Comments on: Chasing Rainbows

By: model baju batik

model baju batik — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:56:09 +0000

hey hey!! this is a very nice website here and I just wanted to comment & say that you’ve done a
great job here! Very nice choice of colors & layout, very easy on the eyes.. Nicely done!…

By: Walter Wuthmann

Walter Wuthmann — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:51:02 +0000

“Chasing Rainbows” is a model for successful environmental journalism. It combines fantastic art – brilliantly water colored rainbow trout – with a compelling story to reveal the historical complexities and ironies surrounding the practice of fish removal that is applicable not just to the High Sierra, but to the entire country. What struck me most about the article was the disparity Halverson relates between the Department of Fish and Game’s conservation efforts and the sentiments of the local people these efforts directly affect. There seems to be no real form of communication between the two parties, resulting in misunderstanding and negative attitudes towards the Department in towns like Bridgeport. The Department of Fish and Game should take a multi-leveled approach to conservation much like this article does for writing. Instead of solely relying on scientists and gillnets, the Department should educate anglers about the benefits of conservation at the local fly shop. They should incentivize sports fisherman to help with the eradication program – pay them for each fish caught and logged into the database – which would support the local economy while advancing the science. Conservation needs to break out from the insulated world of scientists and regulators and embrace the people it affects most – business owners, fishermen, and concerned citizens – just as the article uses art and storytelling to convey data and the difficulties of modern conservation.

By: Ted Williams

Ted Williams — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:01:13 +0000

Michael:
See also “Fish Poison Politics” at:
http://www.scottchurchdirect.com/docs_ted/fish-poison-politics.pdf

By: Ted Williams

Ted Williams — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:27 +0000

Michael:
You’ve missed the entire point of Anders Halverson’s superb piece. When you say “we,” I take it to mean the chemophobes who are nixing native fish recovery throughout the West because they are too lazy and arrogant to learn about rotenone. Rotenone has been used in fisheries management for 85 years. It that time it has never been seen to affect a single native ecosystem other than to restore it. Rotenone DOES spare amphibians in the adult stage when most rotenone treatments done. Many tadpoles survive in rare instances when treatments have to be done before metamorphosis; and tadpoles are evacuated where possible. While there is some insect mortality, populations bounce back in weeks–usually in better shape than before treatment because they don’t have to contend with alien predators. Nature will not and has never decided “when to chase rainbows.” Once they are in a system they can drive native salmonids to extinction by converting them to mongrels and/or outcompeting them. I urge you to educate yourself before recycling the this garbage. Please start by reading my piece “Ann and Nancy’s War” in Fly Rod & Reel magazine. Google it by that title.

By: David Malakoff

David Malakoff — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:07:33 +0000

Halverson’s book, An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World (Yale Press), includes some detailed discussion of rotenone use, including its use to kill “trash” fish so that rainbows could be stocked. There’s a whole chapter on the landmark 1962 battle over using rotenone to poison a huge chunk of the Green River — a botched operation that led to a major change in federal policy. This article is drawn from but one small piece of the book — I highly recommend that anyone who enjoys fishing, trout or rivers read the whole thing. — David Malakoff, Editor At Large Conservation Magazine

By: Michael Sprague

Michael Sprague — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:50:46 +0000

We found it incredible that Anders Halverson’s detailed article, about rainbow trout introductions and the unintended consequences (Chasing Rainbows), never mentions the true tragedy of this ecological predicament: the rampant poisoning of entire ecosystems to rid them of planted rainbows.

The same flawed logic of single-species management used to plant the rainbows is now being used to remove rainbows, most often with a systemic poison, Rotenone. Poisoning out non-natives in favor of a preferred native is euphemistically called, native-fish restoration. In fact, in many Western states today rainbows are being simultaneously stocked in some places and poisoned in others.

Unfortunately, Rotenone doesn’t discriminate between non-native fish and native fish. It doesn’t spare amphibians or insects. It kills them all, and monitoring data show some species never return. Our company has long espoused the Hippocratic Oath of “first, do no harm” as it applies to ecological restoration. We need a strong web of organisms on this planet, not just rainbow trout, or cutthroat trout, or yellow-legged frogs.

Protecting and restoring healthy, functioning freshwater streams and wetlands to sustain a high diversity of organisms is a much more effective and economical way of conserving species. Given half the chance, nature will decide when and where to chase the rainbows.