![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "rw" wrote in message ink.net... Wolfgang wrote: "rw" wrote in message nk.net... Producing hatchery fish -- even ones bred from wild stock -- doesn't change the genes... Yes, it does. Every environment has its mutagens. No two are the same. That's true, I suppose, but it's a very small effect over just one generation, How many hatcheries that you know of operate for just one generation? and probably not even measurable because sustainable mutation rates are low. Certainly not measurable, but not for the reason you state. Mutation rates are not only highly variable from one species to another, but can also be so within a single species for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the presence, character, and relative abundance of mutagens. Before one can say anything meaningful about mutation rates in a given species, one has to know a lot more about its genetics than we currently do about any of the salmonids. Most short term variation in genetics (by far) comes from sexual reproduction and the resulting combination of alleles, and not from mutation. That's Biology 101. Actually, that information is readily available in high school biology texts, any decent encyclopedia, back issues of "Scientific American" and quite possibly even on the internet (check with Google); one hardly needs to wait for college. The point I was making, Poorly......but, go on. if you can just stop wanking for a moment, Just CAN'T get that image out of your brain, huh? I wonder......do you fantasize in great detail.....or is it just fuzzy images? is that hatchery production affects the genetics of populations, Not as startling as the revelation that sunglasses aren't primary source of light on Earth, but interesting nevertheless. You might want to approach some institution of higher learning with that thought and see if they can run with it. if not (very much) the actual genes themselves. Again, that remains to be seen. I'm not as alarmed about hatchery production of steelhead and salmon as some people are. Evidently. I don't doubt that hatchery production adversely affects the gene pool (from our point of view as fishermen), but the real problem is habitat loss and degradation. Hatcheries should be seen as temporary, stop-gap measures. If the habitat were somehow magically restored to its pristine condition (not likely) and hatchery production were stopped, the population genetics of fish would return to a "normal" wild state in a few generations, under normal wild selection pressures, as long as the underlying genetic diversity hadn't been lost. Restoring habitat to a "pristine" condition would indeed require magic. There are two approaches to the problem, I think. One; we could simply leave a particular habitat alone......no contact with humans and no influence from any human activity (or what does "pristine" mean?). This is the passive approach......and it simply isn't going to happen. Two; active restoration requires deliberate and intensive human intervention......which is sort of the antithesis of what a pristine environment requires, ainna? Good luck. Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TR: Sea-run charr (*super* long, w/ pictures) | Jarmo Hurri | Fly Fishing | 40 | December 21st, 2004 03:35 AM |
Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness | KrakAttiK | Fishing in Canada | 73 | April 22nd, 2004 06:39 AM |
Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | General Discussion | 14 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |
Fish much smarter than we imagined | John | Fishing in Canada | 10 | October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM |
Scientific Research confirms that fish feel pain: INTENSIVE FISH FARMING | John | General Discussion | 3 | October 6th, 2003 09:50 PM |