Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dave c]

Water temperature plays a part too. If the temp. was hovering around 3C when you caught the wild earlier in the year and around 6 or 7C when you caught the hatchery a couple of weeks ago, there would be a big difference in their energy level. Mint bright fish in the dead of winter can be very disappointing.

the fish i was referring to were within 10minutes of each other and both were chromers

[salmonlander]

Ages ago we thought the hatchery fish were pre programed for 3 jumps and a run before they came to beach. I have caught many fish of both types and cannot diferentiate due to type, but water temp does play a big part of their fight.

[firebird]

the fish i was referring to were within 10minutes of each other and both were chromers

Yes, so temperature obviously wasn't a factor in your case. I searched relatively briefly through scientific papers and nothing jumped out about differences in stamina or swimming speed between hatchery and wild steelhead. I think a scientific study would be required before one could conclude whether there are any differences in their fighting ability. I'm extremely biased ... I absolutely detest hatchery fish because of their threat to wild populations and the occasional freaky looking specimens that turn up  ... so I would be prone to suggesting wild fish fight harder. There are a number of factors that would have to be evened up before valid comparisons can be made. For example, some of the fish you caught on the same day may have been traveling much more than others, some may have been caught recently and some may have a virus ( ).

[Dave]

  I'm extremely biased ... I absolutely detest hatchery fish because of their threat to wild populations and the occasional freaky looking specimens that turn up  ... so I would be prone to suggesting wild fish fight harder. There are a number of factors that would have to be evened up before valid comparisons can be made. For example, some of the fish you caught on the same day may have been traveling much more than others, some may have been caught recently and some may have a virus ( ).

oh boy, this post and especially your last sentence got my attention

[lovetofish]

Yes.  Here's why.  In the wild, the more fit males are able to chase off lesser males, and breed with the most fit female who's got the best redd location.  The resulting offspring are the result of parents with good genes.  The fish with poor genes aren't afforded the advantages of good mates and prime redd location and their offspring don't have as good a chance of survival.  The end result is that healthy fish survive to produce healthy offspring.

The hatchery process doesn't pair fish like this, so an unfit male may spawn with a fit female, resulting in fish with mediocre set of genes. 

In a nutshell, wild fish are healthier genetically, and thus often fight better.  Other factors off course come into play- water temperature, how fresh the fish are, when it was last hooked, and where in the mouth etc.

This doesn't really make any sense. You say the best fish get the best redds so they have a better chance at survival, and those that come from so called poorer fish have a poorer chance  at survival. Fair enough, but that doesn't equate with healthy offspring. Those from so called poorer fish, that do survive must be of hardier stock to survive more difficult conditions, and still return to spawn.

[Rodney]

There are too many variables involved when anglers attempt to compare the angling quality of wild and hatchery raised salmonids, especially if the sample size is small. Water temperature is one physical factor as others have pointed out, if compared fish are caught at different times. Other factors that are not being considered include the unknown recapture times of these fish, the amount of time they have been in the river, how far upstream they are caught, the type of water they are caught in, their sizes, gender, etc.

Back to the point Matt made earlier in the thread, which needs to be corrected/expanded a bit. There are some confusion on the "fitness" which has not been pointed out. "Fitness", in human society, is defined by physical strength, body size and all the attributes that result in advantage for one in a competitive situation. "Fitness" in biology, when discussing organisms other than human, is not always referring to those "strong" physical attributes. The survival of the fittest, is not suggesting that the largest, strongest specimen in a population are the fittest and have the biggest chance to survive. Beside size and physical strength, fitness can be measured by the immunity against diseases, fecundity (the amount of eggs a specimen can produce), the ability to evade predation, etc. Biggest is not always best, but rather smallest can have their advantages under certain circumstances. Each fitness comes into play at a different situation. Situations are always changing, some years are more favourable for bigger fish, while other years are more favourable for smaller fish.

In nature, breeding within a population does not only produce "good genes", or fittest/healthiest offsprings. The process of natural selection results in a wide spectrum of genetic variations (big/small fish, fat/skinny fish, fish that get sick more/less easily, fish that spawn early/late in the season). This is nature's insurance policy. The population's offsprings will face many different situations as they begin their lifecycle. One situation may wipe the smallest fish out, or maybe the biggest fish out. Another situation may kill off fish that lack the defence mechanism to fight off a disease.

Artificial selection such as hatchery production tries to mimic natural production as closely as possible, but if repeated over generations, the genetic diversity will be narrowed and the population will be unable to handle all situations that they come across. We can assume the fittest fish are the biggest fish and only take big parents to produce offsprings so they will all return as big fish, but what happens if the artificially produced population comes across a situation in their lifecycle where conditions do not favour big fish? What if only parents from early part of the run are artificially mated, and their offsprings return early as their parents do in years when conditions favour late arrivers?

I hope that provides a better understanding on how genetic diversity is influenced by natural and artificial mating.

[dave c]

Thanks Rod> it has become apparent  that the experience i had of the wild fighting harder than the hatchery was merely coincidence.

[Johnny Canuck]

Yes.  Here's why.  In the wild, the more fit males are able to chase off lesser males, and breed with the most fit female who's got the best redd location.  The resulting offspring are the result of parents with good genes.  The fish with poor genes aren't afforded the advantages of good mates and prime redd location and their offspring don't have as good a chance of survival.  The end result is that healthy fish survive to produce healthy offspring.

The hatchery process doesn't pair fish like this, so an unfit male may spawn with a fit female, resulting in fish with mediocre set of genes. 

In a nutshell, wild fish are healthier genetically, and thus often fight better.  Other factors off course come into play- water temperature, how fresh the fish are, when it was last hooked, and where in the mouth etc.

Have any studies to back up this? Any fish make it to the salt do their thing and return are all equal as they all survived the part where most die.

[firebird]

Have any studies to back up this? Any fish make it to the salt do their thing and return are all equal as they all survived the part where most die.

I don't think there are any studies out there comparing the fighting abilities of hatchery vs wild but there are lots of papers about the lower genetic "fitness" of hatchery fish. Here's a link to a review paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x/full
In essence, the bottom line is although a hatchery buck may delight an angler just as much as a wild buck, it won't be able to reproduce (i.e. pass its genes along to the next generation) as well as the studly wild fish    And heaven forbid the hatchery buck mates with a sexy wild doe 

[Johnny Canuck]

I don't think there are any studies out there comparing the fighting abilities of hatchery vs wild but there are lots of papers about the lower genetic "fitness" of hatchery fish. Here's a link to a review paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x/full
In essence, the bottom line is although a hatchery buck may delight an angler just as much as a wild buck, it won't be able to reproduce (i.e. pass its genes along to the next generation) as well as the studly wild fish    And heaven forbid the hatchery buck mates with a sexy wild doe 

I'm assuming that's a study about American steelhead? Do they not use hatchery fish to make hatchery fish? Where as up here we use wild fish every year to make hatchery fish so that there is no "inbred" brats like in the US.

[firebird]

I'm assuming that's a study about American steelhead? Do they not use hatchery fish to make hatchery fish? Where as up here we use wild fish every year to make hatchery fish so that there is no "inbred" brats like in the US.

The review paper is a summary of studies that involved a mixture of parental origins (hatchery x hatchery, hatchery x wild, wild x wild). "Inbreeding" can occur when the hatchery-reared offspring of wild x wild return to the natal stream and mate. Although the reproductive fitness of the first generation wild x wild hatchery fish is on par with wild fish, the next generation may have some "brats" with reproductive problems. With small numbers of pairs (some hatcheries use as few as 1, 2 or 3 pairs), there is a relatively high chance of brothers and sisters mating. That is why it is risky to have hatchery programs on small streams with small runs of wild steelhead (e.g. Seymour and Capilano). 

[BladeKid]

Have any studies to back up this? Any fish make it to the salt do their thing and return are all equal as they all survived the part where most die.

Definitely not true, a huge part of selection starts right from the eggs (another reason hatcheries produce less fit individuals). Egg size is a heritable trait and typically smaller eggs are less fit, so when you get hatcheries allowing all the small eggs to survive, you get those individuals coming back to spawn carrying the genes for small eggs = not good when they spawn with a wild.

As for papers to back all this up, there are lots. Take a browse through some papers and you will see.

[Matt]

Have any studies to back up this? Any fish make it to the salt do their thing and return are all equal as they all survived the part where most die.

Lots of studies.  Go to Google Scholar, "wild+hatchery+steelhead"... you'll find peer-reviewed and published studies ad nauseum showing wild fish have higher fitness than hatchery fish.  I've not found a peer-reviewed paper suggesting the contrary.  You'll not likely find studies about "fighting ability", that's too subjective.

Here's one such paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2008.00026.x/full  There are many, many more.

As for the second part of your reply, that's incorrect.  Lots of selection occurs after adults return to the river.  Not only do adults have to make it to the spawning grounds, they have to evade predators, compete for the best redd sites, choose a genetically-compatible mate etc etc.

This doesn't really make any sense. You say the best fish get the best redds so they have a better chance at survival, and those that come from so called poorer fish have a poorer chance  at survival. Fair enough, but that doesn't equate with healthy offspring. Those from so called poorer fish, that do survive must be of hardier stock to survive more difficult conditions, and still return to spawn.

Two parts to that answer.  First, genetic fitness.  The offspring of two genetically superior fish will produce genetically-superior offspring.  Healthy males will drive off weaker competitors, females sometimes "fake it" with males she doesn't want to spawn with.  Genetic fitness is established at fertilization.  Part two: healthy parents will be able to make it to healthy spawning grounds.  Real world example: Dean River fish are the hottest steelhead around.  Part of that is water temperature and proximity to saltwater, a big part though is that all the spawning in the Dean occurs above the "falls"- a 1km stretch of class 5+ rapids that reduces 5' diameter fallen cedars into firewood.  Only healthy fish make it up the falls.  Its pretty common to find dead sealice-covered chrome bullets below the falls, either from some wound or from apparent exhaustion (no hook wounds, gills look fine, no external signs of disease or parasites other than sealice).  Furthermore, healthy females get the best redd locations where eggs have the best chance of survival and juveniles have the best chance to start their lives.  Juveniles born to fit parents are most likely than fish with lesser genes to be survive and pass on their genes.

Note: as Rod added earlier, "fitness" in this context refers to genetic fitness, not ability to jog...

[adriaticum]

Here is an interesting part.
There are less and less wild fish and more and more hatchery.
Probably because they take the wild fish for the broodstock program and therefore domesticating them.
 

[Matt]

the fish i was referring to were within 10minutes of each other and both were chromers

One fish might have been travelling, the other resting, etc etc.  Too many variables and too small a sample size to draw conclusions from two similar fish caught near each other.

I think in general, better chance of finding hot fish in wild rivers as opposed to rivers full of hatchery brats.