The Chief wrote:

rruby wrote:What data is this rather blanket statement based on?

Ahhh... the OP!


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/scien ... anted=2&hp

When the frogs vanish due to the fungus, the lakes will be void of both them and the trout that have been destroyed in order to reintroduce the frogs.

Both actions stem from Man's meddling.

The NY Times link has expired. What does OP stand for?

I suspect from reading Dr Vredenburg's 2006 paper "Removal of nonnative fish results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa)" that the reduction of the frog population caused by the the non-native fish made them much less likely to rebound from the fungus die-off, or any serious microbial epidemic. If true, I can understand why they would want to remove the concomitant insult to the population that the non-native fish present. Anyway, I've included the Abstract from the above mentioned paper.

The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) was once a common inhabitant of the
Sierra Nevada (California, USA), but has declined precipitously during the past century
due in part to the introduction of nonnative fish into naturally fishless habitats. The objec-
tives of the current study were to describe (1) the effect of fish removal from three lakes
(located in two watersheds) on the small, remnant R. muscosa populations inhabiting those
lakes, and (2) the initial development of metapopulation structure in each watershed as R.
muscosa from expanding populations in fish-removal lakes dispersed to adjacent habitats.
At all three fish-removal lakes, R. muscosa population densities increased significantly fol-
lowing the removal of predatory fish. The magnitude of these increases was significantly
greater than that observed over the same time period in R. muscosa populations inhabiting
control lakes that remained in their natural fishless condition. Following these population
increases, R. muscosa dispersed to adjacent suitable (but unoccupied) sites, moving between
200 and 900 m along streams or across dry land. Together, these results suggest that large-
scale removal of introduced fish could result in at least partial reversal of the decline of R.
muscosa. Continued monitoring of R. muscosa at the fish-removal sites will be necessary to
determine whether the positive effects of fish eradication are sustained over the long-term,
especially in light of the increasingly important role played by an emerging infectious dis-
ease (chytridiomycosis, caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in influencing R. muscosa
populations.


I don't know about meddling. I don't perceive it as that. People involving themselves in things that are none of their business I feel is meddling. The Feds are responsible for the conservation of these lands, and as such, it "is" their business. They might make mistakes, but as a taxpayer I do expect them to "do" something. Especially if it's the extinction of a species due in part to something they did in the first place. Otherwise they need a good explanation why they shouldn't do anything. An aversion to meddling is not one of them. Anyway, my last thoughts on the subject. Thought-provoking thread.

rruby wrote:I don't know about meddling. I don't perceive it as that. People involving themselves in things that are none of their business I feel is meddling. The Feds are responsible for the conservation of these lands, and as such, it "is" their business. They might make mistakes, but as a taxpayer I do expect them to "do" something. Especially if it's the extinction of a species due in part to something they did in the first place. Otherwise they need a good explanation why they shouldn't do anything. An aversion to meddling is not one of them. Anyway, my last thoughts on the subject. Thought-provoking thread.

Some folks (myself) are meddling cus we live and play where the Feds are killing/terminating/eradicating other species in the name of redemption.

I know of two local area's where this killing was done and not more than a 1/4 mile up trail of both, there were three-five other lakes that were at the same altitude, had the exact same environment parameters required for the MYLF's, were totally void of any fish, yet they insisted that they do the dirty deed at that one specific lake where the fish existed. I asked the contracted Fed Bio's at both sites that were killing the fish, why they didn't just use the other lakes instead of killing the fish at the specific lake? Here was their reply at both locations...


" As far as we know, the frogs were at this lake first and that is where we will re-establish them. We are returning the MYLF's to the original lakes that we feel they existed in, regardless if there are any potential other surrounding habitat's within the area that are void of any fish." (paraphrased)

So that indeed tells us that there is a whole other agenda at play here and has absolutely nothing to do with any equality.

That is why I am meddling in this horseshit agendized redemption project.

Chief, so are the goldens the only indigenous trout in the Sierra?


Also, remember this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA[/youtube]

NancyHands

(THANKS FOR GC Video... reaffirms my pos!)

No way on the indigenous CA Trout Species btw.

There are several species of Cut's that are also indigenous to the Sierra.

One has been on the USF&G ES list for over four decades but you never heard nor saw any AGENDIZED ECO TERRORIST SCREAMS trying to save their asses in the past 35 or so years. Nope!

Just fellow Troutmen (Trout Unlimited) throughout the Northern California area. These volunteers are the ones coming to their rescue and taking some very unique and equal measures to do so. They did not eradicate nor destroy one non-paiutecutthroat species of trout or any other animal species in any of the re-establishing projects. Not one!!!!!

Ironic aint it.



(From the Northern CA Trout Unlimited Site)

Paiute Cutthroat Trout have survived for thousands of years exclusively in the watershed of Silver King Creek and its isolated tributaries in Alpine County. By the early 1970's, Paiute cutthroat trout had reached such low population levels that they were near extinction. The US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Paiute cutthroat trout be placed on the Federal Endangered Species list.

The main causes of the Paiute's demise were; hybridization, competition with introduced trout species, and habitat degradation caused by poor range management. The introduction of rainbow trout to Silver King Creek by unnamed sources in the 1950's and 60's had caused hybridization and the loss of important pure Paiute cutthroat genetics. Small tributaries to Silver King Creek still hold a pure strain of Paiute cutthroat trout. Hybridization can be a double- edged sword, by not only losing important genetics, but also the competition for valuable food sources.

Finally, in 1985, the United States Forest Service (USFS) developed a Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan that involved the California Department of Fish and Game, and Trout Unlimited volunteers, spearheaded by the North Bay Chapter. The plan focused on habitat restoration above Llewellyn Falls at Silver King Creek. From 1986 to 1993, over 400 TU volunteers worked tirelessly on restoration projects to improve the Paiute habitat. In-stream log structures were installed in the creek to stabilize the bank and reduce siltation, and solar powered exclusionary fencing was erected to prevent further habitat degradation from grazing. The majority of hybridized fish in the area above the falls were removed through electro-shocking and transported to high mountain lakes. Almost ten years later, all the hard work resulted in an increased population of only pure strain Paiute Cutthroat trout above Llewellyn Falls.

Trout Unlimited continues to spearhead the work on Silver King Creek while relying on the cooperative agencies for scientific and logistical support. We are planning the next phase of the project in conjunction with the agencies and will provide an abundance of volunteer labor as well as funding for equipment, materials, and transportation. The project for this next phase will extend the range of the Paiute trout below Llewellyn Falls to an additional six miles of native stream. The same successful methods will be used as in 1993. Most of the hybridized fish will be removed by electro-shocking .

The fish will be moved downstream below the barrier falls for angling. Any remaining hybrids will be eradicated from the six miles of stream. Healthy Paiute trout will then be reintroduced to their original habitat. A successful reintroduction of the Paiute Cutthroat Trout to the entire length of Silver King Creek could ultimately result in the Paiute Cutthroat being the first fish species removed from the Federal Endangered Species List.

Above all, the greatest benefit will be to the survival of the Paiute Cutthroat trout by restoring the species to their native runs and ultimately being de-listed from the Endangered Species List, a first in fisheries.


THE MYLF BIO's SHOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO TAKE HEED TO THE MANNER THAT THESE FOLKS ARE AND HAVE BEEN DOING THEIR WORK AND NOT KILL OTHER SPECIES OF ANIMALS IN THEIR QUEST TO ASSIST THESE CUT'S IN RETURNING THEM TO THEIR INDIGENOUS HABITAT.

Chief, does 2 equal several to you?

El Cuervo wrote:Chief, does 2 equal several to you?

Damn right it does as several equals 2 as well.

BASIC COMMON SENSE equals plain every day fundamental reality as George Carlin so eloquently plainly shared on many occasions.

Unfortunately, many PhDs lose any of that COMMON SENSE they may have had prior to them getting so well educated. .

DAH!


Destroying any other animal species, regardless what it may be, in order to attempt to redeem our prior actions, is absolutely WRONG!

The story I posted above is absolute proof that we do not have to do so, kill other animal species, in order to do what we think is right.

The Chief wrote:Destroying any other animal species, regardless what it may be, in order to attempt to redeem our prior actions, is absolutely WRONG!

The story I posted above is absolute proof that we do not have to do so, kill other animal species, in order to do what we think is right.

The plan is to eradicate the fish that remain, as well as "other aquatic organisms", with rotenone (chemical) treatment.

JD wrote:

The Chief wrote:Destroying any other animal species, regardless what it may be, in order to attempt to redeem our prior actions, is absolutely WRONG!

The story I posted above is absolute proof that we do not have to do so, kill other animal species, in order to do what we think is right.

The plan is to eradicate the fish that remain, as well as "other aquatic organisms", with rotenone (chemical) treatment.

Actually, that eradication process is and has been on hold due the unsureness that any pure indigenous Cut's may be destroyed in the process.

They have decided that they will continue with the process that they have been doing for over 30 years in order not to terminate any pure Cut's.

The Chief wrote:Actually, that eradication process is and has been on hold due the unsureness that any pure indigenous Cut's may be destroyed in the process.

It's been on hold because a group called Californians for Alternatives to Toxics obtained an injunction in federal court to stop what they believed was the planned poisoning of a watershed. That was in 2005. Since then, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the CDFG. The preferred plan is "to use the piscicide rotenone to eradicate non-native trout and to neutralize the rotenone downstream of Silver King Canyon at its confluence with Snodgrass Creek using potassium permanganate." [1]

Rotenone has been used in the Silver Creek basin in the past, in particular in 1964, 1976, 1977, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, and 1993." [1]

They have decided that they will continue with the process that they have been doing for over 30 years in order not to terminate any pure Cut's.

In the Fall 2010 issue of "Trout" magazine (Trout Unlimited), it is stated that earlier this year a permit was granted to CDFG to continue with the process. "The final step is to treat the stream with a chemical such as rotenone, which is derived from natural plant sources. Such treatment kills all the remaining fish, as well as other aquatic organisms..." [2]

On the CDFG website, the Paiute cutthroat restoration is a currently active project: "The proposed project is to chemically treat the stream using rotenone to remove non-native trout from Silver King Creek and associated tributaries between Snodgrass Creek (Silver King Canyon) and Llewellyn Falls." [3]



Chief, certainly the question of whether to intervene to aid or relocate an endangered species is a difficult one. Our history is rife with examples of grievous harm done to ecosystems when we have interfered, both intentionally and accidentally. It isn't easy to predict the complex interactions in advance; it's unfortunately much easier to understand after the damage is done.

To adopt a position of "do nothing" in all cases would be to miss important opportunities to preserve biodiversity that would otherwise be lost. With all due respect to George Carlin, I think that in many cases it is well worth the effort. Whether or not intervention is appropriate for the Paiute cutthroat or the Mountain Yellow-Legged frog is open to debate. In both cases we are attempting to intervene in an active way, be it through nets or poison.

I would urge anyone who is truly interested in these subjects, rather then read biased opinionated postings in an internet forum, to instead avail themselves of more credible sources, much of it easily obtainable on the web.

-------
[1] Environmental Impact Statement, Feb 2010
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/projects/c ... 010-10.pdf

[2] "Trout" magazine, Fall 2010

[3] CDFG website - Paiute Cutthroat Trout : Restoration projects
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Resources/Wi ... Restor.asp

Once again JD, the "Chemical treatment is one of three alternatives being examined in the forthcoming EIR/EIS that is being prepared for this proposed project." All previous Rotenone treatments were completed well downstream and never done at the headwaters and the last actual treatment was completed way back in 1993.

I am quite knowledgeable and very aware of this ongoing project as I have volunteered on one of the latest endeavors that did not use any Rotenone nor has it been since 1993 nor has any other method that eradicated nor terminated any non-native species. The reintroduction of the chemical treatment has yet to be approved and thankfully so. It will severely impact the entire eco-system that supports the trout habitat, stoneflies, caddisflies, mayflies etc and any potential pure Paiute Cut that could be in the area. That is significantly weighing in on the final decision making aspect. I believe that you will find that in the EIS.

Until any formal approval is given, the Silver King Creek P-Cut restoration projects will continue as they have in the past 17 or so years. Manual removal stunning and relocation of non-native species.

Big difference between, as you posted.... "Nets or Poison!" One kills nothing the other kills everything. Many troutmen that have volunteered over the past 17 or so years in this program, are totally against any termination of any fish/trout and the supporting eco-system. It makes absolutely no sense and is totally counter productive. That is also playing a major role in the final determination in the use of Rotenone or any other action that will terminate.

PS: Sorry, but no where in the Fall 2010 Edition of Trout Mag is there any indication or notation of any formal approval/permit issued by any agency to implement any chemical eradication within the Silver King Creek basin. Got my copy three weeks ago and am looking at it as I write. Please cite the specific page to direct me.....

PSPS: My previous posts are based on the Project Handouts that I have from my past involvement in this project.

***The latest word I have received and verified this afternoon via my local CA F&G buddy at the Hot Creek Hatchery is that Alternative 3: Combined Physical Removal is being considered, promoted and supported by most involved and no word on any final decision on the matter will come to bear until next Spring

Chief got some new boots for his next fishing excursion.

I see several nice frog boots there.

When I trvl on backtry fish and amph ops, I try to always bring my frog boots.

Keeps the h2o from getting my feet wet.

Not bad logic from a city-slicker, eh.

Though I must say Chief, your last post was one of your most legibly written.

The Chief wrote:All previous Rotenone treatments were completed well downstream

Rotenone has been introduced upstream of Llewelyn Falls a number of times. It's interesting that Trout Unlimited left that part out of their historical summary (posted above) since repeated chemical treatments were instrumental in the eventual success of non-native trout eradication.

"In the summer of 1991, a fish transfer, using electrofishing gear and helicopters was conducted by CDFG, Toiyabe National Forest, and Trout Unlimited, to remove trout that would otherwise be killed by the initial chemical treatment. Approximately 800 juvenile and adult trout were stocked downstream from Llewellyn Falls and Tamarack Lake outside ofthe project area for recreational fishing. Two treatments were made in the basin on August 20 and 21, 1991. The target treatment concentration was 1 mg/l Nusyn-NoxfishR, or 25 ug/l rotenone. Drip stations were set up at essentially the same locations as had been used in the 1976 chemical treatment (Figure 2).

"...A total of 1,009 adult and juvenile trout carcasses were collected following the August and September chemical treatments for the entire project area. Over 520 fry carcasses were also collected." [1]

Subsequent electrofishing revealed hybrid trout still inhabited the waters above Llewelyn Falls, so a second round of chemical treatment was conducted in 1992. This was also deemed insufficient so in 1993 a third and final treatment was performed, with success. [1]

So you see, that project (described on the Trout Unlimited website) that you hold in so high a regard actually involved rotenone and resultant mortality to fish (and other organisms).

I am quite knowledgeable and very aware of this ongoing project as I have volunteered on one of the latest endeavors that did not use any Rotenone nor has it been since 1993 nor has any other method that eradicated nor terminated any non-native species. The reintroduction of the chemical treatment has yet to be approved and thankfully so. It will severely impact the entire eco-system that supports the trout habitat, stoneflies, caddisflies, mayflies etc and any potential pure Paiute Cut that could be in the area. That is significantly weighing in on the final decision making aspect. I believe that you will find that in the EIS.

There have been no rotenone treatments in Silver King Creek since 1993, but not because it was deemed ineffective or undesirable by the CDFG. It has been because of opposition by environmental organizations. The CDFG was ready to use rotenone below Llewelyn Falls in 2005 but were halted at the last minute by a court injunction. For the following several years they were busy with the long, laborious process of preparing an EIS. With the EIS completed and signed off they were hoping to start this September, but in June another lawsuit was filed. [3] The CA budget is adding to the delay. [4]

In fact, the EIS makes it clear that alternatives to chemical treatment are likely to be ineffective and more damaging to the environment. That's why rotenone treatment is not ony the "preferred alternative" it is also the "Environmentally Preferred Alternative". That's right, combined electrofishing and netting are considered more harmful to the environment than chemical eradication by the CDFG. Why? Human impact. Read the EIS.

Big difference between, as you posted.... "Nets or Poison!" One kills nothing the other kills everything.

I was comparing netting of fish (for the yellow-legged frogs) versus chemical treatment (for the Paiute cutthroat). Fish mortality -- the very thing you claim to abhor -- occurred in both cases.

PS: Sorry, but no where in the Fall 2010 Edition of Trout Mag is there any indication or notation of any formal approval/permit issued by any agency to implement any chemical eradication within the Silver King Creek basin. Got my copy three weeks ago and am looking at it as I write. Please cite the specific page to direct me.....

The permit is mentioned in that article about the guy with the trout tatoo. Or go to the source, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board website. The point is that in April 2010 the water board granted a permit for the plan to use rotenone in Silver King Creek. The Tahoe Daily Tribune published an article about it. [5]

In May 2010 the USFWS officially signed off on EIS alternative 2, "the use of rotenone to eradicate non-native and hybrid trout in Silver King Creek". [6]

Despite the new lawsuit filed in June 2010 contesting the decision to use rotenone [3], the CDFG website states that their intention is to begin using rotenone in Summer/Fall 2011. [2] "There is no way we are going to stand down from this project", says Bob Williams of the USFWS. [4]


-----
[1] SILVER KING CREEK PAIUTE CUTTHROAT TROUT RESTORATION, 1991 THROUGH 1993
Richard A. Flint, et. al., California Department of Fish and Game
http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/2906/1/IFD_AdminReport98-7.pdf
[2] http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news10/20100 ... erred.html
[3] http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/17/FishPoison.pdf
[4] http://www.rgj.com/article/20100926/NEW ... on-project
[5] http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/articl ... /100419875
[6] USFWS - Record of Decision - Paiute Cutthroat Restoration Project, May 2010
http://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_spe ... -19-10.pdf

JD...

Thanks for all the info. But, I just got off the phone with a local buddy who is the local CADF&G Environmental Scientist, and he indicated that the "official" delay till next year has more in it than funding issues. Appears Water Board Mbr Eric Sandel, who as you know was the only mbr to vote Nay, has contacted some important folks that have gotten involved and are asking questions regarding the EIS for option 2.

He also shared to not be surprised to see a Federal Injunction very soon, pulling the permit and requesting a more in depth EIS to be completed regarding the chemical and it's long term effects on ALL eco-systems within the watershed.

We shall see. Hopefully option 3 is reconsidered and mandated if the Fed Injunction actually happens.

Till then, nothing dies.

Edit: Addtions

For crying out loud! All this talk about frogs..

And it certainly ain't no BULL, frog.