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

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 Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:23:43 -0000, wrote:

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.

Not for me, it isn't. Suppose these goofballs (whichever ones you wish
to consider) managed to take DNA from a substrain "nature" (just to get
all technical-like) was trying its damndest to eliminate, or was a
mutated substrain (good or bad, survival-wise), otherwise screwed the
pooch, DNA-sample-wise? "Greenbacks" are/were green for a reason, and
perhaps ol' momma nature had something in mind that these dip****s went
and messed up...heck, she might have just decided to make all the
streams in Colorado look like mud so them there illegals with buckets
and damned dudes from the pipeline company couldn't see the water...

TC,
R
....what I find amusing in these little passion plays is that it's
generally those who claim to have the most education about nature and
stuff also seem the most surprised by the horns when they keep poking a
bull...

Bill

wrote in message
...

...what I find amusing in these little passion plays is that it's
generally those who claim to have the most education about nature and
stuff also seem the most surprised by the horns when they keep poking a
bull...

What I find amusing is your insistence on maintaining the pretense that you
know something about something.

Wolfgang
hey, DNA.....it's just three little letters, right? how complicated can
THAT be?

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:40:36 -0500, "Wolfgang" ...

....once again proved what a good little trained pup he is...