High Sierra Topix

ok. to be fair. Inyo/Mono knows the basins. Curtis Milliron did the surveys there. He knows where to cull and reestablish. He's hence moved to district 1 as far as i know but laid the groundwork for Inyo as he was in Bishop.

They won't take all your lakes. The question is, which lakes will they take? Some they don't plant anymore. Some they may.

If there's a brookie in the lake, it is a target. Golden, maybe not so much. They are somewhat protected, but not restocked so much.

Frogs rule as they're listed. Fight it however you want. Just don't complain about it here. we've been talking about it since at least 2007.

For those that would like to learn what exactly Critical Habitat designation does, here's a very informative webpage

What came immediately to my attention was the following:

Myths & Realities
If critical habitat is designated, does that mean no further development can occur?
No. A critical habitat designation does not necessarily restrict further development. It is a reminder to Federal agencies that they must make special efforts to protect the important characteristics of these areas.

Does a critical habitat designation affect all activities that occur within the designated area?
No. Only activities that involve a Federal permit, license, or funding, and are likely to destroy or adversely modify the area of critical habitat will be affected. If this is the case, we will work with the Federal agency and, where appropriate, private or other landowners to amend their project to allow it to proceed without adversely affecting the critical habitat. Thus, most Federal projects are likely to go forward, but some will be modified to minimize harm to critical habitat.

That little sidebox in the above referenced website is agency PC speak.

In reality, the usual litigants will use the designation as another wedge to block any proposed activity, no matter how benign.

TehipiteTom wrote:I have zero problem with any of this.

Even if it doesn't address the cause nor the solution to the problem?

I personally am not willing to cede that much more control and power of our resources to entities with idealogical agendas

For those of you that would like to know more about this government plot to cede the Sierra over to environmentalists that are going to keep us all from going there, here is what Critical Habitat designation does or more importantly, doesn't do.



resized I already posted that......

John,

I can hardly wait until you're back on the trail! Way too much time on your hands in the front country.

Same battles, same litigants. It just impacts timeline to development. Also note that the environmentalists need permits to study species in such a zone. Somehow the CBD doesn't do lawsuits against the researchers. go figure.

rlown wrote:John,I can hardly wait until you're back on the trail! Way too much time on your hands in the front country.

LOL, the foot is almost better!!

I did the unfortunate thing of looking at the maps before reading and letting it sink in.

I think the scariest thing is the magnitude of the combined areas and the quality of those areas for things like................fishing. But I suppose if they intend to do some sampling in each drainage, say, they might increase their knowledge base or hopefully find some stocks that have developed resistance to the disease. Me thinks there are plenty of off the beaten path lakes that would make great study cases. Maybe certain lakes could receive better fish management in return. I like to think positive.

Maybe I missed it, but it sure would be nice to see a summary of plan of action to accomplish their protection goals once the areas are established. I did read the generalized statement about logging, grazing, gill netting, etc.

Flux wrote: Maybe I missed it, but it sure would be nice to see a summary of plan of action to accomplish their protection goals once the areas are established. I did read the generalized statement about logging, grazing, gill netting, etc.

I know some refuse to see this as ceding power and control of a resource to a group with little over site and instead they would rather paint the rest of us a scare mongering but it seems to me that the public has gone through this before with the spotted owl. As to a plan, they don't need a plan yet. They give you details after you give them control.

USFW proposal wrote:Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means to use and
the use of all methods and procedures
that are necessary to bring an
endangered or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary.

Any and all methods and procedures sounds pretty open-ended.

Under the second prong of the Act’s
definition of critical habitat, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographic area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species

1.1 million acres isn't the max limit.

Here is thought, why not start with a small area to "experiment on?" If they are successful, they can legally expand whenever and where ever they want.


Link to proposal:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04 ... -09598.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder why "Disease" is not listed as a threat in the identified habitats tables??

I gotta scan through the document to see where it talks about disease.