How “wild” are hatchery salmon? Conservation policy and the contested framing of nature in Canada and the United States

Abstract

The idea of the Anthropocene presents a paradox for conservation: to restore and protect wild species and ecosystems, greater human intervention is required through efforts such as artificial propagation. This paradox is evident in efforts to conserve Pacific salmon. Salmon hatcheries produce millions of salmon to augment wild populations and sustain fishing industries, but emerging knowledge about salmon genomics has called into question the “wildness” of hatchery salmon. This article examines how the scientific uncertainties regarding wild species are contested by a range of stakeholders and how particular frames become concretized in policy frameworks. Despite the significance of laws and policies to the governance of such hybrid species, they have received limited attention. Drawing on archival documents, legislation, policies, government reports, and media sources, we conduct a cross-national comparative analysis of how wildness is framed in policy debates in Canada and the United States. We find that hatchery-born salmon occupy a position at the threshold of scientific and cultural definitions of wildness and this ambiguity facilitates political contests among groups with divergent interests in conservation and views of the human–nature relationship. As a result, hatchery salmon have been regulated differently across time and geographic and jurisdictional space. These findings contribute to an expanding literature on conservation in the Anthropocene and managing wild species.

A commentary on the role of hatcheries and stocking programs in salmon conservation and adapting ourselves to less‐than‐wild futures

“…behaviour and appearance) to technically-driven definitions (i.e. fish multiple generations removed from hatchery-origin relatives) (Berseth & Matthews, 2021;Harrison et al, 2019). In response, jurisdictions across the salmon stocking world are responding by (broadly):…”

“…behaviour and appearance) to technically‐driven definitions (i.e. fish multiple generations removed from hatchery‐origin relatives) (Berseth & Matthews, 2021; Harrison et al., 2019). In response, jurisdictions across the salmon stocking world are responding by (broadly): Reforming hatchery and genetic management plans to minimize the genetic risks by prioritizing and monitoring genetic diversity within stocked systems, though budgetary constraints remain a challenge (Mobrand et al., 2004; see example: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017, p. 10 Indicator 14(f)). Pursuing the production of more ‘wild‐type’ salmon through approaches such as captive habitat enrichment and hatchery reform. Curtailing or eliminating conservation stocking programs all together. …”

“…In practice, some policies draw this line according to lineage, where wildness is a function of generational distance from hatchery origin (Berseth & Matthews, 2021; Irvine, 2009) with the goal of maintaining of effective population size. In the United States, for example, offspring of hatchery‐born parents can be considered natural origin fish as long as they were born from parents that spawned ‘in the wild’ (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2018).…”

“…Similarly, while we may attempt to define wildness through genetics, this does not translate across multi‐national policy regimes where definitions of wildness are shaped by interactions between scientific, social and cultural processes. As a result, wildness varies across borders and over time where a ‘wild’ salmon on one side of a border loses that status the moment it crosses an invisible, political boundary (Berseth & Matthews, 2021). While salmon are able to traverse the cultural and social relations between nations and states, it would seem our definitions of their appropriateness struggle to do the same.…”

Big Catch, Undecided Risks: Perspectives of Risk, Reward, and Trade‐Offs in Alaska's Salmon Enhancement Program

“…Previous research on the social aspects of hatcheries and stocking within the Alaskan context has often focused on economic aspects, such as the value of hatchery-reared fish to the Alaskan economy (Boyce et al 1993;Herrmann 1993;Pinkerton 1994). However, research elsewhere has found that social and cultural values and attitudes toward fish can be facilitated through hatchery programs (Harrison et al 2018) and that perceptions of the "wildness" or "artificiality" of salmon can be derived from paradoxes of policy (Berseth and Matthews 2020), relationships with food (Takahashi 2014), and technological approaches to conservation (see Meffe 1992;Maynard and Trial 2014). Currently, there is limited research exploring the human and policy dimensions of Alaska's salmon enhancement program (but see Eller 2018;Gould 2019;Crittenden 2021) or whether the program meets its stated objectives (Jahn 2020).…”