"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:15:01 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

But like Captain Ahab or perhaps Wile E. Coyote, the state has not
let
a little adversity stop it.
This is the best line in the article.

And here's the real reason for the poisoning.

"After the poisoning is complete - and all the dead fish are scooped
out of the water - the lake will be tested for toxicity, and will
remain closed for two months, Mr. Martarano said. After that,
restocking will begin, with a goal of one million trout in Lake Davis
by 2010."

I've fired off a letter to Trout Unlimited to see if they are involved
with this in any way. I give them a fair amount of money every year
and this better not have been on the national agenda.

I can understand their concern about an invasive fish, upsetting the
ecosystem, but they really do seem like Wile E.Coyote.

I did check up on Rotenone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone. I
don't believe I would get back in the lake for a LONG time.


Yeah, but so many morons have been hypnotized (or bribed) by the
chemical industry. I'm sure the state will be lying to people about the
safety of rotenone as soon as the lake is opened.


Is a short lived poison only toxic to gilled animals. Plus they
Rotenoned the lake a couple of years ago. Seems as if we did not create
any Blobs.


Yet.

Since chemicals like that have not and cannot be PROPERLY tested on
humans, we will NEVER know if they are safe. According to the chemical
industry, animal tests are not a valid method for predicting the effects
on humans, so that argument is no longer permissible.



Sure it is. You may not like it. But is a permissible argument. And since
it has been used lots of places without any noticable impact on humans
since, we can assume it is not that affecting to humans. We live with a lot
more chemicals that are a lot worse for us and we are required to use them.
Where are your arguments against their use? For one example is the fire
protectants that all childrens pajamas and bedding are required to use.
Blood analysis of children show up frightening amounts of these chemicals,
but no rotenone.