RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
dAvE,
Nov 06th 2011, #1
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Nov 06th 2011, #2
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 07th 2011, #3
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Nico,
Nov 07th 2011, #4
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
swimbait,
Nov 07th 2011, #5
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
swimbait,
Nov 07th 2011, #6
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
barse41,
Nov 09th 2011, #11
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 09th 2011, #12
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
swimbait,
Nov 07th 2011, #7
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Nico,
Nov 07th 2011, #8
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 08th 2011, #9
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 08th 2011, #10
Crowd of 500 pack Rio Vista hall,
BASSCAT,
Nov 09th 2011, #13
RE: Crowd of 500 pack Rio Vista hall,
swimbait,
Nov 09th 2011, #14
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
swimbait,
Nov 09th 2011, #15
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
dAvE,
Nov 09th 2011, #16
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 10th 2011, #17
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Mike F,
Nov 27th 2011, #23
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Nov 11th 2011, #18
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Nov 12th 2011, #19
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Marcus,
Nov 14th 2011, #20
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Mike F,
Nov 27th 2011, #22
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Nov 17th 2011, #21
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Dec 01st 2011, #24
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Jan 16th 2012, #25
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
swimbait,
Feb 02nd 2012, #26
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
BASSCAT,
Feb 03rd 2012, #27
RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del...,
Mike F,
Feb 04th 2012, #28
| |
  |
Marcus | Mon Nov-07-11 10:25 AM |
Member since Nov 11th 2009
35 posts
| |
|
#18312, "RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del..."
In response to Reply # 2
Mon Nov-07-11 10:32 AM by Marcus
|
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
|
|
|
|
      |
Marcus | Wed Nov-09-11 08:53 AM |
Member since Nov 11th 2009
35 posts
| |
|
#18321, "RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del..."
In response to Reply # 5
|
> >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? >
Sorry, Rob, missed your question here - I don't know.... I do think there needs to be intervention on how policy decisions are currently being driven by private interest groups. That said, I think it's important that "citizens" be able to go hold DFG accountable, and if lawsuits are the only way that happens, then it's important that mechanism be preserved or some other mechanism be introduced to provide some oversight. While I don't agree with the striper lawsuit or most of the CBD actions, I would worry if DFG could act unilaterally - as they are obviously heavily influenced/directed by upstream political *appointees* (not elected officials), where millions of dollars are being spent on campaign contributions and dirty democracy.
It is a big complex problem, way beyond my pay grade, so I try to just be supportive with fundraising and such to those that have time to work these issues vigorously on my behalf.
I went to the public comment meeting last night... good turn-out, maybe 200-300 guys. KB, Sep hendrickson, Gene BUchholz, Dan Bacher, Barrack, Jay Sorenson, and many others made great opposing comments.
There was 100% public opposition to the proposal, except for 1 guy that showed up and said "I am a diver and a spearfisherman. I'm here to ask that spearfishing opportunities be addressed in the new regulations." hahahaha the guy just wants to be able to spear stripers!!!!! That would actually be very very bad, the big super duper hogs (50-60#+) that live in the upper valley rivers all summer (very clear water) would be extremely vulnerable to spearing whereas they are hard as hell to catch with a hook and line. I know on the Colorado river they are very successful spearing huge fish.
Historically there was a 1:1 ratio for male/female for stripers... right now is 10:1 male/female. So the big bitches are extremely important, not only for their "big and wary" genes but there millions and millions of eggs. It is more critical than ever that we release the big hens.
Marcus
|
|
|
|
|
swimbait | Wed Nov-09-11 01:16 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#18324, "RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del..."
In response to Reply # 0
|
Here's what I wrote to the Commission.
Commissioners,
You recently voted to re-open the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs to catch and release fishing. For this I thank you.
I was the fisherman who lobbied you to make this change, and in making the change you’ve restored a measure of my faith in the Commission to do the right thing. As the owner of calfishing.com, I talk with hundreds of fishermen around the state every year and I can tell you with great certainty that you’ve restored a measure of their faith as well.
You weren’t there to see the four year old boy fishing the ponds with his dad on the opening weekend and see his smile, and but you should know that he was there. You didn’t see the teenage kid with his float tube (and his flat-bill cap) hiking over the levee that Saturday, but he was there too – so excited to get back on the water he was practically running down the trail.
The decision you made on the back ponds exemplifies the management of wildlife in concert with recreation. You should be proud.
Commissioners, I hope you’ll use the same good judgment you used with this little Shadow Cliffs issue in the much larger issue of the Delta striped bass regulations you’ll be asked to vote on soon.
As you know, CA DFG is being used a pawn by groups seeking to profit from the Delta’s water. As a Commission you may feel that your hand is forced and that you must approve the regulations on the recommendation of Department biologists.
I submit to you that you can vote No on these regulations and do so with the law on your side. You should vote no because:
1. You know, with 100% certainty, that these proposed striped bass regulations will be used as a lever by Mr. Resnick to extract more water from the Delta.
2. You know that striped bass predation has far less of an impact to native species than removing water.
3. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs that you must not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or modify their critical habit - but you know that no matter what you do, listed species will be jeopardized to some degree.
4. So you are forced to choose between striped bass continuing to eat native fish, or modifying the entire Delta environment for the worse as more water is removed.
When faced with these two evils, you must pick the lesser of the two evils. And that means a No vote on the regulation changes.
You know in your hearts it’s the right thing to do and I think I’ve given you the legal ammunition to do it. Keep our faith strong Commissioners.
Respectfully,
Rob Belloni
|
|
|
|
  |
dAvE | Wed Nov-09-11 05:20 PM |
Member since Sep 27th 2004
19 posts
| |
|
#18325, "RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del..."
In response to Reply # 15
|
Hey Rob,
I just wanted to say, great letter!... And also that you continue to impress me with your passion and tenacity regarding all the endless issues. But most of all, with your clear-headedness, and calm thinking in your approach to dealing with them. Which, I believe, has made all the difference in how you are affecting those who would be in control/charge, and the outcome... (Good job with back ponds, by the way!).
Thanks for all your efforts in supporting this great pasttime that is fishing. Your time and actions, in the past, and now, are very much appreciated, and inspirational.
Thank you, again... dAvE
|
|
|
|
  |
Marcus | Mon Nov-14-11 06:39 PM |
Member since Nov 11th 2009
35 posts
| |
|
#18329, "RE: DFG proposes to raise striper limit to 6 at the Del..."
In response to Reply # 19
|
Here is a good sample letter that covers the main arguments....
Mr. Jim Kellogg, President California Fish and Game Commission 1416 Ninth Street P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, California 94244-2090
RE: Department of Fish and Game’s Proposed Striped Bass Regulation Changes
Dear President Kellogg and Commission members:
I am a California angler who has benefited from the Endangered Species Act as it pertains to better water management for our endangered fish species, and indeed all fisheries in our California Delta. As such, I am writing to express my deep concern over proposed striped bass regulation changes.
I have become aware of the fact that several of our State’s preeminent fisheries biologist have cautioned against these regulation changes as they may yield the opposite of the intended effect and could lead or contribute to the extinction of delta smelt and our endangered salmon species.
As you know, the Endangered Species Act encourages that all effort is brought to bear in assisting the recovery of listed species. However, it is also true that the Act discourages any action that is of dubious benefit and, indeed may do harm to the recovery efforts of listed species. Our State’s preeminent inland fisheries experts, Dr. Peter Moyle and Dr. William Bennett (Letter to Commission of Aug. 26th 2010) have stated specifically and convincingly that reducing the effects of striped bass predation on non native cohorts and predators of listed species could directly result in unintended harmful consequences for listed species. Their concerns are backed up by respected fisheries biologist Dr David Ostrach (Letter to the Commission July 19th 2010). These concerns are sufficient to suggest that the Commission’s first obligation is to “do no harm” to listed species, therefore, I urge the Commission for an outright rejection of this regulation proposal.
Directly related to the E.S.A., I have also become aware of this additional fact:
• The Department of Fish & Game (DFG) and other defendant interveners in the litigation that brought about the Settlement Agreement leading to the striped bass regulation change proposal prevailed in the summary judgments rendered by the federal court. The court found no merit in the legal arguments the plaintiffs (Coalition For a Sustainable Delta) regarding alleged population level impacts caused by striped bass to E.S.A listed fish species in the Bay-Delta estuary. The court ruled decisively in support of the position of the DFG and defendant interveners that the decline of estuary’s listed fisheries was not attributable to predation by striped bass. Specifically, Judge Wanger agreed that the best science available has not shown any population level effect on listed species and one of DFG’s own Biologists, Marty Gingras, has stated that there is no science that shows any population level effect on listed species due to striped bass predation. There are also numerous peer reviewed predation studies done in the estuary and its tributaries that conclude population level effects of predation (if any) is at the current time, “unknowable”.
In addition to my concerns regarding the E.S.A., I have learned the following:
• This settlement agreement does not supersede the provisions of the federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and it's legal mandate to double the population of all anadromous fish species of the estuary, including striped bass, from their mid-nineteen nineties population levels. In short, the proposed regulations work at cross purposes to the CVPIA federal mandate, thus conflicting with the intent of the federal law and setting up the potential for another round of litigation regarding the striped bass fishery. The Commission could find itself in the untenable position of passing regulations that could result in violating federal law and having to defend itself in federal court.
• The proposed regulation change with the attendant increased bag and possession limits would encourage over-consumption of striped bass far beyond the limits recommended California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. In short, it is my view the possession limit in this proposal encourages consumption more than health warnings discourage the consumption of striped bass. The Commission should take into full consideration the well documented science on the health risks associated with anything beyond modest consumption of striped bass. Women and children, in particular, are most vulnerable to these health risks and should not eat any striped bass at all. It would not be good public policy for the Commission to advance regulations that would not safeguard the public from the health hazards associated with the consumption of striped bass.
• As you may recall, Sec. 1700 of the Fish and Game Code requires, among many important conservation provisions, the management, on a basis of adequate scientific information promptly promulgated for public scrutiny, of the fisheries under the state's jurisdiction with the objective of maximizing the sustained harvest. This and other relevant code sections require the public’s fishery resources to be managed in the long term, on a sustainable basis. The regulations that the department proposed would not comply with this legal mandate.
• The proposal does not exempt San Luis Reservoir and the O’neil Forebay, one of our Nation’s premiere trophy striped bass fisheries. These two bodies of water are not connected to the Delta biologically and are not home to any listed species. This adds to my perception that, beyond risks to listed species, the thoughts guiding development of this proposal were lacking in a comprehensive understanding of our state’s striped bass fisheries and the sensitivities of California striped bass anglers.
I am confident the Commission will carefully consider my concerns about the negative effect this proposal might have on listed species and my additional concerns regarding health, anadromous fish recovery and fish and game code directives. I am also confident that the Commission has the power to creatively direct responsible development of effective listed species recovery efforts. To that end, I would like to respectfully offer a possible alternative process. First, reject this proposal outright. Second, I would suggest directing the DFG to develop a priority list of stressors on our listed species in order of direct biological importance. Third, develop a specific list of suggestions to address each stressor and four, formulate policy suggestions solely on the merit of direct benefit to the listed species recovery efforts. Finally I would stress the DFG strive to avoid listed species recovery priorities that are perceived to be the most politically or legally expeditious. It is, of course, reasonable to expect our DFG, which is in part a scientific body, to behave in a thoughtful manner without regard to extraneous issues that ultimately may result in extraordinary risks to our listed species.
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.
|