Fisheries "Science"

[stillyfisher]

Bodo, genes are made up of DNA...

[Bodofish]

Yes you're right I am getting my bits mixed. Regardless, a Steelhead or a red band or a Kamloops are all just RBT's. The DNA is the same. I'm going to ask for the last time. Prove me wrong, with empirical data. I'd love to see it. I think this or that doesn't count, nor does, "well it's easy to see.".

[primetime]

Yes you're right I am getting my bits mixed. Regardless, a Steelhead or a red band or a Kamloops are all just RBT's. The DNA is the same. I'm going to ask for the last time. Prove me wrong, with empirical data. I'd love to see it. I think this or that doesn't count, nor does, "well it's easy to see.".

I get that you you are saying they are all RBT's. But what are you wanting to see? In what way is this data supposed to be used? Or are you just saying they are all rainbows?

[Bodofish]

Yes you're right I am getting my bits mixed. Regardless, a Steelhead or a red band or a Kamloops are all just RBT's. The DNA is the same. I'm going to ask for the last time. Prove me wrong, with empirical data. I'd love to see it. I think this or that doesn't count, nor does, "well it's easy to see.".

I get that you you are saying they are all RBT's. But what are you wanting to see? In what way is this data supposed to be used? Or are you just saying they are all rainbows?

A number of the members keep trying to argue that steelhead, red bands, Kamloops and RBT's are genetically unique. And to go one step further, the fish from different river systems and hatchery stock are unique. They aren't. They're all RBT's and they've all been cross breeding since the beginning of time. And Kamloops.... well, if anyone really cares to know, rainbows are not native to Kamloops. They were stocked from the same hatchery stock that everyone else started with, those little buggers from Northern CA. They had very little competition and grew like crazy. End of story.
OK so how is this knowledge useful? Trying to stop hatchery from spawning with Nates is pointless, the gate has already been left open and one more step, all those Nates have been interbreeding with the resident rainbows since the beginning of time. So to connect the dots, the hatcheries aren't the problem and they aren't diluting the gene pool. The State wants to get out of the hatchery business and paid the WFC a huge grant to study the fish and find the hatcheries were the problem. OK the last part is speculation, but the dots aren't to far apart.

End of rant.

[primetime]

Bodo when you're the only one pleading your case maybe there is a chance you could be wrong?
Here is a good read on Steelhead and rainbows genetics.
http://m.g3journal.org/content/2/9/1113.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These articles aren't easy reads but I didn't see where it discredited BODO. It showed that steelhead grew more rapidly in the salt than rainbows (as well as other details). Can you reference and give examples of how you think this article discredits BODO but also what you think this article proves?

[Bodofish]

Bodo when you're the only one pleading your case maybe there is a chance you could be wrong?
Here is a good read on Steelhead and rainbows genetics.
http://m.g3journal.org/content/2/9/1113.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I'm the only one that's right. Facts are facts, opinon is irrelevant.

[stillyfisher]

Fun to argue, however if you look at the research done on different stocks of local fish there is plenty of evidence showing that steelhead from different systems are distinguished from one another by their DNA. The same is true of different salmon stocks as well. For example, the NF Stilly summer chinook are genetically similar to the Sauk river fish, because at one time the Sauk was a tributary of the Stilly system and not the Skagit, while the SF fish are from a different stock, this being determined from their DNA. Here is some evidence that fish are not just all cookie cutter clones that are all the same DNA:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score ... ockId=1081" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

an exerpt from the link: "Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Allozyme analysis has shown that North Fork Stillaguamish Chinook are genetically distinct from the South Fork stock (Marshall et al. 1995). North Fork Chinook more closely resemble Skagit basin Chinook stocks than do South Fork Chinook. About 11,000 years ago, the Sauk-Suiattle river system flowed into the North Fork until glacial erosion lowered the divide between the Skagit and Stillaguamish basins, and the Sauk-Suiattle became a tributary of the Skagit (Marshall et al. 1995)"

Here we see genetic differences observed within the same species of fish.

Deer Creek Steelhead:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score ... ockId=6105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Allozyme analysis of Deer Creek summer steelhead sampled in 1993, 1994 and 1995 clustered them with Nooksack winter steelhead, Finney Creek (Skagit basin) summer steelhead, Cascade steelhead and with winter steelhead in the Skokomish, Dosewallips and Dungeness rivers (Phelps et al. 1997)."

Nooksack Steelhead:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score ... ockId=6015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Genetic analysis (allozyme-based) indicated that North Fork and South Fork Nooksack River steelhead were
genetically distinct (Phelps et al 1997), although the South Fork samples may have included some summer-run fish. Preliminary microsatellite DNA analysis indicated that: 1) Nooksack River steelhead were distinct from Samish River winter-run steelhead, and 2) genetic differences among samples within the Nooksack River Basin did not suggest a high degree of differentiation (although sample sizes were relatively small)."

Pilchuck River:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score ... ockId=6121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Stock Genetic Analysis Description: Allozyme analysis of Pilchuck winter steelhead sampled in 1993 clustered them with Tolt, Skykomish and Snoqualmie steelhead and with South Sound steelhead from the Cedar, Green, White, and Puyallup rivers (Phelps et al. 1997). More recent genetic sampling indicated that there were significant differences between steelhead from the Pilchuck and other samples; however, the sample size was small (< 25) and no other Snohomish Basin samples were available."

I could go on... BTW the website that I linked to is a great wealth of information. Bodo, I don't want to say you are wrong, but you are partly... The science behind RBT are Steelhead and Steelhead are RBT is sound, BUT, that doesn't change the fact that different subpopulations exist within a species that have unique characteristics and traits... because... their DNA IS different... that isn't to say that in a given system the RBT and the steelhead may be literally brother and sister. However, the science is undeniable that their are genetic differences between populations of fish. If you would like more evidence, I would be happy to put more up.

[Bodofish]

I can certainly buy that. The key is supporting evidence. Not, "I know they're genetically different because I can see the difference.".
For the sake of the debate, as is stated in every study I offered up, the samples used for testing were isolated and crossbred to remove any anomalies, to find and study the particular marker that denotes smoltification. To argue it further there are always small differences, which is what makes us individuals. That's how a DNA sample can have someone incarcerated or freed having been accused of a heinous act.

" genetic differences among samples within the Nooksack River Basin did not suggest a high degree of differentiation (although sample sizes were relatively small)."

So I guess we're getting down to the grey line, how much genetic difference is allowed before they're declare a separate species? And who gets to do it. I failed to see anywhere in the supporting evidence where any of the studies was actually named and linked so one could readily access the data. (I am absolutely certain they are real and available somewhere) So, what is significant difference?


PS: Off to Camano for the weekend. Be back Wed.

Anyways a it's a pleasure to debate with someone who will support and argument with something besides opinion.
At this point I'm not willing to concede defeat as none of those runs have been declared a separate species or even a subspecies (by an official scientific board with the authority to do so). I will concede differences in the stock.
I still stand by my assertion that the gate has been left open and it's too late to go back and declare any native Steelhead near a hatchery a genetically distinct pool of fish in need of protection from hatchery stock.

Rock it!

[stillyfisher]

I don't think anybody was arguing that different runs of fish are different species... just that they are unique. Here is some sub-species commentary that is interesting and may sway your opinion, Bodo.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/washington/Species/1246/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to WDFW: "There are three subspecies of rainbow trout that occur in Washington, but only two are native; the coastal rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss irideus) and the Columbia Basin redband trout (O. mykiss gairdneri). The coastal rainbow trout occurs in western Washington and in the lower Columbia River. There is a unique form of the coastal rainbow trout that is only found in Crescent Lake and it is known as the Beardslee rainbow trout. All of the hatchery rainbow trout stocked into waters of the state of Washington are of coastal rainbow trout genetic origin. The Columbia Basin redband trout occurs in the Columbia River drainage from the Klickitat River upstream."

[fishinChristian]

Outlaw all the big nets, and things might change a bit.

[SkyRiverMan]

wow - Stilly - thanks for starting the topic - definitely got us all thinking.....

now my two cents.....
on the whole RBT vs Steelhead issue - all I can say is they are the same but different (how's that for taking a stance?)

as far as the fish population decline.....

it is pretty basic math that tells us if it it takes X number of pairs to make y amount of smolts, and after all the challenges these fish face over their lifetimes only Z make it back, then reducing the amount of fish(X) that successfully pair, will inevitably lead to a reduction in Y and Z as well. if you carry this to its logical conclusion, you are left with a river full of suckers and bullheads.....

The solution is to have more Z's comeback to spawn so they can turn into X's and make more Y's.... and how to do this?
Unfortunately, I didn't wake up with the answer this morning....

there are a whole lot of politics and money getting in the way of this process, and that's why we find our fisheries in such a sad state - everyone has to play together - the commercials, the tribes, and the fishermen need to [be willing - and herein lies the majority of the problem....greed/money] take less of the "public" catch ( I call it public because our -your's and mine- licensing money and taxes support these fisheries.) until the stocks can rebuild to self-sustaining levels then a more restrictive (For everyone) set of guidelines needs to be put in place to ensure no over-harvest. It may mean a moratorium from fishing or at least a reduction from current "allowed" retention for ALL players- (there is the whole issue of which idiots we let make the rules for us... and did we have a choice/input...- but that's a different topic)

Hatcheries are a way to cut years off this process by producing enough stock over a several year release cycle to bolster [what little remain of the] existing populations - of course this only works if the fish [can] come back to spawn. Where we (people in general) have screwed up the river[s] to the point that they are unusable as spawning grounds, or prevented passage to the spawning grounds (dams, etc) it may mean hatcheries play a long term role in survival of the species until those issues are rectified...(or until we screw that up too). [for clarity and argument sake i am not suggesting hatcheries produce better fish than those spawned in the wild!]

I am going to agree with fishingchristian - it is also my opinion (and I have been wrong once - ok twice maybe ) that nets - especially gill nets in rivers that grab every fish [of size]coming or going are doing the most damage to our fish runs.

Getting rid of nets and enforcing hook and line will allow selective harvesting (unlike today's "Everything dies" methodology - or the more atrocious netting of one species -ie pinks- in hopes of a substantial by catch of more valuable fish (steelhead/Chinook/Coho). Removing nets from the rivers where fish have NO CHANCE to swim around them will drastically improve survivability of the species. Rivers that do not have nets stretched from one bank to the other (ok, almost to the other)every year seem to be faring much better than those that are sifted with gill nets.

Us fisher folk could do more catch and release - do we all really need so many slots on our punch cards? Realistically though, (other than a few individuals that kill everything that hits the beach regardless), I don't think sport fishing has a very large impact on the overall populations of returning fish and it is good to see more catch and release going on.

Someone earlier pointed out the fish production facilities in Alaska where a hatchery releases into the ocean, then takes all the return as catch - leaving fish from public hatcheries to find their way upstream to their "Public" hatchery or "wild" fish to return to their place of birth - this has merit and provides a fish catch without disrupting the "public" stock. Facilities engaged in this business should be privately owned and funded as any other for-profit entity is..... not supported by the public dollar.

I better stop with the comments now or I'll end up on going down the "whose fish exactly are being caught with those nets stretched across the river" trail......

Sky

[stillyfisher]

So I know I am going to get tarred and feathered for putting a link to WFC's site on here, but this article is really interesting regarding the plight of our local chinook. This article makes the case that the bigger chinook are disappearing... which are the most successful spawners... because of the netting and ocean fisheries catching too many of the fish that remain longer in the salt. This is thought to be true of steelhead also, as bigger fish have become rarer, and very few fish make a second spawning trip. I know, I know, I know... WFC... please don't hate me - read the article and make your own conclusions.
http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pr ... ng-chinook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;