Re: Frog Release Into SEKI 8/30
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:25 pm
Oh, sigh, I am too easily baited: hauled out of my bat cave to, once again, rise in defense of not only froggies, but NPS (who, really, I have no great love for but they do some things right). With respect (really) I resent your implication that "environmentalists" (always a bad sign when it's put in quotes) want humans to go away. I am one and have been an environmentalist since ca. 1965 when I first read Muir and Leopold. I know a zillion people and rangers who identify as environmentalists. Not a single one holds that attitude. Not one. So, it would be nice if you didn't start out with such unsupported and provocative hyperbole.
That said, the entire process for fish removal and frog restoration WAS public. An EIR was published, there were two rounds of public hearings (Bishop, Fresno, San Francisco, LA (?)) and two rounds of written comments. The results of each were published with time for comment by individuals and organizations. There have been volumes of peer review scientific papers on the subject. The "frog people" -- NPS and University researchers who stay on restoration sites all summer -- constantly talk to backpackers, explain what they're doing and why it's important. This has been going on for, literally, decades. As a fellow environmentalist, I strongly disagree that the restoration of a vital native species is somehow "a small ecological benefit."
In my previous post, I outlined some of the ecological benefits of the simple restoration of frogs to an ecosystem. Again and again I repeat: the odds of your favorite fishing hole in the Sierra being affected by this project is minuscule. Truly. I know -- and have been to -- every single lake that's having fish removed and almost none of them have good fishing. Again, sizes are usually well under 10”. There are and will always be lots and lots of high Sierra lakes to fish.
While it shouldn't make a difference (a legitimate use is a legitimate use) there are really darned few people who fish any more relative to the total number of backcountry users. Others here might have a better idea but, by 2010, I'd say fewer than 20% of the hikers even carried a fishing rod. Of those, less than 1% were serious about fishing. Of several of the excellent fishing lakes I know (Goldens ~=16”), most went from maybe 20 - 30 visits a year in the 70s to maybe one or two by 2010. The skilled fisher people are educated and vocal, but they're a tiny, tiny minority of backcountry users nowadays.
I have talked to, literally, tens of thousands of backcountry users and am always encouraged by their support of efforts to restore ecosystem to what they were pre-Euro-American settlement. Sure, there's exceptions but I can’t remember more than a handful who weren’t convinced of the righteousness of my brilliant and decisive logic in defense of the wild and restoring healthy ecosystems <insert dancing happy face>.
From many of the comments here, I am truly bummed and saddened by how far apart many of us are on this issue. You specifically reference "enjoy wild places" but seem to miss what makes these places wild. The Peregrine is one of the classic recovery stories. Why wouldn't anyone not voluntarily agree to avoid disturbing their nests at the request of biologists and NPS? A couple of months! Really? Is that really too much for the care of a species that we drove almost to extinction? What are our moral responsibilities to the earth and the ecosystems we are a part of?
What is our role as humans -- stewards of not only National Parks but our moral responsibility to all species? This is a non-trivial question and at the heart of this current brouhaha over frogs, peregrines and, not to get too dramatic, all creation. And this is to say nothing of the well-established legal responsibilities under the Organic Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act. Again, not trivial responsibilities to be dismissed as environmentalists wanting to keep people out of wilderness.
Oh my. A last sip of Vina Moda 2015 Vinas, and I retire from the field in sadness to mediate and pray for our collective redemption.
That said, the entire process for fish removal and frog restoration WAS public. An EIR was published, there were two rounds of public hearings (Bishop, Fresno, San Francisco, LA (?)) and two rounds of written comments. The results of each were published with time for comment by individuals and organizations. There have been volumes of peer review scientific papers on the subject. The "frog people" -- NPS and University researchers who stay on restoration sites all summer -- constantly talk to backpackers, explain what they're doing and why it's important. This has been going on for, literally, decades. As a fellow environmentalist, I strongly disagree that the restoration of a vital native species is somehow "a small ecological benefit."
In my previous post, I outlined some of the ecological benefits of the simple restoration of frogs to an ecosystem. Again and again I repeat: the odds of your favorite fishing hole in the Sierra being affected by this project is minuscule. Truly. I know -- and have been to -- every single lake that's having fish removed and almost none of them have good fishing. Again, sizes are usually well under 10”. There are and will always be lots and lots of high Sierra lakes to fish.
While it shouldn't make a difference (a legitimate use is a legitimate use) there are really darned few people who fish any more relative to the total number of backcountry users. Others here might have a better idea but, by 2010, I'd say fewer than 20% of the hikers even carried a fishing rod. Of those, less than 1% were serious about fishing. Of several of the excellent fishing lakes I know (Goldens ~=16”), most went from maybe 20 - 30 visits a year in the 70s to maybe one or two by 2010. The skilled fisher people are educated and vocal, but they're a tiny, tiny minority of backcountry users nowadays.
I have talked to, literally, tens of thousands of backcountry users and am always encouraged by their support of efforts to restore ecosystem to what they were pre-Euro-American settlement. Sure, there's exceptions but I can’t remember more than a handful who weren’t convinced of the righteousness of my brilliant and decisive logic in defense of the wild and restoring healthy ecosystems <insert dancing happy face>.
From many of the comments here, I am truly bummed and saddened by how far apart many of us are on this issue. You specifically reference "enjoy wild places" but seem to miss what makes these places wild. The Peregrine is one of the classic recovery stories. Why wouldn't anyone not voluntarily agree to avoid disturbing their nests at the request of biologists and NPS? A couple of months! Really? Is that really too much for the care of a species that we drove almost to extinction? What are our moral responsibilities to the earth and the ecosystems we are a part of?
What is our role as humans -- stewards of not only National Parks but our moral responsibility to all species? This is a non-trivial question and at the heart of this current brouhaha over frogs, peregrines and, not to get too dramatic, all creation. And this is to say nothing of the well-established legal responsibilities under the Organic Act, the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act. Again, not trivial responsibilities to be dismissed as environmentalists wanting to keep people out of wilderness.
Oh my. A last sip of Vina Moda 2015 Vinas, and I retire from the field in sadness to mediate and pray for our collective redemption.