9666 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Feasibility of Establishing a Supportive Stocking Program Using Hatchery Produced Fish from a Captive Broodstock Augmenting wild populations through the release of captive bred individuals is increasingly being used in conservation (World Conservation Union 1987). In 1990, 27% of Federal recovery programs in the USA for endangered freshwater fishes included captive breeding as an element of recovery (Andrews and Kaufman 1994), and supportive breeding is a component of the management alternatives for the conservation and recovery of endangered Pacific salmon ids (Hedrick et al. 1994, Waples and Drake 2002). Despite these trends, the merits of hatchery production have been challenged on grounds that supportive breeding often contributes to the problem of threatened or endangered species rather than being a solution (Hilborn 1992, Meffe 1992, Lichatowich et al. 1999, Levin et al. 2001, Levin and Williams 2002), and that the majority of such activities have been economic failures (Hilborn 1998, Naylor et al. 2000). Waples and Drake (2002) caution that even when managers are aware of all foreseeable risks, the chances are high that unexpected developments will erase projected benefits. Hilborn (1998) states that based upon historical experience, politicians, managers and advocates of new stocking programs should realize that there are limited empirical data that support the long-held belief that supportive stocking has ever been biologically successful. As a result, managers for threatened or endangered species sometimes face a potential double jeopardy situation. Failure to intervene in a deterministic decline of an endangered species mightresult in extinction. However, using captive broodstock for supplementation may result in changes (primarily genetic) that reduce sustainability and viability of the wild population (Hynes et al. 1981, Allendorf and Ryman 1987, Waples and Do 1994, Levin et al. 2001). Policy and priority considerations Within the context of the ESA, the USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) provide policy guidelines regarding controlled propagation of listed species (U.S. Office of Federal Register 65:183 [2000]: 56916-56922). As defined in the document, controlled propagation includes the production of individuals for "reintroduction to the wild to establish new populations", and to the "holding of offspring for a substantial portion of their development or through a life-stage that experiences poor survival in the wild." This document explains that "controlled propagation is not a substitute for addressing factors responsible for an endangered or threatened species' decline", and that the "first priority is to recover wild populations in their natural habitat wherever possible, without resorting to the use of controlled propagation." In addition, controlled propagation "will be used as a recovery strategy only when other measures employed to maintain or improve a listed species' status in the wild have failed, are determined to be likely to fail, are shown to be ineffective in overcoming extant factors limiting recovery, or would be insufficient to achieve full recovery." Furthermore, "all reasonable effort should be made 10