Environment,    non-native species,    rotenone,    ted williams

Ted Williams Wonders Why Environmentalists Turn Against Nature

By Tom Chandler 3/5/2008

Ted Williams touches on an issue I've long wondered about; why are so many environmental groups blind to fish issues?

You'll find support for fisheries popping up in extreme circumstances (salmon runs collapsing, etc), but by and large, fishermen and fisheries groups (like CalTrout and TU) are on their own, or living an uneasy partnership with whitewater/river groups who don't always share the same goals.

Williams weighs in:


Fish are every bit as beautiful and colorful as birds, but few environmentalists ever see them because few are anglers. For instance, when you log on to the website of the Adirondack Council you hear the vocalization of a common loon -- the symbol of wilderness.

The council sees and hears loons, but it doesn#8217;t see or hear the brook trout that sustain loons and that are also symbols of wilderness.

Wild brook trout in the Adirondacks have declined by roughly 97 percent. Today only about three percent of the park#8217;s brook-trout habitat still sustains brook trout, and the figure would be only 0.5 percent had not the state used rotenone to reclaim ponds infested with alien fish. But the council, which chooses not to learn about rotenone, has basically blocked its use in park wilderness.

We've had rotenone use blocked by environmental groups right here in CA, including some programs aimed at removing non-native rainbow species in favor of native-in-that-range Golden Trout.

Then again, even fishermen haven't universally supported removal of rainbow and brown trout in favor of cutthroat reintroduction.

Do native species matter? Should non-natives be removed to reintroduce natives to their ranges?

Read more at: When Environmentalists Turn Against Nature - Ted Williams

AuthorPicture

Tom Chandler

As the author of the decade leading fly fishing blog Trout Underground, Tom believes that fishing is not about measuring the experience but instead of about having fun. As a staunch environmentalist, he brings to the Yobi Community thought leadership on environmental and access issues facing us today.

13 comments
Write a Comment
fish, whether gamefish or feeder fish, they are part of the cycle...no fish, no predatory bird. they better wise up before its too late....yes yes yes natives are critical..to have a specific species in a watershed is very unique...as unique as a redwood, a grey wolf, a grizzly, or even a blue whale...man just thinks his introduced species will fix everything, when it actually disrupts a very sensitive ... more ecosystem....restore and long live the natives....at all costs
Reply
0
0
Ian: Last summer, we fished Straight Fork a lot, both alongside the road and above the bridge crossing. When we fished upstream of the bridge, all we caught were brookies, with the exception of one lone bow. Along the road, it seemed to be either brookies or browns; I only caught a few other rainbows - that might be a function of how I fish, however; when I got started on this trout addiction a few ... more years ago, it was up in Virginia, in SNP, with brookies, so I tend to fish the "seams" on the margins of the fast water...a targeting issue. The logging issue you mentioned makes perfect sense. Cosby has some wonderful hemlocks, but I have made a point of noticiing that just about every one of them has some adelgid infestation - some worse than others. I love Cosby so much, I bought some property just outside of the park; I have a number of nice hemlocks on it, too - I only hope they're there in 20 years or so when I'm ready to retire (provided we don't get washed out by another Katrina before then, down here in bayouland).
Reply
0
0
ijsouth: Glad you're enjoying those creeks. They're both good, especially Straight Fork. Those streams have always had pretty good brook trout populations. Straight Fork has almost equal populations of rainbow, brown, and brook once you get upstream of the road. Eventually brook trout are the predominant fish. The watersheds you mentioned have had non-natives penetrate, but the natives (brookies) ... more were never completely displaced by logging in the early 1900's. Most of the proposed restoration areas are in locations where brook trout were completely eliminated and rainbows replaced them. Interestingly, it seems that clear cut logging in the 1900's completely overlaps areas where brookies were eliminated. In other words, the most robust brookie populations in the Smokies are in old growth forests. Rainbows and browns were introduced in a period when brookie populations were extremely low or gone and effectively replaced them.
Reply
0
0
This is purely anecdotal evidence, but I fish two streams in the Smokies more than any others - Cosby and Straight Fork. Neither of them have barrier falls high enough to be considered for a project like Lynn Camp. On Cosby, I've caught both brookies and bows from the same stretches - I caught some rainbows there in November, in cold conditions and fairly high up on the stream. On Straight Fork this ... more summer, I got a "slam" one day - all three species in one day, and fairly close together; the brookies were lower than I expected. I had a similar experience on Palmer Creek in the Cataloochee area. Now, the low streams last year might have had something to do with it, but it seemed to me that the brookies seem to be adapting to the other fish - let's hope so, anyway...even where they are practicable, these stream restorations are quite expensive and time-intensive.
Reply
0
0
Another "native fishes" controversy hit on by Mr. Williams...alwives in the the St. Croix. http://tinyurl.com/3d2gab http://tinyurl.com/2le5yc
Reply
0
0
There are places where it can and should be applied, and there are places where that is not the case. In NY they are very selective about where they do it...and for years I'll bet virtually nobody even knew it was being done (many of these places are at least somewhat remote). There are many reasons to preserve and maintain native species...sometimes it just isn't practical once displacement reaches ... more a certain point. NY's program is very effective at re-establishing mono-cultures. It is a very narrowly applicable solution, but I'm glad we have it. I'm also glad you are proud to distinguish yourself from "the rest of the state". I'll leave it at that.
Reply
0
0
Tom: No, all have not and they aren't as many spots where that's possible as some might think. The most ambitious project to date will take place later this year on Lynn Camp Prong, a fork of the Middle Prong of Little River above Townsend. After all is said and done about 6 miles will be restored. They use antimycin here. It's more effective because fish can't sense it in the water as they do rotenone. ... more It's also less harmful to the stream overall since it breaks down pretty quickly.
Reply
0
0
Ian: I kinda wondered about Brook trout in the Smokies when I wrote this. Have all the Brook trout waters above natural barriers (to prevent incursions from rainbows) been poisoned and restored to native Brookie populations? Given the high volume of vehicle traffic in the Smokies -- and the surprising number of cars that seem intent on passing through at the best possible speed -- it's possible fisheries ... more education would only take place if they renamed the roads after native fish (Newfound Gap becomes Brookie Gap, etc). Day: That's a "Northern Californian." Those of us who live in the mountainous, economically challenged part of the state have little in common with the metro areas (outside of the fact that we have water and they want it).
Reply
0
0
Figures I learn something new about my back yard from a Californian.
Reply
0
0
That's an issue we're dealing with in the Smoky Mountains, the nation's most visited national park. Most visitors don't even realize there are fish in the streams, let alone invisible pollutants diminishing their populations. One of the park's best moves has been to open previously closed brook trout streams to fishing. I often heard fishermen of all stripes say "What's the point of protecting or ... more restoring trout I can't fish for?" The restoration effort seems to have gained traction since anglers know they will be able to fish these streams.
Reply
0
0
150 years doesn't quite cut it in the native department. And I'm not talking about the elimination of all non-native species, but in specific cases, it seems to make sense.
Reply
0
0
Define "native" the stuff that's been here 150 years, or the stuff that's been here for 1000 years?
Reply
0
0
Kbarton10
For native trout, the timescale is a few million years.
Reply
0
0

Discover Your Own Fishing and Hunting Adventures

With top destinations, guided trips, outfitters and guides, and river reports, you have everything you need.

Help