Has Anyone Else Noticed This?

Charlie · **Joined:** Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:27 am **Posts:** 178

kelly wrote:

I am by no means a genetic expert but have taken a few genetic courses in Uni.This is all just opinion not facts as i havent researched it. I agree with charlie 100% saying there is genetic differences in different runs but i also think there is alot of diversity within certain runs.

Nature is all about survival of the fittest. Darwins theory is that animals with favourable traits will survive the most and reproduce the most passing on their favourable traits. In this case of salmon that means the strongest will survive while the weaker genes are passed less frequently.

I am sure not going to argue with Darwin's Theory Of Evolution! He might be a tat bit smarter in that area than we are!

Quote:

When a hatchery arrives it allows the weaker fish with less favourable traits to reporoduce in a non natural setting and their genes can be passed on. The fry that would normally die in a natural setting are also givin the chance to survive in a non natural setting and many that would normally die get to reproduce. Over generations this begins to affect the genetic makeup of a run and the diversity becomes limited. More "cookie cutters" and a smaller avg size.

Sure some hatch fish reproduce naturally and this makes it impossible to tell which is wild and which is hatch on rivers with hatcheries but overall it still has the same effect.Look at hatch coho in the chuck they are normally smaller than wilds and same with hatch steelhead in flows like the stamp. Obviously there are alot of exceptions but this seems to be the trend.

Im sure theres studies on this as its an interesting subject. This is just my two cents.

There has been a lot of studies done and a lot of conflicting information over the years! You might have a problem finding the numbers on Coho, as how many are really“wild” as most of those stocks have been intermingled for so long I am not sure any are truly “wild”!

Now this is also an opinion! I really don’t target Coho, so I have not done any study on them, but have read many studies overlapping with Chinook. There should be very little of weaker genes passed on and very few fry that would normally die in a natural setting should not come into play, if the hatchery is doing their job. The weaker fry should not even survive the ocean and the hatcheries should be using the stronger fish and stocks to supplement/enhance the “wild”. However, that in itself could be a problem, which is not fully understood, yet!

Quote:

“In an attempt to mitigate for lost habitat and reduced fisheries, extensive hatchery programs have been implemented throughout the range of salmon on the west coast. While some of these programs have been successful in providing fishing opportunities, the impacts of these programs on wilds stocks are not well understood. Competition, genetic introgression, and disease transmission resulting from hatchery introductions may significantly impact the production and survival of wild salmon. Commercial and recreational fisheries targeting stronger stocks supported by hatchery production may inadvertently result in adverse impacts to weaker, wild stocks. Furthermore, collection and utilization of wild fish for broodstock purposes may result in additional negative impacts to small or dwindling natural populations.” http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/salmon.htm

Surviving hatchery fish will reproduce naturally that is the intent!

When you catch any unclipped salmon there is NO WAY we can decipher if it is a wild or hatchery. No way... and I would venture to say most Coho are NOT wild, especially out of the Stamp. Robertson Creek hatchery has been supplementing that fishery for so many years… I doubt if any wild are left? At their peak, they were releasing over 9 million, it is down to between 5 – 6 million now? Coho migrate differently than Chinook! They do feed in many different areas. The size of those unclipped Coho (which are probably mostly made up of unclipped hatchery), I believe is “mostly due” to where they migrate and their food supply; however, I do personally agree with you “genes” are very important!

Gooey · **Joined:** Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:57 am **Posts:** 36

The hatchery I volunteered at for several years took small fish as well as jacks for brood stock. they commented that small fish can produce big offspring (as can the jacks that are small due to age). Heck my brother in law is almost 6 feet despite the fact that his mum and dad are under 5'5.

The major concern with hatchery fish/genes is inbreeding. I have a family friend who worked for DFO for decades, now consults with them and is/was on the Georgia Basin Steehead Recovery Panel's board (he knows his stuff). He told me that within 3 generations some significant (read detrimental) effects can be seen from inbreeding of salmon and steelhead populations.

If you know your genetics then you will also know variation within a gene pool is a good thing too.

Charlie · **Joined:** Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:27 am **Posts:** 178

Gooey, I agree with that 100%! One of the problems we had "years" ago, was the hatcheries were inbreeding! That no longer exists to my knowledge.

kelly · **Joined:** Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:43 pm **Posts:** 233

Gooey wrote:

The hatchery I volunteered at for several years took small fish as well as jacks for brood stock. they commented that small fish can produce big offspring (as can the jacks that are small due to age). Heck my brother in law is almost 6 feet despite the fact that his mum and dad are under 5'5

Haha my parents are both 5'7 and im 6'4 so i can attest to that. This is basically what i was told aswell that individual fish sizes dont mean a ton in relation to the offspring size but certainly different runs are different sizes.

Kind of a sidenote but an interesting story. The nitnat is where i mostly worked and talked to a guy whos worked there a while. A long ways back they had a spring come in that was estimated at 60-70+ lbs when in the chuck. It was a buck and they kept it in a side pen and repeatedly took spawn from it because of "its good genetics" until it died.

Charlie · **Joined:** Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:27 am **Posts:** 178

Quote:

"kelly Haha my parents are both 5'7 and im 6'4 so i can attest to that. This is basically what i was told aswell that individual fish sizes dont mean a ton in relation to the offspring size but certainly different runs are different sizes.

Kind of a sidenote but an interesting story. The nitnat is where i mostly worked and talked to a guy whos worked there a while. A long ways back they had a spring come in that was estimated at 60-70+ lbs when in the chuck. It was a buck and they kept it in a side pen and repeatedly took spawn from it because of "its good genetics" until it died.

So... how long did he say they kept it?

If you have seen the hatchery process, you know... but if you have never seen what really happens, you should go, it is an eye opener! It might surprise you!

kelly · **Joined:** Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:43 pm **Posts:** 233

Lucky enough to have been through the processes from seining,tanking, bleeding,taking milt/eggs,mixing them, putting them in incubators ect. Its a pretty slick system most hatcheries run and alot of work. We took 8 million chum eggs a couple years in a row working multiple 10 hour shifts till your hands dont work, seined out a bunch of pools for springs and trucked them back to the hatch. Its a ton of money they put it into aswell!

He didnt say how long they kept it though. I would guess depending on when it came in they could have kept it for a while.

Reel Time · **Posted:** Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:52 pm

Only 1% of eggs fertilized in the wild return as mature salmon to spawn again. Hatcheries increase the odds nearly ten fold, enough that I dont care if hatchery fish wiegh any less or more than wild.

Has Anyone Else Noticed This?

Who is online