keepers?

[Dean]

Just curious. Do you guys keep any of the steelies that you bring in?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for catch-and-release. But, I do like to eat fish now and again.

[David Lee]

Hi Dean , I never keep anything , but would have NO problem whacking a small (under 5 lb.) Steelie if it was clipped . Only problem is I couldn't catch it again ...... D.J.L.

[Dean]

Thanks for the reply, David. It would appear that you are one of many conscientious fisherman. In my very limited experience, I have yet to see a *fly* fisherman keep a steelhead! I'm new to the Sac area and trying to get started in fly fishing. I was afraid of looking like a poacher if I drag one of those hatchery fish outta of the river :lol:

[Gregg]

After seeing gearheads drag steelies out of the water with a double treble hook, then jamming a rope into its gills, I just couldn't bring myself to keep anything. I think if the fish population was substantial then I might feel better about keeping a fish or two, but I'm not sure if the present population is large enough yet. Also, I know mercury levels are an issue with many valley fish but is it also a problem with steelhead? What a great day it would be if we could keep some healthy fish without risking future populations...

[Darian]

Hello everyone,..... I like to eat fish of any sort but believe that native stocks should get as much help as possible until they're re-established. I release most of the anadromous fish I catch. However, catch/release is a personal choice where not mandated.

Now, having said that, I'm not overly offended by "gearheads" as most of them I've observed fish legally and do not exceed limits on Hatchery fish. I certainly would keep a hatchery bred fish caught from tidewater but not in the valley. This is due to personal taste in eating not conservation.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Hi Dean,

I would let one of my grandkids 'wack' a fresh looking little hatchery fish and then take it home and eat it fresh.

No freezing please.

It would be great if everyone would let those wild beauties go.

[Covelo]

The toxins of concern in the Valley rivers are mainly an issue with resident fish. Migrating fish like steelhead and salmon do not typically spend enough time in the rivers to build up levels to where they are a risk.

Most game agency personnel that I have spoken with have actually encouraged the take of hatchery fish. Most do not want the excess hatchery fish interbreeding with the wild stock.

Lastly, I have a slightly different take on "wild" fish in some of the valley rivers -- American, Feather, Yuba. First, all these streams are dammed and the native spawning grounds are no longer accessible. These "wild" steelhead are spawning in sections of these rivers where they never did historically. Second, I believe some of the stocks are not pure and may even be mostly non-native. Aren't the American River fish actually of Eel River origin? While I am definitely in favor of preserving wild stocks, I think we need to be careful about how we define wild as it seems to have been bastardized as we have allowed our expectations to be set lower and lower.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I think you are very close to 'right on' here Covelo.

I think they have tried many different stains of Steelhead when they had some budget for it in the '60s and '70s.

I know they put a Washougal River summer-run strain in the American River back then.

People say the 'halfpounders' might actually be the orginal native steelhead run in the river.

[Darian]

Hello Covelo,..... I'm wondering if your interpretation of what is a natural spawning fish isn't a little too narrow?? :? It seems to me that any fish spawning in a watery environment is natural, regardless of location, and may be indicative of natural adaption/selectivity.

If I understand/accept your point about fish spawning below dams as bad because they didn't spawn there before the dam was built, then I would be forced to adopt that same approach to all tailwater environments. Thus, I would be forced to look upon the lower Sacramento and the Klamath below dams on each river, as a potential for removal because they're non-native.....

In my estimation, your point is unrealistic and may be inaccurate. Applied to any species, that position would deny diversity thru hybridization and/or adaption. under your position, Steelhead that migrated up the Toutle river in Washington before the eruption of Mt. st. Helens would be viewed as native but not afterwards as they migrated up an alternative river to spawn after the Toutle was virtually destroyed by the eruption. Would any biologist believe that these fish were not entitled to adapt to a new environment until their original was available to them again??? And, would other biological entities that occupy that river in the meantime thru adaption/opportunity be, somehow, non-native??? :?:

What about fish that're stocked behind impoundments (warm and/or cold water species) and "carry-over" thru spawning either in the lake or tributaries thereto for many generations??? Under your definition of not spawning where they traditionally spawned these fish might not be of value.... :?: :?:

Please accept my apology for sounding as tho I'm lecturing but I'm really trying to make the point that adaption/change/diversity is natural in nature. To remain static is to invite disaster thru possible extinction..... 8)

[Covelo]

I agree that the smaller fish in the American are most likely native considering that run of fish is similar to the steelhead in the Sac and Feather as to size and timing of run.

Darian - No offense. Some good questions and I certainly want to hear what every one else thinks.

A volcano is a natural act. A dam is not natural unless created by a landslide. I think you need to look at the tailwater systems of the Feather, Yuba and American a little differently as they have no viable tribs below them. The Sac, Klamath and Eel Rivers all have dams but they are higher up on the rivers and there is still a considerable number of wild streams below them where natural spawning does occur.

The game agencies (which I support and believe are under funded) and other interest groups have done a good job of lowering the expectations of sport fishermen and naturalists in general. For the most part we are happy if the river gets a decent run. The make up of that run seems to be less important. Most seem to agree that hatchery fish are valued less than wild fish. This is because the hatchery system (raceways, hand feeding) selects differently than the wild river spawned fish. In other words their genetics are assumed inferior though this is currently being challenged in court. Well if a hatchery fish is inferior and not in need of absolute protection then why is a fish that hatches out of the gravel below a man made dam with controlled flows in a stretch of the river where that species never naturally spawned. Even without the introduced strains of steelhead from other rivers, the genetics have once again been screwed up with these fish. They might fight better but they really are not any more representative of the wild stock than are those fish coming out of the hatchery. So why protect them and why only have a one fish limit for hatchery fish on rivers mainly supported by a hatchery? I do not understand that logic. The managers of the American River should be doing everything they can to eliminate the introduced stocks of steelhead while trying to propagate the pure native strain if it still exists. This has about as much of a chance of occuring as having ladders added to all the dams to open up the natural spawning grounds in the Sierra. Can you imagine what it would be like to hook into a spring salmon in June up on the North fork of the American as the river is filled by snow melt. Yikes! I'd be satisfied with watching them leap through the rapids like you can on the Umpqua or Trinity Rivers.

Above the dams are a different story and certainly one that has not been managed any better considering the number of introduced species that have displaced the native ones. Many of which have spilled over into the lower rivers and created huge nightmares -- ie. squawfish in the Eel River. Why many of these non-native species are protected (bag limits) I do not understand. The DFG wants to protect the native fish species usually by restricting the fishermen, but refuse to reduce the number of non-native fish (especially Bass) which they know are a part of the problem.

[David Lee]

Hi Covelo , I'm not trying to be rude by correcting you .....
Sacramento Squawfish ARE California natives - I can't imagine them not being in the Eel river 200 years ago . Bass and Sunfish (only exception being Sacramento Perch) are introduced .
Dams and water diversion have killed off any chance of large runs of NATIVE Steelhead and Salmon coming back . Once a race of fish native to a watershed are gone , that's that . Hatchery fish can naturalize and become "wild" , but are not "native" .
Once again , I mean no offense with the correction . D.J.L.

[Covelo]

The squawfish are native to the Sacramento River system and the Russian River because it use to be connected to Clear Lake. In the Eel River though, they were introduced into Lake Pillsbury in the 1970s or 1980s and were dumped into the lower river in 1986 during an illegal release of water in a flood event I believe. While they are native to Calif, they are not native to the Eel River.

It is amazing how much they have taken over the Eel River also. If you snorkel the lower river there are literally clouds of them. Last time I was there I witnessed them relentlessly chasing the few fry that were residing at the head of the hole. They have spread all the way down the main stem and quite a way up the Middle and South forks at least. The DFG has considered everything from poisoning the river to releasing smallmouth bass to erradicate or control them. The extent of their infestation seems only controlled by flow and water temp.

[David Lee]

Covelo , I stand corrected (thanks , by the way , for the info) .
I've no idea how to rid the Eel of Squawfish . Stripers would thin them out , as well as anything else swimming !
On a related note , my family summered on the Eel 3 months out of the year for my first 13 years . We stayed at Innmans (now "wild river campground" ??) near Legget .... no catch and release back then , I now hang my head in shame for all of the "Trout" we caught and killed . All of those fish were , of course Steelhead Smolts - Hard to reconcile having a hand in the downfall of a river ..... David

[Darian]

Hi Covelo,..... First, I've really enjoyed this exchange. :) You raise some very interesting points. Must admit, I'm torn between jumping into the natural fish thing with you but (here comes my realistic side again) believe the genie is out of the bottle and it's too late to put the cork back in..... Given the current state of water needs/politics, here, there is little chance that any river will remain as it is for very long. :( If you interpret from that statement that I'm a cynic when it comes to this subject area, you're absolutely correct..... :roll: )

I'm still convinced that the problem with acceptability of the gene pool for hatchery fish has more to do with in-breeding than the location where spawning occurs. Introduction of a considering that spawning in the American (for example) is enclosed, it might be viewed as a larger form of hatchery. If you accept that, then spawning of natural fish would result in inbreeding. Introduction of a robust strain of fish from some other source should result in genetic diversity and re-invigorate the species.

I'm sorry to hear that the Eel has become infested with Squafish. That doesn't bode well for re-establishing runs up there. During my years of fishing the north coast, I spent many very satisfying trips to Singeley & Fernbridge pools to try for Salmon. Lotsa good memories of places to eat, drink and enjoy..... 8)

[Covelo]

I tend to be a cynic also which is probably justified considering the ever growing human population and their water demands, mine included. I tend to have a pretty big chip when it comes to non-native species especially when they are managed by our DFG. I am all for protecting wild steelhead, but they better be the pure thing. I am less upset about the effects of changed selection pressures under a dam since this is reality as you stated, but don't protect the wild fish when they are not even the native strain to that river and were introduced by the DFG decades ago. If the larger sized fish and later runs (Feb-April) of steelhead are actually representing the introduced strains in the American then the DFG should be promoting their take so as to dilute the possible impacts that they might be having on the remnants of whatever truely wild fish remain. Certainly their spawning protocols should be changed, perhaps to something like the Rock Creek Hatchery on the NF Umpqua River where they only use wild fish for their broodstock to minimize the selection effects of the hatchery. Getting back to the original topic of this thread, killing hatchery fish is only a good thing in my opinion.

Yeah, the Eel River was glorious when I was growing up. It seems to be benefiting lately from the better winters and changed ocean conditions if the fishing reports I have heard in the past couple years from the South Fork are indicative of anything. I would not worry about killing a few smolts back then, but it does point out another poor policy. How many streams are still open to summer "trout" fishing. I have a lot of memories from Singley, Fernbridge, mouth of the Van Duezen, and the South Fork also. You should try the Middle Fork above the town of Covelo in May before it closes. Big summer run steelhead that will rip your arm off. Just be gentle and release them without taking them out of the water as there are less than 1000 left up there. Take a snorkel and go back in August and you can watch them in the deep pools.

[ycflyfisher]

I always feel compelled to enter a discussion where steelhead is the focal point. The American river steelhead exhibit Van Arsdale (Eel River)genetic markers and it's generally accepted that the fish present there now largely evolved from those fish when they were introduced into the AR basin. There has been a virtual hodgepodge fish introduced into the AR from out of basin, but the current "American River" steelhead follows the run dynamics and physical similarities of the VA fish, and it's generally accepted from a scientific standpoint that the other out of basin transfers haven't really contributed much to the genetic make up of these fish.

The VA fish do well when transplanted to other basins like the AR and the Mad which have a tendancy to run fairly warm during the fall. The later arriving VA fish (i.e. winter run) allows the fish to escape the issues of finding thermal refuge associated with warmer water/ lower flows that the fish would have to contend with if they were to arrive in mass, in the fall.

I really think that the notion that the "half-pounder" run on the AR is representative of a residual of the native AR steelhead, is a romantic notion that we'd all like to believe is true, but it's highly unlikely. First off, the VA fish typically exhibited a half-pounder component in their respective life histories of about 30% frequency. This seems to be what is also happening on the AR. Also there really are only two ways in which the integrity of a native run can be preserved: Spacial and temporal separation. In the AR, there is no opprotunity for spacial separation. Anywhere the smaller native fish could have gone, the larger VA fish have access to as well. This leaves us with the only real possibilty the preservation of the native run, being temporal separation. This seems unlikely. The generally agreed upon opinion is that the native AR fish were similar to most of the other native fish of the Sacto river basin: A fall arrival time, comprised of mainly single salt fish. The only way to achieve temporal separation would be for the native run to arrive and spawn earlier or later than the larger, mainly multisalt VA hatchery fish. The thought or arguement that the native fish could be preserved by an earlier arrival/spawning time does not seem very likely. If this were happening, the native fish would have to arrive very early and emergence from the gravel of their progeny would have to preceed the time when the chinooks arrive and begin tearing up the very limited amounts of spawning gravel on the AR. The AR suffers the fate of many damned tailwaters in terms of the amount(or lack thereof) of availible spawning substrate via the one way(downstream) sediment transport with no possibility of gravel recruitement caused by the damn dam. The AR currently also has a later arrving component of smaller, primarily one salt females that arrive in the late winter/spring. This is also a characteristic of the VA hatchery fish, and I don't think for the most part can be attributed to being a residual of the native run. It is interesting to note, that a greater percentage of early arriving half-pounders and those spring arriving one salt fish seem to have intact ad fins. Still I think this can be explained by the following facts:

The AR does have a small but self sustaining population of resident bows that spawn in the late spring. I think a good portion of the "wild" half-pounders caught by anglers from late Aug-Sept are these fish. These fish simply move out of the thermal refugia in river when it becomes biologically feasible for them to do so. I believe the "trigger" for this occurring corresponds to the increase in caddisfly activity(which peters off to next to nothing during the height of summer but becomes more prevalent again in the late summer/early fall). The benefit of exploiting this hatch, IMHO, cause the fish to risk predation by the Pikeminnows and linesides, and the cost/benefit aspect of expending the energy while feeding during periods not necessarily trout freindly, thermal conditions swings in favor of the fish while the hatch activity begins to elevate.


In similar fashion, I think the later arriving wild fish(which tend I'm told seem to have a greater percentage of intact ad fins) are largely the progeny of those hatchery fish that have spawned in the AR basin, having elected not to enter the hatchery. The fact is probably the AR native run was effectively spawned out of existance by the AR hatchery fish which were more suited to the AR in it's currently altered state.

I've actually been told by more than one biologist that a considerable amount of spawning did likely occur below where the dam is now. Back then the river was much different than it is now and instinctively this would have seemed like water that was not suitable for steelhead spawning, but their arguement is pretty compelling.

Agree 100% that no angler is doing any harm by killing hatchery fish.

Also agree with the point that comparing the AR with the Trinity/Klamath is not really a good one by the same points stated by Covelo.

[PatrickM]

Good discussion. I find this very interesting. Does that mean I'm becoming a fish nerd? Oh well, I've been called a lot worse things. :D

[Hairstacker]

Yeah, I find it very intersting too, although the extent of my knowledge is more like, "hey, I think there's steelhead in there!"

[David Lee]

Dean - look what ya started !

For what it's worth , I've been told by guys who knew the American BEFORE Folsom dam went up .... It was a great Smallmouth stream , didn't run high very often , and didn't hold many Steelhead in fall (they never said anything about winter runs ...) .
The problem is US - too many people taking everything that there is to take . If there were no demands on water/power/recreation , nature would fix itself in a few hundred years ... Mankind is breeding itself out of existence , or already has . I believe it's too late to repair the mess we've made .
Meanwhile , back here on Earth , I'm sure a few wouldn't agree - please send hate mail to my Email address - I don't want to clog up Bill's board with shouts of "kill the hippie" ... David

[Dean]

Yeah, David. Really like this thread. I wonder if parts of it can be archived under a different topic or forum? The posts involving the native/hatchery/origin debate are too good to get lost.

[Covelo]

ycflyfisher, thanks for the specifics. I would have thought the Eel River strain would have originated from the old Benbow hatchery instead of the Van Arsdale one considering the spring run component which is fairly large in the South Fork. Is there any genetic indication that these Eel River fish are also moving into the Feather or Sac systems?

Not a lot of people know about the halfpounder run on the Eel since they come in early when the river is typically closed due to low flows. It was a pretty good fishery back before there was a flow closure. There also used to be larger summer runs (4-8 lbs) below the mouth of the Van Duezen that were holding until the rains came. The salmon fishermen would always catch a few in Oct-Nov. These were not early winters as they were longer bodied with lots of red on their sides.

Do you know if the salmon are also an Eel River transplant? I always figured they were considering they come into the American river in Oct instead of August as they do on the Sac, Feather and other inland river systems.

[ycflyfisher]

Hey Covelo,

According to the scientific literature, the Eel river fish were orginally taken at an egg collection facility at Van Arsdale. I'm not even certian if they still use this as a collection facility. Benbow I believe came much later.

I've never read anything or seen anything that has indicated that the AR fish have ever ended up in mass in any other Sacto watershed. Some straying is probably occuring, but from what I gather, nothing more than the norm. There have been big problems on some years of Feather River fish ending up in the Yuba. This has more to do with bad management practices more so than straying. When they clear the raceways out at the Feather Facility to make room for that years Chinooks, they've got to dump most of the juvenille SH from the hatchery into the river. I think they actually leave the ones they keep down by the outlet in until the spring. This usually happens in Dec, but has happened as early as mid November in the past. What happens after they dump 'em in from what I've been told, all depends on IF those juvies are mature enough to undergo the smoltification process. If they are, they migrate down to the salt. If they are not, they fish are forced to remain in the river until they can undergo the smoltification process. This is what causes the problems. A few years ago, a biologist from the DWR(the DWR does most of the monitoring on the Feather) told me that when they dumped the fish in in mid Nov, a week later they had tens of thousands of 'em actually swimming back up the hatchery ladder. The fish were everywhere in the river all winter long. Some of them( 10,000's) also sought refuge in the Yuba. Since they took up residence there, the ones that did eventually outmigrate, imprinted on the Yuba (and not the Feather), and probably returned there as adults. We caught two clipped fish of typical Feather size last fall on the Yuba. The year the bulk of the Feather fish did not outmigrate, I was catching 8-10" fin clipped Feather fish all through the March Brown hatch as high up as Hammond Grove on the Yuba. Down around Hallwood that season, there were more clipped fish than there were wild ones.


I don't really know anything about the origins of AR Chinooks. The only time I read anything scientific about Chinooks is when it's interwritten with stuff about steelhead or other salmonids that I have an interest in. Due to the length of the construction of the dams on the AR, I'd guess that they do have origins from out of basin. The Eel would make sense, since that's where the first introduced steelhead came from.

[Darian]

Well (ycflyfisher),..... Lets see.... if can summarize the info in your post, you feel that the original native AR steelhead has probably been managed out of existance and that the AR "half pounder" run is more likely opportunistic resident fish. 8) (This may an overly brief summary but it's 1:00 AM Here) :roll:

Actually, I don't see anything to disagree with. From articles I've read, in the past, DFG chose to manage the timing and type of fish using the AR for spawning purposes to match the availabilty of staff to work the hatchery and for commercial interests, in the case of Chinooks. Thus, it's not hard to accept that the original native stocks have disappeared. I guess the real question is, how many generations of spawning does it take for a fish species to be considered a native fish :?: :?: The same question may be applied to any species (even humans) If you accept the theory of evolution, then change is inevitible. I'm still not convinced that anything that's been raised in prior posts changes the premise that hybridization/inbreeding impacts the collective gene pool more so than whether a fish chooses to spawn in a hatchery or a riffle in a river. Genetics is biological and location is environmental. 8)

One of the early premises under this topic was that there is no difference between hatchery and native fish in tailwaters (where they have not historically spawned) and therefore, should not be protected. I may be wrong but it seems that the only way that DFG can make/set limits and attempt to protect "natural" spawning fish is to assume that anything that uses the river gravels must be native. This position would seem to be the only way reasonably approach the problem (considering that removal of all non-native Steelhead would result in none left).

Maybe we should consider that there are two definitions here (1) is a scientific definition that may take lengthy periods to resolve or (2) maybe the legal definition should be controlling (as in the recent decision by the federal government to count hatchery salmon in determing whether salmon were actually endangered) as there is no legal way to establish a genetic difference between hatchery and naturally spawned fish :?: :?: The decision by the federal governement was backed by a federal claims court Judge in a recent hearing.

Oh well, I'm running out of gas at this time of the AM.... :wink:

[SullyTM]

Dean...I'm new to the American also. First trip was 2 weeks ago. My next trip will be in February. The State of California allows for one steelhead to be kept if it isn't "wild". Wild meaning it has the predisposed fin. (Is that correct AR experts?) On my first visit to the AR I saw 2 anglers land and keep steelhead using casting lures. Hopefully, the lures were barbless and the fish hathery raised. Confronting an angler over any "legal" issues is always a risk. Locally, when the Chinook are spawning in Walnut Creek I'll call the local Fish & Game dispatch number and report illegal happenings. Keeping a "legal" fish is your choice but nothing to loose sleep over. A glass of red, some french bread and salad always goes good with fish...Happy flying. SullyTM

[Covelo]

You asked "how many generations of spawning does it take for a fish species to be considered a native fish". It depends on how you want to define "native". If your only criteria is that they hatched out of gravel instead of a jar then they are already there. If you want to be more of a purist and except that it is true that there are no fish remaining from the historical runs that were in the AR prior to the dams, then the answer is never since there is no way to get back to what was the original strain that went through thousands if not millions of years of river specific selection. Yes there is a low level of strays in most systems though I would expect the stray level from the Eel River into the Sac system to be near zero.

You stated "I may be wrong but it seems that the only way that DFG can make/set limits and attempt to protect "natural" spawning fish is to assume that anything that uses the river gravels must be native. This position would seem to be the only way reasonably approach the problem (considering that removal of all non-native Steelhead would result in none left)."

I would counter this by asking why should the DFG be protecting the "natural" spawning fish when they know that they are identical to those fish in the hatchery? This comparison is different from the legal arguement going on right now in the courts about differentiating wild and hatchery stocks because we know the hatchery and naturally spawning stocks in the American River are the same. The other side of this arguement is that the wild fish are being protected because most biologists feel they are unique and in most rivers their numbers are diminished. This does not seem to be the case for the American River and perhaps the Feather and Yuba Rivers considering the number of Feather River hatchery fish that are showing up in the Yuba where they are undoubtedly also spawning.

Your last sentence suggests that they would vanish if take of naturally spawned fish was allowed in the American River (or did I not read that right?). I disagree since there will still be hatchery fish that do not enter the hatchery and spawn in the river. Depending on the take levels there may be a reduction in the number of unclipped fish, but this is really irrelevant since it appears that there is no dispute that they are actually the same fish whether they spawned in the river or the hatchery (I am presenting this as a fact from what ycflyfisher posted).

If instead you were saying that there would be no steelhead if the DFG allowed or even promoted the unregulated take of AR steelhead because they are non-native, I agree. If they were erradicated then the DFG could reseed the river with fish from a more closely related stock such as the Feather or Yuba. If what ycflyfisher says is true though, the warm water in the American today would not allow fish closer to the true native stock to thrive below the dam. This would indicate that we are stuck with the non-native Eel River steelhead. Again though this gets back to my original point -- Why protect naturally spawned fish in the American River when we know that they are non-native (Eel river stock) and no different from the hatchery fish genetically? This is not to suggest that there should not be a limit on how many fish can be taken to insure that returns are healthy and sustainable, but to question the need to prohibit take of unclipped fish like is done for most other rivers when the justifications used for such prohibition do not apply to the American.

Sorry for going on so long. Just trying to make my points a little clearer if that is possible. :)

[Darian]

Hi Covelo,..... Good points all. I'd to clarify my premise that if fish, naturally spawned, were removed from the AR none would remain. I should've added that this would be so in the extreme. As there is no visible difference between the two fish, all would have to be removed and limits set accordingly. I believe that's your position supports that conclusion. However, that could result in the closure of hatcheries as the need for their services would no longer exist. Thus, all Steelhead in the AR would be eliminated, eventually. As for reseeding the AR from any other stock, we're back to the argument that the seed stock are non-native since they're not spawning where they historically spawned.

In any case, I understand the premise for the purpose of protecting true native stocks and do not disagee with it in principle. The only difference I detect between our positions is that I believe there is a reason to protect non-hatchery bred fish whether truly native or not because there just aren't enough of them to go around :?: :?: Perhaps managing the resource differently would benefit the fish but the possibility of that happening is remote.

I'm gonna tke your advice on fishing the summer run fish up there this year. 8) 8)

Thanks for the discourse.... I really have enjoyed it. :D :D

[Jgoding]

Well I was going to try to stay out of this but there has been such a great discussion about certain issues I can no longer refrain. I did take genetics back in school and as part of the core curriculum I did take some evolution classes and even an aquaculture class for my own interest.

My take on true "native" fish. We will never know for sure if the true original strain AR steelhead still exists or not. In my opinion, it probably has gone extinct, but not to say any of it's genes do not sill exist. There could've been some hybridization with introduced strains etc... or maybe the fish found alternate water ways and have returned as water conditions have improved. But realistically, the eel strain has probably taken over and it would be a simple matter of testing both runs of "half-pounders" to see what the similaraties are genetically and then compare them to other steelhead found in anadromous waters in close proximity, i.e. the sac, feather, trinity, yuba..... You would just have to make sure the fish tested are true sea running fish and not resident bows..

The other fact is, I do not know if there is a true "base-line genetic control" to compare anything too. I would hope biologists have some frozen eggs,fry, tissue from the original stocks somewhere to compare too, but the fact is, it was a long time ago and the foresight to do so was probably not there. If they do have genetic material though, who knows, maybe one day the original stocks could come back through cloning techniques. Of course, this isn't the best solution either but the "true native" fish would be brought back to some extent although it would lack any real genetic diversity unless tissue stocks are abundant from different fish.

The important thing today, "wild" naturally breeding fish versus hatchery fish. From the aquaculture class I took, it is generally accepted and scientifically proven that the offspring vigor of naturally spawned fish is much greater than hatchery fish. Hatchery fish lack a lot of predator flee responses and feeding vigor naturally spawned fish attain by simply being hatched out in the "real" world so to say. If you want the fishery to sustain itself, then you want to protect your natural spawners as they will be more apt to survive and sustain a natural fishery. Also, the genetic diversity of hatchery fish becomes smaller as time goes by because of the lack of hybridization. I know some of you think, well, all the fish come from the same stocks so how do the naturally spawners increase their genetic diversity.... well just what was mentioned earlier, stray fish from other areas that may come up the American, or fish who lost their spawning grounds somewhere else...or maybe even resident fish may interbreed....

But if you just want fish to catch and a hatchery sustained fishery, they there is no real reason to protect anything.....it kind of sux for the fish and naturalist, but it's out of our hands, it's all bs politics now.

Jeff

[Darian]

Hi Mr. Goding,..... You've stated a variation of what I've been trying to say better than I could've. I do believe that fish that spawn in the gravels of a river have essentially taken the role of a native fish. There may be some inter-breeding with other resident or non-resident fish but it's probably not significant. In other words, my beliefs brand me as pratical (a non-purist). The value of these, naturally spawning, fish is far too great (esthetically as well as economically) not to protect.

I agree that there is little likelihood that anyone kept any biological material that could be used to ID the original, natural Steelhead in the AR but if there was material available, cloning is probably the only way to restore that strain. Isn't cloning in a test tube similar to a hatchery :?: What bothers me about trying to restore the past is that it often involves running around in a circle.... I find the outcomes of that stretches my ability to understand. :?

Anyway,..... think I may've reached the end of the number of ways to try to look at this..... 8) 8)

[Jgoding]

Hi Darian,

It's been a good discussion. To the point of insignificant outcrossing, no amount is insignificant. Just think if one fish strays up into the river and breeds.... that means it's offspring will come back as well, say 2 offspring return....... then now they will pass their genes on..... now the next year nire fish come back carrying new genes........and so on etc..

As to the cloning, it is much more involved than what hatcheries do. Hatcheries to my understanding simply artificially breed the fish by stripping eggs from females and introducing milt from males.

To clone the original strain back of steelhead in the AR genetic material from that strain is needed. Fertilized Eggs or embryo preferably but any full set of chromosomes from any cell could do....but it is more difficult this way. Basically eggs from any steelhead strain could be used but the more closely related the strain the better. The chromosomes from the infertilized egg are removed (basically the 1/2 set the mom passes on) and the full set of chromosomes belonging to the original strain are injected into the egg. These chromosomes now that they are in an egg, should develop into an enbryo but certain hormones or stimulants would likely be needed as well to induce mitosis.

A very simplified explanation probably as I know little about cloning techniques.

jeff

[Darian]

Hi Jeff,..... "Outcrossing" may be mathematically significant where there is a large number of fish involved over the "long haul".... Just guessing, but, it seems to me that large numbers of strays or residents inter-breeding is probably not the case in the AR since there're not very many naturally spawning Steelhead left in the AR.

My statement about cloning was posed as a principle not a current technologically accurate or reality for propogation of natural fish stocks.... Given the current state of politics and/or the budget in this state, I don't believe that any resources would be dedicated to this type of activity even if genetic material was available.

The biggest consideration in all of this is that if neither natural or hatchery spawned fish are protected, pressure on these stocks will increase and their value to all of us will be reduced. Current tailwater fisheries may/will decline resulting in changes to related economic activities. So, if my premise is correct, fishing pressure on other natural spawned fisheries will concentrate/increase..... with potentially negative consequences.

I guess I'm making a case for the protection of naturally spawning fish, whether native to a particular watershed or not based on their value to business, fisherman and, in some way, fish habitat and surrounding environs. Without limits/protections, there is little basis to object to further encroachmednt/development/destruction of these "things" that we seem to take for granted.

Oh well, If you take from this that I'm a bit concerned about where we're "going", environmentally, you're correct.

[Covelo]

The number of naturally spawning fish, or rather unclipped fish since this does not include hatchery fish spawning in the river, may not be dependent on how many unclipped fish are taken by anglers or for that matter how many fish naturally spawn. The limiting factor may be either accessible and suitable spawning habitat and/or the carrying capacity of the lower river. Since most steelhead fry spend at least one year in the river, the carrying capacity of the AR may be what is limiting the return of unclipped fish especially since the lower river experiences temperature problems every summer/fall and the carrying capacity of a stream goes down exponentially with an increase in temperature. It may well be that unless we can get higher releases to keep the water temps down, the number of natural spawners (up to a point) is possibly an irrelevant factor in determining how many unclipped fish return each year.

[Jgoding]

Hi Darian,

I wrote a big ol rant about politics and how our current political situation basically sux but I felt it best to leave it be...

I'm all for conservation and agree with you. I guess the best advice is to enjoy it while you can....

Cloning, I bet there are some companies institutions out there who would do it just for all the PR they would get but yes it would be expensive, but just think about the knowledge gained... it's priceless. Too bad people don't understand this about a lot of the "technologies" we fail to acknowledge and pursue better.

[Darian]

Hi Jeff,..... I have a friend who has a scientific background and is, also, an entrepreneur. He does start-ups, sets 'em on the path and then goes on to another business. 8) 8) What made me bring this up follows:

The business of one of his companies was genetic engineering. Of course, that company had little to do with aqua-culture, but, I'm wondering if you or anyone else could see any potential applications for fish progation that might enhance a natural fishery over time :?: :?:

[Jgoding]

Technology and fishkeeping....I can see a lot of possibilities. Some hatcheries work with triploid strains and even tetraploids I believe. I do believe they come up with them naturally, but they have 3 (triploids) or 4-(tetraploids) copies of chromosomes instead of two. Benefits....fish are sterile.....they grow faster...... Drawbacks.....fish are sterile so they cannot sustain a population themselves, but they are more for a "market" fishery so to say. Tetraploids are not sterile though, as even numbers of chomosomes do segegrate properly during cell division. As I believe if you cross a tetraploid with a diploid (2 copies of each chromosome, normal) you get the resulting triploid-sterile-hybrids...

As far as engineering fish....as it has been with plants, disease resistance would probably be the most important and even some environmental survivability issues (probably heat tolerance). Some species of fish carry resistance to certain pathogens/parasites etc... If they could be identified, it would be a simple matter to import them into other species. Or even certain individuals within a species are resistant to certain diseases/pathogens and you could clone them so they could pass on their genes much faster to help the entire population become resistant as well....Or certain genes that allow for survivability for higher temperatures would also help as well. Growth rates etc... could be enhanced or supressed as well.

But on a more basic level, if hatcheries could somehow monitor the fertilizations and keep track of offspring to limit inbreeding, they would be much better off as well... but this is simply not feasible as it would be hard to track each offspring with the numbers they work with...


But as Covelo says, it all comes down to habitat..... if we managed the habitat correctly we wouldn't have to have these discussions... but the technology could be used to help restore depleted fisheries with a competitive fish in the more competitive environments....

Jeff

[Darian]

HMmmm,..... Disease resistance..... :?: :?: Probably not realistic but how about elimination of whirling disease in Trout. 8) 8)

I do agree that Habitat enhancement/protection is the key. Pressures for development of property and competetition for water being what they are in this state, it's highly unlikely that these things will occur. :( :(

[Jgoding]

Whirling disease would be a tough one I think. It's caused by a parasitic nematode (small worm basically) I believe. But if biologists can figure how out other fish avoid infection then it is a possibility. Or if you can figure out something to kill the parasite once it enters the host, that would be the best bet to engineer that into the fish. I think snail eradication in thost infected waters is what's needed though....if I remember the biology of whirling disease correctly...... been awhile, probably 5-6 years at least since I read anything on it.....

Jeff

[RippedLip]

Well guys this has broght me to a summation that what we have is an offspring of our conviction to repair the wrong doing's of man and his water politics (dams). Humm in a nut shell, what naturaly spawning fish that are present is a relative percentage of the overall population, set in stone (sort-of-speak). Never increasing in numbers do to the lack of habitat and most likely of the fish's own self demise. Noting the finite number of reds avialable and in use, and reuse, and over used, shall keep their populous to a set percentage with the lack of successful spawns. Is there a fix?? Not sure... Will introduction or cloned intrevention or stray spawners be the answer?? I think it might be our saving grace... when the hatchery machine depletes the gene pool it's all we have to draw from. So call them natural, wild, etc... angels might be best to describe them. Lets protect them for the children just picking up thier first fly rod today...
Thanks for letting me vent my 2 cents
tight lines...

[Jgoding]

Nice post ripped....here is a question I ask to anyone who may know the answer. Steelhead returning to the hatchery... are they culled as a result of them being stripped of eggs/milt?? Or are they returned to the water?? I am under the impression that steelhead are not one time spawners... am I correct??

Jeff

[Darian]

Hi Jeff,..... Its my understanding that Steelhead may spawn multiple times during their lifetime. I seem to recall a statement, from somewhere, that they may spawn up to five times. 8) Of course, not all Steelhead survive the first return (for whatever reason) :cry: So, the average number times is probably much less.

I've been out at the Nimbus Hatchery (15 years ago) when they were taking eggs from Steelhead and spoke to workers there. They said that they placed a mild anesthetic in the water somehow ( :?: ) which calms the fish down after removal from the holding pond. Then they strip eggs/milt and return the spawned out fish back into the holding pens (I've seen that carried out). After the fish recovered in the pens they were returned to the river. 8) 8) I have no idea where/when that occurs.

Since 1974, I don't recall ever catching a spent fish in the AR but that's probably because I rarely fish the AR for Steelhead any longer. Choosing to concentrate on other species, there. :D :D

[steeliejim]

I really think that the notion that the "half-pounder" run on the AR is representative of a residual of the native AR steelhead, is a romantic notion that we'd all like to believe is true, but it's highly unlikely. First off, the VA fish typically exhibited a half-pounder component in their respective life histories of about 30% frequency.

The "residual" run of steelhead that many of us are convinced are remnants of the original native steelhead run are not "romantic notions" but based on irrefutable facts.

Now, if you are talking about the half pounders that are caught in the winter, slender immature steelhead from 10 to 14 inches, or the run of football-shaped brightly colored rainbow-looking fish that are caught in August/Sept. I won't argue with you.

But many of us fish for steelhead in the early spring months--middle of Mar. well into April and have been doing so since the 1960's. Those fish are mature adults (very tiny eggs, but would spawn before returning to the ocean), deep-bodied and 3 to 5 pounds.

The proof? DFG's Eric Gerstung wrote a report study of these fish in the early 70's and listed the hatchery return numbers by month starting wiht the first year that the dams were finished. Any returns those first years would be natives. NO steelhead entered the hatchery until March and the run continued through April. It was because the numbers were small and got smaller in subsequent years, that the Eel River straiin was introduced. For many years, DFG ignored this remnant native strain taking all the eggs they could early in the run until they reached capacity, then stopped taking fish, some years as early as Jan. A number of people, me included, were successful in getting DFG to spread the egg take.


Gerstung's report also gives a fascinating history of the AR's steelhead run pre-Folsom/Nimbus dam, pointing out that there was a substantial steelhead run before the power facilility was built in Folsom. There was a fish ladder, but it was washed out in floods and not rebuilt. Still, a remnant of the original run hung on struggling to get past the barrier to the tributaries high in the system.

Further, there was also a spring fishery of what many were convinced were steelhead trapped in Folsom Lake at the inlets (No rubbed fins, silvery) which hasl largely disappeared.

It is unlikely that steelhead came up the AR in the fall, because, as was pointed out, flows pre-dams were very low and warm in the fall until the rains arrived. BTW, I do have a copy of that report somewhere. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make a copy and get it to Bill for others to be able to look at. It was a great effort and gives great insight to the history of steelhead in the AR and the failings to protect AR fisheries early on.

[bigtj]

I usually kill one fish a trip, the smallest, most beat up hatchery runt I can catch, and only when I'm camping. That doesn't include valley fish which I won't eat because of water quality issues. The fish I do kill get BBQ'd with my homemade teriyaki sauce, roasted potatoes and some BBQ'd zucchini and that makes about the best meal anyone could ask for.

I would never, ever kill a wild fish and I have been spending a lot of time writing letters to Oregon fish and wildlife trying to get the 5-wild fish per year reg overturned in S. Oregon. Why? Wild anadramous fish need a break, they have been getting the "shaft" for the better part of 150 years.

-John

[lee s.]

David,
Rest assured you had VERY little to do with the downfall of the river! What it takes to "downfall" a fishery like the steelhead is depletion by bazillions.....not onesies and twosies. Covelo has the handle on what the detriment of the fishery was/is....demise of smolts and fry by the bazillion by introduced squawfish (or whatever them thing are :wink: )
Among other enviriomental changes. :wink:
.....lee s.

[Ed Wahl]

Hey guys, just a simple truck driver here, but what about all the native rainbows up in the upper part of the drainage? Aren't they descendants of the steelhead from way back before the dams?

[lee s.]

E.W.,
From another DA truckdriver :lol: , from what I have read, that works. But without workable plunge-pool fish ladders at the damns, they too, are lost to the envirioment, steelhead wise. Workable ladders could do nothing but help deminish somewhat the intrusive impact our damns have.
As to the hatchery fish being "lazy", which we agree to too, it seems that Oregon somewhat solved that by netting fish from the Chetco for seed instead of taking cousins that come knocking at the hatchery door. Their hatchery fish do NOT seem lazy. :wink:
.....lee s.

[Ed Wahl]

Sorry, what I was getting at is that the gene pool is still there. No cloning needed. Those rainbows are the descendants of the AR steelhead that at one time utilized the entire watershed. I've read that historically steelhead spawned as high as the Desolation Wilderness. The native runs aren't gone, just isolated.

[ycflyfisher]

I really think that the notion that the "half-pounder" run on the AR is representative of a residual of the native AR steelhead, is a romantic notion that we'd all like to believe is true, but it's highly unlikely. First off, the VA fish typically exhibited a half-pounder component in their respective life histories of about 30% frequency.

The "residual" run of steelhead that many of us are convinced are remnants of the original native steelhead run are not "romantic notions" but based on irrefutable facts.

Now, if you are talking about the half pounders that are caught in the winter, slender immature steelhead from 10 to 14 inches, or the run of football-shaped brightly colored rainbow-looking fish that are caught in August/Sept. I won't argue with you.

But many of us fish for steelhead in the early spring months--middle of Mar. well into April and have been doing so since the 1960's. Those fish are mature adults (very tiny eggs, but would spawn before returning to the ocean), deep-bodied and 3 to 5 pounds.

The proof? DFG's Eric Gerstung wrote a report study of these fish in the early 70's and listed the hatchery return numbers by month starting wiht the first year that the dams were finished. Any returns those first years would be natives. NO steelhead entered the hatchery until March and the run continued through April. It was because the numbers were small and got smaller in subsequent years, that the Eel River straiin was introduced. For many years, DFG ignored this remnant native strain taking all the eggs they could early in the run until they reached capacity, then stopped taking fish, some years as early as Jan. A number of people, me included, were successful in getting DFG to spread the egg take.


Gerstung's report also gives a fascinating history of the AR's steelhead run pre-Folsom/Nimbus dam, pointing out that there was a substantial steelhead run before the power facilility was built in Folsom. There was a fish ladder, but it was washed out in floods and not rebuilt. Still, a remnant of the original run hung on struggling to get past the barrier to the tributaries high in the system.

Further, there was also a spring fishery of what many were convinced were steelhead trapped in Folsom Lake at the inlets (No rubbed fins, silvery) which hasl largely disappeared.

It is unlikely that steelhead came up the AR in the fall, because, as was pointed out, flows pre-dams were very low and warm in the fall until the rains arrived. BTW, I do have a copy of that report somewhere. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make a copy and get it to Bill for others to be able to look at. It was a great effort and gives great insight to the history of steelhead in the AR and the failings to protect AR fisheries early on.

Your post is rather confusing to me. You may first want to reread what I initially posted because you're taking some things out of context here.

I very much would like to believe that the native run(or at least a portion of it) is being preserved in it's entirety with no genetic mixing from bastardized hatchery stock as you seem to think is "irrefutable fact" via temporal separation, but to put it as bluntly as possible I think this is highly unlikely to say the very least.

What's highly ironic is the individual who convinced me that the likelyhood that the genetic integretity of any vestige of the native AR run could somehow be preserved in the truncated AR system is slim to none was none other than Eric Gerstung-retired assoc. biologist from the DFG. This was from a conversation from around 2002-2003. There's a slim possibility but I don't think I'm remembering anything he said out of context.

I don't doubt that you have the report that you claim to have. I would be very interested in seeing it(again not because I don't believe you) but because I'm very interested in the work that Mr Gerstung accomplished during his storied career with the DFG. If your familiar with Mr. Gerstung, you're already aware the knock on EG was that he was regarded as one of the most brilliant pure scientists the DFG ever had who for the most part, couldn't be troubled with taking the time to publish his work. After retiring from the DFG, EG remained closely affiliated with said organization and was being asked still to write a summary on the state of the few remaining summer run steelhead that we have left in CA and what is know historically about these fish. Gerstung before he retired was almost irrefutably the most referenced person in scientific literature regarding summer runs in CA. Unfortunately the vast majority of those references were of the personal communication(pers. comm) nature as the paltry amount EG published on his work with these fish was not in proportion to either the volume or importance of his work.

Also ironically, Gerstung was one of those biologists that I mentioned earlier in this same thread whose opinion cut againist the grain of the conventional wisdom that a good portion of the spawning by anadramous fish in the AR basin occured historically below where the dams are now.

Again it's impossible for me to speculate exactly how you're concluding with certainty that the aforementioned work by Mr. Gerstung is indeed 'irrefutable fact' that any portion of the native AR run has been preserved in it's genetic integrity.

I'm guessing you may be jumping to some conclusions here, but please correct me if I'm wrong:

Does this report state that the later arriving (composed of mainly one salt fish) spring component of the current AR run is not predominantly exhibiting Van Arsdale Eel River genetic markers?

Is it possible that this report supports that the AR in it's prealtered state, supported a run of fish in the same temporal window that corresponds with the later arriving predominantly one salt, 'blueback' component that is characterisitic of the VA/Eel River fish, and that you're possibly jumping to conclusions here that the fish currently present in the later portion of the current run progression are indeed purely progeny of the native AR fish as opposed to the progeny of hatchery products?

[Covelo]

ycflyfisher -- My family has some land on the upper Middle fork Eel River which we visit every spring. I became friends with DFG biologist Wendy Jones and twice volunteered for his summer death march to survey the summer steelhead on the upper river. I am always interested in acquiring info on this run of fish so am curious if Eric Gerstung published anything on this run that you may know about.

On a related topic, I spoke with a gentleman in Fortuna, CA who stated that the lower river below the confluence with the Van Duezen used to hold a large number of summer adult steelhead before the 1964 flood and the contruction of the levees that moved the course of the river away from the town. He said the best time to fish for steelhead used to be in July. I've seen some of these taken in early November by salmon fishermen and once caught an adult (10 lb fish) about 25 years ago at the confluence of the South Fork while fishing for half-pounders in Sept. Is there any data on how large this lower main stem component of summer steelhead once was?

[ycflyfisher]

Covelo,

To my knowledge Mr Gerstung, published next to nothing on the Middle Eel summer-runs. What I'd consider to be the definitive work regarding the MF Eel summer runs is: "Summer Steelhead of the Middle Fork Eel and Their Relationship to Environmental Changes" by Weldon(Wendy) Jones. This was a summary of a ten???(not sure on that from memory so don't quote me) year study conducted by Wendy and his cohorts about virtually all aspects of the Middle Eel fish. The MFE summer runs for the most part have been the healthiest and most stable of those we have left in Ca, until recently when snorkel surveys have shown that some of the populations of summer runs in the K-T basin have slightly eclipsed those of the MFE. it's not that the MFE surveys have trended downward, but that two major tribs in the K-T basin have shown significant populations upward trends in the last half decade or so(a great thing to see).

The 1964 flood event really ruined a lot of the habit in the watersheds of the tribs where large scale logging operations had gone on unchecked not only in the Eel but the K-T basin as well. The aforementioned work by Mr. Jones began in the 1960's but after the 1964 flood event and ran into the 1970's.

The exact magnitude in terms of abundance regarding summer runs from a historical perspective is not really known for most watersheds in Ca. I think it is safe to say they were far more numerous than they are now. I've heard countless similar stories about local anglers on the Klamath exploiting abundant summer runs on the main stem near the mouths of Dillon and Swillup Creeks and other tribs in the late spring and into the summer prior to when the 1964 flood event change(coupled with unchecked logging practices) the Klamath basin drastically. NF Stilly type stories about good numbers of summer runs taken on dry flies but often under less than ideal water conditions.....


Wendy Jones IMHO is the foremost authority about what is known about the MFE summer runs. From what I've heard, even though Mr. Jones is also retired from the DFG he continues to do the 'death march' on a volunteer basis to assist in obtaining the population trends for the population of fish he's most noteably associated with during his DFG career.

[Covelo]

Wendy Jones IMHO is the foremost authority about what is known about the MFE summer runs. From what I've heard, even though Mr. Jones is also retired from the DFG he continues to do the 'death march' on a volunteer basis to assist in obtaining the population trends for the population of fish he's most noteably associated with during his DFG career.

I am glad to hear he is still in good health. He has to be at or over 70 now so it is impressive that he continues to do that 33 mile rock hop. Thanks for the info.