# Bear Lake vs Bonneville Cutthroats



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Are these the same species? This entry on the UDWR species database makes it sound like they are: http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search ... m=oncoclut

I had always thought the Bear Lake Cutthroat was a distinct species unique to Bear Lake (and later introduced to Strawberry Res.). I did not know it was considered a Bonneville Cutthroat. Anybody have any insight on this?


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I have always understood it as a Bonneville cutt that evolved in Bear Lake (sub-species).


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

So it is a sub-species of a sub-species? The Bonneville Cutthroat is already a sub-species of the Cutthroat species (ONCORHYNCHUS CLARKII).


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Colorado, Bonneville, Bear Lake, are all subspecies of Cutthroat, each thought have their own individual markings and adaptations. As I understand it they would all be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I believe the DWR wants to preserve the uniquness of each which makes it sound as if they are separate species.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

mm73 said:


> I did not know it was considered a Bonneville Cutthroat. Anybody have any insight on this?


Yes, it is. Bear Lake cutts are considered a Bonneville cutt.



The Naturalist said:


> Colorado, Bonneville, *Bear Lake,* are all subspecies of Cutthroat,


The Bear Lake cutt is actually a subgrouping of the Bonneville Cutt. Colorado River and Bonneville cutts are full subspecies.

The DWR put out a paper a few years back that went into the Bonneville cutt "subgroupings". The researchers identified 5 distinct ones! I am at work so I can't link the paper and am going from memory, but I believe the subgroupings were as follows; 1. Main Basin (Northern and Central part of state down past Utah lake) 2. West Desert ( Deep Creek and Snake range) 3. Sevier drainage 4. Bear river drainage/Northern 5. Bear Lake Cutt. (I will have to double check these names for you)

As I recall, the paper stated that the Bear lake cutt was more closely aligned genetically to the cutts of the Snake river than the other 4 Bonneville groups. (Yellowstone and Snake river finespotted cutts) I suppose that this is no surprise since in geologic times, BL has been attached to the Snake river.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I am not a biologist but I will take a stab at this. There are many different terms used, ie. species, sub species, groups, subgroups, etc., but the term I hear most is "strain". There are and have been historically many different "strains" of bonnevill cutts. There is/was the Lahontan and Pyramid Lake strains, the Bear Lake strain, the old Utah Lake strain, Northern strain, Southern strain, etc. All had/have slightly different genetics and characteristics but all are/were Bonnevilles. Some of the characteristics (like size) are related to genetics and some are related to habitat (like with the Layhontans). My 2 cents.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Yes, there are a variety of terms thrown out such as "strains" "subgroups" and others. They can get confusing and they sometimes are controversial among even the experts. Nevertheless, the Cutt researchers can show how it all fits together and it actually makes a lot of sense.



campfire said:


> There is/was *the Lahontan and Pyramid Lake strains,* the Bear Lake strain, the old Utah Lake strain, Northern strain, Southern strain, etc. All had/have slightly different genetics and characteristics but all are/were Bonnevilles.


Incorrect. The Lahontan cutthroat is a separate, full, and different subspecies that evolved in the Lahontan basin of Western Nevada, Eastern California, and parts of Oregon. They NEVER were in Lake Bonneville but were in a separate large lake during that epoch (Lake Lahontan). They are evolutionarily speaking a fairly large distance away from the Bonneville cutts. (Bonnevilles are closer evolutionarily to the Yellowstone and Snake river cutts)

The Lahontan cutts found in the Pilot range of Utah were felt to have been transported there from Pyramid lake in the late 1800's or early 1900's.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Here is the link to that paper I referred to.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/cacs7.pdf

The 5 BCT subgroupings were correctly listed in the above previous post.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Thanks, Catherder for the clarification.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks for the explanation Catherder. I had always thought that the Bear Lake Cutt was related to the Snake River Cutt but was a distinct sub-species due to geologic isolation in Bear Lake. I did not know it was considered to be a "strain" of Bonneville Cutt, but I guess that makes sense since Lake Bonneville captured the Bear River before its demise.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

Catherder said:


> ......
> As I recall, the paper stated that the Bear lake cutt was more closely aligned genetically to the cutts of the Snake river than the other 4 Bonneville groups. (Yellowstone and Snake river finespotted cutts) I* suppose that this is no surprise since in geologic times, BL has been attached to the Snake river*.


Exactly. It has only been about the last 50,000 years that Bear lake now drains to the GSL instead of the Snake.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

mm73 said:


> I had always thought that the Bear Lake Cutt was related to the Snake River Cutt but was a distinct sub-species due to geologic isolation in Bear Lake.


There are many theories that suggest that the Bear Lake Cutts are truly Snake River Cutts.

According to this paper, it was actually 500,000 years ago (not 50,000) when the course of the Bear River changed.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/caribou-targhee ... t_spot.pdf

If you don't want to learn anything new, the please don't read the above link.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

It sounds to me like they may have originally descended from the Snake River sub-species, but then hybridized with the Bonneville sub-species after the Bear River system was captured by Lake Bonneville during the Upper Pleistocene. That would explain why the Bear Lake Cutt is different and distinct from other Bonneville Cutts. Just hypothesizing here...

If Bear Lake Cutts are part of the Bonneville sub-species then it makes the DWR's decision to stock Strawberry with them curious since the Bonneville Cutt would not have been native to the Strawberry / Duschesne basin since that is part of the greater Green / Colorado system. The Colorado Cutthroat is the sub-species that is native to the tributaries of the Green and Colorado, and is currently endangered as well, occupying less than 1% of its native range, so it seems curious that the DWR would take such a productive habitat away from the native Colorado sub-species and give it to the non-native Bonneville sub-species. Of course, we all know the reason why they chose the Bear Lake strain... to subdue the chubs and improve its value as a sport fishery... which I am not complaining about... just thinking out loud...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Good discussion.

PBH, thanks for posting that paper. I have read of these haplotype studies being referred to in another article, but I haven't previously read the actual numbers. Good stuff.



mm73 said:


> t sounds to me like they may have originally descended from the Snake River sub-species, but then hybridized with the Bonneville sub-species after the Bear River system was captured by Lake Bonneville during the Upper Pleistocene. That would explain why the Bear Lake Cutt is different and distinct from other Bonneville Cutts. Just hypothesizing here...


That would seem to sum it up pretty good. One other thing on the Bear lake cutts. They are what is called a lacrustine form, (which means lake adapted) and as such are usually evolved to be more piscivorous than the nearby and closely related Bear River fish or other Bonneville (or even Snake river) cutts. Same with the presumably extinct Utah Lake fish and the assumed Pyramid lake fish on Pilot peak. It is hoped by some specialists that the Pilot peak/Pyramid lake fish when re-introduced into Pyramid lake will re-attain the world record sizes attained by the original inhabitants. The Lahontan cutts presently stocked in Walker and Pyramid lakes have been from other sources and while fine fish, haven't come close to the record size of the originals. 
If you would like to read more about these topics, check out "Trout and Salmon of North America" by Robert Behnke


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I am speculating a lot here but I think the reason for stocking BL cuttroats in Strawberry has nothing to do with reestablishing or expanding populations of cutthroats and everything to do with managing Strawberry itself. They are stocked there because of their size and aggressive predatory nature simply to eat chubs. On the other hand, I think the DWR has switched from stocking BL cutthroats in Current Creek to stocking Colorado River Cutthroats for the reasons mm73 mentioned.


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

PBH said:


> mm73 said:
> 
> 
> > I had always thought that the Bear Lake Cutt was related to the Snake River Cutt but was a distinct sub-species due to geologic isolation in Bear Lake.
> ...


Nice article PBH - That is the first time I have seen a time line suggesting the Lava flows blocked the Bear River that long ago. Most show the first diversion at about 140,000 years ago with the Bear occasionally breaking through the diversion and flowing back to the snake, and the latest diversion between 35,000 - 50,000 years ago.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Dec 27, 2007)

About 5 years ago, the biologists and biology students at BYU were doing dna studies on cutts and they found that the two species didnt evolve one from another and that in fact that they were more closely related to other cutts. Someone mentioned snake river cutts. I can't remember the specific species and I wish I could write more intelligently about it.

Previously, cutt lineage was based on geology (behnke) or by markings, neither of which prove anything conclusively. DNA should be able to provide some clear cutt (pun intended) answers.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Pez Gallo said:


> About 5 years ago, the biologists and biology students at BYU were doing dna studies on cutts and they found that the two species didnt evolve one from another and that in fact that they were more closely related to other cutts. Someone mentioned snake river cutts. I can't remember the specific species and I wish I could write more intelligently about it.
> 
> Previously, cutt lineage was based on geology (behnke) or by markings, neither of which prove anything conclusively. DNA should be able to provide some clear cutt (pun intended) answers.


I believe the BYU study you are referring is cited in the paper that PBH posted a link to above.


----------



## SKUNK__BUSTER (Dec 2, 2009)

Anybody know what kind of cutts are in Mt. dell and Little dell. I know that you cant fish Mt dell but I know it has been fished before and the fish caught were very dark but they were cutts. The cutts in Little dell are few and far between but they are sure purdy. 

I thought maybe they were kept in Mt dell for use as a reserve of a pure strain Boneville cutthroats. I am not stating that, just wondering if that is the case or if any of you cutthroat experts know the facts.

Thanks for the interesting posts.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

You answered your own question. They are Bonneville Cutts. The DWR discovered pure strain Bonnevilles in the head waters of Mtn Dell Creek about 15 years ago and now they use the whole drainage for brood stock. Here is an article about it from a few years ago: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=323327

I am not sure about the dark color of the cutts in Mtn Dell Res you are referring to. Did you see them in the lake or the tributaries? What time of year? If you saw then in the tributaries in late spring or early summer then they were probably spawners and that would explain the darker coloration.


----------



## SKUNK__BUSTER (Dec 2, 2009)

Thanks. Glad I am not a total idiot.  

After reading that article I have realized that upper Bells Canyon Res. has the result of their efforts. If it were only a shorter, easier hike. You can do it in 6 hours but 9 or 10 is more comfortable. I love it up there.


----------



## utahtu (Apr 2, 2008)

According to Dr. Robert Behnke in his book "Trout and Salmon of North America" (pages 181-188) there are "three differentiated geographical groupings of Bonneville cutthroat trout (four, if you separate the Bear Lake cutthroat trout)." The three are the main Bonneville basin, the Snake Valley and the Bear River drainage. He further states that "cutthroat trout native to the Bear River drainage have more scales along the sides (165-180 vs 150-165) and more pyloric caeca (40-45 vs 3-=40, but 50 or more in Bear Lake cutthroat) compared with other populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout."


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

The authors of the paper I posted earlier in this thread separate out the Bear lake cutt from the Bear river fish but differ from Dr. Behnke in that they also recognize a Southern (or Sevier drainage) Bonneville grouping for a total of 5. (see map in that paper I posted, pg. 16 and 21-22) 

It would be interesting to see what the haplotype differences are between the "Southern" Bonnevilles and the other recognized population groups.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Catherder said:


> The authors of the paper I posted earlier in this thread separate out the Bear lake cutt from the Bear river fish but differ from Dr. Behnke in that they also recognize a Southern (or Sevier drainage) Bonneville grouping for a total of 5. (see map in that paper I posted, pg. 16 and 21-22)
> 
> It would be interesting to see what the haplotype differences are between the "Southern" Bonnevilles and the other recognized population groups.


All of those separations make perfect sense when you consider how the species would have been isolated into various drainages when Lake Bonneville disappeared, and the GSL became too salty to support fish. Bear Lake has also gone through a contraction since that time, so that the Bear River no longer flows into the lake directly except by a man made canal. This would have isolated the Bear Lake population from the Bear River population, which was also isolated from the Weber population, which was isolated from the Snake Valley population, the Utah Lake population, the Sevier population, etc, etc.


----------

