9514 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

framework describing the range of possible outcomes along with management actions that would be triggered by each outcome. Too frequently, this has proven difficult to accomplish for hatchery programs. Once begun, hatch- ery programs have considerable momentum and may be difficult to terminate or substantially change, even in the face of clear evidence that they are not accomplishing their goals. For example, Hilborn (1992) described a salmon hatchery in Oregon that, in spite of all attempts at remedi- al action, had been shown to be ineffective in producing adult fish. Nevertheless, it proved to be impossible to close the hatchery because of a fear that doing so would indicate a lack of commitment to the resource. As dis- cussed by Hilborn, this is an example of displacement of the original goal of producing fish to the goal of demon- strating an effort to produce fish. Third, fishery biologists often find themselves in a M&E catch-22 with respect to hatcheries: If they find no evidence of deleterious effects, it is difficult to argue for restrictive measures; if they do find harm, some will argue that restric- tive measures are unnecessary because there is no pure nat- ural population to worry about any more. A variation of this scenario is that by the time adverse effects become apparent, they (in combination with other factors) may have depressed the natural population to such an extent that aggressive supplementation is considered essential anyway. These factors by no means diminish the importance of M&E for hatchery programs. However, they demonstrate the folly of using M&E as an excuse for not rigorously addressing all risks up front and designing a program that is as risk-averse as possible from the outset. Where Do We Go from Here? A key step in resolving some of the controversies regard- ing fish hatcheries will be moving toward agreement on a common version (rather than two or more separate versions) of the realities about hatcheries. In my view, actions are need- ed in four major areas: identifying goals, conducting over- all costbenefit analyses to guide policy decisions, improv- ing the information base, and dealing with uncertainty. Goals To begin with, we must not only achieve greater clarity in articulating the goals of hatchery programs, but also en- sure the programs are developed to address fisheries man- agement needs. A given program may have a single major goal (e.g., to replace production lost through habitat block- age, to supplement an at-risk natural population), or it may have multiple goals (increase the abundance of naturally spawning fish while augmenting harvest opportunities). Second, it is important to determine whether the explic- it goals are inclusive enough. The following question should be asked: "Is pursuit of the major goal of the program like- ly to compromise the ability to achieve other fisheries man- agement or societal goals?" If so, then the goals of the pro- gram should be modified or expanded to reflect these other considerations. For example, the 1982 Fish and Wildlife Program developed by the Northwest Power Planning February 1999 FISH CULTURE-PERSPECTIVE Council (NWPPC 1982) identified as its interim goal doubling the run size of salmon and steelhead in the Colum- bia River basin. As revised in 1994 (NWPPC 1994), the cur- rent goal is to double run size without loss of biological diversity. This revision of the goal statement reflects the belief that long-term sustainability of fisheries resources within the basin depends on conservation of natural populations. Third, fisheries managers, fish culturists, fishery biolo- gists, and conservation biologists should review the goals and, if possible, agree on general principles that will guide future management decisions. This will establish a solid basis for conducting the program under an adaptive manage- ment framework-if possible, using performance indicators to measure whether the program is adhering to the princi- ples and meeting the goals. Such a framework also should acknowledge that goals may change through time and pro- vide a mechanism for reevaluating the program if that occurs. Comprehensive Cost:benefit Analysis Once the fundamental goals of a hatchery program are agreed on, the next step is to identify its nature and scope. A wide variety of approaches is available, each of which may be appropriate under certain conditions. To deter- mine the most suitable type of program for a particular sit- uation, it is necessary to do a comprehensive cost:benefit analysis. This analysis takes the following basic form: Net benefit = [benefits to society + benefits to natural populations + benefits to ecosystems] - [costs to society + costs to natural populations + costs to ecosystems] Conducting such an analysis is exceedingly challeng- ing. In the simplest scenario (use of artificial propagation to alleviate short-term extinction risk to natural popula- tions), the primary costs and benefits are in a common cur- rency, both being evaluated with respect to the natural pop- ulation. Even so, determining whether a particular program will have a net benefit to the natural population is far from easy. Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of supplemen- tation also should include additional costs such as effects on other species or the environment, or fiscal expenditures that might otherwise be used for another purpose. The analysis becomes much more complex if the goals of the program include benefits to society as a whole rather than (or in addition to) benefits to natural popula- tions. Societal benefits might include those derived direct- ly from the hatchery program (more fish to harvest; more jobs for fishers, fish culturists, and fishery biologists; and meeting legal or tribal treaty obligations) as well as bene- fits that accrue indirectly from activities (hydropower, log- ging, agriculture) that are permitted because they are compensated for by the hatchery program. An analysis of this type requires comparing at least three types of curren- cies: fiscal expenditures to operate the program (measured in dollars), benefits to society (only some of which can eas- ily be measured in dollars), and costs and benefits to nat- ural populations and the environment. Placing an econom- ic value on living natural resources is a complex process, and literature on this topic is limited. Fisheries" 19