Steelhead - the wild versions

[Ants]

When it comes to steelhead, I am certainly late to a mindset that could have been going on for decades. One of the authors I collected was Bill McMillan. McMillan has a long history of chasing steelhead in the WA area. In one of the side videos of McMillan, he presented some string data that hatchery plants were responsible for the decline and elimination of some wild steelhead runs. There is no doubt that assessment brings mixed opinions.

McMillan presented information of steelhead runs in WA, OR, and BC. It showed the hatchery plants of steelhead related to continuing declines of at least the winter steelhead runs. Some places in BC stopped the hatchery plants and the Umpqua River is surviving well without hatchery fish.

I am probably poking at the tip of the iceberg.

Is the same negative impact happening to all runs (winter and summer) of native steelhead in WA, OR, and BC

Is the same problem happening in CA??

Are hatchery management issues a problem in AK also?

[NorcalBob]

Yes, introduction of hatchery steelhead has had an unintended and potentially harmful effect on wild steelhead populations throughout their range, including here in CA. Less so for spring and summer runs here in CA because hatchery augmentation has not been as significant compared to the fall & winter runs. AK is very fortunate, because their hatchery programs for steelhead are very limited compared to WA, OR, & CA.

[lucfish]

This is a touchy subject and I am no expert, but they probably do harm, mostly long term but this is a catch 22 especially on certain streams in Norcal. You are correct in saying the Umpqua has closed their hatchery but without the hatchery the run (from what I've been told mind you, I don't have the statistics in front of me) you are looking at 2,000-3,000 fish. The problem is they are shooting straight up and the fisherman aren't getting a chance at catching them they are going through the system so fast. The hatchery fish on the other hand would stay in the main stem, their just going straight up to the hatchery and the guys have a much better shot and getting a few. I've heard arguements both sides, and pretty passionately too. I personally don't have a big opinion one way or the other. I prefer wild but I also prefer a bite or two and if it's a hatchery, so be it. Hatchery certainly don't fight near as well.

[BrownBear]

I "survived" the penultimate example of steelhead hatchery fish in grad school. I was working with juveniles of wild stock in a Trinity tributary. I was getting 60-80 adult spawners per year up my creek.

Meanwhile the Trinity hatchery was releasing 700,000 steelhead smolts per year. And while I was working my creek, they got anywhere from 1 to 3 adults back from their releases. *?

A lot of digging revealed something interesting. When they first closed off Lewiston dam and collected all the returning adult spawners, the hatchery had a bad outbreak of furunculosis. Wiped them all out. So American river steelhead and salmon were put in the hatchery. All was well producing nice healthy, happy smolts. Turn em loose, never to be seen again. I've already said *, so I don't know what to say now.

In any case, lots of research revealed interesting things. Turns out that the Klamath/Trinity watershed is rife with vibrio. The endemic fish are immune, so it's not a problem. The American River fish had zero immunity. The way vibrio works, the happy healthy smolts move down into the estuary, and in the process of making the physiological adjustment for saltwater, they croak. Never even make it out into the ocean.

Hatchery shenanigans moving fish from watershed to watershed bypasses eons of evolution to deal with conditions in their home watershed. Move them to another watershed, and there's a chance they won't fare as well as the locals. At least in the Klamath/Trinity, it was a catastrophic move. That's why hatcheries today work hard to use only local fish for brood stock. And it's also why drug companies fare so well inoculating fish in hatcheries, trying to sub for all those eons of evolution.

[NorcalBob]

<<<but this is a catch 22 especially on certain streams in Norcal.>>>
Indeed, on certain rivers (like the American River) there really are not many options besides hatchery augmentation. The simple fact is on rivers like the American, without hatcheries you probably would not have the opportunity to sport fish for steelhead today if not for the hatchery runs. Unfortunately, when the big water project era started, the negative impacts of hatcheries was not understood, and upstream passage requirements for spawning purposes was traded off for hatchery runs. That decision pretty much sealed the deal for wild steelhead & salmon on those rivers. That same decision probably would have not been made with today's knowledge, but back then the problem was not understood.

[Ants]

Thanks for the added comments. The comments give a framework for perspective as I read more about wild and hatchery steelhead.

[Bstallings]

Suggest listening to April Vokeys Anchored podcast interview with Greg Osborn-Pro Hatcheries from Aug 4th. She tries to stay objective but I think you can hear skepticism in her tone & questions. Interesting listen.

[NorcalBob]

UMMMM, I would hardly call April objective!!!
The issue is extremely complicated and there are no easy answers.