View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2012, 12:17 PM
silver creek silver creek is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,130
silver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond reputesilver creek has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Vermont BANS Felt Soled Wadding Boots

It is not only dydimo and felt soled boots that is an example of how experts that should know better say one thing but do another on the issue invasive species.

Another example is Whirling Disease (WD) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDW) trout hatcheries. At on time WH was found in 12 of 15 CDW hatcheries. Instead of shutting the fish hatcheries down and cleaning them, the CDW continued to stock infected fish into its public waters, some of which were previously uninfected! They spread WD into their own uninfected waters.

They have since changed that policy. However they still have a policy of stocking infected fish "only" into waters that already have WD. They had research which showed that parasite dose exposure in the environment increases infection rates and decreases survival. The CDW stocking increased the infection rate. And yet, they continue to do so, in spite of the science that says they should not.

"Parasite dose strongly determines the severity of whirling disease which generally increases with the number of triactinomyxons the fish encounters (Hoffman 1974; O’Grodnick 1979; Markiw 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Hedrick et al. 1999a; Thompson et al. 1999; Densmore et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2001; Ryce et al. 2004; Ryce et al. 2005)."

http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=40473

The current policy of CDW is to continue to stock infected fish.

"A policy implemented in spring 1995 prevents the stocking of trout from hatcheries testing positive into waters where whirling disease has not been found. This includes wilderness areas and streams where native trout may be restored. Trout from positive hatcheries will be stocked into waters where the parasite has been found to minimize the risk of contaminating other watersheds. Only trout from negative testing hatcheries can be stocked into waters where the parasite has not been found.

Last fall, the Division of Wildlife released new research suggesting that the stocking of infected fish in WD+ reservoirs was increasing the level of infection in brown trout populations downstream (for highlights from the research, see the whirling disease page). CTU believes this research offers further evidence that the stocking of infected fish (even in habitats that already have the WD parasite present) can harm the resource. There have been many questions about how the DOW will – or will not – respond to these important new findings in their management programs, where "lightly" infected trout continue to be stocked in numerous waters around the state (the so-called "B waters").
"

http://parks.state.co.us/SiteCollect...nformation.pdf

I understand that few fisheries departments act with such disregard. Maryland, for example, has an aggressive testing policy and they did the right thing and closed the Bear Creek hatchery when WD was found.

"The discovery of whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis) at Bear Creek Hatchery in late 2006 led to the eventual closing of that facility. It has remained closed since early 2007."

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries.../BCH08plan.pdf

Nevertheless, when a state such as Colorado with its many miles of trout habitat acts in such a way, is there any wonder that I dig into the the actual bills that are passed to see if the rules apply equally to the state employees and the fishing public?

Can we not agree that the fishing public and the state employees should be treated equally under the law? How can anyone, in this time in our history, say that a public employee carving out a privilege for himself over the public is acceptable?
__________________
Regards,

Silver



"Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought"..........Szent-Gyorgy
Reply With Quote