Alpine lake project makes sense

Inter Lake editorial

The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission did the right thing last week, rejecting a proposal to essentially end a project aimed at combating hybridization of westslope cutthroat trout populations in the South Fork Flathead drainage.

Sure enough, the project has critics and many of them have raised reasonable concerns. But the majority of the commission obviously believes that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has adequate answers for questions that have been raised, and that the project is worthy to proceed.

Over the last seven years, it has been thoroughly vetted, adjusted and improved to address concerns, and it will continue to be tweaked over the next 10 years with plenty of public input.

Some folks are justifiably skeptical about unintended consequences that can result from ambitious projects aimed at improving fisheries. They most commonly cite the disastrous effects of the intentional introduction of mysis shrimp into the Flathead Basin and other lakes in the Northwest.

The difference here is that the use of Rotenone to purge fish from 21 alpine lakes so they can be restocked with native westslope cutthroat trout is hardly experimental. Rotenone has been used for decades, on more than 130 waters in Northwest Montana, not to mention applications across the country and around the world.

There are concerns about unknown human health threats, but once again, it has been used time and time again to restore fisheries with no health consequences. Rotenone is not a chemical poison that persists like DDT. It is a natural toxin that is biodegradable. Water chemistry tests have shown that two lakes that were treated in the Jewel Basin last fall were completely detoxified by spring.

It would be more appropriate, it seems, for people to worry about water quality impacts from fertilizers and chemicals used on lawns and landscaping, or pollution from substandard septic systems.

Other major concerns about the project focus on its effectiveness and worthiness.

There are already Yellowstone cutthroats and rainbow trout in the South Fork Basin, so some consider it a cat's-out-of-the-bag situation. But project backers contend that if there's anywhere this approach can work to effectively suppress hybridization, it's in the South Fork alpine lakes that are the main sources of interbreeding.

Some people scoff at the need for the project, asserting that a fish that looks like a cutthroat is a cutthroat. But in a practical legal sense, they are wrong.

Just days before the commission decision, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that was the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle that specifically involves the Endangered Species Act and the threat of hybridization to westslope cutthroat trout populations.

That litigation started in 2002, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service being compelled to develop a legal definition of the degree of genetic introgression that would constitute a threat to westslope cutthroat populations. The Service went through a lengthy process to develop that definition, which was upheld by the most recent appellate court ruling.

But the battle's not over. There are environmental plaintiffs who will continue to raise the threat of hybridization in pursuing a listing of westslope cutthroats under the ESA. Such a listing would have dire consequences for angling opportunities in Montana. If cutthroats join bull trout on the list, anglers in the South Fork, the Middle Fork and North Fork Flathead rivers, along with many other Montana waters, would be left with nothing but whitefish available for a legal catch.

Every effort should be made to avoid that situation, and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission is correct to support this effort.