keepers?

[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. (This may an overly brief summary but it's 1:00 AM Here)

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.

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....

[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.

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

[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.....

[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.