Northern pike in Colorado’s Rifle Gap Reservoir can swim a little easier after discovering that they won’t meet the same fate as those poor pike in Lake Davis, California.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) said a 2006 paper that included a proposal to make killing northern pike caught in the Rifle Gap Reservoir mandatory, was turned down in the early stages of review. The proposal also included an additional option to kill the northern pike in the reservoir through “chemical reclamation.”
When the paper surfaced on the DOW Web site in June 2007, it angered a number of fisherman including members of Western Slope Anglers, fearing that the poisoning would completely destroy fishing in the lake.
The proposed poisoning and mandatory kill rule were proposed in the paper after it stated that the northern pike population had dramatically increased to the point where it was threatening other species. The paper also stated concerns that pike could find their way into the Colorado River and harm endangered species.
An unsigned e-mail sent to the Post Independent, where this story originally appeared, said that the thought of killing a lake with poison had shocked sport fisherman in the area – even trout fisherman.
In a letter of response DOW said it has no intention of poisoning the lake and that some anglers failed to understand the document’s place in the bureaucratic process. DOW currently encourages the mandatory removal of pike from the lake in an effort to re-establish the walleye population. It says the lake isn’t large enough to support both of the predatory species. The lake also supports rainbow and brown trout, smallmouth and largemouth bass and yellow perch.
A spokesman for DOW, Randy Hampton, said DOW hasn’t ruled out considering mandatory pike killing or chemical reclamation if it becomes necessary in the future, but also said that any such action would be brought to the public for review first.
You have to wonder sometimes what the world is coming to, when researchers start suggesting mandatory killings and the poisoning of entire lakes, in an effort to kill off one of evolution’s most efficient predators (and one of the fiercest fighting freshwater game fish) – the northern pike.
Mother nature might not take kindly to such tactics.
For more information please see original story: DOW says there’s no plan to kill fish at Rifle Gap
The Northern Pike is not a native species to this area of Colorado. These are large predatory fish who have no natural enemies in the lakes where they were artificially introduced once upon a time for sport fishing reasons. Now they are destroying native populations, hence the reason for the desired kill. The chemical agents used are targeted only at the pike – how they do that I dont know. But supposedly they do not harm other kinds of fish. So it’s not "killing the lake." it’s killing off a non-native species so they can put the lake back on a natural footing.
In my opinion, the "Killing" of any lake should be the last resort. i feel that there are pros and cons both ways. Here in BC, Canada there has been many lakes that have had coarse fish illegally stocked into them and because of that the trout population has been decimated. A few of these lakes were "Trophy" lakes and the introduction of coarse fish was devastating.
The problem with killing a lake is that it can take many years for that lake to become productive again, and in some cases it can take decades. Personally, I think we need to charge anyone caught with introducing a non-native fish into the lakes ecosystem. I think that the penalties we have now are far to lax and we need to really nail these people for this kind of offense.
So what is my opinion? In some severe cases we have no choice but to "kill" a lake, but if we would just make it so that people would get fined heavily, with the possibility of jail time for extreme cases, the number of lakes having non-native species introduced to them would be diminished.
Rick Passek "The Flyfish Fanatic"
The introduction of non-native species is something we’re familiar with here in Illinois … both in Lake Michigan (zebra mussels, goby, etc.) and woodlands (Asian longhorn beetle, emerald ash borer, etc.). I think there’s definitely reason to be cautious about a mass killing to deal with the problem. Seemingly simple plans that sound good in theory to the authors usually have future impacts that they didn’t forecast. With the globalization of the economy and ever-increasing trade, the threat of introducing more invasive species is likely to grow, so we’ll need to figure out ways to both prevent that and lessen the impacts of those that slip through the cracks.