Laserfiche WebLink
fishes, and haying 33 hatcheriesj, the <br />t?.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\ice (12 hatch- <br />eries), and Indian u-ibes (37 hatcher- <br />ies). In addition, the Washington <br />Department of Fisheries has se\•en "sat- <br />ellite hatcheries" and coordinates 134 <br />"cooperative fish production units," <br />which ars operated by clubs, commu- <br />nit\ groups and the .like. There are <br />cooperative schemes administered by <br />the Deparunsnt of ~1'ildlil's, as well. <br />This vast system released 363 million <br />young salmonids in 199(1, not counting <br />fish from private hatcheries, nor escap- <br />ees from fish farms. <br />The ~~1'ashington DeparunentofFish- <br />cries is by tar the largest producer: 237 <br />million fish in 19t?0. But how good are <br />these fish, and tchat may the y he doing <br />to wild stocks <br />"They don't have am quality-control <br />programs" and the hatchery managers <br />are 'lirnrally autonomous," says a biolo- <br />gist f~lr the Columbia River Inter-Tribal <br />Fish Cotnrnission, recently quoted in <br />the press. <br />In the face of ~~lashington's massive <br />stocking-and }>rohabl}~ in large mea- <br />sure because of it-the salmon and steel- <br />head fishery has deterioratrd to the <br />point that anglers w•ho used to be at- <br />u-acted f-romfar and wide no\+• pass it up <br />in f tvorof British Columbiaand~laska, <br />or to fish for non-anadromous u-otrt in <br />Idaho, A•toruana or ~tiyoming. <br />State of ~I'ashington legislators, who <br />don't grasp the biological issues, re- <br />peatedh leap at ginnnicky, brute-force <br />engineering to make up fin- declining <br />fish populations. The}' mandate hatch- <br />eries and artificial spawning channels. <br />In part, this is to gi\•e local economies a <br />shot ofpork-ban-el juice. In effect, other <br />options are ruled out and state biolcr <br />gists are obliged to carry out the stipu- <br />lated method, whether-it will \cork or <br />not. In case after case, the cause of fish <br />population decrease is habitat loss or <br />ovc:rharvest~~r is unkno\rn-but the <br />legislature choosesa hatchery or spawn- <br />ing channel as the "solution." Some <br />good biologists, discouraged by such <br />nonsense, quit the Department of Fish- <br />eries. <br />Contrasting with ~ti'ashington's situa- <br />tion isAlaska, w•herehabitat renrtinsfar <br />less blighted, of course, but where <br />utlmon stocks also used to be severely <br />overfished. Reports dh~, sensible conu-ol <br />of harvest and favorable oceanic condi- <br />tions rebuilt nru~v Alaskan s<tlnxrn stcx-l:.s <br />to present bumpsr-crop levels. But <br />.alaska is launching into an ambitious <br />program of hatchery building, which <br />may, at best, gild the wild-fish lih~ and at <br />worst create the waste and damage of <br />past aquaculhu-e. Says R<tv Hillx~rn, "The <br />cancer is spreading north." <br />Farther indication of insidious hatch- <br />ery~rrientsd thinking: In 1983, I trav- <br />Bled from IVlontana to another stale to <br />give a habitat talk at a meeting of biolcr <br />gist`s and angler~onser\<ttionists. ~~1"Iten <br />I briefly mentioned that Montana no <br />longer stocks trout in streams, the audi- <br />ence gasped in astonishment. After the <br />talk, a biologist (now administrator) <br />rushed up anti, in breathless anguish, <br />asked, "Did you really mean tilontana <br />has strrp~~~cl stocking their sn-eams~ Hozu <br />rarr tl7Py !vt c~ rr~.cr>urrc~ (ike that ~'n to zuastP?" <br />That's how some manage-\e~th-stackers <br />minds see streams and lakes-as re- <br />sources for° the sake of hatcheries. An <br />adminisuator from another state re- <br />centlydeclared habitat protection to be <br />highh important because i1 keeps <br />streams in shape to receive the hatclt- <br />ery product. <br />Perhaps the ultimate twist in putting <br />the program cart before the resource <br />horse \va_s in an article written on behalf <br />of Oregon's hatcher~~ system: "Fishery <br />managers today are very aware that <br />lllaln[a1nlIlg Stlppheti Of naUye, adapted <br />stocks is key to the long-term sur\i\°al of <br />hatchery programs." <br />CAN HATCHERIES BE REFORMED? <br />1es. hatcheries ran he: reformed. <br />~lanv q,e~ being ref~x•med: much ben- <br />efinvill come of it, and we should work <br />hard at it. The room for improving <br />results is immense. It is doubtliil, how- <br />ever, that the change will ix enough to <br />render artificial propagation anon-det- <br />rimental influence in fishery manage- <br />ment. Therefi>re, to minimize harm, it <br />is especially important to downsize <br />hatchery programs. The principle <br />should Imo' 11~1~11Ylfirint~srale, not maximis- <br />ing facilities, budgets and production. <br />~1~~ile hatcheries are being improved, <br />we should stock fewer fish and choose <br />better when and \o•here to stock them. <br />As I've indicated, this is being done <br />some places-even the fewer-fish part. <br />Reduced hatchery steelhead produc- <br />tion by British Columbia is an example. <br />Fish culnnists in variousagc:ncies ma}• <br />now feel threatened by the revelations <br />of poor stocked-fish sur\ival and ad- <br />verse effects on wild populations. The}' <br />had decades to e\aluate the effects of <br />their programs and did little of it. \ow <br />others are doing it for them. Hatchery <br />personnel and administrators are sc:w= <br />ring to improve operations. To date, <br />much of hatchery reform seems chat= <br />'rKOI"r ,111TL )1~ I<rr~ <br />