- This topic has 20 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
I just got my copy today and I haven’t had a chance to open it yet. We have 90 days to comment on this and it is extremely important everyone get comments in. This process may well have implications that reach well beyond the park and I strongly urge anyone with any interest in high lake fishing to get involved.
I’ll have more to say when I’ve had a chance to read it. So far, they don’t have it available on the web. Here’s the link to the North Cascades National Park page. There is a ton of background information available there.
-
I got my copy from my grandmother, who is a State senator. She is letting me borrow it before she reads through it. I really believe that more people need to be informed on this subject, it is very important to get the information out to people.
Matt
-
-
-
This topic is extremely interesting because the history here (from what I read on the link Brian provided) contrasts greatly with what went on in Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks. It would appear that anglers in Washington have (thankfully) much more clout than in California where it seems we have little influence on decision making, in spite of vigorous efforts (and strong advocacy from the Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game).
The California perspective may give you an idea of how the “worst case scenario” will affect fishing. For all intents and purposes stocking was phased out in CA NP’s in the 70’s with only a few lakes (ie can count them on your fingers) being stocked after that–I think the very last stocking occurred in 1991 or something like that. There were hundreds of lakes that were affected. The losses in terms of fish-bearing lakes varied by region and according to whether the stocked species were brookies or not. I don’t know much about Lassen because I’ve never fished there, but what I hear is that because there are few running inlets and outlets to the lakes there, that very few Lassen lakes currently have fish. Yosemite has fared somewhat better, although I think the numbers I’ve seen indicate a huge hit. One book states that 108 of the 318 “major” lakes in the Park are self sustaining. First I suspect that some of the 318 did not contain fish during the stocked era–I’ve visited several drainages that appeared to have good spawning potential but no fish and concluded that those areas probably were never stocked. Second, I think the 108 slightly underestimates the number of fish-bearing lakes (by fifteen or more). Be that as it may, I suspect the losses after stocking cessation were probably approaching 50% of the lakes. The losses have been most severe in parts of northern Yosemite where fisheries where the stocked species were almost exclusively rainbows and spawning was not adequate in a majority of the lakes. Many of the N. Yosemite fisheries that were lost were legends that were said to produce fish in the 20″+ range. Now a 50% hit is pretty harsh, but 110+ lakes with fish still gives us lots of good places to after. I still see Yosemite as a fine place to fish. Sequoia-Kings Canyon seems to have done better still. I haven’t seen any numbers on the before and after, but my impression is that losses have been well under 50% (if I had to guess, I’d say closer to 30%). The number of fish-bearing lakes in SeKi seems beyond counting–there are just so many. In the central and southern Sierra (S-KCNP and Yosemite and areas between and flanking them) I actually prefer fishing in the National Parks rather in the flanking areas that were, up to very recently, air dropped regularly. Part of this is that I think some of the stocking in the central and southern Sierra erred on the side of overstocking, so that I’ve found more big fish lakes in the National Parks than in the flanking areas.
There are, of course, huge management changes afoot in high lakes outside of National Parks (ie National Forest land, wilderness or otherwise) in the Sierra Nevada. Significant cut backs in air dropping are in the works for most of these areas as a result of efforts to protect Mountain Yellow Legged frogs. I haven’t seen the latest management plans, but Desolation Wilderness, one area I’m familiar with has ceased air dropping in the entire western part (this is something like 1/4-1/3 of the lakes) and it appears reduced stocking dramatically in the remaining part of the wilderness. There have been some well publicized fish kills from gillnetting in other non-NP areas (and two fish kills within Kings Canyon), but the number of lakes affected from actual fish kills is small. The overall affect from my fishing perspective is that in the non NP areas we will lose some fisheries, but not quite as much as in the NP’s because the stocking is not totally terminated. The reductions in amounts of stocking will mean loss of some lakes but also mean more lakes with large fish. The affect in the National Parks, as noted above, has been harsh, but, Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon are still very nice places to go fish (Lassen is all but written off).
In any case, I wish all high lake anglers of Washington the best of luck. I hope you do better than we have.
-
For all intents and purposes stocking was phased out in CA NP’s in the 70’s with only a few lakes being stocked after that…….There were hundreds of lakes that were affected.
Today’s understanding of how to manage a high lake fishery in a manner that best preserves the ecosystem includes a subtle, but vital, change in point of view.
Implied in the very reasonable stmt above, and certainly in the dialogue that occurred in 1968 when the NCNP was formed, and to some extent even now in this EIS, is that fish stocking is LESS desirable than self-sustaining trout populations. We have learned that this is not true (see Liss & Larson study — which is not quoted as well as it should have been in the EIS). In high lakes, self-sustaining populations often (but not always) over-reproduce causing over-grazing of the food supply (invertebrates, salamanders, etc). What is often missed, even now, is that what you want is that high lakes, without a naturally occurring trout population, do NOT reproduce (with rare exceptions). A lake that does not have a self sustaining population can then be stocked with a species that can’t reproduce (sterile fish let’s say). This gives you full control over managing the population of fish in the lake such that it does NOT harm the ecosystem.
Many opponents of fish stocking miss this vital point because it is not intuitive. IOW, those who most care that high lake ecosystems are protected ought EMBRACE properly managed fish stocking rather than opposing it.
-
BTW, the title of this thread is misleading.
I presume the OP’er is referring to the North Cascades Nat’l Park EIS on fish stocking that was just released by the Park Service. Note that there is ANOTHER document written several months ago by the Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) entitled “North Cascades National Park High Lakes Fishery Management” (to see click the title, or go to the TB’er website under “Issues”) which is very close to a true management plan that the subject of this thread suggests. The EIS is NOT a management plan altho there are many components in it that could be used in a management plan.
DO NOT CONFUSE THESE 2 DOCUMENTS.
-
smckean raises a good point and one that is very interesting in the history of fish stocking in the NCNP. During the seventies and eighties when the park was trying hard to eliminate fish stocking their idea was to allow reproducing fish to remain to provide a high lakes fishery. Trail Blazers, Hi-Lakers and the then Dept of Game responded very negatively to this. Now our position has been vindicated by the Liss and Larson research. The park had it exactly backwards and what should continue, for maximum biological integrity, is low density stocking while the high density spawning fish should be removed or reduced.
What drove the Park Service to discontinue stocking in national parks was the Leopold Report in 1973. Trail Blazers were particularly upset because we had specifically asked about fish stocking during the hearings prior to creation of the park and had been assured stocking would continue. That’s one of the primary reasons we are where we are today with the NCNP. Like the national parks in CA fish stocking was ended in Mt Rainier and Olympic National Parks in the early seventies and we have no recourse there. You can read more on the historical case for fish stocking in the NCNP and the Trail Blazers’ initial response during the EIS scoping process here.
-
@smckean wrote:
BTW, the title of this thread is misleading.
I presume the OP’er is referring to the North Cascades Nat’l Park EIS on fish stocking that was just released by the Park Service. Note that there is ANOTHER document written several months ago by the Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) entitled “North Cascades National Park High Lakes Fishery Management” (it can be found on the TB’er website) which is very close to a true management plan that the subject of this thread suggests. The EIS is NOT a management plan altho there are many components in it that could be used in a management plan.
DO NOT CONFUSE THESE 2 DOCUMENTS.
The EIS is also the proposed management plan and it titled “North Cascades National Park Service Complex Draft Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.” and from the first page “Upon conclusion of the plan/EIS and decision-making process, one of the four alternatives would become the ‘Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan’ and guide future actions for a period of 15 years.”
-
I stand corrected. The EIS does include the words used for the subject of this thread.
None the less, I am still concerned that folks might confuse the 2 documents I mentioned.
Also altho Brian is 90% correct in his stmt that one of the alternatives would become the basis of a true management plan, it is a mistake to think that once the “Record of Decision” (ROD) is done for this EIS (not expected until the end of 2006) that the process is over — even if the ROD is for the Preferred Alternative in the EIS (Alternative B). Such a true plan would still need to be formulated by the NCNP and approved before it could go into execution (altho the vast majority of the biological work would already be done in the EIS).
In addition to the quote Brian gave, the very next paragraph states:
“This plan/EIS is mostly programmatic in nature, which means it provides a framework for taking a range of management actions. Some actions would require additional, more site specific analysis before they could be implemented. If additional analysis were required, environmental compliance, including an opportunity for public comment, would be required.”
The key word is “framework”. If you decode this, it is a loophole thru which anti-stockers could drive a MAC truck — altho I think it unlikely. The NPS is already suggesting that the Liss & Larson study that occurred over 15 years and costs $1MM may not have discovered all impacts on lakes. If the ROD goes for Alt B, we are 80% of the way home, but don’t think the war would then be won.
-
-
-
To tell you the truth I have just started to read it, I got it yesterday. It will probably take me a little while to read through it because I am in college and I have finals week next week, so things are getting a little hectic. I really have not formed an opinion yet, because I have just started to read it. But so far I have to say that it is all very interesting. I am still reading through the first option. When I read on further I will share my thoughts on the whole thing.
Matt
-
The NCNP has updated their EIS page. As of this writing the changes appear to be partially in place and the link to the actual EIS isn’t up yet. But they have posted the schedule for the public meetings. I’ll post that at the top of a new thread so it doesn’t get buried in the thread.
-
@smckean wrote:
Implied in the very reasonable stmt above, and certainly in the dialogue that occurred in 1968 when the NCNP was formed, and to some extent even now in this EIS, is that fish stocking is LESS desirable than self-sustaining trout populations. We have learned that this is not true (see Liss & Larson study — which is not quoted as well as it should have been in the EIS). In high lakes, self-sustaining populations often (but not always) over-reproduce causing over-grazing of the food supply (invertebrates, salamanders, etc). What is often missed, even now, is that what you want is that high lakes, without a naturally occurring trout population, do NOT reproduce (with rare exceptions). A lake that does not have a self sustaining population can then be stocked with a species that can’t reproduce (sterile fish let’s say). This gives you full control over managing the population of fish in the lake such that it does NOT harm the ecosystem.
This is indeed a very reasonable and well supported concept that stocking opponents don’t seem to grasp, and it certainly is consistent with my observations of the self-sustaining fisheries on the Sierra Nevada NPs. Contrary to what many believe, brookies aren’t the only fish that overpopulate lakes (just the most common)–I’ve seen lots of self-sustaining golden and rainbow lakes that are overflowing with too many small fish. However, I think that we (ie stocking proponents, including DFG) in CA probably hurt our cause because, until the very latest rounds of management changes, stocked lakes were, on the average, overstocked (and they certainly were at the time when stocking was phased out in our NPs). This is why I seemed to observe a higher proportion of “premium” (ie large fish, lower population density) lakes in the NPs (ie self sustaining fisheries) than without in areas of equivalent elevation and exposure. I agree that limited stocking in lakes with no natural reproduction is promising approach but there are two questions I have regarding this general approach:
1. Depending on the area (and I’m not at all familiar with NC lakes) spawning potential (even excluding that for brookies and other chars) has proven to be better than thought in many lakes. Many lakes that folks 20 years ago thought did not support significant spawning have turned out to be self sustaining (the lakes in the CA NPs provide a good guide here). Thus, the percentage of lakes that fit the criteria of being manageable by stocking only may be well less than half the available lakes in some regions. Of course if the stocked fish are sterile, this is not an issue, provided one is starting with fishless lakes.
2. As a veteran high lake angler I target “premium” (big fish, low density) lakes and would benefit from a program that manages exclusively low density fisheries, but I believe the vast majority of folks who like fishing simply want to catch something. The average angler usually ends up getting frustrated at home run type lakes. If the majority of lakes in a given region are managed as low density lakes, isn’t this a rather elitist approach in terms of serving a very small percentage of high lake anglers–ie the very experienced ones such as those of us here? Perhaps this question stems from my lack of understanding of the big picture of what lakes will be left alone as self sustaining (if any) versus those that are proposed to be managed by stocking. -
@giantbrookie wrote:
1. Depending on the area (and I’m not at all familiar with NC lakes) spawning potential (even excluding that for brookies and other chars) has proven to be better than thought in many lakes. Many lakes that folks 20 years ago thought did not support significant spawning have turned out to be self sustaining (the lakes in the CA NPs provide a good guide here). Thus, the percentage of lakes that fit the criteria of being manageable by stocking only may be well less than half the available lakes in some regions. Of course if the stocked fish are sterile, this is not an issue, provided one is starting with fishless lakes.
The key is to use sterile fish. Or fish that have some issue that them poorly adapted for spawning in high lakes. I think the long term plan here in WA is to go to all sterile fish. In the mean time we are using Mount Whitney RB as our rainbow stock. It is a hatchery stock we got from CA in the early sixties and we haven’t been able to document a case yet where they are successfully spawning in high lakes. Where ever we have spawning RB they appear to have come from Kamloops stocks. The MWRB doesn’t seem to be a very long lived fish so we’d like to replace it, but we need a sterile stock before we can consider that. For CT we are using Twin Lakes CT which is a westslope CT that is extremely well adapted to high lakes and prone to overpopulating if it can see a piece of gravel on the hillside. They are only stocked where they have a track record of not reproducing. Westslope cutts are native to the east side of the Cascades so a strain of coastal CT called Tokul Creek cutthroat are used on the west side. They will spawn if gravel is available so, again, are limited to lakes with a history of successful CT stocking. EB are only used if they are sterile. We’re using Cottonwood Lakes goldens. Eggs are obtained from CA every year. Goldens have only established spawning populations in two lakes in the state so haven’t been a major problem.
Once we are using sterile fish the next step will be to eliminate or control naturally reproducing populations.
@giantbrookie wrote:
2. As a veteran high lake angler I target “premium” (big fish, low density) lakes and would benefit from a program that manages exclusively low density fisheries, but I believe the vast majority of folks who like fishing simply want to catch something. The average angler usually ends up getting frustrated at home run type lakes. If the majority of lakes in a given region are managed as low density lakes, isn’t this a rather elitist approach in terms of serving a very small percentage of high lake anglers–ie the very experienced ones such as those of us here? Perhaps this question stems from my lack of understanding of the big picture of what lakes will be left alone as self sustaining (if any) versus those that are proposed to be managed by stocking.
This is a fabulous question. You would probably enjoy reading this WDFW paper. It goes into great detail discussing how management decisions are made on high lakes here in WA and I think most of the concepts should apply to CA. This very point is raised. This has been an easy decision in past years because you could manage all stocked waters for blue ribbon fish and have plenty of stunted waters for quantity. But now we understand that stunted lakes are a bad situation ecologically and the question of quantity vs quality will have to be addressed on a lake by lake basis as we eliminate those stunted populations.
-
-
It really seems like folks in WA are ahead of the curve…..
We have been very lucky in this state to have had a very productive and informed relationship, which has existed for decades, btwn the state managers (the Dept of Fish and Wildlife) and the dedicated high lake fishing public (Trail Blazers and others). The “magic” of this relationship is that the fishery is guided by trained biologists (WDFW) who have access to data on a lake by lake basis that is gathered and organized by the volunteer citizens (TB’ers etc). No way the citizens could have done it without the professional training the biologists have; and no way the biologists could have done it without the 100+ citizens hiking hard to get to the lakes, taking measurements and doing surveys, and turning that data in to the bios.
I think we are unique among states in that regard. Certainly I know of no other state that manages the high lake fishery on a lake by lake basis. There is just no way the fish managers could have a unique plan for each lake without the volunteers gathering and processing the data. (BTW, Brian is a BIG part of that process.)
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.