Local officials say federal action to save toads, frogs will jeopardize recreation

Yosemite toad depends on habitat cover.

Eastern Sierra officials have called the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service move to designate critical habitat for frogs and toads a “premature” move that will “unduly harm our society, culture, and economy.” The last day to comment is today by 9pm, although public meetings will likely happen here later. Comment now at this website: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074

The federal government has proposed designating what they call Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Mountain Yellow-Legged frog, and the Yosemite Toad. These amphibians eat insects and are eaten by birds and mammals. In short, they are considered an important part of the chain of life in the mountains. The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined they are endangered with the need to set aside habitat to protect them and the need to stop planting trout in certain lakes and streams.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAThat determination flies in the face of Eastern Sierra tourism and use of the mountains, according to local officials. A letter from the Inyo Supervisors says, “Critical habitat may only be proposed based on the best available scientific data after taking into consideration economic impacts of the designation as well as other considerations such as the social impacts of such a listing.” The letter also says that the Board believes that the proposed critical habitat areas are “overly expansive.” The Board’s letter says they believe that the frogs and toads could prosper with less habitat area.

The Bishop Chamber of Commerce said that the proposed habitat areas would include Rock Creek Lake, Mt. Tom, the Bishop Creek Drainage, Coyote Flat, Big Pine Creek drainage and Onion Valley. Their letter says fishing, camping, hiking and trail riding could be impacted. Jared Smith of Parchers Resort said businesses associated with the restricted areas in the Bishop Creek drainage would “fade away.”

The Inyo Supervisors’ letter says according to the federally proposed rules, the frogs and toads are being impacted “primarily by climate change, pollution and infection” and only marginally by recreation, grazing, packers, fire management and roads. The Board’s letter questions the removal of fish from the critical habitat areas.

The Board asserts that “We know it is possible to protect the habitat for these amphibians without destroying the economy of our county.” They call the proposed habitats “over-reaching” and the wrong solution. The Board said the habitat proposed is not necessary to “preserve healthy and enduring populations of the proposed species.”

Work by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began on the frogs and toads at least six years ago and requires some type of decision by the end of September of this year.

, , , ,

65 Responses to Local officials say federal action to save toads, frogs will jeopardize recreation

  1. Jason June 26, 2013 at 1:28 pm #


    First I want to apologize for my rant. As always however, supposedly minor issues are really the tip of a much larger iceburg.

    After reading the posts, I think it is interesting how saving species at our expense or taking responsibility for our (human) contribution to global climate change exposes the prejudice each of us has. I wish people would honestly ask themselves: “Am I seeing only what I want to see?”
    In the last 800,000 years global climate temperatures have risen and fallen in a cyclical nature, that is true. It is also true that global climate temperature rises and falls are correlated with rises and falls in CO2. In the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels have never peaked over 280 parts per million. Since 1800, the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have skyrocketed. Today, levels are around 390 ppm without yet a sign of peaking! Look, just because you do not see the avalanche coming does not mean it is not going to kill you. It just means you chose to ignore the warning signs and purposely did nothing. If only short sighted people who seek absolutes would be the only ones to suffer from their own ignorance, I wouldn’t be that concerned. But that ignorance impacts me. And that is infuriating.

    Short sighted people decry the conclusions of experts. Then why have experts in the first place? I defy you to stay true to your convictions. If you distrust experts (scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.) then:
    * stop driving your car (since you distrust the electrical/combustion/braking systems developed by scientists and engineers),
    * go grow and hunt your own food,
    * stop using electricity (no TV or internet),
    * forget your medical prescriptions or your doctors advice.

    Now you may exclaim, ‘just because I will continue to drive my car, shop for my food, watch TV and update facebook, take my high blood pressure meds and follow my doctors diet advice, that doesn’t mean I’m not true to my convictions.’ Then ask yourself why you trust all of the experts involved with these products (that you know nothing about), but you distrust others (in areas you similarly know nothing about). What you trust/distrust may be an indicator of just how prejudiced you are.

    Perhaps the debate should not be about who is correct: global climate change deniers or advocates. I think instead it should be about the consequences should either be WRONG. If for example you are an advocate for global climate change, then you’d be in favor of saving habitat for species or improving energy efficiency. If advocates are wrong, everyone gets a cleaner place to live AND economic prosperity. However, if deniers are wrong, food chains will be broken and millions of people will be displaced (to name just a few). So now the issue isn’t whether Owens Lake once had frogs, or mountains have risen and fallen in the Eastern Sierra (- species died out and we had nothing to do with it), or even Rush Limbaugh (stop listening to someone who tells you what to think, and instead do some of your own). It is now, ‘what if your wrong, what are the consequences?’ Or, are you certain your not wrong (ignore the shaking in the ground and that increasingly thunderous sound)?

    What do you think?

    • Friends of Cash June 27, 2013 at 10:54 am #

      Perhaps you should take your own advise…? Are you “seeing only what you want to see as well?”
      Sorry to be the one to break it to ya, but your ruts are just as deep as these people you point your finger at – the “deniers” as you call them.

      Relax Jason, take a few deep breaths. The world will be here long after you’re gone.

      Please, climb down from your cross, we need the space.

      • Jason June 28, 2013 at 8:17 am #

        So you think I’m a little worked up? 🙂

        I do not think I understand what you mean by: “climb down from your cross.” Am I being ‘self-sacrificing’?

        Am I guilty of ‘seeing only what I want to see?’ Maybe. I will tell you that I believe in scientific reasoning. I like the culture of science, and I’ll use the Nobel Prize as an example. NO ONE gets a Nobel Prize for CONFIRMING a previous theory. People are awarded Nobel Prizes for finding something new, which can also mean disproving a previous theory. The culture of science is to challenge preconceived ideas, notions, laws, and theories. My reasons and opinions are based on everything I have learned ‘up til now.’ So, I like to think I’m open to learning something new today. I am excited to learn that I am wrong. I am a scientist. There is one observation I keep making over and over and over again. It is this: Nature is what it is. Finding out how Nature works is the only truth I am looking for. If I make 100 measurements, and 99 of them are alike, but 1 is not. I’ll make an assertion based on the 99 results, BUT that 1 outlier might hold the key to a new exception. Therefore it is imperative to determine what led to that 1 result ending up different. However, it is OK to proceed in the direction indicated by the 99 results. This is the reason I take the position that I did earlier in regards to the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. For 800,000 years CO2 levels and global temperatures have fluxuated in a cyclical pattern. That pattern is broken starting in the 1800’s. That indicates something changed. Something new happened that has not been present for 800,000 years. We can measure the CO2 output for each vehicle, processing plant, and lifestyle. We can not only estimate a global CO2 output, but also measure current levels. We know we are adding millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that doesn’t occur naturally. We are adding to what has been occuring naturally. We are doing this. Can you not really see the connection there?

        If I told you I had a liquid that kills human cells. If I poured this into a cup of Koolaid, and told you this will kill your cancer cells. Would you drink the Koolaid?

        I would hope not, because that is a reckless experiment with dire, irreversable consequences that is dangerous to your health. Man is performing a similar reckless experiment on our environment, with irreversable consequences that is dangerous to our health, national security, and long term survival. How can that possibly be justified? People that are not open to these ideas, think they are saving themselves simply by pushing the cup of Koolaid aside and not drinking it themselves. All they are doing however is pushing it towards their children to drink it. It is irresponsible and not how a mature adult should act.

        Mark Twain once said: Do not expect a man to change his mind if his job depends on it.

        Consider that when receiving someone’s perspective. Can Rush Limbaugh afford to change his mind? Scientists are trained and paid to challenge preconceived notions and change their minds. Think about it.

    • J-Frog June 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm #

      Well said Jason,
      I really like the point in your last paragraph (On which wrong is a worse consequence).
      “Am I seeing only what I want to see?” That is another strong point! I will admit it, I really don’t have a strong understanding of these particular species, but I do understand how we are interconnected with all that is around us and the importance of all life forms (especially life supporting systems we really on) it’s going to affect us directly or indirectly if we keep seeing rapid change in ecology. I don’t have a strong understanding but to me it’s just a branches off to how we aren’t (My opinion) doing enough to preserve the Earth to our best ability.
      I am receptive to what the experts say, of course especially if it compliments what I already believe, I’ll admit to that, but at the same time I don’t feel I’m right about everything for the fact I as well contribute to the problems that I speak of when it comes to wasting MotherEarths natural resources.
      “But that ignorance impacts me, and that’s infuriating” Another awesome point!

  2. Bob June 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    Anyone here could educate themselves about the MYLF by reading Roland Knapp’s research on the frogs.

    I know Roland isn’t the popular in some circles, however I think he’s research is solid and detailed with facts.

    Anyone willing to take 20 minutes and read what Roland has posted online could quickly educate themselves about the MYLF.

    It’s rather selfish of the fishermen to not give up a few fishing locations to save the species.

  3. Gina June 26, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    People are not affecting the frog. They get the fungus from the chorus frogs. How will keeping people out of “critical habitat” areas going to help? Also, the frogs/toads have been seen to travel 145 miles in a 5 day period…how will Fish and Wildlife keep them in their critical habitat area?

  4. salblaster June 25, 2013 at 11:58 am #

    the salinity in the owens lake was very high when it was full and i doubt any frog could live in it. there are freshwater springs along the edges of the dry lake that have frogs in them today. last summer i went out looking for the pup fish that live in those springs and ponds, i heard about them from a previous article on the wave. i’ve hunted those springs many times and never noticed any pup fish, but sure enough the cottonwood springs along the west side of owens dry lake are full of them. i also noticed what to me seemed like tufa around the spring, a hard like concrete substance maybe a reminent from when the lake level was very high during glacial period. there were a few that stood 3-4 feet above ground but most were at ground level or slightly above it. i’m pretty sure it’s some type of natural process that formed them not man made. has anyone ever heard of or seen owens lake tufu?

    • J-Frog June 25, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

      Yeah the salinity was the avenue they used to act like the water was useless once it hit the lake, that’s a old argument that is pro LADWP. “Yuck!”

    • Big AL June 25, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

      Pup fish live every where around the eastern sierras and beyond … They are not endangered like some think … there are many strains of them some say, yet they are pup fish that live in all of these areas, it just so happens, they live in certain areas, they are all pup fish. Some are Owens valley pup fish, some are Warm Springs pup fish, some are Darwin falls pup fish, some are Armagosa pup fish.

      It seems the same thing is going on with these frogs, they don’t just live in one lake, or three lakes and a few streams, they live throughout the area.

      Yet we have to close certain lakes and streams and environments and remove fish to make sure they survive. Then a in a few more years, they will be still endangered, so we must close further areas and remove the fish from them, and so on.

      Are there pup fish in the same environments as these frogs? Maybe the pup fish ate all of the frogs too? Maybe the frogs ate all of the pup fish?

      Yes we need to care for the environment, we can not take it for granted, and we need to be honest about it all and keep personal agendas out of it. And yes nature can repair itself, as one person stated .. we have only been here a relatively short time, and yes we are making impacts, there’s no doubt. But nature has made a whole lot more impacts than we did before we got here and evolved, ourselves. Nature knows how to evolve and adapt.

      How many species have come and gone without our help?

      • Big AL June 25, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

        This doesn’t mean .. just let them go away, we need to preserve, but we need to recognize that they are actually a lil more hardy than some lead us to believe.

        Jerry, you’re right we do need make a difference, make changes, we can help, but have some sense to it .. not just mass hysteria over it.

        • Mountains and molehills June 26, 2013 at 10:38 am #

          “…Mass hysteria” – Big Al?!!

      • Benett Kessler June 25, 2013 at 7:22 pm #

        Here’s what the World Wildlife Fund Global has to say:

        “Scientists were startled in 1980 by the discovery of a tremendous diversity of insects in tropical forests. In one study of just 19 trees in Panama, 80% of the 1,200 beetle species discovered were previously unknown to science… Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth.” WRI

        So, if we don’t know how much there is to begin with, we don’t know exactly how much we’re losing.

        But we do have lots of facts and figures that seem to indicate that the news isn’t good.

        © WWF
        Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we’re facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis…
        The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.*
        These experts calculate that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year.
        If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true – i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet** – then that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.
        But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true – that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet – then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.
        *Experts actually call this natural extinction rate the background extinction rate. This simply means the rate of species extinctions that would occur if we humans were not around.

        ** Between 1.4 and 1.8 million species have already been scientifically identified.

        • J-Frog June 25, 2013 at 10:59 pm #

          I’m lovin this thread right now, and the recent mobile upgrade..
          Thanks Benett 🙂
          Big Al, I was missing your two cents for awhile man, nice to hear your view on this.

  5. Mike June 25, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    This a knee jerk reaction from the U.S. Forest Service. They’ve been sued over & over because of the frog….. Try doing searches about any of these issues: the yellow-legged frog, road closures, wilderness, erosion, endangered & add “lawsuit” & see what happens.
    Case in point:

  6. Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog June 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    Hey! No one asked us what we think! We frogs are sick and tired of your biologists sticking needles into us and dissecting our friends. Back the F off! If we need your help we will ask. Stop spending money and time trying to study us. We don’t want your help. We hear you Federal employees walking around in our brush joking about the overtime you make studying frogs. Get a life and get out of our bushes. We don’t need your help!

    • miss piggy June 24, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

      We know it’s you Kermit; put the bong down and get some help.

    • Tourbillon June 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

      No no my little Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, you are overreacting. The feds aren’t actually planning to stick needles into you or dissect you.

      The feds are just collecting metadata on you to help them connect a few dots. For your own security and protection.

    • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm #

      Hilarious! And so juvenile at the same time, but you have some good points.
      But “we” the bullfrog community think we do need the humans help, we need them to stop thinking their lives are so much more important then ours, money will never be the answer, for it is the root to the problems..

  7. 19bishop56 June 24, 2013 at 9:05 am #

    Ok, J-frog how long have you been in the Inyo-Mono Area?

    • tim June 24, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

      What was Bishop and the Owens like in 1956; I am not in the area yet like it and enjoy visiting. Has it changed much in 57 years? What is worse? Is there anything that has improved? Do new people cause problems? What is the best way for a person who is new to the area to exercise “local pride” without stepping on the toes of the long timers? Is Inyo Mono a closed society that resents all Los Angeles immigrants? Are any immigrants or new residents a benefit to you or the community?

    • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

      My whole 28 year life with the exception of a couple of years, Now what relevance does that have since that was your only question?
      since you ask that, NONE of us Living right now really have a idea what the city of LA has done to OUR valley! we only know what we have seen in our life time, besides seeing old photos. So really if we were to go back and see all the orchards and life supporting systems we had here, WE WOULD ALL BE MAD AT THE CITY for what they have done to the valley.
      And in my perspective when you understand the divide and conquer that happened in the valley (LA conquering OV) it’s the same mentality that is conquering the earth (people conquering earth)! All for immediate gratification and no consideration for those after us…
      Yes I am young and have a lot to learn, whats your point??

  8. Bob June 24, 2013 at 9:03 am #

    Eastern Sierra officials are clearly out of their area of expertise if they think the move to designate critical habitat for frogs and toads a “premature”.

    It’s actually way late in coming. Rock Creek Lake is prime winter tadpole habitate and the surrounding area is excellent frog habitate.

    The fish should be removed from the lake and surrounding streams asap.


  9. MJA June 24, 2013 at 8:25 am #

    The only Nature in need of management is ourselves. =

  10. J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 7:32 am #

    Yes it is necessary to to preserve all vital wildlife and life supporting systems, But when will we learn we need to put our convenience last, rather then first, if we really want to help the environment and habitats around us we need to take a look at what we do on a daily basis, consider all the goods we consume, consider how much it cost just to ship, produce, waste, package, stock and keep worthy enough for the general public that feel “entitled” to all that makes our way of life so unsustainable for us and for all living beings!
    Yes I am talking about YOU and ME! Nobody is sacred when it comes to contributing to the destruction of the world we know, yes of course we will always have the “complacent crowd” and those that feel nothing they do is wrong since they have been sooo successful in life, God forbid they be wrong in anything..
    So after we consume all these goods we dispose of it like it just disappears!!

  11. tim June 24, 2013 at 7:20 am #

    Did any frogs die when LA drained the 100 square mile Owens Lake?

    • Philip Anaya June 25, 2013 at 7:42 am #

      Not only did frogs die and not only in Owens lake, but also consider the lower Owens River. This maligned eco system is now in recovery. The human endeavors now necessary to restablish what was there before, will unfortunately always be a source of derision between the humans and their agendas.
      Being lucky to have a place where the Bishop Creek Association has water flowing through my place , having a pond, migrant trout and resident frogs that are a symphony all night long is a joy. Trout will feed on anything that swims but the frogs have found their place to exist and thrive . Trout that are wild, born and residing in the waters have just as much right to be there as any frog or any other living organism. However the planting of trout is a contentious issue even within myself.
      This year I finally saw pup fish for the first time. Phil Pister ,retired DFW (DFG) biologist when asked “What good is the Pup Fish?” His answer , “What good are you? ” says it all, yet I’m still looking for that answer.
      Maybe the answer to trout vs frogs is to not only set aside habitat but also to create habitat. Management of habitat areas need to have space for all the species and one specie should not cause the extinction of any other. Once human hands begin to manage or manipulate nature those hands best be connected to a brain and of course to nature herself.

  12. John Barton June 23, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    Core samples from glaciers show ice ages occur roughly every 10,000 years. The bristlecone pine tree ring data point to 50-70 year long droughts. These amphibians survived then and will likely survive now. The CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife has already undertaken habitat preservation in the backcountry. I think it is premature for the feds to step in at this point.

    • Ken Warner June 23, 2013 at 7:40 pm #

      I more or less agree with you. better to let the cycles of nature work themselves out. Fire control being a good example. Too much fire suppression ultimately leads to huge fires.

      About the periodicity of the ice ages:


      “The past ten ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental influences would not be so cyclic. Hot spots rotating in the earth’s core seem to be the best explanation.”

    • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 7:34 am #

      @John Barton,
      But can they or this planet survive a human mindset that “anything we do on this planet will eventually fix itself” and when it does fix itself “I will no longer be around” Mindset?

      • John Barton June 24, 2013 at 10:38 am #

        Probably. Let’s not forget humans are part of the planet too. We rose up on our ability to thrive and survive on the backs of other species and at the expense and even extinction of others. When it will result in our own undoing to the point roaches will inherit the earth is a debate nobody can answer. Global warming/cooling is a cycle that has gone on for millenia. Is global warming allowing the fungus infecting the frogs to thrive? When a niche is created, species adapt to fill that niche so yes, to a point things fix themselves but let’s ask ourselves in this case: Are things going on affecting the frogs that are beyond our control?

        • Bob June 24, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

          The fungus might be beyond our control but the stocking of invasive tadpole eating trout is within our control.

          Trout removal should start at Rock Creek Lake. It’s the perfect habitate for the tadpole.

          • Joe June 25, 2013 at 2:13 pm #

            Bob- What are your qualifications to state Rock Creek Lake is the perfect “habitate” for the tadpole? There are lakes that already have had fish removed. I know of a lake where large golden trout and frogs coexist and have for decades because the inlet area is shallow and has a lot of reed type plants that shelter the tadpoles. The state has already started a trout removal plan in Humphreys Basin, Big Pine Creek drainage and Gable Lakes. We don’t need another layer of beauracracy to get in the way of efforts already underway and to threaten the economy of the entire region.

          • Bob June 26, 2013 at 9:33 am #

            Joe – Qualifications? As with everyone on this forum qualifications are not necessary to state ones opinion.

            So you say you know of a like where tadpoles coexist and have for decades because the inlet area is shallow and has lots of reed type plants that shelter tadpole. Well that’s all find and dandy but those areas you speak of are not tadpole habitable in the winter. In the winter tadpoles move to deeper water where they are eaten by trout. And that is the reason the fish need to be removed.

            So where is this lake you speak of?

            Rock creek lake is deep and accessable by road which will make trout removal easier and less expensive to monitor the frog/tadpoles recovery status.

            The trout is invasive so it’s no big deal that they are removed.

            It’s not like it’s the end of fishing in the Eastern Sierra, it’s just the end of fishing at RCL. No big loss when you consider we are saving a species from extinction.

          • Benett Kessler June 26, 2013 at 11:00 am #

            Not disagreeing with your post, except it seems like frogs function in connection with nature – creating their tadpoles in summer so they can hatch out and carry on.
            Have never seen tadpoles around in the winter, but then I spend a lot of time in the newsroom.
            Benett Kessler

        • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

          Yes humans are part of the planet, BUT the way humans have been treating the planet in the last 150 years is unprecedented! It’s Okay, People will always convince themselves there is nothing they need to do to help things for the better.
          Beyond Our control? It seems to me it’s a choice or a decision to keep the status quo, Yes the frogs might be doomed, but if thats true will you do anything for the next species that is doomed?
          What’s not beyond our control John is understanding how our collective society consumes and wastes goods that no earth can keep up with! Right or Wrong?

          • John Barton June 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

            As a collective society I think we’ve come a long ways just in the past 30 years in changing our ways because in some cases we’ve had to. The earth and its inhabitants including humans are fairly adaptive. When we consume too much of something, we start to recycle it, replant it or look to the sun to power it. Just like every living thing has evolved to its surroundings, so must you and I. Unfortunately the other species can’t adapt quickly enough in response to quick change such as decades-long drought etc so they die out or no longer live where they used to. The Great Basin which we live on the edge of looks completely different than it did 100,000 years ago, not to mention 1,000,000 years ago and guess what…. humans had nothing to do with that!

          • Joe June 25, 2013 at 2:33 pm #

            J-Frog- “We” are already doing something in that the state has undertaken an aggressive plan to help the frogs which I’m all in favor of. The extent of the proposed habitat is much too large at this point and yes, premature in that it hasn’t been determined if the state’s efforts will be sufficient. There are great populations of frogs, albeit scattered along the range so it’s not as if there are only 2 pairs left on earth. If the proposal goes through, the state and USFS will be passed the buck and expected to manage the frogs, essentially like they alreay are except with another layer of politics to clutter the effort.

          • J-Frog June 25, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

            Yes John I agree we have come along way in many aspects (medicine, technology, worldwide communication, etc.) I don’t see how you feel good about the way we use resources, not everybody recycles and not everything is recyclable, but we still ask of that demand to be met no matter the cost or sustainability, if the elites want it, their gonna have it.
            I am not sure humans can adapt to the changes to come if we don’t align with natures natural order of laws, and I see us kicking the problem down the road, further and further down the road to the point the solution is getting further and further away from generations after us, while the earths ecology changes rapidly..how can you be so complacent when it obvious we have a problem?

          • J-Frog June 25, 2013 at 8:05 pm #

            “Are doing something” “much too large at this point”
            Yeah give me a break! To me that means you are doing NOTHING at this point but wasting resources with meetings and just meetings..
            It’s not just about the frog’s? Right??????

          • Big AL June 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

            Yes I get what you’re saying Jerry, totally. We do need to do things differently, and there are so many stumbling blocks people throw down … especially from the business world, the elite business owners. And you will never get everyone on the same page, and that goes with anything in life, it just doesn’t happen, someone always will say BS!

            But the frogs are not doomed, they are prolifically existing in a wide range of areas throughout the Eastern Sierras. Like the pup fish.

            It’s just that some have found them to be declining in some areas. Overall … throughout the area, they are holding their own, there are lakes where they don’t have fish to contend with as well.

            This isn’t a case where these frogs existence is in jeopardy in an isolated lake such as Rock Creek, or a couple more lakes and streams, this is simply not true.

            Like I mentioned in another post, the government will give into the cries of some, of foul, and close these lakes to fishing, remove the fish, and supposedly the frogs will proliferate, yeah most likely they will, they have no predators now.

            For the record, I am not a fisherman, I have no interest in fishing, but others do, and that does not make their feelings on this matter invalid.

            Historically they have always had predators, everything has predators that will eat them, even us humans have predators that will eat us, we are not sitting right at the top of the food chain, our place there is only made possible with our ability to use weapons, LOL.

            So we remove the fish, we make the lake a non fishing lake, then a few years from now, someone will reopen this debate, with cries of saving the frogs, we need to do more, again. So then there we go, again, and close more areas, delete the fish.

            I would feel better about it if I felt it was really necessary, and I do believe … “some experts”, not all of them. I do not believe everything I hear, and everyone who has gone to college to get a degree, or anyone who thinks they know it all. I know I don’t know it all, but can see both truth and BS.

            Someone who feels strong about saving these frogs, do have valid arguments, to try to help, but other’s feelings are just as valid. Things have to be honest and not skewed by emotions like they tend to get from both sides.

            As one posted here …. qualifications are not necessary to voice one’s view. Qualification is not paramount in stating an opinion. Sometimes … just living life can give more than qualification can. Seeing where the animals and insects, trees and grass are, what they are doing, how they are doing.

          • Benett Kessler June 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

            Do you have studies and evidence to prove your assertions?
            Benett Kessler

      • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 12:35 pm #

        Thanks for weighing in with a thumbs down, but care to explain why? until I hear a better argument or stance I will feel I am right! (Thank You, Thank You, I will be here all week!) Anybody really think it’s in our kids and Grand kids best interest to kick the can down the road? Yes of course we still have to come to a consensus we have a problem. Thought’s??
        I mean I know I hear it all too often how the problem is dismissed because the problem is going to out live the ones contributing to it. Right?

        • Trying to understand conservatives June 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

          J-Frog –
          If you have not noticed, this blog has more than its share of so-called “Conservatives.” But it is unclear just what it is conservatives claim to be conserving. They are not a unifying group and seem angst-filled about … everything.

          One of the conservative’s most famous spokespersons Rush Limbaugh, has to say the following about the environmental problems we face:

          •Environmentalists work by mandates for open space. (Jul 2012)
          •Let’s count all the disproven environmental myths. (Jul 1993)
          •Animals have no fundamental rights; only people do. (Jul 1992)
          •Animal rights movement is secular humanism vs. Bible. (Jul 1992)
          •Economic growth is key to environmental cleanup. (Jul 1992)
          •Gaia worship is religion of secular environmentalists. (Jul 1992)
          •Priority on people, not on spotted owls. (Jul 1992)

          Hopefully, this may help in attempting to understand the (ahem) confused and disjointed mindset amongst this group.

          • J-Frog June 24, 2013 at 8:52 pm #

            Another Limbaugh reference?
            I “assume” I know the audience also, BUT the Owens, Inyo and Mono valleys are filled with my Friends, Family and community members that I wouldn’t trade for no city, putting them in the same category as limbaugh is “no bueno”.
            Both parties are a joke, except one (the current platform) put’s the middle and lower class down on the totem pole a lot faster, not gonna name any names, but the stats paint a obvious picture.

          • Big AL June 25, 2013 at 6:23 pm #

            There’s our Dr Facts, and the R word .. hehe

    • duh June 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

      habitate restoration is a waste of effort unless fish are removed from deep water lakes to allow MYLF tadpoles to survive the winter.

      Rock Creek Lake is a perfect lake for trout removal. The meadow above and below are excellent habitate for the frog.

      • What do conservatives conserve? June 25, 2013 at 10:21 am #

        When right-winger J-Frog chides us with “…the stats paint a obvious picture” (regarding more thumbs down than up on his posting) it is clear the “obvious picture” is that today’s group of people who call themselves “conservatives” spend their waking days on blogs such as this and listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh all day long which result is them foaming at the mouth like an angry, nasty and insulting mob while other Americans are working their asses off to bring about much-needed change when it’s obvious change is often needed today.

        Can’t wait to see what the “thumbs” do on this one. (boisterous laughter)

        • Benett Kessler June 25, 2013 at 11:43 am #

          Please focus on something besides Rush Limbaugh. We get what you think of him.
          Benett Kessler

          • Conservatives and race June 25, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

            With 2 thumbs-up and 18 thumbs-down (re: a Limbaugh expose’ [actual quotes], I would say it is clear how the majority of your posters on this blog think of him (Limbaugh).
            A dangerous situation in America exists because of this.
            Ignoring this phenomenon is no different than in Germany when during unsettled economic times – fascism, ultra-nationalism, and racism came into power n that country.
            If you’d like, and with your permission, Benett, I’d be glad to present data and evidence on how today’s so-called conservatives are clearly and dangerously racist.
            But its your blog.

          • Benett Kessler June 25, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

            I get what you’re saying. And, hammering people over the head with it is not an effective way of communication.

          • Tourbillon June 25, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

            Perhaps the overwhelmingly negative reaction to your constant anti-Limbaugh posts has less to do with a communal love for Limbaugh, and more to do with communal disgust for a perpetual crank who can’t get past a deranged and all too publicly expressed obsession.

        • J-Frog June 25, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

          Did the writer with many names just call my a right winger??
          You know what? it seems you listen to Rush Limbaugh the most, and have some fascination with the man for his name to roll of your tongue so fluently and freely!
          The stats I was talking about was how the republican leadership hurt the middle and lower class (with policy) faster then the democratic leadership, but in my opinion both parties don’t hold “we the people’s” best interest!
          Please miss us with your misguided assumptions, what change are you working towards? because I understand the urgency in “change”, I mean you seem so proud of yourself, tells us or get off your high horse already!

        • Big AL June 25, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

          Dr Facts .. spends his days foaming at the mouth, and trying to incite people to join his misery .. how is that change working for you .. how are you working to bring about change with that?

  13. I fish everyday June 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm #

    The board is acting like DFW are no longer stocking fish in the Eastern Sierra.

    Get over it, there are plenty of other places to fish.

  14. NewDay June 23, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

    I had hoped for better from the new board – someone who was in the Peace Corps and another a tribal member. Shame on them. All species are intterrelated – as the frogs go, so go the humans and the earth.

    “The Board said it is not necessary to “preserve healthy and enduring populations of the proposed species.””

    Who on the board is a biologist and can determine what is necessary or not?

    • Benett Kessler June 23, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

      The Board’s letter does not say that. It says, “This over-reaching proposal is exactly the wrong solution for the people in our County, and is not necessary to preserve healthy and enduring populations of the proposed species.”

      Benett Kessler

      • NewDay June 23, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

        Thank you for your clarification. I didn’t make up what I quoted – I quoted it directly from your article.

        • Benett Kessler June 24, 2013 at 8:12 am #

          I should have made it more clear. By saying the Board felt “it” was not necessary to preserve the frog and toad populations, I was referring to the proposed habitat plan. I have made that more clear now.
          Thanks, Benett

      • Mark June 24, 2013 at 10:53 am #

        The board lacks the expertise to make such a claim.

        and as someone said there are still plenty of other places to fish.

        Rock Creek Lake would make excellent frog habitate.

    • JVC June 27, 2013 at 6:05 pm #

      The number one issue affecting all creation on planet earth is the unfettered reproduction of human beings. With no natural predators other than ourselves, technological and medical advancements, increasing life spans, etc., the logical outcome will be a massive shift in the historic relationship between mankind and mother nature. Only 100 years ago surviving childbirth, for both mother and child, was an extraordinary event. Now we have “Octamom’s”. While this contributor has little doubt as to the detrimental effects that humans are having on our natural environment, the fact is humans always have, and will continue, to come first in the food chain and all other matters of living. Furthermore, from a political standpoint, particularly the US Constitution, our nation was founded on the idea of massive, unprecedented human liberty and freedom. Many of these concepts seem in jeopardy today be it the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendments, et al., under attack by an indifferent and I believe, hostile, federal government which believes it is the final arbiter in all matters economy, society, morals, mores, etc. Mother nature is so much larger than we understand… though if you live in a rural, Sierran community as I do, you begin to get a sense of its proportion. When we become too much, She will take care to see that we go away. Mother Nature should left alone to do as She sees fit. Until then the government’s primary focus should be to try to stay solvent, and… to get the hell off of my rights.

      • Bye bye Mankind June 28, 2013 at 5:26 am #

        Right on JVC!
        Excellent research on the subject and presentation of facts.
        Mankind is slowly and insidiously on the way out.
        This appears to be the natural order of things.
        We’re seeing many examples of man’s compelling ignorance politically with one group of people perpetually thinking they are superior to the other.

      • Mark June 28, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

        Throw in to the equation that unedcated and poor people are having more babies then educationed people. Then consider in California the state pays for most baby births and we are screwed.

        I’ve always said a little birth control would go a long ways.

        • a minor correction June 28, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

          Mark –

          “Bless the beasts and the children.
          For in this world they have no choice –
          They have no voice.”

          And with all due respect –
          you’ve misspelled uneducated and also with due respect – “educationed” is also misspelled.

        • Ken Warner June 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

          You’ve all touched on the foundation theme of the movie, “Idiocracy” which is both hilarious and prophetic.

      • Big AL June 28, 2013 at 4:56 pm #

        Good word!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.