The Science of Salmon Recovery in the Columbia River Basin

Fish Hatcheries as a Cure All

In 1876, Hume built the first salmon hatchery in the Northwest. He subsequently became a "leader among the first generation of hatchery operators," owning and operating several hatcheries in the Columbia Basin (Cone and Ridlington 1996). Hume "trusted blindly in the ability of artificial propagation to reverse the adverse impacts of people on salmon" (Cone and Ridlington 1996).

Many other cannery operators and commercial fishermen also supported hatcheries. Hundreds of commercial fishery and cannery representatives signed a public letter of protest in the January 22^nd, 1877 Portland Oregonian newspaper, stating that "the establishment of hatcheries is the only protection we want for the future prosperity of this important business…" (quoted in University of Oregon web page 1997).

Cannery operators and fishing industry representatives were not alone in their support of hatcheries. Agents of the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries also endorsed the idea that hatcheries could provide a "quick fix" solution to the problem of declining salmon. In 1872, Congress appropriated $15,000 "to produce and artificially propagate shad, salmon, and other valuable food fish throughout the country" (Cone 1995).

The strongest supporter of hatcheries within the Commission was Livingstone Stone, founder of the American Fish Culturists’ Association and the American Fisheries Society. During the mid-1890s, when declining salmon returns and arguments over the price paid for salmon led to violent fights between fisherman and cannery operators, Stone was instrumental in developing and operating dozens of hatcheries in Oregon and Washington on tributaries of the Columbia River. He was committed to the false belief that "nothing more need be done to restore dwindling salmon stocks than plant streams each year with millions of artificially reared fish" (Cone 1995).

This support of hatchery production came at a time when there was a very incomplete and inadequate understanding of the life histories and the developmental and ecological requirements of salmon. Even Livingston Stone, who was regarded as the foremost expert in hatchery design and operation, lacked much basic knowledge of salmon. For example, he did not even understand that salmon of a particular species or population return to the river from which they hatched; rather, he believed that salmon randomly chose streams for spawning purposes (Cone and Ridlington 1996).

In retrospect, the prevailing attitude was clearly that hatcheries would provide a nearly magical cure by artificially producing a nearly limitless number of smolts (juvenile salmon) for release into the rivers. Unfortunately, this optimism was not grounded on anything approaching a sound, scientific understanding of the many complex biological and ecological issues involved. This inadequate understanding of salmon life-history requirements and of the requirements for artificially producing and distributing salmon as well as poor record keeping and management led to poor returns of hatchery fish (Cone 1995). As a result, many of the hatcheries built during this time were closed by the 1930s (Cone and Ridlington 1996).

So why didn’t the belief in hatcheries as the miracle cure for declining fish runs die out then? The belief persisted because the 1930s and 1940s also brought the next wave of economic and population growth in the Pacific Northwest. With this growth came an intensification of all of the destructive impacts on salmon. The need for a "quick fix" for declining fish runs became greater than ever. Growth and development brought increased destruction of habitat through logging and road building, increased urban and industrial pollution, increased water use for irrigation, and, most importantly, the completion of the first huge hydroelectric dams on the mainstem of the Columbia River. Bonneville Dam in 1938 and Grand Coulee Dam in 1941 blocked thousands of miles of historic spawning habitat (Stickney 1994).