The hatchery versus habitat debate has been long and contentious. As readers of this blog know, I am a moderate on this issue. While I am a wild fish bigot, I acknowledge that with all the issues wild anadromous fish face (global warming, freshwater habitat loss, dams, overfishing, etc.) hatcheries currently have at least a limited role to play*. NOAA Fisheries recently reported, however, on the amazing comeback coho salmon have made in Oregon largely due to freshwater habitat restoration but also “reduced ocean harvest, changes to hatchery programs, and relatively favorable ocean conditions for coho in recent years”. Coho remain threatened and “still face major challenges” but appear to be on the rebound, at least for now.

The Native Fish Society has been highlighting the improvement in wild coho returns in their “Recipe for Abundance” campaign. They argue that improving freshwater spawning and rearing habitat, providing access to it by removing barriers, along with hatchery reform, should be more broadly applied. Unfortunately, powerful interests in Oregon, including many guides, the harvest oriented fishing industry, and tribes, are opposed to reducing hatchery production. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, largely dependent for funding from on fishing license sales, and increasingly sensitive to tribal interests, remains very pro-hatchery.

Nevertheless, some progress is being made. A great example is the work being done by a coalition of fishing conservation groups to remove Winchester Dam on the North Umpqua River. The latest issue of The Osprey contains an excellent article on this written by WaterWatch. You can read the entire issue here or just the article here. Dam removal is one of the key aspects of restoring habitat and WaterWatch has been instrumental in this activity for decades in Oregon.

*I am pro-hatchery when it comes to trout in lakes and water bodies where wild fish are not present. The majority of fishing license sales in Oregon are for trout anglers who want to catch and harvest trout. There is nothing wrong with put and take fisheries for angler recreation. The concept of a “conservation hatchery” for anadromous fish also has merit. If anadromous fish have been extirpated from a river where they were historically present, reintroducing them with selective hatchery fish after connectivity and habitat have been restored can also make sense in some cases.

Finally, there is good science that calls into question some of the wild versus hatchery debate. After decades of hatchery and wild anadromous fish interbreeding it is not clear how many “pure” wild anadromous fish in Oregon exist. There are likely pockets of them but not many. Further, while the first generation progeny of hatchery fish, or offspring from wild and hatchery fish spawning, are clearly less fit that wild fish, and less likely to survive, the science also seems to indicate that after a couple of generations those who do survive are as fit as “wild” fish. When exactly to naturally reproducing fish cross the line from hatchery to wild? It’s unknown.

Nevertheless, improving the chances of wild fish reproduction and survival by removing dams, improving habitat, reducing harvest, hatchery reform, etc., is critically important to increasing the abundance of wild fish regardless of their lineage. This is something that should be done.