Heritage Trout Challenge

[Wildman]

Here's a link to the new guidelines for the CA Heritage Trout challenge:

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=137391&inline

[Papasequoia]

Thanks, Jim. Since I dragged my feet on logging mine that I finished this summer I guess I will have to read through all of this to see if anything changed. Well, I guess that's what rainy days are for!

[Ants]

The change I noted was that the Master Certificate can be submitted when 11 heritage fish are caught instead of 12. Currently, fishing is not allowed in the waters of the Paiute Cutthroat trout.

Ants

[DarkShadow]

So, I'm a bit confused.

I picked up Dr. Robert J. Behnke "Trout of North America" book (which comes highly recommend by the way, as Joseph Tomelleri is the illustrator) and in the section for the Kern River Rainbow, Behnke notices that the DNA taken from species today do not match DNA taken from flesh samples of fish that were captured in the Kern during the early 1900s. Furthermore, the physical characteristics (gill raker count, scale count) were different as well. In other words, the stocking of hatchery raised fish all throughout the drainage that occurred unabated for decades during the 1900s, has made what we see today a 'hybrid' of hatchery raised fish and their ancestor, the original KRR. And Behnke's recent specimens were taken all along the Kern, including the headwaters and tributaries.

So if the species today is a hybrid, how is it touted as a 'native' species, since hybridization, as Dr. Behnke puts it flatly, has removed all instances of pure KRRs from the native area and "the species no longer exists in it's pure form."

Then that gets me thinking about the other 'native' drainages. Hasn't stocks of hatchery raised fish also caused hybridization in those areas too? Unless the DFG was stocking fish with the exact lineage and DNA, as it the case with the Pauite?

[acorad]

Great question DA. I was just thinking that the headwaters of the tribs to the Kern must have essentially pure KKRs, as there are so many impediments (impassable waterfalls) that no stockers could possibly get up that far.

Then I realized that if that was so, then the non-stockers/KKRs couldn't get past them either, so I guess the only way troot got in those upper reaches is by being placed there by man? Which means they probably were stocked with stockers from the get-go?

Andy

[DarkShadow]

Great question DA. I was just thinking that the headwaters of the tribs to the Kern must have essentially pure KKRs, as there are so many impediments (impassable waterfalls) that no stockers could possibly get up that far.

Then I realized that if that was so, then the non-stockers/KKRs couldn't get past them either, so I guess the only way troot got in those upper reaches is by being placed there by man? Which means they probably were stocked with stockers from the get-go?

Andy

You wouldn't believe the amount of stocking that occurred via horse or mule to these headwaters during the 1900s. Obviously the DFG didn't quite understand the long term impact that the rampant stocks would have to these native species apparently and the fact that these stocks weren't documented very well also creates a big problem as to which sections received what. Add your local bucket biologist and you've created a big problem.

I read the document that was linked, and apparently a 'pure' stock of KRR has been found in one of the lakes that feeds into Big Arroyo, but news like this has been occurring for the past 20 years and once DNA sampling is done, they'll find the fish contain signs of hybridization. It would be awesome to know that a pure stock of KRRs exist in this day in age, but it's not like the DFG is going to treat the Kern like they did Silver Creek with the Paiute Cutties. Even though triploid fish are going into the Kern nowadays to prevent any type of inbreeding, even if the DFG manages to find this magical stock of pure KRRs, it would take eons for the lineage to get back to even being close to the same lineage the KRRs had in the turn of the 20th century.

And this is only the KRR.

I have NO idea whether stocking and hybridization has occurred with the other 'heritage' species listed.

[acorad]

Weren't there some trips into the hinterlands last summer to catch "pure" KKRs for use as broodstock in the Kern River Hatchery?

Andy

[DarkShadow]

Weren't there some trips into the hinterlands last summer to catch "pure" KKRs for use as broodstock in the Kern River Hatchery?

Andy

I'd love to get some links on the documentation, because I didn't hear anything about that.

And somehow, if there was a batch of KRRs that were genetically tested to be pure KRRs, I'm sure we would've heard about it. I'm hoping to get proven wrong.

[acorad]

Ya, my memory sucks, I think maybe this is where I got the idea, I wonder if anything further has happened with it besides just talk:

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.c ... ntID=66205

Andy

[DarkShadow]

Ya, my memory sucks, I think maybe this is where I got the idea, I wonder if anything further has happened with it besides just talk:

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.c ... ntID=66205

Andy

Yeah, I've emailed DFW in regards to this, and much like my other emails I send to them, it ends up in the recycling bin apparently.

Don't know how they promote the heritage challenge as catching 'native' fish when you're actually catching hybrids, and this is coming from their own words, not mine.

It's a dang shame I've lost my connections at UC Davis for DNA analysis on fin clippings, or else this "heritage" challenge would get really interesting in a minute.

[Ants]

Dark shadow,

Why are you so opposed to the Heritage Trout challenge? Do you have a special agenda or you simply like to urinate on someone else's parade?

Pure anything, on a genetic basis, always fails when it is carried far enough back in time. Of course, genetic testing wasn't available at that time. So, what is the big deal on your part?

If I worked for the DFW, I would provide one polite reply and ignore the rest of your rants.

Ants

[DarkShadow]

Of course, genetic testing wasn't available at that time.

You may have overlooked my response where I mentioned that samples from the real KRRs were taken in the 1900s and have been preserved. Yes, DNA sampling wasn't available at the time, but DNA analysis was done from those same samples that were taken at the turn of the century and analyzed with today's technology.

So yes, genetic testing wasn't available at that time, but it is available now, using samples from then. And yes, the testing showed hybridization. (Don't kill the messenger)

I'm also curious what you think 'my agenda' would be? Can you explain?

And speaking of urinate, I'm sure you wouldn't want someone urinating on your leg, and then trying to convince you you that it's raining.

Right?

Now, if the DFG would institute a program where they confirm that you can catch a fish where their ancestry once existed, but then they stocked their Fillmore specials, then sure. But don't tell me I'm catching a pure "KRR" when I'm really catching a hybrid. That kinda goes against the entire point of this "Challenge," and quite frankly, its a great way for the DFG to make sure we look the other way, while everyone overlooks the fact that the DFGs own stocking program has actually ruined the lineage of many of our 'native' trout around these parts. (Again, their words, not mine)

Of course, if you want to head to the East Fork and catch a stocker that was dumped 5 years ago, and call it a "Coastal Rainbow," then feel free.

[DarkShadow]

My bad for wondering why DFW pushes "heritage" fish when they themselves hybridized those same species with stocked fish.

Gonna go catch me some Coastal Rainbows on the East Fork tommorow.

A few more and I get my Certificate.

[Ants]

The Heritage Trout Challenge is not a scientific or research program. It is a social program to encourage anglers to sample the diversity of water and fish in CA.

To me, a good comparison would be if one visited ethnic neighborhoods in LA. If you visited an Asian restaurant, would it be important if the cook was born in the country. Not to me.

The early fishery biologists used visual characteristics in their earliest studies. Genetic testing will surely show some limitations in the earlier methods. The history of DFW has been to manage the fishery resources, not to preserve generic purity (however someone cares to define that).

Going fishing is a lot more fun than debating prior actions. I only got out once in the last few months. If it were often, I would spend less time posting.

Ants

[Packer]

If my memory serves me right, UC Davis studies found some tribs with KKR's at 97% pure.
Thanks, Tim