Steelhead Evolution

[Irrelevant]

Pretty interesting research. Anyone who's paying attention knows that steelies are in a helluva bad spot, pretty much everywhere, but there's been a lot of research that shows hatchery fish, their mere presence in a river, have pretty large negative impacts on the wild fish.

It's really crazy to think there's such quick evolutionary change is occurring. A single generation, which really pushes against the theory that I learned in school that evolution was more based on random mutations that happen to increase one ability to propagate. These kinds of research are showing more and more than environmental pressures can really change our DNA or at least our gene expression in rapid ways. Which honestly makes more sense.

Offspring of first-generation hatchery steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) grow faster in the hatchery than offspring of wild fish, but survive worse in the wild: Possible mechanisms for inadvertent domestication and fitness loss in hatchery salmon

Salmonid fish raised in hatcheries often have lower fitness (number of returning adult offspring) than wild fish when both spawn in the wild. Body size at release from hatcheries is positively correlated with survival at sea. So one explanation for reduced fitness is that hatcheries...

journals.plos.org

 

[rtraverdavis]

@neffa3 So if I'm reading it correctly, there is something that happens to wild steelhead once they're run through the hatchery system, that reduces the survivability of their decendants--whether they're reared in a hatchery or wild stream? I have a hard time comprehending jargon-heavy scientific papers unless it's pretty much spelled out for me.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yes I think you have it. Just one generation of being raised in a hatchery appears to apply enough genetic pressure to change things for the worse and that those changes continue to propagate down to subsequent generations, even if those hatchery pressures are no longer there.

 

[marksjeep]

I don't think this goes against earlier theories, seems more like "in addition to". It is wild to see how fast the hatchery environment can affect the genetic expression. But, I don't think that invalidates earlier ideas about random environmental pressures resulting in random genetic mutations/expressions to the benefit or drawback of the populations ability to reproduce.

Neat study, thanks for posting it up.

 

[BucksnDucks]

I think hatcheries for salmon and steelhead are going to be the next major battleground in the recreational and commercial fishing world. Yvonne Chouinard, founder of Patatgonia funded the anti-hatchery (also anti fish farms) movie "Artifishal". A short time later a rebuttal film named "Benefishal" was made. Locally in Northern Ca, a fishing guides group produced "Unspawned" which attempts to show the need for hatcheries while highlighting the failures of the resource's management. It appears there is going to be plenty to argue about. In my area salmon and to a lesser extent steelhead are major recreational fishing draw. I would be all for wild fish only, but at this point I have little confidence it is possible. Watching what happens on the Klamath may be a good indicator of what's to come.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

The goal of most hatchery programs is to provide excess fish for harvest to reduce pressure on wild fish. With a little planning it is very easy to remove hatchery origin fish from the system prior to spawning which clearly makes it impossible for them to have any negative impact on wild stocks. I don't believe that one generation from wild could actually cause a negative impact but it's really irrelevant if the hatchery fish are not allowed to spawn.

The bottom line is no wild stocks of salmonids can withstand the amount of harvest that humans would like to have. No hatcheries equals no harvest.

The Hood River study that is mentioned here is so bogus it's ridiculous! I've read it in detail and if the conclusion was accurate wild fish would have already been extirpated in many systems. It's just math! There are numerous systems that have had hatchery returns for over 100 years and if you use the math they state there would be nothing left by now yet in reality wild stocks in those systems are similar to systems that have never had hatchery programs. Politics demand that studies show what the politicians want them to. There are 5 studies on the impacts of hatchery trout and all but one have been proven to be flawed. The one that isn't flawed clearly points out that the areas where wild trout are struggling is due to over harvest of wild trout in the fisheries not the presence of hatchery trout. When "scientists" choose to quote a study they use the flawed studies every time. That's not science it's politics.

Almost every point in the Patagonia video is a lie. I've watched it several times and it's just garbage propaganda. Obviously dams are bad for salmon but to blame hatchery practices for declines in stocks in rivers that have been raped is moronic. Without hatcheries there would be no salmonids in any system that has lost all it's spawning habitat, that seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[rtraverdavis]

All I know is that the idea of a steelhead run becoming a completely artificial fishery is depressing as hell.

Does anyone know of other studies being conducted to try and isolate other variables that might be causing the diminished survivability in hatchery fish? I mean, it makes sense to my unscientific brain why the fish raised in the hatcheries would have a harder time surviving, but why their offspring--if reared in the wild? It's almost as if some sort of intelligence or vigor is passed through the eggs that is beyond genetics. Saying that makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist (they're turning the frogs gay!) but it's so baffling.

 

[Irrelevant]

The goal of most hatchery programs is to provide excess fish for harvest to reduce pressure on wild fish. With a little planning it is very easy to remove hatchery origin fish from the system prior to spawning which clearly makes it impossible for them to have any negative impact on wild stocks.

Not true. There are plenty of studies that show that smolts when released into the wild do in fact have a negative impacts on wild runs, steelhead primarily (at least the ones I'm aware of).

I don't believe that one generation from wild could actually cause a negative impact but it's really irrelevant if the hatchery fish are not allowed to spawn.

Yet without intense bank to bank netting there is no way to ensure this.

The bottom line is no wild stocks of salmonids can withstand the amount of harvest that humans would like to have. No hatcheries equals no harvest.

I'm 100% okay with no harvest, especially if it was part of a strategy to boost run

The Hood River study that is mentioned here is so bogus it's ridiculous! I've read it in detail and if the conclusion was accurate wild fish would have already been extirpated in many systems.

You mean like the Chambers Creek steelhead? The ones that were the primary stock for almost all of western wa.

It's just math! There are numerous systems that have had hatchery returns for over 100 years and if you use the math they state there would be nothing left by now yet in reality wild stocks in those systems are similar to systems that have never had hatchery programs. Politics demand that studies show what the politicians want them to. There are 5 studies on the impacts of hatchery trout and all but one have been proven to be flawed.

Can you provide 1. these 5 studies, 2. where they were shown to be flawed.

The one that isn't flawed clearly points out that the areas where wild trout are struggling is due to over harvest of wild trout in the fisheries not the presence of hatchery trout. When "scientists" choose to quote a study they use the flawed studies every time. That's not science it's politics.

I disagree.

Almost every point in the Patagonia video is a lie. I've watched it several times and it's just garbage propaganda. Obviously dams are bad for salmon but to blame hatchery practices for declines in stocks in rivers that have been raped is moronic. Without hatcheries there would be no salmonids in any system that has lost all it's spawning habitat, that seems pretty obvious to me.

I'm not going to lie, you sound like a politician. Are you aware of the lawsuits around the Skagit? Hatcheries have not saved any runs. In fact, history will tell you that hatcheries have never been a viable solution, there weren't in Scandinavia, nor the British Isles, nor New England, not on the West Coast, and the same flawed logic appears to be heading to Alaska.

If hatcheries worked we wouldn't be where we are now.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

Anti hatchery folks will tell you that if a hatchery fish spawns with a wild fish they will not create enough offspring to sustain the run. The Willamette Coho run clearly proves that theory to be false. Historically there were no wild Coho in the Willamette, then a hatchery program was started at the Aumsville Stayton ponds and was operated for many years. That program was discontinued over 20 years ago and now there are over 20,000 "wild" Coho over Willamette Falls every year. If there was any validity to the hatchery bashing research a robust wild run could not be created from 100% hatchery fish right?

 

[Irrelevant]

All I know is that the idea of a steelhead run becoming a completely artificial fishery is depressing as hell.

Does anyone know of other studies being conducted to try and isolate other variables that might be causing the diminished survivability in hatchery fish? I mean, it makes sense to my unscientific brain why the fish raised in the hatcheries would have a harder time surviving, but why their offspring--if reared in the wild? It's almost as if some sort of intelligence or vigor is passed through the eggs that is beyond genetics. Saying that makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist (they're turning the frogs gay!) but it's so baffling.

With regard to steelhead, which it has taken a considerable amount of time to determine do appear to act differently than other salmonids, there is a fair bit of effort going into trying to tease out that info. But we're hindered by the opinion of the status quo, by reduced research budgets, and the allocation of funds to other things besides research.

I don't know enough about genetics to really answer your question.

 

[Joe Hulburt]

Not true. There are plenty of studies that show that smolts when released into the wild do in fact have a negative impacts on wild runs, steelhead primarily (at least the ones I'm aware of).

Yet without intense bank to bank netting there is no way to ensure this.

Many returning hatchery fish are caught by anglers and the ones that aren't can easily be trapped and removed from the system. That is the policy here in Oregon anyhow. There are guidelines of how many hatchery fish can make it to the spawning grounds and if they are not met the programs get reduced. Obviously not every fish can be trapped but it's easy to remove the vast majority.

I'm 100% okay with no harvest, especially if it was part of a strategy to boost run

There is no such thing as no harvest if people are fishing. Catch and release always results in loss of a certain number of fish.

You mean like the Chambers Creek steelhead? The ones that were the primary stock for almost all of western wa.

Can you provide 1. these 5 studies, 2. where they were shown to be flawed.

I'm not familiar with Chambers Creek. I will look for the presentation that I saw where they reviewed all the trout studies and what the findings were. It's been a few years since and I don't have it handy. The one study that stood up to the review showed that the in fishery that showed declines in wild fish none of the fish were clipped and the addition of hatchery fish increased fishing pressure and led to more wild trout being harvested. Not the same thing as the hatchery trout themselves causing the decline.

I disagree.

It's not really even a matter of opinion it's just a fact. When scientists use flawed data to support their agenda that isn't science.

I'm not going to lie, you sound like a politician. Are you aware of the lawsuits around the Skagit? Hatcheries have not saved any runs. In fact, history will tell you that hatcheries have never been a viable solution, there weren't in Scandinavia, nor the British Isles, nor New England, not on the West Coast, and the same flawed logic appears to be heading to Alaska.

I guarantee I am not a politician and no I don't know anything about the Skagit. I disagree that hatcheries have not saved any runs, as I posted above there are cases where hatcheries have created new runs. The river I live on has had a hatchery Fall Chinook program for over 100 years and there are still comparable numbers of wild Fall Chinook to rivers that have never had hatchery programs. The advantage is that we can always harvest hatchery fish and take pressure off the wild fish. Clearly the best thing for the fish would be for humans to not fish or eat fish but if we are going to hatcheries are essential.

If hatcheries worked we wouldn't be where we are now.

Right now we are having fabulous returns of wild and hatchery Winter Steelhead on our river (Nestucca) as well as the Wilson which is the river in question in that study. People are having a great time and eating a lot of healthy fish. Seems like hatcheries work in real life! Without a hatchery program we would either harvest wild fish or not eat fish. I feel there is a lot of value in having people on the river that care about fish because most always the issues that hurt fish the most are caused by greed.

We have a hatchery Spring Chinook program that is very successful here on the Nestucca. only clipped fish can be killed and the wild run is identical to the Siletz River 30 miles away that has never had a hatchery Chinook program in place. If hatchery fish were detrimental wouldn't our wild population be worse?

 

[PNWGator]

The Wild Steelhead Coalition and Native Fish Society have been addressing these concerns for over a decade. Obviously in a failed fashion.

Hatchery fish have no place in an ecosystem.