This issue is of particular interest to me because I've been critical of the CDFGs aerial stocking program for some time, because of its history of poor oversight and shaky justification. For example, there are numerous examples of the wrong lakes being stocked. With today's sophisticated navigational instruments, it seems hard to imagine how this could happen. In reality, the aerial stocking program does not take advantage of these navigational advances, and still utilizes a rudimentary and error-prone method of identifying the target lakes. Mistakes can have disastrous consequences for species such as the imperiled mountain yellow-legged frog and are simply unacceptable. Second, in a paper published in 2004 we showed that of the hundreds of backcountry lakes being stocked in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, 70% actually contained self-sustaining trout populations and did not need to be stocked to provide recreational fisheries. By stocking these lakes, the CDFG was wasting scarce dollars that could have been used much more effectively elsewhere.
Fortunately, the CDFG has improved the scientific underpinnings of their aerial fish stocking program in recent years, but those changes have raised further questions. Most importantly, the CDFG has dramatically reduced the number of lakes being stocked, in part to eliminate the unnecessary stocking of lakes that contained self-sustaining trout populations and also to reduce impacts to native species. With this reduced number of stocking localities, the cost per lake of stocking has undoubtedly sky-rocketed because the underlying costs (including that of the King Air) remain unchanged. Does it really require a multi-million dollar airplane to stock a handful of backcountry lakes? Maybe the action of putting the stocking plane on the State's auction block will force the CDFG to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of their aerial stocking program.
This could get interesting.
Back to The Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Site.
CDFG appealed. It's paid for, and it's a specialized piece of gear. I can understand not having so many bulldozers for the duck refuges, as those can be shared and utilized based on need. It's kind of sad to see how much the DFG has to spend on legal fees from those suing all the time.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good that the DFG isn't stocking lakes that are SS. Still, I pay my license fees for a reason.
Russ
Hi Russ. Surely it is worth evaluating whether maintaining a multi-million dollar airplane to stock a couple hundred lakes is the best use of fishing license fees. Perhaps a helicopter would suffice, and that would reduce costs and increase fingerling survival. As I see it, this isn't about the existence of the fish stocking program. It is about maximizing benefits and minimizing costs of that program.
ReplyDeleteLooks like the King Air is still flying and stocking GT, according to reports. They want to replace her with something with Pontoons. Not sure what that means yet, but would think stick to the King. She's only an '81, and definitely cheaper to maintain than a helicopter.
ReplyDeleteRuss