[Kush]

Brian,

I know what you mean, when I heard Kurt Kramer explain this it was like the proverbial light going on... I do not have the scientific background to offer other than my lay opinion - but this certainly shed a different light for me.

[4x4]

Would the fight be different from Great Lake Steelhead compared to an ocean run Westcoast Steelhead?

Their diets are different even though they are both eating fish. Salt versus fresh.

Lead Herring that is a spectacular fish. Major shoulders.

[RalphH]

The steelhead in the Great Lakes were introduced close to 100 years ago - who knows how their geneology has changed in the 20+ generations since then (that is equivalent to about 600 years of human evolution) .

Rainbows have proven to be very 'plastic'. They change basic behavoirs etc in response to the environment in a relatvely small number of generations. That's one reason they are so successful as an introduced species and are found around the world.

I think the question is moot. A rainbow is a rainbow is a rainbow. Steelhead vs rainbow is the same question as a "rose by any other name...". The strongest rainbows I have ever caught were from Kootenay Lake. A Gerard could pull most steelhead backwards if tied tail to tail. To a biologist steelhead vs rainbow isn't much of an issue (I would suspect). They would be more interested in the differences between Oncorhynchus mykiss "X" versus Oncorhynchus mykiss "Y".

This post has been edited by RalphH: 08 January 2005 - 12:59 PM

[Lead Herring]

I should have pointed out-that fish is a Great Lakes Steelhead-the pic was cribbed off This Great Lakes Forum

edit-"Quesnel, Kootenay or Babine Lakes"
In comparison to the Great lakes those places are puddles-as deep as Interior BC lakes are they are minor players in terms of limnology

This post has been edited by Lead Herring: 08 January 2005 - 01:25 PM

[flyfisherdon]

Vic,
As much as I would like to defend the Great Lakes "Steelhead" as being steelhead,I would have to agree that they are trout.I think just the definition of BC steelhead as being anadromous would prevent the ones back east from being true steelhead regardless of their genetic origin.What ever changes that they make to be able to withstand saltwater would not be there when in the Great Lakes.
Of course they WOULD have to be able to withstand mercury, dioxins and PCBs to be able to exist in the Great Lakes
As someone mentioned earlier,sockeye when spending all their life in a lake are called kokanee,so maybe there should be a special name for steelhead stock that spend most of their life in a lake.
Don used to be at Hubs.

[RA40]

Hi Don, good to see that your alive and well. Hope life is treating you good.

Genetics don't mean much when comparing these two fisheries. I agree with you 100%. I think the big question to ask is if this is a fair comparison in fishing related terms like numbers returning, survival rates, fishing experience etc. How can you really make a fair comparison of these two fisheries. To me they are black and white.

Whistler, not sure if you noticed but I would say the same for the Upper Pitt. The Steelhead returns the last two or three years has been dismal but you do catch some nice 5 to 7 lb rainbows.

This post has been edited by RA40: 08 January 2005 - 02:04 PM

[Cougar Guy]

edit-"Quesnel, Kootenay or Babine Lakes"
In comparison to the Great lakes those places are puddles-as deep as Interior BC lakes are they are minor players in terms of limnology

I realize that these lakes are much smaller than the Great Lakes. I only brought them up to reiterate the point that the entire system "responsible" for rearing the fish is confined to freshwater, just like the Great Lakes fish.

As others have posted, there is likely no biological difference between Steelhead and Rainbow Trout, so there has to be another readily measurable distinction between the two (either that or we simply say there is no such thing as a Steelhead). I would propose that the "saltwater migration" connection is a fairly easy and standard way to distinguish the two.

IMHO, if it doesn't spend its life in saltwater, it isn't a true Steelhead. That doesn't mean that it isn't a great gamefish worthy of serious angling and conservation efforts.

[Whistler]

RA-you are right we shouldn't be having this conversation . It is a bright light that the in-river habitat has improved on many of our rivers due to recent flooding.
I also think that C&R has played a major role in our improved Trout fisheries.
BN

[the Agent]

So with declined steelhead stocks in some rivers in turn produces larger and more abundant rainbow stocks? Due to less competition for food and territorial living space I would imagine?

[ironhead]

Very tough question,I feel they are not steelhead but very ,very ,impressive freshwater rainbows.On the other hand ,I would gladly spend countless hours chasing them if I lived back east.Also, they seem to be caught with the same methods we use here ,so an accomplished fisherman like Jim Bedford would still kick butt fishing our rivers.It's a sad day when transplanted stocks like these are returning to those rivers in numbers that put our rivers to shame .Is there any benefit in studying why those fish are doing so well?.

[Whistler]

Makes sense but surely there is more to it as well. It really does seem that resident Trout and Char fishing is very good these days. Perhaps a good sign for the future and a direct pay off of the better logging practices of the past decade. It would make sense that the better river conditions would affect resident Trout before anadromous species.
Brian Niska

[Whistler]

Ironhead- because they don't go out in the ocean and die. Might have something to do with Nets, Mackarel, Seals, fish farms and sea lice? Might be wrong though.

This post has been edited by Whistler: 08 January 2005 - 03:22 PM

[MTNBIKER]

Just a clarification on steelhead. A few years ago they were reclassified to Oncorhynchus mykiss. So that makes them a salmon even though they do not all die after spawning like pacific salmon do.
In regards to catch and release improving our trout fisheries (on the Squamish at least), why is it that these rainbows have only really showed up in the last 2 years yet catch and release has been in place for more than 20 years on this system? There must be other factors in play here. I have witnessed this one other time on the Squamish and it was also after a huge flood. I think that these fish might get displaced from somewhere else and then they show up in the catch. Where these fish are comming from, I do not know but it's nice that there here as there are next to no steelhead left in this river system.

[Whistler]

B, Pat's theory was they all got washed down in the big flood. I agree that C&R isn't the main factor. I haven't spent enough time on the Elaho to comment though gravity makes sense. I have noticed the same phenomenon on a few other local rivers as well. A few good pink and Chum returns have put a lot of food in the river to make things hospitable. It does seem that the Rainbows are all over the fry. I am not complaining either way.

This post has been edited by Whistler: 08 January 2005 - 03:28 PM

[uliwon]

Hmmm...well what do you think of this theory...

River floods, blows out critical habitat and pre-migrant smolts....but also washes some lake origin rainbows downstream...over the next several years, the habitat repairs (slowly) but some of the rainbow smolts start heading out to sea, eventually returning as Steelhead? Hmmmm

Great lakes fish are nice but lack predators, therefore conditioning?

Thats one hell of a nice fish pic...