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.