Should WDFW be taking DNA material from wild steelhead right now for future "cloning"? If wild stocks of steelhead becomes extinct, would it not be wise to have "cloning material" on hand to bring back that same specie?

I known that cloning has not yet been totally successful as of yet, but it's just around the corner and a matter of time before it is perfected.

What do you think?

What would be the pro and cons of doing this now?

Cowlitzfisherman

I guess if you talking about saving genetic samples of particular runs of steelhead or salmon that are purely native to that stream or river that would be a great idea but better hurry there is not many left

ROTFLMAO!! Cowfish, you just love stirring it up, eh?

My answer is a resounding YES! And Why wait? Do the cloning now!! Just think of the possibilities.....no more hatchery/wild discussions....no Indian net problems....no bait and double hook problems......what WOULD we do?

Oh yes, no need for limits or game wardens, either!!

Maybe we could clone a few extra fisherman, so there could be a Fun5Acres or a Cowlitzfisherman at each river, what about that?

Sorry, just havin' fun....

CFM,

Thought provoking as always. But, at the risk of sounding impertinent, isn't a hatchery fish a "cloned" wild fish by nature? And isn't one of the major concerns touted these days that "cloning" has in fact been too successful, to the detriment of wild stocks and to the vigor of the species. If this is not the kind of "cloning" you refer to, how would asexual propagation (true cloning) help preserve the diversity and vigor of an entire wild gene pool. To be practical: which one lucky "wild" fish would be selected, and who would choose it, and how could that one fish possibly embody all that is unique and special about each of the individual wild fish in a particular river on any given year. This is the fundamental problem and why each wild fish is special and cannot be "cloned". The moment they are cloned they are no longer wild. Unless of course you figure, as some do, that any fish, whether artificially bred or not, that lives in the wild and survives in the wild is in fact a wild fish. But that's a subject for another day. One thing is sure, today there are no easy answers. Habitat and resource protection and enhancement look like our most promising, albeit limited, options going forward. Your ideas are always interesting. Keep on pluggin' CFM and dont let the details get you down.

Interesting..............

Clones aren't offspring, they are exact genetic replicas.........so, no, hatchery fish are nothing like clones.

That being said.......genetics is only about half of what makes an individual. The environment you live in makes up the rest.

People need to realize that cloning Adolph Hitler doesn't get you another Adolph Hitler. It gets you a being with the exact genetic makeup as AH, nothing more. If you've ever met identical twins before, you know they aren't the same person........similar, yes, but not the same. The same goes for clones.

Good subject to think about, though, cowfish. I'm sure you'll hear more about it as cloning becomes more commonplace.

Clone the big ones and clone many

I'm with you Dan. But how is an exact genetic replica going to be better or different than the "cookie cutter" brats everyone is knocking, both figuretively and literally?

Lead Thrower, down here on "the farm" the way we get more, bigger and fatter sheep and goats is to cull the ones that don't make the cut. But to me what works on the farm may not be right for the wild, because essentially farming and culling are about domestication not "wildness". They both have there place, but they are not always compatible. You can get more and/or bigger fish but with consequenses to the wild fish, maybe favorable, maybe not so favorable. Kamloops trout story is only one example. Question is: if we really want wild fish are we willing to let them be wild and take them as they come? Big or little, many or few, healthy or weak? I just think that most people are under the false notion that if stocks were all wild, the steelhead would all be bigger and there would be way more of them. You are far more honest and you hit much closer to home than many would care to admit.

Cowfish,
By the way, when I mentioned "protecting and enhancing" earlier I failed to mention that the thing you and your buddies did down there on the Cow was standup. That is putting your money where your mouth is. Right on.

I don't know if they need to extract DNA now, but I think they should be keeping some frozen specimens. If not cloning, science may benefit from a history of the genetic evolution of our wild fish stocks. I think they've already done some work on this front.

Cloning is interesting but I think the thing that concerns me about it is this...

The thing that makes a species like steelhead so hearty is genetic diversity. Wouldn't cloning steelhead, and their subsequent introduction into the wild, diminish genetic diversity??

Now, if you are a talking a DNA library, where you take genetic material from every available fish and archive it according to system...I'm interested.

I see it mainly as an 'all else has failed' measure...I would certainly disapprove of introduction of cloned steelhead into a river with healthy wild populations...

DanS makes a good point...for example, human clones have existed forever and walk among us every day. Ever known a set of identical twins? Each a perfect genetic copy of the other and yet somehow retain a uniqueness and individuality in spite of their DNA... (edit: next time I'll read your whole post Dan )

Good topic Cowfish....didn't we discuss this a little last year?

NO ABSOLUTLEY NOT!!!!!!

Any effort that pulls the money and focus on wild fish in wild habitat is absolutely No good at all.

Cloning= hatcheries.. NO MORE HATCHERYS!!!!!!! Thats already where the vast majority of the WDFW budget goes No more money for hatcheries PERIOD!!!

Aside from the money issues

1. you'd have to take genetic samples from as many specimins as possible. WDFW has mega mortality problems when they handle fish so I want them to leave fish alone let alone handle as many as possible.
2. you still have to raise the offspring( most likely in a hatchery) Thet will lead to the genetic selection of offspring that are adapted to survival in the hatchery enviroment. Do this for a few years and you have exactly what we have now Steelhead that have been genetically changed from the origional through the cumulative effects of deletrious alleles. ( loss of diversity) and the subsequent lack of ability to reproduce in the wild.. This is the same problem they have with The captive breeding process. No matter what you do or where you start from you cannot get rid of the hatchery enviroments selection of individuals best suited for life in a hatchery..

Some people may not like it but the ONLY way we will save wild steelhead is through 1. protecting their habitat and 2 NOT HARVESTING THEM!!!! Thats it,, no short cuts, no middle ground either we save them or we don't Period thats it and there ain't no more..

Thanks all!

Robert Allen3: It's to early in this tread to make such statements; please let people think of the pro and cons! Then you can make your judgments…fair enough?

I am not saying that we should clone wild steelhead, but "what if" all else and all other efforts fail? Could we not then hatch out the fry form these genetic clones and put them back in the same river system that their parents had come from? I would not support raising them to smolts. Would they not have to still go through same stages of adapting to their ecological systems as there parents did? If they were tuff like their parents, they would survive, if not they would just become crawdad food!

How would you be completing with other "wild" fish if they were already gone?

I would be opposed to cloning steelhead and dumping them into rivers systems in which they were not native to, but what is wrong with dumping cloned genetic fry into the same river system that their parents had came from?

There are a lot of good comments coming in, and this time no one is mad at each other (yet).

Lets just keep hearing everyone's opinion on this issue…it sure can't hurt to be prepared for the worse!


Cowlitzfisherman

RA3 - I know how you feel and I happen to agree with you, but Cow here wants to take us down the road a see where it goes. Come to think of it my neighbors cow is always doing that. Anyway, I don't really see your point CowMan for the reason you state:

Case in point:

Mt. St Helens explodes.
Toutle River is "nuked", a veritable fish wasteland.
River left alone, you know, returned to nature.
Forward a few years later. Habit improves.
Voila, "wild" steelhead return.
Daily News - Steelhead miraculously return to Toutle.
WDFW - Toutle open to fishing, but be nice to nates.

Thing is, without mans meddling with the fish or its habitat these "wild" fish are amazingly resilient. And I think that what RA3 is pointing out is if we would just respect the fish and its habitat there would be no need to clone for future generations. The fish do very well on their own given the opportunity (good habitat) and would only benefit further from our protection.

But running with your "end of world" scenario, maybe we should have kept some of Elvis's DNA in case something happens to us. Never mind we've still got Michael J.

Cow, can't believe I've wayed in on this one 3 times already. But then you dropped the "pie" and I had to run with it.

You know, I can't count the times that I have read on this board the term "lets used the best possible science available" to restore our salmon and steelheads runs.

Now when someone brings up a valid scientific argument about the possibility of cloning steelhead to help them (the fish) from possibly becoming extinct, everyone who may oppose it starts chiming in with the old "habitat" issues. It appears that some people still believe that somehow, someplace, somewhere, someone one is going to work a miracle and "recreate" enough new habitats that will once again allow and support self-sustaining numbers of wild natural steelhead and salmon in our rivers. There may be a "few" such places that may be left, but they are far and few between.

Look around guys; it's going in the "other direction" and it is not turning around! Sure I believe in saving what we got left, but then again I, like you, are in the minority. So do we just sit around crying about it, or do want to apply science to help us? You know, dinosaurs were here once too, and if I recall the last time I looked, they are no longer here. They had all the habitat in the world, and mankind really wasn't that big of a threat to them…Yet they too are now gone!

The population of mankind keeps growing by leaps and bounds, the pollution from his growth probably doubles each year, and we think "habitat" will be the cure-all to save our fish. You can have the best "habitat" in the world at the headwaters of our rivers and you will most likely not have "healthy" runs of fish, if they are being forced to live and swim through our "sespools" that we have now created.

It's my opinion, fish need a whole lot more then just habitat to survive over the "long term" of their life cycle. We may now be seeing the begging of our newest "dinosaurs" if we don't use all the science that is available to us now. It would be stupid and irresponsible for us to continue to believe and tell ourselves that "habitat" is going to be the fish's only savior. I just can't understand why the "habitat" guys keep refusing to develop a scientific "backup" plan that will at lease give the fish an option if the "habitat dreams" become a "habitat nightmare"!

If you're going to criticize the ideal of developing a sound scientific alternative such as cloning, then use science to do it. The cloning process should not be dumped into the same barrel and mixed up with current "hatchery" problem that we now experience. I for one will keep my mind open on this until I see the science that shows it will not be a feasible alterative.

Sorry habitat guys, I'll wait until I can see the "whole picture" and just not one side of it. Show me the science that supports your reasoning why shouldn't we be developing a back up plan right now? What's there to be afraid of by doing so?

"Only a fool would put all of his eggs into one basket" This is a perfect example of doing just that. Smart people think ahead…doom people just scratch their heads and wonder what just happen!

I'm all ears guys…give us your "options" or your "back up" plan!


Cowlitzfisherman

At this stage of the game cloning has a long, long way to go before it becomes "the best available science"...until the main stumbling block, genetic diversity, is overcome its just a flat bad idea.

Methinks CF may have Raellian blood....

The argument for habitat restoration and protection is obvious, cowfish. Even cloned fish can't flourish in degraded habitat because they would be, after all, only steelhead......not super-steelhead. Besides, it isn't only steelhead that most of us are interested in preserving......it's the whole ecosystem that supports steelhead, salmon, trout, etc. that we'd like our kids and grandkids to enjoy.

That being said, it might not be a bad idea to collect samples of wild fish throughout the state and preserve them. I sure wish somebody had tissue samples from the great Elwha kings. Perhaps they could be restored using cloning technology. It sure wouldn't hurt to have samples on hand.

Still, if the habitat, ocean conditions, and our own greedy behavior ever get bad enough that we HAVE TO clone steelhead to keep them going......I get the feeling that steelhead will be the least of our concerns.

But, speaking of cloning.........wouldn't it be funny if "cookie cutters" became a term used to describe 25 lb'ers?

I still think cloning is a great Idea. At least collect the samples now.

As far as habitat goes, fish need it yes, but besides the loss of it (I.E DAMS) I dont believe Its one of the main contributing factors in the decline of the salmon and steelhead. I have silvers running in a small ditch along the road and the water is anything but clean and there is not the right size gravel in it Yet fish run it every year. There is also a simular case in silverdale a city creek that barely runs year round (its a trickle in the summer) it gets plenty of fish.

Cowlitzfisherman -
The genetic diversity we find in wild steelhead is the direct result of the diverse habitats in which they live. As we simplify habitats we are simplifying the fish. It would not be of much value other than to document what has been lost to have samples from diverse populations if there aren't diverse habitats in which they can exist and habitats that continue the selection process of natural selection.

Our anadromous salmonids, including steelhead evolved over 10.000s of years in very dynamic river systems. Over the last 150 years we as a society have done our best to make our systems as static as possible. The Cowltiz downstream of the dams is an obivious example of where all our rivers are headed. If we accepted your position that it is inevitable that is where our rivers are headed then what is the point of preserving the genetic diversity of what was?

If we reduce our rivers to mere ditches in which to transport our fish to and from the hatcheries and the marine waters then diversity isn't needed. Any fish injected in such a system will quickly evolve into just another hatchery fish - that is what is one successful in spawning and rearing in a hatchery and quickly making out to sea and back.

While don't I disagree with your position -in fact it is pretty clear that we as a society put little value on wild steelhead and wild rivers I refuse to give up entirely. By fighting tooth and nail to preserve habitats and slow the rate of their destruction we may be able to prolong the time that wild resources remain in this state and perhaps, just perhaps some future generation will have different values other than fullfilling their immediate needs.

Robert Allen 3-
The collection of genetic material today just requires just a fin clip (a piece smaller than your little fingernail is all that is needed). This can and has been done with live fish with little jeopardy to the fish (other than the capture). Your pessimistic bias towards managment agencies seems to be mis-placed.

Could not agree more than efforts that pull or diverting us from protecting habitats is likely to be counterproductive to maintaining wild salmonids. That is exactly why I have little patience with this continued harping on no killing of wild steelhead and hatchery bashing. While both of those can be of importance and deserve discussion their siginificance pales in comparison to the larger habitat issues. Wild and productive wild populations can and have developed in functioning habitats but without functioning habitats the wild fish and hatchery debates are moot!

If we reduce our steelhead fishing to only environments like the Colwlitz with only hatchery fish (regardless of their genetic makeup) then we have lost much of what makes this part of the world special. If I can't fish in wild dynamic rivers with naturally produced salmonids then I might as well be bass or carp fishing. While I find nearly all forms of fishing enjoyable (there aren't many fishermen any more eclectic as myself) being able to wade a wild river with the potential of connecting with a naturally produced fish is special to me.

Tight lines
Smalma

Very well put, Smalma. Though I love to bring hatchery fish home from time to time, when I daydream of time on the river, I'm dreaming of wild rivers with wild fish in them. Thankfully, there are still some places we can go to experience both forms of fishing. I think some individuals need to give the fish more credit for their ability to survive in the modern world so long as we don't further damage their habitat. The southern Oregon coast, for example, is seeing record numbers of wild steelhead smolts right now.

Smlama

Fair enough!

Smalma you are one of the very few people on this board that hold high respect for. The knowledge that you hold about our fish is not replaceable. But I have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue.

My wife and I have been working all day long in the yard stacking lumber that we had just had milled from a large fir tree that was "after our home"! So please bear with me, if I get a little side tracked or off track. I am really getting tired and I am trying to ask you questions that are not to argumentative.

You say; "The genetic diversity we find in wild steelhead is the direct result of the diverse habitats in which they live."

So be it; but what do we do when those "diverse habitats" are no longer there, or they become even more diminished?

You also say; "As we simplify habitats we are simplifying the fish" I have to disagree again with you, but the "fish" have no choices, but to adapt to what ever habitat that they have available…right? Is that in your mind, enough to keep self sustaining runs going?

For this propose, of debate only; you say "Our anadromous salmonids, including steelhead evolved over 10.000s of years in very dynamic river systems"

Did not other creatures like the dinosaurs do the same thing? Are they not gone now too? Evolving can only go so far some times, and then other factors take their course too.

We are almost at the end now…but you say; "The Cowlitz downstream of the dams is an oblivious example of where all our rivers are headed. If we accepted your position that it is inevitable that is where our rivers are headed then what is the point of preserving the genetic diversity of what was?

Smalma; those are 100% your words, not my words! But now that you have said it, let's take it to the next step! Tell us, in your opinion, why are we headed this way?

You say; "While don't I disagree with your position -in fact it is pretty clear that we as a society put little value on wild steelhead and wild rivers I refuse to give up entirely"

Smalma, I respect you for your stand, and you should never give it up!

I agree with you that we should continue to fight tooth and nail to "protect" what little habitat we have left.

Finally, you say; "If I can't fish in wild dynamic rivers with naturally produced salmonids then I might as well be bass or carp fishing. While I find nearly all forms of fishing enjoyable (there aren't many fishermen any more eclectic as myself) being able to wade a wild river with the potential of connecting with a naturally produced fish is special to me.

Very well stated Smalma!

I still respect your opinion better then most. To bad that there aren't more open mined people such as you that cant see both side of the pages!

Cowlitzfisherman

Cloning isn't a bad idea. But just one question.

Would that produce a spawner or would that fish be sterile?

Case in point, -farrel dogs, or dingo's were they not a domesticated animal evolved purposefully by man who then became wild through our irresponsibility? As long as man continues to be irresponsible in it's behavior involving our relationship with the earth given to us by G-d or for non-religious folks given to us accidently by nature(that is a scarry though- then why do we inheritally try to persue justice, good and compassion) we will continue to see adverse or damaging side effects of the many bad choices we make in neglect. Neglect is not love, and the result of not loving our earth it's creatures and people in a good way ultilmately could lead us down the road to our destruction. With that said, our ultimate goal should be to minimize and protect the resources that sustain us to the best of our ability. The steelhead, although an important sport fish to all of us, is just a thread in the larger web of the ecosytems health and life cycle. How do we know it is not possible that we will change or alter and better our systems of living in the future whereby our methods of survival will be less damaging then the models we now have? I like to think positively and optimisitically that we will figure it out. The example of Mt St Helens was an excellent one, whether you look at it from a "Nature" viewpoint or a "Spiritual" viewpoint. -It healed itself with time and a little concern from our part. One other note, if the dinosuars suddenly ceased to exist don't you think that nature or G-d intended it that way? Maybe we should be asking ourselves what the end will be or if we should care enough....

Cryingfish

In my opinion, it would produce the same type of spawner as that of the specie that it been cloned from. Since the patent specie has never before spawned and knew what is was to do, the same specie should inherently carry over the same spawning instinct.

That's how I see it. I may be wrong, but most likely I am not.

The prodigy of cloned fish should not be sterile because "they are" the same exact genetic make up as their parents (and their parents were not sterile). The more genetic samples they can get, the more diversified the genetic pool will be.

That way, you just don't have to depend on a single "clone" of any one wild fish; you have many "different" diversified clones' which in tern, should represent an entire run, or stock of fish.

Cowlitzfisherman

Smalma......It is becoming clear to me that many of us use the same words, but have entirely different perspectives, based on what we see in our own environment.

Habitat is one of those words that drives me up a wall, because of the extremist view points attached to that word. Another one is riparian zones, wetlands, etc. From what I have seen, the most volatile viewpoints are held by people living on lots in cities. The same people who demand that farmers can't sell their land to developers because city folks want to be able to see a cow. It is a NIMBY attitude, that precludes the possibility of farmers to improve their lot in life. And for this, the land owner gets to pay taxes for other peoples enjoyment, not his/hers.

I see you are from Woodinville. I used climb through the barbed wire fences to catch bass in the farmer's ponds in Woodinville. Likely close to where someone's house is now........perhaps yours. Now you want to talk about saving the environment and the sanctity of the wild strain of steelhead.

I have a suggestion to all who want to really do something substantial. Buy land along streams, lakes, wetlands.....pay the taxes on them (don't shirk the load off on the rest of us by jumping into a land trust) and then see that your land is in the best shape you can make it. That's saving something.

I am a land owner rights advocate (fancy that ). I am also a wildlife enthusiast who has lived in Western Wa. for almost 50 years. I am not anti-gun, anti-growth, or anti-hatchery.

The answer is simple......good stewardship. I take care of the stream that runs by my place and I get incredible joy watching the steelhead and salmon spawn there. I, personally, wouldn't damage that stream for anything, but that doesn't mean all who live by streams understand streams. I'm sure some of you folks see streams and rivers that have been trashed by industry and dense development. Fortunately, it is not that way here.

There is no stopping people from moving here, and that is where the problem lies.....how do we deal with all the additional pressure on the sport we all love? I don't have the answer, but I do know it is not going to be solved by bickering.

Best Regards to All and Happy Fishin'

Fun5Acres,

Were you replying to my response or Smalma? I live in Woodinville, he lives in Marysville. I rent a house with two other friends who happen to be fishermen. All of us grew up here(Redmond area -used to fish Bear Creek when there was a golf course) and are now 30yrs. I am a landowner however in Curlew, Wa near the Kettle River. By the way, I'm with you on the freezer thing!
Best Fishing to you, DB

Steelnerves......geez, thanks for catching that error.
My reply was not-so-much directed at any person, but rather at a few of the issues I view as continually problematic for me.

The reference to Woodinville was only used to exemplify how the same areas that are now occupied by people used to be occupied by fishing holes, but I guess I blew it!

Cowlitzfisherman -
Not sure that I completely understand your questions or that I can expalin my statements any clearer however here goes.

Our fish under constant selective pressures from their environments - those that are best suited for a particular condition are those most likely to survive to spawn and pass on those traits to future generations. As we make our rivers more alike - through confining the channels, diverting and/or regulatiing flows, etc - the fish become more similar. Thus the lost of diversity.

Lets take one simple trait - spawning timing. It is clear the timing of the spawning of our wild steelhead is determined in large part by the hydrograph of their watershed. Those systems whose hydrographs are dominated by rainfall (high lows in the late fall/early winter and declining flows from spring into the summer) have typical peak steelhead spawning of late March/early April (examples would coastal streams). Those systems dominated by snow run off (high flows in both the fall/early winter and late spring/earlysummer with declining flows occurring in mid summer) have peak spawning from late April (example Snohomish) or mid-May (example Skagit system). The reason of course is that spawning is timed so that the fry will emerge from the gravel so that gains from have longer rearing (early emergence) and high mortality due to excessive flows (need later emergence) are balanced to produce the most successful survival strategy. Thus the spawning is timed so that the fry pop from the gravel as soon as the spring/summer flows begin coming down. When man steps in a places a dam on a system to capture the summer run-off for power or water needs the downstream hydrograph is changed thus the fry survival matrix changes meaning the spawning timing changes. As more and more rivers are "managed" for our water needs their hydrographs become similar; ergo their fish become similar.

Your dinosaur example is interesting- they were successful for 10s of millions of years. However the prevailing theory is that a large asteroid crashing into the earth drastically and suddenly changed their habitats through dramatic climatic changes. They were not able to adapt and became extinct. My concern is that our alterations of our streams is becoming the steelhead's asteroid.

Fun5acres -
I understand your desire for property right protection. It is certainly your right to advocate that position. However at the same time it is disingenuous not to acnowledge that allowing everyone to do what they please with "their land" has dire consequences to most natural resources.

The question becomes -How much are we willing to limit individual property rights to protect public resources. Nearly everyone would agree it is not in societies best interest for me to locate a nuclear waste site in my back yard ever though I may benefit greatly financially. We seem to differ on how much infringement of private rights is acceptable to protect fish, wildlife, water or quality of life resoources. Do we wish to keep those resources? If so how much? Are we willing to pay for it either in reduced rights or financial reimbursements? Those questions keep boards like this lively!

Tight lines
Smalma

Fun5Acres,

No harm taken. None given. Good thoughts. smalma might be right about good land owners like yourself who care --and the others who are either uneducated, unaware or worse neglectful and the worst -greedy and harmful.

To everyone else,

It's nice to see the passion flowing out of everyone on such important things. Maybe we should invest more time and energy into "Virtual Steelhead Fishing"??

I fall in with the group that believes that mother natture is mother nature and as hard as we try we cannot replace her.EVERYTIME man intervenes {logging mining,comercial fishing....}we loose and end up back peddalling pretending like we can use science to fix her.It has never worked.

I grew up understanding that energy never goes away just changes into another form.I like to think of the food chain the same way.Fish make up a huge part of the food chain.Thinking along those lines the fish in our rivers have an impact clear across the world!Turning a watershed into a mathemaatical formula does not work because that watershed is such a small part the fish play in the food chain. We get stuck in our little box,thinking only about our favorrite fishery but really it is almost beyond our imagination.It is definately beyond our science.

The thought of medalling in the food chain with cloning scares the hell out of me.We have no buisness,given our track record, presuming that we can continue down this path.There is no scientific discovery out there that is going to fix what human nature has done to mother nature.Admiting our part in the scheme of things will fix her but kinda like a bad drug addict we are going to have to hit rock bottom before we open our eyes to the truth.

The truth is that if we want the wild fish to survive than we need to lessen,remove mans impact on the fish.plain and simple.I know this is a very complicated issue,but the truth is that for the wild fish to survive it has to happen.pieriod.

Micro,
I grew up fishing Mosher creek,clear creek,and barkers creek.I could tell you how differant stages of development along those watersheds has lessend there ability to support fish.A bunch of breeder box chums does not indicate a healthy stream.

Smalma

Thanks again for both your reply and impute!

Once again Smalma, you have brought to this boards attention, something that really makes sense to me, and may just explain WHY our wild steelhead runs may be declining and possibly on their way out (for the short term anyway!). I don't know if you even knew that you may have hit the nail right on its head!

You said; "Your dinosaur example is interesting- they were successful for 10s of millions of years. However the prevailing theory is that a large asteroid crashing into the earth drastically and suddenly changed their habitats through dramatic climatic changes. They were not able to adapt and became extinct. My concern is that our alterations of our streams is becoming the steelhead's asteroid."

Very interesting point that you have made! Do you think that it just might be possible that our fish (wild native steelhead) are now experiencing a small form of an asteroid called "El Nino"? It would sure make sense to me, especially after reading your latest reply and explanation about; "It is clear the timing of the spawning of our wild steelhead is determined in large part by the hydrograph of their watershed. Those systems whose hydrographs are dominated by rainfall (high lows in the late fall/early winter and declining flows from spring into the summer…)".

I can see a direct correlation between declines in our steelhead returns to the increasing number of the El Nino events. Just maybe, that may be part of our problems and we are just too blind to even see the correlation between the two. The changes that may be occurring are NOT as sudden at your asteroid theory, but never the less, they are continuing to change the climate all over the world. It's just possible; that we aren't looking at the big picture and that we are only looking at a much smaller picture called local "habitat". If the steelheads aren't finding the right water temperatures in the oceans, and they aren't getting the right food chain either in our oceans or their streams to support their cycle of life, Isn't it just possible that we are not seeing the whole picture here?

I guess we tend to go after the "habitat" issue, because it's in our own "back yards" compared to knowing almost nothing about what really "happens to steelhead" when they leave our coast and begin their final growing cycle in someone's else's habitat. The more I think about it, the more I am concerned that we may be barking up the wrong tree! I am not saying that "habitat" is not a key factor in steelhead survival; because it is. But what I am saying is; maybe it's not so much the habitat in our "back yards" to blame, as much as it may be the habitat in "the ocean" that is killing off our wild runs of steelhead.

It appears that we may be facing the doubled edged sword when it comes to habitat at home and habitat at sea. Steelhead can't make it with just one and not the other. So my question to you is; Does any of your research or studies show what the effects of El Nino has been, or is on seaward bound steelhead, or the natural production of native steelhead? Or are we all just making guesses on what we think is really going on?


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman-
I have little expertise on ocean survival conditions or on most other areas for that matter. My limited knowledge is that various ocean conditions such as El Nino have been around for 1000s of years. As the ocean warms in El Nino the usable portion of the North Pacific for steelhead contracts (warmer water temperatures limit how far south the fish can forage etc). In addition to have less "pasture" the changing temperatures favors different species cause both forage and prey species abundances to vary. Bottom line generally for our steelhead survival goes down meaning poorer fishing in our rivers (for both hatchery and wild fish).

These types of cyclic events as well as disaster such as the Mount Saint Helens eruption have been occurring forever. The fish have developed life strategies to sucessfully deal with these situations - the fact that they are here confirms that they have been successful. Generally the large disasters such as Saint Helens or forest fires occur in relatively small geographic areas (affect just a basin or two). Thus when one population is affected other nearby ones aren't which provide refugia for the species.

The problem is that these natural processes are occurring over relative long time frames (decades to centuries) while we generally look at things in much shorter periods. Comparing this year to last years or for us longer term anglers (old farts) how today compares to the good old days a couple decades ago. Our prespectives aren't the same as Mother Natures.

Of course the larger issue is the nature of the disasters of which I spoke. While it is true that they tend to localized rather than global such as the dinosaurs asteroid we as the human species have been attacking our streams at a global level. Most of our streams are being confined, damed, logged, filled, etc. This of course means that when these poor survival conditions cycle around (El nino) our alternations of the habitat reduce the probability that the fish will have safe or productive refugia.

It appears that we are testing the resilency of the populations to a level near seen before. I for one am uncomfortable with this form of Russian Roulette on a resource that I care deeply about.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

One more quick question. Does anyone really know just how long steelhead have been native to Washington State (i.e. 200, 500, 1000 years or whatever) or how old the "specie" steelhead is?

That too may help us (including me) to understand why the steelhead populations are continuing to head downward. Could it be that they (steelhead) are just beginning to start an end to a life cycle in fish evolution?


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitzfisherman-
Further taxing my limited knowledge.

Without doing any research as I recall the first of the salmonid type fish show up in the fossil records maybe 50 million years ago. The first of the salmon/trout type was around maybe 10 million years ago. Likely evolving in the Arctic which at that time would of had a climate somewhat like todays pacific Northwest conditions. Folks believe that the first of the "modern" trout to colonize the NW was cutthroat, followed by the redbands and then todays rainbow/steelhead. As this region expereinced glaciation various populations came and went as their basins were alternately were buried and exposed by ice that at times may have miles thick. As recently as 12,000 years ago the area north of Southern Puget Sound was ice covered. As that ice age ended and the ice receded our streams were colonized from populations found to the South, interior of the upper Columbia and/or the Queen Charolate Islands north of Vancouver Island.

I may have some of the details incorrect as my memory is what it was once. However believe the above will give you a sense of how long these animals have been our streams.

Tight line
Smalma

Looks like this is becoming a franken World. What the h*&l is goin on? I am sure not ready to share my fishing hole with Frankenstien. I can just see the need for extra clone fisherman to keep the clone fish in check. I say lets sleep on it for a few thounsand years until our brains are more developed and our morals and values upgraded.

I guess that I would have to be in favor of extracting D.N.A. for the use of cloning fish in the future if necessary.Of course you would need as many samples as possible,so you could still have the diversity in the fish.

What if we do everything possible to provide the best possible habitat for the fish,and they still become extinct.Face it we dont know enough about ocean conditions.There is little we can do to regulate the weather patterns.So the only real control we have is in the habitat of the streams they live in.Tops this is 1/3 of the equation.That leaves a lot of room for disaster in all other areas.

What I'm getting at is that no matter how much habitat enhancement we do there is a possibility that these runs could be totally wiped out.Who knows when,maybe soon,maybe thousands of years down the road.

Why not have the basis for starting new runs or improving the runs we have,once the science of cloning is perfected.The habitat in the rivers and oceans recover,if possible,and the weather patterns decide to cooperate again.

Its like money in the bank.(I hope) If we save now maybe we can have some for seed later.If we dont save now,how could we ever have the seed for later.Once its gone you cant go back in time to get it.

Hopefully the worst case scenario never happens.The runs rebuild on there own,and we dont have to face such a dilemna.But what if?
Kinda thinking outside the box I guess.

Mooch,
Your remarks really aroused my curiosity.I was about to argue your point about the Toutle.I guess actually I am.But in the same sense maybe supporting it.

The Toutle wasnt really left alone.Remember the sediment dam.All the silt thats built up behind it.Imagine what could have happened if that dam wasnt built and all that silt was allowed to flush out of the system.

There would have been a need for a lot more dredging on the Cow. and Columbia.(probably needs it again in the near future anyhow)but the whole Toutle valley might not be inundated in silt,like it is now.There would probably be a whole lot more natural habitat and spawning grounds to allow these runs to rebuild like the should.

There is very little fishing opportunity for steelhead on the mainstem Toutle. I think it is more of just a passage to streams and rivers that were relatively untouched by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

The South fork Toutle.and Green river were for the most part out of harms way during the eruption and flows that followed.The only stream that I remember for sure that supported fish runs and dumps into the North fork and was also relatively untouched was Alder creek.There May have been some others,but its been so long I honestly dont remember.

Maybe the fish that were in Alder creek at the time of the eruption have reproduced enough to help rebuild runs in the n. fork.Maybe some of the Green and S fork fish helped rebuild the runs.I dont know.

I would be curious though just how many fish are transported over the sediment dam.How many go further upstream than Alder creek.How many spawn naturally,in the N fork compared to Alder creek.

I guess I'm curious if its rebuilt itself as well as you say,or maybe were led to believe.As far as I know we arent allowed to fish above the sediment dam.Why not if the runs have recovered as mentioned. C.N.R.?

Maybe somebody on here can give us the #s or tell us where to get them. Or have some answers to the other questions.

Kinda long winded,kinda scattered,kinda off track. But you brought it up,and I,ve been curious for many years.So I couldnt resist.
Maybe good for a new topic on this one?

Gents,

Cloning, pure and simple, is just another means of ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION of a species. With regard to steelhead, this issue boils down to two basic, but separate, issues which are:

1. Is artificial propagation of steelhead necessary or desireable for the propagation of the species?

2. Should cloning be used as a means of artificial propagation of the species?

With respect to cloning, it is possible to address question #2 without having to answer question #1, as it then becomes a discussion of BMP, or "best management practice", or best scientific practice if you will. Remarkably the answer to this question is not at all unclear, because whether cloning becomes a more effective means of animal propagation in the future or not, it will never be a preferred, or even desirable, means of propagation of steelhead. No, not even if cloning acheives its full theoretical potential.

The reason for this is simply because even in the best case scenario, cloning which is "asexual reproduction" has INHERENT drawbacks to hatcheries or artificial insemination which is"sexual reproduction".
First of all it is (and always will be) less efficient.
Secondly, the total lack of genetic diversity is a serious (actually monumental) drawback.
Thirdly, cloning offers no benefit to the currently available best management practices of "sexual repoduction" and in no way offers a solution (even the potential for a solution) to the problems presented by the current BMPs (which is hatcheries today).
Fourthly, it has no unique or special benefit over any other techniques currently available for the artificial propagation of steelhead, as a species. To an individual, possibly.
To rephrase in simple english:
If hatcheries are inefficient, cloning will always be more inefficient. (Sorry George Jetson)
If we can't afford hatcheries now, you can forget about cloning ever.
If genetic diversity and vigor is a problem with hatcheries today (and this is a big one folks), cloning doesn't even begin to compare.

And this does not even take in to consideration the other mitigating concerns about cloning as they involve the first question and whether it is something that is needed or even desirable. It simply has exceedingly limited potential for the artificial propagation of steelhead, now or in the future.

While question #2 is very easy to answer, question #1 is far, far more difficult. Regarding question#1 however, please understand that I am NOT promoting hatcheries as part of this discussion. But for those of you that are in favor of artificial propagation, you must understand that cloning is simply not a viable option, now or in the future. For those against artificial propagation of steelhead, cloning is a topic that has the potential to detract and deflect from the significant and pressing issues that are currently being addressed with regard to wild fish. It may be fun to mentally masticate this topic but it is a RED HERRING. It would be sad to think that in our ardor to solve all the problems of the world by the idol that is technology, we would once again fall hook, line and sinker for the assurances that were made when the dams were built. Yes, of course we needed the power, but did we really believe it would be free, with little or no impact on the fish resource, when they told us that "future technologies" would mitigate the impact on the resource. They are still trying (desparately now) to deliver on those promises today, crying out "where is our god now?".

Forget the cure, cloning is not even a panacea!

Back to reality here folks.

The technology to clone fish does not presently exist. Assuming the cost were similar to cloning mammals (cats dogs, sheep, people), something in the range of $200k to $1000K per animal is the expected price tag.

For a low tech solution to the problem, to achieve more genetic diversity in hatchery fish, why not select for it directly. In a sense hatchery steelhead and salmon are just domesticated animals. Why not do what animal breeders have been doing for thousands of years and select for desirable traits. Why not only spawn those hatchery fish that have desirable traits? ie stronger, bigger or more aggressive fish?

Just my $0.02

Geoduck I think you are making more sense that the rest. This was not only done on domestic animal but also on slaves here in America. They would try to match the biggest and strongest in order to get the most robust offsprings. They would get more of the hard work that needed to get done, done faster.