Thanks for posting this.

The question is, what will CBD go after if the yellow-leg frog is listed?

Will they only go after trout stocking in locations where yellow-leg frogs are present today? What about historical presence?

What about trout stocking in general, eg warm water fisheries where yellow-leg frog was never present.

I see Jeff Miller is the one working the issue. Jeff is also head of Alameda Creek Alliance, same organization that got Alameda Creek closed to all fishing including Shadow Cliffs Back Ponds.

But Jeff was also very reasonable about getting those ponds re-opened and went so far as to send a letter to DFG Commission in support of reopening the ponds.

So I would not view this listing as the sky is falling necessarily. I'll try and call Jeff soon to get an understanding as far as what they are after with regards to the listing.

If they are only interested in stopping trout stocking for locations with historic yellow-leg frog populations where trout are the competing apex predator, I don't have a huge problem with that.

If they're after trout stocking at warm water reservoirs where trout are the infinitesimal factor in frog population decline, then I would have a problem

Generally, when I read the CBD press release which attributes yellow-leg frog population decline to stocked trout as the primary cause, I cringe because that logic has to be flawed. Trout stocks have not increased significantly at high-sierra locations in recent times. So to say that suddenly yellow leg frog populations are down because of trout stocking is probably not correct attribution of the problem.

The factual data that should be presented (but is not in the CBD press release) is a comparison of stocking data against frog populations.