CA Environmentalists to Kill Trout

What 'flawed study'?

What I believe is the evidence and evidence shows that
a) yellow legged frogs are endangered- technically Endangered status: Federal Endangered species and California Threatened species
b) brook trout are not endangered and are non-native to California
c) humans put brook trout in Gold Lake and there is no moral issue about humans removing them from Gold Lake

Yellow legged frogs are not threatened in Gold Lake- they are extinct from Gold Lake.
Removing non-native brook trout from Gold Lake, and reintroducing native Yellow legged frogs is an effort to reduce the danger of complete extinction of yellow legged frogs.

 

Yes, brook trout did not exist in California before the late 1800s. The definition of native in regards to animals is different than the definition of native in regards to people.

Yes, according to the standards of the field of biology, they are endangered. 116 sites were found to have the frogs in a pre-1994 survey. Frogs only exist in 7 or 8 of those sites now. They have done extensive surveys of the lakes/streams in the area. As I said, I've heard of silly claims of endangered species, but this is not one of them.

There cannot be proof in science. Science doesn't deal in proofs--only mathematics and logic deals in proofs. Any sane person reading the literature (which is based on field studies) would realize that the mountain yellow-legged frog is endangered. Counting all the frogs is ridiculous. There is a science called statistics, and a whole range of sampling methodologies used. There is no need to count every single frog to realize they are endangered. They have shown in 8 other lakes, that when the trout were removed, teh frog population came back. I showed you the abstract of the study of this, and you seem to not be able to understand it. I guess that's what scientific illiteracy does to people.

 

The definition of native species:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/native-species/

 

And to the point- this project seems like a very limited, reasonable attempt to increase the viability of the frog population.

This is a common problem with non-native species- it is fortunate that these lakes are self contained enough that there is potential to remove the trout that is not possible in streams or larger lakes.

 

Yes, you do need to provide evidence. And especially evidence of destroying
a species, which is your original argument, maybe you're crawdaddying not.

By the way, I'm a fisherman, trout, and I can't remember the last time I
killed a fish. Maybe 10 years, probably more.

In the meantime, provide some evidence.

 

http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/recipes/trout

Here you go.

 

Without any oversight, accounting, or transparency, environmental activist groups have surreptitiously received at least $37 million from the federal government for questionable “attorney fees.” The lawsuits they received compensation for had nothing to do with environmental protection or improvement.

https://www.westernlegacyalliance.o...ling-u-s-millions-in-fraudulent-attorney-fees

CBD is behind this fish kill.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also files a significant amount of litigation and receives lucrative attorney fees. In Washington State Federal District Court alone, CBD received attorney fees totaling $941,000 for only six cases. In the District of Columbia, it received more than $1 million in fees.

Although these proposed critical habitat designations are intended to set boundaries for the protection and recovery efforts for each species, they might also limit some traditional land uses such as hunting, fishing, packing and grazing, in both counties.

After a long dry spell between listings, which unsurprisingly corresponds to the two terms of the George W. Bush administration, Mono and Inyo county residents and officials are wondering why the FWS has released so many proposals for listings and critical habitat designation at once. The answer: a historic settlement between the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and FWS in 2011. The settlement concluded years of litigation by the CBD over the slow pace of FWS species listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Sayers said that the FWS receives roughly $20 million appropriation from Congress to list species, and roughly $55-60 million for recovery planning and implementation once a species has been listed.


http://thesheetnews.com/2013/12/06/specious-proposals/

This is not conservation it is an environmental scam.

 

I would ask for some evidence to support the claim....but why waste my time.

Not as if you will believe anything other than your 'outrage' because well........because of something.

 

Hmm, not a word about all fishermen killing all fish and destroying the species.
This is a joke, right?

Do you have any real evidence? I don't believe you do.

Did you read the part in my post that I haven't killed a trout in
many years? In fact the men I go fishing with don't kill the fish, either.
That alone blows your opinion out of the water.

 

When is the last time you voted for the declaration of an endangered species? Huh?

 

No one is destroying 'a species'.

Let me recap for you.

There are non-native brook trout in this small lake. Brook trout were introduced by man into the lakes in the region for the purpose of catching and eating them in the 1880's.

Humans removing the fish from this lake that humans put in the lake, will not hurt this species at all.

But it may help save a native species of frog that is endangered.

There is no moral or scientific rational to prevent the removal of these fish from the lake.

 

I would ask for some evidence to support the claim....but why waste my time.

Not as if you will believe anything other than your 'outrage' because well........because of something.

 

Here is a map of Gold lake and a photo of it.
http://www.buckslakehiking.org/

Note Gold Lake is by far the smallest of the three lakes(Buck, Silver, Gold)

 

OK...so?

 

Brook trout have existed there for 100s of years and there is 0 proof that these fish are responsible for the drastic reduction in the yellow legged frog population. It's more likely that eco-nuts have traipsed through the area in an effort to count frogs while oblivious to the fact what they are carrying with them....such as the Chytrid fungus which is responsible for most of the drastic reductions in frog populations throughout the world. This fish kill is nothing but a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense set up to steal more taxpayer dollars for a made-up problem. (of which they have created many many more) I published links that would give you more info in previous posts but you seem to be in denial in your apparent zeal for bureaucratic environmentalism.

You also might reflect on the fact that those who are responsible for stocking the waterways with brook trout are......Fish and Game.....Yep, frankly most environmentalists screw up more of the environment than they purport to save. I respect conservation (like managing forests which environmentalists have suddenly kept off limits to any cutting or even cleaning of forest floor fuel with their 'let it burn' mantra) but this is not that. This is radical environmentalism and the almost outright seizing of public land without 1 vote!!

As more and more species become 'endangered' look for the government to shut down more and more forests/public land while exacting more and more tax dollars for their 'studies' and, at the same time, kill collateral species in their smug ignorance.

 

You have been given the links to the studies that do indeed show a linkage between invasive trout and the drastic reduction of these frogs.

Hundreds of years? At most 1.3 hundreds of years.

Those trout are still invasive- put in by man, and they can be taken out by man.

 

You said just the opposite in thread #24
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=370444&p=1064196391#post1064196391

Which is it?

 

Do you know who is responsible for introducing those trout way back then? AAS A group who thought THEY could control the environment too. Can you see the problem here?

It's futile now but, that's exactly the point.....This yellow legged frog issue will reap the government and government workers billions as they 'work' to 'restore' and 'conserve' the 'environment.'

 

If you had followed the thread from the beginning you would have known I was responding to a claim by RP

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

I was mocking RP's claim that removing the trout from this lake is 'killing the species' by pointing out that they are killing the 'species' just like fishermen 'kill the species'- in other words- nobody is killing the species of brook trout by the removal of brook trout from this one small lake.

 

No I don't see a problem here. Man has purposely and accidentally introduced non-native species to many environments. Sometimes there is little to no harmful effect on the local native wildlife- but very commonly there is a very harmful effect.

Unfortunately most of the time it is simply impossible to undo those changes- we are not going to be removing starlings from America, and will never get rid of the pythons in the Everglades.

But sometimes there are opportunities to make changes that can reverse the damage done. Because this lake is small enough- and isolated from any streams that could naturally restock it, it is feasible to try to remove the non-native trout and reintroduce the frogs here.

This may not save the frogs- but it will give them a better chance. It will not hurt the brook trout species in the least since that species is thriving.

There is no moral or scientific reason not to do this.

 

The same time I voted for any other law--namely, never. I voted for that through my representative, not directly. You do realize that we live in a republic, not a democracy. (what a liberal idea.....direct democracy)

Here is the law that was passed first in 1973, and modified about a dozen times since, to give authorization to name endangered species.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1533

 

If you think that these eco-nuts will stop at 1 lake you are sadly mistaken. History has shown that environmentalists have shut down vast areas of our national forests due to endangered species. This is an example of how they do it. Moreover, how do you know that you are not going to cause the very same problem that the original purveyors of 'diversity' did when they introduced brook trout? You don't.

 

Yeah then AFTER they re-introduce the yellow legged frogs the fish will come back. Non-native doesn't mean they aren't already established. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer dollars in order to keep the environmentalists' coffers full.

 

Let's see the definitive studies done before 1800.

Only 116 sites, there must be thousands maybe millions of 'sites' they did not survey.

So since you can't provide proof, now you say proof cannot be provided. Nice trick....

 

History has shown that there will always be those who have a knee jerk objection to any attempt to save a species.

You have failed to provide any rational argument as to why these trout should not be removed in order to promote these frogs.

In the end, you just resort to a slippery slope argument.

Anyway- I am done with this argument- the issue is already settled, the county supervisors have dropped their efforts to stop it, the action will take place sometime after Labor Day and hopefully within a year or two, there will be a thriving population of yellow legged frogs in Gold Lake.