More Bush Environmentalism

[Perknose]

Excerpts from long article on free sub site:

"Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry."


The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have charged.

As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs . . .

"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

When the panel of outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous ? as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."



Anyone who fishes knows that hatchery raised fish are idiots ill suited to their surroundings. They have learned NOTHING in their gulag upbringing and are easily distinguished from their naturally raised brethern by their mass stupidity.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Excerpts from long article on free sub site:

"Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry."


The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have charged.

As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs . . .

"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

When the panel of outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous ? as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."



Anyone who fishes knows that hatchery raised fish are idiots ill suited to their surroundings. They have learned NOTHING in their gulag upbringing and are easily distinguished from their naturally raised brethern by their mass stupidity.

ON the other hand samon runs have been running at record levels. It seems the samon population is growing....

 

[illustri]

I didn't even know salmon were protected, theres so many in the seafood section at my supermarket

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
I didn't even know salmon were protected, theres so many in the seafood section at my supermarket

Yes they are protected from overfishing(and that is a good thing). Commercial samon farming has really taken off because of demand for samon.

 

[illustri]

So the salmon I buy are the genetically inferior farmed variety? Wonder how that translates to in taste... come to think of it I've had some freshly caught alaskans I thought was plumper and juicier than normal.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
So the salmon I buy are the genetically inferior farmed variety? Wonder how that translates to in taste... come to think of it I've had some freshly caught alaskans I thought was plumper and juicier than normal.

I dont think the genetically inferior, but farm raised samon does have a different diet. Wild samon is pinker in color than farm raised samon.

 

[illustri]

so what it comes down to is the need for a sated palette from eating that pink, wild salmon verses the need for the wood to smoke that sucker with

not an easy balance

But I suppose the real concern is that depleting salmon populations might adversely affect not only their niche but the greater ecosystems surrounding the organisms -- even the very forest sustaining the lumber industry.

but lumber has too many practical uses NOT to cut the trees, tough decisions

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
so what it comes down to is the need for a sated palette from eating that pink, wild salmon verses the need for the wood to smoke that sucker with

not an easy balance

But I suppose the real concern is that depleting salmon populations might adversely affect not only their niche but the greater ecosystems surrounding the organisms -- even the very forest sustaining the lumber industry.

but lumber has too many practical uses NOT to cut the trees, tough decisions

And with careful management we can enjoy these resources for a very long time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Farmed salmon are died pink. The flesh is otherwise gray.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: charrison

And with careful management we can enjoy these resources for a very long time.

wholeheartedly agree,

but the Times article seems to indicate a conflict within that management, that industry concerns are more represented than environmental, now not knowing enough of either arguements I don't presume to express a valid opinion, but my suspicions at least from the brevity of this post is that Mr. Rutzick has been more permissive to timber demands because of his history... ah but cries of foul-play are common from opposing sides whenever their prerogatives are curtailed.

what do you guys think?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Perknose
Excerpts from long article on free sub site:

"Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry."


The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have charged.

As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs . . .

"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

When the panel of outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous ? as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."



Anyone who fishes knows that hatchery raised fish are idiots ill suited to their surroundings. They have learned NOTHING in their gulag upbringing and are easily distinguished from their naturally raised brethern by their mass stupidity.

ON the other hand samon runs have been running at record levels. It seems the samon population is growing....

...because of the restrictions that were in place that the Bush administration wants to eliminate.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: Perknose

The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.
...
When the panel of outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

What, the Bush Administration censoring and ignoring the conclusions of their own scientists?!? What a shocker! :Q:laugh:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Perknose
Excerpts from long article on free sub site:

"Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry."


The policy shift has caused a furor among some members of the scientific community and has touched off a fresh battle over what may be the nation's most powerful environmental law.

To most biologists, salmon that are born and raised in a cement tank are no replacement for wild fish, even if they share a common genetic makeup. The new approach, which was contained in a single-page draft, dated March 25 and leaked to reporters last month, ignores the findings of the Bush administration's own panel of outside scientific experts, as well as long-held views within the fisheries service.

These biologists say that including hatchery salmon in the calculation for when a fish can be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act is akin to counting animals in a zoo. By this reasoning, river or forest habitats of a rare species will never be protected, so long as the animal can be reproduced by artificial means.

"This is a direct political decision, made by political people to go against the science," said Dr. Ransom A. Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, who was on the six-member panel named by the fisheries service to guide salmon policy. The panel's recommendations were rejected for a policy more favorable to industry groups fighting land restrictions, Dr. Myers and other panel members have charged.

As a lawyer for the timber industry, Mr. Rutzick wrote a memorandum in November 2001 praising the use of hatchery fish to restore overall salmon runs . . .

"Experts think this will bring the runs back sooner and in greater numbers," he wrote. Asked to comment on Mr. Rutzick's statement about the use of artificially created fish as a way to quickly restore salmon runs, Dr. Myers said, "No credible scientist believes this."

When the panel of outside experts reported their findings, they were censored, they said. They went public and had their conclusions published in the journal Science.

"We should not open the legal door to maintaining salmon only in hatcheries," the panel's chairman, Dr. Robert Paine, an ecologist at the University of Washington, said in a statement in late March. "The science is clear and unambiguous ? as they are currently operated, hatcheries and hatchery fish cannot protect wild stocks."

"The Endangered Species Act doesn't say: protect museum pieces in a zoo," said Chris Wood, vice president for conservation at Trout Unlimited. "Hatchery fish are genetically inferior to wild fish. Find me the peer review paper that says otherwise."



Anyone who fishes knows that hatchery raised fish are idiots ill suited to their surroundings. They have learned NOTHING in their gulag upbringing and are easily distinguished from their naturally raised brethern by their mass stupidity.

ON the other hand samon runs have been running at record levels. It seems the samon population is growing....

...because of the restrictions that were in place that the Bush administration wants to eliminate.

Because it does not make alot of sense to not count the fish that comes from hatcheries....

Samon runs have been quite good...

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: charrison

Because it does not make alot of sense to not count the fish that comes from hatcheries....

Yes it does because salmon from hatcheries are inferior.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/46319_salmon12.shtml">Do hatchery salmon help or harm the wild ones?
</a>

Genetic variability has allowed salmon to survive thousands of years in streams as varied as the steep, cold creeks of the rain-drenched Olympic Peninsula and the slow-moving, warmer waters where the Snake River creeps through arid high desert -- all the while hustling to survive through droughts, floods, stream-altering volcanoes and earthquakes, and in an ocean whose hospitality regularly surges and swoons.

Fish born outside a hatchery are genetically programmed to spread their risk.

For example, some lay their eggs in the well-washed gravel of those cool Olympic streams, where they are very likely to survive and hatch. Others nest in the beds of lower-level, warmer streams where they are more likely to be smothered by dirt. However, suppose a drought comes along. The fish in the lower river are most likely to have water throughout the summer. The upper mountain streams might run dry. Later, descendants of the survivors can climb high and recolonize the upper reaches.

Consider also the timing of the salmon's return from the sea to reproduce. Wild fish usually come back over a period of several months, meaning at least some will probably avoid whatever disaster nature throws their way in any given year.

Traditional hatchery management has often destroyed such variability. Fish are purposely hatched together, released together, and they return at roughly the same time. The problem? One example is that birds congregate where millions of young salmon are freed each year. It's an easy meal. Naturally spawned fish happening by get eaten, too.

Hatcheries are notorious for taking fish adapted to one stream and hatching their progeny in another, meaning they may return to spawn, for example, when that particular stream is a raging flood and inhospitable to safe egg laying.

Meanwhile, hatchery fish compete with and overwhelm wild fish. Because they are typically released before wild fish hatch, hatchery fish early in life are larger -- so they gain an advantage competing for living space and food.

Also, the sheer number of hatchery fish allows fishing seasons to go on when they otherwise would be shut down for lack of fish -- yet some fish from struggling wild runs get caught, too. And diseases caused by hatchery conditions can be transmitted to wild fish.

Fish biologist Jim Lichatowich decries hatcheries' "herds of salmon."

"Unlike the salmon raised in a hatchery environment, with its feedlot regime, the salmon in a natural population in a healthy river do not all do the same thing in the same place at the same time," Lichatowich points out in his 1999 book "Salmon Without Rivers."

Even though the fish are not always distinguishable in genetic tests, there are definite behavioral differences stemming from the hatchery experience, critics note.

"Hatcheries and the wild stream have only two things in common -- daylight, and water," said Patrick Hulett, a researcher with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: illustri

but lumber has too many practical uses NOT to cut the trees, tough decisions

good forest management/tree farming can allow us to enjoy the benefits of lumber without drastic environmental consequences.

Originally posted by: charrison

Because it does not make alot of sense to not count the fish that comes from hatcheries....

Samon runs have been quite good...

I used to think that too, but after I took a fisheries class I realized that farmed salmon are NOT the same as wild salmon. The thing with salmon is that REALLY TINY genetic differences make a pretty big difference. And constant competition is necessary to make sure the best fish wins, much more so that with most animals.

If you flood the rivers with farmed salmon, they "win" by sheer numbers: Even though they are less genetically fit, they can lose half their numbers and still outnumber (therefore outbreeding) the wild salmon.

And hatcheries traditionally take all their eggs from just a few individual fish, which is very bad for genetic diversity.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: charrison

Because it does not make alot of sense to not count the fish that comes from hatcheries....

Yes it does because salmon from hatcheries are inferior.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/46319_salmon12.shtml">Do hatchery salmon help or harm the wild ones?
</a>

Genetic variability has allowed salmon to survive thousands of years in streams as varied as the steep, cold creeks of the rain-drenched Olympic Peninsula and the slow-moving, warmer waters where the Snake River creeps through arid high desert -- all the while hustling to survive through droughts, floods, stream-altering volcanoes and earthquakes, and in an ocean whose hospitality regularly surges and swoons.

Fish born outside a hatchery are genetically programmed to spread their risk.

For example, some lay their eggs in the well-washed gravel of those cool Olympic streams, where they are very likely to survive and hatch. Others nest in the beds of lower-level, warmer streams where they are more likely to be smothered by dirt. However, suppose a drought comes along. The fish in the lower river are most likely to have water throughout the summer. The upper mountain streams might run dry. Later, descendants of the survivors can climb high and recolonize the upper reaches.

Consider also the timing of the salmon's return from the sea to reproduce. Wild fish usually come back over a period of several months, meaning at least some will probably avoid whatever disaster nature throws their way in any given year.

Traditional hatchery management has often destroyed such variability. Fish are purposely hatched together, released together, and they return at roughly the same time. The problem? One example is that birds congregate where millions of young salmon are freed each year. It's an easy meal. Naturally spawned fish happening by get eaten, too.

Hatcheries are notorious for taking fish adapted to one stream and hatching their progeny in another, meaning they may return to spawn, for example, when that particular stream is a raging flood and inhospitable to safe egg laying.

Meanwhile, hatchery fish compete with and overwhelm wild fish. Because they are typically released before wild fish hatch, hatchery fish early in life are larger -- so they gain an advantage competing for living space and food.

Also, the sheer number of hatchery fish allows fishing seasons to go on when they otherwise would be shut down for lack of fish -- yet some fish from struggling wild runs get caught, too. And diseases caused by hatchery conditions can be transmitted to wild fish.

Fish biologist Jim Lichatowich decries hatcheries' "herds of salmon."

"Unlike the salmon raised in a hatchery environment, with its feedlot regime, the salmon in a natural population in a healthy river do not all do the same thing in the same place at the same time," Lichatowich points out in his 1999 book "Salmon Without Rivers."

Even though the fish are not always distinguishable in genetic tests, there are definite behavioral differences stemming from the hatchery experience, critics note.

"Hatcheries and the wild stream have only two things in common -- daylight, and water," said Patrick Hulett, a researcher with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Then the answer is simple according this article. Just stop fishing.

The only samon that should to go to market is that samon which is farmed. This appears to be the thesis of the article anyway.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: illustri

but lumber has too many practical uses NOT to cut the trees, tough decisions

good forest management/tree farming can allow us to enjoy the benefits of lumber without drastic environmental consequences.

Originally posted by: charrison

Because it does not make alot of sense to not count the fish that comes from hatcheries....

Samon runs have been quite good...

I used to think that too, but after I took a fisheries class I realized that farmed salmon are NOT the same as wild salmon. The thing with salmon is that REALLY TINY genetic differences make a pretty big difference. And constant competition is necessary to make sure the best fish wins, much more so that with most animals.

If you flood the rivers with farmed salmon, they "win" by sheer numbers: Even though they are less genetically fit, they can lose half their numbers and still outnumber (therefore outbreeding) the wild salmon.

And hatcheries traditionally take all their eggs from just a few individual fish, which is very bad for genetic diversity.

If they are not surviving in the wild like the article suggests, they are not winning by sheer numbers. And fi they do survive, are they not as fit as wild samon?

 

[illustri]

i believe the point made here is that farmed salmon "survive" because they are artificially bred rather than result from selective pressures

and followingly these "inferior" salmon would not survive many generations left alone in the wild

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
i believe the point made here is that farmed salmon "survive" because they are artificially bred rather than result from selective pressures

and followingly these "inferior" salmon would not survive many generations left alone in the wild

It appears they come from natural breed stock, so they are genetically the same as wild fish. However it sounds like there issues on how they are released which causes survivability problems.


Like I said, the solution is simple, no Samon fishing.

 

[illustri]

hey hey now, i really LIKED that fresh caught alaskan salmon

you're missing the point about the breed, worry is that the artificially chosen natural stock for the farms may not have been best fit to survive FURTHER generations, that they are better adapted to the farms rather than their "natural" environments

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
hey hey now, i really LIKED that fresh caught alaskan salmon

Well, there are few million other people that like the same......

Maybe we put limits on fishing and keep samon at $100/lb ?

 

[illustri]

sorry, probably should've posted again rather than editing

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
hey hey now, i really LIKED that fresh caught alaskan salmon

you're missing the point about the breed, worry is that the artificially chosen natural stock for the farms may not have been best fit to survive FURTHER generations, that they are better adapted to the farms rather than their "natural" environments

The question is, how is stock taken from the wild, going to be more suited toward living in tanks?

 

[illustri]

so there are selective pressure in the wild right, salmon that survive to mate in their environment must have been well adapted and will continue passing on their genes (carrying the adaptations on to future generations)

now I'm no expert on the science of fish farming, but I can venture to say the same principles apply: the fisheries take a BUNCH of wild salmon, keep them in tanks and let them breed. Now it is not a stretch to say some salmon will die in the fisheries, one might even argue some aspects of their genetic variety allowed them to survive the new conditions of the farms better than their friend who die. So these surviving salmon breed, and breed and breed and their traits are passed on to offspring. These resultant generations share the genes of the fish who survived the ARTIFICIAL environment of the fisheries.

Now, will those same fish survive in a NATURAL environment? thats the question, and the concern

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illustri
so there are selective pressure in the wild right, salmon that survive to mate in their environment must have been well adapted and will continue passing on their genes (carrying the adaptations on to future generations)

now I'm no expert on the science of fish farming, but I can venture to say the same principles apply: the fisheries take a BUNCH of wild salmon,
and these fish have survived to breeding age

keep them in tanks and let them breed. Now it is not a stretch to say some salmon will die in the fisheries, one might even argue some aspects of their genetic variety allowed them to survive the new conditions of the farms better than their friend who die.

There will be result of fish that are alike as a result from hatcheries, but they would still be children of fish who survived in the wild till breeding age

So these surviving salmon breed, and breed and breed and their traits are passed on to offspring. These resultant generations share the genes of the fish who survived the ARTIFICIAL environment of the fisheries.


At which point do they pick traits for surviving in a fish tank?


Now, will those same fish survive in a NATURAL environment? thats the question, and the concern

Assuming the parents survived in the wild till breeding age, I just dont see where there is a problem.