by Bob Marshall

Killing Trout to Save Trout

We all remember our parents telling us "doing the right thing sometimes hurts." No one needs to tell that to rainbow trout in New Mexico's Rio Las Animas. The state's Game Commission recently approved a program to use rotenone to rid the river of non-native species like rainbows in an effort to keep the native Rio Grande cutthroat trout - also the official state fish - from being pushed onto the endangered species list. Of course, all fish will be killed including the cuts. The river will then be restocked with pure strain Rio Grande cuts. The program was outlined in this earlier report. 

The push to restore non-native species at the cost of some introduced species highly valued by anglers has slowly won over the support of sportsmen's groups. This story gives a more thorough conservation reasoning for the projects - that can still feel painful to some anglers. 

Old Rigs, New Reefs

The Deepwater Horizon disaster highlighted the serious threat offshore oil development poses to the marine and coastal environments, but offshore anglers also know this: Those rigs also act as artificial reefs to attract new and old prime sport species. It's no wonder they support Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) Rigs to Reefs Habitat Protection Act. The proposal would exempt non-producing offshore platforms from current law requiring their removal if it is determined there are coral populations, or species that have recreational or commercial value.

The act suggests solutions to issues of navigational hazards and liability that currently require owners the costly process of removing the platforms and hauling them ashore. It largely mimics a Louisiana rigs-to-reefs law that was highly successful -- until Gov. Bobby Jindal raided the fund this year to plug a hole in the state's budget.

Toxic Storm Warnings

Sportsmen in the Northeast are about to learn what their southern brothers have long known: The damage from tropical storms lingers long after the winds abate and the storm surge recedes. Bruised forests, clogged hunting trails, lost boat ramps and battered habitat are some of the issues. But state and federal officials in the Northeast see a more serious threat: The release of toxic substances into rivers, streams, lakes and forests.

Comments (4)

from Anhinga wrote 36 weeks 19 hours ago

Your statement, "The push to restore non-native species at the cost of some introduced species highly valued by anglers has slowly won over the support of sportsmen's groups.", should read "restore native species at the cost of introduced, non-native species" is the way to correctly make the statement, I believe.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bernie wrote 36 weeks 13 hours ago

Much of the problem with opposition from anglers regarding poisoning non-native trout is that wildlife agencies, landowners, sportsmen and god-knows-who have dumped non-native rainbows, brook trout and brown trout into every conceivable waterbody in the West over the last 120 years. Then, during the last 15 years, fishery people suddenly have "found Jesus" and want to eradicate the non-native trout species and plant the native cutthroats. A century of convincing anglers that "a trout is a trout is a trout" is difficult to undo.

Also, it comes as no surprise to me that you wouldn't like Bobby Jindal because he is a Republican, but he remains one of the best governors in the country.

-2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Nyflyangler wrote 35 weeks 5 days ago

It's a shame we have to do things like this rainbow trout eradication. Hopefully it will pay off in terms of protecting at risk native populations.

Unfortunately there's a lot of things we've done during the period where we were so impressed by our new found abilities to do such things that we didn't stop to think about whether we should be doing something just because we could now do it.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from VAWhiteTailHunt... wrote 35 weeks 4 days ago

Instead of poisoning the non-native trout right away, why not declare a no bag limit on the non-native trout.
That would seem to be a win-win situation. It might take a while longer to eliminate them, but at least you wouldn't be wasting good fish.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

from Anhinga wrote 36 weeks 19 hours ago

Your statement, "The push to restore non-native species at the cost of some introduced species highly valued by anglers has slowly won over the support of sportsmen's groups.", should read "restore native species at the cost of introduced, non-native species" is the way to correctly make the statement, I believe.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Nyflyangler wrote 35 weeks 5 days ago

It's a shame we have to do things like this rainbow trout eradication. Hopefully it will pay off in terms of protecting at risk native populations.

Unfortunately there's a lot of things we've done during the period where we were so impressed by our new found abilities to do such things that we didn't stop to think about whether we should be doing something just because we could now do it.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from VAWhiteTailHunt... wrote 35 weeks 4 days ago

Instead of poisoning the non-native trout right away, why not declare a no bag limit on the non-native trout.
That would seem to be a win-win situation. It might take a while longer to eliminate them, but at least you wouldn't be wasting good fish.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bernie wrote 36 weeks 13 hours ago

Much of the problem with opposition from anglers regarding poisoning non-native trout is that wildlife agencies, landowners, sportsmen and god-knows-who have dumped non-native rainbows, brook trout and brown trout into every conceivable waterbody in the West over the last 120 years. Then, during the last 15 years, fishery people suddenly have "found Jesus" and want to eradicate the non-native trout species and plant the native cutthroats. A century of convincing anglers that "a trout is a trout is a trout" is difficult to undo.

Also, it comes as no surprise to me that you wouldn't like Bobby Jindal because he is a Republican, but he remains one of the best governors in the country.

-2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Post a Comment

 

All submitted comments are subject to the rules set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.