Dear HCN,
I was somewhat surprised
at High Country News’ article, “How California Poisoned a Small
Town,” since it only provided one side of the issue – and a locally
biased one at that (HCN, 5/25/98). While I believe that the removal
of the predatory pike from Lake Davis was fully justified, both
biologically and economically, certain of California Fish and
Game’s actions were obviously not well executed. In a nutshell, the
threat was real, the need immediate, and the results primarily the
same.
Unfortunately, there are no easy choices
anymore. When faced with bone cancer in a leg, one must decide
whether to remove the limb to save the body or just pretend it
doesn’t exist. The same is true for our environmental decisions;
they don’t come without pain. The federal government and California
are spending an initial $170 million for the last-ditch efforts to
save salmon stocks in the Sacramento River system, with more money
to come. The poisoning of Lake Davis was to try to prevent
additional contamination of that system. No one had a better
alternative.
We who profess our love of nature
are as guilty of being self-serving as those who love development.
We think nothing of closing timber mills at a cost of hundreds of
jobs, devastation to families dependent on these wages, and
economic collapse of local businesses, yet we scream like banshees
when environmental protection touches our lives in a negative vein.
Like the California developers who rally against anti-growth
initiatives while living in 5,000″ square-foot homes on 10-acre
“ranchettes,” the citizens of Lake Davis are guilty of saying,
“Protect the environment, but not in my backyard.” What had to be
done caused a few to suffer for the benefit of the whole. That’s
life!
High Country News might do well to turn a
couple of pages in the same issue and read what is published on the
problems the human-induced spread of bullfrogs have created for
endemic populations in the Southwest. It appears the right hand is
not in coordination with the left hand in condemning the
elimination of northern pike but supporting the elimination of
bullfrogs from their non-native habitats. You might ask the likes
of E.O. Wilson what he thinks about releasing a non-native predator
into the Sacramento River system and if the damage could ever be
corrected. You might find an entirely different view of
preservation of natural systems than Jane Braxton Little’s article
depicts.
W. Dean
Carrier
Shingle Springs,
California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Another view of poisoning a lake.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
