish runs in Washington State)

The Macaw Tribe has a large hatchery program on one of the rivers I fish--- it's a beauty of a river and the early return of hatch steelhead has always given me an opportunity to put some fin-clipped fish in the freezer. This year, the return was a No Show. Ocean survival? Pacific Decadonal Oscillation?

Or perhaps the Law of Diminishing returns?

Here's a guy who can say it better then me:

http://vimeo.com/53571691


I've fished the Thompson for 30 straight years. Every year I've watched that run decrease --- water demands from agriculture, gill-net bycatch in the Frazer during the chum fishery, purse seine by-catch in the salt chuck salmon fisheries.

This year I fished for 4 straight days for 2 fish. One was a 15 lb buck. The other was a 20 lb doe covered with gill-net marks. It tore me up seeing that fish.

But I would have been torn up much worse if I had fished for 1 day and caught 4 hatchery fish.

Beware what you wish for.

 

[searun]

Yes, there are both sides of the argument. Both are partly correct in my view. The problem with most of the past efforts is they have been uni-directional. That is, all hatchery no other augmentation...or just sit back and let nature handle it. Both are wrong in my view if used in isolation.

The right way to go about this is first to recognize our natural habitat has already been compromised severely. Then to look at a diversified approach to manage our way through the various roadblocks. In a perfect world that would look like:

1) Hatchery augmentation (variety of technologies)
2) Habitat enhancement
3) Predator control (especially seals both in-river and ocean)
4) Stream fertilization

There's probably a few more great ideas that would address the many insults there are to our fish production. But the general idea is we need to change up our approach, and diversify. Sitting back and putting all our eggs into one basket is not working, and neither is sitting back doing nothing hoping mother nature will somehow fix it.

 

[Derby]

I fully agree with you....(Sitting back and putting all our eggs into one basket is not working, and neither is sitting back doing nothing hoping mother nature will somehow fix it. )
Just look at how well studying everything to death and doing nothing has done for us...

 

[seadna]

I fully agree with you....(Sitting back and putting all our eggs into one basket is not working, and neither is sitting back doing nothing hoping mother nature will somehow fix it. )
Just look at how well studying everything to death and doing nothing has done for us...

I would claim that it's not the "studying everything to death" that is doing nothing for us, it's the not acting upon information and models in a sensible way. After 30+ years in science, I've come to the realization that while science may provide information on what problems exist and on potential ways to mitigate problems, in the end all problems and solutions are societal and politically based. If everyone acted consistently in the best interests of fish, we wouldn't have any problems. We wouldn't net at the terminal fisheries, we wouldn't degrade habitat, we wouldn't over fish, we wouldn't put fish farms in terminal areas, etc., etc., etc. But we do all of those things because each of them benefits some human(s) in some way(s). So it's not the studies that are the problem, it's the people. Unless there is political will and action on many fronts, things won't get better.

 

[Derby]

Well said Seadna & would agree with what you have said. My statement & if I can say" Searun" statements come from frustration of being actively involved in the fresh water fisheries issues for over 30 years. We have watch a fairly once great winter run steelhead fishery on the West coast completely disappear. In the mean time the angler to the south of us continue to have fairly healthy fisheries.. I personal think there should be a balance of both the wild run fishery and put in and out fishery and find a balance that works for both groups...I will say wild only policy in BC at the least on the west coast has failed badly....

 

[reelfast]

seadna, you have accurately described exactly what the problem is with fish management. in the US we will be seeing more and more law suits filed in federal court simply because the trained folks are ignored by the political realities of fish management. the sea food industry funded the very first hatchery down this way in about 1870 and they are not going to roll over on any of this. so we will have fish management courtesy of federal judges.

 

[chris73]

Well said, seadna! And it's about the intentions behind the studies. You can gain a lot of useful information and give your project a huge head start if you do a solution oriented study. On the other hand, there are a lot of studies done today that are nothing but a delaying and time bying tactic; not to actually achieve anything tangible. In terms of hatchery production, I agree with searun, it can only be a portion of a comprehensive solution. However, and that is something we have to realize and I would like "purists" like sharphooks to think about; our coexistence with wild fish, even with best intentions and much effort, will always have a negative impact on streams and fish. As more there are of us, the worse it gets. If we still want to see abundant fish to enjoy our passion then hatcheries will be needed to make up for our irreversible impact on the streams and fish. Or the fish will disappear. We have enough examples already on our coast were once abundant fish stocks have been lost - without any hatchery interference. Look at Europe, most rivers there that were once teeming with salmon have lost them forever. They never had hatcheries on them. At the end of the day, you have a choice for all the impacted rivers, and impacted they will be as soon as humans get near them, if you want salmon and steelhead then hatcheries will be needed to some degree or you chose to let the ecosystem change including the loss of salmon and steelhead. Either let it go its course with a change to the ecosystem which does not include salmon and steelhead or artificially keep the old system alive. Kind of like a debate about using pharmaceuticals for keeping sick or frail people alive to live a full life or let only the strongest and hardiest survive without drugs. I'd rather catch a healthy hatchery steelhead in the Sooke River than none at all (as it is right now).

 

[seadna]

As an aside, I do wonder if perhaps the reason for such poor returns to BC is because of all the hatcheries operated by others. Stick with me on this for a minute. When I last looked at hatchery data for all the various players (Japan, Russia, Alaska, WA state etc), I have to admit I was shocked at the HUGE numbers of fish being dumped into the water. Many of those fish share the same areas in the Bering sea as youngsters and growing adults. It's not clear to me if the hatchery production doesn't exceed the carrying capacity of those areas (this would explain smaller fish on average). If so, then those who count on wild production are being outcompeted by those using the north Pacific as our "fish farm" for hatchery fish. I think this point was being made by one or more of the local fish farmers last year in one of those threads - e.g. that Alaska's "wild fish" might be better consider to be "ranched" fish and that Alaska (amongst other jurisdictions) was simply using the open ocean as their "farm". I'd love to hear from others on the carrying capacity of the regions in which hatchery fish grow to adulthood. I'm unfamiliar with the science in this regard but in theory it seems plausible to me that the carrying capacity may be close to what humans are placing in it through hatcheries on all sides of the pacific. If so, not playing the same game as all the other jurisdictions may put BC at a disadvantage in terms of getting many fish to return. OR if we are close to the carrying capacity, then BC's wild recovery depends on others reducing their hatchery output. Again, I don't know if I'm way off base here but at least theoretically, it seems plausible that large releases of hatchery fish elsewhere could affect local returns due to interactions far afield from the streams.

 

[Sharphooks]

Just for the record, please don't consider me a "purist". I agree that hatcheries have their place, but in the same breath I'd add that there are some places they absolutely should not be. Rivers in Washington State like the Sold Duc and the Hoh River have fairly strong wild populations of winterrun steelhead in this modern day and age for one reason----the main spawning habitat is in the Olympic National Park--- also known as, pristine real estate off-limits to loggers and riparian housing development.

The main threat to these steelhead: Indian tribal netting rights at the mouth. When you place hatcheries on rivers like the Hoh and the Sol Duc, you create seeming abundance which attracts additional harvest pressure (from both Indian nets and sports fishermen) The end result is more pressure on wild stocks ---victims of collateral damage.

Vancouver Island stocks took a beating because of both nets corking the river mouths and last but not least, Steven Harper-type logging practices --- skidding across rivers, zero buffer zones left for habitat and shade along their banks, basically a get-the-cut-out-at-any-cost approach to logging.

It could be that if there was political will (and funds to back the effort) to focus on the V.I. rivers that were raped and pillaged in the 70's and 80's, hatcheries might indeed make sense.

But the devil is in the details, not the least of which is the Law of Diminishing Returns associated with hatchery production--- like it or not, if you want a long-term sustainable hatchery program on ANY river, what ever budget is negotiated will be rendered moot in short order because managers will have to throw ever increasing amounts of money to keep the fish coming back to keep eggs going in to the trays

 

[Gunsmith]

Which would be a similar issue to summer grazing of cattle in the mountains. Good for the cattle and Rancher but not so good for the wild critters as a high percentage of the winter feed has been eaten by the cattle. So the extra hatchery fish are competing for the same food.

As an aside, I do wonder if perhaps the reason for such poor returns to BC is because of all the hatcheries operated by others. Stick with me on this for a minute. When I last looked at hatchery data for all the various players (Japan, Russia, Alaska, WA state etc), I have to admit I was shocked at the HUGE numbers of fish being dumped into the water. Many of those fish share the same areas in the Bering sea as youngsters and growing adults. It's not clear to me if the hatchery production doesn't exceed the carrying capacity of those areas (this would explain smaller fish on average). If so, then those who count on wild production are being outcompeted by those using the north Pacific as our "fish farm" for hatchery fish. I think this point was being made by one or more of the local fish farmers last year in one of those threads - e.g. that Alaska's "wild fish" might be better consider to be "ranched" fish and that Alaska (amongst other jurisdictions) was simply using the open ocean as their "farm". I'd love to hear from others on the carrying capacity of the regions in which hatchery fish grow to adulthood. I'm unfamiliar with the science in this regard but in theory it seems plausible to me that the carrying capacity may be close to what humans are placing in it through hatcheries on all sides of the pacific. If so, not playing the same game as all the other jurisdictions may put BC at a disadvantage in terms of getting many fish to return. OR if we are close to the carrying capacity, then BC's wild recovery depends on others reducing their hatchery output. Again, I don't know if I'm way off base here but at least theoretically, it seems plausible that large releases of hatchery fish elsewhere could affect local returns due to interactions far afield from the streams.

 

[chris73]

Totally agree with you, sharphooks. Leave intact wild rivers alone and address the harvest impact. However, you mentioned the Thompson - you can hardly call this a pristine and intact river anymore. And yes, we have to realize there are initial and ongoing costs with running hatcheries. However, the economic benefits from the resulting fisheries can vastly outweigh the invested input. The economics certainly have to be considered in those decisions. If no fishery benefits from a hatchery then there is no economic point in having a hatchery. But if there are no fisheries in the area I venture to say that no one lives around this stream and if its so remote then it could well be restored to pristine conditions and wild fish will rebound - maybe with an initial hatchery boost. Usually, our impacted streams are near urban centres and there you have huge potentials for benefiting fisheries - so hatcheries can be economically viable.

seadna, when you look at historic salmon numbers in the Pacific those numbers would make today's hatchery outputs look tiny. So unless something dramatically changed in the ocean, I'd say there is plenty room for more fish.

 

[Derby]

As an aside, I do wonder if perhaps the reason for such poor returns to BC is because of all the hatcheries operated by others. Stick with me on this for a minute. When I last looked at hatchery data for all the various players (Japan, Russia, Alaska, WA state etc), I have to admit I was shocked at the HUGE numbers of fish being dumped into the water. Many of those fish share the same areas in the Bering sea as youngsters and growing adults. It's not clear to me if the hatchery production doesn't exceed the carrying capacity of those areas (this would explain smaller fish on average). If so, then those who count on wild production are being outcompeted by those using the north Pacific as our "fish farm" for hatchery fish. I think this point was being made by one or more of the local fish farmers last year in one of those threads - e.g. that Alaska's "wild fish" might be better consider to be "ranched" fish and that Alaska (amongst other jurisdictions) was simply using the open ocean as their "farm". I'd love to hear from others on the carrying capacity of the regions in which hatchery fish grow to adulthood. I'm unfamiliar with the science in this regard but in theory it seems plausible to me that the carrying capacity may be close to what humans are placing in it through hatcheries on all sides of the pacific. If so, not playing the same game as all the other jurisdictions may put BC at a disadvantage in terms of getting many fish to return. OR if we are close to the carrying capacity, then BC's wild recovery depends on others reducing their hatchery output. Again, I don't know if I'm way off base here but at least theoretically, it seems plausible that large releases of hatchery fish elsewhere could affect local returns due to interactions far afield from the streams.

You would also be correct...only so many fish can be dumped in the ocean....It's also believe why our chum rums are not doing as well....A lot of fishing being dump from the other side of the world are chums ..cheapest and easiest fish to enhance

 

[seadna]

<stuff clipped>

seadna, when you look at historic salmon numbers in the Pacific those numbers would make today's hatchery outputs look tiny. So unless something dramatically changed in the ocean, I'd say there is plenty room for more fish.

I'm not sure that is correct. While runs may be low, huge numbers of salmon are harvested prior to hitting our rivers. I did find an old but relevant paper from 1998 that asks the same question. I've quoted the abstract below and the full text is available at the link in the previous sentence. I'd be interested to hear from those more familiar with the recent science.

Releases of hatchery-reared anadromous salmon into the North Pacific Ocean are currently
estimated between 5 and 6 billion juveniles per year. Wild spawning salmon may produce an additional
4 to 5 times this number of juveniles. With as many as 25 billion juvenile Pacific salmon annually
entering the ocean and currently producing over 1. 0 million mt of returning adults, salmon survival and
production in the North Pacific Ocean is currently at historically high levels in spite of depressed runs
and endangered stocks in some regions. Biological changes in size and age at maturity of some stocks
have raised questions on the density effects of high abundance, and on the long-term well being and
health of salmon stocks. Changes in size and age notwithstanding, favorable ocean conditions for
survival and growth, even growth at reduced levels, have produced historic numbers and biomass of
salmon suggesting the evidence for limitations in the carrying capacity for these fishes is inconclusive.
Important studies are underway in several countries to better understand the effects of hatchery-wild
stock interactions on the spawning grounds but little attention has been directed toward this issue in
the ocean. New mass marking and identification technologies for both hatchery and wild fish provide
mechanisms for investigating the interactions of salmon in the open ocean. Given biological concerns
about ocean carrying capacity and socio-economic issues associated with record runs, should NPAFC
member countries consider cooperative quotas to limit production of salmon around the North Pacific
Rim? If implemented, each country could determine what portion of its quota would be derived from
wild and hatchery production.

 

[Sharphooks]

QUOTE

seadna, when you look at historic salmon numbers in the Pacific those numbers would make today's hatchery outputs look tiny. So unless something dramatically changed in the ocean, I'd say there is plenty room for more fish.

UNQUOTE

Something dramatically IS changing in the ocean---it's called P.O.D. or Pacific Decadonal Oscillation. I am hearing that pilchards on LaPerouse Bank might be GONE for the next 10 - 20 years. That has nothing to do with too many predators or commie over-fishing but has everything to do with major tweaking of oceanographic temperature regimes.

It could very well be that we're entering a prolonged salmonid downturn in the northern climes (Alaska and BC) Chinook? HUGE downturn in Alaska and there has been for going on 5 years now. You can't blame habitat for the downturn up there (not enough people yet to negatively effect the spawning gravel ).

Ya, commies have taken their share (incidental catch in the pollock fisheries etc) but most fishery scientists would point their finger at P.O.D. as the main culprit.

I've given up fishing winter springs---last week I was out on the water and hooked 3--each time I reached for the rod I either reeled in a head trailing guts or had by knuckles busted by a 500 pound sea lion taking off with my hard-earned fish.

They're so bad they'll sound 200 feet and take the springs right off the bottom, as soon as they've grabbed your bait.

There's a sudden influx of them up here---at least some of them have migrated up the coast from California.. They're starving --- the pilchards were a no-show down there and they're looking for food.

Good news people are seeing big shoals of herring off Victoria. I hope there's a carpet of them all the way to Cape Scott because we already know the pilchards are gone