A plant or animal is only native to an area - EVER - if it got there on its own without human influence (human influence can be deliberate or inadvertent introduction, or human-alteration of an organisms' ability to colonize new areas - for example - by building canals, or by anthropogenic climate change).

A non-native species that becomes established in a new habitat, which becomes self-sustaining, and which becomes ecologically enmeshed (stable) in its new home is called NATURALIZED. It is not, however, native.

 

you can always tell the nates. They wear feathers, beads, and have pierced gill covers.

 

Thanks for your reply. There seem to be numerous ways for fish to become established in an area--by the miracle of Nature, eggs on the feet of birds, transport via flooding, strong winds, cataclysmic tides and waves, on the feet of man and other critters. My question was generated by the latest publicity re: remedies proposed by some fishery managers to fix the broken Steelhead populations in the Northwest. So much rhetoric re: Native and Wild Steelhead. As an old commercial Tuna captain, I am all-to-familiar with bureaucratic science's machinations in fisheries management. Info is published based on weak data, invented data, wrong data, faulty interpretation of data, etc. The concerned public then argues amongst itself in a way that's akin to a puppy chasing it's tail. This keeps us busy, confused and distracted while another costly boondoggle is put into law, usually at the detriment of the fish and the fishermen who care about them. So my question is just an attempt to begin to define terms.
Thank you for any information.
Capt. Bob

 

May I suggest browsing the Native Fish Society dot org website as well as Bill Baake's blog Home Waters and Wild Fish blog (baake-nativefish.blogspot dot com), the Wild Steelhead Coalition (wildsteelheadcoalition.org) home page and Western Rivers Conservancy (westernrivers.org). Plenty there to answer your questions with contact information for additional information and personal and financial participation in fostering native fish and their habitat.

 

ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit

This is a term that was coined in the 70s or 80s I believe. It is meant to describe different populations of salmonids within the same species that show significant evolutionary differences due to run timing, drainage characteristics, et cetera.

Obviously all steelhead aren't the same and neither are all chinook and the same could be said for all other salmonids. The ESU was helpful in getting specific runs of fish protected because some rivers are doing far worse than others and those fish populations cannot simply be replaced with stocks from other drainages.

A native race of fish would basically be a historical ESU. In summary, a population of fish who genetics are synchronized with the the river in which they live, rear, spawn.

In a practical real world situation, it may be impossible to tell a native ESU from an introduced run of fish. However, many of we fishermen can see a hardy and powerful look to a true wild bred and native salmonid. They need to be scrappy and clever to survive.

 

Dear Haunted----Thank you for your intelligent reply, best one yet. As a scientist, it is clear that the full implications of the term "Native Steelhead" are much more complex than most realize. However, this does not keep most people from expressing their pseudo-science and superficial understanding of the jewel we call Native Steelhead. The most destructive are those who are charged with nurturing this creature but, instead, pander to the bureaucracies that are quickly destroying this miraculous fish.
Having recently moved to the Northwest, being a transplanted Eastern Steelhead Gypsy, I was shocked at the state of the Steelhead here in the "Mecca" of the species. It has taken me over a year to finally understand that there will be almost no Steelhead here in my lifetime. Although sad to me, I will continue to enjoy this fish as long as it honors me with a "pull" now and then.
Having years of experience with bureaucratic "solutions" re: fish, I will definitely disregard Washington's pathetic programs and hope my fellow Steelheaders will not espouse the political disinformation that is quickly destroying this fish. It's useless to argue amongst ourselves about what the scientists don't even know. Don't fall into this trap. Be kind to each other, respect the resource while it lasts, use common sense in your travels in Nature and gently teach who you can.
May the River Gods smile upon us. Capt. Bob

 

Profile photo

HELP!!! Am on old Giant Tuna Captain not really savvy with computers. Am trying to put a photo in my profile. Photo appears in the box for "Edit profile photo" but does not show up in my profile. Any help will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Capt. Bob

 

Capt. Bob,

A "firm" definition? Firm to who? You? Me?

You got it right at the outset. A steelhead indigenous to a particular water body is a native steelhead. There is no time factor because it isn't relevant to a useful definition. A steelhead can be native to the Notellum River because it was naturally produced there. However, either or both of its parents may have strayed from their natal waters to the Notellum. That is how the natural colonization of our coastal waterways occurred after the recession of the last ice sheet that covered the area.

A native steelhead can also be a hatchery steelhead, provided it and its parents are from our example river. It is a native, but it's not a wild steelhead. In order to be a wild native steelhead it must be both indigenous to the river and be of natural, rather than artificial, production.

Then we have fish that are native, that is indigenous, and wild, because they are the result of natural production, yet are exotic because they were introduced to the Notellum River by the hand of man. Examples include shad and stripers in west coast rivers.

Firm definitions such as you seek, exist only among those who agree to a common usage of terms. Most, but not all, students of fish in this region accept the above definitions, with the exception that many do not consider naturally reproducing exotics as native, even after many decades of occupancy. That is analogous to you and I not being considered native to North America because our ancestors came here from another continent "by the hand of man."

Sg

 

Then we have fish that are native, that is indigenous, and wild, because they are the result of natural production, yet are exotic because they were introduced to the Notellum River by the hand of man. Examples include shad and stripers in west coast rivers.

Can you produce a reputable scientific source or two that specifically describes shad and stripers as native to the west coast, or steelhead as native to the Great Lakes? Not management reports, but peer-reviewed documents produced by research scientists. The scientific community balks at the idea of introduced species being considered "native" ... though they can become "wild" and "naturalized" in their new homes. This erosion of meaning is potentially damaging, as it can be misused by those with vested interests in either (1) profiting from introduced species or (2) avoiding responsibility to control introduced species that jeopardize true natives. We live in an age of spin for profit or avoiding the truth, and it affects our fisheries, too.

In the absense of clear evidence (contemporary or paleontological) for pre-contact populations of such species, the frame of reference in North America for what's "native" is traditionally considered that which was observed upon EuroAmerican contact. It is legitimized by written documented histories, and supported by specimens in collections. There are some debates about particulars of certain species in certain places, but not about the broad meaning of these words.

 

Introduced species surviving in the wild are feral.

Once any of these wild, native salmon or steelhead are artificially propogated they are no longer native or wild. Reguardless of where the parents came from. Which is why they don't survive in the wild anywhere near the same rate as wild, native salmonids. And breed the wild, native salmonids towards extinction passing on whatever wires get crossed from the turkey baster zip loc bag fertilization programs.

 

This is why we can't improve the situation. There are no biologists who understand steelhead life histories. We can't make progress because we accept that all introduced genetics are anathema.

 

Klickrolf

I don't expect many Great Lakes anglers consider the introduction of Pacific salmon and steelhead an anathema

Yet, despite hundreds (thousands?) of cases where we've moved Pacific steelhead and salmon across the Pacific Northwest using hatchery programs, there are literally just a few examples where those introductions have taken hold to create self-sustaining runs. Such "successful" salmonid introductions in our region are typically restricted to cases where dams have profoundly altered river flows and temperatures, essentially creating suitable conditions that were absent historically.

On the other hand, the evidence for deleterious effects of hatchery salmonids on native wild stocks is pretty clear - and so, anathema. (edit: for example, this recent study). I'm not saying we should immediately eliminate each and every hatchery in the Northwest, but we should be a bit more careful in where, when, how, and why we use them.

 

Rolf,

For clarification I am talking about these fish in their native habitat. Not feral populations that have taken hold all over the planet. If the bios were smarter at making a better hatchery product- they are still artificially produced. Which matters to many people. So far the better the hatchery product the better they are at breeding wild, native steelhead into oblivion.

William

 

Very slightly off topic...but it is beyond my comprehension that the powers to be are going to dump Chambers Creek fish into the Elwha. You have what has to be an intact "Steelhead" gene pool up above the dams there and you "can't wait long enough" for them to re-populate the river on their own??? I realize it's politics and not science that is driving this decision but for god sakes.

 

Didn't mean it as a slam against biologists. Biologists can't do much about the current situation, they gather and interpret data.

Watershed alterations occured years ago, i.e. dams, floodplain disconnects, etc. We have what we have and need to work with it. Acknowledging mistakes of the past is good and necessary but we need to look forward and work for the future if we hope to make any progress rebuilding the runs. Seems we keep looking back instead of forward.

 

So what do you sugest we do?

 

Inland,

Feral is also correct. However, while artificially propagated fish are no longer wild, they can remain technically native if they are propagated and released only in the watershed to which they were indigenous. AFAIK the main reason the hatchery products don't survive in the natural environment as well as their wild counterparts is because hatchery fish culture selects for attributes conducive to survival in the hatchery environment rather than the natural environment. It's unavoidable, just as the natural environment selects for attributes conducive to survival there and cannot select for hatchery survival attributes except by coincidence.

SSpey,

No, I can't. And the reason is exactly as you surmise. We balk at calling an introduced species native because . . . "it isn't native to this area." However, just technically speaking, if being native means being indigenous, both an introduced fish and one that naturally strays into a river become indigenous. You would never know that a Snake River summer steelhead strays into the coastal Queets River if it weren't captured and a tissue sample taken and DNA analyzed and determined to be from the Snake. If that fish stays in the Queets and breeds with another Queets fish, are the offspring feral, exotic, or native?

I don't want to promote spin or misconstrued meanings. I wanted to lay out a technical point in hopes of enhancing our mutual understanding. But for the good of the order, let's not call introduced shad, stripers, or steelhead native to environs they were introduced to by humans.

Klickrolf,

There is always more to know, but to say that no biologists understand steelhead life histories just seems flat out incorrect. Can you expand on your allegation so as to make it more persuasive. BTW, I am a fisheries biologist who thinks he understands quite a bit about steelhead life history, so you can understand why I'm more than slightly interested.

Dmas,

The reason is simple. For some it is more important to ensure having fish to harvest in the short term than it is to devote the Elwha basin to what could be the greatest experiment in wild fish recovery in the modern world. I wish it were otherwise.

Sg