Poisoning questioned
To the editor,
In the early 1900s, stocking non-native trout by Fish and Game wasn't a threat, then why is it now?
Almost 100 years of breeding, surviving and enduring environmental changes, these fish have not migrated into the South Fork of the Flathead River, according to FWP fish biologists. What makes this an immediate emergency or that this could even occur in the next five, 10, or 30 years? The report makes it appear that only native westslope cutthroat trout provide good angling, and that non-native trout don't provide this provision.
I feel the report is flawed and has very little scientific facts to support it's position.
I see several problems with this project.
1. When poisoning the fish in any given lake, there is a good possibility that not all fish will be killed, thus defeating the objective of establishing a pure species of westslope cutthroat in years to come.
2. When poisoning fish, 70 percent will die and go to the bottom of the lake, and 30 percent will float and remain on the top, according to the fish biologists. I would like to know how one establishes these facts, and what scientific information was used to substantiate this.
We were told these 30 percent "floaters" would be individually opened, and their air bladder destroyed to allow them to sink. I don't know (nor do I think the FWP knows) how many fish are in each individual lake. Let's assume there are 10,000 fish in a given lake, according to the fish biologists that would be 3,000 fish that would be individually opened by hand to accomplish the sinking of the dead fish. Does anyone have any idea how long that would take? I think the biologists need to get more facts and figures and scientific data before making conclusions.
3. Is the westslope cutthroat a hardier fish than the present non-native trout, which has endured over the past 100 years? If so, what scientific data backs this? If not, then what makes one think this pure species will survive the conditions (e.g. the harsh frozen waters from November to April) in these 6,000 to 10,000 alpine lakes?
4. Taking "motorized" equipment (planes, helicopters, motor boats, etc.) into the wilderness to accomplish this task, I am afraid, will set a precedent for some future projects that FWP or the Forest Service may want to do.
5. There are a lot of "unknowns" and undetermined facts with killing and re-populating these fish. Assuming this were a successful project, it would take 10 to 25 years to develop a population of fish with the size and numbers to replace the present population.
6. One biologist told me that no non-native trout have gotten into the South Fork. Another biologist told me that some have reached the South Fork. Which is it? If the second is true, than what prevents inbreeding and hybridized trout from occurring or continuing after pure westslope cutthroat have been introduced? Sounds like years down the road we'll have the same hybridized trout that you are trying to eliminate.
This idea of using brood stock of "genetically pure" westslope cutthroat to establish a genetically pure species sounds a little bit like the Nazi Aryan race. Has any one heard of Darwin's "survival of the fittest?"
I was also told that one helicopter trip to one lake to drop the poison would cost $120,000 per trip. We talk about government spending, and I would think there is a better way to spend these several millions of dollars for such a project—but then, biologists and FWP wouldn't have jobs or be able to create jobs. These moneys could be spent more wisely, less costly and more efficiently to achieve the end results and still leave the present fish population intact.
The plan mentions re-stocking westslope cutthroat will have social benefits. What are these benefits? None are listed, and I can think of none.
Ronald N. Stuber, VMD
Bigfork