Wild Trout Lose Again

June 29, 2011 — 12:11 pm | Posted by John Juracek in Essays & Opinion, 2011 Blog Archives

Last month the National Park Service released their Native Fish Conservation Plan, a document that will guide management of the fisheries in Yellowstone Park. Prior to the adoption of this plan, public comment was sought through a variety of venues. Of the thousands of pieces of correspondence received by the Park Service, less than 3% of them objected to the proposed plan. My comments were among those.

I objected to the plan, in part, because one of their projects proposes the eradication of rainbow trout from Trout Lake, a small lake in Yellowstone’s northeast corner that is also home to a fine population of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. This eradication would take place under the guise of “native species management”, that trendy management principle currently running amok in seemingly all agencies that deal with natural resources, fisheries in particular. In the Park Service’s judgment, the rainbows of Trout Lake present an intolerable threat to the genetic purity of the resident cutthroats. Therefore, in the name of native species management, they must be eliminated.

I understand and appreciate the value and role in the world of fish such as the Yellowstone cutthroat, Westslope cutthroat, and Grayling (three species of concern to the Park Service). But that doesn’t mean I will blindly accept actions proposed on their behalf that ignore the realities of the world as they are today. More tellingly, I will not support policies that refuse to acknowledge the arbitrariness of the decision-making process used in establishing management directives.

You see, a species is native only by definition. A point in time is selected—invariably the one which coincides with the appearance on the scene of Euro-American man—and lo and behold, everything in place prior to that is “native”. Okay. I suppose that’s a convenient way to look at it. But it’s also an arbitrary way, one which strikes me as somewhat arrogant. That’s because a definition like this places the human species front and center in the discussion, while at the same time attempting to leave us out of the picture entirely. I don’t think we can have it both ways.

There are other problems involved with this line of thinking as the basis for defining nativity. Using the arrival time of Euro-American man implies that at that point the world was perfect. And that, naturally, this is the state to which we should strive to return. Well, alright. That’s a philosophical issue; no right or wrong here. (I may believe we should strive to return Yellowstone to a point millions of years ago when there were no fish, period. You may favor returning it to, say, 1970, thus defining nativity in yet another way.) The important thing is to acknowledge that whatever choice we make, it’s arbitrary. A value judgment. Because of that, we need to be exceptionally careful when we consider how best to manage a resource.

With respect to Yellowstone’s fisheries, the return point in time selected by the Park (the 1800’s, it appears; the public was never invited to this discussion) also assumes a static world. But we all know the world is ever-changing, with or without us. The existence of a time when all was right with the world—a time that would endure ad infinitum—is fantasy. In the case of the rainbow trout, it’s likely that they would have made it here on their own, given enough time. Just so happens we got here first, and brought them along with us.

Which raises another important matter: the presence and activity of man. Our role in the world—good or bad, like it or not—is as an agent of change. We alter virtually everything in the world we come into contact with. It’s what we’ve always done. If history is any indication, it’s what we’ll always continue to do. Changes we have wrought include, obviously, the relocation of fish species from one place to another.

Back to Trout Lake. Wild rainbow trout have been living there since the 1950’s, ever since it was used as a hatchery for their propagation. Throughout that time, cutthroat have also been present in the lake. To this day—some fifty years later—both the cutthroat and rainbows remain genetically pure. The question naturally arises: Why, then, must the rainbows go? Because in the Park Service’s estimation, they now present a threat to the genetic integrity of the cutthroat. Which is to say that in someone’s opinion, the threat is so serious that every rainbow must be killed. In this day and age, with wild trout populations under fire from many directions, that’s a pretty serious thing. At least I think it is.

So forgive me for objecting to this part of the Park’s plan. But I’m siding with the evidence on the ground as it stands today—that both species of trout in Trout Lake are genetically intact. This, after better than fifty years of co-existence. Yeah, I’ll take that over the all-too-sudden appearance of an opinion crying “serious threat”.

In today’s “enlightened age” it’s unlikely we would plant rainbow trout where cutthroat reside, or stock brown or brook trout where none existed before. But the fact is, that’s what we did. And if these other species aren’t truly “native” to Yellowstone, they are at least naturalized. They’ve now been in the Park longer than any human has been alive. In many places, they are supremely adapted to current environmental conditions—conditions, it’s worth noting, that are significantly different than existed one-hundred-plus years ago. These fully functioning wild trout populations—and they are numerous—are not worth sacrificing for the sake of policies buttressed with suspect philosophical underpinnings. Attempting to turn back the clock to some idealized time in history by the substitution of one species of fish for another is, in my opinion, misguided.

I think a more sensible approach, one which respects our role in the world, is to recognize the value in all the trout species in Yellowstone Park. By all means, let’s take care of the “natives”. But not at the expense of other trout species (exception noted below). Sentencing to death wild, self-sustaining populations because they fail to meet today’s standards of “nativity” resists justification.

I only wish it wasn't too late to chart another course.

Notes: Examples of other Park projects that I objected to are the construction of a barrier on Grayling Creek and the poisoning of the Gibbon River system above Gibbon Falls.

I do support all efforts of the Park to remove Lake trout from Yellowstone Lake. This is a special circumstance because of the predator/prey relationship that exists between the Lake trout and Yellowstone cutthroat (as opposed the the situations in Lewis and Shoshone Lakes, where brown trout and lake trout simply co-exist).

Comments

John, if your trying to understand their reasons for wanting to change all the species around, your barking up the wrong tree. How do you expect them to increase the size of their little part of the fastest growing business in the country - the United States Government. How are they going to get pay raises, retire at age 35, add employees that end up working below them so they can just attend meetings, etc. How are they even going to justify their current pay and beneifits that’s almost double the average guy working for a private company or ourselves like you and I. This is just a tiny part of the current administration’s Obama plan whereas the damn government rules, regulates and controls everything, of course, as with him in charge. I think they called it “Change”. Change turned 0ut to be increasing your taxes, telling you what to eat, telling you what you can and can’t do with your health, getting into an impossible amount of debt to recover from, and on and on. In this case, telling you what you can fish for and not fish for. Maybe they will speed up the killing process and come up with a special Stimulus plan for it. The cost doesn’t matter. China will help us out with it. Did you actually think they had real justification otherwise?

By James Marsh on 06/29 2011
and one more thing. Given a worthwhile project to do, like removing the Lake Trout from Yellowstone Lake, they fail, can’t handle it, and at the same time have the guts to won’t to start more projects.

By James Marsh on 06/29 2011
Fine commentary, John.

By Rob Estes on 06/29 2011
John, while I normally enjoy and wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts and commentary on this blog, I couldn’t help but take issue with this line of argument:

You see, a species is native only by definition. A point in time is selected—invariably the one which coincides with the appearance on the scene of Euro-American man—and lo and behold, everything in place prior to that is “native”. Okay. I suppose that’s a convenient way to look at it. But it’s also an arbitrary way, one which strikes me as somewhat arrogant. That’s because a definition like this places the human species front and center in the discussion, while at the same time attempting to leave us out of the picture entirely. I don’t think we can have it both ways.

You seem to ignore the fact that your approach—leaving “wild” fish alone, regardless of their impact on native fish that predated them—is the approach that truly “places the human species front and center in the discussion,” because the wild populations that you refer to only exist as a direct result of human intervention. The true arrogance, in my humble opinion, would be to assume that we did it right, and argue that the results of our forefathers’ stocking programs (however well-intentioned they may have been) should now be allowed to stand unmolested regardless of how things were before.

By Jeff on 06/29 2011
Gentleman we should all be thankful OUR United States Gov’t took into it’s possession millions of acres and established OUR first national park. So that we all can enjoy it’s beauty today. If not for OUR United States Gov’t… Yellowstone would have been a corporate elitist getaway,mining pits,logging operations or a for profit corporate controlled amusement park where Trout lake would have been stocked with walleye over rainbows and jet skis would run wild over Yellowstone Lake. Let us also not forget, so called “socialists” of his day like Teddy Roosevelt used the United States Gov’t power to set aside millions+millions of acres into conservation protection. It’s not OUR gov’t telling us what to fish that is the problem @ hand… it’s corporate America sucking every last penny out of this great country in the name of greed. Where a average Joe can’t even afford to take his family on a road trip to Yellowstone let alone get time off work @ his private sector low paying job where most employees live in constant fear of being fired for taking multiple days off work to go fishing. Sorry for the rant, had to drown out the right winger

By Jack Underhill on 06/29 2011
Interesting piece of work, Mr. Juracek! I believe what you are getting here is the underlying assumption of uniformitarianism that guides much ecological restoration without accounting for the dynamic nature of ecosystems, regardless of what this dynamism is a result of (humans, “natural” progression, etc..). I just finished reading an interesting book about invasion, nativity, etc. that you might be interested in: “Out of Eden: A Journey of Ecological Invasion” by Alan Burdick. Check it out in the off-season, but certainly don’t bother with it now that the Firehole sounds like it is fishing so well! Christine and I will likely be coming out in some point in August, and we are hoping to have the honor of going fishing with you!

Mr. Marsh—to put it lightly, the suggestion that this comes as a result of big government, Obama, and lucrative public salaries is, in my opinion, a bit off-base. Past Republican administrations have certainly enacted measures pertaining to nativity, or “telling you what you can fish for and not fish for,” as well as regulations related to food consumption and health concerns. These are not some novel ideas introduced by President Obama. On another note, the public-private sector compensation disparity that you speak of is miniscule when compared to disparities that occur within the private sector. As far as how Chinese debt build-up factors into the eradication of rainbows from Trout Lake, I’m just confused.

After watching three juvenile otters chasing some guy’s rooster tail last summer, I think Trout Lake should just be closed to fishing…or at least the use of flies and lures that imitate bait fish.

By James B. on 06/29 2011
Wow! At least I got some traffic for John’s excellent articles and a change for me. It’s the first time I’ve been called a right winger. As far as funding, I was unaware that the removal of rainbows from Trout Lake was already funded, much less cost of the many other mile long streams projects the park took into consideration and are undertaking. I though these project would require money that’s hasn’t yet been budgeted, especially since our current democratic controlled Senate hasn’t as much as even established a federal budget for the entire last two years of 4 more trillion in deficit spending.
The lack of funding is the park’s excuse for their failure to remove at least most of the lake trout from Yellowstone Lake, yet they want to take up new project of restoring native species that, as John says, can’t even be truly be identified as native. If any money is spent on Trout Lake, as tiny an amount as it may be, I say it will have to come from China or Japan, because the United States in 14 trillion plus dollars in the hole. Maybe the reponder that don’t get it, needs to take a 101 course in accounting, or is it beyond a far left wing demoncrat to do that?

By James Marsh on 06/30 2011
I addressed my opinions on this topic on my blog awhile back, but in short, I agree largely with your reasoning John and definitely with your conclusions. My biggest complaint with the Park’s proposal was with the upper sections of the Gibbon. It is ridiculous to restore a stream to what, in the Park’s own document, is referred to as probably not even having cutthroat historically. In other words, they are restoring fish to a stream even though they were never there in the first place. That sounds just great and downright unfortunate as I really enjoy catching the wild species present in the middle and upper portions of this drainage. Furthermore, if it turns out like some of our brook trout restoration projects here in the Great Smoky Mountains, some bucket biologist will probably reintroduce the invasives anyway meaning all that money will be wasted…

By David Knapp on 06/30 2011
I want to thank everyone who has commented on this post for taking the time to read it and offer their thoughts. I appreciate all the various perspectives. I also welcome additional comments, regardless of their bent.

In particular, I’d like to respond to Jeff’s line of reasoning. Indeed, as he says, the rainbow populations in the Park are the direct result of human intervention. But I’m not suggesting that planting them in Yellowstone was either right or wrong. That implies a value judgment (on which more later). I’m merely saying that altering ecosystems is what we do as a species; moving fish from one place to another is an example of this. We need to acknowledge this behavior and understand that it often occurs independently of the value systems we later seek to impose on a given situation. In that sense, this behavior can be viewed precisely as not placing us “front and center” in the discussion—at least, not until we attempt to undo what we’ve already done. That’s the point I was trying to make in the paragraph Jeff highlights.

What the Park Service has done with their fisheries plan is to make a value judgment—on their own—for the public as a whole. In doing so they have ignored the democratic process. But I think the public should always have a say in determining something as important as the value of the various species of fish in Yellowstone. Because, after all, that relative ranking of fish is the crux of this issue. It’s what fosters the different projects the Park Service will undertake, the elimination of the Trout Lake rainbows among them.

By John Juracek on 06/30 2011
I agree totally with John. If there is no evidence of genetic admixture (introgression) between Yellowstone cutthroat and rainbow trout in Trout Lake, then it is best to let both populations be. Reproductive isolation between these species is something to be preserved (and studied). Why are these populations reproductively isolated here, but not elsewhere? In any case, rainbow trout now have free access to the Lamar Drainage from downstream. There are also (reputedly) populations of rainbow trout in the headwaters of Soda Butte Creek, Pebble Creek, and elsewhere. Is there any introgression going on? These upstream populations could be valuable in blunting introgression from rainbow trout originating from downstream in the Yellowstone drainage.

Please take an evolutionary perspective. Not all populations of rainbow trout are genetically identical. They differ in life-history characteristics and time of spawning. All of these influence the likelihood of hybridization with Yellowstone cutthroat. From the perspective of the Yellowstone cutthroat, it may be dangerous to remove the (from the cutthroat’s perspective) benign populations of rainbow. Other, not so benign, rainbows from downstream may fill the gap, increasing the likelihood of hybridization.

Hybridization is often an outcome of disturbance. Poisoning of fish populations could actually make hybridization more likely.

One final thought. Hybridization among populations, races, subspecies, and species is a natural process. I’ve spent most of my career studying hybridization of sunfishes, woodpeckers, sagebrush, and, most recently, Yellowstone cutthroat and rainbow trout. Low rates of introgression occur when populations have been stable for long periods. It is a source of genetic variation (usually a good thing). Genetic swamping of one population (Yellowstone cutthroat) by another (rainbow trout) is what we all want to avoid. A small amount of introgression may actually benefit some populations of Yellowstone cutthroat, which have the lowest genetic variation of any known salmonid (see Allendorf and Leary).

Dr John Graham
Reid Professor of Biology
Berry College
Mount Berry, Georgia

By John Graham on 06/30 2011
John, Great essay. I’m in here late on this blog entry-but your logic is sound. It would seem to me that if they have funding to restore/protect the Yellowstone Cutthroat it would be better spent on research to eliminate the Lake Trout from Yellowstone Lake. That debacle is a far greater threat to the survival of the species than Trout Lake. They need to step back and reconsider—something I realize is hard for a government agency to do. Thanks for your continued writing.

By Bill Williams on 07/01 2011
To be clear I agree with your opinion John regarding the Trout Lake issue.

To our right winger friend Mr.Marsh… wasn’t it Dick Cheney who said if I may quote, “deficits don’t matter” Correct me if I’m wrong sir?

Of course selling/borrowing USA debt to China for a Iraq War while neglecting our homeland and creating a false sense of prosperity ultimately creating a extreme binge in consumer spending followed by a Great Recession, is being conservative?

Gentleman don’t forget history shows us that Ronald Reagan reversed a long trend of reducing national debt as a percentage of GDP,which had been lowered by every previous president(except Gerald Ford) since the end of World War 2.

By Jack Underhill on 07/01 2011
The post of John J. and the comments that follow make for very interesting reading. They are a tribute to the Gang at Blue Ribbon Flies and a testimony to how hard they think about fishing and how fishing relates to ecology. We are fortunate that the Gang shares with us their observations and thoughts. Still, I got a bit confused by the range of comments.

So just what is this Native Fish Conservation Plan: Environmental Assessment and what does Trout Lake have to do with it?

Figure 4 on page 10 of this 232 page document written by 11 contributors says it all. In 1999, 18,000 cutthroat trout were observed spawning in Clear Creek, which feeds into Yellowstone Lake. In 2009, less than 1,000 were observed. During those ten years, lake trout removed (ate) 95% of the spawners.

If true, this is freakish.

However, the lake rebounds well. Angling restrictions in the 1970’s resulted in a significant and welcome increase in the trout population over a 10-20 year period. That population was devastated by harvest prior to the restrictions.

Why Trout Lake? Well, it’s mentioned only about five times in the document. In a caption to a picture, in a Table and in the text for the reason that it’s the designated “hatchery” of the Park for pure native cutthroats. And there you have it. Trout Lake is designated in the document as the “go-to” place for maintaining a “pure” breading stock of cutthroat trout.

It is proposed that over a five-year period the rainbows will be removed from Trout Lake by “physical” means, which include netting and angling. If this does not take that population to zero, then chemicals that uncouple oxidative phosphorylation and block the formation of ATP (the energy currency we all use) will be introduced. Goodbye (many) aerobes; for a while. The lake will be a wasteland until the rotenone disappears (by sun light degradation).

Those are the facts gleaned from the document. My feeling is that the authors see Trout Lake and its use as a “no-brainer.” There they can easily maintain a genetically pure population of cutthroat trout for restocking the Park. Maybe this is why Trout Lake receives so little comment in the document.

Finally, John is spot-on in his assessment that “native” is relative. Pick your time and call that native. After all, what is evolution? Mutate – Survive – Reproduce – Repeat. You win either with time, numbers or both.

Thanks all for good reading.

By Art Hanel on 07/02 2011
The decline of Yellowstone cutthroat in Yellowstone Lake is more complex than just “the lake trout ate them.” There is whirling disease, Myxobolus cerebralis, present too. Koel et al. (2006) found that trout and tubificid worms in both Pelican and Clear Creeks were infected with the exotic parasite. From the peer-reviewed papers I’ve seen, I don’t think one can conclude that lake trout are a greater threat than whirling disease.

By John H. Graham on 07/03 2011
Great comment, John. It’s sad to read the unrelated drivel from James Marsh of the politically ignorant of the fly fishing community that wish to obfuscate a simple matter of the actions of a misguided preservationist in our Park system who irrationally wishes to axe Rainbows at Trout Lake which have been living in harmony for 50 years with Yellowstone Cutts without hybridizing. It reminds me of the futile efforts taken a great expense by the Feds and Trout Unlimited a decade ago to kill Rainbows at the S. Fork Snake. I can’t help but wonder why the money and time wasn’t instead spent on consistent water flows below the Palisades Dam, and the prevention of the continuing water diversions in the spawning tributaries below the dam. From the recent studies I’ve read on the S. Fork and from conversations with the guides there, the Rainbows still persist in substantial numbers, while the Cutthroats have shown only marginal increases in numbers, and total numbers remain unchanged. Who can tell me that the results justify the continuation of a failed effort?

By Chris Doyle on 07/07 2011
I cannot agree more with the article, nor with the very first comment.

My God, some common sense in fly fishing circles. What a refreshing thing to find.

owl

By Owl Jones on 07/08 2011
While I see the removal of rainbows from trout lake as being a poor idea (my personal best YNP rainbow 25’’ came from Trout), I think there needs to be some clarification regarding James Marsh’s reading of Obama spending since his taking office in 2009.

Let’s look at what James claims is Obama’s 4 trillion in deficit spending according to Congressional Budget Office numbers:

It’s true the National Debt Increased 25% Under Obamam but…

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-Trillion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-Trillion

But of the $3.56-trillion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billion = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billion = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billion = TARP/Bailout Balance from 2008 (as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billion = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billion = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billion = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billion = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

Bush’s contributions:

2001 to 2008: $4.769-trillion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-trillion

Total: $7.950-trillion

Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-Trillion

Bush’s contribution: $7.950-trillion / $8.26-Trillion = 96%

Obama only contribution: $580-billion = Stimulus Spending (as of Dec 2010).

Increase caused By Bush’s Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama’s Programs: 4%

By Brian Nelson on 07/19 2011
Very fine subject, writing and comments John.

By Nick Anderson on 10/21 2011
I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. how to remove a mole

By chales fernandes on 11/02 2011
Thanks for sharing Interesting post. Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I appreciate with this and I like learning about this subject. If possible, as you gain information, please update this blog with more information. I have found it really useful.
onketing

By chales fernandes on 11/03 2011
Plus, you may also uncover an abrasion-resistant 1 which prevents the damage of your jacket. There is certainly no reason to appear cheap north face jackets dowdy within the cold weather with this fabulous purchase. Should you do not like the style of denim but nonetheless hankering right after a lot more casual outfit; grab the Cheap 3 in 1 the north face outlet blue Sale For Men! Corduroy which supplies warmth,

By north face denali on 11/04 2011
When investigators questioned north face store, family friends and neighbors, only Biryukova and the boy’s sister reported seeing him in the past two weeks, said Bellevue police spokeswoman Carla Iafrate.

By north face store on 11/09 2011
Thanks for sharing Karaoke mixer
this information.The Water Pumps
new safety regulations IP Camera
is possible if we doAnimatronic Animals
not want to be like fukushima nuclear disaster. Hoping that we can learn something frombrands of golf clubs
the disaster including all governments around the globe.

By Karaoke mixer on 11/11 2011
Christian Louboutin Platform Christian Louboutin Flats Cold Christian Louboutin Rolando manolo blahnik schuhe holding photos child struggling christian louboutin peep toe to Jimmy Choo sale find Christian Louboutin Bianca
Christian Louboutin Schuhe Louboutin Shoes manolo blahnik online shop ■ replica christian louboutin Reporters Haitao louboutin peep toe pumps report Christian Louboutin Suede / photo Christian Louboutin Sale manolo blahnik ...

By moncler jackets on 11/17 2011
moncler jackets for women > WASHINGTON Moncler pop star Ma Wenqin Moncler Clairy came from Moncler Angers moncler 2011 womens moncler jackets moncler down jackets doudounes moncler the Qiqihar moncler jackets for men moncler doudounes rural Moncler Maya home Moncler Bady Moncler Quincy cheap moncler jackets Changchun had four for five days These da… mens moncler jackets

By moncler jackets on 11/17 2011
ugg boots sale
ugg boots knightsbridge
UGG boots Ultimate Bind
UGG Boots kids Classic
ugg Flip Flop
UGG 5815 Grey

ugg boots clearance
ugg boot knightsbridge
UGG Ultra Tall Boot
UGG kids Boots
uggs Flip Flop

By gfdsh on 11/26 2011
It is actually helping Bangalore discount uggs become one of the uggs discount fashion destinations of the country.Women suit for interview can be paired with other colors for as long as it looks good.You seem very confident with discount uggs boots , but nobody knows how sensitive you are in fact.Avoid any horizontal stripes and too many frills and you will always look nice ugg boots sale your skirtsSkirts and dresses are trendy ugg boots for sale provide you with a pleasing change from wearing pants all the time, especially if you wish to cover your legs.I always knew what cheap ugg boots uk was capable of, ugg boots cheap who knew that was going to happen with the camera.They are just jeans that perfectly fit you.At the same time as the odor is powerful, cheap ugg boots online is not overwhelming.From the women’s clothes to the accessories to the bold pop of red lipstick, colour is all around but never fails ugg outlet work in harmony.Designer ugg outlet store make the ultimate fashion statement.The business was initiated by Mr.

By uggs outlet on 11/29 2011
Maybe the reponder that don’t get it, needs to take a 101 course in accounting, or is it beyond a far left wing demoncrat to do that? If any money is spent on Trout Lake, as tiny an amount as it may be, I say it will have to come from China or Japan, because the United States in 14 trillion plus dollars in the hole.sports car finance

By mivpl on 11/30 2011