(letters)

Trout Truth

In your December article "Trout Are Wildlife, Too," by Ted Williams, I find my name mentioned in a most derogatory manner regarding the poisoning project planned for Cherry Creek, Montana. I am the plaintiff in a lawsuit that will take the poisoning project into the courts should the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks attempt to destroy this thriving fishery.

If the project moves forward, biologists would poison brook, rainbow, and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Cherry Lake and 77 miles of pristine mountain streams. Mr. Williams fails to mention that the proposed 10-year poisoning project would use three poisons (rotenone, antimycin, and potassium permanganate) to kill every fish and minnow in the waters. Rotenone is an exceedingly insidious poison that will not only eradicate the present trout but will do tremendous harm to amphibians, insects, and other life-forms. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent unreasonably adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, attorney Alan Joscelyn and I fully intend to pursue the matter in federal court.

William A. Fairhurst
Three Forks, MT

Ted Williams responds:
Wild trout may survive habitat destruction and genetic swamping only to be done in by chemophobes. What Fairhurst calls "an exceedingly insidious poison" is applied at 0.5 to 4 parts per million, and, after 69 years of use, has harmed no one. Antimycin, equally safe, has a half-life of 40 minutes and is applied at 8 to 12 parts per billion! Potassium permanganate is not a poison; it's used to neutralize rotenone and antimycin.

Thank you, Ted Williams, for your insightful article "Trout Are Wildlife, Too." For too long the conservation community has focused virtually all of its energy on protecting terrestrial favorites like grizzly bears and gray wolves and has left the aquatic world to fishing groups that don't always put the needs of wild trout ahead of their desire to catch them. As Williams pointed out, it makes little sense to advocate for Yellowstone's grizzlies while failing to act to save one of their most important food sources—the native cutthroat trout that are being devoured by illegally introduced lake trout. We must advocate for both.

Scott Bosse
Rivers Conservation Coordinator
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Bozeman, MT

Hope for the Condors

I was pleased to see Jane Braxton Little's article "Project Gutpile" on the plight of California condors. There was much controversy over the research effort in the early 1980s, primarily from other environmental groups that said the program would fail because of interventionist techniques being used by Audubon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was a costly, time-consuming battle, but the program was a success. Research has revealed some of the leading causes of condor mortality, including lead. Now comes the easy part: mitigating the mortality factors. If the species is going to survive in California, it's going to take a concerted effort. Those groups that were in opposition now have a chance to get it right.

Jesse Grantham
Director of Bird Conservation
Audubon-Texas
Austin, Texas

As a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participant in the field program to conserve the California condor, I would like to commend Jane Braxton Little and Audubon for "Project Gutpile." During the 1980s we worked hard with Audubon and other organizations to identify the major causes of the species' decline, and by 1985 it was clear that lead poisoning from ammunition fragments in carcasses was enough of a threat that the wild population was heading for rapid extinction.

Fortunately, attempts to reestablish wild populations from a viable captive population have been under way for more than 10 years. Unfortunately, these are taking place in the absence of any efforts to correct the lead problem. If there is to be any hope of self-sustaining wild condor populations, the lead threat needs to be addressed by the full removal of lead ammunitions from the market, not by the application of halfway measures.

Noel Snyder
Portal, AZ

High on IBAs

I appreciate the article on Important Bird Areas ["Putting Birds on the Map," December 2002]. This program is an innovative, proactive conservation tool that is already showing results here in Pennsylvania, and it provides an opportunity for getting more birders into the woods. Another voice advocating for healthy, functioning forest communities is always welcome when controversial management issues come up. Again, thanks for the article, thanks to Pennsylvania Audubon for its efforts, and thanks to the volunteers.

Merlin Benner
Wildlife Biologist
Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
Harrisburg, PA

Don't Forget to Write
Send letters to Letters to the Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick St. 7th Floor, New York, NY 10014 or editor@audubon.org. Include your name, address, and daytime phone. Letters may be edited for clarity and length. To see more letters, go to Sound Off.

© 2003  NASI

Sound off! Send a letter to the editor about this piece.