On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:50:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:22:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:38:09 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Is the danger of a collapse of the salmon fishery in
California.

Bull****.

Tom,
Invasive specis can cause major damage to the local ecosystem, ie
rabbits in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

Africanized Bees in the Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

and too many others to mention. Why don't you believe Pike could damage
the California fisheries?

They used the same argument in Maine on some of the rivers in the
Allagash - OH MY GOD THE TROUT WILL DISAPPEAR!!! THE SALMON FISHERY
WILL BE DESTRYOED!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Um...no? Didn't happen.

What species was theoretically threatening salmon in Maine? Also pike?

Pike and muskie.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:50:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:22:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:38:09 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Is the danger of a collapse of the salmon fishery in
California.

Bull****.

Tom,
Invasive specis can cause major damage to the local ecosystem, ie
rabbits in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

Africanized Bees in the Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

and too many others to mention. Why don't you believe Pike could damage
the California fisheries?

They used the same argument in Maine on some of the rivers in the
Allagash - OH MY GOD THE TROUT WILL DISAPPEAR!!! THE SALMON FISHERY
WILL BE DESTRYOED!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Um...no? Didn't happen.

What species was theoretically threatening salmon in Maine? Also pike?

Pike and muskie.

I seem to recall a situation on one of the Finger Lakes where it was feared
that pike would wipe out the smallmouth. In fact, they thinned the herd,
which reduced food competition, and the bass got bigger blah blah blah....

You know all this already.

I would also point out that Bees and Australian rabbits AREN'T PIKE!!

Awww crud. All this time I thought I was using the wrong bait... :-)

--Mike

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:22:39 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:38:09 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Is the danger of a collapse of the salmon fishery in
California.

Bull****.

Tom,
Invasive specis can cause major damage to the local ecosystem, ie
rabbits in Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia

Africanized Bees in the Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

and too many others to mention. Why don't you believe Pike could damage
the California fisheries?

They used the same argument in Maine on some of the rivers in the
Allagash - OH MY GOD THE TROUT WILL DISAPPEAR!!! THE SALMON FISHERY
WILL BE DESTRYOED!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Um...no? Didn't happen.

I would also point out that Bees and Australian rabbits AREN'T PIKE!!

Mike wrote:
I would also point out that Bees and Australian rabbits AREN'T PIKE!!

Awww crud. All this time I thought I was using the wrong bait... :-)


LOL

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:26:12 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



Well, it's healthy today - ten years later. Bigger, healthier bass,
panfish, pickeral and trout and the pike fishing is unbelievable for a
smallish impoundment. It went so well, that the state is considering
introducing pike to several smaller ponds that have fresh water springs
in the area including mine.

I'd point out that most of the fish you are talking about have evolved with the Northern Pike, as both are
native in this area. That is not the case with California. I'm not saying it wouldn't improve the fishing, but
you are betting the ranch. Once established, it's impossible to put that genie back in the bottle. I can
understand California's desire to remove the pike while it can.

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

"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?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be
sure a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing the
toxicity of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that caused a
problem. It's practically impossible to set up the same situation for
human testing, which is why any scientist worth his salt will tell you
it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have been
going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point to tests
which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and companies
like Dow would respons by saying animals react differently than humans, so
it's risky to extrapolate from those results. But, when convenient, they
would point to animal tests which did NOT result in illness, and say those
WERE valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a
whole different thing, right?



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.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?


You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of gilled
animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are exposed to
daily. Sad.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:38:09 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Is the danger of a collapse of the salmon fishery in
California.

Bull****.

Why? Someone planted NP in a river system in Alaska. The salmon runs were
decimated. Enough knowledge from that incident to extrapolate it to our
salmon river systems. May not happen, but several billion dollars in the
economy is enough to accept the worse case scenario.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

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

"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?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be
sure a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing the
toxicity of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that caused a
problem. It's practically impossible to set up the same situation for
human testing, which is why any scientist worth his salt will tell you
it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have been
going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point to tests
which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and companies
like Dow would respons by saying animals react differently than humans,
so it's risky to extrapolate from those results. But, when convenient,
they would point to animal tests which did NOT result in illness, and say
those WERE valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a
whole different thing, right?



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.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?


You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of gilled
animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are exposed
to daily. Sad.


Read the message again, billy bob.

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

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

"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?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be
sure a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing the
toxicity of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that caused a
problem. It's practically impossible to set up the same situation for
human testing, which is why any scientist worth his salt will tell you
it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have been
going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point to tests
which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and companies
like Dow would respons by saying animals react differently than humans,
so it's risky to extrapolate from those results. But, when convenient,
they would point to animal tests which did NOT result in illness, and
say those WERE valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a
whole different thing, right?



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.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?


You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of gilled
animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are exposed
to daily. Sad.


Read the message again, billy bob.



You read the reply again, dip****.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

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

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

"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?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be
sure a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing the
toxicity of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that caused a
problem. It's practically impossible to set up the same situation for
human testing, which is why any scientist worth his salt will tell you
it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have been
going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point to
tests which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and
companies like Dow would respons by saying animals react differently
than humans, so it's risky to extrapolate from those results. But, when
convenient, they would point to animal tests which did NOT result in
illness, and say those WERE valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a
whole different thing, right?



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.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?


You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of gilled
animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are exposed
to daily. Sad.


Read the message again, billy bob.



You read the reply again, dip****.


Let's see....it's late Friday. Time for you to try and find your wife again.