From the Ministry of Ooops! We’ve Been Stocking the Wrong Trout
By Tom Chandler on Sep 6, 2007 in News
Turns out the attempts to create self-sustaining populations of the Greenback Cutthroat trout were… uhmm… a little off the mark when genetic tests revealed that many of the trout being stocked were actually the more common Colorado River cutthroats.
From MSNBC.com:
The study said that out of nine populations of fish believed to be endangered greenback cutthroat trout that were descendants of survivors, five were actually the Colorado River cutthroat trout, which look similar but are a separate and more common subspecies. The other four populations were greenbacks.
The recovery effort by Colorado and federal biologists was thought to be close to its goal of 20 self-sustaining populations of at least 500 fish each. Bruce Rosenlund of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver said federal and state agencies working on restoration believed the fish were found in 142 miles of waterways, including in Rocky Mountain National Park. Researchers, though, said that based on genetic test results, the greenback cutthroat trout’s range is only 11 miles of streams.
Ouch. That’ll put an eye out.
Of course, where others see an embarrassing mistake, we see a Colorado Cutthroat trout conspiracy that the black helicopter wildlife types don’t want us to see. Rest assured the Underground will pursue this story right up until it’s time for lunch. No need to thank me.
See you in the genetic testing lab, Tom Chandler.
Technorati Tags: greenback cutthroat trout, colorado river cutthroat trout
C3C Raine | Sep 6, 2007 | Reply
So, I’ve got one for you because I just so happened to be up in the cuttie area this summer. Aside from the fact that their are less of the endangered species of Greenbacks due to this ’slip,’ the colorado river cuts have also been put in streams they never naturally inhabited. This is because the two species are native to opposite sides of the Rocky Mountian Divide. Colorado Cuts are west-slopers, while Greenbacks are east-slopers…I’d also like to voice my anger in the fact that I caught a few Greenbacks while in RMNP, and now I’m not sure how many actually were. I know one was for sure because of excellent photographical evidence but the other three could go either way…how do ‘biologists’ and the likes do something this dumb?!
ijsouth | Sep 6, 2007 | Reply
Well, I wouldn’t be so hard on them…from the article I read on this, this re-establishment program has been going on for years, before the sophisticated DNA tests that we have today. There are many different cutthroat subspecies, and many of them look the same. The same thing happened on the east coast with brook trout; the southern subspecies was not positively identified until a few years ago - in the meantime, “northern” brookies were stocked in many southern streams in an effort to re-establish populations. Now, there are some streams with northerns, some with southerns, and some with a hybrid mix.
Dave | Sep 8, 2007 | Reply
Sounds similar to what they once accomplished in British Columbia. They wanted to start a population of Atlantic lobster, and added them to an inlet on Vancouver Island, only to see them die because they forgot to untie their claws. They had bound the lobsters’ claws during shipment.
C3C Raine | Sep 8, 2007 | Reply
Even without the ’sophisticate DNA’ test it is possible to discern between two different yet closely related species with a moderate amount of effort. Subtleties like the average span between pelvic and anal fins, or dorsal and adipose fins can do a fair amount to further such a process beyond the distinct color and pattern differences of the fish. So, it’s still hard to understand such a mistake especially in view of its fairly recent/modern start in the late ’60s.