Back to fishies and froggies

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
el cuervo

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by el cuervo »

giantbrookie wrote:The flip side of this is it is a major bummer to hike to some remote off trail place and find a former lunker fishery devoid of fish (or in the case of some stories, full of gill nets). The coffee can thing is real and I have received some reliable info on at least one notorious (recent) case in Seki.
Who on earth could be moving fish around?
Bad Man From Bodie wrote:... I for one can almost guarantee a fishless Odell Lake minus some coffee can efforts (Shhhhh).
With irresponsible behavior such as that alluded to by BM, can you blame the state/fed people for keeping the list of lakes hush-hush? gill-netting takes years and costs a lot of money and effort.

As George wrote, if fisherman want a seat at the table, then they need to act in a manner deserving to be listened to.

I am not condoning all that is done by the state/fed people either. The institutional dogma at these agencies is a menace in its own right.
Last edited by el cuervo on Fri Jan 02, 2009 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by rlown »

One of the fears folks have is that public knowledge will lead to coffee canning which would obviously sabotage frog recovery efforts.


On Transparency, If the reasons were obvious and published, one normally wouldn't "coffee can". Yosemite NP did not open to planning or announce the lakes they removed in '07 when i found the nets. Their planning site just said, "Status: done". Research was the excuse.. I'm asking for earlier "transparency" into what they're planning.

this is what i want changed. I want a list of lakes/basins targeted and a discussion.. The Aquatic Plan for Yose is a good move forward, but i still want a list of lakes targeted, and i want them publicized at the Wilderness permit areas.

Russ
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Posts: 3580
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Experience: N/A
Location: Fresno
Contact:

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by giantbrookie »

rlown wrote:On Transparency, If the reasons were obvious and published, one normally wouldn't "coffee can". Yosemite NP did not open to planning or announce the lakes they removed in '07 when i found the nets. Their planning site just said, "Status: done". Research was the excuse.. I'm asking for earlier "transparency" into what they're planning.this is what i want changed. I want a list of lakes/basins targeted and a discussion.. The Aquatic Plan for Yose is a good move forward, but i still want a list of lakes targeted, and i want them publicized at the Wilderness permit areas.
Russ
Coming from the standpoint of one who doesn't coffee can and doesn't plan to, and one who tends to hike to pretty inaccessible places with few available days, I too want information before in advance (before I get my wilderness permit at least), before a high percentage of my few available backcountry days are expended in a fishless death march. This is why I started the fish kill thread on the fishing board here, so that we can have a centralized point of information that is otherwise difficult to obtain. In the peak years when my wife and I fished close to 100 different lakes a year (in 1997 we fished 105) I devoted some time to digging up this info (I had a data exchange thing going with several folks at DFG and my wife and I once stopped off at Roland's place and traded info over some bottles of epic home brew), but I must confess I don't go after all of this with the vigor I did in the old days because I just don't fish enough to justify the time investment.

A final little note concerns how much adventure and the unknown plays into the pleasure we take in the more adventurous backcountry fishing trips we do. By about 2000, I had received enough info, or was aware of enough info, that we could, if we wished, pick up the phone, or send an email to find out about pretty much any lake in the Sierra. I must admit succumbing to this temptation more often than not, and I can say that knowing is great to prevent nasty surprises (such as Mattie), but not knowing has its charms, too. When my wife and I took our trip epic trip from New Army to Shepherd in 1996, there was a comparative scarcity of data available. Sierra South had (and still has) more complete coverage of that region than Cutter, but the coolest thing was being able to guess whether or not lakes had fish by looking up McDermand's archival accounts of the 40's and assessing spawning potential (using topo maps, and in some cases stereo air photos). It is a very nice thing to NOT know whether a lake has fish in it before hand and be pleasantly surprised. This was the case in several epic trips my wife and I made to Yosemite and Seki in 1992-1997. Now it is sad to say that some of the magic of such adventures has been drowned by having too much info at my fingertips. That having been said, it is safe to say that my wife and I had a few more days to burn in the 90's than we have now. I did partially resist the temptation on my one death march in 2008 and the surprises/unknowns did indeed very much enhance that trip (although the best fishing highlights were absolutely in the realm of prior knowledge).
Last edited by giantbrookie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by gdurkee »

Russ' point that the Wilderness Permit people should have a list of lakes being netted is a good one. For Sequoia Kings, I just wrote our Wilderness Manager suggesting that.

I suspect part of the problem (though I don't know for sure) is that the first round of nettings was, in fact, "research" -- pretty much a proof of concept. That's true in Sequoia anyway. The research has been done and the concept established. The next phase (which starts soon) will require EAs to be published and public comment solicited. This is for the Parks. I know Russ was having problems getting information from DF&G, but I have no idea how they operate. I would think an EA would be required, either by them or the USFS.

So, I could well be wrong, but for Yosemite and Sequoia Kings anyway, no new lakes will be netted (other than the ones already underway) without public comment. If I hear anything different, I'll post it here.

But there's also a practical problem: the person giving the Wilderness Permit. As I'm sure all of you have experienced, it's really variable. Most are good, but I know a few don't quite get it. It's sometimes all we can hope for just to have them talk about fire limits and taking out your garbage. Having them think about adding a talk about gill netting in lakes they've never been too may overload the system... .

g.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by rlown »

After several discussions with Yose NP wildlife mgrs over the last couple years, they agreed they would publish the fish removal plans at the wilderness permit stations. But.. you have to ask for it, unlike the bear activity announcement board they have up behind the TM wilderness station.. Bears dont bother me as much.. go figure..

Russ

PS: surely, we must have a list of basins we'd like to propose for frog sancutaries? for me, Boothe Lake woud be good, as it has all dinks, but i'm not sure if it's fed from Vogelsang.. worthless fish lake in my opinion.
User avatar
giantbrookie
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Founding Member & Forums Moderator
Posts: 3580
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:22 am
Experience: N/A
Location: Fresno
Contact:

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by giantbrookie »

rlown wrote:PS: surely, we must have a list of basins we'd like to propose for frog sancutaries? for me, Boothe Lake woud be good, as it has all dinks, but i'm not sure if it's fed from Vogelsang.. worthless fish lake in my opinion.
Oh yes I do, both inside of the NPs and outside. It is a reasonably long list. I'll start with just a smidge from the Sawboose loop: Everything in the Twin Lakes-Woods Lake area except for two unnamed lakes that don't have brookies. Woods is pretty nice, I must confess (innumerable brookies that go to 13 inches some years plus it has MYLF, or it did in 1997), but I'd gladly rid the entire basin of its fish in return for frog habitat except for those two lakes that are a bit off by themselves anyway (not in main basin). Just over the Pinchot Pass hump: everything in the Marjorie Lake basin and its feeders--lots of stunted brookies. It is a classic example of how overly good natural reproduction turned a once premium fishery (see McDermand's accounts of Marjorie) into the basic big headed stunted fishery. Those are but two (with multiple lakes) of many I know of.
Since my fishing (etc.) website is still down, you can be distracted by geology stuff at: http://www.fresnostate.edu/csm/ees/facu ... ayshi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by rlown »

gdurkee wrote: But there's also a practical problem: the person giving the Wilderness Permit. As I'm sure all of you have experienced, it's really variable. Most are good, but I know a few don't quite get it. It's sometimes all we can hope for just to have them talk about fire limits and taking out your garbage. Having them think about adding a talk about gill netting in lakes they've never been too may overload the system... .

g.
Actually, in my experience, I told "Carol" (permit person) where i was going and why. She said nothing about the nets.. When i got back, we confronted her and her response was very interesting. "we dont really like to advertise that." They do know what is going on and they should share, especially if you're off trail. I know they're fixing the glitch in communication, but you still have to ask.

On another note, Roland said he would talk a bit in an upcoming blog entry on how anglers can get more involved in frog v. fish policy.

Russ
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Experience: N/A
Location: Lee Vining/Reno

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by Bad Man From Bodie »

Hey all....back from Lee Vining. Good times as always, and civil sounds like the way to be in 2009 :partyman: !
gdurkee wrote: In fact, the attention given the yellow-legged frog is pretty impressive considering it's not a cuddly and furry animal. Increasingly, I think such attention is appropriately proportionate to the perception that it's a wider problem (in habitat destruction or as an indicator species) than just the species in trouble. That's what's happening here. As I've said before, it's not just about the frogs. It's about the Sierra ecosystem.
George, you nailed it once again here my man! This is what I'm talking about and I couldn't agree more. I would find it hard pressed to locate someone who is knowledgeable about the Sierra Nevada to disagree. IMHO there is a serious problem with Sierra ecosystems in general, and the frog, porcupine, pika, otter, and many various bird species status is just an indication of a larger problem.

This is a great and informative thread we have going here. We all have a lot to learn from each other. Our opinions are scared into our souls based on our own personal experiences, research, ect. My opinion doesn't mean a hill o' beans, but it is not only based on my personal experiences but those of over five generations of Eastern Sierra Nevadaites. That's why I am always so keen on referencing the old-timers in the area.

Roland's work is sound and very well written. He makes a very compelling argument for fish removal. Roland is a very accomplished scientist and he is very good at what he does. He and I just fundamentally disagree on land management and that's it. I know fish eat MYLFs, and his work proves it. But, wouldn't herons, raccoons, martin, mink, civet cats, skunks, and any other creature that could get their paws on a MYLF eat one? The fundamental difference I have with Roland is the means to an end. I would assert we both agree that there is an umbrella issue governing what's is ecologically going down in the Sierra Nevada. There are a lot of us who just don't agree with Roland's management prescription.

I for one am not about to give up any watershed for fish removal unless proper due diligence has been conducted and it has at least been visited by a NEPA committee. If in fact empirical data shows an increase in biodiversity with fish removal in a particular watershed, I'll listen to fish removal discussion all day. I would however assert that because fish have been part of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem for well over 100 years there may have been some co-evolution going on between fish and other critters. If we are going to "give up" a particular watershed, the public and federal agencies prescribing the management better know darn well what they are getting themselves into. Any of which would envoke a higher level of NEPA which is what I think everyone typically fights tooth and nail to avoid. I'm all for higher quality fish, but some of these overpopulated brookie, golden, and rainbow lakes may have some intrinsic value to someone based around those small fish. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Has anyone ever looked into the applicability of section 404 of the clean water act in respect to removal of fish from a waters of the United States?

Fish are also indicator species. I guess an example of where I disagree with Roland's management strategy can be summarized as such; If you have a polluted river and say data suggest that frogs are dying and the river is polluted. You don't invest money into saving the frogs from the pollutant, you invest money in finding the source of the pollutant and fixing it, then move on down the line from there. See, maybe the frogs aren't directly dying from the pollutant but the bugs they eat are, so without bugs there cant be frogs. I think Roland makes a good argument but I think he is avoiding the big picture item, which is what we need to address not the little fishies. I think the management employed these days in the public sector is the "contain the leak" rather than "stop the leak" approach. So we can talk about fish removal all day, but I don't think removing fish is the answer, especially when we have countless examples current and historic where fish...and even big fish co-exist with MYLFs.

The feds are about as transparent as a flying pink elephant during rush hour on the freeway. I fully understand why they have to be this way, as most of my projects are red file. However, I pay their wages as a taxpayer, therefore I want to know what my employees are up to.

The public comments section in many NEPA documents is a joke. Most of the comment periods are disclosed in some obscure section of a webpage. Rarely are they advertised to the public on open forums, via the media, or physical postings. Its up to the public to take time away from their busy lives to not only know where but how to post comments. Rather what you see are watchdog, nonprofit, and advocacy groups posting mass comments on issues instead of private individuals. These groups pay someone to know about the issues and inform their constituents about commenting periods. I've gone though public comments before. In my experience for every 10 letters from advocacy groups you have one from an individual. Needless to say the comments are swayed and reflect the views of those who have a lot of time on their hands, and know where to look rather than the majority of the folks concerned. The agencies need to advertise management objectives like they do bear warnings, urban interface wildland fire control ect. What are they afraid of????Oh, maybe opposition to their management objectives.

On an end note......when you get two groups that are very passionate about their views as often happens over environmental issues, what is actually meant to be constructive thought is interpreted sometimes unfairly as criticism. El Cuervo, I apologize for any unfair criticism I may have imposed on you, but I feel like you are trying to attack me individually and not the issue. You say I alluded to behavior which you pointed out to be irresponsible. Furthermore, do you condone keeping the list of lakes hush-hush? I just want some clarification in respect to your opinion on these issues.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by rlown »

So we can talk about fish removal all day, but I don't think removing fish is the answer, especially when we have countless examples current and historic where fish...and even big fish co-exist with MYLFs.
BadMan,

You some great stuff there. The important part is the frog/tadpoles gestation period where it spends time the the deeper part of the lake (where the fish would be) during the colder months. I'm thinking the MYLF scientists want pristene fish-free environments for their "experiments", and then we all can better decide where to remove the trout in favor of frog.

I dont think this is a huge sacrifice, IFF we pick basins that have stunted fish and good habitat. I'm more worried about trophy BK and others that several have generational history visiting these lakes.

I'm more worried that we haven't even looked at the Red Legged frog environments of Trinity and like areas.

Russ
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Back to fishies and froggies

Post by rlown »

Let me be real clear here. I'm not a big fan of "big fish" lake removal;even if they're non-native. There is a temporal timeframe here on what is natural. stocking has happened for a long, long time and maybe, i just happened to experience some of the best fishing of my life after they started. That being said, these fish still deserve to live, given they survived and thrived. We all kind of made this form of nature, and i dont want to see it turned back to just after the glaciers formed, otherwise, i'd have to take out all the roads as well and make everyone hike up to enjoy yosemite. And yes, i would hike it.

I think the more we identify what we all want removed or saved, the better off we'll be. dink lakes can go.. There are always trade-offs..

Russ
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests