Oregon Senate Bill says hatchery fish = wild fish

"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

Wolfgang wrote:

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.

And thanks for your armchair theorizing about "mutagens," which is of
course far more authoritative, unbiased, and exhaustive than anything
that actual scientists who spend their careers studying the question
could possibly come up with.

Wank on.

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

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

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.

And thanks for your armchair theorizing about "mutagens," which is of
course far more authoritative, unbiased, and exhaustive than anything that
actual scientists who spend their careers studying the question could
possibly come up with.

Mutagens......mutagens......hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is that the
sort of thing that might be studied in.....um.....research
labs......uh.....say, for instance, medical research labs in
particular.....the sort of thing you'd use immunohistochemistry,
immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridization, PCR, real time PCR, RTPCR,
western blots, southern blots, northern blots, SDS polyacrilimde gel
electrophoresis, gene sequencing, gel purification, cryostats, vibratomes,
ultra-microtomes, LR White resin embedding, CBQCA protein quantification,
cAMP colorimetric assays, sepahrose column separation, microarray analysis,
LCM, BLAST, FRED, DAB, IgG antibodies, HPLC, fluorometers........you know,
that sort of thing.....for? If so, I think I've heard of it. Teach me.

Wank on.

Dream on.

Wolfgang

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


And thanks for your armchair theorizing about "mutagens," which is of
course far more authoritative, unbiased, and exhaustive than anything that
actual scientists who spend their careers studying the question could
possibly come up with.


Mutagens......mutagens......hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is that the
sort of thing that might be studied in.....um.....research
labs......uh.....say, for instance, medical research labs in
particular.....the sort of thing you'd use immunohistochemistry,
immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridization, PCR, real time PCR, RTPCR,
western blots, southern blots, northern blots, SDS polyacrilimde gel
electrophoresis, gene sequencing, gel purification, cryostats, vibratomes,
ultra-microtomes, LR White resin embedding, CBQCA protein quantification,
cAMP colorimetric assays, sepahrose column separation, microarray analysis,
LCM, BLAST, FRED, DAB, IgG antibodies, HPLC, fluorometers........you know,
that sort of thing.....for? If so, I think I've heard of it. Teach me.

So exhaustive. So authoritative. So downright INTERESTING! And such big,
BIG WORDS! And ACRONYMS! We are, indeed, blessed to have you among our
midst.

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

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


And thanks for your armchair theorizing about "mutagens," which is of
course far more authoritative, unbiased, and exhaustive than anything
that actual scientists who spend their careers studying the question
could possibly come up with.


Mutagens......mutagens......hm, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is that
the sort of thing that might be studied in.....um.....research
labs......uh.....say, for instance, medical research labs in
particular.....the sort of thing you'd use immunohistochemistry,
immunocytochemistry, in situ hybridization, PCR, real time PCR, RTPCR,
western blots, southern blots, northern blots, SDS polyacrilimde gel
electrophoresis, gene sequencing, gel purification, cryostats,
vibratomes, ultra-microtomes, LR White resin embedding, CBQCA protein
quantification, cAMP colorimetric assays, sepahrose column separation,
microarray analysis, LCM, BLAST, FRED, DAB, IgG antibodies, HPLC,
fluorometers........you know, that sort of thing.....for? If so, I think
I've heard of it. Teach me.

So exhaustive. So authoritative. So downright INTERESTING! And such big,
BIG WORDS! And ACRONYMS! We are, indeed, blessed to have you among our
midst.

Huh?

Oh.......o.k.......I get it. I left out SAGE. Small wonder you think its a
smoke screen.

So, teach me.

Wolfgang
wanna learn how to use your email?

"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