The Caddis Fly: Oregon Fly Fishing Blog

This is part two of Jay Nicholas’ commentary on the state of salmon hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest. Read Part 1 here.

Part 2: Contemporary Expectations

This article continues my effort to clarify perceptions and realities of salmon hatcheries, both historical and contemporary. I am striving to be fair. Please comment if you believe that I have missed the boat. We all will be able to advocate for saving salmon, wild and hatchery fish, if we share an accurate vision of the playing field

21st Century Intention: Mitigate for extirpated salmon and steelhead runs.

I checked out the definition of mitigate as I began writing this section. Here is how my handy thesaurus defines Mitigate: 1) to make an offense or crime less serious or more excusable; and 2) to make something less harsh, severe, or violent.

Wow. This is a pretty clear definition of what I think mitigation hatcheries have achieved. Dams were built. Prime salmon-producing habitat was destroyed or made practically inaccessible. Hatcheries were funded by the entities that constructed the dams. A few salmon and steelhead are now produced below the dams. In many cases, a small fraction of what was lost. Not the real deal. Fish concentrated in time and space. Fish that do not, in my opinion, contribute to tribal, commercial, or recreational fisheries as well as wild salmon and steelhead would, if they still existed in these “mitigation” runs.

None-the-less, I view operation of mitigation hatcheries as an obligation that should be maintained and improved on. Places where anadromous fish runs have been rendered extinct, or virtually so, deserve to have salmon in the today. Tribal and non-tribal fishers, and society in general, deserve to have salmon and steelhead in these rivers.

Ya know what? The rivers deserve to have salmon in them. And the birds deserve salmon. The bugs deserve these salmon. The earth deserves these salmon.

Has this outcome been achieved? Yes, but just a little. Mitigation runs of hatchery salmon represent a commitment to perpetually subsidize these rivers, because the habitat and life cycle needs of the species have been taken from this earth by dams or some other “civilized” activity. I think that mitigation hatcheries have made an offense against nature a little less harsh. Sounds like tough talk. This is not a slam against the mitigation hatcheries, but an aver the shoulder critique of a belief that technology could ever sufficiently substitute for wild salmon and steelhead runs.

21st Century Intention: Reintroduction (restoration) of extirpated salmon and steelhead runs. This function has become a vital and hopeful driver for 21st Century hatcheries, because anadromous fish runs have been rendered extinct, or virtually so, in so many places. This is especially true in basins like the Sacramento, Upper Columbia, upper Willamette, and Puget Sound areas.

This function is vital. Although salmon are pioneer species and would re-colonize salmon-void basins when the their habitats recover, that process could take a very long time to produce more than a ghost of runs that were abundant and native to the basins. Hatcheries offer the opportunity to get salmon back into these rivers far more quickly than might otherwise be possible.

Has this outcome been achieved? Yes, hatcheries have returned salmon to rivers where they have been extinguished. Whether these re-introduced runs are, or can shortly be, self sustaining, is not certain. Perhaps salmon runs will establish themselves in reasonable abundance without constant infusion of hatchery fish. Perhaps not. Even if these runs will not soon be self-sustaining, they have merit simply because they put salmon back into these rivers where they belong. As such, runs of hatchery salmon represent a commitment to perpetually subsidize these rivers, if the habitat and life cycle needs of the species cannot yet be met by the habitat as it currently exists.

21st Century Intention: Gene conservation. Conservation hatchery programs are intended as an intervention to preclude the extinction of a particular run of salmon or steelhead. The conservation hatchery is considered a last-ditch effort to prevent catastrophic loss of adaptive genetic diversity contained in a population or Environmentally Significant Unit.

Has this outcome been achieved? Time will answer this one.

21st Century Intention: Supplement fisheries Many contemporary hatchery programs are in place with the stated intent of providing more fish to support fisheries than would otherwise be available if only wild fish were available.

Has this outcome been achieved? Yes, although I don’t know if long-term supplementation hatchery programs will have adverse impacts on the productivity of the wild runs they are sharing rivers with. Beyond that, I hope, from my heart, that our society is not satisfied with accepting hatchery salmon and steelhead, in every river, to support the runs and the fisheries.

Summary. Contemporary hatchery programs are based on perceptions that incorporate historical promises. In addition, contemporary hatchery programs are based on expectations that hatchery programs will 1) mitigate for loss of extirpated salmon and steelhead runs (miniscule success); 2) re-establish runs of self sustaining salmon and steelhead in areas where they have been extirpated (qualified success); 3) conserve genetic material represented in anadromous populations that are faced with imminent extinction (uncertain outcome); and 4) supplement fisheries (qualified success).

JN

As a person who is deeply committed to wild fish conservation and the future of
fishing, I am also steep on the learning curve when it comes to to understanding
the science and policy options related to hatcheries here in the Oregon. After
blundering into the midst of McKenzie River wild trout management, I realized
also that my grasp of a historical context of fish hatcheries in Oregon was
pretty limited.

I asked Jay Nicholas to write a piece on the historical and contemporary
expectations of salmon hatcheries, hoping stimulate dialogue among the broader
community of passionate fish conservationists and anglers. Jay is my go-to guy
because of his of science and policy experience, his respect for civil
dialogue among individuals and groups with very different perspectives, and his
passion for preserving the future of fish and fishing. The article he wrote is
in two parts and I think it is a fascinating read.

I am learning more and more about fish biology, genetics, and management policy
than I had ever imagined. I am also learning more about how others view the
role of hatchery and wild fish. These two articles have jammed a lot of new
information into my brain. Issues that seemed simple now have more depth and
complexity.

Hope you find these articles interesting. Feedback is always encouraged.–CD

Part 1: Historical Expectations

Salmon without Rivers, by Jim Lichatowitch (2001), is a must-read book, and it tells the hatchery story in the depth it deserves. Jim and I have read much of the same source materials in the historical record of fish management in the Pacific Northwest. My remarks and observations will refer mostly to California, Oregon Washington, and Idaho; however, these ideas are broadly applicable. Anyone who finds his or her interest piqued by this article should read Jim’s book. If you have already read his book you might find differences in the nuances of our respective interpretations.

Lest anyone try to make it so, this article is not a condemnation of choices made by managers, officials, and the public in years gone by. It is simply my effort to summarize what people expected salmon hatcheries to accomplish, and my assessment of whether these expected outcomes were achieved. My intention is to share information and stimulate discussion among all the people who care about native salmon , steelhead, and trout here in the Pacific Northwest. Hatcheries have been part of the psyche of salmon managers and fishers for about a hundred and forty years here in the lower 48. A full understanding of our history as fishers and managers seems crucial to the choices we make about the future of native, wild fish n the region.

This is my no-frills assessment of what hatcheries were intended to accomplish during the 19th Century (Part 1), followed by key 21st Century rationale (Part 2). I think that 19th Century thinking regarding salmon hatcheries is still deeply embedded in 21st Century management philosophy and public perception.

19th Century Intention: make salmon habitat unnecessary. A dynamic balance that had sustained native humans and salmon across the region for over ten thousand years was not appreciated by a society determined to conduct commodity transactions with wood, precious metals, salmon, transportation, water, and the like. Officials charged with fish management were few in number, virtually powerless, and recognized quickly that the industrialization of the Pacific Northwest was destructive to salmon and steelhead runs. Hatcheries, these officials reasoned, offered a solution. Hatcheries, they believed, could effectively replace the natural habitats that were being destroyed.

Was this outcome achieved? Nope. We have lost 80 – 90% of the salmon-producing capacity of many Pacific Northwest watersheds in the lower 48. Hatchery salmon and steelhead – clearly – have not fully compensated for this staggering loss.

Is this still a 21st Century expectation for hatcheries? Sadly, I think so. I see a risk that this thinking is alive-and-well in 2010 and could easily be resurrected to justify increased rates of urbanization and resource extraction, not only across the lower 48, but also in Canada and Alaska. Pristine and highly diverse and productive salmon and steelhead runs n Canada and Alaska are seriously threatened by precious metal mining, oil drilling, and timber harvest. All of these resources are in high demand. Development that stands to profit from mining minerals, water, oil, and land represent a serious threat, in my opinion, to the ecological, cultural, and economic legacy that our native salmonid runs represent.

19th Century Intention: minimize interference with resource extraction activities. Fishery officials of the 1800s and early 1900s recognized that 1) they had no power to prevent the destruction of salmon streams and 2) even if they did have the power, the economic effects of limiting fishing, logging, mining, dam building, irrigation, and the like, would damage the economy of the region. Reserving rivers for salmon was incongruous with the thinking of the time. White men were here to tame the west and harvest the riches of lands and waters; it didn’t make sense for salmon to stand in the way of that mandate. Hatcheries were viewed as a means to allow full-bore conduct of fishing, logging, mining, dam building, and the like, while still having a bounty of salmon to catch.

Was this outcome achieved? Yes. The promise of hatchery salmon-a-plenty did, in my opinion, diminish debate over resource extraction and destruction of salmon habitat.

Is this still a 21st Century expectation for hatcheries? Again, sadly, I think so. Current and pending efforts to alter what little salmon habitat we have left in the Pacific Northwest could get the go-ahead if people buy into the promise of hatchery salmon in lieu of wild fish runs.

19th Century Intention: Improve on nature. The mind-set of the Nineteenth Century was that human industry was superior to the unpredictability and apparent inefficiency of nature. Man could grow better crops. Man could tame rivers. Man could improve on nature’s beasts. A female salmon produced several thousand eggs, most of which could reliably be protected from floods in hatcheries. Mere hundreds of salmon cultured in hatcheries could produce millions; far more that nature was capable of.

Was this outcome achieved? Not even close. Salmon and steelhead hatcheries presently operating in the Pacific Northwest haven’t replaced what we’ve lost. Hatcheries do, in some situations, produce a return of adult fish greater than natural spawning could these days. I cannot think of a single instance where hatchery technology has produced super salmon, critters that are superior to nature’s own.

Is this still a 21st Century expectation for hatcheries? I think many people still believe that science can create a better salmon than nature.

19th Century Intention: Allow virtually unrestrained fishing. This 19th Century intention was clear. Salmon meant money. Restricted fishing seasons meant less money. Hatcheries were thought capable of producing more salmon, or at least as many salmon as white folks found here when the fish, the lands, and the waters were shared with native peoples, thereby allowing fishing to continue, predictably, year after year, with clear consciences all around.

Was this outcome achieved? No. This will be discussed more in a following Chapter, as I believe that even the promise of having an endless supply of salmon from hatcheries enticed managers into excessive-harvest of wild stocks. Although hatchery salmon and steelhead do allow fishing in many areas today, and provide fish that contemporary habitat would not otherwise be able to produce, hatcheries have not produced the fishing bonanza that was promised by the founders of the hatchery system.

Is this still a 21st Century expectation for hatcheries? Somewhat. Because hatcheries do produce salmon, and some hatcheries produce what seems like a lot of salmon, many people still equate salmon and salmon fishing with hatcheries.

19th Century Intention: Provide food. Salmon represented money to 19th Century cannery and fishing industries. Salmon also represented a food resource. Hatcheries that could produce bountiful salmon runs were seen as a means of keeping the money and food supply resources of the Pacific Northwest on “full.”

Was this outcome achieved? Historically, no. Today, somewhat. Early hatchery production efforts were virtually ineffective, and only wild fish were harvested to support the fishing industry and provide food. Today, however, many of the fish that are available for harvest in the Pacific Northwest (remember that this article refers principally to CA, OR, ID, and OR) are hatchery salmon and steelhead.

Is this still a 21st Century expectation for hatcheries? Yes. Some mitigation hatcheries are virtually the sole source of salmon in rivers where wild runs were extirpated. In such cases, tribal treaty rights to salmon and steelhead are entirely dependant on hatchery fish, as are non-tribal fishing and harvesting opportunities.

Summary. Hatcheries in the Lower 48 region of the Pacific Northwest began production during the Nineteenth Century. Historically, hatcheries were promised as an effective means to 1) render salmon producing habitat unnecessary (failed); 2) minimize disruption of resource extraction in the region (succeeded); 3) improve on nature (failed); 4) allow unrestrained fishing (conditional success); and 5) provide food (conditional success).

Next up – Salmon Hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest – Part 2: Contemporary Expectations.

JN