you got the wrong fish

From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

..sigh

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

.sigh

Ooops.

Too bad Willi doesn't post here now. Would like to hear his take...

- JR

On Sep 5, 5:54 pm, JR wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

.sigh

Ooops.

Too bad Willi doesn't post here now. Would like to hear his take...

- JR

Yeah me too. I'm still trying to figure out my own take on it. There
is a pretty knowedgable poster in the topix chatroom for that article.
Might be interesting to follow.

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:46:51 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

.sigh

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

Well, that's just sad...

/daytripper (but better found out now than even later)

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

Well what more would you expect from CU? Dr Robert Behnke and his staff
at CSU are probably whooping it up right now (never mind the OT loss last
week).

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:46:51 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

.sigh

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

What I find interesting is that it took 20 years to figure it out...I
mean, if they had tried to slip in catfish in little trout costumes or
something, you'd figure folks mighta noticed...

And even allowing that the fish with the DNA they wanted to restore were
markedly different from the fish they actually used, thus making a
complete mess of things, how do they know that the DNA from the fish
they used to determine which fish DNA they wanted to preserve was not
simply another of a myriad of different DNA in fish that all looked
alike? IOW, a little science is wonderful thing..,as long as it's
tempered with a little common sense and sense of priorities...

And any ideas who paid for this screw-up?

TC,
R

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

That a mistake like this is even possible invites the question of whether
the distinction between the two varieties is large enough and important
enough to get excited about. With ever more powerful and discriminating
analytical tools and protocols becoming available at a bewildering pace, we
are fast approaching.....in fact, we have already arrived at.....a point
where arguing about the validity of these distinctions becomes impossibly
complex......and inevitable. If the genome of the greenback cutthroat is
worth saving, well then, why not the genome of the trout (of whatever
species) of a particular watershed which, I can assure you, is different
from that in the next one over? At what point does the difference become
critical? Reductio ad absurdum.......the genetic makeup of each and every
fish is unique and thus must be conserved. The trouble is that with today's
technology there is nothing fundamentally absurd about the proposition of
characterising the genome of each individual fish.

That's the eternal prolem with reification.

(snip)

.sigh

Get over yourself. Hard as it must be for everyone to believe, this really
isn't about you.

Wolfgang

On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And even allowing that the fish with the DNA they wanted to restore were
markedly different from the fish they actually used, thus making a
complete mess of things, how do they know that the DNA from the fish
they used to determine which fish DNA they wanted to preserve was not
simply another of a myriad of different DNA in fish that all looked
alike?

I wonder about this as well. The original paper talks about the
historical range of the greenback, back as far as 150 years. If the
greenback and the Colorado River strain are so alike that today's
fishery biologists cannot visually tell them apart, how do we know
that those identifying the range of the greenback 150 years ago could
tell. They certainly weren't extracting DNA from adipose fin clips!

Hm. Unfortunately the discussion of the historical range is cited
from another article by Young and Harig. I don't think I'm going to
read the whole literature, but it looks like those who have studied
the problem have extrapolated potential historical habitat for
greenback, not actual populations. Fair enough.

Bill

On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And any ideas who paid for this screw-up?

Well, in perusing some of the articles, I found that the original
Greenback Trout Recovery Program was developed in 1977 by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S.
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Who actually paid for the work over the subsequent 20-30
years? Well, it looks like.... you did! And I did- although
indirectly during the program's early years, since I was not yet a
taxpayer :-)

Bill

On Sep 6, 7:19 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

ups.com...

From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

That a mistake like this is even possible invites the question of whether
the distinction between the two varieties is large enough and important
enough to get excited about. With ever more powerful and discriminating
analytical tools and protocols becoming available at a bewildering pace, we
are fast approaching.....in fact, we have already arrived at.....a point
where arguing about the validity of these distinctions becomes impossibly
complex......and inevitable. If the genome of the greenback cutthroat is
worth saving, well then, why not the genome of the trout (of whatever
species) of a particular watershed which, I can assure you, is different
from that in the next one over? At what point does the difference become
critical? Reductio ad absurdum.......the genetic makeup of each and every
fish is unique and thus must be conserved. The trouble is that with today's
technology there is nothing fundamentally absurd about the proposition of
characterising the genome of each individual fish.

That's the eternal prolem with reification.

(snip)

.sigh

Get over yourself. Hard as it must be for everyone to believe, this really
isn't about you.

Wolfgang

Let me be clear, Wolfman, the .sig is for you sweetums.

OBROFF: I guess there's a lot of old history in the greenback recovery
program including professors that could not be bothered with it at a
time where it could have made a material difference in the recovery.
It's really a fascinating story. That said, at about the same time,
the current wisdom foisted upon flyfisherpeople in general was the
notion that 'hatcheries were bad'. The flyfishing community in
particular has been ignorant of the critical role they play and even
the role of stocking catchable non-indigenous species that sell
licenses and pay for research. The ignorance continues but issues such
as this and the importance of research on other diseases such as WD
and BKD and advancements in the role of the hatchery far outweigh any
negative affects. My personal feeling is the anti-hatchery sentiment
grew from magazine publishers and flyfishing equipment manufacturers
and retailers that equated the issues of hatchery steelhead with the
fisheries of Colorado. It is a fact that over 90% of still water in
Colorado would be devoid of fish completely if it were not for the
hatcheries. While catch and release contributes to the economy in some
cases, the flagrant anti-conservation attitudes of some, under the
false ruse of ecology, continue. The 7 castles mud slide and water
release issues from the Pan come immediately to mind. If you're
concerned about cutthroat trout in Colorado, come on out and bonk a
brookie or a rainbow. These are the real threats.

TBone
A cash flow runs through it