On Tuesday June 28th, AB 7 goes to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. On June 26th 2004, AB 2280 (the previous hatchery bill) was killed in this same committee right in front of my eyes. This year however, things are looking much better. The bill has been amended to include money for the Wild and Heritage Trout Program as well as the much needed hatchery funding. It also says that 30% of the production in DFG's hatcheries must be wild or heritage trout.

I will be at the hearing Tuesday and hopefully it will pass. Read the Senate's analysis of the bill below and I think that you will agree. I is quite long but worth reading:

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER


Senator Sheila Kuehl, Chair
2005-2006 Regular Session

BILL NO: AB 7
AUTHOR:Cogdill
AMENDED: June 21, 2005
FISCAL: yes HEARING DATE:June 28, 2005
URGENCY: yes CONSULTANT:Bill Craven
SUBJECT: Fish hatcheries

Summary: This urgency bill would dedicate one-third of the
revenues collected from the sale of sport fishing licenses to a
new Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund which would be used to
support fish hatcheries and the wild trout and heritage trout
programs.

The urgency provision is included to allow the bill to take
effect during the 05-06 budget year.

Existing Law: Fees generated by the sale of sport fishing
licenses are directed to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund
which is used to manage an array of hunting and fishing programs
within the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Some of the fees
are deposited for investment purposes in the Lifetime License
Trust Account.

The heritage trout program is restricted to native trout. The
wild trout program may include introduced species. The
hatcheries program manages about 1000 miles of streams in
California as does the wild/heritage trout program. Both also
manage lakes and reservoirs.

Proposed Law: With the exception of the funds deposited in the
Lifetime License Trust Account, this bill would dedicate
one-third of the revenues collected from the sale of sport
fishing licenses to the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund. The
bill provides that those funds may be used, upon appropriation
by the legislature, to support fish hatcheries and the programs
that support wild and heritage trout, as well as other
activities that are eligible to be funded from revenues
generated by sport fishing license fees. The bill requires that
30% of the fish from the hatcheries be used to restore naturally
indigenous genetic stocks of trout to their original California
source waters. The funds would be available to support the
department's efforts to obtain scientifically valid genetic
determinations of California native trout stocks.

Arguments in Support: According to the author, over the years,
DGF has generated increasing revenues from the sale of fishing
licenses, but spends fewer dollars on the hatcheries that stock
the rivers and lakes of the state. The author views the
situation as inherently unfair to those who purchase licenses
and a blow to the often rural economies where fishing generates
considerable revenues.

The requirement in the bill that requires the production of
native species is an attempt by the author to breathe life into
a statute that has been on the books since 1979, the Trout and
Steelhead Conservation and Management Act of 1979, which begins
at section 1725 of the Public Resources Code. This statute
establishes that it is state policy to maintain wild trout
stocks in suitable waters of the state which are accessible to
the public as well as in remote waters, and to establish angling
regulations for the wild trout fisheries.

The author points to the decreases in Tidelands revenues that
the Legislature has attempted to use to bolster the budget of
the hatcheries as another reason for the bill. Last year's
attempt to create some funding for hatcheries with Tidelands oil
revenues failed because of a decrease in receipts to the state.
The same result may occur in the 05-06 budget year. The author
has long been concerned about establishing a stable revenue
stream for this purpose.

CalTrout, the sponsor of the measure, indicates that the stable
funding for hatcheries, the support for the wild and heritage
trout programs, and the dedicated support for trout fisheries is
long overdue. Fishing license fees have escalated to more than
$30 since 1979, but the staff support at the department for the
wild/heritage trout program has decreased from 12 to 5 during
the same years. Last year, the department sought to close 3 fish
hatcheries.

CalTrout also noted that the focus on native species is squarely
within the overall mission of DFG which is: "to manage
California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources and the
habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and
for their use and enjoyment of the public". The public trust
responsibility of the Department (i.e., to act as the steward of
California's public trust fish and wildlife resources) is also
statutorily defined in Fish and Game Code 711.7 and 1802.

Mono County's support letter indicates that the hatchery program
is essential to regional stocking efforts and to avoid the loss
of fish caused by long distance transportation.

Inyo County and the eastern Sierra are home to many of the
state's fish hatcheries, and that county indicates that the
health of the hatcheries is a vital economic issue.

Arguments in Opposition: The Contra Costa Humane Society objects
to the bill because, in its view, the bill limits DFG's ability
to allocate monies as it deems best.

Comments:

1. An audit of the Fish and Game Preservation Fund, just
completed on June 14 by the state auditor, and requested by the
author of this bill, confirms many of the author's concerns. The
audit reported the increase in DFG license fees, and the
decrease in funding for many programs. Hatcheries, according to
the audit, fared comparatively better than some other programs,
mainly because the department was borrowing more from other
accounts in order to meet its other programmatic needs. On these
points, the audit is consistent with the work of the Budget
subcommittees and the Legislative Analyst's Office which
recommended supplemental report language for the next budget
that takes significant steps to improve the budgeting processes
of the department.

2. In addition, in knowing that in the proposed budget for
2005-06, the Budget Conference Committee added $3 million from
Tidelands oil revenues for DFG hatcheries. Last year, the
adopted budget added additional revenues for hatcheries, but
that "bucket" of Tidelands oil revenues never materialized
because the state's receipt of those revenues has been reduced
because of litigation with the City of Long Beach. The author is
correct in his observation that it is far from certain that the
$3 million in next year's budget will become available.

The budget currently under consideration also proposes a
one-time General Fund augmentation of the wild/heritage trout
program of $1 million.

SUPPORT:
California State Association of Counties
California Trout
City of Mono
Contra Costa Water District
County of Inyo
Grass Valley Sportsmen's Club
Humboldt County
June Lake Loop Chamber of Commerce
Mono County
Mono County Economic Development and Special Projects
Mono County Sheriff
Rural Counties
SEIU
Town of Mammoth Lakes
2 Individuals

OPPOSITION:
California Fly Fishers Unlimited
Contra Costa Humane Society

Brad
www.friendsofcaliforniahatcheries.org