7755 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the collapse of the Strait of Georgia's 1991 sport fishery for wild and hatch- ervChinook and coho (Trotct, summer 1992) mac be an omen. The press re- ports Brian E. Riddell, a Canadian fed- eral researcher, as saying that fishing is "a11 but annihilating" w7ld CallllOOk salmon in some British ('.olumbia w~t- tersbecause haryestsare geared to high hatchery output, not the capacitJ~ of wild stocks. Yes, Canadian scientists know better, but hatcheries proliferate there an+lwav. "Hatchery production systems cre- ate predictable, localized superabun- dances offal and stupid jtryenile fish," is a famous quote from the University of British Columbia's Professor Carl ~~'alters. I recently asked another of Canada's internationally known fishery ecologists Provincial ofLicials in British Colum- bia prefer to manage for wild fish. The province deals with steelhead and non- anadromous salmonids, in addition to other freshwater species. Saes fishery administrator Ron Thomas, "A hatch- ery is an admission of defeat." In its stocking program, British (,cr lumbia shows restraint. It operates only five hatcheries. Almost all eggs are taken fi-orn wild fish rather than domestic brood stock (and SEP apparentlJ• tries to do that, too). In its 1991-1995 fishery program plan, the Province stresses con- serving wild fish stocks and protecting habitat; it hardly even alludes to artifi- cial propagation. To backtrack in time and move in- land from the Canadian West Coast in our story, things also had gone poorly in the 1930s with Canadian federal hatch- The wildlife profession found thnt game farms didn't work, and it acted accordingly. Wildlife agencies largely got out of thnt business and were concentrating on true resource management: habitat work and regulating harvest. They recognized mistakes and (enrned from them. It is remnrkable that many fishery agencies did not. why, given such insights and past bad experience-and why, haying gotten rid of hatcheries in the 1930s-the pro- fession had let any sizable hatchery prcr gram develop, to say nothing of such an overblown one as SEP. Grimacing, with hands spread in helplessness, he shrugged and sttid, "Well...you know politicians!" In British Columbia, commercial and sport oerfishing continue, and clear- cut logging de<<tstates the landscape as perhaps nowhere else on the continent. To what extent has the SEP hatchery sJstem promoted such destruction by giving Canadians false hopes that it could compensate for the resultant salmon losses% Although the SEP effort probabl} isn't pa}'ing off biologically, some con- sider it a social and political success in terms of public awarencas c ~f the fishery resource and community involvement in the program-also ashort-term 1o- cal economic success from federal fitnds pumped into communities. Another pork barrel% eries that produced fish for national parks in the Rocky )Viountains. These were given to the Pro+ince of Alberta, which, after Miller's work of the 1950x, stopped stocking streams and switched to planting ponds, lakes and reservoirs exclusively. Alberta's more was 20 years ahead of Montana, the most progres- sive U.S. state in this respect. GAME FARMS DIDN'T WORK Long ago, the ++ildlife management profession found that game farms c ldn't work, and it acted accordingly. By the 1950s or 1960s wildlife agencies had largely gotten out of that business and were concenu~tting almost entirely on true natural resource management: habitatworkand regtilatingwildlife har- vest.They recognized their mistakes and learned from them. It is remarkable that so many fishery agencies did not. In some regions, hatcheries are still pro- liferating. let population geneticists were rais- ingserious gt-estionsabout the broader effects of hatcheries. ~1ore and more published articles began cropping up on the subject. In 1987, the landmark book, Population. Genetics arad Fishery ,Lanagement, appeared. Edited by Sweden's Nils Ryrrlan and America's Fred t-tter, it. +vas a collection of scien- tific papers, manJ• of which explained problems ofthe evildversus-hatcher-J• fish issue. No fishery management official can do his or her job properly without knowing the material in this book- and in key articles that have followed from it. ~4anv have certainlJ• studied the ge- netic updatings, but ob+iously others have not read such things yet, at least not carefully. Colorado's state fishery chief recently told an aghast audience of biologists and anglers that his agency would bring a strain of wild rainbow trout into hatcheries and "improve it genetically" fbr use in stock- ing. A fishery ecologist promptly challenged him on that. Ina 1991 [:anculian, fournal n jFishe-'i~s a nd .~gtrnti~• ,S[7PTt fPS article, Aorw~a+•'s IC Hindar, together with• Rvman and Utter, cited 40 studies, reveal- ing genetic effects of artifi- cialh reared salmonids on wild populations. x111 the effects were adverse. Included were warped genetic su-uctm-e of populations, decreased stn= +i~al and stock sire, poor stamina and disease resistance, inappropriate terri- torial and hiding behavior, and other poor performance. Another basic paper of 1991 in the same journal was "Genetic Interactions Between Hatchen• and Wild salmonids: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest," by Robin W'aples of the U.S. National ~ia- rineFisheries 5er+ice. He explained the genetic dallgeI's and dISCrlSSed strate- gies for minimizing risk. In writings and formal conferences, the risks of damage to wild fish by hatch- ery fish have been aired. Still, some folks cling tenaciously to the belief that. hatcheries are the answer to declining fish abundance. They dem that hatch- eries cause serious problems. HOW BAD CAN IT GET? h~ the Pacific Northwest, the prob- lem has reached its largest proportions. The Columbia-Snake River basin, cov- ® TROI;T AI:TI )T~ 199'2