I think fishermen can convince the DFG Commission to vote no on these reg changes. Try this logic on for size:

----Argument for keeping existing striper regulations the same------

Given: Removing water from the Delta is worse than removing stripers when it comes to impact on native species.

Given: The goal of the lawsuit by pistachio farmer S. Resnick is to use DFG striper regulations as evidence in his efforts to remove more water from the Delta.

It can be assumed that Mr. Resnick’s attorneys will point to two specific things if the regulations pass:

1. DFG tacitly agrees that striper should be eradicated from the Delta, and therefore need no protection in terms of water quantity/quality. Translation – he should get more water.

2. If the rationale that less stripers = more native species turns out to be true (no way to know until the regulations change and time passes), then the native species may not need as much water. Translation – he should get more water.

Law: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and California Environmental Quality Act guide DFG Commission decisions around threatened and endangered species. They must, by law, regulate in a way that protects these protected species.

So the key question: How can the DFG Commission be in compliance with environmental law if they make a regulation change knowing it will be used to extract more water from the CA Delta - an option that is worse for protected species than the regulation itself?

-------------------------------

Think on it. If you see a flaw in the logic, let me know. I think it’s time to write a letter to the Commission :)