Rotenone poisoning begins Sept 10 in Elk Creek to eliminate non-native brook trout-

Tomorrow eradication of brook trout will begin at Elk Creek. So too Lost and Yancy Creek tributaries of Elk Creek will be dosed with the fish poison rotenone. Before the project is over non-native fish are slated to be eliminated from these additonal Park creeks, lake and river:  Clear Creek, De Lacy Creek, Grayling Creek, Soda Butte Creek, Specimen Creek, Gibbon River. Pocket Lake and the lakes in the Goose Lake chain will also be poisoned and replanted with Yellowstone cutthroat trout.

The Native Fish Conservation Plan was completed during the period 2010-11. The Wildlife News posted the plan at the time of public comments, but it did not seem to get much interest, judging from the “hits” the post received.

Here is a story about it in the Jackson Hole Daily. Invasive trout to die in Yellowstone National Park’s Elk Creek. By Mike Koshmrl.
– – – – –

Reference. Yellowstone Completes Native Fish Conservation Plan. Mar. 25, 2011. This news release also includes some important links.

avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides.

67 Responses to Happy day! Brook trout to be poisoned. Yellowstone Park creeks will be restocked with native cutthroat

  1. I hope the park personnel are more careful while spraying Rotenone than the un-protected IDFG folks I saw spraying for Squawfish near McCall a few years ago.
    Rotenone exposure has been linked to Parkinson’s disease in humans and I am not sure it is something that should be used in Yellowstone.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      I wouldn’t want to be a person who deploys the rotenone because a study showed those who used it developed Parkinson’s disease about 2 1/2 times more often than non-users. Of course, that doesn’t mean that a one-time poisoning of the stream will result in some Parkinson’s-like syndrome after a year’s worth of water has washed down the stream because the chemical degrades in sunlight in 6 days.

      • avatar jdubya says:

        I can’t imagine that the numbers of people who have used rotenone are high enough to make a study like this have any useful statistical significance.

        • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

          jdubya,

          It is used in higher concentrations than for poisoning fish by gardeners and others. I would think some of the high exposures would come from this method of use.

          Just a little bit kills fish, but it takes more to kill most other target “pests,” and some amateurs think that if a little is good, more will be a lot better. Also, people will fail to use protective clothing and follow cleanup instructions.

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            Ralph:

            ” and some amateurs think that if a little is good, more will be a lot better. Also, people will fail to use protective clothing and follow cleanup instructions.”

            You’ve got that right. How many in suburbia have poisoned their neighbors as well as themselves with herbicides and pesticides. Talked with a vet once and he said lawn services use just enough to get the job done. It’s the do it yourselfers who over apply and have the potential to do the real damage.

            • avatar Mike says:

              It’s not just the “do-it-yourselfers”.

              Many lawn companies don’t even bother to pull weeds, instead slathering entire yards with an ingredient that was in agent orange.

              This stuff is not candy, but we’re trained to think that way by the companies that need to sell us these poisons.

              I donate to, and belong to this organization that is looking to change how things are done:

              http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticidefreelawns/

              Chicago was one of the first cities (not the suburbs…worst case scenario there) to get rid of herbicides completely, noting that if you see dandelions, it means the grass is safe for your family and pets.

              All you have to do is just cut the lawn more often.

            • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

              I have a small lawn, but keep most of my property in the rough, and I experiment with native grasses and forbs and plant sagebrush and bitterbrush, wild rose, etc. to slowly make more native space and keep some deer around.

              Not everyone can do this, but the City of Pocatello is officially endorsing xeriscaping rather than lawn to conserve water.

              I visited the Western Watersheds office in Tucson, and I was amazed that the entire neighborhood had developed an elaborate system to gather rainwater to keep Sonoran desert plants beautifully alive in the yards as well as some small gardens.

              I would like to see good incentives to abolish lawns, which are just a leftover from Europe to show you are wealthy enough to be able to “wastefully” grow grass — not have sheep on your grass as pasture.

            • avatar Immer Treue says:

              I remember a friend from Tucson commenting about “easterners” moving out West with their lawns and golf courses. “You live in a f@&$”!n desert! Build a rock garden!

              When one thinks of the time, energy and resources put into lawn care…

  2. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    I understand what they are trying to do here – but isn’t there a safer way? It’s seems so primitive to have killing and destruction as the only way to fix mistakes we have made. Can’t some be caught and fed to animals or people, or something? What happens once they are poisoned, do they stay in the environment? How will it affect other aquatic life and beneficial insects? I always hear about pesticides and herbicides “degrading in sunlight”. What about shaded areas and areas that don’t get much sunlight? When you add it all up to the poisons both people and animals are exposed to all the time…

    • avatar Mark L says:

      Yep….kind of like not searching for oil on the bottom of the GOM (cause we all know ‘oil’ rises in water). I don’t know of any bioaccumulation that has occurred on river-bottoms, or studies of that for that matter.

  3. avatar Craig says:

    So can the dead fish effect Eagles,Otters, Bears or whatever animal eats the dead fish?

    • avatar jdubya says:

      No. It is taken up by the gills of the fish (and insects, etc) and blocks energy production in the cells. By eating the stuff, it gets degraded in the stomach and intestine. It has a very short half life as well.

      • avatar Mike says:

        We thought the same thing about DDT, too.

        • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

          Mike, rotenone isn’t at all like DDT. It is not persistent. Even more distinctive, DDT is almost insoluble in water while rotenone dissolves readily.

          • avatar Mike says:

            Ralph,

            Did a chemical salesman tell you that?

            Rotenone is classified as moderately hazardous by the World Health Organization.

            It is far, far from benign. Rotenone can last six months in water, and is mildly toxic to humans, but ranks EXTREMELY toxic to most insects and fish life. This poison could be a part of the bee problem, too, and it is being phased out in the U.S. and Canada except for use as a piscicide.

            Yes, it can also kill a human, but it usually doesn’t happen because it triggers vomiting, and thus expulsion of the poison.

            The USDA classified rotenone as unsafe in 2005, and apparently reclassified it as safe again (which is quite strange).

            And let’s not forget the link to parkinson’s disease in rats ,and low dose damage to specific neurons.

            Wonderful stuff.

            I was a bit taken back by your joy over the use of a toxic chemical in our flagship national park. I know you were excited over the potential return of Yellowstone cutthroat to past numbers. I’d like that as well, Ralph. But not this way. Not by growing dependence on totally unnecessary chemicals.

            Last but not least, a 2011 study revealed a link between rotenone and Parkinson’s in farm workers.

            If our national parks won’t lead on emissions and toxic chemicals, who will?

            I’ve said it a million times, but our a ability to produce this crap far outweighs our ability to test for long and near term side effects. If we reach a Level 2 civilization, maybe, maybe we’d have that ability (on the Kardashev scale). But right now, we really don’t. Until then, best to proceed with caution.

            • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

              No Mike,

              A chemical salesman did not tell me anything. I happen to know the difference between something soluble in water and something soluble in fat or oil (like DDT). It is the latter that is long lasting. Rotenone is supposed to kill fish so, of course it is extremely toxic to fish. Do you want to poison them with something that is barely toxic?

              Rotenone is being usued successfully in many creeks and ponds, would you rather have Yellowstone’s fishing streams screwed up by with brook trout and rainbow trout? I opt for restoring the native Yellowstone cutthroat just like I advocated for restoring the wolves.

              The fact that this chemical in doses far above those that will briefly be in the water seems to cause Parkinson’s does not scare me. My rather died of Parkinson’s. I would not wish it on anyone, but these fish are not going to die of that. This is not a toxin that accumulates. By its nature it breaks down into non-toxic chemicals.

            • avatar Savebears says:

              Ralph you, I and many others understand exactly what you are saying, unfortunately, Mike seems oblivious to it, his way is the only way.

            • avatar Mike says:

              Ralph, new studies indicate Rotenone is linked to Parkinson’s in farm workers:

              http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110214115442.htm

              People who used either pesticide developed Parkinson’s disease approximately 2.5 times more often than non-users.

              That’s not something I want in my national park.

              When I think of Yellowstone National Park, I don’t think “application of Parkinson’s linked pesticide”.

              It’s also toxic to waterfowl, and a major eye irritant to rabbits.

              We all have our beliefs and standards for our public lands. I believe national parks should be free of toxic chemicals.

              We’ve got to start somewhere.

              An interesting study on Rotenone:

              Long term biodiversity effects of rotenone in California:

              The treatment had a substantial negative effect on biodiversity; several populations of native fish show negligible sign of recovering, while populations of all exotic species are up. ,

              http://www.sgreen.us/pmaslin/rsrch/rotenone/Intro.html

              It is very possible that diseases like Parkinson’s, ADD, and Alzheimer’s can be blamed on pesticides in our air and water. Every year, we seem to inch closer and closer to that possibility, simply because our ability to produce this junk exceeds our ability to test for the full array of side effects.

              That’s how this always works.

              One thing that cannot be argued is that this pesticide is somehow benign.

              And as usual, it is usually children who are most susceptible to the effects of these constant poisons in our air and water:

              http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-17-pesticides-adhd_N.htm

  4. avatar john says:

    so they are gonna kill ALL of the fish, and then put back new ones, is that right,,,??

    • avatar Savebears says:

      Jon,

      Yes that is right, they are going to kill a non-native fish and put native fish back.

      • avatar Savebears says:

        Opps, John, not Jon.

        • avatar john says:

          no problem,

          that seems risky, in the best of conditions, i am assuming the fishicide is limited to just fish, really seems a drastic measure with lots of unforeseen consequences

          • avatar WM says:

            John,

            You might give this a read, if you don’t trust the fisheries folks in the US who have used the product for years. Good paper on the use of rotenone from New Zealand, which according to some has environmental standards and ethics exceeding ours. Note the reference to indigineous peoples throughout Southeas Asia and South America, who have used rotenone containing plants for centuries to harvest fish for human consumption (something which US/state and other governments have discouraged in more recent times). Its use as an insecticide in the US goes back to the early 1930’s.

            http://www.conservation.co.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/SFC211.pdf

          • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

            john,

            This has been done many times, though there is an occasional screw-up. With national park fisheries, they will be especially careful because of the public interest.

            People seem to have a lot of questions now that there is this story, but as I wrote, where was the concern when the plan was being formulated and public input sought?

            • avatar john says:

              just seems risky but if it has no afterlife or very little maybe it works. i don’t know near enough about it.. Where do these “native” fish come from, do they harvest as many as they can from the park, then put em in a tank till they can put them back.

              what happens to the dead ones. will the streams and rivers be littered with carcasses..

  5. avatar Jerry Black says:

    Let’s get rid of the non-native fish in some of Montana’s streams.
    Good place to start would be Rock Creek……rid the creek of browns and rainbows and give the native westlope cutthroat and bull trout a chance to thrive.

    • avatar Savebears says:

      Jerry,

      I have heard that FWP plans to do so in many creek and lakes in Montana, I know they have poisoned a few high mountain lakes up here in NW Montana the last couple of years.

      • avatar Jerry Black says:

        SB…I wonder what position TU would take on the eradication of browns and rainbows in places like Rock Creek.
        Could even end up being very political.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Jerry,

          I have not seen an official position from TU, I do know the various articles I have read in the news, the comments posted are always saying leave it alone, some have accused FWP of taking away fishing opportunities.

    • avatar WM says:

      Jerry Black,

      Further to SB’s comment, regarding current MT efforts to eradicate non-native species in the high lakes, I first went into the Bob Marshall Wilderness in the late 1960’s. Incidentally, here were still a fair number of grizzlies in there at the time. I travelling cross country with my engineer/surveyor cousin who had aerial photos. There was not then, and is not now, a maintained trail to some of the lakes we fished. One, in particular, was Doctor Lake, not far from George Lake, which was filled with brook trout that hit nearly every cast of a Mepps spinner. The fish were all head and disproportionately small body, signs of malnutrition and they probably had eaten every cutthroat in the lake, for certain any of the young.

      It appears, BPA and the FS are now in a long term plan of removing the non-native fish in the Bob, beginning in 2005. The effort includes killing off the non-native species in upper reaches of the South Fork of the Flathead and restore with native cutthroat. Yippee!

      The chemical of choice in the Bob is antimycin. Both rotenone and antimycin have been used for many years throughout the US by state and federal project agencies in fish erradication efforts (sometimes together), apparently without significant incident. Rotenone, by the way, is found naturally in the Yuppie vegetable jicama sometimes found in salads these days.

      Bull trout eat everything in sight (and while native are a close relative of the brookie and the lake trout which are the subject of the erradication efforts throughout the West including Yellowstone NP). Interesting MTFWP fish indentification paper can be found here: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=51804 .

      I should also say there are some lakes and streams in the Wind River that have lake trout and brookies. They need to go, too.

      • avatar jdubya says:

        Then you will want to kill the Wind River golden trout as well? They are a national treasure.

        • avatar WM says:

          jdubya,

          Indeed goldens are a national treasure and worth preserving pure wherever they are.

          I don’t know in which Wind River lakes goldens co-inhabit with other species. However, over time it would not be unreasonable to conclude that they would be choked out, eaten up or interbred (with rainbow/cuts). I can say I have fished for goldens in several lakes there a number of times, including a well known one that has produced some good size ones, and never caught one (years ago I must admit). If I recall correctly there used to be a few lakes with ONLY goldens and no introduced non-natives. There is one hydrologically above the Cook Lakes protected by a waterfall. The Cooks from my memory are choked with those scaleless brookies (yuk).

          __________
          Jerry,

          I have successfully fished for kokanee over the years, but never with flies.
          They school up, like cold and deep water, and unless that fly gets down deep you may go fishless. Mostly I fished Banks and Mossy Rock, but a few others. And don’t you be catching any of those new run sockeyes the Yakima tribe is trying to reintroduce to Lake Cle Elum (LOL).

          • avatar Savebears says:

            I have never been successful on Kok’s with flies, we used to fish Swift and Yale for them and did catch quite a few, but never with flies, always bait and trolling.

          • avatar jdubya says:

            There are a couple of watersheds up high that have very effective natural fish barriers, and goldens are above them. They have stayed clean for decades and will likely stay that way as long as some stupid bucket biologist doesn’t screw them up.

            Getting rid of brookies if fine by me, but at the goldens I draw a line!

      • avatar Jerry Black says:

        WM…..I’m now living within a 5 minute hike to the Cle Elum River and close to the dam.
        Lots of interesting work being done here to provide more salmon and bull trout habitat.
        Now, I just have to figure out how to catch some of the millions of kokanee salmon that inhabit Lake Cle Elum on a fly.
        Anyone here ever fly fished for these tasty little salmon????

  6. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    In Wyoming, there is an ongoing program of using non-Yellowstone waters as new nurseries for the endangered Yellowstone native Cutthroat trout. This is a joint state-federal project that benefits both state and National Park fisheries. The Park Service gets an offsite ” hedge fund” of trout for Yellowstone to restock down the road , a good thing since the Yellowstone native Cutt population has “crashed” in the past 15 years due to illegally introduced Mackinaw troutIt seems to be working , so far. And Wyoming gets to re-jig some high country trout streams with native trout instead of the slew of imported alien exotics they were stocked with a long time ago…German browns, Brookies, etc . FYI—the Rainbow Trout so sought by anglers is actually a Steelhead salmon species , not native to interior North American rivers and lakes; introduced for sport fishing it has overwhelmed native trout.

    By carefully selecting some drainages that are isolated yet have long spawning runs, Rotenone treatment across two seasons and restocking with native Yellowstone Cutts has worked well in the Dead Indian Creek drainage off Sunlight Creek in NW Wyoming above Cody. Now Wyo G&F is planning for more of these at other locations, even over in the Big Horn Mountains well away from Yellowstone.

    Rotenone is an all-natural piscicide made from tropical plants. It’s instantly deadly to fish but also kills insects. It was commonly used in ag chemicals to control cutworms and crop maggots but is being phased out as a pesticide. Third World folks use rotenone to do wholesale fish kills. It persists in the environment for less than 4 days and is very week after 2 days.

    The jury is out on the side effects. Seems as safe as could be for what it has to do, unless of course you are the guy who is actually dispensing the concentrated stuff in the first place.

    I’m ambivalent about all this. It’s probably a great thing to restock wild waters with native Cutts in my Wyoming, by whatever means are affordable and effective,, but the whole ” Put and Take ” sport fishing thing and the methods used to farm those fish to provide a good crop for the state’s fishing license cash registers do not pass the ecological purity test ( he says facetiously).

    For now, rotenone and carefully managed fishery work get a cautionary green light. It’s worked and worked well where I live ( and I do not fish ).

  7. avatar elk275 says:

    Here is a project going on right now in the Bob Marshall Wilderness:

    Friday, August 31, 2012
    Fish & Wildlife – Region 1

    The South Fork Flathead westslope cutthroat trout conservation program will continue this fall with rotenone treatment of Lick Lake during September 9 through 14, 2012. The purpose of this project is to remove nonnative trout and the threat they pose to westslope cutthroat trout in the South Fork drainage. Westslope cutthroat trout will be restocked in Lick Lake the following spring to reestablish the recreational fishery. During this project, Forest Trail #291 will be closed on the Spotted Bear District from the junction of Gordon Creek Trail #35. For more information please visit the Westslope Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project website, or contact fisheries biologist Matt Boyer at 751-4556; mboyer@mt.gov

  8. avatar Dan says:

    another silly wildlife adventure…..

    because the cutts going into those streams are anything but native…they are cutts from another drainage, most likely void of the small adaptations the original cutts found in those streams…

    Warm fuzzy feel good science is all this is…derived from biologists who were raised in the city and drive to these creeks from the city but the “science” makes them feel good and “makes sense” in their book feed brain….

    • avatar Mike says:

      Dan,

      Agreed.

      And this crap being dumped into the streams is not candy.

      The reliance upon pesticides by the national park system (which is supposed to be free of such poison) goes against what the parks stand for, and increase reliance on dangerous, toxic chemicals and toxic chemcial producers.

      I’ve spoken with numerous agencies and managers in the park and forest system over the years concerning the use of herbicides and pesticides, and it is not pretty. Workers are AFRAID to implement the stuff, and the ones who aren’t tend to be incredible careless in their application. One mistake can wipe out a stretch of river.

      The bottom line is this:

      Life is life. There are creatures such as mink and otters and osprey who eat those brook trout. Now their favorite creek will have no fish.

      People tend to focus on a very, very small picture, and this isn’t even getting into our lax ability to detect long-term effects in poison (see DDT, among others).

    • avatar John says:

      I am personally glad that park officials are implementing a plan to extirpate brook trout and lake trout from Yellowstone’s waterways. Both species of trout are voracious predators, and with food supplies lacking even cannibals. Once established in a watershed they will quickly become the top predators. Both species are invasive and their territory needs to be curtailed to let native cutthroat and grayling return to their native systems.

      While I can understand people’s concerns over chemical use and possible misuse, it is a proven strategy for removal of unwanted fish. Here is a link to an FAQ about the use and safety of Rotenone from the state of Arizona when they developed a plan for the same thing:

      http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/documents/ROTENONE%20FAQ%20committee%20final%20report%20section%201-6-12.pdf

      This chemical has been around for hundreds of years and still is in use today. Yes, it will kill all the fish in a stream along with gill breathing vertebrate life; however it will begin to recover with 2 weeks. The article Kevin referenced noted that treated waters will be back to normal within 2 years. It is one of the few available options, as electro-fishing and use of nets will be totally inefficient. All it takes is for a male and female to slip by, and your work was for naught. The science is real, it just takes a little more effort to find it and research it on your own. Your argument just lambasts people who are educated and trained trying to do the right thing, not just for their “book feed brain”, but for fish ecology. It is a proven fact that fish are plastic in their morphology, being able to expend energy to adapt to their environment. Researchers have proven that they can do this in less than 4 weeks; the study was conducted with Atlantic salmon and brown trout. If you want use Google Scholar for this on a read on it:

      Freshwater Biology (2008) 53, 1544–1554,

      it’s the first one that pops up.
      – – – –
      Webmaster note: this person “John” is a new person of that name who hasn’t commented before on The Wildlife News. I know lot of people use the name “John” as their comment name. I would encourage this person to maybe add an initial to his or her screen name. The same is true with other “Johns.” Ralph Maughan

  9. avatar Mike says:

    Ralph,

    I’m not sure the use of any poison is cause for celebration.

    It seems mankind’s ability to produce poison exceeds our ability to properly gauge the full array of side effects.

  10. avatar Jeff says:

    The poison will kill all the invertebrates, too. And that is very bad. It would be much better to use nets … slower … more labor intensive … but that is a good thing. It may take repetitions (more work for the willing!), but who says we have to have these very costly, instant solutions to problems in the natural world … in the flagship national park, no less?

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      I so agree, esp. about our need for instant solutions. Just because a poison is naturally-ocurring, doesn’t mean it isn’t still deadly. That’s the same argument that they uses with the artificial pyrethrins, and they are stronger than the natural. I have concerns about it affecting all of the wildlife – birds, mammals, invertebrates. A more labor intenstive but less toxic solution is the answer, I think. We just don’t seem to want to stop playing God in the environment.

  11. avatar Nancy says:

    “Amphibians and aquatic macroinvertebrates that are affected by piscicide treatment would be expected to “recover” (my emphasis) completely within three years, and would likely recover more quickly,” the document said”

    A very long, but interesting review on the same subject:

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/B0465E/B0465E01.HTM

    “A fish toxicant should be specific to target species, easy to apply, harmless to non=target animals and plants, safe to human handlers, subject to rapid and complete degradation or detoxification, and non-persistent in animals, plants, or the environment. Although cost of a toxicant is important, it must be a secondary criterion rather than a governing one. Also, a fishery manager using a toxicant should be provided with adequate information on the relationships between duration of exposure and concentration to yield a killing dose.

    This information must include any limitations inherent in the performance of the toxicant due to environmental factors such as water quality, water temperature, turbidity, or presence of abundant plant life. The fishery manager must be advised on methods for distributing the toxicant to secure optimum results with minimum quantities. Moreover, he must have field-type analytical means to determine the quantity of toxicant present in water at a given time and to detect when it has degraded to non-toxic levels. He must know how and when to detoxify the chemical, if necessary, to protect competing users of the water.

    Few of the fish toxicants discussed in this review meet most of the above criteria. Thus, some chemicals such as endrin, toxaphene, Guthion, parathions, and cyanide compounds have been banned or restricted as fish toxicants in Federal waters in the United States. Many more specific toxicants such as TFM, Fintrol, and Squoxin are needed, but the research necessary to find and develop them is long and expensive”

    Poisoning hundreds of thousands of fish, not to mention numerous other species, native or non-native (cause the jury’s still out on that) has got to be, at some point, a drain on Mother Nature’s ability to continuely “bounce” back from so much of mankind’s introduction/folly/greed/ assault on her domain.

    .

    • avatar Mike says:

      ++Poisoning hundreds of thousands of fish, not to mention numerous other species, native or non-native (cause the jury’s still out on that) has got to be, at some point, a drain on Mother Nature’s ability to continuely “bounce” back from so much of mankind’s introduction/folly/greed/ assault on her domain. ++

      Well said. At some point, we just have to leave it the hell alone.

  12. avatar mikepost says:

    Interesting. Get rid of all those non-native cows, sheep, feral horses, feral pigs, feral cats, etc. but don’t touch my non-native rainbow trout. Different ethics for different critters. Thats poor science and poor politics.

  13. avatar Mike says:

    It’s strange to me that a Prius or Volt has to pay the same entrance fee as a Hummer in Yellowstone National Park.

    If our national parks aren’t going to lead on toxic chemicals and emissions, who will?

    • avatar Tim says:

      Mike says “It’s strange to me that a Prius or Volt has to pay the same entrance fee as a Hummer in Yellowstone National Park.

      If our national parks aren’t going to lead on toxic chemicals and emissions, who will?”

      Why should those vehicles get any different fee? Where do you think all those toxic chemicals and metals in your battery come from and where do they go when your battery craps out after 5 years? Your not quite the saint you seem to think you are.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Most of the rare earth metals in these batteries are found in China.

        • avatar Tim says:

          Thanks Immer. I was more trying to point out how those metals are mined from the ground. You do raise a good point though. Knowing how china is with their regulations it would seem to be a fair assessment that China would have far more pollution then we would from producing those batteries. Then you also have the electricity you have to produce to run them (coal burning power plants, salmon blocking dams, bat killing wind farms, radiation spewing nuclear plants ect.), but at least those that have them can feel great about not burning as much gas.

      • avatar skyrim says:

        Do you really think that comment was called for Tim?
        BTW, I did not know that used batteries all went to Yellowstone when their service life was used up. Geez, I am so misinformed………

      • avatar Mike says:

        Tim –

        Tell that to the bears looking for whitebark pine nuts this fall.

  14. avatar CaptainSakonna says:

    “Happy day”?? It’s not a happy day for the fish being poisoned, that’s for sure. I realize that they are doing this in the hope of promoting the greater good of the ecosystem and yadda yadda yadda, but could we at least spare a thought for all the lives that are being lost?

  15. avatar Mike says:

    Rotenone linked to Parkinson’s in humans:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110214115442.htm

    Wow! I can’t wait to dip my water filter into Lost and Yancy Creeks.

    Should I really have to even think about this when in the nation’s flagship park?

    Really?

    Someone has to lead, and it has to start somewhere.

    • avatar Savebears says:

      Too bad, based on what others are posting to you Mike, that you are not that “Someone”

      • avatar Mike says:

        Strange comment, SB.

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Not strange, just honest, you are not that person Mike, you are not a leader!

          • avatar Mike says:

            No, it is strange, because I was talking about Yellowstone leading by example.

            I think that North Fork paranoia is bubbling up again….

            • avatar Savebears says:

              Mike,

              You are the one that is paranoid and very biased, you have your mind made up that most things that get done with the wilds of America is wrong, because they don’t fit you view of things, you have no room for anything but your view.

              I have no paranoia, especially from people like you!

              LOL

        • avatar Mike says:

          I still love you, JB. Maybe we can meet up for a cup of hot chocolate and some independent rock music up there on the North Fork?

          My point is, at some point, somewhere, we have to stop using unnecessary products that are linked to horrible diseases. I don’t think that’s asking too much. Maybe in a hundred years we will figure it out. A few cities are catching on, which is good news.

  16. avatar Headwaters says:

    Here’s another way to go at the same problem, one that gets meat-fishermen into the conservation tent. I’m ethically opposed to catch-and-release because it amounts to harassing animals for fun rather than participating in the ecological process of predation. Most other anglers seem to sneer at me, but whatever. In any event, I sure like my stewardship license and in fact I’m heading out in half an hour to see if there are any brookies left in one of my favourite cutthroat streams.
    Here’s the link to the story about this program: http://outdoorcanada.ca/19988/fishing/tips-fishing/why-we-should-kill-albertas-brook-trout

Calendar

September 2012
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey