[Scott K]

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.

I wonder how much interbreeding between rainbows and steelhead goes on, on streams like the Thompson? With the number and size of rainbows on this stream it would certainly be a good insurance policy to insure the habitat is seeded with juveniles.

However I wonder how a rainbow fry, from two resident rainbows who have not braved the severe ocean conditions as of late (or at least the past few generations), would fair in ocean survival compared to a steelhead smolt from two spawning steelhead that just survived in recent poor ocean conditions? Two spawning steelhead that did something right in the ocean, right enough to allow them to get back to their spawning grounds, where as those rainbows might have ancestory from the ocean, but no immediate surviving parents who have braved those conditions (I know it sounds confusing, but I think you get what I'm saying)? I think selective pressure can occur in as a little as one generation, and part of me wonders if those rainbow fry turned steelhead smolts would fair all that well compared to their truer steelhead counterparts, at least in poor ocean survival conditions.

[redneck]

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.

I really want to believe this, as it would make me feel much better to know that the genetic diversity of runs like the Thompson's weren't being comprimised. What I can't fathom for the life of me is how the outgoing smolts could know what the ocean conditions are before they hit the salt. I would be sold on the idea if they could locate the "trigger".

[Scott K]

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.

I really want to believe this, as it would make me feel much better to know that the genetic diversity of runs like the Thompson's weren't being comprimised. What I can't fathom for the life of me is how the outgoing smolts could know what the ocean conditions are before they hit the salt. I would be sold on the idea if they could locate the "trigger".

Exactly - any wild steelhead that "have" survived in today's ocean conditions have the "instruction book" (genetic adaptations) that is worthy to pass down to their offspring, so to speak, so they survive. Maybe they went somewhere in the ocean that was "safer," or did something in the ocean that increased their chances at survival, and these traits will be passed down to their offspring. Where as a rainbow that is one or two years removed from the ocean might not have that adaptation to pass down to it's offspring, and so could compromise those of a surviving adult steelhead's offspring if they spawned together. Maybe, this could be one of the keys as to why the Thompson Steelhead haven't shown the recovery that Thompson Coho have, or they haven't shown the same speed of "evolution," in passing these poor ocean survival recovery traits to the offspring- the rainbows spawning with steelhead are watering them down delaying recovery? However on the flip side, perhaps the rainbows, if this theory is indeed true, keep the "variety" in the gene pool, so the steelhead don't become too stale in their ocean "practices." They don't go to the same spots, year in, and year out, in the ocean, or follow the same routes, so as if some change does happen, it wipes out the entire run. As Kush mentioned I'd like to see some info on this - do some more indepth reading perhaps if there are any more studies available on this thing.

This post has been edited by Scott K: 08 January 2005 - 07:08 PM

[Whistler]

OK I am no biologist but lets think of it this way. If fish born to residulized parents are most likely to residulize themselves than it makes sense that they as a population would be doing better than their ocean going brethern. I don't think that this is too far fetched to believe that the offspring of one or more resiulized parent is most likely to residulize themselves. If the ocean fish are enjoying especially low survival rates(which they are) it also makes sense that there would be more food available to resident fish. With this in mind it is easy to imagine how, especially with some rivers in better condition, the resident fish populations could grow in relation to those fish that are called to the sea. The question is are those residulized Steelhead still in fact Steelhead and are their offspring indeed programmed for saltwater travel? If so could it become an evolutionary thing? If you buy into this theory it is likely that Steelhead could eventually eevolveaway from going to the sea at all.

Brian Niska

[Woody]

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.

I really want to believe this, as it would make me feel much better to know that the genetic diversity of runs like the Thompson's weren't being comprimised. What I can't fathom for the life of me is how the outgoing smolts could know what the ocean conditions are before they hit the salt. I would be sold on the idea if they could locate the "trigger".

I wondered the same thing, Dan: How do they "know"? Perhaps it's the ocean's effect on the parents that influences the behaviour of their progeny. Maybe there's a genetic trigger like food abundance/quality or something.

Cheers! KW

[Scott K]

OK I am no biologist but lets think of it this way. If fish born to residulized parents are most likely to residulize themselves than it makes sense that they as a population would be doing better than their ocean going brethern. I don't think that this is too far fetched to believe that the offspring of one or more resiulized parent is most likely to residulize themselves. If the ocean fish are enjoying especially low survival rates(which they are) it also makes sense that there would be more food available to resident fish. With this in mind it is easy to imagine how, especially with some rivers in better condition, the resident fish populations could grow in relation to those fish that are called to the sea. The question is are those residulized Steelhead still in fact Steelhead and are their offspring indeed programmed for saltwater travel? If so could it become an evolutionary thing? If you buy into this theory it is likely that Steelhead could eventually eevolveaway from going to the sea at all.

Brian Niska

There was some studies done on the survival of kelts in relation to freshets. They all basically said the stronger the freshet, the higher steelhead kelt survival was, probably because it pushed them out of the system faster. I wonder if these same studies maybe point towards the direction of juveniles and stronger freshets are more likely to influence outmigration of smolts and perhaps even to the point of determing whether a smolt "stays" or "goes," so to speak. Although this is a pure hypothesis on my part.

[ironhead]

Scott ,I really think you are giving these pea brained creatures far too much credit ,instinct is their main tool and I believe most share the same instincts .Probably luck and timing has far more to do with wether they survive or not and I'm not sure this can be passed down .I am not saying that having strong genes is not important ,it is obviously very important ,but lets not overlook fate. After looking at that picture of the ontario great lake run rainbow ,I'm thinking ,it may not be a steelhead ,but it sure is one fat and sassy looking fish and puts all rainbows I,ve ever caught to shame ,ocean going or otherwise.

[Whistler]

I have in the past made a few degrading comments about GL VS real Steelhead. I am mellowing in this, probably with the realization that eventually I can do some Steelhead fishing in Ontario when we have none left. I wonder what would happen if a GL fish was stocked in a BC river with no run? Not that I think it would be a smart idea.

[Scott K]

Scott ,I really think you are giving these pea brained creatures far too much credit ,instinct is their main tool and I believe most share the same instincts .Probably luck and timing has far more to do with wether they survive or not and I'm not sure this can be passed down .I am not saying that having strong genes is not important ,it is obviously very important ,but lets not overlook fate. After looking at that picture of the ontario great lake run rainbow ,I'm thinking ,it may not be a steelhead ,but it sure is one fat and sassy looking fish and puts all rainbows I,ve ever caught to shame ,ocean going  or otherwise.

Ironhead - they are peabrained, but they have far better natural survival instincts than humans do.

For instance, when you and I grow up, we have to be taught things. If we burn our hand on the stove, we get a second chance (usually). We have someone guiding us every step of the way, and if we make a mistake we usually live, and we pay a few consequences, but we're still alive, still kicking around.

A steelhead is far more "tuned," and it has to be. When a Steelhead is born, it doesn't have anyone showing it how to survive. It doesn't have mommy telling it not to walk out in front of that car, or not to stick a fork in the electrical socket. If it screws up, it is "dead," period. One little mistake, and that steelhead is toast. It's eaten by a Dolly Varden. Or sealiced to death. Or god can only imagine what they face. These genetic adaptations (read: survival instructions) passed down from their parents are thus incredibly important. They feed "urges," in their offspring to do specific things and to go to specific places at specific times of the year. For instance if two adult steelhead survived in the feeding grounds just off the gulf of alaska, there is a good chance this survival mechanism will be programmed into their young so they go there at a certain point, because "hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

And people who angle for steelhead commonly say "well they bite anything, they're stupid as...._________." But I think a Steelhead is such a strong biter and so aggressive due to their river residence imprints. For instance, how do we test things? We have our hands? If something is too hot, we put it down. To feel the texture of something we usually use our hands. To eat something, we use our hands (or forks or spoons in our hands) first. Steelhead, who live in less abundant, less productive environments have only one way to get food. By first testing it with their mouthes, deciding if it is edible, and then eating it. It is a testament to their survival instinct that STeelhead are as aggressive as they are in the river. They have to test, everything, for they can't turn away any potential food, or they won't survive. They won't make it over the winter. Or they'll become too weak to evade a predator. This is why I think they are aggressive. We should thank them for their survival instincts - it's one of the main reasons I think they are such good biters.

This post has been edited by Scott K: 08 January 2005 - 07:36 PM

[Kush]

Folks,

I am kind of sorry I introduced the idea without having real in-depth knowledge of the research. It just seems like such an intriguing topic that I couldn't resist sharing it.

I have had many of the same questions that have been raised here, particularly how do they know when to stay in the river and when to go to sea? I have had a number of interesting discussions with friends as to how this might occur. What I will do is contact Kurt Kramer through the auspices of the Steelhead Society and see if he can forward some more information to me.

[Scott K]

I have in the past made a few degrading comments about GL VS real Steelhead. I am mellowing in this, probably with the realization that eventually I can do some Steelhead fishing in Ontario when we have none left. I wonder what would happen if a GL fish was stocked in a BC river with no run? Not that I think it would be a smart idea.

Brian,
It's a fact that Great Lakes Steelhead don't have the natural predators our steelhead in BC do. In fact I personally think it's almost a bit of jealousy on our parts, for we feel we should have the bread and butter runs over here in their native environments, and here these get rich quick suckers are transplanting them and having way more success than our native steelhead (all in good fun Ontarians!). Well according to someone I have talked to recently, these great lakes steelhead have evolved a little bit, and have basically and essentially formed their own "races," in some respects. They've adapted to their rivers and supposedly since they are removed so far from their original ancestory they have almost defined "stocks," of fish in the different rivers. I still think our steelhead are better though!

[Whistler]

I have heard the same thing and it makes sense. Oh to come back in a thousand years and see how they are doing.

[redneck]

Perhaps it's the ocean's effect on the parents that influences the behaviour of their progeny. Maybe there's a genetic trigger like food abundance/quality or something.

Cheers! KW

Well now that is interesting. If the open ocean survival is really poor, and not just a catch all for the DFO then I suppose I can see how conditions would favor smolts that stay in the system. If you think about it, that its really not that much different than a jack spring that comes from two full sized parents and that can go on to father full sized offspring.

That being said, you would have to assume that for this to work at least a portion of the offspring of the fish that do residualize must go out to the ocean, even if they don't return. If that is the case, then it would also make sense that the apparent increase in resident fish would be due to a lack of competition from ocean going fingerlings.

As long as the residual steelhead stock didn't interbreed with fish that don't have the genetics to return to the ocean, then any given stock could in theory live entirely in fresh water for a long long time.

[ironhead]

This discussion and scotts last post ,got me thinking ,why are steelhead so agressive compared to other types of salmon ,is it due to their longer smolt time .This would explain why runs that have extra long smolt times are most agressive and often return from the sea with greater size.This would explain why streams with the most urban development ,have the least nutrients and consiquently ,the most depressed runs of fish.A beautiful river like the Seymour ,with all it's habitat ,does it still have ample aquatic life to support steelhead smolts ?.Maybe the residualized rainbows we are seeing ,are actually steelhead smolts that took far too long to grow to ample size to leave for the ocean.I wonder how fertile the rivers in the Great lakes that see good returns of steelhead(why not)are ? ,perhaps they are not and these fish have developed a quick smolting process and that is their ticket.There is nothing new about the fertilization idea ,but apparently it is too expensive ,thats a shame .

[Scott K]

This discussion and scotts last post ,got me thinking ,why are steelhead so agressive compared to other types of salmon ,is it due to their longer smolt time .This would explain why runs that have extra long smolt times are most agressive and often return from the sea with greater size.This would explain why streams with the most urban development ,have the least nutrients and consiquently ,the most depressed runs of fish.A beautiful river like the Seymour ,with all it's habitat ,does it still have ample aquatic life to support steelhead smolts ?.Maybe the residualized rainbows we are seeing ,are actually steelhead smolts that took far too long to grow to ample size to leave for the ocean.I wonder how fertile the rivers in the Great lakes that see good returns of steelhead(why not)are ? ,perhaps they are not and these fish have developed a quick smolting process and that is their ticket.There is nothing new about the fertilization idea ,but apparently it is too expensive ,thats a shame .

Fertilization is relatively cheap.

I know from in a hatchery environment that steelhead are far more aggressive than cutthroat trout (to the point that you can't mix juvenile cutthroat and steelhead).