9514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

requires conservation of natural populations and their habitats (e.g., National Research Council 1995). As a result of this paradigm shift, many hatchery programs are now being asked to minimize impacts to natural populations. Not surprisingly, such changes are often resisted, particularly if they threaten the ability to achieve the objectives for which the programs were designed. In other cases, reforms to hatchery programs have been delayed because they must await changes in related areas such as harvest management. (3) It is easy to identify risks that hatcheries pose for natural populations; it is not so easy to predict whether deleterious effects will occur in any given situation or, if they do, how serious the consequences will be. Much of the controversy surrounding hatcheries can be attrib- uted to different views of where the burden of proof should reside with respect to this uncertainty. Some argue that, in accordance with the scientific method, we should assume that hatcheries will not cause harm unless it can be demonstrated in an hypothesis-testing framework. Others argue that this approach is too risky for use with natural resource issues because if we wait for conclusive proof of harm to natural populations, it may be too late to reverse the effects. (4) Critics of hatcheries often do not agree among themselves on the nature and severity of the risks hatcheries pose and ways to minimize them. This cre- ates confusion among hatchery supporters, many of whom are willing to "do the right thing" if only some- one could tell them with some certainty (and consisten- cy) exactly what that is. (5) There has been little systematic evaluation of bio- logical benefits of hatcheries and only sporadic evalua- tion of economic benefits. Evaluation also has been hampered by a failure to clearly articulate program goals. Basic questions-"Do hatcheries produce extra fish for harvest, or do they simply replace natural fish with hatchery fish?" and" Are hatcheries cost-effective in producing fish?" -have seldom been answered. Many now express doubts about the value of hatcheries because of uncertainties associated with these unan- swered questions. For mitigation hatcheries there is an additional twist: Some view the issue of cost-effective- ness as irrelevant, arguing that the parties responsible for losses to natural populations should be obligated to compensate for lost production regardless of the cost. (6) A comprehensive assessment of the value of hatcheries requires comparing fundamentally different currencies: benefits to society (money, jobs, fishing opportunities) and to natural populations (conserva- tion) versus costs to society and risks to natural popu- lations (extinction, loss of fitness and diversity). There has been little effort to develop a framework under which these disparate ways of valuation can be jointly considered in a comprehensive cost:benefit analysis. (7) Hatchery supporters and detractors alike gener- ally agree there is considerable room for improvement in the operation of hatcheries to reduce effects on February 1999 FISH CULTURE-PERSPECTIVE I:;B I natural populations. However, no consensus exists on exactly what changes should be made and what their effects would be. Some of the myths or misconceptions described in the next section contribute to the diver- gent views on this issue. Common Myths and Misconceptions about Hatcheries An error is more dangerous the more truth it contains. -Henri-Frederic Amiel, Journal Intime, 1883 I won't attempt to address these complex issues com- prehensively here; instead, I will focus on one aspect of the problem-misconceptions or myths about hatch- eries. These myths impede productive dialogue among those with differing views about hatcheries. As is gen- erally the case, most of these myths include a measure of truth-in some cases, quite a bit of truth. This makes it all the more difficult to recognize the elements that are not true, and this factor has contributed to the cur- rent state of affairs, in which opposing sides are strong- ly entrenched in their own views of hatchery reality. I want to try to dispel some of these myths in the inter- est of advancing the dialogue about hatchery and nat- ural fish issues. The myths can be phrased in a variety of ways, but each has been expressed more or less as stated here by some biologists, fish culturists, fisheries managers, journalists, or other interested parties. Myth 1: Hatcheries are inherently bad (or inherently good). Neither of these positions leads to productive dia- logue, nor is either supported by a thoughtful consider- ation of the issue. Fish hatcheries are tools managers can use to accomplish certain goals, and the value of a hatchery program can only be determined in the con- text of these objectives. A program that is well suited to achieve one type of goal (for example, harvest augmen- tation) might fail to achieve another (sustainability of natural populations). Unless goals are clearly articulat- ed and agreed on by the various parties involved, there is little hope that arguments about the program's mer- its will be constructive. In my experience, both lack of clarity about goals and lack of agreement regarding goals are common to hatchery programs. A related issue is the concept of identifying "appro- priate" uses for artificial propagation, with appropri- ateness evaluated with respect to the goals of the pro- gram. This is fine as far as it goes; the danger is that, once an appropriate goal is identified, scrutiny of the program often relaxes. This is an example of the mis- conception that "If a program has a worthy goal, it must be beneficial." Clear goals are essential to adap- tive management, but they are not enough; hatchery programs must be evaluated rigorously as part of an ongoing process to determine whether they are, in fact, achieving their goals and are not compromising other worthy goals. . Fisheries . 13