[RA40]

I am often confronted into debates regarding Great Lake Steelhead fishing. From what I understand it is quite a good fishery often resulting in 10 ,20 and even 50 fish days. I guess my problem is that I don't consider these fish to be Steelhead but rather Rainbow Trout.

I have always been lead to believe that a steelhead is only a steelhead after it has made it's migration to the ocean. If it doesn't make it's migration and stays within the freshwater system, is it a Steelhead or a Rainbow Trout?

Can we really make a fair comparison of West Coast Steelhead to so called Great Lake Steelhead? Just because the brood stock is from a Steelhead, does it always remain a steelhead?

I would be interested in the technical answer as well as general perception from members.

This post has been edited by RA40: 08 January 2005 - 09:29 AM

[Mudpout]

Not in my opinion they arent. If a steelhead smolt residualises in the river (which does happen I believe), I would call that fish a trout, and not a steelhead. One mans opinion, not taxonomic fact. All them Michigan chuck and duckers probably disagree though. Are great lake browns Sea Trout? Trout migrate from lakes to rivers to spawn all over the world after all.

Cheers
Tom

This post has been edited by Mudpout: 08 January 2005 - 09:45 AM

[Ted]

As far as I can remember the original rainbow stock introduced to the great lakes were pacific coast steelhead. Hence they are steelhead stock. They don't go to the ocean but they do exhibit the standard life style pattern of steelhead. They also likely grow in the great lakes at the same rate that ocean steelhead do and return at about the same age as ocean steelhead. (At least that is my impression from what I have read}

I think If the biologists had just introduced a rainbow trout stock you wouldn't get fish as large as fast and hence get the angling opportunity that is available back there.

This post has been edited by Ted: 08 January 2005 - 09:56 AM

[scooter]

In the case of Great Lakes steelhead, I would suggest that the Great Lakes is their equivalent of an ocean. Any steelhead that residualized in say the Saugeen, Credit or Maitland Rivers would be a trout. Those that venture out into the Lakes and then return-steelhead.

Based upon your reasoning RA40, would you also conclude that the coho, chinook and pink in the Great Lakes are also not really salmon because they don't migrate to the ocean?

[smitty]

Interesting question. I have thought about it quite often, and been challenged a number of times by west coasters that Great Lakes fish are not steelhead, but rainbows. Further to it, what makes a steelhead different from a rainbow? They are the same species, but a steelhead migrates to the ocean. It is not possible to identify a steelhead juvenile from a rainbow juvenile. If you were to be able to match the DNA of a juvenile fish to that of it's ocean-going parent, you would be able to ascertain that it is a steelhead. So then, if the Great Lakes fish were the progeny of pacific steelhead, I would conclude that they are the same fish, with the only difference being that they rely on different habitats than the pacific steelhead do.

[RA40]

Good question, I don't think salmon is required to migrate to the ocean and back again to be a salmon, however i think a steelhead is.

The definition of a Steelhead in the BC Freshwater Regulations is:

" A Rainbow Trout longer than 50cm in waters where anadromous rainbow trout are found."

The reason I ask the question is that an outdoor writer is wanting to write a story comparing Ontario Steelhead to BC Steelhead. To me that is an Apple/Orange comparison.

[Mudpout]

Is a kokanee a proper sockeye?

[Oliver]

If you were to take a great lakes "steelhead" and put it in a west coast river, would it then venture out to the ocean? My guess is that yes it would. As much as I razz my dad about his "imitation" salmon and steelhead, I think that they are in fact steelhead and not just rainbows.
But, when asking if we can we make a fair comparison of a west coast steel and a great lakes steel, what exactly are we comparing? I dont like the idea that the great lakes fish can be submitted for igfa records and such because they are a non native, introduced species to a foreign body of water. Although the genetics may be identical and the habits of the cousins similar, the life history, feeding habits and lack of a "real" ocean and all the factors that come along with it, say to me that they should not be classed with a true, pacific ocean going steelhead.

[RA40]

Oliver, my thoughts exactly.

"Although the genetics may be identical and the habits of the cousins similar, the life history, feeding habits and lack of a "real" ocean "

The comparison that he wished to make is Steelhead fishing in BC vs Steelhead fishing in Ontario. To me that is a non story as there is no real comparison other than genetics.

This post has been edited by RA40: 08 January 2005 - 11:47 AM

[Swamp Donkey]

I'm certainly no expert but I'm from the "walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's probably a duck" school of thought. Besides, if they aren't Steelhead, then what are the "Salmon" that inhabit the same waters?

Either way, just from watching TV it sure looks like fun fishing for 20 pound Steelhead/trout/whatever in tiny streams.

[Lead Herring]

Anyone who has ever been caught in a storm on one of the Great Lakes or camped on the shore of one and heard it breathing in the night would know that they are not lakes at all but Inland Seas.
Most of the tributaries that contain Steelhead are slower/muddier than WC rivers and the tackle is scaled down but I have seen Great Lakes Steelheaders on the Gold who were slayin' 'em.
Of course in those days the Gold had Steelhead-unlike now.

[Sharpy]

"Superior they said never gives up her dead" just ring up the crew of the Edmond Fitzgerald, it was an ocean to them..salt or no salt.

Nice Pic Lead

This post has been edited by Sharpy: 08 January 2005 - 11:34 AM

[Kush]

At the Wild Steelhead Summit in Seattle this past October I had the pleasure of listening to Kurt Kramer, one of Washington State's primary fisheries biologists. He is of the opinion that steelhead and rainbow trout are exactly the same species. Further he states that not only will steelhead smolts residualize - but rainbow fry will smolt and head to the ocean.

His studies indicate that a key deciding factor seems to be the relative productivity of the ocean. When ocean conditions are poor more smolts will residualize and when river conditions are poor trout fry will smolt. It makes sense, sort of nature's insurance policy. It would also help explain the increased abundance of larger trout in the Thompson over the last few years as ocean conditions have been decidedly poor (at least for steelhead).

It is an interesting concept that I would definitely like to get more information on.

[Cougar Guy]

I always thought the distinction was that "true" Steelhead are born in freshwater, spend their adult life in saltwater and return to freshwater to spawn. Although the Great Lakes could certainly be considered an inland sea or ocean, they are not saltwater so the fish would not be "true" Steelhead. If we were to consider Great Lakes fish Steelhead, why would we not consider fish from Quesnel, Kootenay or Babine Lakes Steelhead? They also would all start out in streams, spend their adult life getting fat in an inland ocean and return to rivers to spawn.

In this sense, I guess what seperates a Rainbow Trout and a Steelhead is not genetics, but their particular life cycle. Regarding salmon, I would beleive that a Chinook or Coho in the Great Lakes does have every right to be considered a salmon. I would say this because there is no requirement for a salmon to live in saltwater for that title to apply . . . unlike the saltwater connenction to the Steelhead.

Of course, this theory goes out the window if my initial statement is not correct

[Whistler]

Kush there very well may be something to what you are saying. I have always thought it odd that some of the best Steelhead rivers up north lacked great resident Rainbow populations. Meanwhile back here we have the Squamish with its growing population of resident Trout. Perhaps this is a combo of better river conditions and poor ocean survival. The question remains if two resident fish mate can the offspring smolt. It is fairly widely accepted that the spawn of two anadromous fish can residulize for the reasons you described. Just goes to show that we know so precious little about these wonderful fish.

BN