| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- | |||
| Study: Wrong fish used to save species | |||
| 2007-09-06 | |||
DENVER - A 20-year government effort to restore the population of an endangered native trout in Colorado has made little progress because biologists have been stocking some of the waterways with the wrong fish, a new study says.
The three-year study, led by University of Colorado researchers and published online in Molecular Ecology on Aug. 28, said that five of the nine populations believed to be descendants of the endangered trout were actually the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout, which look similar.
Lead author, Jessica Metcalf, who recently completed her doctorate in ecology and evolutionary biology at the university, was optimistic about the ongoing restoration program because four populations have been identified as "pure greenback cutthroat trout." Bruce Rosenlund of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is leading the recovery effort, said the agency is reviewing the study. "The report is just a continuation of different expert input provided to the team for consideration for restoration," Rosenlund said. Colorado and federal biologists have a goal of 20 self-sustaining populations of at least 500 fish each. The cost of the program was not available. Greenback cutthroat trout were historically found in the drainages of the Arkansas and South Platte rivers in Colorado and a small part of Wyoming. They were declared extinct in 1937 because of overfishing, pollution from mines and competition from nonnative fish. Researchers said remnant populations were found in the 1950s in tributaries and provided brood stock for fish raised in federal and state hatcheries and released in their native habitat. The fish was added to the federal endangered species list in 1978. The greenback were believed to be in 142 miles of waterways, including in Rocky Mountain National Park, Rosenlund said. The new study, based DNA test results, found the greenback cutthroat trout's range is only 11 miles of streams. The research results are a setback but state biologists believe the program will succeed over the long term, said Tyler Baskfield, Colorado Division of Wildlife spokesman. "We've been moving fish around in the state since the late 1800s, and now the new science comes in and all of a sudden it's a different playing field," Baskfield said.
| |||
| Posted by:Delphi |
| #8 Biopharm potential should be considered, but not overwhelm. Agreed, which is why I mentioned, "within economically feasible limits". But even a legitimate, proportioned interest in potential miracle cures does not excuse the mismanagement, and the disingenuousness, of the biology and fisheries communities in this situation. Absolutely not. I rank it with the same level of fraud found in "tree farms". You and I are having a logical, rational discussion based on differences of opinion about legitimate issues. By and large, their motivations have been about income stream security and power, their actions have been incompetent, and they have out-and-out lied about both. Which should put them on a permanent "No-Grant" list. If this whole thing is about preserving organisms for potential benefits down the road, then let's say so, and move accordingly and with comptence. Which is my principal concern. If it's about something else, the light of day needs to be shone upon it, and the merits debated openly. Sunlight has always been the best "disinfectant". |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-06 20:14 |
| #7 Coupla things, Zen.......... The different populations of cutthroats have not been evolving separately for billions of years, but rather, for a short time - since the last Ice Age. It is possible but very unlikely that the kind of difference you describe could happen in that time (at least that different from other populations of cutthroats). The biopharm angle is one which resonates with me, but it is always in the land of "if" and "may". The potential for a biopharm breakthrough has to be weighed against other factors. It cannot be the only determining one, since the chance of any given organism giving us a cure is vanishingly small. Biopharm potential should be considered, but not overwhelm. But even a legitimate, proportioned interest in potential miracle cures does not excuse the mismanagement, and the disingenuousness, of the biology and fisheries communities in this situation. You and I are having a logical, rational discussion based on differences of opinion about legitimate issues. By and large, their motivations have been about income stream security and power, their actions have been incompetent, and they have out-and-out lied about both. If this whole thing is about preserving organisms for potential benefits down the road, then let's say so, and move accordingly and with comptence. If it's about something else, the light of day needs to be shone upon it, and the merits debated openly. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-09-06 19:52 |
| #6 I'm sure both species are just as tasty when pan-fried. That said: What difference does it make if one or 2 insiginficant genes or colorations are different? Who knows? And therein lies the rub. Take the yew. Long considered a "trash tree" by loggers due to its incredibly slow growth rate, its bark yields taxol, one of the most powerful new cancer fighting drugs. It turns out that the yew's production of taxol stunts its own growth. Examine all the new candidates for cancer therapies and you will find a vast majority of them are "bio-pharm" compounds originating in all sorts of unexpected vegetative and animal populations. A medical student's project involved cutting open frogs for some minor surgical procedure and the stitching them back up. It took a while for the guy to notice how these frogs he laced back up went directly into slimey, muddy tanks and yet did not readily acquire the massive infections that could be expected. It turns out that frogs dermally secrete a powerful antibiotic, antifungal and antiviral compound that protects them from their moist environment's incubation of diseases. This batrachian compound currently is being developed into a whole new family of powerful antibiotics that may address certain drug resistant "super germs" like staph, VD and strep infections. The point is, nature has been fine tuning these various creatures for untold billions of years. Our biosphere is a functioning laboratory that has already addressed a host of extremely complex survival issues. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we are leaning to take a page from nature instead. Who knows what odd frog, trout, South American yam or other possibly endangered species might hold the cure for cancer, AIDS or whatever new plagues are coming down the pike? Far better that we take time now to preserve even these minor species—within economically feasible limits—rather than let some wonder cure slip through our fingers. Perhaps the greenback trout has an ability to live in algae infested waters and thereby has had protective coloration benefits conferred by its verdant hue. Who knows whether world fisheries might not make huge gains by using this trout's possibly algal-resistant physiology to improve fish farming in less clean waters? Without performing a genomic assay upon the planet's entire biological population, we cannot possibly know which species hold some incredible boon in store for mankind. Better that we play the role of cautious and worthy stewards than see unknown wonders go extinct due to careless heavy-handedness. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-06 17:42 |
| #5 "The report is just a continuation of different expert input provided to the team for consideration for restoration," Rosenlund said. Translation from gummint-speak: "We blew it...." |
| Posted by: OyVye1 2007-09-06 16:13 |
| #4 The management of cutthroat trout in the U.S. is one of the least known yet best examples of desire for environmental extremism, unfettered regulatory power, and funding by fisheries officers and biologists triumphing over science and common sense. In many ways, it was the warm-up for AGW. Since the 1500's, science has defined any two individuals as being of the same species if they can breed and produce fertile offspring. This has been boilerplate, and until about the 1980's nobody would have even questioned it. Since all varieties of cutthroat can do this, by any reasonable yardstick, they are all the same species, albeit with minor geographic variances in coloration. In some small areas, due to overfishing or pollution or development, populations have decreased, although overall there are millions of healthy cutthroat throughout the west. Enter the Endangered Species Act. Since the 1980's the environmental law enforcement community and fisheries biologists have asserted that each minor variant be designated a subspecies or even a completely different species. This paves the way for 1) lots more government money to "study the problem" and "implement solutions" and 2) greatly enhanced regulatory authority to direct the activity of people not only on public lands but also on privately held land. In other words, a group of people changed the definition of a word to feather their own bed financially and accrue unchecked power unto themselves. Furthermore, a lot of what I would consider unscrupulous fishermen went along with this because it enhanced their hobby (other consequences be damned). I've fished for cutthroat in many states, and would like to in the future. I'm not in favor of wiping life out. I flyfish, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything but a fussy little hobby - one which I love, but it isn't the most important thing in the world. I certainly wouldn't rank it more inportant than commerce or freedom of property owners. The end result has been that by "splitting" cutthroat into artificial population designations, the fisheries people in question have caused strife and tension between landowners and fishing in general, made ridiculous demands on management of river systems, and in the end, have not solved very many of the problems that do in fact face certain localized populations. Like AGW, the junk non-science was more about money and power than solving any real problems. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-09-06 15:26 |
| #3 We're from the government...and we're here to help. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-06 13:29 |
| #2 The big question is, if the niche is adequately fuilled, and they had to do thorough and nearly microscopic examination plus genetic testing to determine the error, then why the hell worry? the ecosystme has its fish that work for it. What difference does it make if one or 2 insiginficant genes or colorations are different? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-09-06 13:20 |
| #1 History shows again and again How nature points up the folly of man Are any of these scientists part of the Great Consensus? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-09-06 11:27 |