Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~l Lf "1 \0J ctpl is <br />I <br />-;- FISH CULTURE-PERSPECTIVE <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />15/t-- <br /> <br />Dispelling Some Myths about Hatcheries <br /> <br />By Robin S. Waples <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br />Contributing to the controversies that have surrounded fish hatcheries in recent years are a num- <br />ber of misconceptions or myths about hatcheries and their effects on natural populations. These <br />myths impede productive dialogue among those with differing views about hatcheries. Most of <br />the myths include a measure of truth, which makes it difficult to recognize the elements that are <br />not true. Consideration of these myths leads to the following conclusions: (1) Hatcheries are intrin- <br />sically neither good nor bad-their value can be determined only in the context of clearly defined <br />goals; (2) genetic changes in cultured populations can be reduced but not eliminated entirely; (3) <br />empirical evidence exists of many adverse effects of hatcheries, but some risks have been overstat- <br />ed; and (4) monitoring and evaluation programs are important but should not be used as a substi- <br />tute for developing risk-averse hatchery programs in the first place. A key step in resolving some <br />of the controversies will be moving toward agreement on a common version (rather than two or <br />more separate versions) of the realities about hatcheries. More efforts are needed in four major <br />areas: identifying goals, conducting overall costbenefit analyses to guide policy decisions, <br />improving the information base, and dealing with uncertainty. <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />was interviewed recently by a college student <br />doing a project for her journalism class about <br />whether hatcheries are a viable solution to the <br />decline of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) <br />populations. One question she asked was, "Why are <br />hatcheries so controversial?" Because progress in <br />resolving the controversy is unlikely until we under- <br />stand its origins, I begin this article by summarizing <br />my response to her question. Next, I identify several <br />myths or misconceptions about hatcheries and their <br />effects on natural populations that I believe are im- <br />peding progress and contributing to the controversy. <br />Finally, I suggest some actions that should help ad- <br />vance the dialogue on hatchery issues and help <br />resolve some of the considerable uncertainty sur- <br />rounding this topic. <br />Most of the examples I discuss involve salmon. <br />However, many of the same principles should apply to <br />hatchery programs for other fish species as well. Al- <br />though controversies about hatcheries occur on many <br />levels, I focus on those that involve biological issues or <br />the intersection of biological and nonbiological issues. <br />Further, I consider primarily genetic (as opposed to <br />ecological) effects of cultured fish on natural popula- <br />tions. This does not mean that ecological considera- <br />tions are unimportant; rather, the topic is too complex <br />and my expertise in that area too limited to do it jus- <br />tice here. Finally, because the key issues involve both <br />fish culture and fisheries management, I emphasize <br />hatchery programs rather than hatcheries per se. <br /> <br />Robin S. Waples is director of the Conservation Biology <br />Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest <br />Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, <br />Seattle, WA 98112; 206/860-3254; robin.waples@noaa.gov. <br /> <br />12 . Fisheries <br /> <br />Why Are Hatcheries so Controversial? <br /> <br />Controversies regarding fish hatcheries arise for a <br />number of reasons: <br />(1) Collectively, salmon hatchery programs in the <br />Pacific Northwest are very large: hundreds of millions <br />of juvenile fish are released each year from hundreds of <br />facilities. Substantial programs for freshwater species <br />also occur in all regions of the country, and interest in <br />marine aquaculture is growing. Because of their large <br />size and strong support from user groups (who rely on <br />hatcheries to provide fish for commercial, recreational, <br />and tribal harvest as well as jobs, hatchery programs <br />tend to resist change. Furthermore, in the minds of <br />many, the failure of society to address the basic causes <br />for the decline of fish populations often leaves fish cul- <br />ture as the only realistic means of providing harvest <br />opportunities. This fact (along with the economic, <br />logistic, and societal impediments to meaningful habi- <br />tat restoration) contributes to a reluctance to undertake <br />major changes to production programs. <br />(2) For more than a century, fish hatcheries have <br />been viewed as a substitute for addressing root causes <br />of declines in abundance-primarily loss or degrada- <br />tion of habitat, blockage of migratory routes, and over- <br />harvest. As the concept of a mitigation hatchery evolved, <br />it became acceptable to sacrifice habitat and/ or natural <br />populations as long as hatchery production was in- <br />creased to compensate for the loss. This was seen by <br />many as a sound tradeoff, with hatcheries allowing full <br />use of the watersheds while still maintaining fish pro- <br />duction (Lichatowich et al. 1996). (These tradeoffs were <br />not universally endorsed and in some cases were <br />implemented over the strong objections of the resource <br />agencies.) More recently, there has been a growing <br />appreciation that long-term sustainability of salmon <br /> <br />Vol. 24, No.2 <br />