The last century has seen the rapid spread of the rainbow trout across the USA, and Anders Halverson’s award-winning book An Entirely Synthetic Fish) does an excellent job of chronicling the rainbow trout’s manmade diaspora – along with the negative effects on native fish populations.
Halverson is a thorough researcher and a fine storyteller, and his engaging book never lags or lapses into biologist “geekspeak.”
Instead, it’s an engrossing read – one that’s hard to put down, and just as hard to forget.
Halverson dives into the history of the rainbow trout starting with the expedition up the still-wild (and dangerous) McCloud River to establish a hatchery.
With sportsmen cheering every step of the way, Halverson highlights the rainbow’s rapid spread across the USA (and the planet), and the displacement (and wholesale extinction) of the native species who get in the way.
Fortunately, he manages to do this without casting the fisheries managers behind the rainbow diaspora as “bad guys.”
It was a “conquer the wilderness” era, and it wasn’t until the watershed event on the Green River – where biologists used tons of Rotenone to poison out every last native species so millions of rainbows could be stocked – that fisheries people finally blinked.
Halverson’s account of the Green River project was gripping, and in fact, read a lot like a novel (I half-expected Bond to show up).
Later, Halverson examined Montana’s “no stocking” legacy, the impact of whirling disease on several key fisheries, and the ill-fated decision of Colorado’s hatchery program to knowingly stock whirling-infected rainbow trout in almost all the state’s waters.
Halverson’s examination of the Sierra lakes hit closer to home, where rainbow trout introductions into formerly fishless alpine lakes played havoc with amphibian populations.
As someone who lives and fishes in the mountains of California, I’ve heard a great deal of grumbling from “sportsmen” about the high country fish removal policies, especially since “our” trout are being removed to protect frogs, which most people don’t fish for.
Clearly, the “sportsmen first, natives second” attitudes of the past century still loom large in many of today’s outdoorsmen (witness the cutthroat recovery and wolf reintroduction issues of the Northern Rockies), and while it’s tempting to dismiss Halverson’s book as documenting a bygone era, that’s more self-delusion than reality.
Overall, An Entirely Synthetic Fish is an engrossing book that sometimes reads like a novel (though its 30 page bibliography will dissuade you from that thought).
It deservedly won a National Outdoor Book Award, and is well worth any fly fishermen’s time.





























Like you I found the book much more readable and interesting than I originally thought. It was one of those books that I raced through very quickly (and it helped that I read it on a vacation where I had few fishing opportunities).
I caught a Rainbow in a small Brookie stream last spring. Clearly escapees from a club on the main stem that this small stream feeds are breeding. It was one of those “uh oh” moments.
Steve Z(Quote)
Last year, when [Name Redacted] and I fished that meadow stream which was nothing but cutthroats the prior year, but caught a couple Brookies and Browns, we said next time we’d bring a cooler and take out the non-natives, even tho I love Brookies. Just didn’t belong there.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Agreed. I was very tempted to make that Rainbow a snack even though I was on a stream that has catch and release regs. They should amend the regs to require harvesting of the Rainbows (and maybe even the Browns too) though I have doubts as to whether some people would know the difference.
Steve Z(Quote)
Your review is spot-on. This was a thoroughly readable study that can serve as a model for environmental history while still appealing to the casual reader.
As sportsmen it is important to remember that sportsmen are responsible for the concept of conservation (see John Reiger’s American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation) and like all concepts, the idea of conservation is also an entirely synthetic creation and therefore will and must evolve. I am currently reading The Big Burn by Timothy Egan. His study of the birth and evolution of the U.S. Forest Service is, in many ways, similar to Halverson’s. Both are very important works.
professor(Quote)
I recently watched a discussion of this book go horribly off course on a fly fishing forum. By the end of the thread I’d lost interest. Now thanks to your review my interest has been rekindled, and I am intrigued to read about the rainbotox trout. Thanks for the good review.
Kirk(Quote)
A discussion going bad on a fly fishing forum?
This is my shocked look.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
The previously mentioned discussion became more of a personality clash by self proclaimed experts than a coompilation of the facts which were minimal as mentioned. I”m not that interested as I can nolonger use my own thinking to crunch facts and understand the results I gain. I should have followed up many years ago when I had a real interest in the rainbow and goldens of the High Sierra and had the strength and ability to backpack into the home lakes and streams there
bob(Quote)
It does look like an interesting book. However, as an Albertan, I am often puzzled by this situation I’ll explain here.
Montana did not begin the studies of stocking fish into streams with wild fish. The original study was done in the 50s, at the University of Alberta, by a Dr. Robert Miller. He was done his studies and published his finding in 1952, nearly twenty years before the famous Montana/Madison River studies. As a result of this research, Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to stop the routine stocking of fish into streams that already have wild trout.
The trouble with this book, and other reports, are statements such as “well-researched,” yet then there are blundering errors such as the one above. It bothers me doubly because I’m also a History degree graduate, and value truthfulness and accuracy.
But it doesn’t just stop with this book. A couple years ago, I read an article by a famous Dave, who stated that “the landmark study on the Madison showed once and for all that stocking fish into a stream that already holds fish is a recipe for disaster.” What landmark study on the Madison? It had already been studied and published for two decades. A confirmation study, fine. Most biologists would want to show that the finding would work where they live.
To make it more interesting, after emailing the magazine’s editor (another famous Dave) at the time, he wasn’t aware of the Alberta study either.
Sorry for seeming like a grouch, but it is not right that the masses ignore the original study, while glorifying a later one. I mean, it’s twenty years apart. It isn’t like they were being researched and published within months of each other. I’m OK with people talking about the madison study, obviously, but don’t tout it as the definitive example of the effects of trout stocking on wild fish.
Nick(Quote)
Nick, maybe Dr. Miller’s work would be better know if he published it in English rather than Canadian.
Just kidding. Shoot us a citation of his paper, eh?
Sully(Quote)
“while it’s tempting to dismiss Halverson’s book as documenting a bygone era, that’s more self-delusion than reality.”
I wrote a glowing review of this book for CA Fly Fisher magazine and was clobbered over the head by Mr. Beowulff. Instead of reciting his rant, check out his Amazon review and the comments that follow. A bygone era? We can only wish.
http://www.amazon.com/Entirely-Synthetic-Fish-Rainbow-Beguiled/product-reviews/0300140878/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addThreeStar
Ralph C(Quote)
The Beowulf review suggests somebody needs to get back on their meds; the guy repeatedly attributes things to Halverson that are directly contradicted in the book – and all this before sinking into the muck with the old “elitists want to take away our right to hunt and fish” canard, apparently not noticing that Halverson himself is a fishermen.
Guess I’ll have to post my review to Amazon to counter slop like this.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Methinks Beowulf has been drinking too much mead with Hrothgar in Heorot.
Dr. Todd(Quote)
Cut the guy some slack,he most likely found out that Grendals are now C&R and dragons are now limited on size…..release under 15 feet and over 20…….
JP2(Quote)
Since I’ve never been out west I can’t comment about that. However, I can say with some authority( don’t ask!) that making blanket statements as to the success or failure(however you define it) of rainbow trout across the USA is intellectually dishonest, unless the author (or bloggers, commentators, etc.) are ignorant of a few facts. What the *@%$ am I saying? Well, here in the Southeast where brook trout populations have been pushed into the highest elevations due to habitat destruction, erosion, etc. the rainbow trout is a welcome treat. Obviously they’re not native, and neither are the brown trout so many anglers love here – but they fill a “hole” in our cold-water fisheries that the brook trout have left. Not of their own will, mind you.
So, IMHO, to lament the march of rainbows across the USA is a bit sensational – at least where the role of the fish in the Southeast is concerned! If we had no browns or rainbows in our water ( with decades’ old spawning populations most anglers now refer to as “wild”) we’d have no fisheries at all, save the hundred miles of suitable brookie habitat we have left.
So, lament the rainbow if you must, but remember that drawing conclusions about the whole country based on merely one region can be the ruin of many a good book, scientific theory, fishing tactic and political campaign.
Owl Jones(Quote)
Actually, nobody’s really doing, and neither does the book. He focuses on several situations where the hatchery culture caused some really serious issues, extincting (or nearly extincting) natives in the process.
As for the Southeast, the first thing that’s done in the heat of a brookie reclamation project is to poison out or otherwise remove the rainbow trout.
The natives suffered the double-whammy of habitat destruction (mostly logging, some mining) and the introduction of species capable of out-competing them (rainbows and to a far lesser extent, brown trout).
It’s not as if the Brookies simply abandoned pristine habitat and some thoughtful biologist threw a few rainbows in there. I’d hate to see the rainbows taken out of GSMNP wholeales, but if they were removed (and kept out), brookies would likely repopulate all but the lowest reaches of the rivers.
So while rainbows and brown trout offer more size and likely a “better”
That said, the non-natives do provi
Tom Chandler(Quote)