 |
| California officials will soon cordon off Lake Davis, in the northern Sierra Nevadas, and use poison to kill invasive northern
pike to prevent them from eating endangered fish such as salmon. Ben Arnoldy |
California aims to save fish, via poison
The state's latest plan to rid Lake Davis of northern pike – and protect species downstream – raises concern.
from the August 30, 2007 edition
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 | 2
It's very unlikely the pike would get to the delta by its own devices, concedes Ted Foin, a fish expert and consultant on the project at the University of California, Davis. The real danger is that fishermen will move the fish – a crime that now carries penalties of $50,000 or even jail time. The fish is well adapted to the backwaters there, he says, and could be further spread by irrigation systems.
Mr. Douglas and Mr. Wilson say they aren't impressed with that "hypothetical" threat when weighed against what they have learned about the fish poison, CFT Legumine.
"This has never been tested on a human population before. And I have no desire for our children to be the guinea pigs," says Douglas, a former town councilor who carries around a copy of the state's dictionary-sized environmental impact report. The effects of the first treatment can't be adequately studied given Portola's population of more than 2,000.
The actual poison, rotenone, comes from a root, while other chemicals in the mix include benzenes, naphthalene, and methyl pyrrolidone. Government agencies have cited benzene and naphthalene as cancer risks, and methyl pyrrolidone as a reproductive toxin.
However, David Spath with the state Department of Health Services says the bottom line is that the chemical concentrations fall well within legal limits or within their own safety guidelines. All the chemicals are expected to be untraceable within weeks, and until four tests confirm that, the lake will remain closed.
"Our determination is that we don't see any evidence to indicate there would be any short-term or long-term water quality effects on the drinking water in the lake," says Dr. Spath.
That doesn't satisfy Paul Schramski, the state director for the nonprofit group Pesticide Watch.
"Most of these environmental agencies have maybe a few months, a year, to conduct testing for very narrow things that don't take into account the breadth of our concerns," says Mr. Schramski. Specifically, tests often don't consider the interaction between chemicals, long-term risks, or the possibility of chemicals accumulating in animals.
Schramski lauds the action of a Massachusetts health board in 2006, which nixed plans to poison a weed near Natick's Lake Cochituate.
For Wilson, the talk of trace amounts on the order of a few parts per billion still makes him nervous. "It only takes one molecule to infect a cell," he says. "And you might win the lottery tomorrow."
"I would say I'd agree with that statement if we were talking about lifetime exposure conditions," says Jeff Fisher, now with Environ, who led the state's toxicological risk assessment for human health and the environment. "This is a very acute exposure type of scenario, and the public in general is not going to be exposed to it because of the risk management procedures."
Local residents are divided. Several suggested simply draining the lake, an idea considered unfeasible by Fish and Game. Another common response: Get it over with.
"They've got to get rid of the pike," says Margie Dillard, who works at a nearby store. Her husband's fishing guide business has been hurt by the pike domination over the trout population. "Just get it done and over with so we can move on with our business," she says.
1 | Page 2
RSS feed
