“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

As readers of this blog know, I have mixed feelings about fish hatcheries. Fishing license sales in Oregon are dominated by anglers targeting trout. There is no doubt in my mind that we need hatcheries to satisfy the angler who wants to put a trout on their plate but we also need to keep hatchery fish out of wild trout habitat. The most vocal and powerful angling and environmental groups are focused on anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead). These groups represent very different constituencies with largely incompatible viewpoints and the tension between them has been high for decades. What’s new is the recent strong support by many tribes for increased hatchery salmon production. I have been thinking about this a lot and remain conflicted.

For a couple of decades I have been closely watching and in a small way attempting to influence water and fish policy in Central Oregon. During this time I have often wondered why the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs has not asserted itself more strongly into these areas and have been confounded when they did so on what I consider the “wrong” side of the issue by siding with irrigators.

I have heard tribal representatives say many times that they want to be good neighbors, work in a cooperative fashion, and take a very long view. I am respectful of the fact that that I don’t share their history, culture, or economics. I acknowledge that as an old, white, financially secure man I don’t have the same perspective. But, why haven’t the tribes been outspoken and strong advocates for fish if it is such an important part of their heritage?

Well, that is changing. The past few years have seen a significant increase in the status and influence of tribes on policy across the nation as they assert their long ignored treaty rights. This is a good thing. The removal of the Klamath Dams, long championed by tribes in California and Oregon, is an excellent example. After staying silent for over a decade, CTWS belatedly entered the anti-Thornburgh Resort effort, objecting to their use of water. CTWS also made objections, mirroring mine, that the Oregon Water Resources Department’s recent groundwater ruling did not go far enough in that it does nothing to reverse groundwater declines, it only hopes to slow them.

I have been surprised, however, by numerous tribes, including CTWS, strongly supporting increased hatchery production of anadromous fish. Significant funding is being given to tribes in the Pacific Northwest for this effort. Not long ago, tribes helped overturn a decision by the ODFW Commission to eliminate hatchery steelhead production in the North Umpqua river and are increasing hatchery production.

For more on this, see this recent article in Tribal Business News titled “Salmon disappeared from their once-teeming rivers. Now, Northwest tribes fight to save aging hatcheries with $240M in federal aid.” (Thanks to George Wuerthner for alerting me to this article.)

There is little doubt in the scientific community that anadromous fish raised in hatcheries are inferior to and contribute to the decline of wild fish. I’m not interested in exploring or debating this here, but I encourage you to take a look at The Osprey Steelhead Journal’s website and their latest issue, if you want to dive in yourself. This blog also has many posts on the topic.

On the other hand, wild, native anadromous fish populations are plummeting and viable recovery solutions are not being implemented at sufficient scale. I am sympathetic to those in the environmental community who want to change that and are concerned with the increased emphasis on producing anadromous hatchery fish.

As a wild fish bigot, I wish there were no anadromous hatchery fish. Of course, simply eliminating them would be entirely insufficient. Dam removal, habitat restoration, reduction in commercial, tribal gillnet, and probably sport fishing, instream pollution reduction, and a reversal of global warming would all have to accompany anadromous hatchery fish elimination to ensure the survival and recovery of anadromous fish.

We are between a rock and a hard place. If the tribes are committed to taking the steps required for the recovery of wild anadromous fish along with a temporary increase in hatchery production until those recovery steps are complete I can see some logic in their reasoning. I hope this is the case. They also need to go beyond repairing and expanding production facilities and incorporate the latest science in hatchery operation that is less detrimental to wild fish. Non-tribal hatchery managers need to do this as well.