Jim,
The problem is that there is also a late component (bluebacks) of the Eel River strain. Some of the best fishing on the Eel River used to be in March and April. These fish were also 2-7 lbs and ripe with eggs. You can claim the fish in the American are different but there is no temporal or spatial separation preventing them from hybridizing with the Eel River strain. The idea that there is pure stock remaining is about as likely as them deciding to take the dams out.
It would not be too difficult to examine your spring run fish in the American and look for Eel River genetic markers, but since the DFG seems little interested in preserving the original strain (or believes it no longer exists) I doubt they will do it.
BTW you posted that same info on that other forum (the link I posted above) when we were discussing this. Here is that post and the reply that was made refuting it which I summarized above.
Originally Posted by 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.
and the reply by ycflyfisher
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 *******ized 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?
full link again
kiene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5244&page=5
Administrator
Nice fresh wild spring-run half-pounders are in the American R
these fish have seen salt for how chrome they are, plus check out the sea lice!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks