DOCSLIB.ORG

Recovery of Gila Trout Descended from South Diamond Creek from Recently Hybridized Populations in the Mogollon Creek Drainage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recovery of Gila Trout Descended from South Diamond Creek from Recently Hybridized Populations in the Mogollon Creek Drainage Recovery of Gila Trout Descended from South Diamond Creek from Recently Hybridized Populations in the Mogollon Creek Drainage Robb F. Leary Fred W. Allendorf and Naohisa Kanda Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Laboratory Report 99/1 Division of Biological Sciences The University of Montana Missoula, Montana 59812 Abstract: Gila trout, Oncorhynchus gilae, were extirpated from South Diamond Creek in 1995 by a fire and rain event. Prior to this, Gila trout from South Diamond Creek were used to establish populations in the Mogollon Creek drainage, but in 1995 it was discovered these populations were composed of Gila trout and descendants of first generation hybrids between Gila and rainbow trout, 0. mykiss. Since South Diamond Creek represents one of only four native Gila trout populations remaining, it was decided to attempt to recover Gila trout from the Mogollon Creek drainage populations. Fish from Mogollon Creek and its tributary Trail Canyon were transported to the Mescalaro National Fish Hatchery in 1996. In 1997, pair matings (one male and one female) were performed using the sexually mature fish from Mogollon Creek and Trail Canyon. After spawning the fish were sacrificed, and electrophoretic analysis of the products of seven protein coding loci known to distinguish Gila and rainbow trout was used to determine the genetic characteristics of the fish spawned and the likelihood that an individual was a Gila trout. This procedure was repeated using the sexually mature fish in 1998. In 1997, the electrophoretic data indicated that the fish spawned from both streams were mainly a mixture of Gila trout and first generation backcrosses to Gila trout. Thus, progeny produced this year from Gila trout by Gila trout matings represent a valuable resource for conservation and restoration efforts. Protein data from the fish spawned in 1998 indicated the extent of hybridization had increased. There was evidence of second generation backcrosses to Gila trout among the fish from both streams. Because of this, there was a good chance that some fish that electrophoretically appeared to be Gila trout actually were of hybrid origin. Fish produced this year, therefore, should be excluded from conservation and restoration efforts. Alternatively, each individual's genotype at 40 or more nuclear DNA regions that distinguish Gila and rainbow could be determined to ensure only Gila trout are used. 1 INTRODUCTION Gila trout, Oncorhynchus gilae, are native to the Gila River drainage in New Mexico and Arizona and the Verde River drainage, Arizona (Miller 1950; Minckley 1973; Behnke 1992). The species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). It is believed to be extinct from the Verde River drainage (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and analysis of samples collected from 1995 through 1997 indicated only four native populations exist in the Gila River drainage: Main Diamond Creek and its replicate McKnight Creek in the Mimbres River drainage, a replicate of South Diamond Creek in the Mogollon Creek drainage, Whiskey Creek, and Spruce Creek and its replicate in Big Dry Creek (Leary and Allendorf 1998). Reasons for the large reduction in abundance of Gila trout, in numbers of individuals and populations, are due to human alteration of the environment and the introduction of non-native fishes (Miller 1961; United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Human disturbances have resulted in a reduction of vegetation, increased sedimentation and water temperature in streams, and reduced stream flows. Non- native salmonids such as brown trout, SaImo trutta, are thought to result in the elimination of Gila trout populations through predation and competition (Dowling and Childs 1992; United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Introduced rainbow trout, 0. mykiss, have eliminated many Gila trout populations through introgression and the formation of random mating hybrid swarms (Loudenslager et al. 1986; United States Fish and Wildlife Service 1993; Leary and Allendorf 1998; Riddle et al. 1998). That is, populations in which essentially all fish are of hybrid origin. The above factors have isolated the remaining native Gila trout populations from each other in small headwater streams. This fragmentation jeopardizes their continued existence. The populations can be severely reduced in size or eliminated by natural events such as drought, fire, or flood. Electrophoretic analysis of proteins indicated that substantial genetic divergence exists among the native Gila trout populations (Leary and Allendorf 1998). This divergence is mainly due to the presence of variant alleles in only one population but at high frequency and the presence of variant alleles in multiple populations but at highly variable frequencies. Preserving the genetic variation represented by the native Gila trout populations, therefore, will require ensuring the continued existence of all of them. In 1995, Gila trout were extirpated from South Diamond Creek by a fire and rain event. Furthermore, electrophoretic analysis of proteins indicated that the replicate populations of South Diamond Creek Gila trout in the Mogollon Creek drainage were now comprised of Gila trout and descendants of first generation hybrids between Gila and rainbow trout (Leary and Allendorf 1998). Without human intervention, therefore, it 2 was considered highly likely that within a few more generations the Mogollon Creek drainage populations would become hybrid swarms and the valuable genetic resource represented by South Diamond Creek Gila trout would be permanently lost. Thus, a plan was developed and implemented to recover Gila trout from the Mogollon Creek drainage. This paper presents the results of the recovery attempt. METHODS In 1996, a combined total of 600 trout were collected using electrofishing from the lower reaches of Mogollon Creek and its tributary Trail Canyon. The fish were transported by helicopter to hatchery trucks and then they were brought to the Mescalaro National Fish Hatchery where they were raised as separate Mogollon and Trail Canyon groups. After electrofishing, the streams were treated with antimycin A to remove all remaining fish for subsequent reintroduction of Gila trout. Pair matings (one male and one female) were petformed in 1997 at the Mescalaro National Fish Hatchery using the sexually mature fish from the Mogollon and Trail Canyon groups. Each family egg lot was incubated separately and all parents were sacrificed for electrophoretic analysis. Labelled eye, liver, and muscle tissue from each parent was sent frozen to the Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, and then to the Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Laboratory, University of Montana, for electrophoretic analysis. After electrophoretic analysis, only those egg lots that appeared to be produced from Gila trout by Gila trout matings were retained. The remaining egg lots were sacrificed. This procedure was repeated in 1998. Since parents were sacrificed after spawning, in terms of individuals the fish spawned in 1997 and 1998 are completely different groups. Electrophoresis and data analysis Horizontal starch gel electrophoresis was used to determine each fish's genetic characteristics (genotypes) at seven loci (genes) coding for proteins present in muscle, liver, or eye tissue that previous results indicated distinguish Gila and rainbow trout (Leary and Allendorf 1998): alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH*, liver), fumarate hydratase (FH-1*, liver), glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH-4*, eye), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH-C*, eye), phosphoglucomutase (PGM-1*, muscle), phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK-2*, muscle), and tripeptide aminopeptidase (PEPB*, eye). Electorphoretic procedures were identical to those used by Leary and Allendorf (1998). We used three methods to examine the extent of hybridization in the fish spawned. First, the proportion of Gila and rainbow trout genes in the Trail Canyon and Mogollon Creek fish, treated separately, was estimated by averaging the frequency of Gila and rainbow trout alleles over all seven loci. Contingency table chi-square analysis 3 was used to test for heterogeneity of the proportion of Gila and rainbow trout alleles between the fish spawned in 1997 and 1998 from the same stream. The procedure of Cockerham and Weir (1977) was used to test for a positive association between the presence of a Gila trout allele at one locus and another (gametic phase disequlibrium) for all possible pairs of loci in the fish spawned treated separately by stream and year. The amount of gametic phase disequilibrium would provide an insight into how recently in the past hybridization was initiated, and thus the likelihood that some fish spawned may be Gila trout. In Gila trout, rainbow trout, and first generation hybrids (Gila x rainbow trout, F1), gametic phase disequilibrium relative to its maximum value will have a value of one. With random mating, it will decrease to 0.5 in second generation hybrids (F1 x F1 = F2) and first generation backcrosses (Gila trout x F : rainbow trout x F Each additional generation of hybridization 1 = F1BG 1 = F1BR)• will decrease gametic phase disequilibrium by one-half its former value. Thus, in third generation hybrids (F2 x F2 = F3) and second generation. backcrosses (Gila trout x F18G = F2BG rainbow trout x FiBR = F28R) it will be 0.25, in fourth generation hybrids (F3 x F3 = F4) and third generation backcrosses (Gila trout x F28G = F_ 38G:, rainbow_ _ trouttrout_ _ x F
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North America
    CItiEt'SW XHPYTD: RSOTLAITYWUAS 4 Monograph of ha, TEMPI, AZ The Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo Of Western North America Robert J. Behnke "9! August 1979 z 141, ' 4,W \ " • ,1■\t 1,es. • . • • This_report was funded by USDA, Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service , Bureau of Land Management FORE WARD This monograph was prepared by Dr. Robert J. Behnke under contract funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Region 2 of the Forest Service was assigned the lead in coordinating this effort for the Forest Service. Each agency assumed the responsibility for reproducing and distributing the monograph according to their needs. Appreciation is extended to the Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center, for assistance in publication. Mr. Richard Moore, Region 2, served as Forest Service Coordinator. Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Rocky Mountain Region September, 1980 Inquiries about this publication should be directed to the Regional Forester, 11177 West 8th Avenue, P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, Colorado 80225. it TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts
    Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts August 1976 USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Abstract Behnke, R. J., and Mark Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA For. Sew. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28, 45 p. Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. Discusses taxonomy, reasons for decline, life history and ecology, and sug- gestions for preservation and management of six closely related trouts native to western North America: Colorado River cutthroat, Salmo clarki pleuriticus; green- back trout, S. c. stomias; Lahontan cutthroat, S. c. henshawi; Paiute trout, S. c. seleniris; Gila trout, S. gilae; and Arizona native trout, S. apache. Meristic characters, distribution and status, habitat requirements and limiting factors, protective measures, and management recommendations are presented for each taxon. Keywords: Native trout, Salrno clarki pleuriticus. Sali?zo ckurki stoi~zius. Sulnzo clarki herzshawi, Salmo clarki seleniris, Salrno gilue. Sulrno uprrchc. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-28 August 1976 Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered Western Trouts R. J. Behnke Colorado State University Mark Zarn Conservation Library Denver Public Library Information reported here was prepared under contract by the Conservation Library of the Denver Public Library, through the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The report is printed as prepared by the authors; opinions are not necessarily those of the U.S. Forest Service. TABLE OF CONTENTS I . GJ3NERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR RAE3 AND ENDANGJIRED WESTERN TROUTS Introduction ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus Gilae)
    (Technical Review Draft, April 2002) GILA TROUT (Oncorhynchus gilae) (Third Revision) RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: January 12, 1979) (First Revision Approved: January 3, 1984) (Second Revision Approved: December 8, 1993) Prepared by John Pittenger (Purchase Order 201819M251) for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: XXX Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/ or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or national Marine Fisheries Service are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position of the National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus Gilae) Data: Gila Trout Recovery Plan-2003 Partners: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S
    Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) Data: Gila Trout Recovery Plan-2003 Partners: Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service Gila Trout Species Status review: landowners provides opportunity for The Gila Trout was originally recognized as increased Gila Trout restoration and should endangered under the Federal Endangered result in a conservation benefit to the Species Preservation Act of 1966 (U.S. Fish species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Service, 1967). Federal- and the State wildlife and fisheries designated status of the fish as endangered management agencies responsible for was continued under the Endangered establishing fishing regulations work to Species Act of 1973 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife ensure that angling pressure does not Service, 1975) until 2006 when the species prevent, but enhances, progress toward full was down-listed to threatened (U.S. Fish and recovery. Gila Trout angling will continue to Wildlife Service, 2006). The Gila Trout was be managed by the States as long as the listed as endangered by the New Mexico population remains above the recovery Department of Game and Fish in 1975 under threshold. the Wildlife Conservation Act and was down-listed to threatened in 1988, and Distribution of Gila Trout: The extent of remains listed as threatened by New Mexico the historical distribution of the Gila Trout is Department of Game and Fish. Gila Trout not known with certainty. It is known to be are considered a Species of Concern by the native to higher elevation streams in Arizona Game and Fish Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarkii Pleuriticus)
    Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): A Technical Conservation Assessment Michael K. Young Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project United States Department of Agriculture / Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-207-WWW March 2008 Young, Michael K. 2008. Colorado River cutthroat trout: a technical conservation assess- ment. [Online]. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-207-WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 123 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_GTR- 207-WWW.pdf [March 2008]. Abstract The Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) was once distributed throughout the colder waters of the Colorado River basin above the Grand Canyon. About 8 percent of its historical range is occupied by unhybridized or ecologically significant populations. It has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is accorded special status by several state and federal agencies. Habitat alteration and nonnative trout invasions led to the extirpation of many populations and impede restoration. Habitat fragmentation exacerbated by climate change is an emerging threat. A strategic, systematic approach to future conservation is likely to be the most successful. The Author Michael Young has been a Research Fisheries Biologist with the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station since 1989. His work focuses on the ecology and conservation of native coldwater fishes and the effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbance on stream ecosystems. Address: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 East Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, Montana 59801. Email: [email protected]. Acknowledgments I thank Todd Allison, Warren Colyer, Greg Eaglin, Noah Greenwald, Paula Guenther-Gloss, Christine Hirsch, Jessica Metcalf, Dirk Miller, Kevin Rogers, and Dennis Shiozawa for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • APACHE TROUT My First Exposure to What Later Proved to Be Apache Trout, Caused Considerable Consternation. This Occurred In
    c J tap APACHE TROUT My first exposure to what later proved to be Apache trout, caused considerable consternation. This occurred in the late 1950's while conducting graduate research on the native trout of the Great Basin (mainly the cutthroat trout native to the Lahontan and Bonneville basins of Nevada and Utah). I had borrowed all of the preserved specimens available in museums to examine in order to characterize the subspecies described from the Lahontan and Bonneville basins. These diagnoses would allow me to recognize these subspecies if they still existed. Both the Lahontan subspecies henshawi and the Bonneville subspecies Utah were generally regarded to be extinct as pure populations at the time, but the problem was that if these subspecies still existed, how could they be verified since no valid diagnosis of the subspecies had ever been made. My study was progressing nicely as I compiled the diagnostic traits of the two subspecies when I received three specimens from the U.S. National Museum labeled, "Panguitch Lake, Utah" (a lake in Bonneville basin). These specimens were collected in 1873 and were entirely distinct from any form of cutthroat trout known to me. The specimens were only about five to eight inches in length but their deep bodies, long fins, spotting patterns, and other internal characters such„ as the number of vertebrae were very different from any other trout with which I was familiar. I pondered the question in my MS. thesis; How could a trout so distinctively different from the Bonneville cutthroat have existed in the Bonneville basin and not previously recognized? When I became aware that mix-ups of specimens and locality records of fish collections made by geological surveys and railroad surveys in the nineteenth century were a common occurrence, a bit of further investigation revealed that these three specimens (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Bulletin Is Now an On-Line Publication
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service For over a century, the Fish and Wildlife Service has played a vital role in conserving America’s fishery resources. In 1871, Congress established what is now known as the National Fish Hatchery System. Its origi­ February 2007 Vol. XXXII No. 1 nal purpose was to provide domestic food fish to replace declining native fish. Over the past 30 years, in the face of increasing demands on aquatic systems and grow­ ing environmental threats to those systems, the mission of the National Fish Hatchery System expanded and diver­ sified. In addition to restor­ ing native fish populations, mitigating for fisheries lost as a result of federal water projects, and providing fish to benefit tribes and national wildlife refuges, the system has a unique responsibility in helping to recover various aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. I N T H I S I S S U E 4 The National Fish Hatchery System 6 A Living Fossil Fights for Survival 10 The Return of a Lake-dwelling Giant Telephone: (703) 358-2390 Contributors 12 Hatcheries are for More Than Fish Fax: (703) 358-1735 Stuart C. Leon E-mail: [email protected] Jeff M. Finley Craig Springer Apache Trout: Swimming Towards Web site: Richard Shelton 14 www.fws.gov/endangered/bulletin.html Wade Fredenberg Recovery Editor Mark Maskill Michael Bender Yvette Converse Tom Brandt Editorial Assistance 16 The Texas Blind Salamander Ann Haas Layout Dennis & Sackett Design, Inc. 18 National Fish Hatchery System Facilities On the Cover Photographed in a clear, shallow stream, this Lahontan cutthroat trout displays its lateral line, which is a sensory organ used to detect movement in the surrounding water.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Native Trout Initiative
    Western Native Trout Initiative Mission: “To serve as a key catalyst for the implementation of conservation or management actions, through partnerships and cooperative efforts, resulting in improved species status, improved aquatic habitats, and improved recreational opportunities for native trout anglers across western states”. Little Kern Golden trout Western Native Trout Initiative Focal species Alaskan Kokanee o Dolly Varden Alaskan Rainbow Trout o Gila Trout Apache Trout o Greenback Cutthroat Trout Arctic Char o Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Arctic Grayling o Little Kern Golden Trout o Paiute Cutthroat Trout Bonneville Cutthroat Trout o Redband Trout Bull Trout o Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout California Golden Trout o Westslope Cutthroat Trout Coastal Cutthroat Trout o Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Colorado River Cutthroat Western Native Trout Initiative WNTI Steering Committee = 15 members 9 western state agencies 3 federal agencies (USFWS, USFS, BLM) 1 conservation organization (Trout Unlimited) 1 tribal nation (vacant) 1 Canadian provincial agency (vacant) 1 staff person = Coordinator Programs/activities Fall grant program = large habitat projects (federal NFHP funding) Spring = Small Grants Program (other funds that we raise) Science and Data Campaign for Western Native Trout Western Native Trout Initiative From 2006-2017, WNTI has directed almost $5.5 million in federal fish habitat partnership funds leveraged to $25 million public and private matching dollars for 141 priority native trout conservation projects. 87 fish passage barriers removed 1,129 stream miles reconnected, restored or improved 30 barriers constructed to protect and conserve priority populations 671 watersheds or populations assessed Over 350 partnering organizations Western Native Trout Initiative WNTI Small Grants Program Since 2016: 26 small grants projects funded with $73,970 in donations to WNTI and matched with $1,080,953 in other funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Trout Streamside Identification Guide - a Joint Production of Flyfishingthesierra.Com and Wildtroutstreams.Com
    Native Trout Streamside Identification Guide - a joint production of FlyFishingtheSierra.com and WildTroutStreams.com Copyright © 2011 by WildTroutStreams.com Illustrations Copyright © 2009-2011 by Steven Schalla, FlyFishingtheSierra.com, used with permission. The complete and unaltered PDF file may be redistributed over the Internet for non-commercial purposes. All other rights are reserved by the respective copyright holders. Using this Guide This guide describes 24 trout species and sub-species sought by anglers in the This guide is intended to assist you in doing that. No one will mistake these illus- lower-48 United States. Included are all of the commonly sought trout, and more trations for real fish, but we view that as an advantage because we can exagger- than a few of the obscure ones. A comprehensive guide might easily have pro- ate the features that really matter. A photo-realistic image may look gorgeous, vided twice as many, but we think this is a useful selection that will cover most but may never match the fish at the end of your line. A real fish may look dra- anglers’ needs. matically different fromany one-off illustration or photo. In the final analysis, we Conclusively identifying a species on the stream is often impossible in the few do the best we can. If your best judgement is you’ve caught the species you’ve seconds you have to examine a trout before releasing it unharmed. While most identified, what else matters? experienced trout anglers will be able to distinguish the most common trout We’ve designed this guide to take with you.
    [Show full text]
  • GENUS Brachymystax Gunther, 1866
    FAMILY Salmonidae Jarocki (or Schinz), 1822 - salmonids SUBFAMILY Salmoninae Jarocki (or Schinz), 1822 - salmonids [=Dermopteres, Salmonidi, Salmones, Tutriformes (Truttiformes), Salvelini, Brachymystini, Oncorhynchus, Huchoninae, Salmothymini, Salvelinini, Parahuchoninae] GENUS Brachymystax Gunther, 1866 - lenoks, Asiatic trout, Manchurian trout Species Brachymystax lenok (Pallas, 1773) - sharp-snouted lenok [=coregonoides, swetowidowi] Species Brachymystax savinovi Mitrofanov, 1959 - Russian lenok Species Brachymystax tsinlingensis Li, 1966 - Yangtze lenok Species Brachymystax tumensis Mori, 1930 - blunt-snouted lenok [=czerskii] GENUS Hucho Gunther, 1866 - salmonids [=Epitomynis] Species Hucho bleekeri Kimura, 1934 - Bleeker's hucho Species Hucho hucho (Linnaeus, 1758) - huchen, huchen trout, Danube salmon [=germanorum] Species Hucho ishikawae Mori, 1928 - Korean hucho Species Hucho taimen (Pallas, 1773) - taimen [=fluviatilis, lossos] GENUS Oncorhynchus Suckley, 1861 - salmonids [=Hypsifario, Paraoncorhynchus, Parasalmo] Species Oncorhynchus aguabonita (Jordan, 1892) - golden trout, California golden trout [=roosevelti, whitei] Species Oncorhynchus apache (Miller, 1972) - apache trout, Arizona trout Species Oncorhynchus chrysogaster (Needham & Gard, 1964) - Mexican golden trout Species Oncorhynchus clarkii (Richardson, 1837) - cutthroat trout [=alpestris, alvordensis, bathoecetor, behnkei, bouvieri, brevicauda, carinatus, carmichaeli, crescentis, declivifrons, eremogenes, evermanni, henshawi, humboldtensis, jordani, lewisi, macdonaldi,
    [Show full text]
  • The Gila Trout Is Native to the Headwaters of the Gila River And
    This beautiful native trout is still listed WHAT IS A NATIVE TROUT? opportunities for others. As the human as "endangered with extinction". population grew, the more accessable However, recent efforts by the New Millions of sportsmen thrill at the sight streams became depleted of native Mexico Department of Game & Fish, New of a leaping rainbow trout, nervously trout and thoughts turned towards Mexico State University, U.S. Forest anticipate the strike of a wary brown, or restoring them to many overfished Service, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife marvel at the colorful beauty of a brook areas. State and Federal agencies began Service have expanded its range. This trout fresh from a high mountain lake building hatcheries to supply trout in GILA TROUT will allow its classification to be changed or stream. Naturally reproducing their early fish culture programs. from endangered to threatened. populations of these trout, particularly However, they soon discovered that Management goals include the when caught in remote, back country other species which had been cultured GILA TROUT continued renewal of populations within waters are often referred to as "natives". for many years in more populated areas its historic range and the eventual Many fishermen are surprised to learn The Gila trout is native to the of the United States were readily headwaters of the Gila River and removal of the Gila trout from that these fish were not originally found available and had been domesticated to in New Mexico or Arizona, but are occupies several small streams in the protected status so that it may be a point that enabled them to be more Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness areas managed as a sport fish.
    [Show full text]
  • WNTC Completions Reach 43! the Total Number of People That Have Met the WNTI Trout Challenge Reached 43 in Mid-May of 2020
    WNTC Completions Reach 43! The total number of people that have met the WNTI Trout Challenge reached 43 in mid-May of 2020. One individual achieved the Master Caster Level (18 species across 12 states), 9 people achieved the Advanced Caster Level (12 species across at least 8 states), and 33 people achieved the Expert Caster Level (6 species across at least 4 states). Congratulations! Photo: Mark Hutchings of Provo, Utah earning his Advanced Caster award catching a Bonneville Cutthroat Trout. First Angler to Complete WNTC Master Caster Level Steve MacMillan achieved Master Level in the WNTC in October of 2019. He caught Arctic Char, Coastal Cutthroat Trout, Alaska Rainbow Trout, and Dolly Varden in Alaska; Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout, Little Kern Golden Trout, Kern River Rainbow Trout, and California Golden Trout in California, Redband Trout in Oregon, Lahontan Cutthroat Trout in Nevada, Bonneville Cutthroat Trout in Utah, Apache Trout in Arizona, Gila Trout in New Mexico, Colorado River Cutthroat Trout and Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in Wyoming, Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Montana, Bull Trout in Idaho, and Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout in Colorado. Steve was the first person to receive both the Ad vanced Caster and Master Caster Level awards. Steve was the recipient of a Helios 3 flyfishing rod, a sponsor of the WNTC. Congratulations, Steve! Lillard Fly Fishing Expeditions Supports WNTC Lillard Fly Fishing Expeditions (LFFE) in Pisgah Forest, North Carolina is jumping on the Trout Chal- lenge bandwagon. For every individual that registers for the WNTC, LFFE will make a donation to WNTI and will enter that individual into a drawing for a Rep Your Water native trout hat (drawing on May 15 and winner announced via Lillard Fly Fishing Expeditions Instagram).
    [Show full text]