- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
The North Cascades National Park has posted a summary of comments received during the scoping process of the EIS concerning continued fish stocking in high lakes in the park. It is a very interesting read and gives a good flavor of the variety of opinions there are concerning fish stocking in high lakes.^^^^There will be another comment period once the EIS is completed. I encourage everyone who cares to get involved in the process. I will post updates here as each step is completed. This EIS has the potential to set precedent for fish stocking policies that extend far beyond the NCNP so it is a very important issue.^^^^http://www.nps.gov/noca/FinalScopingReport060503.pdf
-
“That certainly was an interesting read. All sides make some good points.^^^^I guess I just don't much understand the true origin of the opposing beliefs. There are fishless lakes for biologists to study. How much do fish in a lake really impact the ecosystem? I would imagine it's somewhat significant, but is it really that adverse? ^^^^I strongly believe that the enjoyment of the general public experienced by fishing lakes like these far exceeds any enjoyment or satisfaction that can be extracted from hardcore biological study on an ecosystem that's ever-changing anyway. ^^^^And what's really important in life? The fish aren't hurting anything significantly, in most all cases, while generations are and will be continuing to enjoy the opportunity to fish in such a pristine setting. Sounds fine to me.^^^^”If it ain't broken, don't fix it.”^^^^At least thats what I think…”
-
“The question of how much fish impact the high lake environment is a good one. There has been a lot of recent research on the subject. The science section of this site has links to an extensive study in the NCNP. Basically, they could find no significant impact by fish in low densities. Fish in high densities, where they are naturally over-reproducing, or are over stocked, can impact the long-toed salamander. These finding dovetail nicely with WDFW stocking practices. Their emphasis in high lakes is on low densities of fish and they are searching for effective ways of controlling spawning populations.^^^^There has been a lot of press about impacts of introduced trout on endangered mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierras of California. This is a legitimate problem that stems from over stocking of lakes by California Fish and Game and the life history of that particular frog that puts it at particular risk. The MYL frog depends on large deep lakes where it spends up to 4 years as a tadpole. This is in direct contrast to the situation here where the long-toed salamander, common throughout its range, prefers shallow water habitat that is often not even suitable for fish.^^^^There was some research on Idaho in which they failed to see salamanders in lakes with fish. So they did an experiment where they stocked several ponds with fish to determine exactly what impact they had. They could find no impact from the introduced fish and this left the researchers stumped. They didn't see it, but the answer was only as far away as the Idaho Fish and Games stocking records. The lakes in the region were being severely over stocked and the massive quantities of fish were stressing the fauna of the lakes in which they were stocked. ^^^^Carefully managed low stocking rates allow us to stock fish for recreation while retaining the full range of native species in the lake.^^^^Many people against fish stocking feel that no fish should be introduced into park (or wilderness) lakes just because they have an impact, no matter how minor. I find it interesting that many of those same people are blind to other impacts in parks and wilderness areas. Trails are the best example. Trails have an impact in wilderness. If they want zero impact on wilderness then, to be consistent, they have to be against trails, too. Well built trails are built and maintained to minimize impacts while supporting recreation. Just like lakes are stocked to minimize impacts while supporting recreation. In almost every discussion of fish stocking in wilderness I've ever seen you can substitute trails for fish and almost everything still applies, from either side of the respective issues.^^^^Everything we do has an impact on wilderness. Just by visiting we have an impact. We need to decide which impacts are worth the benefit and which ones are too destructive. IMO, carefully managed fish stocking is a huge benefit with little impact that should continue.”
-
Very much agree. As I mentioned here a few years ago when this forum went up, there are ospreys in the Chiwaukum Lakes area SE of Stevens Pass. They are also found up in the Nada and Snow Lakes area up the Icicle. They would not be there without the fish stocking. But while I have raised this issue before, you never hear about stocking as being beneficial to wildlife. Stocking has done many good things and not just for people.
In my opinon, there are many wetlands that will not support fish. So much so (shallow lakes, marshes, wet meadows and ponds) that they represent a sustainable network of wetlands. In fact, the majority of wetland species are dependent not upon open water, but the shallow and ocassionally flooded riparian around the shores. If you look at ANY drainage, the quantity of riparian around the shores of the lakes that support fish represent far less than 1 percent of the total riparian in the drainage (along BOTH sides of streams, the entire flooded area of wet meadows, willow bottoms, marshes, and the many, many, many springs and small creeks all of which add up to hundreds of miles of riparian in any one drainage. Most amphibians spend the majority of their life not in open water but in moist terrestrial environments. Many salamanders spend a great deal of their time under logs in deep forest.
To say that the loss of habitat in 1% is significant while the other 99% continues to exist is assinine in many cases.
If you walk along any of our mountain trails, you will cross tiny small springs and creeks. Take a walk up some of those sometime. You will find small wet meadows and ponds scattered their entire length. In fact, you will find more riparian and wetland habitat along any one of those numerous creeks than you will around the large lake at the end of the trail.
I do know, Brian, that you mentioned this deep water frog before. And I am sure there are a few other species that have adapted to deep water conditions. But again, the whole problem with environmentalism (verses ecology) is that environmentalism promotes at a species level rather than an overall ecology. When you go by a species by species basis, you soon have the whole map covered such that humanity comes to a complete stop. That is not to say that I am against protecting these critters. I am for protecting them as most of us are. But it is rather idiotic to be so concerned about fish in high lakes when it is acid rain and global warming that are resulting in major declines of ALL our amphibians. It is like an emergency room where the the nurses are fighting over who lost the 1″ bandaids in their concern for treating a few small lacerations – while the patient is having a heart attack.
Environmentalists act on impulse without triage. Environmentalism is NOT a professional discipline or field. It is a movement. Nothing more. Ecology is where the science is. And unfortunately, our federal managers are largely environmentalists rather than ecologists.
Overpopulation is another. And until we address these larger and more important issue, these little nit-picking wars are only rubbing salt into the wounds we are all feeling. And the animosity it creates among all the groups is such that we end up shooting each other in the foot.
And none of us then can enjoy our hiking.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.