Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Techniccally, Hilt creek crosses the Illabot road in more than one place. Given the mileage quoted, I assume this the crossing at about 2200′, right?
..
….missing from the interview is that all we are talking is less than 20 percent of the NCNP lakes.
I agree. That’s another thing I wish I had said.
P.S. I’ve suggested that KUOW do a longer live re-match in a debate format — perhaps with a more knowledgable person from the other side such as someone from NCCC. We’ll see if they are interested enough to pursue it.
Thanks all.
It’s pretty hard to think straight when you only have 5 minutes (and as many folks know….talking short is NOT my forte :)).
I thought I did pretty well, and did what had to be done, but I do regret one omission. After the UW biologist Daniel Schindler spoke, I should have stated that Mr Schindler might be correct in some contexts, but not in this NCNP situation since his comments were based on effects of high density, reproducing fish populations whereas in the NCNP case we are talking about low density, non-reproducing populations (where the effects he mentioned do not occur). That would have better connected his comments to mine instead of it seeming that there was just 2 different opinions of the same thing.
Clearly, Mr Schindler does not well understand the NCNP situation. His comments are the typical ones we get from biologists who have not educated themselves on the NCNP situation (specifically as documented in the EIS), but rather simply apply what they’ve read regarding studies done in such places as the high Sierra where distinctions of fish population density are not clearly drawn. It would have been better if KUOW had used a WDFW or NCNP biologist familar with the NCNP situation.
One quick note for clarification……
No one can legally decide to stock a high lake (assuming it is not on private land — which no lake we might care about is) except the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) biologist in charge of that area. So if “someone” decided to stock a high lake again, such a request would have to be presented to the appropriate WDFW biologist at some point for final determination. Stocking lakes without WDFW authorization is illegal.
…..lots of blue spots on maps and a summer that should cooperate with exploring.
You just answered your own question!
There remains an unforunate bias in Knapp’s work (and in the work of some others) — a bias that derives from their belief that fish stocking is harmful to other biota in an alpine lake. I can speculate as to how this bias came to be; namely, that early research did NOT properly distinguish btwn low density fish populations and high density. Since the majority of stocked lakes were first stocked decades ago (even more than 100 years ago in many cases) before it was understood that stocking in low densities prevents harm to the lake, most stocked alpine lakes today have high density populations. Therefore, if you look at data for all lakes without taking density seriously (as was the case in most early research), the data seemed to indicate that the stocking of fish was harmful. However, in the last 15-20 years we’ve come to realize that there is no harm done to the lake as long as population densities remain low. In addition, the best way to keep densities low seems to be to stock with non-reproducing fish (with the exception of a very few lakes were reproducing fish do not over-reproduce).
Even today Knapp and others don’t emphasize this density distinction as they should. For example , in the paper Knapp wrote which Brian refers to above, Knapp mentions that density impacts the data, but he never really spells out the extent to which density skews the data, nor does he make clear that the damage he reports does not exist in low density lakes.
Frankly, I find his work misleading, and it will remain misleading until he properly, totally, and scientifically accounts for differences in fish density in his data. I suspect he is relunctant to do so since it might be embarrassing to admit that his past conclusions did not sufficiently take into account this issue of low and high density populations. (Note that researchers Liss and Larson made this same mistake in their research until we pointed out the problem to them 10 years ago and they decided to add a follow on phase to their research (phase III — which indeed did bear out the conclusion that low density populations do not harm lakes).
Excellent summary Brian.
One of the most difficult issues to deal with has been this disconnect between what is intuitive and what is good ecological management actions. It just doesn’t “make sense” to folks to discover that continuous fish stocking with non-reproducing fry is actually a more eco-friendly management plan compared to the more intuitive idea that the best of all worlds would be to stock once and allow natural reproduction to re-populate the fishery.
The idea that self-sustaining populations is a good thing when it is actually a bad thing has been one our biggest problems to deal with since it is so natural for folks to assume that self-sustaining populations are a good thing. Once one educates oneself on the biological science, suddenly a light bulb turns on and you realize why continuous periodic stocking with non-reproducing fish is the environmentally sound way to go if you are to have a fishery at all.
Hans,
I don’t think “steaming turds” are a scientific requirement 😉 . I know that scientists study scat found in caves and other locations of both animals and humans that are sometimes tens of thousands of years old. Apparently lots can still be learned from ancient scat beyond just DNA — especially when tools like the electron microscopes are used.
You’re right of course, I could not tell old human scat, from an old wolf scat, or from an old Bigfoot scat, but surely the scientists can. I have no doubt whatsoever that a trained scientist could determine that a Bigfoot scat was not from any known animal that lives in our woods no matter how old it was (especially if various tests and tools were used in the lab).
@Hans Helm wrote:
Hey Sandy, you forgot about me, didn’t you? 🙂
I hope not! 😉
As far as I know even you, who has studied these “sightings” for years, have yet to find a Bigfoot turd and have it analyzed by a scientific lab. In fact, I’d be interested….how does an expert like you explain the fact that Bigfoot scat has never been found (and analyized to be authentic)? Where do all these turds go??
If anyone is truly interested in how this situation can be turned around, read my post of Aug 21 2008 10:13 am at:
(you will have to scroll down a bit to see this particular post). It is a short summary of what I think the status is (it’s a bit out of date now however), and what YOU can do about it.
P.S. There is lots you can say about this issue (and as I read various accounts and blogs on the issue, I am amazed at the amount of mis-information and speculation that folks seem to be willing to spread), but the bottom line determining this situation today is that the “culprit” is the National Park Service (NPS). It spent millions of dollars and decades of time studying this situation, produced a 1000 page EIS report, chose a preferred alternative (B) which would allow fish stocking to continue, artificially created this need for Congress to pass a bill that would “clarify” that fish stocking was an acceptable park management action (note that apparently such clarification from Congress has not been required for the NPS to build trails, build bridges, create designated campsites, install steel fire rings, etc, etc), and THEN when citizen action actually resulted in a bill (HR 3227) getting a hearing in the 2008 Congress, the NPS suddenly refused to support the very bill they had requested! The NPS is the problem, and the only organization with enough clout in Washington DC to perhaps undo this damage is the Governor’s office and the Fish and Wildlife agency in the state of Washington. So far the state has been very ineffective at saving this fishery.
P.P.S. I have been working for months with the AP to get this nationally distributed article done. It’s pretty good and accurate (altho it features me a bit too much, but I’m the only person they knew). My only disappointment is that it does not sufficently highlight the NPS’s “Benedict Arnold” shenanigans surrounding the bill in Congress (they don’t allow interviewees to see the article before publication).
I can’t explain the sounds that folks hear in the woods, or other unusual events, but a very smart ex-Trail Blazer once made the following observation…..and ever since then I have NO doubt that these events are NOT the result of some strange creature.
His observation:
If a strange animal does exist in our woods as evidenced by strange sounds, rock throwing, or other “unexplainable” events, and even if it may be difficult to document a sighting of one of these creatures, how does one explain that NO ONE has ever found and had analyzed the scat of such a mythical creature?? Either the creatures don’t exist or they are very neat indeed since they must pick up their turds and store them away in inaccessable places.
Note that there are 2 sections of sub-forums. One (this one) is open to the public at large. The other is for members only.
Here are 2 links that are very useful for this sort of thing (including the one Andy mentioned):
Here is the one Andy supplied, but the highlighting of link text on this board is hard to see so you might have missed it:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/road_conditions_report.shtml
P.S. I wonder if the color for link text is configurable such that link text could be more easily seen (something along the lines of bright blue)
I thought I was going to go xc skiing over at Lake Keechelus tomorrow, but the point forecast for the area predicts -5 degrees F with wind chill. Hmm, maybe not….
I’m sure you are aware of this Allison, but this wind chill thing is SO misleading. I wish weather forecasters would stop quoting it. Most people don’t seem to realize that wind doesn’t change the air temperature one iota. Wind chill really tells you nothing unless you stand outside totally naked (exposure to frost bite). Other than that all wind chill tells you is that the more wind there is the more clothes you need (that’s even true in dead summer).
