7755

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7755
• Author: White, R. J.
• Title: Why Wild Fish Matter
• USFW Year: 1992
• USFW - Doc Type: Balancing Ecological and Aquacultural Fishery Management
• Copyright Material: YES

SOME HATCHERY BOONDOGGLES
Thrre have long been gl~u-ing ex-
amples crf hatchery failure. Some of the
duds have been abandoned, btu others
continue. Examples from U.S. and Ca-
nadian hatchery systems show how bad
things can get-and still have agencies
persist in the boondoggle.
The U.S. Fish and ~'1'ildlife Service's
Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery in
l~1'ashington State was built near the
~•1~enatchee River shortly after the turn
of the century~tsan "experiment."Such
experiments, if successful, would have
coked the stock-decline problem, but
that hasn't happened. And if tmsuccess-
firl, such experiments logically ti+~ould
he stopped as useless, «•hicir also hasn't
happened. $ut ~yho says logic has to
prevail= The [.e~avenworth experiment
has been a f<rilure right from the start,
yet it's still going. According to USh'~ti'S
sources, this applies to other federal
and state hatcheries in Washington and
elsewhere.
Leavenworth hatcherti~'s latest re-
ported accomplishment was the 1990
adult salmon run. From its production
of over hyo million Chinook juvenile
salmon, costing `500,000 (not count-
ing administrative overhead ),only 3,5(~
adults (().0175 percent) returned. Of
these, 2,00(1 were: taken by the hatchery
for brood stock-to perpetuate the du-
bious oiler anon. The estimated catch
was 1,5(1(1 fish (f).075 percent): 800 b}
anglers and 700 by Indian or othercom-
mercial fishers in the rivers and at sea.
Total harvest: 1,5(1(1 fish. Cost per fish:
X533. Ifthe mean gttttcd-ontweightwas
16 pounds per carcass, the price per
pound was ~63?~pius costs of adminis-
U'ation., fishing and marketing. There-
fore, the landed cost of'these fish was
over 11 times the ~3-per-pound in-sea-
son,whole-fish retail price for Chinooks
at Seattle markets.
This dismal result farm an old, obso-
lete hatchery, intriguingh enough, is
closeh• matched b~• performance of
Canada's new, high-tech t~htesnel Hatch-
ery on the Fraser River. The: cost per
returning adult Chinook salmon for
that hatchery is variously reported at
$~35 to $500, or about X28 to X32 per
pound.
Quesnel was the worst of~ four Cana-
dian (SI:P) Chinook salmon hatcheries
that Universin~ of ~M1'ashington grad stu-
dentJohn I.. ~ti'inton studied. The other
hatcheries achieved per-potmd costs of
X3.1 S, X8.16, and X4.99. These are closer
to the: market prig, but do not inchrde
costs of fishing, marketing, and dam-
age to ~+ild stocks. Regardless of that,
there would be no profit margin. The
"enhancement" program for Chinook
salmon is not liwtg up to its label.
Apparentl~~ Chinook salmon, the larg-
est and, in many Northwest areas, the
most sought-after of salmons, isan espe-
cially delicate and difficult kind of fish
to "enhance" by artificial means, Let's
look at another example.
MICHIGAN: A COMMON EXAMPLE OF
FISH HABITAT DESTRUCTION THAT
OCCURS WHEN PEOPLE DRAIN
WETLANDS OR MOVE NATURALLY
MEANDERING STREAMS OUT OF THE
WAY OF ROADS, RAILWAYS, CROP
CULTIVATION OR OTHER "DEVELOP-
N1ENT."BESIDES SHORTENING THE
STREAM, IT ELIMINATES VITAL COVER,
POOLS, RIFFLES AND OTHER HABITAT.
IN CONTRAST THE SCENE AT LEFT IS AN
EXAMPLE OF PROPER HABITAT
MANAGEMENT: PROTECTION OF THE
CHANNEL, ITS RIPARIAN ZONE, AND
MUCH OF THE WATERSHED BEYOND
FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY, IN THIS CASE
URBANIlATION NEAR VERMONT'S
WEST RIUER.
1UTl b1\ 19'12 TROT 't
CHANPdEIIZATION OE A STREAh1 IN