Hey all....back from Lee Vining. Good times as always, and civil sounds like the way to be in 2009
!
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.
