Posted: Thu 10/08/09 6:51 pm Post subject: Hatcheries and Hatchery Fish, What about Habitat?
Ok so this is a topic that gets a lot of play on many different fronts. It can be somewhat controversial and has many different facets, but it is a reality of our modern fisheries and how the future is going to play out in the fishing world. In America (and many other countries) our freshwater fisheries are "managed". That is to say that we have people who are in charge of these fisheries and they make decisions based on how they want these fisheries to develop. Frequently these managers (biologists) are trained in a way so as to take the current state of the waterbody they are managing and maximize the number of desired game fish. In order to do that, typically they utilize hatcheries and hatchery fish. They plant x number of fish every year so that x number of fish survive. Millions of dollars are poured into the hatcheries for raising fish and for keeping hatcheries maintained. In most state, a huge majority of the fishing license revenue goes to this. On the other hand, the habitat of many of these waterbodies has various deficiencies and needs improvement and the fish that are planted struggle to survive so managers are forced to put a much higher number of fish in to account for poor survival. Couldn't we reduce the amount of money going to the hatcheries and put that instead into habitat? In the short run, some fisheries would not be as productive but within a year or two they would be able to support more fish and less fish would have to be planted therefore further reducing the reliance on hatcheries. This is just one small piece of the equation, not to mention the fact that hatchery fish are far inferior to wild fish in the way they fight, they way they look etc.. If we put more money into habitat restoration, more wild fish would survive as well. Over time if the fishery still couldn't support big numbers of fish, then maybe that is telling us something and maybe the resources could be put to better use on a fishery that could support the fish. This issue and the many different aspects of it always get me thinking and I could go on, but I already got a little carried away. What do any of you guys think about this?
It is an important topic, thanks for bringing it up. In the Pacific Northwest many of the hatchery programs are designed to be mitigation for the lost fish as a result of habitat destruction due to dams and other means. The hatchery efforts are intended to provide (and in most cases do) opportunities for commercial and recreational fishing that would not exist with out them. Not to mention the states obligation to tribal rights to subsistence resources. However, these opportunities often put added stress on the ecosystem and the wild stocks that live in them.
If we want to change the situation we will have some hard realities to face up to, and we will need to develop a better understanding of the economic and ecological value/cost that a fish has. It is important for us to also understand the differences in these terms between hatchery and wild fish. Which costs more to produce/sustain and which has a higher value to the economy? to the ecosystem? Without this data we are just guessing and we don't have a very good track record for getting it right.
Take a given stream that currently has both hatchery and wild runs of salmon and steelhead the managing agency may spend 70% of their budget on hatcheries, 15% on habitat and 5 % on enforcement. One might argue that the hatchery fish are adversely affecting the wild stocks and that if we fix the habitat the wild stocks will rebuild themselves, so the hatchery efforts should be minimized and the habitat maximized. The problem is more complex though, because many, if not most, of the streams do not have wild stocks that would support any type of fishing pressure. So if this path is taken then the rivers would need to be closed until the wild stock could support even limited pressure (e.g. catch and release w/ single barbless hooks and artificial lures). This means a loss of fishing opportunities and the economic benefits that these bring to the community, and will also likely mean that a greater portion will need to be spent on enforcement.
As fishermen dedicated to conservation we need to 1) advocate for more economic and ecological research 2) be active in educating our policy makers and voting for conservation, and 3) if needed, be ready to set down our rods until our streams can support healthy stocks of wild fish.
Joe,
You bring up some valid points and a few things come to mind. The situation there is a very complex one and involves a vast array of different interests. Although I did not reference the pacific northwest and the salmon and steelhead stocks, they are definitely on the forefront of the broader issue of hatcheries and wild fish and i strongly believe that the current management perspective there needs to be changed based on my own fishing experiences with both wild and hatchery steelhead in the Columbia drainage and what I have read and learned about the issue. I agree completely that there are hard decisions to be made there, and there are so many interests both political and economic that it is a long uphill struggle with the fish being the very lowest on the priority list (especially steelhead as they are not a commercially targeted species and therefore by most economic evaluations, not worth very much and as a result they suffer). This is very unfortunate because as you say their economic impact and benefit is far reaching and not very well understood. Personally I have zero interest in fishing for the salmon out there, but will spend thousands of dollars on plane tickets, car rentals, hotel rooms, restaurants etc just to catch (or not catch) a steelhead.
In a more local and similar in some ways issue, my thoughts frequently involve this issue in the context of local trout streams that don't involve migratory fish. These are areas where I really feel like improvements can be made to habitat and manage for a balanced fish population that would both save money that is currently spent on hatcheries and would produce a much higher quality fishery. I feel like many local trout fisheries in various states where I have fished are "managed" with far too much emphasis on hatchery fish and over "managed". Many fisheries are planted with far more trout than they are capable of sustaining despite some wild reproduction. I feel that many of these fisheries could have the stocking completely eliminated, the limits reduced (not eliminated as I believe people should be able to take a fish or two if they want to eat it and if the fishery can sustain it on its own) and we would end up with a much healthier, self sustaining fishery that would produce much higher quality fish. Certain bodies of water would have much lower populations of fish and as a result they would not be as easy to catch but the quality of the fish would be much higher and the cost to maintain them would be virtually nothing.
There are several fisheries that I have spent years fishing (mainly in the west in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, but also here in New York etc.) where I have drawn some interesting conclusions. I can think of several streams that I fish that produce very large average sized fish that are extremely high quality and 100% naturally reproducing (ironically but realistically they are not native as they are rainbows and browns which are not native to those rivers, but they are wild which is a seperate discussion). These streams have zero stocking and some even allow bait with no restrictions on size or quantity of fish (that is also another issue). My point is that these fisheries are self sustaining with no stocking and they provide phenomenal fishing. They can be challenging at times, but that is the reality of fishing. It isn't always easy to catch them, if it was it would be boring imho. I think a lot more fisheries could be managed this way and we could use money that i feel is wasted on hatcheries to improve habitat and get far more bang for the buck!
Good points on the management of local streams. Unfortunately, since moving to the East Coast in 2007 from the NW, I have not gotten familiar with really any of the local trout streams. So I can't really comment there. I find that when I can make time I either head over the GL tribs or to the salt. This is mostly because I don't know where to go, and haven't met too many people out here that actually fish.
Joe_M there are a LOT of fly fishers in your area. When it comes to fishing for cold water species you do need to drive a little BUT it can be real good. For a starter I would try to find a copy of An Anglers Guide to Trout Fishing in MA, by TU. Also check out some of the local fly shops for information. There's, Orvis in (Boston) The Bears Den (South Shore) Concord Outfitters (Concord) Evening Sun (Pepperell) First Light Anglers (Rowly) Also check in with TU there is a Greater Boston Chapter. Hope this helps you to get started fishing locally.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I think a lot more fisheries could be managed this way and we could use money that i feel is wasted on hatcheries to improve habitat and get far more bang for the buck!