Gold Lake Fish Removal

[monahan100]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place ( I rarely post anything), but I thought this was pretty scary so I though I should share it. Especially since this lake is near several other lakes with fish and no frogs.

http://plumasnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12531:residents-blast-cdfw-over-fish-removal-plan&catid=69:-headline-news&Itemid=6

[Scott V]

They want to kill all those trout because a frog may hop over to that lake from another lake. FREAKING MORONS!!! Stop playing God you idiots!

[wineslob]

Time to re-vamp an out-of-control Government.

[SHigSpeed]

They want to kill all those trout because a frog may hop over to that lake from another lake. FREAKING MORONS!!! Stop playing God you idiots!
As much as I like fish, answer me this:

how is this any different than reintroducing the Paiute into the lower SKC drainage?

There are places where frogs are now, they're trying to put them back where they once were but were extirpated due to poor management.

Replace "frogs" with "fish". Same thing.

Sucks if Gold Lake is your secret honey hole but there are a ton of other places to catch fish.

_SHig

[monahan100]

I agree with Scott V. I've walked the area between those lakes, it would be one hell of a hop. How can a lake be critical frog habitat if there are no frogs? Couldn't there be other ways to maanged the fish population in Gold Lake, like transplanting them into other lakes/streams? Or if they are determined to kill them, why not remove the fish limit? I wonder what the cost is for spending the next 3 years netting fish.

[Jeff F]

I'll stay out of the frog vs. trout debate, but for the Supes to say that removing fish from a backcountry lake is going to kill the economy is quite a stretch. 99% of fisherpeople won't walk more than 1/4mi from the car, let alone a couple miles uphill to fish. The use and fiscal benefits of THAT Gold Lake is miniscule or even non-existent compared to the "money maker" lakes in Plumas County.

Now if it were the OTHER Gold Lake, the big one in the Basin, then I could understand the uproar a little more.

~Jeff

[Mike O]

and to think that they think gillnetting for THREE years will get rid of all the fish??? Laughs

[Darian]

I guess I can understand the attitudes of the people up there towards the self admitted missteps of CDFW staff in this but can also understand Shig's statement. It does seem to me that most of the objections don't take into account that the EPA is the law of the land. Kinda seems like when EPA benefits us, we support it but when it obstructs our self interests, we object.

However it has gone up to this point, this is a situation where CDFW is required to meet terms of the EPA whether we like it or not. Even so, there's no reason not to have included Plumas County administration/citizens in the process. I don't believe this particular project will have a major impact on the Plumas economy.

[James W]

I've spent a good deal of time at various state government hearings/meeting/public comment sessions/etc.
In the last few years they all end up reminding me of the Groucho Marx song . . .

I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it!

Sigh . . . :(

[Randy Lee]

The yellow legged frog and various trout species have been living together for years. The problem is not the trout it is the virus killing the frogs. The virus is killing many amphibians world wide. The red legged frog numbers have declined as well. But in many costal areas we're blaming new development for the problem. It seems we should be putting money toward eliminating the virus, not eliminating the trout.

[James W]

The yellow legged frog and various trout species have been living together for years. The problem is not the trout it is the virus killing the frogs. The virus is killing many amphibians world wide. The red legged frog numbers have declined as well. But in many costal areas we're blaming new development for the problem. It seems we should be putting money toward eliminating the virus, not eliminating the trout.

Actually, the frogs historically have only been prevalent in lakes that had no fish. And there were lots of mountain lakes that had no fish. We altered that.
BUT,
The disease problem is undoubtably more serious, although the latest research indicates that exposure to pesticides may be a major culprit in the frog's susceptibility TO the disease.
Can you imagine the political uproar over spending large amounts of money to study some small mountain frog diseases?
Any politicians in CA courageous enough to propose that?!?

There's no good solution to any of this.
The CDFW is following the law as it must, while very cognizant of the importance of maintaining recreational angling.
Everything they put out on this subject states very strongly their high priority placed on our hobby, but it has to be balanced with their following the Endangered Species Act, or they'll be sued by the bunny huggers.
There's a lot of technical literature out there about the whole native species thing.
Interesting reading, but not "light".

Sometimes you just have to trust the guys with the PhDs, and adapt as best you can.

[Mike McKenzie]

which is the total hypocrisy of CDFW ( along with their partners in the federal agencies ) in their decision making process! Contrast their decision to "save" yellow legged frogs in a remote mountain lake because it's listed as threatened or endangered against the total lack of action and complete capitulation to the water buffaloes with regard to our threatened and endangered anadromous fisheries. We need some folks with backbone to stop the nonsense!

Nuff' said!
Mike

[Randy Lee]

I agree that there is no good solution. But there are plenty of bad ones. Interestingly enough, frogs and fish have been cohabitating in sierra streams and rivers for centuries. The frog population has plummeted down word every where. Are fish to blame for the demise?No more than mamalian, avain, or reptilian predators.
It sounds like somebody is trying to utilize funds and look busy.
If nothing else, my 4 year degree has taught me to question anybody with a PhD!

[Ralph]

Interestingly enough, frogs and fish have been cohabitating in sierra streams and rivers for centuries.
Actually, not. Except for the Truckee and limited reaches of the Kern watershed, trout are NOT native to the high Sierra. They were planted into the Sierra for recreational purposes. Almost 3,000 fishless lakes have been planted with trout, nearly all of which historically supported frogs. The mt yellow legged frog is native to the Sierra and has been a lynchpin species for centuries. Trout eat frogs and their tadpoles, of that here is no debate. The Chytrid fungus is not new and historically frogs have been able migrate into and repopulate areas devastated by Chytrid. Today, because of the the gauntlet of fish-filled waters the frogs are no longer able to move into and repopulate infected waters. As much as I love to fish the high country, I believe it is in everyones' long term best interest to manage specific lake basins for native amphibians rather than for imported, non native fishes. The Gold Lake in question is a small, marginal back country fishery at best but the reactionaries are playing this off as a major economic driver for Plumas County. At last weeks supervisor meeting they plastered the walls with vintage photos of Gold Lake Lodge, campground, cabins, and boat ramps . . . knowing full good and well that it was fifty miles from the Gold Lake in question.

[Mike O]

Wondered if they were gonna take that tack. SMDH... Two gold lakes in the same region...wonder who bought that line?

[Lew Riffle]

Darn tootin Ralph ....as usual well put. Read this post a couple of times for every word is cut about as close to the truth about this as you can get. There is a solution to this problem and that is giving the frogs a chance to recover with Chytrid resistant populations. Maybe not a pleasant one to some small minded folks but something we can can do to fix what we have screwed up. The sky is not falling unless you are a Yellow Leg Frog. This is probably one of the most reasonable listings ever done and a far cry from the days of the Spotted Owl and resultant howl that some can't stop howling about. It was not proposed in haste nor was it done to imply despair but the result of a lot of research and consensus since the late seventies when we saw frog and toads start to decline in the Sierra. We have been watching this long enough to see the frogs evolve Chytrid resistant genetics and study it from in the field to the bowels of Biochemistry. Nobody is winging it and the recovery plan is one that has already worked in other Sierra drainages. The only thing scary about this is the arrogance of Plumas County politics and people dumb enough to believe them proper.

[Mike McKenzie]

I believe it is in everyones' long term best interest to manage specific lake basins for native amphibians rather than for imported, non native fishes. The Gold Lake in question is a small, marginal back country fishery at best but the reactionaries are playing this off as a major economic driver for Plumas County.

To clarify my previous post, I completely support what is being done for "little" Gold Lake but you can safely bet your last dollar if the water buffaloes had even a tiny straw in the lake ( which is improbable, I know ) the public trust agencies would not touch the place...

Again, I reiterate the hypocrisy when it comes to public trust management issues. Anadromous fisheries issues are not allowed to plug up the straws in the rivers..
Witness Di Fi's latest effort in the Senate to remove existing protections that are in place....

Mike