Greenback Cutthroat Trout; courtesy USGS. |
The greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki somias) was designated as Colorado's state fish in 1994. In the years since, this endangered native fish has come to symbolize some of the major struggles inherent in the conservation of various fish species throughout the Colorado River basin. The greenback cutthroat trout, a relatively small fish that grows to be an average of 38 centimeters long, is assumed to have originated in "all mountain and foothill habitats of the South Platte and Arkansas river drainage systems." Today, there is a complicated debate over where it actually still exists that brings into question both scientific information and human values.
On September 25, 2012, the New York Times ran an article entitled, "Rare Trout Survives in Just One Stream, DNA Reveals." Based on a study by post-doctoral researcher Jessica Metcalf that was published in Molecular Ecology, the article explained how after "analyzing DNA sampled from cutthroat trout specimens pickled in ethanol
for 150 years, comparing it with the genes of today’s cutthroat
populations, and cross-referencing more than 40,000 historic stocking
records," researchers discovered that there was only one wild population of greenback cutthroat left. This research is being replicated by a second group to verify the results.
![]() |
Courtesy Rocky Mountain Field Institute. |
Aside from the shock of discovering that only a single population of an endangered species exists, the findings were particularly surprising in light of the controversy surrounding recent conservation efforts of the species. While the fish was thought to have gone extinct in 1937, researchers in the 1950's claimed that "remnant populations were found in tributaries." After the fish was added to the endangered species list in the 1969, biologists used these populations to breed additional greenback cutthroat trout in hatcheries and propagate them into new waters.
However, in 2007, a three-year study done in part by University of Colorado researchers claimed that "out of nine fish populations believed to be descendants of original greenbacks, five were actually Colorado River cutthroat trout." This second species of cutthroat trout is extremely similar to the greenback cutthroat, both to the naked eye and to early scientific tests, but actually has a distinct genetic line. The Colorado River cutthroat trout, native to streams West of the Continental Divide, that were stocked into habitats with the greenback cutthroat trout may have actually out-competed the fish that researchers were attempting to save.
![]() |
Courtesy New York Times. |
![]() |
Greenback Cutthroat Native Habitat Map; Courtesy USGS. |
Jessica Metcalf, lead researcher on the newest study, acknowledges the irony of the situation: “It’s ironic that stocking nearly drove the greenback cutthroat trout to extinction, and a particularly early stocking event actually saved it from extinction." This issue seems to symbolize some major conservation conflicts and questions, especially for the unique Colorado River region: should species be stocked into habitats where they are likely to thrive, even if those habitats are outside of their native range? What unintended consequences--or in this case, benefits--may come from this type of management? The answers to these questions require a deeper exploration of the complex values and continuously evolving science surrounding the issues at hand.
Great post! Glad we both chose to write about this very interesting and scary study. The story of the greenbacks in Bear Creek is very interesting, and as you note, is a basically the story of Colorado native fish in a nutshell. Cutties are my favorite fish to catch, and I would love one day to catch a greenback provided their populations are healthy enough to warrant fishing. I'm hoping that the genetic research from Dr. Metcalf will uncover more discoveries that lead to more effective conservation of the state fish. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThis is a very provocative post! And I think this is a great example of how our conservation values (native species are good) are commonly built on expected science (these fish populations are of a native fish species) and when confronted with contradicting science (not all of these fish populations are of a native fish species) we end up addressing the science (another group is trying to replicate the results) rather than the more centrally problematic components of the issue: the values (why is native good?) and how it intersects with our practical decisions (even if we agree that native is good, can management practices even live up this? are their native environments even in tact anymore?).
ReplyDeleteWe've talked about this a bit before, but I'm skeptical of whether management practices can maintain native populations or even know what "native" or "species" even means, and I'm even more critical of using amorphous a priori values in the foundation of our management practices.
You mentioned that "many [of these native fish species] have thrived and contributed to functional ecosystems" "when transplanted outside of their native range." Which leads into one of the final questions you pose,"should species be stocked into habitats where they are likely to thrive, even if those habitats are outside of their native range?" To that, I believe we have to critically analyze what we mean by "native species," why we think that's a value worth supporting over contributing to the ecologically functionality of our globally altered environments, and more seriously evaluate the trade offs inherent in allocating conservation dollars.