High Sierra Topix

longri wrote:Question for the fisherman:

Would you support the reinstitution of lake stocking in the High Sierra wilderness areas?

According to this, it's happening: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx ... 004&inline Whether it is accurate is the question though. I recently fished one lake on the list, said to have been planted with golden's in 2015, and only caught brook trout.

I think more important for most fishermen would be a up to date online database of all fishless lakes and those lakes up for fish removal, something I believe the DFW and/or the National Parks has a obligation to provide. My wife and I plan backpacking trips based on fishing certain lakes, streams or species of trout, something I will assume others also do. Only sources I have seen that list fishless lakes and streams are the Eastern Sierra guide, Steven Ojai's site and the list GB has put together. It would be a bummer to do research, find out an area has a specific species or known for large trout, plan a trip, hike in, only to find the area is now fishless.

And I would say that is the "fear" most fishermen have. They fear that their favorite hole or trophy fishing spot would become fishless if a little frog was also found to be a resident there.

That's interesting about the stocking. I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that it had ceased in the wilderness. Maybe that's only true for National Parks. I wonder, are the fish being flown in? I haven't read any reports of people seeing lakes bombed with tiny fish as in the old days. You'd think it would be witnessed and commented on in the social media.

This interactive map also indicates recent stocking in wilderness lakes -- e.g. Chickenfoot Lake in Little Lakes Valley (John Muir Wilderness).

https://map.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/


I don't doubt that fisherman fear loss of fishing terrain. But there needs to be some sort of balance and right now it is very out of balance. Any change toward balance would be a loss, hence the fear.

Fisherman don't want a natural environment any more than most backpackers want a natural environment. Most of us want a nice park to play in that looks and feels natural. Land managers know this but also have a duty to protect the environment. So there has to be compromise, but when there's fear and distrust that's hard to arrange.

All this talk about "natural environment", I would like to see an accepted definition. If you mean NO impact of man, then we are talking about tens of thousands of years ago or more. Man IS a part of the natural environment! We may have over-populated and have more influence than is healthy for the environment, but we are a part. In fact, philosophies that include man as a part of nature, not above nature, tend to make their believers more inclined to care about and preserve an ecological balance. Perhaps a better term than "natural" would be "ecologically balanced" that includes a place for humans.

It is arrogant to say most backpackers do not want a natural environment. All want more nature and less human development, otherwise why even backpack. Each person has his own threshold of wildness that for him or her, defines the wilderness experience. Same goes for fishermen. Most backcountry fishermen do it specifically because they want to fish in a wilderness environment and catch something other than fish just released from a hatchery. For example, I can fish in a city- I just have to buy some different gear and walk half a mile on a paved street down to the American River and catch fish. I may just do that some day. But for now, I prefer to fish in remote wilderness areas. Same as some photographers prefer to capture scenes in remote areas, although I have heard that Ansel Adams said his best photos were no more than a mile off a road.

The Wilderness Act (WA) is perhaps the closest things I can think of as a definition, but it ends up being tautological and open to interpretation. The WA is certainly not strictly adhered to in any case. Is fish stocking consistent with the WA? I'll bet some interesting legal gymnastics were necessary to justify that.

I should have prefaced my statement about what I think most backpackers want with an appropriate disclaimer so that you wouldn't find it arrogant. It's my opinion, based on observations and conversations. It's no more or less arrogant than your statement that most backpackers want "more nature". More than what?

To say that man is part of nature is stating the obvious. But it's also a clever way to skirt the question. If all things touched by man are natural than the word has no meaning and we don't have to worry about preserving nature anymore. Why would a backpacker want more of something that they can find at home?

I think that most people know what it means most of the time. There is a general consensus. How much we want to try and keep things a certain way is the tough question. We can't go back in time; it's impossible. Things change. But I don't think that should be a blank check for just doing anything.

By more "natural", less developed is generally implied but exactly what that "less" means is different depending on upbringing, experiences and culture. Sorry I did not state that before.

All backpackers want and need access to wild places. For me that means public land that is protected from development, but I need to be able to get to it! I do not necessarily need trails or signs but a good trail to quickly get into the more remote areas sure is nice. Most backpackers likely want trails, signs, GPS technology, even though those things are "unnatural". That does not mean they do not want natural. They simply have not developed the skills to get to wild places without those things. Understandably, they are somewhat uncomfortable in nature so want some "things" that make them feel safe, which is what you expect for someone who has grown up in an urban area. Most backpackers (except we old farts) are addicted to electronic devices; perhaps with time in the wilderness they can wean themselves from these. You or I may see all these crutches as incompatible with nature, but it is all a matter of degree. I certainly do not want to be dropped into the wilds of Alaska with grizzly bears, naked to fend for myself either! I simply have developed the skills to do without more of the civilized trappings than the average backpacker.

Saying that man is a part of nature is not skirting the issue nor an excuse to mow over everything. Contrarily, if you are a part of nature (not superior to and dominant over nature, as some sects of religions profess) then you realize that your place is intertwined and dependent on all of nature; you understand the need for balance.

Back to frogs and fish. I would say that most backpackers want BOTH. Most of us are not ecologists, so perhaps ignorantly see fish as wild and that they belong in a lake, simply because they are already there. More fish; more nature. Get to a lake with frogs- we love the frogs too!! More frogs; more nature. I do not see planted fish as less of nature than the native fish (as defined at what was there at an arbitrary point in time). I do agree that fish eat frogs so we cannot have our cake and eat it too unless we separate the fish and frogs. But how many frogs? How many fish? Who decides? I am simply not in favor of having it all frogs, just because the "high Sierra" happened to be barren of fish in the early 1800's. I see nothing wrong with establishing and sustaining a fishery in high lakes (for the purpose of fishing) where they do not wipe out frogs.

Always wondered. If you put frogs back into an ecosystem that has not had frogs for a few hundred years, is not the frog also a non-native (with respect to the current ecosystem balance)? Could that upset the system and cause other creatures to die? Or the frogs to over-populate due to no current "natural" predators? Granted, stocking fish that wiped out frogs was not that good of an idea, but does "re-stocking" frogs create a similar problem? Or do they just get rid of fish and hope frogs return?

I've seen fish/frog coexist in lakes (fingerbowl) Brookies and the tadpoles.

I just want transparency in the plans.. Don't surprise me, again.

Wandering Daisy wrote:If you put frogs back into an ecosystem that has not had frogs for a few hundred years, is not the frog also a non-native (with respect to the current ecosystem balance)? Could that upset the system and cause other creatures to die? Or the frogs to over-populate due to no current "natural" predators? Granted, stocking fish that wiped out frogs was not that good of an idea, but does "re-stocking" frogs create a similar problem? Or do they just get rid of fish and hope frogs return?

I can't answer those questions but I understand the concern that the "set point" for the ecology may have changed irreversibly.

It's complicated. The idea that there are fish and there are frogs ignores the many other species (including native fish) that have been affected by the introduction of non-native fish. Some of those species may be gone forever, some may be able to recover. The secondary effects on birds and snakes might take a long time to reverse, if reversal is even possible.

It's always a tricky thing meddling with nature even when intentions are pure. Humans have screwed it up so many times, often through outright ignorance, but also through well-meaning ignorance of the whole picture. I don't know what the best thing to do is except to move slowly and carefully. But I think using uncertainty as an excuse to leave it all alone is also a mistake. We'll never be 100% certain. Something in between, I think, is a better path.

One thing's for sure: removing all the fish is a fantasy of extremists. That's not practical for a number of reasons and isn't desirable in the minds of the vast majority of people either. Given where we are now, a fishless High Sierra would be a tragedy.

Attached is a simple map of where the fish are (or are not) in SEKI. I have completed 3 trips in the last five years fishing the Kern headwaters and have not been disappointed with using this map as my guide. Not sure of Yosemite has a similar map or not. As a fisherman, I am okay with the removal of stunted or overpopulated fish in shallow lakes and giving the frogs a chance, which seems to be the strategy in the upper Kern. If the lakes become overfished, then that's it so the fishing public will have to practice some self restraint when visiting these waters within the NP.

nice map. Yose has a map, but it's evidently super secret and we're not allowed to see it. My encounter with the last permit check-in at Yose was actually nice. I asked outright about frogs and she answered "the only lake undergoing restoration at this point was Budd Lk." I take her to be honest, but the last encounter with "Carol" wasn't so straight forward.

Years ago, I used to believe that in order to achieve anything, one had to start at the extreme end of desire, then work toward a balance somewhere in the middle. It seems to be the established approach. Unfortunately, what it tends to leave in it’s wake is an unshakable distrust for the “other side” that overshadows any future negotiation. Maybe that’s just the nature of the beast. It seems many would rather smash horns against each other; winner takes all.

Do anglers have a valid concern regarding the fishery? Certainly! Do environmentalists have a valid concern regarding the ecosystem? Certainly! It seems many of us are in both camps. Now, I don’t pretend to know what “most” of any group thinks or supports, but what I do see are participants in this thread perfectly willing to support both a healthy fishery and a healthy ecosystem (frogs, in this instance). So where is the disconnect?

Personally, I believe the word “fear” is a bit hyperbolic when it comes to the issue, but maybe there is a valid “fear” as well. One that many of us share. The horn smashers!