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 />
|