http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/striped-bass-proposal-now-available-workshop-moved-to-new-location/

The basic proposed changes are as follows:

Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.

Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.

Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.

Establishing a “hot spot” for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.

Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.

Sheesh!... What, are they trying to get rid of the Stripers quicker or something?...

dAvE

Ever since striped bass were introduced to California (100 years ago), striped bass have co-existed with all native species. Both native and non-native fish declined in the 70's due to water exports to southern California.

DFG has caved-in to the big money of the Resnicks and big agriculture who are behind this proposed action on striped bass.

Next up on the agenda:......Largemouth bass !!!!



http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/01/31/striped-bass-control-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/

I have run the raffle for the Dan Blanton Striperfest for the last 9 years... for the last 3 years we have been focused on this issue. Last year we raised $28,000 for legal fees to help DFG fight the striper lawsuit (this reg change proposal is the fall-out from that lawsuit settlement). 2 nights ago we raised around $35,000 which will almost entirely be used for legal fees associated with this effort.

The issue is we have well funded private interest groups (namely a single billionaire pistachio farmer and owner of Fiji Water - S. Resnick, operating under the guise of a deliberately misnamed group The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta) pushing the anglers and DFG around with well funded legal/political antics.

Their basic strategy seems to be to de-fish the delta, then there won't be any more angler opposition to southerly water exports. The striper fly fishing community which I'm a a part of is one of the more active groups with fighting the delta water exports, so it seems we have become a target.

Step 1 is they go after stripers to set a precedent for non-native specie eradication, then largemouth and smallmouth will be next. This is classic Karl Rove style politics... extremely aggressive attacks and confuse the public with propaganda, distract from the real issues at hand, etc... all the while your private agenda is marching forward.

Remember that ALL of our basses are non-native to California, and so are most of our trout! Brown trout are not even native to North America! Almost ALL freshwater species of angler interest are non-native!!!

There are a million reasons why this is totally ridiculous, an outrage, and totally disgusting!! But the reality is that it's very real, and we need to really rally here to make sure the DFG COMMISSION does not approve this proposal.

The meeting tomorrow night in Rio Vista it will be important to have some bodies showing. While it is highly unlikely the proposal will change one iota based on angler or biologist commentary or input, as they have already ignored most of the available science and basic common sense. Perhaps more important are MANY MANY letters written to the DFG COMMISSION explaining clearly and calmly why not only does loosening striper regs not bring back or help native species, but that it destroys the 3rd most popular angler fishery in a State that already has dwindling fishing opportunities.

There are many sound and obvious biological arguments to shove up their keisters, but mesopredator release hypothesis is an obvious problem that could make things much worse for native species - essentially you remove a top predator and many mid level predators fill in to take their place.

There will be example letters to send to the Commission posted all over the place soon.

The most important meeting to attend will be the actual DFG Commission meeting (currently scheduled for December in San Diego (???!!!), they are working on moving this to Northern California).

This is a very important battle for the future of California fishing!!! Even if you don't fish stripers the potential future impacts to largemouth to smallmouth are scary!!! If anything we can't let private interest groups continue to drive Fish and Game policy!

Marcus

Hi Marcus,

Do you have any more info on where to send letters, who they should be addressed to, etc?

Thanks Marcus

So as is becoming the norm now - a private group uses lawsuits to badger DFG in to regulation changes that serve an agenda unrelated to the actual management of the environment.

Ironic that agriculture is now using the exact strategy invented by the Center for Biological Diversity! But not unsurprising, since the CBD brags openly about their strategy.

This pisses me off.

Marcus – do you figure the only real solution to this is for the state legislature to make it against the law for private groups to sue the state’s environmental management agencies like DFG in an effort to make them enforce laws in a certain way?

I mean, why the hell should a private group be able to sue the government to manipulate the way government enforces a law? I can’t sue the Highway Patrol if I feel like rolling through stop signs should be allowed.

DFG should set the environmental law for the state. They’re the experts. They have the biologists on staff. They’re supposed to be unbiased (whether they are or not in reality is another thing, but it’s their job to be unbiased).

Why should the law allow for these scenarios where DFG is used as a proxy for private interests? It’s crap. It makes it so that groups with money and lawyers can very strongly influence how our fish are managed. People who have never been to the Delta and know nothing about fish now get to have a say in how it’s managed. Hogwash.

We need to expose what is really going on here and educate the angling public. Most people are so confused about what is going on. Grrrrr

I can't go to the meeting tomorrow, but will keep an eye for the Commission meeting where this is discussed to see about going to give public comment. San Diego is junk. They need to move it.

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 :)

There was an interesting discussion about this topic on Outdoors with Craig Hanson on KNBR-1050 yesterday. They had an official from the DFG on, and he went over how the proposal came about and what the DFG thinks about it.

There's an archive below (haven't listened to it, left my headphones at home, but I assume it's about half way through the Nov 6 show).

http://www.outdoors1050.com/archived_shows.html

Here is a link to the DFG Commission "rules of engagement" for the public.....

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/participate.aspx

Here is the specific "public comment" link:
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/submitcomments.aspx

You can email comments to: fgc@fgc.ca.gov

Note that the new proposal isn't even posted yet on their website, so be sure to be clear about what proposal you are talking about.

Please send comments!

Marcus

The most frustrating thing for me in all of this is how this is just another glaring example that DFG does not have the best interests of the anglers OR the fish at heart. Who is their customer? Is it fish? Obviously not! Is it anglers? Obviously not! Is it endangered species? Doesn't seem like it!

The only "customer" they seem to have is whoever is sueing them at the moment, and the more wealthy the customer, the better service they get. There seems to be no over-arching mission to "preserve and protect" in terms of providing actual management and oversight to PUBLIC TRUST resources.

What do they do? Raise finless hatchery fish and dump them all over the state? What else? Some poaching enforcement? It would seem that the Wardens are the only ones doing anything positive... the biologists and "upper management" of DFG have strayed so far from their public trust responsibilities it makes me sick!! I'm sure it's all whiteboards and steering committee meetings out of a weird futuristic science fiction fantasy.

They may be under-funded, they may be neutered and hog-tied based on how the department is politically organized, but the reality is they must be the worst in the US in terms of PERFORMANCE! There are 3rd world nations that seem to have a better handle on fisheries management than California!

Marcus