[pct-l] Golden Trout purity

[jeffmoorehead1 at cox.net (Jeff Moorehead)]

Ilja,
OK we can let the fishing style thing rest-- sorry if I sounded offensive
there. The point is that I am definitely NOT a trout snob-- I've met them
and don't like everything I see and I don't put myself in that category.
That is perhaps what was behind my reaction. I agree that setting up a fly
rig can take a long time and there is a certain frustration in getting the
damn thing snagged all the time and losing flies, etc. Yet, we continue to
do it. It might be akin to the physical pain encountered when hiking long
distances-- it definitely is going to happen... but we continue to do it :)
 You bring up an important point--- if the fish is an 'impure' hybrid, do we
release it or kill it? Hard to answer and it outlines the serious challenges
in conservation that face both scientists and policy makers. With regard to
likely future policy, I don't think your rephrased question is the right
one. I think that what will happen with this study is to identify the
habitat (not necessarily the individuals or even the populations) and
declare that off limits to fishing of any kind (especially if the Golden
trout is declared rare and endangered). In such a case, scientific, DNA
sampling will determine which populations meet the genetic criterion (I
guess this has yet to be established). And once this is done, conservation
efforts will focus against the physical and biotic threats to disrupting the
'genetically pure' populations. This might involve poisoning streams to
clear out invasives-- which I suppose could also include hybrids below a
certain genetic proportion. Barriers might prevent later invasions (although
this has not been successful in the past).  It is also possible that anglers
could be taught how to recognize this genetic minimum by the appearance of
the fish although this is problematic, too (poratble DNA meters have yet to
be invented but I will be the first on my block to get one when they are!).
Whether this makes good sense in the long run is a point worthy of debate.
 A species is really a time-space genetic continuum of evolution and not an
unchanging entity. There is a section of the South Fork (about a 10 mile
detour off the PCT) where Golden Trout Creek was redirected into the North
Fork canyon about 8,000 years ago by a lava flow (the geologically recent
nature of this allows a spectacular cascade into the N Fork--see 'Volcanic
Falls' on the map).  The S Fork and GT Creek make a disconnected  'X' on the
map. If you catch Goldens in the headwater S Fork, they look different than
the GTC varieties. This is true today even though at one time water was
redirected from GT Creek into the S Fork via a human-constructed tunnel
which eventually collapsed (see 'Tunnel Meadow' on the map). I take my
students there every Memorial Day and we use catch-and-release fly fishing
and digital photography to illustrate the visible effect of 8000 years of
(semi) genetic isolation. So, should we declare each of these as rare and
endangered subsepecies? The current definition of species (used by lawmakers
in regards to the ESA) concerns both past and future evolutionary directions
of individual populations (not just morphologically distinct types). The
debate goes on and on....
 At any rate, I am rambling. But the whole point is that in this case it is
very difficult to establish something as a separate species in need of
protection. This is not always the case, (i.e. California condor-- a clear
cut recognition of species).

OK-- well, I'll throw them back for now...
 Jeff




> Hi Jeff,
>
> > I really intended the post to be for people who enjoy the art of
> > presenting a fly to a fish as naturally as possible, playing the fish,
> > and then releasing it. That is fly-fishing.
>
> I missunderstood you. I understand that fly-casting is fun. I tried it
> myself and as long as there is no wind and no brushes it has a nice rhytm.
> But in the field fly casting failed miserably on me. There are always
> trees to snag on, setup and breakdown of equipment is a pain (about 10
> minutes with a 7 piece rod) and in the middle of the trip I fell and broke
> the tip of my rod - for which I could not _purchase_ a replacement. For
> this reason I wrote my original email and pointed out, that for a fraction
> of the money and weight of your setup it is possible to land plenty of
> fish.
>
> > Currently there is a study being conducted out of UC Davis concerning
the
> > early genetic ranges of the Golden trout. The researchers may press our
> > congress to lable these varieties as rare and endangered following the
> > extensive DNA study being done.
>
> Let me rephrase: What you just caught looks like a golden trout. It most
> likely isn't to our definition. (It's a hybrid.) But because you don't
> have a portable DNA testing kit in your backpack - release it!
>
> In any case, I am interested in any new developments. I just did a quick
> search for the UC Davis results. What they say is that most goldens are
> hybridized. What has been done in the past (and I guess might be done in
> the future) is to remove/kill all genetically impure fish, build more
> barriers downstream and restock them with "perfect" goldens. Am I wrong?
>
>
> Ilja.
>