CA Environmentalists to Kill Trout

Plumas county, Gold Lake.....CA Dept Fish & Wildlife.....Going to 'protect' yellow-legged frog by trying to kill all the trout in the lake. With no proof.....

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/6/Conservation/Amphibians/Threats-and-Status

Surveys have shown that 93% of the R. sierrae and 95% of R. muscosa historical populations are now extinct. In 2003 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog should be protected under the Endangered Species Act,

Can you believe that?

Coming to a State near you....Beware...

 

The trout don't belong in those high altitude mountain lakes. They were put there by man, they can be taken out by man. Trout are not endangered, this frog is. It's not like these lakes even get much fishing pressure, there is no good reason to keep the trout.

Also, you didn't read the article linked in your linked article. The main thing is not the elimination of trout (although that is a possibility), the main thing is not restocking the lakes with trout. That means that those lakes don't even have a naturally sustaining population of trout. Also, the article says to keep stocking trout in areas where there is a recreational fishery. Makes sense to me as a fisherman and a conservationist.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/6/High-Mountain-Lakes-Project

 

There is no proof that the yellow legged frog is endangered in the first place. You missed the whole point there. In addition, the link you provided states:

In addition to the application of chemical piscicides in lakes, new and innovative non-chemical means to control undesirable fish populations should be encouraged to avoid impacts on non-target species, including, but not limited to, the use of stocked sterile piscivorous trout, strains or species of fish not previously stocked, or physical means of removal.


I would like to see the actual population of data used in this Gold Lake trout elimination project. They need to provide accurate stats before they go killing indigenous trout.

 

Well, from this news report, it seems that they are just getting rid of brook trout. Brook trout are not native to California. IMHO, they need to be eliminated if they are harming any native life. I would say get rid of them, and replace them with the local golden trout.

http://www.plumasnews.com/index.php...removal-plan&catid=69:-headline-news&Itemid=6

It's pretty clear it's endangered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_yellow-legged_frog

It's listed by the FWS as endangered.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D02H

It's also pretty clear that the way to restore these frogs is to get rid of introduced trout:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/20/7646.full


This is an open and shut case. Where do you make up this stuff about it not being endangered? WHat is your original source that makes that claim, or did you just make it up?

 

What exactly bothers you?

That they are attempting to prevent the complete extinction of the frogs?
That they are going to remove non-native trout from one lake?

Nowhere in your link does it say anything about killing trout, so I went looking.

http://www.plumasnews.com/index.php...removal-plan&catid=69:-headline-news&Itemid=6

According to CDFW environmental scientist Sarah Mussulman, the brook trout in Gold Lake (located in the Bucks Lake Wilderness Area) are scheduled to be removed with gillnets in late spring or early summer. This Gold Lake is not to be confused with the Gold Lake in the Lakes Basin.
Mussulman said a small population of the yellow-legged frog was discovered in nearby Rock Lake. She said removing the non-native trout — which eat the native frogs — is an attempt to preserve the frog’s critical habitat. She added that Gold Lake represents a rare opportunity to restore the frog population in that area.
The critical habitat for the yellow-legged frog includes more than a million acres across 16 counties in California, including Plumas. The state is trying to get the frog added to the endangered species list.
Brook trout are not native in the western states. They were introduced to the area from the eastern U.S. beginning in the late 1800s. The brook trout — which thrive in higher-altitude lakes — haven’t been stocked in Gold Lake since 1966, according to Mussulman.
But the fish are still there.
“The fish eat the (yellow-legged frog) tadpoles and the frogs,” Mussulman said. “If it’s small enough to fit in a fish’s mouth, a fish will eat it.”
Consequently, Mussulman added, the frogs are rarely found around lakes that have large trout populations.
Mussulman said her High Mountain Lakes program began conducting inventories of fish and amphibians across the Sierra Nevada in 2000. The program began in response to a petition to have the yellow-legged frog listed as endangered.
She said fish-stocking plans have since been adjusted to eliminate conflicts with the frogs. Some lakes got more fish; others get none.

Gold Lake survey
Mussulman said Gold Lake was first surveyed by the High Mountain Lakes program in 2004. She said CDFW crews found three adult mountain yellow-legged frogs.
In 2010, additional data were gathered. The CDFW decided to remove the brook trout to benefit the frog population at Rock Lake and possibly re-establish the frogs at Gold Lake in the process.
Rock Lake has no trout and the two lakes are sometimes linked by a stream during the rainy season.

Mussulman said no other Plumas County lakes have been targeted for trout removal.
“It’s important to keep in mind that this is one single lake we are proposing (to remove the trout from),” she said. “We have every intention to continue stocking in mountain lakes.”

 

'Brook trout' is a term given to several species of trout. Brook trout have a habitat in line with North West mountain lakes and streams and are perfectly suitable to survive there. Even if they poison the lake they will not ever eradicate the species.

In order for it to be 'pretty clear' that this species in endangered, we need to see the actual data collected, the sites explored etc. There is NO WAY the search for these frogs includes every place they may exist. Let's see the data and all areas explored. Otherwise it's nothing but BS.

It is not up to me to prove that a species is NOT endangered it is up to environmentalists to prove they are and "because I say so" just doesn't cut it.

 

Just because they found 3 frogs does not mean they are endangered. So they observed a brook trout eating a tadpole and now say all yellow legged frogs are 'endangered' how gullible do you have to be to accept that load of bull excrement?

So if brook trout are killing these frogs, are we to assume ALL brook trout will now be killed? Do yellow legged frogs exist near OTHER mountain lakes? You do see the problem here don't you?

 

Typical rightwingnut anti-science, anti-environmental, anti-reality drivel.

 

Feel free to prove the FWS wrong. So far all I have seen you posting is bovine excrement on the issue.

Still trying to determine what exactly you are upset about

That someone is trying to prevent the extinction of a frog species or
That non-native trout are going to be removed from one lake in the Sierras.

 

Really? Please post the PROOF..So far all I see are a bunch of stool sitting environmental bureaucrats trying to justify the existence of their highly paid jobs by providing no reliable statistical data to support their claims.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no science involved in this killing of a species by environmentalists.

 

Feel free to prove the FWS wrong. So far all I have seen you posting is bovine excrement on the issue.

Still trying to determine what exactly you are upset about

That someone is trying to prevent the extinction of a frog species or
That non-native trout are going to be removed from one lake in the Sierras.

 

The killing of ANY species should be supported by reliable data...There is no reliable data in any of the links posted. FWA is not a religion where belief is the only proof that is needed.

 

You quote the evidence -- population surveys have shown the frog population down 93% to 95%. Then you claim there's no evidence. Huh?

Here are some details on the survey methods:
http://www.wrc-rca.org/AnnualReport_2005/RCA_2005_AR_TR_Monitor_AppM10_YellowLegged_Frog.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monit...bian Monitoring - 2013 HFQLG Final Report.pdf

 

Hmmmm- fisherman kill those trout all the time.

What makes this killing different from fisherman killing the non-native trout?

 

Fishermen don't kill them all and poison a lake.

 

So, because some Fish and Game employee trudges through the mountains and doesn't see may frogs suddenly they are 'endangered?' Tell me, did they see any sharks? No? They must be endangered too by that logic. There is absolutely no statistical support for an acclaimed 93% reduction in yellow legged frog populations. Claiming they were once highly populated in the area is another unsubstantiated claim because they have no data to support that either. Pages and pages and pages of so-called studies are meaningless...except for the government lackeys that receive a pay-check 'protecting' species that are supposedly 'endangered.'

 

Scientific surveys are much more than a "trudge through the mountains". Also, you may have missed the point that this is a comparative survey. In the past, the "trudge" revealed 20 to 40 times more frogs than it does now. That's a huge, significant difference.

I mean, seriously: what possible measure of the frog population would satisfy you? You could always claim the frogs are all living in the next lake over, undiscovered.

 

I really am trying to get an actual answer from you why you are so upset about this.

You complained that the trout were being killed- so I pointed out that fisherman kill trout.
Then you say that fisherman don't kill them all- and imply that someone is planning on poisoning Gold Lake- which of course is not happening. The proposal is to use gill nets to remove the trout from the lake.

These trout are not native to this lake- they were planted by humans in the lake.

Now humans are taking them out of the lake that humans put them into.

So that the frogs that were there- and that have disappeared from over 90% of their historical range- can be reintroduced to the lake.

What is the problem with that- and please no more nonsense about 'poisoning the lake'.

 

I can't even figure out what the issue here is.

This is a 20 acre lake that has trout introduced by humans.

It isn't as if those trout have some 'god given' right to be in that lake- humans put them there.

It isn't as if there is some moral issue about 'killing' the trout- since humans put them in the lake in order to kill them.

Other than typical anti-government backlash, I can't figure out what the complaint is.

 

There is no science, logic or reason involved with your fraudulent drivel. There is no "killing of a species". That's a lie.

 

The species is the brook trout and yes they are killing brook trout. Stop your ignorant and abusive language.

 

So, why is this killing limited to a '20 acre lake?' Are there no brook trout or yellow legged frogs anywhere else? Why don't they kill ALL the brook trout in every mountain lake and every stream? Are we to assume that the yellow legged frog is NOT threatened in other areas of the NW?

The answer is, they don't know because they have not PROVEN their claims.

I am getting tired of so-called 'environmentalists' screwing up our forests just to support their government check. This is just the latest example. There are accounts of so-called 'environmentalists' trudging through the forests in search of frogs and bringing a deadly fungus on their boots with them that actually KILLS the reptiles.

I am shining the light of truth on these fools. Preserving the environment is laudable however, what we have now is a runaway environmental bureaucracy.

 

Well I will give you this. Until you brought this up I had not heard of this obscure lake or the proposal to for humans to remove from the lake that humans put into the lake.

That led me to read up on what is actually happening- and the reasons why.

And the reasons are scientifically sound.

And you appear just to reflexively object because the government is doing something.

 

They are killing the species- like the fishermen kill the species.

But fisherman aren't the gubbermintt, so its okay when they do it.

 

The Forest Service, not "environmentalists", are catching the trout with gill nets to remove them from lakes and streams where they don't naturally occur but were introduced by mankind, according to that article.....but even if they were killing those trout, that is very different from killing a species, as you fraudulently claimed. Killing a few trout is not "killing a species" - that means driving an entire species of animal into extinction. Stop your ignorant, fuzzy and imprecise language.