“It was the two-headed baby trout that got everyone’s attention.”
The New York Times reports:
…Photographs of variously mutated brown trout were relegated to an appendix of a scientific study commissioned by the J. R. Simplot Company, whose mining operations have polluted nearby creeks in southern Idaho. The trout were the offspring of local fish caught in the wild that had been spawned in the laboratory. Some had two heads; others had facial, fin and egg deformities.
Yet the company’s report concluded that it would be safe to allow selenium — a metal byproduct of mining that is toxic to fish and birds — to remain in area creeks at higher levels than are now permitted under regulatory guidelines. The company is seeking a judgment to that effect from the Environmental Protection Agency. After receiving a draft report that ran hundreds of pages, an E.P.A. review described the research as “comprehensive” and seemed open to its findings, which supported the selenium variance for Simplot’s Smoky Canyon mine…
We are always suspicious of these alleged manmade mutations — remember the frogs?
Oregon State University has a research field station where it raises(raised?) trout. They had multiple die-off of the years with what was deemed to be “clean” water, analyzed to nearly the lowest limits possible. Yet it happened.
A politically incorrect phrase comes to mind “there are no handicapped parking spaces in the wild”. I would wager fry like this occur in the wild with similar regularity. The difference being that any fry not able to fully function becomes a tasty snack for the nearest predator.
Hmm what is not mentioned in the NYT article is did anyone question wither these or what percentage of mutations where due to the trout being offspring of Hatchery stock? I believe that hatchery stock have a higher instance of mutations in the next generation, not sure though as it has been awhile that I have read up on this area.