The Wildlife Commission's and WDFW's seemingly bipolar position on rotenone still has me scratching my head in bafflement. Thanks to listmember Mike in Spangle, WA, below is a much more detailed story from the April 18, 2001, Spokane Spokesman-Review that clarifies the 'rotenone shelved' one that appeared in Sunday's Seattle Times. What's really the issue behind the state's waffling on rotenone? Is it the potential liability they may face if WDFW workers or local homeowners start injecting high levels of rotenone for several weeks and develop Parkinson's-like symptoms? Is it cost? My understanding is that rotenone is by far the cheapest suitable product available. Is this the cross we flyfishers must bear for I-695? If not rotenone, then what? Must we all resign ourselves to fishing for carp, bluegill or sunfish? If the WDFW gauges their success by the number of fishing licenses they sell, I suspect they're going to be sadly disappointed once all that's left in Washington lakes are trash fish. Kent Lufkin >Sports > >Rotenone program lives > >Fenton Roskelley - The Spokesman-Review > >The Washington Fish and Wildlife Department eventually will continue >to use rotenone to rehabilitate lakes and streams in Washington, but >the South American plant will be used only in waters where there are >few or no houses near the shorelines. > >The agency probably will not even consider treating a lake with the >fish-killing chemical if there are numerous homeowners, even if they >ask for it. The process of getting a permit to use rotenone will be >so complicated that officials won't want to waste time and money >trying to persuade reluctant homeowners to support a rehabilitation. > >Department officials and biologists are still bitter about the abuse >they took at a hearing two years ago on a plan to rehabilitate >Silver Lake. A few homeowners not only called them liars but >actually accused them of shilling for the company that makes >rotenone. > >Future rotenone use almost certainly will be confined to the Spokane >region, the Columbia Basin and Okanogan County. > >Anglers and fish biologists who listened to the nine members of the >Fish and Wildlife Commission talk about rotenone and its future in >Washington at a meeting in Spokane wondered for awhile what the >commissioners would do. One commissioner, Lisa Pelly of Bainbridge >Island, said she thought a presentation by an expert of rotenone was >a "snow job." > >In the end, however, commissioners voted unanimously that they >considered rotenone use to be "extremely important to the fish >management program," and that the department should continue the >program. They instructed the department to conduct a cost-benefit >study and to try to find a way to restore funds in the budget for >the rotenone program. > >Commission member Fred Shiosaki led the effort to keep rotenone as a >fish management tool. He had urged anglers to write to department >officials and point out benefits of the program and to ask state >legislators for their support. > >Department director Jeff Koenings, who had suspended the use of >rotenone to rehabilitate lakes and streams, said after the meeting >that "We'll keep it (rotenone) as a tool, but it needs updating." > >He suspended the use of rotenone after Emory University researchers, >who had injected rats with high doses over a 5- to 25-day period, >reported that several had exhibited Parkinsons-like symptoms. > >To those who attended the discussion on rotenone, it was apparent at >the start that the department would support rotenone as a >cost-effective management tool. The department brought in Dr. James >R. Fajt, of Pueblo, Colo., a scientist for Prentiss, Inc., >distributor of rotenone, to dispell some of the myths about the >toxicant. Then Bob Gibbons, a top department fish biologist, talked >about why it is the most cost-effective tool to create good fishing. >Fajt said rotenone is one of the safest pesticides. > >Gibbons said the department spends about $1.35 to produce a >catchable-size trout, compared with about 35 cents for a trout fry. >If rotenone is discontinued, he said, the department eventually >would have to stock all waters with the catchable-size trout because >predator fish would eat all the fry. > >He said the department can produce 1.2 million fry for about >$400,000. Fry that grow to 10 to 12 inches will yield 600,000 angler >days of fishing. On the other hand, The department would have to >spend $1.7 million to produce a reasonable number of catchable-size >trout. > >Why did Koenings change his mind about rotenone? Some anglers >suspect that, when fishers sent hundreds of letters to legislators >asking for support of the rotenone program, he decided he didn't >want lawmakers involved in fish management. In past years, many >legislators have created headaches for the department by forcing the >agency to operate ill-conceived programs like the costly and >time-consuming pheasant release program. Generally, most anglers and >hunters want legislators to keep out of the department's affairs. > >When Koenings suspended the rotenone program, half of the $160,000 >requested for continuing to treat lakes had been removed from the >department's budget. The rest was removed after Koenings ordered >suspension of the program. The commission and department now want >the program to continue, so they'll try to persuade the legislature >to restore the original amount to the budget. > >That might not be easy. The legislature is about ready to adjourn. >Because members still have a lot of work to do, the legislative >session likely will be extended 30 days. If at least half of the >money isn't restored, the financially strapped department would have >to consider using some of its money to rehabilitate a few lakes >during the next biennium. > >Scores of Eastern Washington lakes are filling up with everything >from carp to stunted sunfish, and fishing is deteriorating. Anglers >should know by summer whether any lakes will be rehabbed the next >two years. > >You can contact Fenton Roskelley by voice mail at 459-5577, ext. 3814.
