Lawsuit mongers lessen the outdoors experience

Published online on Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2008

Boy, talk about being naive. Four years ago, I grew weary of covering football and was fortunate enough to be reassigned to a beat that revolved around my primary passions.

Hiking, mountain biking and skiing, I already knew well. Fishing and hunting, eager to learn. But there was another outdoors pursuit, one that swells in popularity, that I never expected to become so familiar.

That pursuit is litigation. And if this growth spurt continues, it will choke off everything outdoors enthusiasts hold near and dear.

Last week's decision to forbid the century-old practice of stocking hatchery-raised trout in 175 of California's lakes and rivers where 25 native fish and frogs could be present was the tipping point. I can no longer bite my tongue regarding the horde of legal locusts that are plaguing recreation statewide.

Thanks to pressure from two environmental groups -- neither of which is based in California -- and a sympathetic judge, thousands of anglers will be denied opportunities they've enjoyed for decades. Never mind that we pay more for annual fishing licences than any state in the U.S.

That isn't to say certain native species don't deserve protection -- they do. For example, the Department of Fish and Game had no business stocking rainbows in waters native to the California golden trout, our state fish. As a result, genetically pure golden trout have become increasingly rare (most are hybrids) and the species could vanish altogether.

But does the Santa Ana sucker -- another of the 25 native species identified in the lawsuit -- really need the same level of protection?

And don't get me started on the mountain yellow-legged frog. Scientists aren't even certain whether stocked trout are to blame for their reduced numbers.

A few years ago, biologists used nets to eliminate all fish from three alpine lakes in Humphreys Basin in the John Muir Wilderness in the hope that native frogs would thrive. Except all the frogs died the following year anyway, killed off by a fungus.

Any reasonable person would conclude there is plenty of room for fish and frogs in the High Sierra. Stock certain lakes in a particular basin with fish and leave the others to frogs. But no. Enviros want to make it fish vs. frogs, as if it's either one or the other. As a result, millions more will be spent (wasted) on an environmental impact report that won't settle a thing.

Of course, certain groups don't care how many taxpayer dollars get flushed down the toilet. As long as they prevail in court, the lawyers get paid.

Take the High Sierra Hikers Association, a group that has engaged in a decade-long legal tussle with the Sierra and Inyo national forests regarding commercial horse packing.

The lawsuit has merit -- the Forest Service has been negligent in corralling certain outfits that treat wilderness areas like personal ashtrays -- but I'm convinced these people won't be satisfied until all pack stocking is prohibited.

Look, I detest having to step over manure more than anyone, but that doesn't mean horse packers don't have as much right to be there as we hikers. Perhaps if the Forest Service didn't have to devote so much of its limited resources to lawsuits, more could be devoted to actual stewardship.

Sometimes, even the threat of litigation is enough to get wheels spinning. Next month, the Sierra National Forest will release the draft environmental impact statement for its Off-Highway Route Designation Plan.

Why, after long ignoring the issue, are officials suddenly so concerned with reining in motorized travel? Because they're afraid of getting sued, of course.

So while four-wheelers shouldn't be permitted to drive anywhere they please, as has been the case, there's no good reason to take away hundreds of miles of roads in non-sensitive areas that they've enjoyed for decades.

Except if they don't, it'll probably lead to a lawsuit from environmentalists. And don't be surprised when motorized recreation advocates, angry with the Forest Service plan, respond in kind.

One practically needs a law degree just to keep up with all this nonsense.

If you don't agree, sue me.