Oregon Senate Bill says hatchery fish = wild fish

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

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.

In article ,
says...
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

Thanks for forwarding, letters sent.
- Ken

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.

This may seem like a stupid question, but: "How do they intend to
identify one from another?"

Aren't the hatchery fish just released, by the thousands, into the
streams? Years ago, when I helped out in a salmon enhancement program
in BC, I just remember trucking buckets of the fish to the creeks to be
released. There was no identification of any sort. But that was long
ago, and technology may have enabled ID'ing.

Cheers
WR

BCITORGB wrote:
This may seem like a stupid question, but: "How do they intend to
identify one from another?"

They clip the adipose fin of hatchery fish.

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