For about two years, ODFW has been working on “hatchery resilience“, an analysis of state owned hatcheries and developing an understanding of what needs to be done to make them resilient in the face of a range of issues including aging infrastructure, rising costs, increased fire risk, and warmer, less reliable water sources. Here’s my first post on this topic. Here’s the last one. Last week ODFW released their latest reports. Keep reading for a few comments. This is an important topic for all anglers in Oregon, including those of us in Central Oregon who primarily target trout.

Two reports were released, both of which I found informative but frustrating. They discuss the significant problems facing ODFW’s hatcheries and the massive funding required to address them, but do not present concrete recommendations for moving forward.

“Looking Ahead: Investing in a Sustainable Hatchery System for a Hotter, Drier Future” is a graphically pleasing report that provides a high level overview of the topic. I assume it is meant for legislators and anglers who do not want to dive into the details. At 45 pages, however, it still takes some time to get through it. I encourage you to at least skim it to understand the many issues and constituencies that frame the discussion. This is a very tough problem and there is nowhere near the funding available to address it.

“Budget Note Report“, prepared for the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, is a 530 page report that dives into the details. This is too much for most of us, but I encourage you to at least read the one page summary of key findings and perhaps the next 24 pages of discussion.

It seems clear to me that hatcheries like Rock Creek need to be closed, it will cost over $40M (in 2023 dollars) to restore it to partial production (almost a quarter of the total need of $180M for all hatcheries), but there are very powerful interests advocating for Rock Creek and similar facilities. Hatcheries are also a political problem. What really gets me is that trout continue to be the most popular target species in the state, have the lowest cost of production, and most economic benefit, but powerful interests continue to direct an inordinate amount of funding to facilities that focus on anadromous species. Don’t get me wrong, I would rather fish for steelhead any day, but believe we need to prioritize scarce dollars to programs that will provide the most benefit to most Oregonians.

In addition, there was no discussion of the cost/benefit of improving habitat, including dam removal, as a way of increasing wild stocks of all species and thereby improving angler benefit. I would bet that the onetime cost of removing a dam would be less than ongoing hatchery costs in a warming world.