TR: Monster Steelhead

Yuji Sakuma wrote:

Hello JR,

Hey, Yuji.

I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to trying to
restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the gene
pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
returning to that river .

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but even in cases where it is, if hatchery
fish breed with wild fish, the genetic structure of the population of
so-called "wild" fish changes over time.

From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a higher
early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same genes,
they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However, if
they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should be
the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I missing
something here?

At some point, it is useful to think less about the adaptation of
individual fish and more about the fitness of populations of fish to the
entire range of environmental conditions they face throughout their life
history.
Very many eggs, alevins and fingerlings do not survive the particular
conditions of hatchery life before the fish are released into the wild.
Those that do are, pretty much by definition, those that were "better
adapted" (for whatever mix of reasons) to those artificial hatchery
conditions, just as the population of smolts bred in the wild that
manage to survive to smoltification are those better adapted to whatever
conditions happened to exist where they were bred.

From that point forward, these two groups of fish (hatchery-bred and
stream-bred) are going to face pretty much the same environmental
conditions during migration to and from the sea. Some will survive,
some won't. Those from a hatchery, *if* the brood stock was truly,
entirely wild, would in theory be no more or less adapted to these
later, post-release environmental conditions than fish bred in the wild.

But, and this is a big BUT, if hatchery-bred fish are allowed to breed
with wild fish, this presumptive source of truly wild brood stock
inevitably changes over time. Over time, the genetic structure of the
population of *wild* fish is increasingly influenced by genes from fish
better adapted, in their early life history, to a hatchery environment
rather than a wild environment. Over time, the population as a whole
becomes increasingly one that is better adapted, in its early life
stages, to hatchery ponds and less well adapted to the quite different
conditions of natural redds and shoreline shallows that eggs, alevins
and young fingerlings develop in.

In addition, over time, the genetic structure of the population--for
what should be obvious reasons--will become one decreasingly contributed
to by the offspring of those individual breeding adults better adapted
(for whatever mix of reasons) to the rigors of finding suitable breeding
grounds and then building and/or defending their redds. Over time, the
so-called "wild" brood stock, even if the effort is made to take
breeding adults from the wild, becomes less and less "wild" in its
overall composition. Over time, the population as a whole becomes
increasingly domesticated, increasingly dependent on the intervention of
humans in a significant portion of its life cycle.

Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored by
returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but let's
face it, that's not going to happen.

I think this "either/or" idea, the idea that maintenance or restoration
of habitats conducive to wild fish can only mean "returning the
environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago" is a straw man.
If the survival of wild fish comes to depend entirely on massive
influxes of hatchery fish as the sole counterpoint to dozens of other
factors destroying wild habitats (which is the direction current
policies tend toward), then wild steelhead and Pacific salmon are simply
doomed.

JR

Yuji Sakuma wrote:

People sometimes have an non-sensical bias against hatchery fish though.
Whenever that bias comes to my mind, I think of the wild brown trout of
North America that I love to fish for and remember that each and every one
of those beauties, without exception, is descended from a hatchery fish.

I think the value hatchery programs is highly location-specific,
goal-specific. Being for *or* against hatchery fish in general is
pretty pointless. The introduction of exotic species raises a different
set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
populations of the same species.

JR

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:46:11 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On 08 Feb 2004 02:16:49 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

Peter writes:

Peter (happiest with a black cloth over his head)

Change "cloth" to "slip" and, voila, you have wayno.
Dave


Peter puts the black cloth over his head when he
comes off the water at the end of the day, for
obvious reasons.


True, my mother always taught me never to gloat and sometimes it's
damn hard. . . . the cloth comes in handy.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
go out west this summer.
--
Charlie...

Ij--Gee Charlie guess you will have to get a trailer to haul all
these lenses behind the "terminator"
Anyone want to suggest the cheapest digital camera that I should get to
replace my film loading Stylis that sank off the side of my kayak.
Needed for camp scenes, creek pictures, and once in awhile for fish
picture.. Got a lesson in New Zealand on full extension of arms forward
when enlarging fish takes.
Joe

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:07:26 GMT, "Joe McIntosh"
wrote:

Ij--Gee Charlie guess you will have to get a trailer to haul all
these lenses behind the "terminator"

Just want to make sure I'm ready to get the shots of your big fish.

Anyone want to suggest the cheapest digital camera that I should get to
replace my film loading Stylis that sank off the side of my kayak.

Not super cheap, but the Olympus Stylus (300 and 400) and the Pentax
Optio 33WR are water resistant. I don't think they float, though.
--
Charlie...

JR wrote:

The introduction of exotic species raises a different
set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
populations of the same species.

I agree it is different but that doesn't mean that using hatchery
supplements to restore declining wild populations is benign. Just
because a fish is wild doesn't mean it's native. Supplementing
populations of wild fish with stocking can and will affect native fishes
especially if the fish being stocked aren't native. For many years
Colorado stocked its streams and rivers with Rainbow trout. They became
wild, self sustaining populations which were supplemented each year with
massive stockings of catchable Rainbow trout. This was one of the
primary causes of the near extinction of Colorado's native Cutts.

Even when it is native fishes that are stocked, there will still be an
impact on the other native fishes in the system. IMO, if it is necessary
to have an ongoing stocking program, this means that there are
underlying causes for this need that must be addressed in order for such
a program to have any success beyond raising domesticated fish.

Even though I do believe there are times and places where stocking is
needed, based on my experiences with it and research on it in the
Rockies, it can cause unforeseen consequences such as the introduction of
WD. Even though it appears illogical, research has also shown that
stocking can decrease rather than increase the population of the fish
that are stocked. Montana did a series of studies showing that the
stocking of catchable Rainbows in streams and rivers that already have
self sustaining populations, decreases the number and size of the fish
that the body of water will carry. Since the introduction of WD,
Colorado has stopped stocking in almost all streams and rivers. It's my
experience, and I think Charlie W. will concur, that the fishing has
improved in most places.

Willi

Willi wrote:

JR wrote:

The introduction of exotic species raises a different
set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
populations of the same species.

I agree it is different but that doesn't mean that using hatchery
supplements to restore declining wild populations is benign.

Which is what I argue at length in another thread. In the case of
current hatchery policies that impact wild steelhead and Pacific salmon
in the PNW, the effect is far from benign.

JR

I was speaking in the sense that the brown trout of today (with notable
exceptions) are a wild (if transplanted) fish. Naturally reproducing for
some many generations and that they were not the product of 'modern'
hatcheries....hatcheries having somewhat of a ....tarnished...reputation in
my book.

That by and large the trout you catch today have genetically adapted to
their environment and aren't something released every year in every river
system.

I guess to get technical we should find out if the eggs Seth got from Europe
were..'Hatchery' eggs or eggs from the harvesting of wild brown trout.

anybody?....john

'course then again I thought he just hatched and released....did he breed in
captivity?

john

"asadi" wrote in message
...
I was speaking in the sense that the brown trout of today (with notable
exceptions) are a wild (if transplanted) fish. Naturally reproducing for
some many generations and that they were not the product of 'modern'
hatcheries....hatcheries having somewhat of a ....tarnished...reputation
in
my book.

That by and large the trout you catch today have genetically adapted to
their environment and aren't something released every year in every river
system.

I guess to get technical we should find out if the eggs Seth got from
Europe
were..'Hatchery' eggs or eggs from the harvesting of wild brown trout.

anybody?....john

"Yuji Sakuma" wrote in message
. ..
Willi,



Thanks for pointing out a consideration, natural versus human selection,
that I had not previously heard mentioned with respect to fisheries
management. It always makes me happy to learn something new.


Another reason is that the hatchery fish are notorious disease spreaders.
Another reason is that the hatchery fish can be more aggressive in
fertilizing the redds, but the eggs thus fertilized are thought to be less
survivable.
In sum, Moma Nature does it better for these and other reasons we probably
are clueless about. Result . . . best we don't intervene- better we back off
the pressure when the runs get scanty.

Also note, the State of Washington just ordered a 2 year wild steelhead
release Statewide starting April,'04.

Dave