Another one for the list*, climate change causes half-breed trout

Drawing of two trout swimmingStudy Finds Climate Change Accelerates Hybridization Between Native, Invasive Trout

MISSOULA – A new article by researchers from the University of Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks asserts that climate warming is increasing the hybridization of trout – interbreeding between native and non-native species – in the interior western United States.

Clint Muhlfeld, a research assistant professor in the UM Division of Biological Sciences’ Flathead Lake Biological Station and research ecologist with the USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center in Glacier National Park, is the lead author of the article, titled “Invasive hybridization in a threatened species is accelerated by climate change,” which was published in the latest issue of Nature Climate Change. Co-authors are Ryan Kovach, a postdoctoral scholar at UM’s Flathead Lake Biological Station, and Leslie Jones, a UM doctoral student who works with Muhlfeld and USGS.

Specifically, rapid increases in stream temperature and decreases in spring flow over the past several decades contributed to the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and the introduced rainbow trout – the world’s most widely introduced invasive fish – across the Flathead River system in Montana and British Columbia, Canada.

Experts have hypothesized that climate change could decrease worldwide biodiversity through cross-breeding between invasive and native species, but this study is the first to directly and scientifically support this prediction. The study was based on 30 years of research by scientists with UM, USGS and Montana FWP.

Hybridization has contributed to the decline and extinction of many native fishes worldwide, including all subspecies of cutthroat trout in western North America, which have enormous ecological and socioeconomic value. The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions between native and non-native species through hybridization.

“Climatic changes are threatening highly prized native trout as introduced rainbow trout continue to expand their range and hybridize with native populations through climate-induced ‘windows of opportunity,’ putting many populations and species at greater risk than previously thought,” Muhlfeld said.

“The study illustrates that protecting genetic integrity and diversity of native species will be incredibly challenging when species are threatened with climate-induced invasive hybridization,” he said.

Westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout both spawn in the spring and can produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

Historical genetic samples revealed that hybridization between the two species was largely confined to one downstream Flathead River population. However, the study noted, during the past 30 years, hybridization rapidly spread upstream, irreversibly reducing the genetic integrity of native westslope cutthroat trout populations. Genetically pure populations of westslope cutthroat trout are known to occupy less than 10 percent of their historical range.

The rapid increase in hybridization was associated with climatic changes in the region. From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin, resulting in earlier spring runoff, lower spring flooding and flows, and warming summer stream temperatures. Those locations with the greatest changes in stream flow and temperature experienced the greatest increases in hybridization.

Relative to cutthroat trout, rainbow trout prefer these climate-induced changes and tolerate greater environmental disturbance. These conditions likely have enhanced rainbow trout spawning and population numbers, leading to massive expansion of hybridization with westslope cutthroat trout.

“The evolutionary consequences of climate change are one of our greatest areas of uncertainty because empirical data addressing this issue are extraordinarily rare,” Kovach said. “This study is a tremendous step forward in our understanding of how climate change can influence evolutionary process and ultimately species biodiversity.”

Overall, aquatic ecosystems in western North America are predicted to experience earlier snowmelt in the spring, reduced late spring and summer flows, warmer and drier summers, and increased water temperatures – all of which indicate increased hybridization between these species.

Additional UM-affiliated authors are UM Wildlife Biology Program Director Winsor Lowe, UM Associate Professor of Conservation Ecology Gordon Luikart and Regents Professor Emeritus Fred Allendorf. Authors not affiliated with UM are Robert Al-Chokhachy with the USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Matthew Boyer with Montana FWP in Kalispell and Robb Leary with Montana FWP in Missoula.

The study was supported by the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Northwest Climate Science Center, the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, the National Science Foundation and Bonneville Power Administration.

The article can be viewed online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2252. For more information call Muhlfeld at 406-600-9686 or email cmuhlfeld@usgs.gov.

###

* The Warm List – seen here: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

About these ads

97 thoughts on “Another one for the list*, climate change causes half-breed trout

  1. Do they taste the same? We have some brown and rainbow trout in Oz, but the brown don’t seem to thrive as well and they actually breed rainbow trout in farms then release them in the wild.Depends if they are in a lake or in fast running cold creeks. We have a trout season in NSW, and no trout fishing is allowed as it is their breeding season. June until early October. I like trout next to Tasmanian salmon, so long as they don’t smoke it. Then it tastes like kippers to me.

  2. My question is, did Clint Muhlfeld apply for a grant to study trout, get turned down? And then did he apply again – this time mentioning climate change- and then got money? Oh, and the resulting paper got publicity …

  3. TobiasN yes good question. It was stated many years ago, if you mention climate change in your thesis, you will get a grant. Otherwise No.

  4. What does climate change have to do with it? There are always consequences when you introduce new species into an ecosystem. When will they ever learn?

  5. It just goes to show that horny salmon are like horny male humans – they like hot foreign chicks that wiggle their butts at them. It’s a story as old as animals…

  6. Good heavens. Must we have issues with black trout marrying white trout???? Really????? What a load of hooey. At issue here are the earlier attempts to introduce non-native fish into streams and rivers whose native population was severely diminished. So who came up with putting non-native fish in these rivers? The guvmnt did that. So live with it. The same thing will happen between coyotes and non-native wolves in Oregon. When will we understand that in terms of nature, it is best we leave well enough alone. Native fish population down? Then stop fishing. If a state doesn’t want the consequences of that, let the state decide to stock with non-native fish and live with the consequences of cross breeding. If part of that drainage system is federal land (an oxymoron in a Union of states), let them keep the federal land pristine. As for the river part that is state land, county land, private land, whatever, they that owns it should get to choose. And if migration happens, well sh** happens.

  7. That’s what happens when you introduce a non native species. Look at the cane toad in Oz. At one town the stupid people killed all the black snakes the only species that can kill them. Look at the shark that has invaded fresh water the Bull Shark, it adapted to salt and fresh water.

  8. Hybridized trout are stocked in lakes and rivers all over the world. The offspring or the initial eggs they lay are typically not fertile. Most trout taste very similar so it doesn’t make much difference. Salmon are a closely related species so can also be cross-bred. Fish stocking stations can make this an easy business but you probably don’t want to know how it is done.

    There were two larger lakes where I grew up that were stocked with Splake. Splake is a cross-breed between a brook trout and lake trout and it is a hardy trout that grows quickly and can reach 20 pounds.

    Any native species trout that CAN cross-breed, WILL cross-breed and HAVE cross-bred and it has ALWAYS happened in nature and it has nothing to do with global warming.

  9. I am speechless. Ok,,,, my fingers just quit!

    Oh the pain!

    Xerox Pamela’s comment here>

  10. Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

    These statements don’t make logical sense. If the non-native fish genes are maladapted to the local environment, how can these fish be successful breeders? Assuming native species are highly adapted to local environments, then how can they be more resilient when the environment changes rapidly?
    Fishermen prize the native cutthroat trout for their challenge and rarity. Introducing rainbows was a mistaken attempt to expand fishing opportunities. Temperature changes only add to the problem.

  11. “It’s worse than we thought!” On and on they go. Doom and gloom and oh-how-naughty-we are. Message to alarmists – Give it an effing rest!

    That warmlist you supplied at the end of the post is getting mighty long. I share it with people to give them a laugh. The Earth listing alone is hilarious! Check it out.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

  12. “Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.”

    Say what? Why exactly is that true? It seems to me that if the native cutthroat trout were more resilient and better able to adapt to a rapidly changing climate, then they would not be being bred out of existence by the Rainbow Trout hybrid. It is precisely because they are NOT more resilient and able to adapt that they are being displaced by the hybrid trout – who apparently ARE more resilient and better able to adapt than the Cutthroat. If they weren’t the native cutthroat trout would displace them and would be expanding their range.

  13. If my eyes aren’t deceiving me, things look a little different and not nearly so worrisome if we look at 100+ years of data…
    Max raw temp and precipitation charts from USHCN for Great Falls, which is a large city not so far from the study area:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=243751&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2013.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMAXRAW&minyear=1891&maxyear=2013

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=243751&pvar=CPRECIP&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_totalclim_mon_yr2013.sas&_SERVICE=default&minyear=1892&maxyear=2013

    Both from here: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=243751&_DEBUG=0

    If someone finds a closer station, please post.

  14. Last time I looked “biodiversity” meant “more species” which means that biodiversity increased with interbreeding, not decreased. The whole claim that “more diversity is better” is mostly meaningless, anyway.
    The guy does sound a lot like a White (or Black, or Brown, or Yellow) supremist, doesn’t he?

  15. Climate change has become the modern ‘god of gaps.’ We can’t explain our findings therefore it is caused by climate change. I always find it amusing to replace ‘climate change’ or any other synonym with ‘the Gods are [angry]’ which makes for far more entertaining reading.

  16. So the introduced fish outcrossed with the native fish and led to rapid adaptation.
    What do you expect?
    This was a direct result of introducing non native fish.
    If it had warmed or cooled the native fish by themselves would have adapted anyway.
    Add genetic diversity and a hybridized fish will emerge that adapts to a wider range of climactic and weather variables.

  17. Take a page from the history of the Mennonites. Marrying close cousins is not all it’s cracked up to be. Our native breeding stock is likely severely genetically weak exactly because of the lack of bedding down with that sexy young “different” thing wagging her tail at the stock of males ogling her.

    Mennonites now ship their potential breeding stock of young male and female almost adults clear across the country. I wonder why.

  18. “Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment.”

    I agree with Gary. Having bred animals for a long time, there is a thing called “hybrid vigour” that suggests that cross-breeding improves hardiness and improves fitness, not the other way. I don’t care if we are talking cattle, horses, dogs or cats, it is demonstrable. I would think that it is the same in fish. By introducing new genes, there is more chance of producing hardiness in the end as any that breed the other direction soon disappear.

    Further, since Rainbow Trout are spreading rapidly, according to this article, they must be HIGHLY adaptable in converse to the statements in this article. Further, assuming the hybrids can breed, the hybridized group will be even stronger.

    Cutthroat trout are less adaptable. They require clear cold water and generally prefer the headwaters so they don’t have to compete with other species. There are 13 sub-species of Cutthroat Trout. It may be that restricted fishing as we have in Alberta has allowed them to expand their range in addition to intrusion to the “mixing” region by Rainbow Trout. We have catch and release in many Cutthroat areas. In the Bow River that runs through Calgary, Alberta there are five species of fish: Bull, Brown, Rainbow, Cutthroat and Brook trout – AND Cut-Bow HYBRIDS!!

    http://www.thebowriver.com/trout_identification.htm

    Nothing new here. Move along.

    Going down to my trout pond next to the house to catch a Rainbow for supper.

  19. Are they strong, adapted to their environment and taste good? Hey we are mixing the world’s humans too and we call this homogenization process “diversity” (for some reason) don’t we.

  20. Not clear to me that hybridization would not have occurred anyway,with or without stream warming. They provide no data on how much the streams warmed, nor any kind of correlation data between the warming and hybridization, The streams have a temp variance throughout the year,so why would a few degrees warmer make any difference? They provide no biological reason for claiming what they claim. Only a correlation, of unknown strength. There could be a thousand other potential reasons for the hybridization. This is a perfect example of why natural experiments have problems when it comes to ascribing causality – since you cannot control the experimental conditions, you can’t assume increases in A cause increases in B. This is a shallow, unconvincing study.

  21. I think they did not provide data on stream warming (maybe) because they didn’t use it. Here from the write-up “…The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions………”. “Predictions” rather than data?

  22. IF… there is some newly detected trout hybridization,
    I am very open to labeling it as anthropomorphic salmonid variation.

    But with the human factors in fish stocking and boat traffic so confounding the data, to attribute it to Climate Change is a load of CARP.

  23. In my view, it is not that native trout are less able to cope with climatic changes as mentioned by others here. They obviously have been doing so since the last ice age and before. It is much more about how introductions of non-native species often have disastrous intended and unintended consequences within the environments they are released into. It is not really a question of being more resilient or adaptive. In fact, put and take hatchery trout here in California often do not survive the winter, but still negatively impact the viability of native populations.

    Here is an interesting essay on the Government’s planting of non-native hatchery fish species within Yellowstone National Park, which began in 1881.

    http://www.visitmt.com/history/yellowstone.asp

    This scenario was repeated throughout the West and many native-fish self-supporting streams became put and take streams, planted with hatchery trout of dubious genetic heritage. It was never a question of these streams losing their ability to sustain native populations, it was always the push by fisherman and fish and game commissions to ensure everyone could take home their ‘limit’ of fish, even if they were soft, tasteless, genetically altered fish; bred for fast growth and ease of catching. It has only been in the past few decades, with the wide adoption of catch and release fishing and a renewed appreciation for native, wild trout, that streams able to do so have been slowly restored to native fish only waters.

    Of course, Yellowstone is, in fact, unique in that the Lake, Browns, Rainbows, and Brook Trout have all manged to become self-sustaining there and this has created the conflicting management problem of trying to restore the native Cutthroat while still retaining some of the non-native fisheries. I would imagine being a fisheries biologist in Yellowstone must seem an almost schizophrenic undertaking.

  24. What a crock of s**t…I have lived in Idaho ‘forever’…and fish the Henry’s fork. Below Ashton dam the water is released from bottom …water temps same now as 50 years ago. The ‘cuttbows’ are ferocious fish, very strong with great survival rates…much greater than their parents!! Up above at Henry’s lake the water temps vary greatly but cutthroats doin just fine there…Kids (scientist) will do the darndest things…(for money)!

  25. Gary says:
    May 27, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Gary, you wrote my 1st thought for a comment almost word for word the way I thought it, but you left out my response to:

    “Experts have hypothesized that climate change could decrease worldwide biodiversity through cross-breeding between invasive and native species,…”

    If introduced rainbow trout have hybridized with native cutthroat, there are now 3 species where once there was one. (in the Flathead drainage – 3 instead of 2 overall). If you are counting species to determine biodiversity, this is a gain, not a decrease. If biodiversity is your goal, more non-native species should be introduced in order to allow for additional hybridization.

    If you are counting biodiversity by genetic codes in the gene pool of the hybrid trout compared to the native cutthroat, this is also a gain for the local trout population. (no change overall)

    Even if the hybrid trout fully replaces both the cutthroat and the rainbow trout, this is still not a loss of biodiversity, because all the original gene codes would still be in the local gene pool. When conditions change again, the cutthroat and/or rainbow can re-emerge.

    SR

  26. So warmed up trout are much more slutty than frigid trout. Has that been added to the long list of things caused by global warming?

  27. Furthermore, if cutthroats and rainbows can interbreed, they are just different varieties of the same critter, anyway. Is it a loss of dog diversity if your purebred chihuahua gets accidently bred by the neighbor’s pomeranian, or is it a gain both of biodiversity and of economic opportunity?

    SR

  28. it isn’t all doom & gloom! lost of laughs in here:

    VIDEO: BBC: Climate Change Mercenaries
    Duration: 18 minutes
    First broadcast:Tuesday 27 May 2014
    Meet the climate change mercenaries – people trying to make a profit out of global warming.
    Presenter Justin Rowlatt travels to Greenland where Prime Minister Aleqa Hammond hopes the retreating ice will create business opportunities – such as the successful gold prospecting by Joshua Hughes, chief geologist of Nuna Minerals.
    We hear from Christian Bonfils, managing director of Nordic Bulk Carriers, about the opening up the fabled North West shipping passage across the Arctic.
    Justin encounters some profitable creepy crawlies – the flies being reared by South African farmer Jason Drew to provide a valuable source of protein, and the sterile mosquitos bred by Hadyn Parry, head of Oxitech, to combat dengue fever.
    And it’s not just insect farming. Greg Smirin of Climate Corporation explains his firm’s weather forecasting services and why they have just got together with agriculturual behemoth Monsanto***.
    And Justin hears from a pair of winemakers – geologist Prof Richard Selley and general manager Chris White of Denbies wine – about the future for British viticulture…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01zdr15

  29. OOPS ….meant to type LOTS of laughs, not lost….

    [No, lost the laughs reads better anyway .. 8<) .mod]

    just for fun – the conference where Prince Charles has been pontificating on CAGW. note the dates:

    InclusiveCapitalism.org: Conference on Inclusive Capitalism: Building Value, Renewing Trust
    On 27 May 2014 at the Mansion House and Guildhall in London, the Lord Mayor of the City of London and E.L. Rothschild will host The Conference on Inclusive Capitalism: Building Value, Renewing Trust. The Conference has been organised by The Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism and the Financial Times.
    LINK: View all Speakers

    http://www.inclusivecapitalism.org/

    surely the “Inclusive” crowd wouldn’t be making their way to the “Exclusive” Bilderberg Conference right now!

    Bilderberg Conference 29 May – 01 June 2014 – Copenhagen Marriott, Denmark
    LINK: Official Bilderberg 2014 list released!

    https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=30

  30. “The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure…..”

    i am having a big problem with “coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions”. What is this “predictions” crap? Did they have actual data or did they just assign stream temperature based on what? — a model?

    And the phrase “high-resolution”? High-resolution climate predictions???? Whose predictions? Must be those type of predictions that are measured to 1/100 of a degree. And high-resolution stream temperature predictions? What does that actually mean???

    OK, here is what I think they did. For a long time they had been monitoring genetic data — give them that — but they were never monitoring stream temperature or even air temperature. So using an air temperature model (probably the nearest temperature measuring stations were a hundred miles away) they went back and filled in the blanks basically guessing what the stream temperatures must have been. They really have no hard data about what streams temperatures were over the long course of their study.

    And Hot Damn! Lo And Behold! The areas that they knew had high rates of hybridization just happened to also be the areas to which they assigned higher stream temperatures! Perfect climate science!

    Anyway that is my take. What else could those words at the top mean?

    Eugene WR Gallun

  31. most people do not know this,but, hatchery fish do not spawn! They just live their life’s and never have little fishy’s. Now, if you shock(electric charge into water, fish is stunned and floats to top to be netted)an area with spawning fish and keep just the largest,healthiest fish. Gather eggs and fertilize them at hatchery then keep youngsters till 6 to 8 inches long…very likely to survive..then release them in same area as mother taken…when old enough to spawn they will return to same area to do so !! As this is continually done with ‘strongest/healthiest’ fish your fishery will reflect this! This is how the fishermen in Idaho demanded it be done…even tho more expensive…ok’d to raise fishing license prices to pay for! All state of Idaho fishery upkeep and projects as this completely paid for thru license sales. This is why Idaho fly fishing is world renowned…cause of us dumb,get outta my fishin hole,red neck fisherpersons!

  32. Pamela at 6:48 mentions the early introductions to the western US of non-native fish. Some attempts have been documented and relate to eastern folks wanting to have the familiar things in their new locations. Trees, flowers, grape vines are just a few of the things. Bass were brought to Idaho (late 1800s?) via stagecoach – from my memory of reading this about 1977. Here is a link about Oregon with information compiled prior to 1946:

    http://obpc0.tripod.com/id173.html

    _______________________
    And all should remember that evidence of warming is not evidence of a CO2 cause.
    Thus, this makes me wonder: “coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions …

  33. “The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring data coupled with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to measure whether climate warming enhances interactions between native and non-native species through hybridization.”

    Hmmm. Shouldn’t this read more like ” The researchers used long-term genetic monitoring along with long term stream temperature recordings….” ?

  34. Well the article has a lot of garbage in it, but I really liked this gem:

    From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin

    Let’s ask a few questions:

    How much warming?
    Three times almost nothing is…. almost nothing?

    Nearly tripled… compared to what? A previous period in time? If so what period?

    Why does the period end in 2008? Did the trends in temperature and cross breeding hold right through to 2013?

    My guess is that they probably didn’t. If the data doesn’t support your theory, then discard the data. My expectation is that if you could find comparable habitats with comparable mixes of species in areas where no change in temperature has been recorded, you’d find very little difference in cross breeding. But of course if you FOUND such an area, it would leave one asking why there is warming in one area and not in the other and good lord what if someone finds an area where actual cooling took place and what were the results there? Looking for habitats to use as control populations to compare to doesn’t seem to be of interest to them, particularly if it involved finding areas where the climate change they are blaming for cross breeding doesn’t exist.

    Willful blindness and all that.

  35. Here I am repeating the repetitive posting of these looney purists stating their view of evolution:

    “…Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment. Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate…”

    As ‘Wayne Delbeke’ and Gary plus several others have pointed out, hybridizing makes for stronger faster growing progeny. Which also serves as a simple description of rainbow trout used in so many hatcheries. add to that rainbow trout are easier to catch than more difficult species, e.g. brown trout.

    There are two views of the ‘purist trout’ concept.
    One) Seeks to maintain the populations of pure trout
    ——-a) to preserve the population of ‘wild’ genes, especially to preserve genes that we do not understand their functions and benefits
    ——-b) fisherpeople often love these same populations for their unique beauty and behavior traits.
    ——-c) many of the ‘pure’ populations thrive in sterile waters or high altitude or near frozen solid waters where the more common trout don’t fare as well.

    Two) Seek pure strains because any fish grown and sown by man equals gene modified food and therefore are evil!
    ——-a) this is related to the view above where the evolution theory is turned inside-out to justify their research.

    Trout and their many relations have similar texture and bone structures, but their taste is strongly dependent on their food. The color orange in many of the Salmoniformes is often due to a diet high in crustaceans and insect that are high in carotenoids. Something that many of the fish farms have figured out and have added carotene to their fish feed.

    There is clear benefit to preserving genetic pools because in that diversity are advantages that can be utilized, e.g. ‘Whirling disease’ which is ‘Myxobolus cerebralis’ a parasite; a disease deadly to young fish fry like rainbow trout fry yet brown trout are resistant.

    There is also a blindness where so called professionals breed large quantities of hatchery trout and plant them in areas where they are technically an ‘invasive species’ and out compete the native species.

    Now I’m not a biologist studying trout genetics but there is a lot of apparent confusion in species identification and classification. Exactly what makes for specific trout species may not survive extensive DNA examination. Salmonidae are a very mutable and adaptable family and their family members live from the arctic circle south to Mexico in North America and South to Northern Africa from Eurasia. In whatever water Salmonidae are planted they will perform their best to survive.

    May the best hybrid pass on their successful genes! Not that I read any actual proof in the above research article, but a lot of ‘climate change’ ergo ‘CO2′ causes it…

  36. “Climatic changes are threatening highly prized native trout as introduced rainbow trout continue to expand their range …”

    “Highly prized” by whom? Fishermen prefer rainbows, as they are harder to catch and put up more of a fight when you do hook one. That is why the same fish and game department that now wrings its hands over trout hybridization spent the better part of a century operating fish hatcheries to introduce rainbows by the millions to the same fisheries.

    Cuts are stupid, easy to catch fish. That difference is one of the fundamental reasons why rainbows are able to out compete them. Take out the fishermen, and ninety-nine percent of the rest of the people couldn’t tell a cut from a rainbow, let alone prize one over the other. Cuts are only “highly prized” by native species fetishists. Caring about the preservation of native species isn’t a bad thing, but lets call it for what it is.

    Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment.

    Words fail. When you see absolute bullshit like that, you understand that you are not dealing with science, but agenda driven story telling. They will literally say *anything* – even sentences that explicitly contradict themselves – to meet the propaganda goal.

    Close your eyes and accept that 30 years of data are meaningful. Pretend that confounding variables have all been identified and adequately controlled. Imagine that correlation does equal causation, and that CAGW exists. On these same facts, you can instead optimistically conclude that “Hybrid vigor is expected to save trout fisheries from evil climate change.” That headline won’t advance your career, however…

  37. What isn’t said is that Cutthroat Trout typically live in shallow headwaters with lots of bank vegetation cover. They often burrow into the gravel in winter to avoid freezing to death and ice scour in the spring. They are a cold water fish typically found in relatively high altitudes but when they move to deeper pools and warmer water, they interbreed with Rainbows – producing Cut-Bows. This is not new. I am nearly 70 and I can remember fishing Cutthroats, Rainbows, and Cut-bows when I was only 9 or 10 years old in the Alberta foothills like 60 years ago. This ain’t new folks.

    From 1982:

    http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-005.pdf

  38. “bushbunny says: May 27, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    Look at the shark that has invaded fresh water the Bull Shark, it adapted to salt and fresh water.”

    The cane toad is a perfect example of an invasive species in a number of locales.

    However the bull shark is not an invasive species whether on salt or fresh water. They’ve been found in the Mississippi river regularly and in several other North America rivers along with fresh water rivers around the world. Inshore shark attacks often blamed on great white sharks are believed to actually be bull sharks cruising in waters too fresh for more pelagic sharks like the great white.

  39. Stephen Rasey said:
    May 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm

    But with the human factors in fish stocking and boat traffic so confounding the data, to attribute it to Climate Change is a load of CARP.
    ————
    HAH! :)

  40. “From 1978 to 2008, the rate of warming nearly tripled in the Flathead basin, resulting in earlier spring runoff, lower spring flooding and flows, and warming summer stream temperatures.”

    What has happened since 2008? As I understand it the winters in the US have been a little bit on the chilly side of late…

    • @Jaffa – Global warming is the devil for the religious alarmists. Notice how everything is now ‘Global Warming’ did it instead of the devil making you do it.

  41. I heard this story on NPR yesterday. As a regular listener, I can tell you that this type of story is almost a daily occurrence. The validity of the claims that such and such ecological trend or change is manmade is never questioned. Much of the public has just been brainwashed about such things and will never question it. They are taught this either implicitly or explicitly in public schools from their earliest years. It is a self inflicted public disaster, IMO.

  42. @ Steve Reddish

    If your pure-bred Shitzu breeds with a Bulldog you get a BullShit :)

  43. From the abstract [my emphasis]:

    Invasive hybridization in a threatened species is accelerated by climate change

    So hybridization was happening already on the Flathead River system. [abstract]

    “…..Here we combine long-term genetic monitoring data with high-resolution climate and stream temperature predictions to evaluate how recent climate warming

    Does anyone know what their “stream temperature predictions” means?

    …..During a subsequent 30-year period of accelerated warming, hybridization spread rapidly and was strongly linked to interactions between climatic drivers—precipitation and temperature—and distance to the source population.”

    Could less water in the river system mean closer proximity to the other species? Could this increase rates of mating without higher water temperature?

  44. So they write:

    Specifically, rapid increases in stream temperature and decreases in spring flow over the past several decades contributed to the spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout and the introduced rainbow trout – the world’s most widely introduced invasive fish.<b?.

    So, man intrudes invasive species, invasive species takes over, man blames climate change!

    IMHO, the stupid hurts!!

  45. oops, should be introduces invasive species.

    [That would depend, would it not, on both where man is intruding into the various species, and what he is intruding. 8<) .mod]

  46. From the abstract above:

    Despite widespread release of millions of rainbow trout over the past century within the Flathead River system5, a large relatively pristine watershed in western North America, historical samples revealed that hybridization was prevalent only in one (source) population. During a subsequent 30-year period of accelerated warming, hybridization spread rapidly and was strongly linked to interactions between climatic drivers…..

    Below are some earlier paper / abstracts on the 2 trout in the Flatbead River system and geographically similar areas.

    Abstract – 2011
    Spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, and nonnative rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss
    We examined spatial and temporal patterns of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, and nonnative rainbow trout, O. mykiss, in streams of the Flathead River system in Montana, U.S.A. We detected hybridization in 24 of 42 sites sampled from 1998 to 2001. We found new Oncorhynchus mykiss introgression in seven of 11 sample populations that were determined to be nonhybridized in 1984……..The spread of hybridization may be constrained more by demographic than by environmental factors, given that (i) hybridized populations generally encompassed the range of environmental variability in nonhybridized populations, and (ii) hybridization status was more strongly associated with neighborhood statistics than measured environmental gradients.

    http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f03-125#.U4XVWZzmcmE

    ========================

    Paper – 11 January 2005
    An analysis of spatial and environmental factors influencing hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and introduced rainbow trout (O. mykiss) in the upper Kootenay River drainage, British Columbia

    …….Our results indicate the dynamic nature of hybridization in fluvial systems and that for closely related taxa such as WCT and RBT, hybridization appears to be largely influenced by physical barriers to dispersal and contact between species.

    ….We found no evidence of some environmental limitation of hybridization based on stream order, stream magnitude, and stream gradient. The only measured factor that appears to be constraining hybridization in this system is the degree of isolation from other hybridized populations or from Koocanusa Reservoir. Hitt et al. (2003) conducted an analysis of hybridization between WCT and RBT in the Flathead River (Montana) and among several potentially limiting factors (thermal regime, habitat degradation, geomorphology, and location of neighbouring and hybridized populations statistics), only nearest–neighbour data was significantly associated with extent of hybridization. These data are consistent with our study and both, consequently, suggest that the spread of RBT hybridization is facilitated via hybrids straying to neighbouring populations….

    http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/BrasharesLab/documents/Rubidge_TaylorCG2005.pdf

  47. This article is such a piece of nonsense it is hard to know where to start:

    1. Rainbows and Cutthroat can interbreed to produce fertile offspring because they are the same species.
    2. If Rainbows and Cutthroat are a different species, then black people and white people are also a different species.
    3. Genetics tells us that hybrids are almost always better adapted, because they have a wider range of genes to select from. We see this in US sports, where hybrid black-whites outperform pure whites and pure blacks.
    4. the rainbows were introduced by humans, not by climate change.

  48. Invasive hybridization in a threatened species is accelerated by climate change
    ===================
    the hybrid has a wider range of genes to select from. thus they are better able to adapt to a range of conditions as compared to the pure-bred stock.

    however, the fallacy of the argument is revealed when one replaces “trout” with “human”. For example, consider Hawaii. Native Hawaiians are all but extinct. Japanese and Filipino were introduced to Hawaii and interbred with the local population. These hybrids then replaced the pure-breds as children replace their parents. No climate change was required.

    The same process is now underway in the continental US. Eventually hybrid black-white-brown-yellow-red children will replace their pure-bred parents. It doesn’t require climate change. All it requires is that sexual attraction be color blind.

  49. I’m starting to feel sympathy for Climate Change. It’s being blamed for everything damn thing that goes wrong.

    I mean really, if you were a strapping, virile cutthroat and a sexy young rainbow came along, what would you do?

  50. I’ve watched a brook trout stalk its prey. It followed a soon to be eaten grasshopper struggling in the wet grass along a small creek. It took several minutes and was fascinating, like watching a female lion creep up on a gazelle. The brookie eventually knocked it off a blade of grass, it fell into the water, and the brook got its much deserved breakfast. Rainbows are more like, if it swims near me I’ll eat it otherwise forget it. And a small throw back brookie will feel like a swordfish on your hook compared to a rainbow! Brookies were introduced into Wallowa County rivers and can successfully outcompete rainbows for food. Oh well. It is what it is. No skin off my nose. I’ll catch and eat both species, even freezing them in the OMG same freezer bag! I guess that makes me such a bad girl.

  51. ninety-nine percent of the rest of the people couldn’t tell a cut from a rainbow, let alone prize one over the other.
    ==============
    the same scientists that tell us that cutthroat and rainbows are different species will tell us that black and white humans are the same species.

    the same scientists that tell us that cutthroat and rainbows are different species will tell us that all dogs are the same species, no matter how different they may look.

    so explain why it is that a great dane and chihuahua, which can breed and produce viable offspring, how it is that these are the same species? while cutthroats and rainbows, which look almost identical and can breed and produce viable offspring, how it is that these are different species?

    Could it be that scientists are arbitrary in determining the boundary between species? That in fact cutthroat and rainbows are the same species, by every measure that determines species?

  52. I like to see different types of trout. I don’t want to see them all mixed into one type

  53. “Protecting and maintaining the genetic integrity of native species is important for a species’ ability to be resilient and better adapt to a rapidly changing climate.”
    ==============
    under this argument, human immigration should be outlawed to protect the “genetic integrity” of native humans.

    “genetic integrity” has an ominous ring to it. Eugenics and the Master Race comes to mind. Along with mass sterilization and mass extermination.

    Oh what a dangerous web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

  54. This is actually interesting. My tiny border stream has trout that some said were introduced brown trout released by the PA fisheries upstream. Then a MD natural resources website showed the tiny stream as a “brook trout” stream. Add to that introduced sunnies (bluegills) that compete w/the trout.

  55. Cuts and bows are breeding together. Just like they did before industrial revolution. The watersheds they were native to have changed a lot since the birth of the USA by human land use and human modification of the waterways.

    Nice little fishes. I love the twitch of my strike indicator when one of them touches one of my soft-hackled nymphs that I lovingly tie in the winter months. : )

    John

  56. ferdberple says:
    May 28, 2014 at 7:02 am

    (quotinig wikipedia) A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

    Under this definition, cutthroat and rainbows are sub-species.

    john says:
    May 28, 2014 at 7:10 am

    I like to see different types of trout. I don’t want to see them all mixed into one type

    Well, apparently, the trout disagree with you. 8<) They DO like to see them all mixed into one type.

    Latitude says:
    May 28, 2014 at 7:22 am

    first, you change the definition of species…
    …then you write this crap

    Yeppers, it would be more accurate to call them different breeds of trout. But “that” would not be acceptable to the political types and their enviro “scientists” and activists.

    Well, if the trout can interbreed successfully, and want to interbreed successfully, it's like that little-itty-bitty chiwowwow dog mating with the neighborhood mongrel mentioned earlier: The "scientists" are just going to get disappointed when their pristine and perfect "Nature" (gee, why do we capitalize God and Nature and Gaea the same, he asked whimsically ?) meets real life. And they find out that real life is not in a textbook nor a law book and a Code of Federal Regulations chapter and verse and line number. Now, what happened before when this kind of unacceptable behavior was found, the stream was sterilized and the “chosen fishes” were re-stocked at great expense with tremendous fervor .. from those who felt they were fulfilling their lives and their faith with ‘good works” ….

    Species counts: New and threatened "species" are used nowadays to "CREATE" jobs and protected areas around "new species" (And, of course, discovering a "new species" or a newly threatened species is THE fastest way to get your name in the papers and in the textbooks. Fame, fortune, power, and honors and a "feeling" of having done something worthwhile! What's not to like? If there are no "threats" to isolated species there is no means in the law to increase restricted areas and no means to write new restrictions into old areas. In the courtroom, there is no restraint on lies, exaggerations, and "good intentions" of "protecting Nature". That capital letter that they worship, again. .

  57. Harold says: “Aquatic miscegenation. Must preserve the purity of the trout races.”

    Miscegenation worries would bring us full circle from Svante August Arrhenius and his “Racial Hygiene,” and back. How ironic.

  58. So, climate change and evolution, both being around for billions of years and natural, is something to be alarmed about?

  59. I string my own wedding rings and tie my hooks to leaders. They work great with bait on the hook but not so much without bait. The problem: Many rivers are designated artificial fly or lure, no real or artificial bait. Yet these rivers are sometimes not suitable for fly fishing (no pools, too fast/narrow, and lots of overhanging veg). So I’ve been thinking of adding a tied scented (attractor is okay) grasshopper to the hook, finishing with a flashy wedding ring, and using a sinker about 2 or 3 feet up for casting purposes. Feedback?

  60. I think my wife would be upset iffen I went off and tied my wedding ring to a string and went around dunking it in the water trying to attract a smelly fish, but your wide might be different …. 8<)

    Then again, I went and dropped melted steel on mine a few years back, and that wasn't so good either.

  61. I once scared the holly sh** outa my previous boyfriend when I said I had ordered wedding rings and they finally came in the mail.

  62. Pamela, try using a bare red Gamakatu Octopus hook as a droper tied snell a couple inches below your fly. For those that don’t know, we are talking the fly on the end of the line, not on your pants. I tried this and it worked. Fish went for the bare red hook. Must imitate a red San Juan worm. The fly was the attractant while the red hook was the bait. Worked for cutts, bows, and browns.

    As to the study, can’t read it because it’s behind a paywall. During this explosion of hybrids, there were severe forest fires on the westside of the divide. There could have been ash buildup in the streams affecting both the fish and their food sources. The loss of shade would also warm the streams. Fish just went looking for better water.

  63. There are a number of landlocked mountain lakes in the Flathead Basin and nearly all of them were stocked in years past with Rainbows. These hybridized readily with the native cutthroat producing “cutbows” that grow to large size. I don’t know if they are sterile or require the two original species (though the State stopped the stocking effort years ago) but I do know that they are fun to catch and delicious to eat. Those lakes are extremely cold. Global warming doesn’t seem necessary for this hybridization. I would think, rather, that there is a close genetic match between the two and that leads to the cross (Brook Trout and Bull Trout, both occurring in these same streams, and both being arctic char, are remnants of the last ice age and will readily interbreed as well). A fish biologist friend told me once that Rainbows (and other large species like Brown Trout) occupy the stronger currents in the middle of streams and the smaller fish like Cutthroats occupy the edges where the currents are slowed by friction with the banks and bottoms. One would think, therefore, that another place to look (other than global warming) for the origin of the crossing phenomena might be increased streamflow (ie. from the many large fires recently – the North Fork of the Flathead is nearly totally transformed by large fires over the past 10 to 15 years-, increased precipitation, etc. I suspect there wouldn’t be as much money available without the magic words “global warming” however.

  64. I’ve been reading the responses to this post and thought a lot about the different interpretations of species being bandied about and discovered I was having a difficult time, even with a solid background in biology, in arguing for or against any particular idea presented. So, I did some research and discovered that what is a species has been argued since ancient times and that there is still no uniform definition. And, depending on your particular field of study, the whole concept of species may be quite counter to that used by someone in another field. Since, what is a species is often central to AGW alarmism and is many times used in studies to ‘prove’ it is worse than we thought, this linked book may help illuminate the current state of understanding regarding the many definitions being used to define species:

    http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf

    Species is covered in chapter 1 beginning on page 6.

    I also thought the first quote apropos to us skeptics:
    “By doubting we come to questioning, and by questioning we perceive the truth.” – Pierre Abelard

  65. I have never understood who decides what is a native species and what isn’t, most species migrated from somewhere and then evolved. I’ll never understand why some people think that no species should ever be allowed to go extinct , surely if no species went extinct it would prevent some other species from evolving.

  66. “ferdberple says: May 28, 2014 at 6:41 am


    The same process is now underway in the continental US. Eventually hybrid black-white-brown-yellow-red children will replace their pure-bred parents…”

    Hey, I resemble that remark!

    “Pamela Gray says: May 28, 2014 at 7:57 am

    So I’ve been thinking of adding a tied scented (attractor is okay) grasshopper to the hook, finishing with a flashy wedding ring, and using a sinker about 2 or 3 feet up for casting purposes. Feedback?

    Wardens tend to be interesting people. They can be very lenient in some cases. Finding bait, i.e. flesh of vertebrates or invertebrates, on your line will be deemed illegal by those funny guys.

    If you’ve tied the grasshopper, mammal hair, Aves feathers, foam or rug will be accepted as a lure. Method is a presentation is just not dry fly fishing.

    If you’ve dipped the fly in scent mix, keep your mouth shut and don’t confuse the poor official. In Bass or saltwater fishing fully accepts scent attractor addition as lures; fly fishing purists are not always so open minded. Though fly fishers who use saliva when soaking their fly for better sink are not considered as adding scent, though they do and many fishermen attest to a person’s saliva increasing success.

    “Pamela Gray says: May 28, 2014 at 6:46 am

    I’ve watched a brook trout stalk its prey. …”

    Brookies are well known for eating anything that floats by. It is one way they learn what is not edible; it is also how brookies survive so well in freestone waters where food is scarce as some of the things they eat may not be normal fish food till it was eaten by the fish.

    If you like to tease the brook trout, tie a fly with the web part of Velcro. It catches the hooked teach of the trout and can hold them till they wiggle off at your feet.

    Rainbows will chase things too, until they learn better. Ending up on your plate is a sure evolution lesson leaving less adventurous rainbows watching the currents.

    Try anything and any terminal arrangement you think of. Often those folks who are not catching fish are only fishing one basic method. As you did with the trout in eddies under banks, figure out where the trout would likely hold and fish to them.

    “Pamela Gray says: May 28, 2014 at 6:46 am


    I’ll catch and eat both species, even freezing them in the OMG same freezer bag! I guess that makes me such a bad girl…”

    I was raised by parents who were raised during the depression years. A great deal of what they learned has been ingrained in myself and siblings.

    I’m happy to spend time fly fishing catch and release, but my nervous system does start to feel like I will bring nothing back for the family because of my efforts.

    So I am quite happy fishing the classic way where the fisherman tosses his line into the right water at around the right time (dawn or dusk) and settling down to practice native American patience waiting for the line to twitch.

    I could blame the years I lived in New Orleans amongst the Cajuns for my attitude that most things that grow, fly, swim, walk or run are potential food. Only my Father taught me early in my life to not discard/disdain gifts. When someone would offer us their ‘trash’ fish we’d only turn down the fish that were less than fresh. When they waved their stringers at us we saw fried, grilled or broiled fish for the night. Given my Mother’s lack of ability to cook and that my Father could cook fish very well might’ve helped.

    Yes, this attitude hangs on through adult years. When I was trying to find land fishing access around New Orleans, (a definite waste of time, buy a boat any boat), dressed in old fishing gear while trying waters down a bayou from a marina; a commercial captain stopped his boat and showed me a basket of sheepshead fish and offered them to me. Sheepshead are notorious bait stealers with flesh often mistaken for crab meat. A very good eating fish. A little wading and I made a very large quantity of sheepshead fish dip then took it to a dinner party; I gave up trying to tell people that it wasn’t crabmeat (lacks the sweet crab aroma and light sweet flavor). In my fishing clothes, I am not a picture of a wealthy serenely tailored fly fisherman.

  67. “Bruce Foutch says: May 28, 2014 at 10:05 am

    I’ve been reading the responses to this post and thought a lot about the different interpretations of species being bandied about and discovered I was having a difficult time, even with a solid background in biology, in arguing for or against any particular idea presented. So, I did some research and discovered that what is a species has been argued since ancient times and that there is still no uniform definition. And, depending on your particular field of study, the whole concept of species may be quite counter to that used by someone in another field. Since, what is a species is often central to AGW alarmism and is many times used in studies to ‘prove’ it is worse than we thought, this linked book may help illuminate the current state of understanding regarding the many definitions being used to define species:

    http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf

    Species is covered in chapter 1 beginning on page 6.

    I also thought the first quote apropos to us skeptics:
    “By doubting we come to questioning, and by questioning we perceive the truth.” – Pierre Abelard”

    Absolutely. No I didn’t read the whole paper at the end of your link, but the ‘species’ chapter is interesting.

    Consider it this way; order – family – species are theoretical application concepts developed by man to place life into an orderly system.
    Even with DNA, exactly determining placement of an organism into position requires several things, including someone’s determination of organic detail, acceptance within their branch of ‘ology along with an organism to describe.

    None of those components ‘make’ family or species relationship true or absolutely correct. What they do is make someone’s opinion a current favorite.

    You want fun? Try and exactly determine which species of mushrooms you’ve picked. Get into the microscopic spore measurement and color determination. Or grow some unusual species of orchids where you’re counting lip keels, pollinia orientation, size and number. Add to that recent attempts to utilize DNA analysis in deciding species relationships which is roiling some fields.

    Careful! Getting into species minutia is a sure step towards a type of madness. Just when is “close enough for government work” good enough? When eating mushrooms, perhaps accurate species determination, even as currently known, is best.

  68. Well foreign fish were put in the river some time ago, there are more hybrids now than in the past, Aucun de merde Hercule.. The current temperature is higher now than then. Aren’t these things going to both correlate with time even if independent.

    The supplementary info shows only 1sample from each test point,with the sample period extending over 5 years. i.e no year on year comparison for any site. No one year data for all sites. 58% of the sample sites found no hybrids.

    The key diagram seems to show model outputs not data.

    Have I missed something or am I right to regard this as a bit fishy?

  69. The colder water theory is a “red herring” (no pun intended). Until the government spent a lot of money to reduce lake trout populations in Yellowstone Lake, the lake trout were displacing cutthroat trout there. Lake trout require colder temperatures than cutthroat trout.

  70. I read the first few comments and saw nothing but smart ass crap. Automatic rejection based on the post not fitting people’s set belief system – i.e. anything related to global warming has to be a load of crap.

    There are impacts from a changing climate, mostly based on competition. The same applies to changes in other environmental factors. Clear cut a forest and what replaces it will be different. Change the average temperature or flows in salmon and trout bearing streams and you will see impacts. Change in environment can provide one species with a new found competative advantage. Oregon forests are home to both salamanders and newts. The newts are out competing the salamanders for the same habitat. Some of it is due to how they each lay eggs. Some is due to the red skinned newts having developed a means of deterrence to their predators (namely garter snakes and owls). By secreting a poison from their back skin, they are not as palatible – meaning they have a better chance to be passed up, while the salamander gets to star as dinner. And some of it is their changing environment. They are proving more adaptable. The result is that the newts are well on their way to replacing salamanders. That is nature at work. Do humans have an impact? Most likely. Is it the dominate impact? I don’t know. Do we care if the salamanders disappear from Oregon forests? That probably depends on who you ask. I personally think there are bigger issues to be concerned about. One being the health of fish runs, both wild and hatchery. Salmon are very temperature sensitive. Additionally they depend on stream flow being sufficient to entrain enough oxygen and keep sedimentation to a minimum. Oregon streams are seeing increases in temperature at the same time as flows in some areas are diminishing. There is nothing in the story above that I see as bogus or poor science. Those making fun of it should be ashamed.

    FYI – I will admit to a bit of bias here, as I did a 6 month internship with USGS while in grad school. There I learned they are one of, if not the best science organization operating under the auspices of the federal government, respected by acadamia, the market place and other government organizations.

  71. timg56 says:
    May 28, 2014 at 1:37 pm
    ====
    and in your internship you learned nothing about what defines a species, introduced non-natives, cross breeding, and hybrid vigor

  72. Hummm, wonder if David Suzuki would agree that there is no such thing as “hybrid vigor” in cross-bred trout. Last i heard, the climate hasn’t changed in Montana. So, could it be that Cutthroat and Rainbow are simply opportunists when it comes to propagation and that cross breading has nothing to do with being hot and bothered?

  73. timg56 says:

    There is nothing in the story above that I see as bogus or poor science. Those making fun of it should be ashamed.

    Really? You must have missed this part:

    “Over time, a mating population of native and non-native fish will result in only hybrid individuals with substantially reduced fitness because their genomes have been altered by non-native genes that are maladapted to the local environment.”

    Tell me, Mr USGS former intern, how it is that the less fit out-compete the more fit? Where but in the field of agenda driven climate science would a biologist make the dumbass statement that population A is replacing population B because population A is maladapted to the local environment?

    Smarmy warmists whine and moan and gnash their teeth to equate skeptics with creationists, meanwhile putative evolutionists are out there arguing survival of the unfittest to support “climate science.”

  74. The ones to be ashamed are those propagating false stories of global warming and nonsense stories about trout cross-breeding because it’s getting warm in Montana. Well when mangos start multiplying in Montana then that will be global warming, climate change or climate disruption or whatever buzz words the regime uses to scare monger. Until then, global warming exists . . . in the minds of men paid to lie!

  75. All this talk about trout has made me get out my gear, go shopping for some lures, and setting my alarm clock for 0-dark:30. Goin fishin.

    [With or without your wide? 8<) .mod]

  76. “timg56 says: May 28, 2014 at 1:37 pm

    I read the first few comments and saw nothing but smart ass crap. Automatic rejection based on the post not fitting people’s set belief system – i.e. anything related to global warming has to be a load of crap.

    There are impacts from a changing climate, mostly based on competition. The same applies to changes in other environmental factors. Clear cut a forest and what replaces it will be different…”

    Only read the first few comments? Made your mind up, based on a few comments. Did you really read them? Did you bother to actually read the abstract and article? Did you bother to read JJ’s comment above? I’m a bit skeptical.

    So the forest is clear cut, and you are convinced that what replaces it will be different… Different from what? Forests have been eaten, died out, burned out or frozen out for eons. Maybe they are different when regrown, but that is because competition decided the successful replacement, something that has also been happening for eons.

    “…Change the average temperature or flows in salmon and trout bearing streams and you will see impacts…”

    Of course. Now explain where this paper demonstrates water temperature changes due to global warming or whatever you want to call it. In fact, demonstrate any global warming in the study area that are enough to change water temperatures.

    “…Change in environment can provide one species with a new found competative (sic) advantage. Oregon forests are home to both salamanders and newts. The newts are out competing the salamanders for the same habitat. Some of it is due to how they each lay eggs. Some is due to the red skinned newts having developed a means of deterrence to their predators (namely garter snakes and owls). By secreting a poison from their back skin, they are not as palatible (sic) – meaning they have a better chance to be passed up, while the salamander gets to star as dinner. And some of it is their changing environment. They are proving more adaptable. The result is that the newts are well on their way to replacing salamanders. That is nature at work. Do humans have an impact? Most likely. Is it the dominate impact? I don’t know. Do we care if the salamanders disappear from Oregon forests? That probably depends on who you ask…”

    And man caused all this competition advantage to the newts. Who knew the power of man?

    “…I personally think there are bigger issues to be concerned about…”

    Do tell! We didn’t notice your personal opinions before, so it’s nice that you help us by pointing them out.

    “…One being the health of fish runs, both wild and hatchery. Salmon are very temperature sensitive. Additionally they depend on stream flow being sufficient to entrain enough oxygen and keep sedimentation to a minimum. Oregon streams are seeing increases in temperature at the same time as flows in some areas are diminishing…”

    All caused by global warming? Or perhaps you are afflicting the climate with man draining rivers, streams and aquifers to water plants, food crops and lawns. Got a lawn? Like to eat? Or would you prefer others to suffer?

    “…There is nothing in the story above that I see as bogus or poor science. Those making fun of it should be ashamed…”

    All well covered by JJ. Even Latitude noticed your comment and responded nicely.

    “…FYI – I will admit to a bit of bias here, as I did a 6 month internship with USGS while in grad school. There I learned they are one of, if not the best science organization operating under the auspices of the federal government, respected by acadamia (sic), the market place and other government organizations.”

    A bit of a bias? One of the better laughs in this thread.

    USGS may be on of the best science organizations, especially in the trenches; but if they’re going to keep producing similar science as above, they’re only direction is not better science. Shake the USGS dust from your eyes and read papers looking for the science, not the wild claims.

  77. Trout breed in cold weather, don’t ask me why? But our trout season ceases in June and reopens in October.

  78. Lattitude,

    I worked on water quality stuff. I construct and manager communications sites now.

    JJ & ATheoK,

    Nice doggies. Here, go play with this bone.

  79. I am afraid a day will come everything will be half-done because of climate change. There should be allocation if reasonable amount of funds to learn the exact reasons of half breed trout and how to combat this menace both.

Comments are closed.