Tim Smith

From the AFS message board: <http://www.salina.com/Print/walleye031711> Print | <http://www.salina.com/outdoors/story/walleye031711> Email PRATT - In late March and early April, walleye migrate to rocky shallows in Kansas reservoirs to spawn. At this time, anglers gather along rip-rapped dams hoping to catch large walleye by casting jigs, rattle traps, crank baits, and stick baits from shore. Some even wade to cast parallel with the shore. But anglers aren't the only ones interested in this activity although their interests are at stake. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) fisheries biologists take advantage of the spawn to harvest walleye eggs, which are then taken to agency hatcheries where increased hatching success means more fish for anglers in years to come. This year, three reservoirs will provide KDWP with walleye eggs. Egg-taking will begin on March 21 at Cedar Bluff Reservoir, March 21 at Hillsdale Reservoir, and March 28 at Milford Reservoir. Nets will be placed to catch spawning females that provide eggs both walleye and saugeye hatching programs. Fall test netting revealed large populations of big walleye in these three lakes. Infestations of zebra mussels, white perch, and other aquatic nuisance species (ANS) in several Kansas reservoirs require special care during egg-taking to prevent the spread of these potentially-destructive species. All sperm and egg collection will take place on each lake and the fish returned to that lake immediately. Eggs will be fertilized at the lake, as well, so no fish will be moved. On March 14, KDWP biologists began catching male sauger and milking them for milt (sperm) for the saugeye hatching program. (The saugeye is a walleye/sauger hybrid.) Milt is preserved in vials that are taken to Milford Reservoir to fertilize walleye eggs. Biologists will work for the next few weeks collecting and fertilizing eggs, transporting them to KDWP's hatcheries at Farlington, Milford, and Pratt, and eventually stocking fish throughout the state. Some fry are stocked in hatchery ponds to be raised to fingerling size and stocked later in late May and early June. Others are stocked directly into lakes as fry. In addition to walleye, the Milford Hatchery will produce the saugeye. Saugeye grow faster and larger than sauger and are thought to be less prone to wash-out high flow-through reservoirs than the walleye. To prevent production of fertile saugeye that have the potential to breed with walleye already in a lake - and potentially diluting that walleye population's genetics - a "triploid induction" process is used on some of the saugeye produced. Triploid induction is a technique that allows genetic manipulation of a chromosome number to create a potentially faster-growing, but sterile, saugeye. KDWP's statewide harvest goal for 2011 is 77 million eggs, with a production goal of 37 million walleye, 8 million saugeye, and 1.2 million sauger. Because fewer than 5 percent of eggs hatch in the wild, artificial spawning and hatching is used to increase egg survival rates as much as 40-50 percent. When hatchery-bound eggs reach their destination, biologists monitor incubation closely. Water flows are checked to ensure constant but controlled movement. Water temperatures and oxygen content are also routinely checked. Dead eggs rise to the top of the jars and are siphoned off each day. With a water temperature of 60 degrees, hatching generally occurs on the eighth or ninth day of incubation. As the fry break out of their egg cases, they are carried upward by the water into large circular holding tanks where they are held for two to four days. Then they are ready for stocking. All this activity may not be high-profile, but it makes Kansas walleye fishing much more productive. And as waters warm and days grow longer in late March and early April, many anglers take their cue from fisheries biologists and enjoy the opportunity to take walleye from the shore.

Not a chance. Without regulation, all those wild-eyed grannies on ATVs tearing up the stream banks could silt up every stream in Missouri. That doesn't even account for the gravel miners, sewage releases, industrial output, livestock effects, logging, agriculture and a thousand other things that happen on private property that affect the public resource. Pollution has no respect for property boundaries. Until there is a law in place (and because pollution moves across state boundaries it has to be federal law) no amount of conservation sentiment will matter in the end. Good luck getting your ATV on Nature Conservancy land. They mostly won't even let you visit on foot...and they're doing less with their land and are even more broke than the feds. You're really just kind of stirring the pot here aren't you.

Yes. There is a patent. The current fish has genes from an eelpout that normally turn on anti-freeze genes that have now been used to keep growth hormone switched on continually. Studies have shown these fish have greater scope for growth and consume more resources. Once they attain larger size they will be much better competitors for space (salmonids attack each other continually as they compete for feeding stations and body size is the primary determinant of those interactions). These fish also die sooner under starvation conditions (conditions which are not uncommon in low-nutrient western rivers). Over time, this gene will compete heavily with wild fish for space and resources.

Yes, that is my understanding. It's approval for a new product with no stipulation as to specific source. I agree the system is messed up. Getting it fixed might be one outcome here. I think we're also not far off on the public opinion issue. Random ideas out of left field aren't the same as careful scientific study and the opinion of experts. The input of environmental scientists on this issue (and others) deserves a better hearing than it has gotten to this point.

He's trolling for a rise.

Not a stretch at all. We have 100 million more people in the country than we did in 1970. Without strong regulation you would have kissed much of what you hold dear goodbye by now. And if you're satisfied with your position that the Feds should not buy more land because your wife can't ride an ATV off-trail on it, then you're welcome to it. You would have landed more light bulbs if you had stuck with the need to reduce the deficit.

Glad to see your concerns about petitioning the FDA are off the table now. I thought we would agree there once the facts were on the table. Aquabounty can and will sell those eggs to whoever wants to buy them. That's common practice in aquaculture and the Panama farm is beside the point.

You may not realize it, but you said exactly that. Without EPA protection, most rivers in the US would be dead wastelands and the only hope to improve the imparied ones we have now is through EPA protection. Ok. So your position is that lands that are now not available to the public are somehow "not accessible" because if the Feds acquire them and open them to the public, you can't ride your ATV on them??

Do you have any evidence that these federal wild lands acquisitions will not be accessible? Certainly that is not true for the vast majority of Federal land. You also have not explained why federal hatcheries are good but federal protection of natural reproduction is bad.

Interesting. There was quite a bit of support for Federal funding of hatcheries here on the forum. How many fish do you think are produced naturally in US waters vs. the number that are produced in hatcheries (vastly, vastly more). The standard the EPA uses to regulate US waters is that they be "fishable" (i.e. that they produce fish suitable for fisheries). Why protect the hatcheries, but not natural reproduction?

From the AFS message board: TRCP Presents ‘Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist’ as Budget Debate Intensifies Sportsmen highlight chief areas of concern in conservation programs targeted in House spending bill WASHINGTON – As Congress continues to debate a wide-ranging budget bill, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership today released the TRCP Sportsmen <http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/Conservation_Cuts_Checklist4.pdf> ’s Priorities Checklist, highlighting conservation programs targeted for reductions that are critical to sustaining fish and wildlife habitat and of foremost concern to hunters and anglers. “As our elected officials continue budget deliberations, the TRCP offers the Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist as a window into issues of top concern to hunters and anglers,” said TRCP President and CEO Whit Fosburgh. “We urge our leaders to act decisively to uphold this nation’s grand tradition of supporting and conserving our shared natural resources.” Cuts passed by the House of Representatives last month but rejected by the Senate would slash funding for a range of policies affecting fish and game management, hunting and angling access and public- and private-lands administration. The current budget extension expires March 18, and both short- and longer-term proposals have been advanced by lawmakers. Another temporary budget bill was passed yesterday by the House; it now awaits Senate action. “While sportsmen support budgetary conservatism, these proposed cuts would adversely affect fish and wildlife populations and destroy decades of gains made by our nation in the name of conservation,” Fosburgh continued. “Rather than catalyzing fiscal recovery and growth, this legislation would negatively impact the more than $192 billion that hunting and angling inject into America’s economy every year. Sportsmen strongly oppose this course of action.” The TRCP Sportsmen’s Priorities Checklist spotlights the following conservation programs: ü Land and Water Conservation Fund: Funds to the LWCF, which has acquired and conserved some of the nation’s most popular public-lands hunting and angling destinations, would be cut by $393 million. ü Natural Resources Adaptation: The Department of the Interior’s natural resources adaptation programs, which are critical to fish and wildlife management efforts in the face of climate change, would be reduced by more than 30 percent. ü State and Tribal Wildlife Grants: These grants provide federal money to every state and territory for efforts aimed at preventing key fish and wildlife species from becoming endangered; funding, currently at $90 million, would be completely eliminated. ü North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: A core program for conserving waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat, this partnership-based approach would be eradicated under the House proposal. ü Wild Lands: The Department of the Interior would be prohibited from carrying out Secretarial Order 3310, which enables evaluation of BLM lands to achieve management objectives designed to conserve high-quality backcountry fish and wildlife habitat. ü Clean Water Act: The EPA would be prevented from using funds to implement, administer or enforce a change pertaining to definitions of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act – a modification that would restore conservation measures for millions of acres of wetlands and miles of waterways. These and other proposed reductions, including departmental cuts to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, could result in lasting effects to long-standing American conservation activities. “If these cuts and actions take place, waterfowl, waterfowl hunters and wetlands conservation would lose in a big way,” said Dale Hall, CEO of Ducks Unlimited, a TRCP partner, and former USFWS director. “In short, these actions would adversely affect all of us who care about, and have funded, wetlands and waterfowl conservation. We should remember, conservation in America pays for itself through the economic return from hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts.” “Hunters and angler conservationists are willing to shoulder our share of the burden for reducing federal discretionary spending, but a disproportionate burden should not be saddled on programs of critical value to sportsmen,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government affairs for Trout Unlimited, a TRCP partner. “We urge Congress to address these shortcomings so that our nation’s fish and wildlife populations, our lands and waterways, and our outdoor traditions don’t pay the price.” Read the TRCP Sportsmen <http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/Conservation_Cuts_Checklist4.pdf> ’s Priorities Checklist. Review the National Wildlife Federation <http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/General-NW F/2011/02-14-11-House-Continuing-Resolution.aspx> ’s breakdown of conservation programs in jeopardy.

Again, as things stand the FDA has been charged with evaluating environmental effects along with food safety issues. TU has no option but to work through them. From Aquabounty's website: The Pew link above has a summary of GMO regulatory responsibilities. I agree someone else should do this rather than the FDA, but again, as things stand now, the FDA has been charged to evaluate environmental effects. Unless you are saying the environmental concerns are garbage (and it seems here you are not) then the petition is aimed at the proper agency for now. I am not especially concerned about the health effects of GMOs as food as I see the science now. It seems doubtful to me that modifying a single gene somehow makes an animal toxic. I also strongly support the development of aquaculture when it is done sustainably. As TF says, some kinds of aquaculture can actually benefit wild stocks of fish. However, I have researched the effects of aquaculture on ecosystems for years now. The potential harm of aquaculture is just as well established as the benefits. The environmental effects of GMO animals that can potentially escape back into the wild and interbreed with wild stock is a very real concern. No. This has nothing to do with Panama. Aqua Bounty makes no claims for physical isolation of their product in Panama. If the FDA approves this product they will be produced all over the world and sold here in the US. We will have to just agree to disagree about whether or not the public should be able to influence the federal bureocracy. At the moment environmental science isn't getting a hearing in the FDA, so all those environmental issues you agree should be addressed right now also fall into the realm of "public" opinion. I'm glad TU is taking that on.

Quill I agree with you that money (and politics) are unfortunate features in all this, but that's the way of the world. Salmon fishers do oppose aquaculture, primarily for economic reasons. TU and other fisheries conservation groups have concerns about cultured salmon that have nothing to do with that. The best you can hope for from advocacy groups is transparency and good science. TU provides both of these here. Environmental groups have oppposed salmon farms on numerous grounds, not just lice. Compared to dams the salmon farms probably haven't done much of the total damage on wild salmon so far but sea lice were wiping out cultured salmon for a while and pollution from feed waste and competition for spawning sites from escaped fish are concerns that will only grow over time. Efforts like the WWF aquaculture dialogues are improving aquaculture practices, but without input from outside, none of those improvements could have happened.

And yes, this basically says it all.

....and they've just pulled the workers out. That can't be good.

The original link was here... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3468122/Triple-nuclear-meltdown-threat.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News Also here. http://www.globalnews.ca/world/Nervous+Japan+quake+evacuees+scanned+radiation+exposure/4430528/story.html More details here... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14military.html?ref=asia The 50 workers in the plant are probably far past their safe limits by now. There are actually 6 reactor units at this site and the temperature in the last 2 has started to rise. Number 6 is the biggest of the group. There's a fire in the containment building...hard to know what's ahead yet.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Editorial-Board-Blog/2011/0315/A-nuclear-meltdown-in-Japan-Not-if-these-brave-workers-can-help-it Perspective straightener.

There's a light bulb thread??? Holy cow, I'd better post there quick!

"Dishonest" is a pretty strong word. Why would you attack the ethics of Trout Unlimited? Their letter is very clear and they have few/no options but to go to the FDA. The FDA is charged with regulating animals. The EPA's perview appears to be microbes and toxins produced by plants. Its FDA or nowhere under the current system. Is your real point here that you consider ecological issues like the loss of wild salmon to be esoteric/asethetic (like architechture)...or perhaps even "illegitimate" to use your adjective from below? I've read some of your other posts and you are clearly a bright guy (and a geneticist...working on GMOs perhaps?). Please don't take any of this personally, but as a fisheries/aquatic ecologist I've been down this path many times with people who don't respect (or understand) ecological issues like conserving wild stocks of fish. If that's your position, that might be a productive debate and it would save a lot of time if we just began there. You are probably right that environmental issues should be handled someplace like the EPA but it does not undermine the "legitimacy" of the FDA to address risk to natural resources (which by extension affect human welfare). The ag specialists at FDA aren't trained to understand or evaluate or approve or prevent environmental risk, but that's what they are being asked to do under the current regulatory system. Of course that's all quite convenient to Aqua Bounty since it allows people to come in and say such issues aren't "legitimate" for the FDA and because the FDA isn't equipped to deal with this, they are essentially a blind referee with limited capacity to judge the issues. I have been professionally involved in more than one project where engineer/molecular scientists tried to push ecological concerns off the table. One of them even had some success advancing the proposition that environmental standards should not be based on outcomes in the environment. Fortunately that notion was eventually dispatched but that idea has wide acceptance in some quarters. The meaning of the petition is clear to anyone who reads it. If there is another tree to bark up, where is it? As to efficacy... I've just gotten an education about how those petitions are handled. There are specific programs used to sort through these kinds of form letters. Their cumulative impact is the same as a body count. High numbers of responses register as high interest. High interest validates the popularity of a petitioning body's viewpoint and attracts attention from politicians who set policy and CAN affect outcomes. Unique comments, even on boiler-plate petitions, are put in a separate category and the agency has a responsibility to address each one. Failure to address those comments provides grounds for legal action later. So if you have an iron clad argument that a judge will accept as not adequately addressed by the agency, that failure can indeed be used as the basis for a lawsuit later. In this case it may well be that the FDA could be found liable for failure to address these environmental issues associated with GMOs. Given that the FDA is not trained to do that, the EPA or some other organization actually trained for that work might be charged to do that job instead. TU may have deep enough pockets to accomplish that.

Third and fourth explosion inside the containment strutures and fire late today. The reactors are splitting hydrogen off the cooling water molecules and then they're vented into the containment structures around the reactor and exploding. Reports are now coming that pressure has dropped in the "suppression pool", which is apparently the area that normally collects steam for power generation. Radiation around the plant is up 4X and they're finding elevated levels of it 150 miles away. From what I'm reading this seems to mean that something inside the plant has given way and this new radiation represents small amounts of leakage from the containment building around the reactor. Chances seem high that fuel rods have melted in 3 reactors. Between the earthquake and tsunami and hydrogen explosions and being filled with water and the reactor core melting it's beginning to seem pretty remarkable that those containment structures are still in place. They're talking about another aftershock of 7+ coming soon. If these containment structures hold I will be impressed. If on the other hand the containment structure cracks or the reactor core melts and pools at the bottom, the super heated nuclear material can go through the floor of the containment struture and much more radiation will be released. A lot of engineers are saying this won't happen and that the water at the bottom of the containment facility will cool the material and the fuel is much weaker than it was and the worst is over. Maybe these nuclear industry experts will be right. This time. I just watched a video of engineers from the plant in Japan saying that if fuel collects at the bottom of the reactor it could also cause a steam explosion and rupture the containment building. Wind is supposedly about to shift back to the east, back over Japanese population centers. 190 irradiated so far, 24 beyond safe limits. Taka says 20,000 are dead from the tsunami and earthquake.

They'll sell the US bonds they own and probably stop purchasing new bonds, yes. Nobody's coming to collect directly. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-japan-global-economy-20110315,0,6650290.story I found that exchange student. He's alright but his mom and sister were stranded in downtown Tokyo when the power failed and he was on the coast and ended up having to speed away in a car to escape the tsunami. He's a good kid. Glad he's ok.

This one seems to be a rare case where the early reports under-reported the damage in general. Clearly this is far worse than Katrina was for us. Thousands dead, economy in immediate retraction, massive loss of infrastructure and a big chunk of the power grid gone and threatening to contaminate the countryside. And the nuclear plant situation continues to worsen. There was another explosion last night and they're afraid another one might happen today. The plant is definitely leaking radioactive material and it's not clear if the situation there has been or will be contained soon. A US aircraft carrier in the Pacific has had to reposition to avoid low level radiation spreading downwind from the plant... ...and now Germany has suspended renewal of their nuclear plants in response to the Japanese meltdown, making it almost inevitable that they won't reach their short term carbon emission reduction goals. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110314-708581.html

From the AFS message boards: Dry Run Creek Project Receives National Recognition By Arkansas Game and Fish <http://freshare.net/?ACT=17&mbr=132> The American Fisheries Society recently recognized the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission for its efforts to provide the public with high-quality fishing opportunities and aquatic education programs. The Fisheries Administrator's Section annually recognizes outstanding fisheries conservation projects and programs that are funded from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Sport Fish Restoration program, commonly known as the Wallop-Breaux or Dingell-Johnson grant program. Arkansas won the 2010 Outstanding Sport Fish Restoration Habitat Improvement Award for its work on the Dry Run Creek Enhancement Project. Dry Run Creek is a very popular trout fishery near Norfork Lake in northern Arkansas near Mountain Home. Only youths under 16 and mobility impaired anglers may fish Dry Run Creek. The fishery was created with the completion of the Norfork dam and the nearby Norfork National Fish Hatchery in the 1940s and 1950s. Over time, the area suffered from erosion and the habitat was further degraded with a major flood in April 2008. Because of the importance and popularity of the fishery, the AGFC and a consortium of partners, including the Friends of the Norfork National Fish Hatchery, Trout Unlimited, USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pooled its resources and talents to enhance the habitat for the fish and to provide better access for anglers. The habitat improvements included deep pools to provide refuge, stabilizing the eroding shoreline and reconstructing critical overhead cover destroyed by the flood. These improvements have been very important to the local economy because of the heavy use of the area by anglers. To learn more about Dry Run Creek, go to: Dry Run Creek on the AGFC's website, http://www.agfc.com <http://freshare.net/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agfc.com> . AGFC Chief of Fisheries Mark Oliver (AFS member, '86) says he was honored to receive the award on behalf of the agency. "This is a very prestigious award. We have worked hard on this project and made it an outstanding fishing opportunity for the anglers of Arkansas," Oliver said. Three other agencies were recognized, including the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. The USFWS's Sport Fish Restoration Program has provided more than $6 billion to state fisheries agencies since the program's inception in 1950. The program provides critical funding to state agencies for their fisheries conservation and management programs. Additional information on this program can be found at http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SFR/SFR.htm <http://freshare.net/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwsfrprograms.fws.gov%2FSubpages%2FGra ntPrograms%2FSFR%2FSFR.htm> . The American Fisheries Society is the nation's leading organization of professional fisheries scientists. Its membership includes fisheries scientists from all 50 states, as well as international members.

MSN (as opposed to MSNBC) tends to be very conservative with this kind of information. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42056237/ns/world_news-asiapacific/?GT1=43001 Six plants are now threatening meltdowns and cannot be cooled by normal means. Looks like this story isn't done by any stretch of the imagination.

Hmmm. Didn't make me register. The article is right there on the page? Check out Robert Rice and Carpbusters for their ideas on carp. Common carp are too foul for my personal taste, but other people like them and Asian carp are fine. It's not a universal solution for sure (and along the with the potential problem of NOT wanting to eat something there's also the issue that some things might become over-popular...like the guys in Maryland trying to conserve snakeheads on the Potomac). There's also going to be a trial period to see when and how these kinds of solutions can catch on and if they are actually effective.