Facebook YouTube Tacklewarehouse.com
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Top Calfishing.com Trophy Fishing Forum topic #10822
View in linear mode

Subject: "Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly" Previous topic | Next topic
swimbaitThu Dec-18-08 01:25 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10822, "Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly"


  

          

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.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote

Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly [View all] , swimbait, Thu Dec-18-08 01:25 PM
  RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, bassinzink, Dec 19th 2008, #1
RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, Mike F, Dec 19th 2008, #2
      RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, swerkes, Dec 26th 2008, #3
           RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, dockboy, Dec 28th 2008, #4
RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, swimbait, Dec 29th 2008, #5
RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, Slough Crew, Dec 29th 2008, #6
RE: Why the lawsuit to stop trout stocks is folly, swimbait, Jan 05th 2009, #7

Top Calfishing.com Trophy Fishing Forum topic #10822 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.