Yes, I know that they wouldn't do it without extensive planning, but what they don't know might hurt hte fish. for example, Artemia monica is only found in lake mono in california. If they didn't know that it existed, and nuked that lake, the species would be gone forever. If the case is the same with that pond, it might be a bad idea

It is Known that Artemia monica is in that one locality through extensive survey and sampling. This is known because the state was spending money to do this work. The area has obviously been looked at already.

In this case BTW it should be noted the whole fricking area is FUBAR anyhow so any effects on Native wildlife is likely to be minimal and the effects of leaving an invasive pest is likely far worse than putting in a bunch of "annual trout".

Am I mistaken or is that not a man made lake created for "recreation" purposes?
Most likely created by damming a river system that once was linked to the ocean.
I wonder how many native species were impacted by the creation of the dam. Were trout even found in the system to begin with? Are there any pure genetic strains available to restock once they poison the lake? I'm not even gonna ask about the native non-game species. You KNOW they aren't raised in any hatcheries.
Really kinda crazy when you think about it. They spent X millions to dam the river [and killed or impacted untold number of species], then they spent X millions to stock and support a "put and take" trout fishery [which killed or impacted untold numbr of species], and now they're gonna spend X more millions to poison [and kill or impact untold number of species] the nasty pike which might eat some of their precious mutant grocery store truck-bows.
And they portray the pike introduction as some ecological act of terrorism which will disrupt the delicate balance of nature.
I wonder how the trout and pike have coexisted for thousands of years in lakes where they are actually both native?
I wonder how many species, subspecies or genetic strains have disappeared due to pike predation?
How does that compare to the impact of stocking non-native, genetically inferrior or diseased trout into sensitive waters? Look at the golden trout or the east slope cutthroat to name a couple. And how bout whirrling disease?
I'd just like to know where to find those pike that "typically grow to weigh about 55 pounds". That's where I plan to spend MY next flyfishing vacation!

It's not a slam on pike. Get over it. Pike in the right places are fine. Excellent. Superb fish! (and nice fish by the way). It's just that the Sacramento River isn't one of those places. Pike natively co-occur and co-exist with almost every species of trout and salmon in North America (and with many other species in Eurasia)! Only a small fraction of their native range is south of the native range of salmonids, and only a small portion of Alaska (drainages south of the Peninsula) did not have native pike populations prior to human-mediated introductions. The problem is that 'naive' salmon smolts that have not been previously subject to pike predation and lots of pike are a bad combination - there's lots of evidence from portions of Alaska where pike have been introduced and subsequently knocked down native salmonids (see review in Mecklenberg et al. 2002).

Yes, "Lake Davis" is a reservoir (we need to start a PR campaign to rename all reservoirs for what they really are - they sure as heck aren't lakes!). It's high enough in the system (~4000 ft) that it's out of most of anadromous salmonid range, and had a fairly depauperate fauna prior to reservoir construction (speckled dace, Sacramento sucker, and probably some riffle sculpins). Most of the state has been trashed out anyway - too many dang people.

Why worry? If pike wind up in the Sac Delta, there's the potential that they'll totally hammer salmon runs that are on their last legs anyway. The whole thing is perfect pike habitat; shallow, heavily vegetated, loads of forage, etc. You could make the argument that there's a lot of other factors involved (like, say, the conversion of the entire Sacramento Valley into heavily modified ag land, which no politician with any cajones seems to want to to cry about), but still, it's irresponsible to be adding additional stressors.

I'm in favor of curbing introductions of ALL non-indigenous fishes (including those STILL conducted by California DFG under the guise of "fisheries enhancement"!). Pike pose a serious threat to California's biodiversity, and should be excluded from the state. Period.

Cheers,
Dave

Boy, I'm not having a good night with my communication skills!
I should probably hang up the keyboard and go to bed.

I didn't mean to sound as if I was against killing the pike [or other species] in that or any other pond, lake, river, reservoir where they are not native. They have their place and there are places were they are inapporpreate.
I really don't know anything about the body of water in question other than it's man made and on the Sacramento Delta system. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that anadromous salmonids were already extirpated. I am aware that introduced striped bass had some impact and that pollution and water usage have had a considerally larger impact.
My point to was to illustrate the irony of spending so much money to eradicate one ecological disaster to protect another expensive ecological disaster. True, the pike might eat some of the few salmon smoults that somehow survive in the totally compromised system, but it's closing the barn door long after the cow got out.
I think I am dangourously close to expressing "opinion" which I see is discouraged in this forum. Hopefully you'll cut me some slack for being new here.
[BTW, philosophically I am against ALL exotic introductions and pro-native but I confess I do spend lots of time and money chasing exotics species such as brown and rainbow trout, largemouth and smallmouth bass and northern pike. I've purchased a fishing license every year for 30 years now even though a good chunk of that money goes into raising and stocking even more exotic species. Would I give it all up if it meant we could return our waters to the pure but species poor condition nature intended? In a heartbeat.]

hey mikez,

No worries. Hope I didn't come off as too harsh.

When it comes to ecological disasters, introductions are up there among the worst - habitat will usually recover from perturbation given enough time, but once established exotic species are nearly impossible to get rid of. At least in this case they were in a part of the system that was treatable.

A friend gave me a copy of Alan Weisman's The World Without Us a couple of weeks ago. Interesting read, and well worth picking up. I don't agree with everything he suggests (and he stretches some of his supporting evidence awfully thin for my tastes), but there's still some good stuff in there.

As for what to do with things once they're established, well, that's a different story... I spent a couple hours last night out chasing stripers.

cheers,
Dave

hey mikez,
As for what to do with things once they're established, well, that's a different story... I spent a couple hours last night out chasing stripers.

Now that's something I know a little bit about!
Anytime you need any help thinning out those bad boys, you just let me know.

Actually stripers are probably a much bigger threat to salmon smoults than the pike would ever be. I know the recovery of the stripers on the east coast put a serious damper on the atlantic salmon restoration project in the Connecticut river. Apparently atlantic smoults dropped down river at night. Problem was, although the fisheries managers succeeded in restoring the striper population, they did nothing for their depleted forage base. Now you had all these hungry stripers staking out the river mouth at night. Along come these bite sized little salmon, highly precious and produced with great effort and millions of federal tax dollars. You can guess where that is going. Those were some expensive snacks for the stripers!

First we need to do a $2.7M study with recommendations which nobody will follow.

hahaha Irate.
Isn't that about the truth.

I think I am dangourously close to expressing "opinion" which I see is discouraged in this forum.

Hehe, that never stopped ME! No matter how uninformed

Well, ya know, opinion is fine as long as it's based on physical reality. That's the prime criterion. Irate merely feigns oblivion.

Well, ya know, opinion is fine as long as it's based on physical reality. That's the prime criterion. Irate merely feigns oblivion.

What, you don't believe I'm as oblivious as I sound? I am, really, I am!

Wimpy's Marina, near right near walnut grove, CA. Taking the boat out of the water at the marina after a day of erosion surveys. The CA DFG was backing a tanker truck with 300,000 slamon smolt up to the launch area. They opened the valve and shot these things into the water. Thing is its one of the same places they put them in every year, the stripers know that too. The water boiled with a striper feeding frenzy. Locals said this is the hot spot to catch striper once the DFG started their feeding...I mean stocking program.

http://maps.google.c...n...ap&ct=title

The trout should also be eradicated but then once the lake is sterile, they put just the "right" fish (trout) back in the lake. I'm all for the removal of fishes that have been illegally introduced or introduced outside of it's natural but at what cost? I not only mean the monetary consequences but the impact on the 137 miles of stream that should contain wild native fishes. I wonder if they'll place trout native to that area in that lake once the poisoning is done? I wonder if they reserved breeding stock from the 137 miles of natural waters to reintroduce the natural fish among other aquatic critters once complete.

Does the lake truly recover from that ? I would think other amphibians,reptiles,etc would also be killed.

I recall when I lived in NY (Suburbs) they used that 'safe" helicopter dropped chemical to kill mosquitos on ponds,etc.

I left NY 5 yrs later and still 5 yrs later NOT ONE not a single toad or salamander did I ever see again. Before the summer of the 'safe" chemical to kill mosquitos I saw them by the drones in the summer ESP toads than nothing ever again.

I wrote the state and dept of health but got back form type letters

It is Known that Artemia monica is in that one locality through extensive survey and sampling. This is known because the state was spending money to do this work. The area has obviously been looked at already.

In this case BTW it should be noted the whole fricking area is FUBAR anyhow so any effects on Native wildlife is likely to be minimal and the effects of leaving an invasive pest is likely far worse than putting in a bunch of "annual trout".

if they remove the pike with hook and line or nets great but any chemical is bad for the whole enviroment I have seen the disaster that "safe" mosquito poison has done to amphibians in upper East Long Island NY

There is no safe chemical the pike will be removed as will lots of other animals that use the lake

Probably not.

No they wont as to many "non important" critters. Little toads,frogs,salamanders tiny native fish . Than you have snakes that rely on these critters to eat. Birds who eat fish .
Turtles etc the list goes on they erradicate the animal they set out to erradicate add the animal9fish) they want and move on the countless other criiters are doomed.

I have seen non natives in areas here that I frequent keep it to myself as dont want the state now killing everything to remove 1 yellow lab cichlid

I spent a couple hours last night out chasing stripers.

I was gonna say I did the same thing last night, but I realized I read that wrong.....

There is no safe chemical the pike will be removed as will lots of other animals that use the lake

I take it your not very familiar with types and concentrations of Rotenone and the LD50 of it for an Esox... Regardless this was already done and has been over with for some time now... What was the effect? A bunch of dead Bullheads other exotics and Pike...

The trout are still happily swimming along and this spring they will have thousands of more new exotic friends to share the lake with..

http://www.sfgate.co...3/BAOHSI41V.DTL

I take it your not very familiar with types and concentrations of Rotenone and the LD50 of it for an Esox... Regardless this was already done and has been over with for some time now... What was the effect? A bunch of dead Bullheads other exotics and Pike...

The trout are still happily swimming along and this spring they will have thousands of more new exotic friends to share the lake with..

http://www.sfgate.co...3/BAOHSI41V.DTL

I myself am not familiar at all with chemicals at all but am familiar with gvmt lies and "safe" chemicals killing amphibians in my old area .
I wonder if there will be some unforseen problem with other critters that live there / time will tell again maybe not and I know NOTHING of chemicals but did see the complete salamander,toad population in my old area of Long island wiped out