The success story behind conserving the endangered June sucker in Utah Lake

[RonPaulFan]

The success story behind conserving the endangered June sucker in Utah Lake

https://www.ksl.com/article/46683132/the...-utah-lake
[signature]

[MrShane]

Good,
Now add wipers!!
[signature]

[Therapist]

Sorry to blow smoke on your parade, but this is a boondoggle of the highest order. 1: there is no such thing as a "june Sucker". The designation came when is was very fashionable to have an "endangered species " in your species file. From the start, the Fish and Wildlife service did everything they could to get the suckers in Utah Lake designated as an endangered species. 2: They have no "true" June Suckers anymore. They have what they call " genetic material" that they are preserving. Every batch of fry has to be tested and those that don't contain the "desired material" are eliminated. Last I heard, what is being designated as "june Suckers" have less than 60% genetic purity ass compared with the "original" , they are all hybrids with regular Mtn. Suckers . 3: We have spent over 150 million tax payer dollars to preserve the "June Sucker". Granted we have reaped great benefits from the project, removal of carp from Utah Lake, improved water flows ( because the Junie's are endangered, they get first priority on the water), and increased spending on infrastructure at Utah Lake. But it has all been based on suspect science and there have been many individuals who have been runover in the process. The Delta Project that will start here in 2020, how many land owners have lost their land to emanate domain so that the Delta project can go forth. All that land to the Northwest of where the diversion will be was not donated. It was purchased, whether the owner wanted to sell or not, so that the project could go forth. There are many benefits being reaped from the project, but at what cost and why couldn't those benefits have been realized by telling the public the truth and not basing it on bad science. Also, after all this, if the sucker doesn't "recover" sufficiently, what step will be taken to force recovery ??? It's all a lie and a money pit !!

[Kent]

In order to achieve these results, in addition to the habitat improvement (including the removal of over 17 million pounds of carp) also required the planting, so far, of 765,721 (from 2002 through 2019) June suckers. Reminds me of the claim of success at another local body of water, because the UDWR found an increase of larger rainbow trout in their nets; however, they neglected to mention the small detail of the fact that they had planted an increased number of rainbow trout and also many of those planted were adult rainbows.

Overall, I am supportive of our local wildlife employees; however, not in all cases. The overall benefit to the Utah Lake ecosystem can not be denied, but was it worth the expenditure of all of those dollars?
[signature]

[riverdog]

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware the June Sucker was already extinct and all this money was going toward hybrids. Do you have any references to the genetic makeup of these hybrids?
[signature]

[TubeDude]

"Overall, I am supportive of our local wildlife employees; however, not in all cases. The overall benefit to the Utah Lake ecosystem can not be denied, but was it worth the expenditure of all of those dollars?"

[#0000FF]Of course it was. Look at all of the internationally known anglers who book guided trips on Utah Lake, with the express target of the mighty Junie. Just think of all the increased revenue to the Utah County area in hotel accommodations, restaurants, fishing tackle sales, boating equipment sales, etc.[/#0000FF]
[#0000FF]
[/#0000FF]
[#0000FF]Oh...wait a minute. We are talking about a sucker. Right? My bad.[/#0000FF]
[#0000FF]
[/#0000FF]
[#0000FF]But they make great bait for catfish. What? We can't use them as bait? Well then, what good are they? Really?
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[Therapist]

One thing to remember about this is that while our DWR has assisted in the planning and implementation of this project, they are not the ones that initiated it. All this was started by the USFish and Wildlife service due to the designation of the sucker as an endangered species. The Feds have promoted, funded, and pushed this whole thing. Fortunately the UtDWR has had a say in the whole thing and that has resulted in the benefits that we see to Utah Lake. Otherwise, I think the whole process and the result would have been a total disaster. One bad thing that did result was that thee was a delay in the building of a warm water hatchery for Utah as, the funds for that were diverted to the building of a hatchery for the suckers. We eventually got the warm water hatchery, but it was delayed for many years !!

[Therapist]

As to the documentation on the June sucker. I have been out of the loop for so long I cannot give you exact references to the data. Much of it has come from meeting attended 20-30 years ago where these things were disclosed when the biologists were challenged on their data. This thing has been going on since the mid 70's when the sucker was first listed.

One funny incident occured at a meeting held at Provo City offices. FWS was presenting a paper on the listing of the June Sucker and it was open to the public. Biill Loy, the patriarch of the Loy family, ( the Loys seine the carp from Ut. Lake) laid out 5 suckers for the FWS people to look at and identify the sample of the June Sucker. At this time there were no genetic testing available and the identification was made on morphological differences ( mouth position, bony rays in dorsal fin, etc.) They samples were examined by the FWS people and 2 of the samples were identified as Junie suckers. Bill then sprang his trap as all 5 of the samples were Mtn. Suckers caught in Idaho. So went the early days of "June Sucker" identification. Another characteristic was that they spawned in June, hence the name " June Sucker". Problem was that all the suckers in Utah Lake spawned in June because that is when the spring runoff was over and the water temps got high enough for the fish to spawn.

My guess is that you could do a search online to locate some of the early papers on the data. You will want papers before 1985 or so. Good luck !!

[RonPaulFan]

See both attached pictures.

(I could have done a better job, if I knew how to post in the post rather than attached. Perhaps someone can tell me how.)

Edit: It is my intention that both pictures be viewed at the same time to fit our discussion of this June Sucker which is extinct is just a reservoir of a minimal amount of genetic material, but for what purpose?

Being heavily funded, purpose becomes whatever political diversion of funds can accomplish.

I'm grateful for those who are knowledgeable in our fine group to make us aware of the only trace of genetic material and the discussion of how that was used for funding various projects. I was totally unaware of that and was trusting news sources, so thanks for making me aware.

I posted the two pictures quickly due to time constraints and lacking computer graphics talent, couldn't merge them to show them together to show the connection of false claims.

The only political intent was to show that claims of genetic material has been used politically in both the one picture and the June Sucker funding.

It is not my intention to single out either side of the political candidates, so I included both as being insincere yet intend for that to be viewed in context with the fish similarly not a real June Sucker though used for political funding advantages.

You might see something fishy here, but it is truly presented as a fish discussion and the projects and use of our tax dollars that effects our fishing.

I invite help in modifications with some graphic ingenuity from those so skilled. Please post what you create for me to remove what might be individually misinterpreted as a political post.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Despite the fact that the historical June suckers are no longer because of hybridization, the fish being preserved in Utah Lake are still genetically different because of their isolation within Utah Lake. These fish still do NOT exist anywhere else. To me, that is worthy of protecting.

"June suckers were first collected and described by Jordan (1878). The nomenclatural history is complex and has caused considerable confusion over the systematics of Utah Lake suckers. Jordan (1878) described three species ofsuckers in Utah Lake: the June sucker, webug sucker (Catostomusfecundus), and Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens). Information presented by Miller and Smith (1981) however, suggest that only two species, the June sucker and Utah sucker,
inhabited Utah Lake. In theirreview ofthe genus Chasmistes, they concluded that June sucker specimens collected in the 1880’s were different from those currently occurring in Utah Lake. They suggested that during the 1932-35 drought, when sucker populations in Utah Lake were stressed, June and Utah suckers hybridized. As sucker populations increased in abundance, new genes that were incorporated into the Utah Lake sucker populations resulted in hybrid characteristics becoming dominant in the June sucker. Miller and Smith (1981). therefore, assigned C. liorus liorus to specimens collected in the late 1800’s and C. liorus r~ictus to specimens collected after 1939. Their work remains uncorroborated. However, in a draft report, Evans (in prep.) suggeststhat the current assemblage ofsuckers in Utah Lake is a result of repeated hybridization induced by environmental bottlenecks (e.g. droughts). He also reports that the June sucker genome in Utah Lake is genetically distinct from any other suckers found throughout the Bonneville Basin. Since it has maintained its distinctiveness from othersuckers, the Service listed the endangered June sucker as C. liorus (51 FR 10857)."

https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.399...ef+s05.pdf
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote wormandbobber]Despite the fact that the historical June suckers are no longer because of hybridization, the fish being preserved in Utah Lake are still genetically different because of their isolation within Utah Lake. These fish still do NOT exist anywhere else. To me, that is worthy of protecting.
[/quote]


Correct. In addition, there is no debate that the June suckers are phenotypically different than a Utah sucker you might catch in the Weber or elsewhere. Their mouths point forward and is designed to eat plankton as opposed to downward pointing like almost every other sucker species one would ever encounter.

In biology, different classifications are used to sort and differentiate species. They all have their place, but often disagreement will arise, often based on external agendas. Genotype refers the genetics of the species in question. Many markers can be used to sort out groups and it is a useful tool. It is not infallible though and disagreement still arises. Remember, that two individuals may have the same genes for a certain marker but express them very differently. Next is phenotype. This means how an organism looks on the outside. In this case, June suckers look radically different than generic Utah suckers. For most biologists looking objectively at this situation, this makes them ecologically distinct and worth saving.

It dens me that BFTers don't feel that way but I've given up trying to convince them otherwise. As far as the June sucker program being a "disaster" and other adjectives, the lake is cleaner than it was and further improvements are ongoing, the habitat is better, and the fishing at UL is better than ever, with mind blowing fish counts on a variety of species. The sucker program is, at minimum, partially responsible for that. I'm happy with the effort. The rest of you can keep whining.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Yes! I agree doggonefishin, I agree. Here is some more good reading for those interested:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

https://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/TOFISHSJ-9-29

Both of these articles talk in length and in scientific terms about the phenotypical and morphological differences between Utah suckers and June suckers. Very enlightening stuff...
[signature]

[Outfishing13]

It will be interesting to see where this whole project ends up in 20 more years. I will be pretty old by then, but someday I hope to see Utah Lake rehabilitated to something like it was 200 years ago.

I would like to see it restored to a Lake which can sustain itself with little management. This may mean that few or none of the original species even exist there anymore. But that is just nature in progress. Something new takes over the old.

One thing I have never really heard much of is establishing a balanced lake ecosystem. For example, from what I have read and understand there used to be over 17 different species of fish in Utah Lake. This ranged from little minnows, like sticklebacks, shiners etc, to large trout. There were shell fish, aquatic snails, all sorts of waterfowl, beavers, muskrats and other mammals. Water plants, like lilies, cat tails and other edible plants would have abounded. Amphibians of many sorts would have been abundant.

Since there were no man made dams, irrigation projects and water control, the lake would have went through natural cycles of highs and lows. even to the point of flooding areas where there are now homes and farms. And times when there was little more than rivers running though the lowest areas.

But with that said, I have not heard or read much about restoring the lake to something like it used to be. A balanced ecosystem, even though it does not contain the same species. All the elements need to be there. A balance of plants, animals, predators and prey. From crustaceans, shellfish, mammals, amphibians, birds, plants, algae, to the fish.

IMO... The current project has all been about politics and money.

But... there will never be any change until people are educated and demand it. Or until we have a political leader who takes it on as a special interest. It needs to be an approach which will restore the lake to something similar to what it was before. A balanced ecosystem.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Oh, I don't know. I think restoration of the Utah Lake ecosystem has always been a part of the plan:
http://utahlakerestoration.com/
[signature]

[Outfishing13]

Worm and Bobber,

I am pretty sure that is a private company making that proposal. It is a .com, not a .gov website. Can you confirm that. I recall reading something about this company. Some pretty grand plans for the lake and way to get some property.


They want to build a huge island with a small city in the middle of the lake. two causeways and put marinas throughout the lake. A pretty interesting proposal, but it is not a government plan. However, it might be the best way to resolve the issue.

Maybe the government will get behind them though...
[signature]

[castnshoot]

Even though most biologists make a decent living they are not getting rich. That being said there is a lot of money in wildlife biology through out the world.

A university, government bureaucracy, or conservation group can keep the funds coming in for years by manipulation of the parameters of any given study.

Take Utah’s management of the Mule Deer herd over the last 25 years as an example. They have spent millions on studies that come up with finding that has allowed the bureaucrats to sell way more tags than the herd can sustain.

When ever you study a biological conclusion, always follow the money back to the source of the commission of any studies involving those conclusions.

It’s not hard to find a biologist to find what you want to be found.
[signature]

[riverdog]

Interesting read but my question remains what is the genetic makeup of this hybrid?
If this hybrid is 45% Utah Sucker and 55% June Sucker then it's misleading to call it a June Sucker. If Cutthroats went extinct, we wouldn't then call a Cutbow a Cutthroat.
If this "Jute" Sucker retains a similar ecological niche, I'm not saying it shouldn't be worthy of restoration efforts. Whether that is actually possible longterm in Utah Lake remains to be seen despite this modest increase in population size at a tremendous cost.
[signature]