All of 'em in western WA, unless the occur upstream of impassable barriers. Which ignores the simple fact that those "landlocked" DVs can migrate downstream and intermingle with the anadromous bull trout. Like I said, amusing.
Since bull trout seem to be prone to wander (in one case a bull trout tagged in the Snohomish later spawned in the Whitechuck) rather widely, it becomes difficult to pin down which rivers have resident (as opposed to drop-in) populations The Skagit, Sauk and tributaries seem to have the healthiest numbers but the Skykomish and its tributaries appear to have quite a few. The Stillaguamish and its North and South Forks host some, and the specific name applied to the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was originally given to a fish taken from the Puyallup River in 1858. I can recall references to "Dolly Varden" in the past from the Snoqualmie and the Skokomish and, of course they occur in the Dungeness, the Elwha and most, if not all of the coastal rivers.
Here's a handout I put together for a presentation on bull trout I did at Orvis a few years ago. I believe that most of the information is still accurate.
The Elwha holds Dollies above Lake Mills. You'll need to hike in a bit, and you are not supposed to "target" them, but if you are fishing streamers or buggers for rainbows, you may very well catch one. There are some decent sized Dollies in the upper river. I have caught several over 20 inches, though it has been a few years.
We used to fish a salt water tidal bay. It had a small opening and would flow like the a river the same size as the Yakima for a couple hours. When the perch were spawning in the back bay the dollys would kill a quickly stripped pink fly. Perch give berth to live little pink baby perch so we would fish the outgoing tide as it flush the small fish out to the feeding dollys.
Since bull trout seem to be prone to wander (in one case a bull trout tagged in the Snohomish later spawned in the Whitechuck) rather widely, it becomes difficult to pin down which rivers have resident (as opposed to drop-in) populations The Skagit, Sauk and tributaries seem to have the healthiest numbers but the Skykomish and its tributaries appear to have quite a few. The Stillaguamish and its North and South Forks host some, and the specific name applied to the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was originally given to a fish taken from the Puyallup River in 1858. I can recall references to "Dolly Varden" in the past from the Snoqualmie and the Skokomish and, of course they occur in the Dungeness, the Elwha and most, if not all of the coastal rivers.
Here's a handout I put together for a presentation on bull trout I did at Orvis a few years ago. I believe that most of the information is still accurate.
I agree with the wandering theory, would be interesting to see how far they do wander. Some of N. Sound rivers I used to fish seemed to be stacked with large anadromous(i would assume) bull trout one winter and then the following winter none.. but that next year neighboring system which was slow the previous year was good the following year and vis versa. I commonly wondered if skagit system fish might spawn in say the sauk one year and then head to the fraser nooksack or whatever to spawn another year?
Ive noticed that these fish tend to follow food sources, if there is a large chum run it seems like the dollies are present. If its not a good chum run for some reason they are not present...maybe in another system where more food available????
Some facts below to intermingle with some interesting hyperbole:
Bull trout and dollies look near identical in western washington, but both species have a wide range in coloration throughout their respective ranges.
99% of native char genetically tested in washington are pure bull trout, a few small areas of pure dolly varden do exist, but few hybrids have been documented.
Bull trout are as genetically divergent from dolly varden as coho are from chinook.
Coho and chinook spawn time and locaton overlaps in many places yet hybrids are extremely rare in nature (though they can interbreed). This apparently is not surprising to the average angler?
Bull trout and dolly varden also are known to overlap in a few places in Western Washington, and hybrids are also rare.
Bull trout are most closely genetically related to japanesse white spotted char, while dolly varden are most closely related to arctic char, infact some ichthyologists have argued that arctic char and dollies are the same species.
Bull trout are about as genetically related to brook trout as they are to dolly varden.
Not a fact, but the best current thinking is that bull trout and dolly varden are not a species in divergence. The current thinking is that they are but 2 of several species that arrose from a common ancestral char, and invaded habitats at different times, or had different glacial refugia and subsequent recolonization events.
This is just like chinook and coho, which are not a species diverging into 2 speceis, but they are just 2 species of several that arose from a common ancestor.
Have caught bull/dolly in a small trib of the Nooksack as well as the upper Elwah. I thought they were both bulls, silimlar to the ones I have caught in the upper Flathead drainage in MT. However, I was not targeting Bull Trout either time and promptly released them.
Coho and chinook spawn time and locaton overlaps in many places yet hybrids are extremely rare in nature (though they can interbreed). This apparently is not surprising to the average angler?
Why should this be surprising? Kings and silvers utilize different habitats for spawning for the most part. What surprises me is the lack of Pink X Chums in nature, as they spawn at the same time in the same places. Although if I was Humpum I probably wouldn't come back to spawn so who knows? I did catch a pinook (Pink X King) once apparently they are the most common salmon hybrid. I've actually witnessed pinks trying to slip one past the goalie, it was kind like watching a 10 inch rainbow try to spawn with a 20 pound steelhead (I ended up catching the little humpy, I thought it was a dolly but it was this miniature 8 inch humpy, pretty crazy). A little while back ADF&G stocked a bunch of pinooks in some lakes in anchorage, the program never took off though.
Bull trout and dollies look near identical in western washington, but both species have a wide range in coloration throughout their respective ranges.
This is an interesting observation with broader implications than just the perennial Dolly Varden vs. bull trout debate.
As a trout fisher, I catch a lot of coastal cutthroats: mostly in lakes, but many in small westside streams as well. There is a high degree of variability in the appearance of all cutts, even within the same fishery. Some appear dark with lots of spots and some have brightly colored gill plates, while others are lighter with almost no color tint and still others have small, widely spaced spots.
As fishers, many of us pore over books or magazines with photos or illustrations of fish species, especially during the winter months. Unconsciously or otherwise, we may well generalize that because some photo or illustration of a particular species looks that way in a book or online, all individuals of that species should appear exactly the same in nature.
Conversely, it's tempting to draw an often unwarranted conclusion that if some fish look different than what we've come to expect, it's because they're from different strains, different genders, spawners, juveniles, hybrids, or a different species altogether.
As Shapp states above, I suspect it's likely if not probable, that just like humans, fish can and do exhibit some degree of variation in their outward appearance. The fact that the vast majority of fishers do not have a trained and reliable ability to positively identify a fish in the field (ie. lateral line scale counts, fin ray counts, or even DNA analysis) is further complicated since most of us no longer keep all the fish we catch and are thus unable to compare different individuals within that subset.
As a result, I tend to be pretty suspicious of off-the-cuff pronouncements that this or that fish is unequivocally one species or another - even if I'm the one making the pronouncement!
K
As a confirmed gear whore, I firmly believe that one can never have too many rods, reels, lines, flies, boats and . . . what else was I gonna say?
Some facts below to intermingle with some interesting hyperbole:
99% of native char genetically tested in washington are pure bull trout, a few small areas of pure dolly varden do exist, but few hybrids have been documented.
Facts? Or narrow conjecture?
Most bull trout and dolly varden are never genetically tested or even close to positively identified. With such nearly identical meristics, conclusions are based on, and necessarily limited to the groups represented by the fish sampled, and not even close to all members of the species. It's entirely reasonable that few hybrids would be documented if the best science, or taxonomy, indicates that bull trout generally inhabit anadromous accessible waters in western WA, and dolly varden inhabit selected waters upstream of migratory barriers. While the bull trout cannot intermingle upstream of the barriers, the dolly varden certainly can intermingle downstream. However, coming from a smaller habitat area, and consisting only of those members that migrate downstream, I'd expect the DV sub-population to be a small fraction of the size of the anadromous BT population in any drainage. Unless separated in time or space, there is no logical reason why the two would not interbreed. However, the presence of DV genetic material would be much less common in the population and therefore much less likely to be sampled, whether random or selective. I think any observed separation of BT and DV as species in this circumstance is more a matter of coincidence of respective population size and sampling than by any attribute of species biological separation.
Bull trout are as genetically divergent from dolly varden as coho are from chinook.
I ain't buying it. The taxonomic and genetic attributes separating coho and chinook are several and considerable. While many coho and chinook overlap in spawn timing and location, hybrids are not common, due in large part to their genetic dissimilarity. The attributes separating BT from DV are few, last I read. The only factor limiting hybridization is the relative abundance of each in a given spawning area.
Bull trout and dolly varden also are known to overlap in a few places in Western Washington, and hybrids are also rare.
See first comment.
Bull trout are most closely genetically related to japanesse white spotted char, while dolly varden are most closely related to arctic char, infact some ichthyologists have argued that arctic char and dollies are the same species.
I'd have to ask which BT and which JWSC? I've seen white spotted char (khundza) in Kamchatka. They look exactly like BT/DV wearing a different change of clothes. That a bull trout is genetically closer to khundza in Asia than to a DV in an upper Skagit tributary, with which it can and most likely does interbreed, strains credibility. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is necessary to sell this notion. I agree that DV are closely related to Arctic char. In fact, I'd submit that Arctic char, alpine char, khundza, DV, and BT are all roughly the same species, capable of interbreeding wherever they are not geographically separated, and derive from the same common ancestor. Further, it is more logical to consider them as separate species across a continuim of divergence than to believe some black and white distinction of separateness, which can be measured only with the most sophisticated genetic tools available.
Bull trout are about as genetically related to brook trout as they are to dolly varden.
Again, if true, then it's explained as much by coincidence as by genetics. Since some BT and DV can interbreed due to coexistence in the same time and spawning location, and only coexist with brook trout that are introduced into BT habitat, the above statement laughs at reason unless it allows coincidence as reasonable explanation.
This is just like chinook and coho, which are not a species diverging into 2 speceis, but they are just 2 species of several that arose from a common ancestor.
This is preposterous. Common ancestor for each, yes, but the similarity ends there. As one travels around the range of native char, species divergence or separation based on geographical distance is the most compelling explanation for the small differences observed between the "species." Seem more like sub-species in the way Bhenke identifies his numerous cutthroat sub-species. It's explained more by geography than by genetics.
I find it's even more interesting that scientists have been able to make chickens grow lizzard tails simply by activating a dormant gene. It sort of puts the Bull Trout Dolly Varden discussion into perspective. They both may have been cockroaches at one time. Who knows?
Then on the Alaska FIsh and Game website I saw a photo of a Dolly in spawning colors that looks nothing like the Dollies allegedly in rivers around here. Looks more like an Arctic Char than a bull trout.
To further confuse things, there have been recent studies showing that the majority of what were previously thought to be Arctic char in western Alaska and even as far as the Arctic coast of Canada are actually Dolly Varden.
jesus what a mess of information. so are arctic charr like a mythical creature?! if arctic coasts of canada and alaska are dolly's then where exactly are the actual arctic char?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Preston
It sort of puts the Bull Trout Dolly Varden discussion into perspective. They both may have been cockroaches at one time. Who knows?
