Author Topic: Fishless Lakes  (Read 2877 times)

wshawkins

  • East Side Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3524
  • Got to love the Eastern Sierra
    • View Profile
Fishless Lakes
« on: September 27, 2015, 07:12:35 AM »
More bad news for fishermen! 

Latest lakes to go fishless for the frogs.  All these lakes are in Yosemite National Park.  Particularly sad to lose Roosevelt Lake, an excellent Rainbow trout lake that had rainbows up to 18 in its waters.  Skelton Lake used to have rainbows to 12.  Dog Lake was a brookie lake, but a fun family type lake.


"It isn't the mountains ahead that wear you out, it's the grain of sand in your shoe."

P A C

  • Weekender
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: Fishless Lakes
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2015, 12:22:34 PM »
Wow.  As you say, more bad news.  Thanks for posting this. 

It is unfortunate that the NPS re-direction is to what have been historically heavily travelled and somewhat overused areas such as Cathedral and Elizabeth Lakes.

An open thought -

Many arguments for and against this range-wide and specific 'restoration' can be made, however I am curious why these 3 lakes in this NP have been chosen based on their proximity to popular trailheads and access, let alone the generations of families that have enjoyed them as part of their first Sierra Nevada Experience.

The thought and outlook of creating a National Park to protect the specific environment for all to enjoy is not al all lost on me, however at what point does 'restoration' impact the current state of the evolution of each location?  (ex: Will Yellowstone Lodge/Old Faithful Inn and the Old Faithful walkways be eliminated in the future? It is advertised as the Largest Log Structure in the World, yet the impact of the heavy tourism traffic on the local environment, flora and fauna is significant to put it mildly)

If 'we' were to use the 'carbon footprint' offset strategy as an example, it would seem that in Yosemite a more remote and less travelled and less popular lake, or basin/chain of lakes, that has a current or potentially strong frog habitat might be chosen in place of at least Roosevelt, if not Skelton and Dog Lakes as well.  This would allow for the balance of slowly restoring natural habitat and balance in the park for all of the appropriate reasons, yet allow popular access locations to be maintained in the self sustaining fisheries that they have become.  Several possible lakes in the NW and SW and SE corners of the park come to mind.  They have self sustaining fisheries, yet are not heavily visited, not as easily accessed, and are not as 'centric' to recreational visitors coming in over Tioga Pass and/or the generational annual family trip to camp in Tuolumne Meadows, etc.

I hope the NPS is NOT using rotenone for this restoration process.

Just my 2 cents worth and IMHO.  There likely will not ever be any 'perfect' solution for all parties.

Thanks again to WS Hawkins for providing this update to all of us!  Your incredible resources and sharing them are greatly enjoyed and appreciated. :bowdown:

John Harper

  • Weekender
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: Fishless Lakes
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2015, 11:34:10 AM »
All Yosemite lakes.  As they say, "the Frog lives."

John
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 11:38:25 AM by John Harper »

saudust

  • Eastern Sierra Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
    • View Profile
Re: Fishless Lakes
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2015, 06:10:02 AM »
Well put, PAC.
Let me wake laughing from a nap in the afternoon under the aspens in the fall.