Tribal Hatcheries And Impacts on Wild Salmon
Hatcheries have a big impact on wild salmon, yet most PNW tribes promote hatchery fish production to the detriment of wild fish.
Hatcheries are death on wild salmon. Photo George Wuerthner
The Indian Iron Curtain surrounds wild salmon and tribal policy and fishery management. Nearly every tribe in the Pacific Northwest says things like “salmon are sacred,” and they typically assert that salmon are critical to their culture.
The problem is that while there is some overlap between saving salmon for cultural practices, it’s not the same as saving wild salmon for their own value. The controversy over tribal salmon issues is more of an anthropogenic concern. It’s all about “me”–what can the tribe garner in more salmon (not necessarily wild salmon)– instead of what is good for wild salmon.
One of the most blatant examples of the conflict between rhetoric and behavior can be seen in the issue of hatcheries and their impact on wild fish.
Despite much rhetoric from tribes that they are “salmon people” and other assertions that salmon are “sacred” and critical to their culture, most tribes support hatchery production of salmon and steelhead and condemn any attempt to close hatcheries.
Yet the science is overwhelming—nothing is worse for wild salmon than hatchery fish. Hatchery fish breed with wild salmon, diluting the wild genome and competing for space, food, and even spawning habitat.
After fish stocking was halted on Oregon’s Metolius River, production of wild fish increased.
Hatchery production can disguise the decline in natural fish production (wild fish) and reduce the public outcry for more scientific salmon policies.
There are plenty of state and federal hatcheries, so the constructoin and production of hatchery fish is not unique to tribes. But most of these entities do not claim that salmon are “sacred” or critical to cultural values.
The other way that many tribes harm wild salmon is by gill netting. Due to “tribal sovereignty and treaty rights,” tribes can gill net fish on major rivers like the Columbia, Klamath, and others. Gill nets are entirely indiscriminate. Many wild fish are captured in the nets and die.
Most tribes say they want to restore “healthy salmon populations,” but this doesn’t necessarily mean healthy wild fish populations.
A dam on the Columbia River, one of the many factors leading to salmon decline. Photo George Wuerthner
While there are numerous reasons for salmon declines, including dams, livestock grazing, logging, and climate change, the promotion of hatchery production and the gill netting of wild salmon contribute to the loss of wild salmon populations.
Logging as seen here on the Quinault Indian Reservation on Olympic Peninsula is one of the other threats to wild salmon. Photo George Wuerthner
Most media have little understanding of salmon ecology and issues. If tribes promote hatcheries, the media usually reports it as a favorable policy.
Why would tribes who say they love salmon continue practices harming wild salmon? Again, follow the money. Tribes are permitted to sell fish they catch.
The pursuit of salmon restoration also gives tribal people more power and control over natural resources–which in many instances is favorable towards salmon recovery. However, as with the issue of hatchery production, tribal interests are not necessarily the same as the public interest or the interest of wildlife.
COLUMBIA RIVER-SNAKE RIVER DAMS
For decades, salmon activists have sought to remove four dams on the Snake River (a tributary of the Columbia) to open up spawning habitat in Idaho, including on the namesake Salmon River.
The Snake River in Hells Canyon. Photo George Wuerthner
Recently, the Columbia River tribes, including the Yakima, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs, agreed to accept a billion dollars from the federal government if they would rescind their lawsuit that advocates the removal of the Snake River Dams. Among other things, the money will be used by the tribes to improve hatchery production. Nothing in the agreement ensures the dams will be removed, and in the opinion of friends who have worked on salmon recovery for decades, this appears to be a buyout of tribal interests.
I have not been following the Snake River dams issue closely, but one friend who is a fishery biologist and has been a wild salmon advocate for decades and supports breaching the dams had this to say about the recent agreement.
“You should look into the latest announcement from the Biden administration about the Snake River dams. It has received a lot of press lately as a positive step but it’s mostly BS as far as I can tell. There is NO commitment to breaching the dams, only to spend a lot more on studying the issue and hundreds of millions on hatcheries. A previous agreement in Sept. already gave hundreds of millions to Columbia River tribes to build hatcheries. As you would expect, the tribes are vocal in their support of all of this.”
Another salmon advocate had this to say about the Biden and tribe agreement: “The Biden Administration totally screwed up. Instead of using executive authority to breach the dams they punted the issue to Congress. Congress will never authorize the breaching, certainly not in time to save the fish and orcas. The Tribes got bought off, as did many of the NGOs.”
ELWHA DAM REMOVAL
The Elwha River after dam removal. Photo George Wuerthner
When the federal government removed two dams from the Elwha River in Olympic NP, the National Park Service advocated for natural salmon recovery. The NPS felt there was still enough wild salmon stock in the lower river to ensure wild fish recovery beyond the broached dams. However, the Elwha tribe opposed this part of the plan and insisted on building a hatchery at the mouth of the river (with taxpayer money, of course).
KLAMATH RIVER DAMS AND TRIBES
Rafters on the Klamath River, California. Photo George Wuerthner
There has been an effort to remove four dams on the Klamath River in northern California. The dams harm salmon in numerous ways, including blocking access to upstream spawning habitat. The removal of the dams has begun.
Most media reporting on salmon and tribes emphasize the cultural connection, rarely mentioning the commercial reason for promoting salmon recovery. The general narrative of most media reporting is on how important salmon are to tribal culture but fails to mention how tribal cultural interests can threaten wild salmon recovery.
As with salmon in other parts of the West, commercial salmon catch also harms wild salmon since most salmon are taken with indiscriminate gill nets. Wild salmon are caught along with hatchery salmon. Since most tribes commercially fish for salmon, they are incentivized to increase overall salmon production with hatcheries, compromising the wild salmon stock.
Yet many tribes along the Klamath, such as the Yurok Tribe, sell wild salmon. Given how rare the salmon are, taking any endangered species, especially for commercial use, would seem counterproductive if you call salmon “sacred.”
In particular, coho salmon in the Klamath River are barely hanging. Salmon advocates (which is distinctively different from tribal advocates) believe a total moratorium on all fishing is the best way to bring about wild salmon recovery. However, as a generalization, the tribes oppose such a policy.
NORTH UMPQUA
The North Umpqua is a stonghold for wild steelhead, however continued hatchery production championed by tribal interests is a threat to the wild fish. Photo George Wuerthner
The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Coquille Indian Tribe, and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde all opposed the closure of a hatchery on the North Umpqua River by the Oregon Fish and Game Commission. The commission sees hatchery fish as competitors with wild fish for spawning habitat.
FISH FARMING IN SKAGIT BAY
Tribal fish farms in Skagit Bay threaten wild salmon. Photo George Wuerthner
The Jamestown S’Kallam Tribe has agreed to develop fish farming in Skagit Bay, Washington. Fish farming is notorious for its environmental harm, including dumping vast amounts of feces and antibiotics in affected waterways.
SUMMARY
The above examples demonstrate that promoting tribal cultural values doesn’t necessarily lead to ecological values. While tribes are not monthetic and there is great diversity of viewpoints regarding environmental issues, many tribes will go for the gold ($$$) if there is an opportunity to reap financial rewards. Certainly one could argue that hatcheries are only one of many threats to wild salmon. But hatcheries are also one of the easist threats to eliminate. Yet any criticism of tribes is considered racism. The WOKE left, which includes most conservation groups these days, are unwilling to criticize tribal policies that harm wildlands or wildlife, to the detriment of things wild and free. The issue of tribal hatchery production and its impacts on wild salmon is a good example of this problem.
George, thank you for the elucidation of the wild salmon vs the destructive hatchery salmon. The inclination of some tribal members to opt for financially profitable hatchery construction is similar to some people’s thinking about tribal management of the last few wild bison (hunting them) when those with the healthier wild genome are so precious few in number. Scientifically, the wild animal: fish or bison has to preserved, and hopefully, expanded to preserve the species.
That some tribes opt for government buyouts to retain the dams, works against preserving the wild salmon.
Thank you, George, for bringing the threat to the wild salmon to light. I hope that enough native Americans understand that “wildness” will disappear when hatchery fish breed with what is left of wild salmon. Native Americans can like the dollar more than having an enduring future for wild salmon. I believe that, here, science and selflessness must govern.
Larry Drummond