Geoduck, smalma, et al,

Firstly, you ask if you are just being dense regarding the issues of inter- and intra-population genetic vaiation. You are. That's why I posted the actual references that would help you understand the concept.

As for chromosome numbers, your posts clearly summarize the issue (you forget that I helped count these!!). The fish with 61-64 chromosomes are RESIDENT fish from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and anadromous fish from the Gualala and Mad River systems (two rivers even more notorious for using hatchery stocks derived from anywhere, especially mid-CAL). There is little variation in number in the NW, and where there is it's because of migration. You guys are the ones that brought up the 2n numbers as an argument that these fish are so diverse, and I'm simply pointing out that the actual data doesn't support your argument.

--Bushbear: AMEN. Basin-wide management makes sense from phenotypic, genotypic, and common sense approaches. Enough of this splitting hairs.

Back to Geoduck. A test on only one or two rivers? I could pick two sets of rivers, where each approach would have very different results. As our discussion is leading us, you can't simply apply one approach to all systems.

The Glacial shield issue you bring up is indeed interesting. The glacial mass actually was thought to have separated the steelhead populations into two distinct groups. This is supported by all the evidence that we currently have discussed (genetic markers, chromosomes, etc). There are two major populations: an inland group comprising both anadromous and non-anadromous populations of the Columbia River east of the Cascade Crest and a coastal group extending from Alaska to California.

Lastly, as for the pink results you remark on, it is amazing isn't it? How does this happen, you ask? Migration, my friend, migration. The inherent, incessant trend of all anadromous salmonid stocks to stray from their natal streams in an effort to recolonize and or allow gene flow. So much for the genetic population stability/purity issue.

i am glad that body surf mentioned the dog and wolf. the genetically closest related dogs to wolves are not the malmute and the husky but the chihuahua and the beagle.

locusts science would have us re-introducing beagles to yellowstone to re-establish wolf stock

Fishyologist,

You were the one that brought up within population variation being greater than within species variation. Clearly this is not possible. It may be inconvienient for your arguement, but the california O. mykiss are the same species as PNW steelhead. If your going to make statements about a whole species, you need to include all the groups of that species.

Also, there is a big difference between being able to establish genetic relatedness and having a handle on genetic diversity.
Sure, with steelhead we have a pretty good handle on which strains are related to which.
Do we have any real idea about genetic diveristy in steelhead? No, we do not.

The most intensively studied organism in terms of genetic diveristy is man. There have been thousands of microsatellite markers (DNA fingerprinting uses these), and millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (some conding, more non-coding) identified in humans. We have sequenced the entire human genome. Yet we still lack anything approaching a complete understanding of genetic diversity, let alone how most of this variation contributes to disease (the reason we are so interested, scientifically speaking).

Now, you tell me that with a handfull of allozymer markers and a few hundered (maybe?) microsatellite markers you have enough knowledge to tell us that you understand the genetic diveristy of steelhead.
Get real.

The steelhead genome is about 80% the size of the human genome and proably about as polymorphic. To have comparable genomic data you'd need to have info on a million SNPs or more.

There is a big differnce between knowing groups are related and understanding genetic diversity and the consequences of changes in genetic diversity. We have a long was to go before we understand all of this.

BTW, you never answered my question about your support of the total hatchery/wild integration program the Bush camp advocates?

Is this a tough one for you to answer or are you just dodging the question?

Now that we've cracked the door open on basin management, will we continue to be splitters or become lumpers....do we separate the coastal rivers from the Straits and the Straits from inner Puget Sound or should we consider the Greater Georgia Basin/Salish Sea as the grouping?

Lots of careers have been built on evermore closer looks at selected runs. I'm supportive of recovery projects by river basin and by using locally adapted stocks and even mixing in the odd stray that might show up in a hatchery. I don't want to slam the door on hatchery supplementation and become totally dependent on natural production.

I like to catch fish and I like to eat one every now and then. If the hatcheries are using local stocks and can successfully raise and release additional fish into the system - what is the problem? You can still have natural production, you can recover the locally adapted stock and maybe take it off one or more lists,

Hatcheries aren't the end all - be all, but they can provide a buffer for natural losses from floods, drought, and the 150 years of habitat manipulation we have been engaged in.

Good science, a program that looks at the entire picture, and common sense can allow us to know that future generations will have an opportunity to catch their own fish.