Why browns are not planted in Nunnally-Lenice any longer

dp

~El Pescador
#16
Sometimes even a true sterile male triploid trout will display secondary sexual characteristics (for example, spawning coloration). And sometimes these sterile males may try and join the spawning party
that sounds like me!
 

Preston

Active Member
#17
If memory serves, every effort is made to cull male triploid trout at the "factory". Males are removed before sale to eliminate the likelihood of their attempting to spawn with diploid females.
 

Starman77

Active Member
#18
If memory serves, every effort is made to cull male triploid trout at the "factory". Males are removed before sale to eliminate the likelihood of their attempting to spawn with diploid females.

Sounds like a lot of work! It seems like it wouldn't be very easy to tell a male from a female when those trout are little fry. Up in BC, in the planting statistics, they identify not only what strain of rainbow is planted (for example, Pennask or Blackwater), but whether they are female or male triploids (for example, AF3N means female triploid).

Rex
 

mat1226

Active Member
#19
Sounds like a lot of work! It seems like it wouldn't be very easy to tell a male from a female when those trout are little fry. Up in BC, in the planting statistics, they identify not only what strain of rainbow is planted (for example, Pennask or Blackwater), but whether they are female or male triploids (for example, AF3N means female triploid).

Rex

Rex,

I wonder how they separate the fish by sex up there? Any idea?
 
#21
I think the whole thing is a political intra-agency power struggle.

The decision is purportedly to protect predation of bull trout in the lower Columbia river (there aren't any to speak of) from possible escape by brown or tiger trout from nunnally and/or lenice.

Browns have been in Lenice since the early 90s or earlier and hasn't seemed to have caused a problem yet. Reasonable to consider, at least, that if they were going to cause a problem it likely would have already happened. Even if they got out (difficult to do, considering the watershed but technically possible) and started populating the lower Columbia they can line up next to the millions of non-native bass, carb, and walleye that are firmly and irreversibly entrenched there, and that pose a much more real and present predation threat to native steelhead and bull trout (again that don't exist in that part of the river). Tiger trout are sterile and should therefore not be an ongoing sustained biological threat.

Yet we seem to feel good about planting non-native hatchery rainbow stocks that actually could hybridize with steelhead that actually do live in that stretch of the river!

I've come to the conclusion that someone is adhering to some fairly irrational dogma to decide to make LESS of a really great fishery for a PURELY hypothetical benefit that no matter what the plausible outcomes would have any affect whatsoever on their stated rationale.

THE ONLY THING THAT THIS DOES IS MAKE LESS OF A GREAT FISHERY AND WE GET TO FEEL GOOD (OR LIVID) ABOUT ADHERING TO A PURLEY DOGMATIC DECISION

I'll miss the diversity in the fishery.
 

skyrise

Active Member
#22
they can only be planted on a Tuesday in the rain on a odd number year with sun at a declining angle, 10 mph wind from the sw, only 10 mm of dust on the road, 60% of traffic south of I-90, no pollen in the air, low tide at Sequim, the drapes closed at joes house, 1/2 a tank of gas in Mary's truck, Burger King still open in Spokane, minimum of 3 boats on Moses Lake, a full cup of coffee in the truck of every WDFW game warden.
see its hard to get that point.