Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It really seems like folks in WA are ahead of the curve…..
We have been very lucky in this state to have had a very productive and informed relationship, which has existed for decades, btwn the state managers (the Dept of Fish and Wildlife) and the dedicated high lake fishing public (Trail Blazers and others). The “magic” of this relationship is that the fishery is guided by trained biologists (WDFW) who have access to data on a lake by lake basis that is gathered and organized by the volunteer citizens (TB’ers etc). No way the citizens could have done it without the professional training the biologists have; and no way the biologists could have done it without the 100+ citizens hiking hard to get to the lakes, taking measurements and doing surveys, and turning that data in to the bios.
I think we are unique among states in that regard. Certainly I know of no other state that manages the high lake fishery on a lake by lake basis. There is just no way the fish managers could have a unique plan for each lake without the volunteers gathering and processing the data. (BTW, Brian is a BIG part of that process.)
I stand corrected. The EIS does include the words used for the subject of this thread.
None the less, I am still concerned that folks might confuse the 2 documents I mentioned.
Also altho Brian is 90% correct in his stmt that one of the alternatives would become the basis of a true management plan, it is a mistake to think that once the “Record of Decision” (ROD) is done for this EIS (not expected until the end of 2006) that the process is over — even if the ROD is for the Preferred Alternative in the EIS (Alternative B). Such a true plan would still need to be formulated by the NCNP and approved before it could go into execution (altho the vast majority of the biological work would already be done in the EIS).
In addition to the quote Brian gave, the very next paragraph states:
“This plan/EIS is mostly programmatic in nature, which means it provides a framework for taking a range of management actions. Some actions would require additional, more site specific analysis before they could be implemented. If additional analysis were required, environmental compliance, including an opportunity for public comment, would be required.”
The key word is “framework”. If you decode this, it is a loophole thru which anti-stockers could drive a MAC truck — altho I think it unlikely. The NPS is already suggesting that the Liss & Larson study that occurred over 15 years and costs $1MM may not have discovered all impacts on lakes. If the ROD goes for Alt B, we are 80% of the way home, but don’t think the war would then be won.
BTW, the title of this thread is misleading.
I presume the OP’er is referring to the North Cascades Nat’l Park EIS on fish stocking that was just released by the Park Service. Note that there is ANOTHER document written several months ago by the Wa Dept of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) entitled “North Cascades National Park High Lakes Fishery Management” (to see click the title, or go to the TB’er website under “Issues”) which is very close to a true management plan that the subject of this thread suggests. The EIS is NOT a management plan altho there are many components in it that could be used in a management plan.
DO NOT CONFUSE THESE 2 DOCUMENTS.
For all intents and purposes stocking was phased out in CA NP’s in the 70’s with only a few lakes being stocked after that…….There were hundreds of lakes that were affected.
Today’s understanding of how to manage a high lake fishery in a manner that best preserves the ecosystem includes a subtle, but vital, change in point of view.
Implied in the very reasonable stmt above, and certainly in the dialogue that occurred in 1968 when the NCNP was formed, and to some extent even now in this EIS, is that fish stocking is LESS desirable than self-sustaining trout populations. We have learned that this is not true (see Liss & Larson study — which is not quoted as well as it should have been in the EIS). In high lakes, self-sustaining populations often (but not always) over-reproduce causing over-grazing of the food supply (invertebrates, salamanders, etc). What is often missed, even now, is that what you want is that high lakes, without a naturally occurring trout population, do NOT reproduce (with rare exceptions). A lake that does not have a self sustaining population can then be stocked with a species that can’t reproduce (sterile fish let’s say). This gives you full control over managing the population of fish in the lake such that it does NOT harm the ecosystem.
Many opponents of fish stocking miss this vital point because it is not intuitive. IOW, those who most care that high lake ecosystems are protected ought EMBRACE properly managed fish stocking rather than opposing it.
I was wondering if anyone here has had a chance to look through it yet.
Yes, I have had a chance to look thru it.
“Unfortunately, so much of this security”” crap is just CYA. What the PUD is *really* worried about is being criticized afterwards IF something did happen (1:10,000,000 doesn’t matter).”””
“
Typical democrat tactic of double taxation!
^^^^…..as opposed to the Republican method of tax rebates, spend anyway, and thereby driving up the national debt.^^^^Later the unfortunate Democrats have to be the bad guys and raise taxes in order to pay off these Republican loans.”
…….but I just don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so neat as those fish swimming away.
Congratuations! Believe me, we ALL know the exact feeling of which you speak….our little babies 🙂
My prediction is that you, Cliff, will be one of those TB’ers who still plants fish 40 years later….we have a few members pushing 50 years right now.
Superb…^^^^You will notice in other email that I have had occasion to use the access to previous months minutes to advantage just TODAY!
“Have patience. I guarantee you the High Lake Maint process will find uses for it next year.^^^^It isn’t a matter of filling it up”” anyway. More to the point is that now when something comes up in club business, we will have a members only place to put it.^^^^Think of what you’ve built here as a cool new shed with a locking door. Think about it. A new shed rarely has much in it, but have you ever seen one a few years old that wasn’t chock full??:D”””
“WAYYYYYYYYYY better for me. I note that you did not save the original scheme as a Theme. I would think one could have a BlazerTheme-light”” theme and a “”BlazerTheme-dark”” which could then be selected by the user under “”Your Control Panel””.”””
