Oregon Senate Bill says hatchery fish = wild fish

JR wrote:
Oregon Senate Bill 473 requires that Oregon consider hatchery-bred
anadromous fish to be the same as wild fish for management purposes.

This is simply very bad science, and will lead directly and inevitably to
the demise of truly wild populations of native salmon and steelhead in
Oregon. Oregonians should consider dropping their state legislators a
line letting them know they are opposed to this sort of voodoo science
finding its way into Oregon's wild fish management policies.

Text of SB 473:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/mea...0473.intro.pdf

How to find your legislators:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

JR


I'm a bit puzzled by this JR. I read the text a couple times, and I don't read
it the way you do. I'm not an expert on this stuff, and I'd appreciate some
education if you can point me at it. Please tell me what I've missed.

It does say that any hatchery program must use wild fish.
It does say that such returning hatchery fish are to be considered viable and
allowed to spawn.

Your synopsis implies that transplanted hatchery fish are to be counted as wild
fish, and this bill would outlaw transplanted hatchery fish.

I think this sounds like the best way to run a hatchery program. The only
improvement in it for wild fish would be to outlaw the hatcheries entirely.
I'm not certain that would be an improvement, but that's my ignorance talking.

Why do you call this voodoo science?

Thanks for your help

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:19:54 -0600, chas
wrote:

(snipped)

Your synopsis implies that transplanted hatchery fish are to be counted as wild
fish, and this bill would outlaw transplanted hatchery fish.

I think this sounds like the best way to run a hatchery program. The only
improvement in it for wild fish would be to outlaw the hatcheries entirely.
I'm not certain that would be an improvement, but that's my ignorance talking.

Why do you call this voodoo science?

Thanks for your help

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly


Because they're bred in a hatchery and raised in a hatchery. They
aren't wild fish. In MN the distinction is clear. We can only keep
(in certain places), fish with the back fin clipped and scarred over,
because they're hatchery fish. The wild ones we have to do C & R on.

Now if they can live long enough in the wild to breed and the
offspring can grow to catchable size, I'm inclined to accept those
offspring as wild fish.

The genes that may be able to grow and live in a hatchery may be
enough different to dilute the truly wild stock if the wild stock is
permitted to be caught in and killed for lunch in any numbers. It's
not all quite as strong a difference as between a Pomeranian and a
wolf, but one is tame and one is wild. Even if the Pom successfully
goes feral (sorry, had to stop to giggle), it's not going to be a wolf
unless it breeds in with wolves and it's offspring and their offspring
eventually dilute the specific Pom genes and the old wolf comes out of
the dog.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

Cyli wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:19:54 -0600, chas
wrote:

(snipped)


Your synopsis implies that transplanted hatchery fish are to be counted as wild
fish, and this bill would outlaw transplanted hatchery fish.

I think this sounds like the best way to run a hatchery program. The only
improvement in it for wild fish would be to outlaw the hatcheries entirely.
I'm not certain that would be an improvement, but that's my ignorance talking.

Why do you call this voodoo science?

Thanks for your help

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly



Because they're bred in a hatchery and raised in a hatchery. They
aren't wild fish. In MN the distinction is clear. We can only keep
(in certain places), fish with the back fin clipped and scarred over,
because they're hatchery fish. The wild ones we have to do C & R on.

Now if they can live long enough in the wild to breed and the
offspring can grow to catchable size, I'm inclined to accept those
offspring as wild fish.

The genes that may be able to grow and live in a hatchery may be
enough different to dilute the truly wild stock if the wild stock is
permitted to be caught in and killed for lunch in any numbers. It's
not all quite as strong a difference as between a Pomeranian and a
wolf, but one is tame and one is wild. Even if the Pom successfully
goes feral (sorry, had to stop to giggle), it's not going to be a wolf
unless it breeds in with wolves and it's offspring and their offspring
eventually dilute the specific Pom genes and the old wolf comes out of
the dog.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)


Your argument is wrong.

The reason why hatchery fish aren't the same as "wild" is that weaker
fish, even with "wild" genes may be able to survive in a hatchery when
they would not in the wild. It also means that they might not build up
defenses against diseases or be as strong as those having to survive in
the wild.

This doesn't change their genes, only their physical conditioning.

Cal Vanize wrote:

Your argument is wrong.

The reason why hatchery fish aren't the same as "wild" is that weaker
fish, even with "wild" genes may be able to survive in a hatchery when
they would not in the wild. It also means that they might not build up
defenses against diseases or be as strong as those having to survive in
the wild.

This doesn't change their genes, only their physical conditioning.

Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes, but it does change the gene pool. Hatchery conditions
and natural wild conditions exert two radically different kinds of
selection, obviously. Even if you begin with a genetically pure wild
stock, by the time the fish are released from the hatchery you can
expect the frequencies of various genes in the population to be very
different from the frequencies in a wild population.

For example, suppose there's a parasite in the wild that kills 20% of
the fry, and that there's a genetically based susceptibility to the
parasite. Some fish succumb to it and some are resistant, depending at
least partly on their genotypes. If the parasite is carefully kept out
of the hatchery this selective pressure will be absent, and the gene
pool of the hatchery fish will be different from that of the wild fish.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes...

Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same.

Wolfgang
who may have read it in "scientific american"......but doesn't think so.

Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...


Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes...


Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same.

That's true, I suppose, but it's a very small effect over just one
generation, and probably not even measurable because sustainable
mutation rates are low. Most short term variation in genetics (by far)
comes from sexual reproduction and the resulting combination of alleles,
and not from mutation. That's Biology 101.

The point I was making, if you can just stop wanking for a moment, is
that hatchery production affects the genetics of populations, if not
(very much) the actual genes themselves.

I'm not as alarmed about hatchery production of steelhead and salmon as
some people are. I don't doubt that hatchery production adversely
affects the gene pool (from our point of view as fishermen), but the
real problem is habitat loss and degradation. Hatcheries should be seen
as temporary, stop-gap measures. If the habitat were somehow magically
restored to its pristine condition (not likely) and hatchery production
were stopped, the population genetics of fish would return to a "normal"
wild state in a few generations, under normal wild selection pressures,
as long as the underlying genetic diversity hadn't been lost.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Wolfgang wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...


Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes...


Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same.

That's true, I suppose, but it's a very small effect over just one
generation,

How many hatcheries that you know of operate for just one generation?

and probably not even measurable because sustainable mutation rates are
low.

Certainly not measurable, but not for the reason you state. Mutation rates
are not only highly variable from one species to another, but can also be so
within a single species for a number of reasons, not the least of which is
the presence, character, and relative abundance of mutagens. Before one can
say anything meaningful about mutation rates in a given species, one has to
know a lot more about its genetics than we currently do about any of the
salmonids.

Most short term variation in genetics (by far) comes from sexual
reproduction and the resulting combination of alleles, and not from
mutation. That's Biology 101.

Actually, that information is readily available in high school biology
texts, any decent encyclopedia, back issues of "Scientific American" and
quite possibly even on the internet (check with Google); one hardly needs to
wait for college.

The point I was making,

Poorly......but, go on.

if you can just stop wanking for a moment,

Just CAN'T get that image out of your brain, huh? I wonder......do you
fantasize in great detail.....or is it just fuzzy images?

is that hatchery production affects the genetics of populations,

Not as startling as the revelation that sunglasses aren't primary source of
light on Earth, but interesting nevertheless. You might want to approach
some institution of higher learning with that thought and see if they can
run with it.

if not (very much) the actual genes themselves.

Again, that remains to be seen.

I'm not as alarmed about hatchery production of steelhead and salmon as
some people are.

Evidently.

I don't doubt that hatchery production adversely affects the gene pool
(from our point of view as fishermen), but the real problem is habitat
loss and degradation. Hatcheries should be seen as temporary, stop-gap
measures. If the habitat were somehow magically restored to its pristine
condition (not likely) and hatchery production were stopped, the
population genetics of fish would return to a "normal" wild state in a few
generations, under normal wild selection pressures, as long as the
underlying genetic diversity hadn't been lost.

Restoring habitat to a "pristine" condition would indeed require magic.
There are two approaches to the problem, I think. One; we could simply
leave a particular habitat alone......no contact with humans and no
influence from any human activity (or what does "pristine" mean?). This is
the passive approach......and it simply isn't going to happen. Two; active
restoration requires deliberate and intensive human intervention......which
is sort of the antithesis of what a pristine environment requires, ainna?

Good luck.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes...

Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same.

Wolfgang
who may have read it in "scientific american"......but doesn't think so.


Some science on the subject is a availble at the NFS web site,
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/library.htm

For example:
DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH

1) Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of
anadromous salmonids
in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson, and R. Naiman (eds.)
In: Pacific Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman Hall, Inc.

--
Jeff
Kamchatka http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/K2000/
NFS http://www.nativefishsociety.org

"jlp" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't
change the genes...

Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same.

Wolfgang
who may have read it in "scientific american"......but doesn't think so.


Some science on the subject is a availble at the NFS web site,
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/library.htm

All of which is mildly interesting (if not necessarily an exhaustive or
unbiased survey of the extant literature on salmonid genetics), and presents
a fair to horse**** introduction (assuming one is generous enough to
overlook both a blatant bias and the absolutely pathetic device of simply
lifting brief quoted passages sans context or evidence) to a particular
point of view with regard to likely problems with hatchery breeding programs
(a point of view which, incidentally, I happen to share), but none of it has
anything at all to do with my point in response to Stevie's just plain wrong
factual statement.

Thanks.

Wolfgang

"jlp" wrote:

Some science on the subject is a availble at the NFS web site,
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/library.htm

For example:
DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH

1) Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of
anadromous salmonids
in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson, and R. Naiman (eds.)
In: Pacific Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman Hall, Inc.

--
Jeff
Kamchatka http://home.teleport.com/~salmo/K2000/
NFS http://www.nativefishsociety.org


Thanks Jeff,

This is what I was looking for. I've heard some stories, but hadn't seen the
studies yet. It looks like hatcheries can't do it "right", so we should just
get rid of them except maybe to attempt to re-introduce a run where the natives
are extinct.

Maybe there's a better way to do that too. I remember that when Mt. St.
Hellens erupted in 1980 there was an extreme gloom and doom attitude from the
fisheries department that turned out to be almost 100% wrong. The fish stayed
away for a year, and then started filling tight back in. The ones that stayed
away spawned elsewhere. I supposer the "right" way to re-introduce a run in an
extinct river is to leave the river alone and see who shows up.

Thanks again,

Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly