roadkill said:
i have always been curious, you stated
These headwater populations are usually above waterfalls or water diversion structures that serve as barriers preventing nonnative trout from moving upstream
if the "waterfalls" prevent movement of the nonnative trout how did the "native" trout get there? are we saying that the waterfalls developed after the natives moved in? or is it that the "natives" were "stocked" by minners and trappers long before
what is the orgin of trout in eastern colorado?
i have heard that somehow a long time ago a high mountain lake on the divide that drained to the pacific had become populated with trout that had moved up stream and then something like an avalanche blocked the outlet causing the lake to spill on the eastslope thus alowing the continued movement of trout to the east?
do you know of any research or documentation regarding this?
thanks for any info
My appreciation for cutthroat trout has developed through years of fishing for different subspecies as a kid in Washington state, then my studies in fish biology as an adult. There are people who know more than I do, but I have studied cutthroat trout in Colorado for a few years now, and think I can answer some of your questions - at least better than the DOW tends to. In my view, fishermen should have this information available to them, so they don't have to struggle just to get it from some guy on an internet forum.
In some cases we have to assume the waterfalls developed after natives moved in, because the cutthroats have always been reported above them. In other cases, they are man-made structures (like Denver Water Board diversions, or other such structures. In still other cases, they are natural structures that have been augmented by moving rocks around.
We say they are "native" trout because they are native to the watershed, not necessarily because they are native to the sites where they currently are living. Many of the populations are "translocated" or moved above barriers. In some cases, nonnative trout (trout that did not evolve in Colorado) are first removed (either by electrofishing or poisoning), before natives are introduced (or reintroduced). In many of the cases, however, trout were not known to exist above many of the barriers before man placed them there. Even most of the populations created by introductions by miners and settlers had become extinct due to overfishing and competition with brook trout by the 1950's. Greenbacks have been brought back largely by translocation efforts. Most translocations are done in pretty remote places where they do not interfere with popular fisheries of nonnatives that have developed, and this is intentional on the part of the agencies. They have to try not to destroy too much public good will while also preserving the native fish. Because in order to delist the greenbacks. Catch and release fishing for greenbacks is allowed because in the 1970's, the USFWS downlisted them from endangered to threatened - not because they were coming back, but to allow the state agencies to attempt to manage and restore them. The state and federal agencies will do almost anything to avoid allowing a species to become listed as endangered, because such a listing creates hard legal limits on what they can do to manage the species. For instance, killing greenback cutthroats for research is allowed because they are "threatened," and the managing agencies have an approved management plan in place. If they were still listed as "endangered," it would basically be illegal to kill them, and the state would be powerless to study or manage them, and even catch and release fishing would be prohibited by federal law. From a management and "on the ground" conservation perspective, a "threatened" listing is much preferred to "endangered" if there is a chance of bringing a species back.
What you describe with the mountain lake and the avalanche is what scientists call a "headwater transfer." It is a natural process that results in the expansion of the range of fish into new watersheds and possibly across continental divides. There is geologic evidence that this has happened. It is different from human introductions because the fish simply move into the new habitat on their own volition when it becomes open to them. This is thought to be the way that greenback, Colorado River, and Rio Grande cutthroats diverged. They first transferred across the divide into their new basins, then slowly evolved differences that now mostly distringuish them at the subspecies level. It is thought that the Greenback and Rio Grande cutthroats are derived from stocks of Colorado River Cutthroat that occupied basins on the east slope through some sequence of headwater transfers.
If you are very interested in the diversity of trout and the best knowledge on how they came to be distributed as they are, you should look at a couple of books by Bob Behnke. He's a former (retired) CSU professor who is viewed as the world's expert on North American Trout and Salmon. His books are titled something like: Native Trout of Western North American (1992), and Trout and Salmon of North America (2002???). Looking through these books, you can begin to get a real appreciation for the beauty and diversity of the cutthroat trout, which are the only trout that settlers found in the interior west when they migrated to and through this region, until running into rainbow trout and salmon further west.
Cutthroat are one of the most diverse species, being made up of 14 recognized subspecies (of which 2 are extinct). One of the extinct species was believed to be derived from greenbacks that adapted to life in Twin Lakes in Colorado. It was called the Yellowfin cutthroat, and grew to very large sizes. It's lifestyle was more like that of a lake trout, than of a stream trout (like the greenback, which was better adapted for rivers. Too bad those are gone.