According to the DFG website, "The Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, represented by Stanford Law students sued DFG over fish stocking programs it has engaged in for more than 100 years, claiming that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been completed for the programs. The result of the case was a court order requiring DFG to complete an EIR. DFG is engaged in the years-long and multimillion dollar EIR process, now scheduled to be completed in January 2010."

I understand the goal of these groups. The goal is biological diversity. Meaning more species on the planet. I'm all for that. But when you evaluate their logic in pushing for an end to fish stocking, the benefit (if there even is a benefit) is very hard to quantify. In fact, they may be doing far more harm than good for the species they seek to protect.

Let's use Coyote as an example why their logic is flawed, and address two issues - red legged frogs and steelhead trout. Let's start at the beginning, which assumes that a nice balance between native americans, frogs, and steelhead had been achieved in the thousands of years leading up to European exploration.

European exploration began in 1542 when Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo landed in San Diego. He was the first European to visit what is now California. I don't think Juan had any real impact on frogs, steelhead, or Coyote creek. In 1697 the first Spanish Missions were begun. Probably not much impact on Coyote Creek there either, though there may have been impacts in other areas.

In 1848 the gold rush hit. A lot of steelhead and frog habitat got munged as miners dumped tons of silt in to creeks and rivers. The miners also ate the frogs (red legged frogs are big frogs). It was bad times for frogs and steelhead by 1849. I don't know if anyone mined for gold in Coyote creek or dumped tailings in to it so the impact there is hard to determine.

In 1936, the dam was built to create Coyote lake. The lake is 3 miles long and has 635 surface acres. Coyote Creek itself is 42 miles long. Without a doubt, creating the dam affected steelhead populations that used to run up the creek. For a complete history, go . The way I read this, whatever steelhead used to use Coyote Creek have been all but wiped out.

I like steelhead, so I hate to hear about this kind of stuff. I can also appreciate the notion that stocked trout in Coyote may go over the dam at high water, swim down to Anderson Reservoir, then go over the dam at Anderson and ultimately spawn with a native steelhead and thus dilute or damage the gene pool. I get that. But when you read the history of steelhead sampling in the link above, it's very apparent that Coyote Creek has harbored virtually no steelhead since the dam was built in 1936. So how do you assign value to the few fish that are there? It's a tough question, but one that is far more related to the Dam than the stocking of trout. Let's continue on to frogs.

Red Legged frogs live in Coyote Creek and various nearby water bodies like the Lakeview Meadows Ranch. Red Legged frogs are a threatened species. Here's what one looks like

http://www.werc.usgs.gov/pubbriefs/images/sCalifornia%20red-legged%20frog.jpg

The frogs live about where you'd expect a frog to live. Ponds, creeks, lakes, etc. As mentioned earlier, these are large frogs that look a bit like a bullfrog.

I don't know how much of the 42 miles of Coyote Creek the frogs use. Figuring that out would probably be a big effort. I also don't know how Coyote Lake being built in 1936 affected the frogs. On the one hand, the creek below the dam has less water in summer time than normal which is bad for frogs (frogs need water to live). On the other hand, the shoreline of Coyote Lake now offers more potential habitat than the creek that used to run through the valley there.

Could it be a safe assumption to say that the net frog habitat available is the same after 1936 vs. before 1936? Or is there less habitat - or more habitat? These questions are hard to answer, but it's worth noting that Coyote lake only represents 7% of the overall Coyote Creek watershed. So realistically, since salmonids in the form of steelhead and trout that escape the dam are few in number, only 7% of original frog habitat has potential to be impacted by planted trout.

Now consider the impact on frogs brought to bear by the absence of trout. I'm talking about Ospreys, Herons, Cormorants, Bass, and other predators that have grown accustomed to eating trout now being forced to find other food sources. Animals have no knowledge of whether another animal is threatened. If any a osprey or a bass sees a frog, it will eat it as fast as it possibly can. That's how things work.

So think about the net impact of removing hatchery trout from Coyote lake. A hatchery trout is too small to eat an adult red legged frog. So only tadpoles and juvenile frogs are potentially impacted by removing the trout. But those tadpoles and juvenile frogs will now be subjected to a population of hungry predators who cannot find trout to eat.

I believe firmly that removing trout from Coyote Lake will not be good for any red legged frog living in that 7% of Coyote Creek. It seems very apparent to me that if the true goal is biodiversity, this is not the way to accomplish it.

The law students who filed this lawsuit may believe that they are doing a great service to the environment, but it clear by their actions that they do not understand the environment they seek to modify. They do not understand that the environment has adapted to the presence of the Coyote Dam and the presence of hatchery trout. They do not understand that you can undo the environment by removing one piece of it.

In some locations, there may be only positives for red legged frogs when stocked trout are removed. I can think of very small bodies of water where no large base of predators for trout have established themselves where this may be true. In those places I could be convinced to support an end to trout stocking. But Coyote Lake is not one of those locations, and many of the locations on the are not one of those locations either.

The people filing this suit should feel sorry for all the red legged frogs that will be eaten by hungry predators once the trout are gone at Coyote Lake. They will not be there to see it happen, but it will happen. I can only pity them for their ignorance.

Rob, Great analysis of the current plans to stop stocking trout. Thanks for the details.

This seems like just another way for specific environmental groups to take stabs at fishing in general, its not about the frog although that is what they state.

In my opinion they are using the lack of an environmental study concerning the stockings and the situation the frog is in to push forward an anti fishing agenda. Many anglers, catch a stocked trout for their first fish and if the fish aren't there than it will be harder and harder to keep an interest in the sport in general.

cz

My $0.02...

Great analysis... very well thought out. The natural environment of this area has been so drastically altered over the past 150 years, that its impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Mining, Dams, invasive species (largemouth, carp, blugill, stripers), pumping water out of the Delta, agriculture, development (urban sprawl), etc. all have an effect on native species. Making fisherman pay the price for these thorny issues is the "low hanging fruit". Agribusiness, real estate developers, industrial polluters, and big business are difficult targets with deep pockets. These should be the real focus of groups trying to benefit native species.

Example: salmon fishing - its easy for the state to halt fishing for a year and make fisherman pay the price for dammed, diked, diverted, polluted, and degraded waterways. Salmon need current, food, and good spawning habitat to thrive. Instead of attacking the "powers that be" whose policies / practices / livelihoods depend on degrading the environment, fisherman are punished. There may be SOME short term benefit to salmon #s by stopping fishing, but the real issues aren't addressed.

I think its crazy to stop planting rainbow trout in Coyote for all the reasons you stated. The Coyote Creek watershed is so drastically altered by the dam, that this lawsuit is an example of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. Why doesn't this group sue to remove the dam? Restoring the flows in the Delta will have a greater effect on steelhead populations than making a change an environment that has been irreversibly altered by humans (dam / largemouth bass).

We must be very careful stating that "they" have an anti-fishing agenda. I think some of these environmental groups are trying to support biodiversity in the best way they know how... unfortunately their lawsuits / experiments affect our passion for fishing.

To paint all environmental groups as somehow "anti-fishing" is much too broad. Multiple environmental groups work tirelessly to stop pollution, restore our watersheds, and support fisheries. I'm a fisherman and environmentalist and I work to elect state officials that recognize the value of the Delta and the water that runs through it.

Three environmental charities that do a tremendous amount of work for the Delta, salmon, and steelhead are
www.earthjustice.org
www.restorethedelta.org
www.sacrivertrust.org

Stripers and largemouth get no respect because they aren't native, but these charities also help striped bass by fighting for more water running through the Delta (as opposed to being diverted / exported). Largemouth bass are so adaptable and strong, that they don't need too much help... unless at Coyote Reservoir where they could use a few more rainbow snacks!!!!

Mike F

Not to mention all the ridiculous amounts of dollars the DFG and California must spend on addressing/fighting such a lawsuit and fulfilling the judges orders for EIRs. Dollars that the DFG could/would gladly continue spending on improving waterways and environments, for which there are already so few dollars.

When the DFG suffers, it's not just sportfishing that is affected. An entire industry can feel the impact when increased license and permit fees have to offset the cost of overzealous environmentalist blindness.

I appreciate wildlife, however, EIRs should also consider economic impacts. Humans are a part of the environment here on earth.

Just my vaguely educated opinion on another angle to consider.

-Aaron

Be a Hero. Join the fight against cancer! Support Team in Training and The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
Donate Here-
http://pages.teamintraining.org/sj/honolulu10/aswerkes

Excellent points Rob. Why are we trying to save native species when those native species are long gone? Human impact on the state is far more likely the culprit than just the trout. I also think its funny that the trout in the High Sierras are such a large concern. Problem is most of the high sierra watersheds have not been stocked in more than a decade, with the state implementing trout removal programs for many years. Trout are really just the easy target if you ask me. Its looks good when the state is just doing something. What about the use of biological and agricultural agents such as atrazine that have caused massive amphibian die offs in the Central Valley? Or the high amounts of UV light in the high elevations that cause fatal skin mutations in ampibian species? Trout are a small part of the whole equation, IMHO.

And its seems the CBD and PRC are typical of extremist environmental view point; no human usage of the land whatsoever. A very limited, selfish view, IMO.

But this could have been avoided with some effort from the DFG. This has been on the table for several years, if not longer. The DFG is just as much to blame for not filing the EIR. Letting this sit and be ignored as long as it did is inexcusable. But it will happen as long as the heads of the DFG and other environmental departments are politicians first and outdoorsmen second.

Bass + Fisherman= BAASS ADDICTT!!!

Really enjoyed reading the responses to this post. A testament to the caliber of people who read and contribute here.

Mike F has a great point that being an environmentalist does not equate to being anti-fishing. The two could, and should go hand in hand. What is ironic is that the Center for Biological Diversity claims on their webiste that, "Substantial proportions of our staffs, boards and memberships are avid anglers and/or hunters" and that, "well-managed fishing and hunting programs are compatible with the conservation of imperiled wildlife".

I can only hope that the avid anglers who support the Center for Biological Diversity understand what they are doing. The Center's entire premise revolves around this idea that just one more year of trout stocks could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back for the 25 species they've identified as being affected by trout stocking. What they are not considering is that one year without trout at places like Coyote lake will turn loose a population of predators that has grown in numbers far beyond what the ecosystem would support without trout.

To my view, that one year without the trout could be far worse than the one year with. I know this because Nico and I have walked the shores of Coyote lake day and night, through the seasons. We've watched the cormarants push down the lake in November devouring everything they can grab. Watched the ospreys snatching trout and the blue herons wrestling them to shore. Caught the bass with distended stomachs that are plugged with fresh stocked rainbows.

We've also seen the California Newts at night in early spring by the tens of thousands. We've seen the overabundance of deer, and Nico has heard the mountain lions. Frogs you ask? Nico has seen the frogs too in spring. Hundreds and thousands of them. We're not sure of the species, but they are there in great numbers. This year I will be sure to look at them more carefully. The Coyote lake ecosystem is not broken, it is thriving!

So for some kids to sit in a classroom and theorize a means to biological diversity is great. But to use the legal system to make real changes to the environment without understanding what is being done is dangerous and foolhardy. The reality is that before the trout stocks are stopped, an EIR should be done to see what the impact of that change will be. Think about it.

I don't see what difference it's going to make not planting trout in some of these lakes. There are already plenty of fish in these lakes that are far better predators than trout. It's just going to make everything else that feeds on trout feed on the stuff that they want to save that much more. High Sierra lakes that only contain trout are one thing but low elevation lakes that have so many types of fish in them are completely different.

Jake J

http://calfishing.com/gallery/v/members/jakej/

Jake's point about being for the stoppage of trout plants in the Sierras got me to thinking the other night. I've been very fortunate in my life to fish all over our great state of CA, and one place in particular stuck in my mind when it comes to the issue of stocking the small bodies of water in the Sierras.

That place is located at the very headwaters of the Kern river. There are three creeks that come together here, in the bottom of a steep valley. We stopped here for a night on a 10 day backpacking trip in the mid 90's. The camp was on the Kern itself, and I fished this stretch of beautiful river for an hour or two before dark. It's shallow enough here to wade across without getting your knees wet. In the shallow riffles there I caught rainbows, goldens, and hybrids of the two.

Just a few hundred yards upstream, there was a steep mountain stream. It was astounding to me that trout were able to make it up in to some of the pools. Maybe it only became steep after the trout were already there. Regardless, there they were, the most amazing vividly colored pure strain golden trout you could imagine. The steep terrain kept the rainbows out, and there were no hybrids in those pools.

I've caught goldens in several locations around the sierra but these were just spectacular. We shouldn't value one species more than another just based on looks (like cute fuzzy seals vs. ugly old cod fish) but it's hard not to feel a bias toward fish that are golden yellow with crimson red bellies.

This stretch of the Kern river is located in a place where man should have no need to modify the situation. There's no need here for dams to provide water or hydroelectric power to people, or stocked fish to provide angling enjoyment. There's also no need for rainbow trout, which were probably introduced many years ago by some ignorant angler of DFG group.

In the Upper Kern there has been a direct reduction in biological diversity as a result of stocked rainbow trout. As a conservation minded person, I am against the rainbow trout that are there and the notion that any more might be planted there (I don't know if any are stocked in that section or in a place that could reach that section today).

Now, follow that water from the upper Kern down stream and eventually you wind up at Lake Isabella. Isabella is not on the "no trout stocking" list because it's larger than 1000 acres, but I think we could safely assume that the Center for Biological Diversity would prefer the cessation of trout plants here as a matter of course. So let's revisit the issue of stocked trout there, and ask if the stocked trout in Isabella are the reason for any reduction in biological diversity in this area.

Lake Isabella was completed in 1953 to provide flood control (the river used to flood Bakersfield), hydroelectric power, and a water source for human beings. Did this impact native fishes and amphibians? Without a doubt. Subsequently the lake was stocked with bass, catfish, crappie, bluegill, trout, etc. This action had further and significant impacts on native species. The question now is, can the stocked fish and the dam be undone now? And how important are these actions relative to the stocking of trout?

It is obvious that only through the most absurd effort could all of the non-native fish be removed from Lake Isabella. The only precedent in this state for even attempting something like this is at Davis Lake in Northern California where DFG has tried to eradicate all pike from the lake. These efforts have been a complete failure. So we can say with high certainty, that no effort could ever remove the fish from Isabella (a much larger lake).

In regards to the dam, the issue is not whether it could be physically removed (it could be) but whether that is a likely option. My argument is that it is not. People in Bakersfield don't want their homes flooded. People who eat the food grown by virtue of the water from Isabella don't want to stop having it available to eat. People who rely on electricity from the hydroelectrical project don't want their houses to go dark at night. Most importantly, politicians who might have the authority to remove the dam would never get re-elected if they tried to do it.

The bottom line is that the large populations of human beings that inhabit this part of the world require correspondingly large amounts of water, dry land to live on, and electricity. This is the true root cause for the reduction in biological diversity in the lower Kern River area and any area in this state where dams are present! The creation of the dams, and the subsequent irreversible introduction of non-native fish create the vast majority of the impact to native species. The trout stocked now are nothing by comparison.

My arguments earlier in this thread about why removing the trout may be even worse for native species still living in these lake zones just furthers the point that the trout are not the problem. The problem is the dams and the other stocked fish that cannot be removed from the lakes. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Stanford Law Student's problem is that they are not thinking about these problems holistically and in the context of the real environment that exists now at these man-made lakes.

If they wanted to make real change, they would focus their efforts on water and energy conservation and population control. These are the big root causes for reduction in biological diversity. If they want to stop trout plants in streams containing native trout and amphibians or in very small lakes where no large base of trout eating predators have developed that's good too and I support it. Where I have a problem is when blanket policies using round numbers (like 1,000 acres) are used to manage wildlife. It's idiotic and shows a lack of understanding by the people who seek to do good.

I'm close to getting off my soapbox now, but this issue still chafes.