Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Eliminating all non-native fish species?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Yc with all due respect I think you misunderstood me. Your assertion that I suggested that "we do nothing" is very far from the truth.

    Maybe I can rephrase my thought. In my first post I suggested that in order to protect ESA listed species we need to focus our intentions on improving the environment rather than focusing on non-native species eradication. In my second post I listed a study from UC Davis that suggested if the environment continues on it's current path then 81% of our native species will be extinct. Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.

    I did suggest that hedging our bet may be prudent in that if we fail to effect a positive change to improve environmental conditions for our native species and climate change continues it's current path and UC Davis is correct that 81% of our native species go extinct due to climate change then at least we will still have some viable gamefish in our waters for future generations.

    However my main thought is more inline with the work done by Peter B. Moyle whom is a fish biologist and William A. Bennett whom is a fish ecologist with UC Davis. In their 2011 discussion on predatory non-native species in the Delta environment they concluded that "The key to restoring populations of desirable species is to return the Delta to a more variable, estuarine environment. Reducing striped bass and other predator populations is unlikely to make a difference in saving endangered fishes, and will serve only to distract attention from the real problems. Any program to control striped bass should carefully consider the likely consequences. If initiated, it should involve an intensive study effort on the impacts of the program and an adaptive management plan (missing from all current proposals) to make sure the alleged cure is not worse than the supposed disease."

    Regards,

    Tim C.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    Yc with all due respect I think you misunderstood me. Your assertion that I suggested that "we do nothing" is very far from the truth.

    Maybe I can rephrase my thought. In my first post I suggested that in order to protect ESA listed species we need to focus our intentions on improving the environment rather than focusing on non-native species eradication. In my second post I listed a study from UC Davis that suggested if the environment continues on it's current path then 81% of our native species will be extinct. Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.

    I did suggest that hedging our bet may be prudent in that if we fail to effect a positive change to improve environmental conditions for our native species and climate change continues it's current path and UC Davis is correct that 81% of our native species go extinct due to climate change then at least we will still have some viable gamefish in our waters for future generations.

    However my main thought is more inline with the work done by Peter B. Moyle whom is a fish biologist and William A. Bennett whom is a fish ecologist with UC Davis. In their 2011 discussion on predatory non-native species in the Delta environment they concluded that "The key to restoring populations of desirable species is to return the Delta to a more variable, estuarine environment. Reducing striped bass and other predator populations is unlikely to make a difference in saving endangered fishes, and will serve only to distract attention from the real problems. Any program to control striped bass should carefully consider the likely consequences. If initiated, it should involve an intensive study effort on the impacts of the program and an adaptive management plan (missing from all current proposals) to make sure the alleged cure is not worse than the supposed disease."

    Regards,

    Tim C.
    Your insight is very logical and obvious............ sadly, not-so much to the elite looking for favorable legislation.......... again.

    Indeed, the striped bass and other "non-native" species are the low-hanging fruit. Ironically, they are the exact species that are appear to be more adaptable to the worsening habitat that will lead the 81%native species to extinction.

    In summary, the "elite" (water grabbers) will further marginalize and reduce interest in popular fisheries, like striped bass and LM Bass by pushing for deregulation and zero fishery management, AND Salmonids will continue to perish as a result of worsening habitat or lack of improving/restoring same habitat that would be favorable to salmonids. As a result, no fishery and little to no opposition to water grabbers.

    The SF Bay Delta is a mere shadow in resemblance to what the waterway/wetland/estuary environment used to look like just 40-50 years ago.

    There has been so much more development around the edges of the Delta that it does seem like a foregone conclusion that the waterway is seen as nothing more than a conduit, reservoir, and "toilet bowl" going forward.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post

    Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.
    CDFW are not focusing any efforts on removing Striped Bass or Largemouth Bass, they are simply not managing for them. There's a big difference. If CDFW manages for them they will be sued by groups from both ends of the political spectrum like the Center for Biological Diversity and Westlands. There is no debate that Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass prey on listed species. Whether that predation is a significant factor in the decline of listed species is up for debate. CDFW is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one because they cannot promote a non-native species that has an effect on a listed species.

    It is also disingenuous to claim that we aren't focusing our efforts on improving the environment. The Center for Watershed Sciences gets a ton of money from various sources in order to look at this. We've seen all kinds of research come out like the salmon growth study on the Yolo Bypass. Any environmental improvement we make will take generations to see the impact. It is not a quick process unfortunately.

    OceanSunfish has it right about the delta. The delta no longer functions as the wetlands it used to. We have greatly altered the habitat by diverting flows, building levees, and a host of other issues. It is promising that we are starting to see more flows enter the delta to alter the salinity gradient and allowing more islands to flood.

    I'll add it really sucks that this has to happen. I enjoy fishing for stripers and bass but I also understand why CDFW has to do this. Instead of taking it out on CDFW, we should be pressuring DWR, SWRCB, and BOR to restore a more natural flow and temperature regime and to restore habitat to all the rivers that flow into the delta. Until we change that, we will continue to see a decline in both native and non-native species in the delta.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •