Good news!

Last night at about 7:30 PM, AB 7 passed the Senate floor vote 38-0. The bill now goes to the Assembly for a concurrence vote (because of various amendments). This vote will be either be today or tomorrow. The bill (if it passes this last concurrence vote) then will go to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

Anyone who has not yet sent a support letter to the Governor should do so now @ http://www.friendsofcaliforniahatcheries.org/Contact%20Governor.htm . This important fisheries legislation is very close to going into law.

Thanks to the many anglers who have been supporting this bill.

Brad
www.friendsofcaliforniahatcheries.org

Just curious what you think the importance of hatcheries are, and what you think the role of hatcheries actually are. How do hatcheries factor into the wild trout programs?

Also, the website link you provided says that hatcheries are suffering from a lack of funds. Is that to mean DFG is suffering from a lack of fund generation through liscense sales etc., or does that mean that hatcheries are suffering from a lack of internal funds being allocated to them?

Hatcheries are a very important management tool for fishing. Many waters in California were void of fish before hatcheries planted them. For instance, very few waters in the eastern sierras actually had any fish in them before the early 1900's.

Also, without planting many anglers would just end up going into the areas that are now catch and release.

Hatcheries crews are the ones who spawn native and wild fish in remote locations in California as well as producing millions of fish for angling.

As far as funding goes, there is no shortage of sportfishing license dollars. In 2003, DFG took in $48 million in sportfishing license revenue. In 2004, they took in $54 million, a $6 million increase, yet funding for native trout programs and hatcheries went down.

The problem is that DFG is not following the law. Fish and Game Code 711 states that hunting and fishing programs are to be funded out of hunting and fishing license revenues and these revenues shall not be used for non game programs.

This bill simply dedicates a portion of sportfishing license revenues to these programs. More than 60% of anglers in this state fish for trout. Also, sportfishing in California provides an economy of over $6 billion annually.

Brad
www.friendsofcaliforniahatcheries.org

"The problem is that DFG is not following the law. Fish and Game Code 711 states that hunting and fishing programs are to be funded out of hunting and fishing license revenues and these revenues shall not be used for non game programs".

Bingo, thats what I was getting at, and glad to see you you understand this as well.

As for "spawning" wild trout, well then you no longer have wild trout. Im absolutely am against salmon hatcheries. I could write a book on why, but wont. As for trout, thats a tough one. I think stocking trout for catch and release fisheries is fine, it has its utility, mostly for providing city folks and the "less hardcore" with some sort of fishing experience. However, I see no reason to put trout in waters that they are not native to, nor do I see a reason to put hatchery fish into systems that still retain native genes.

On the bright side, the only fish that really matters is bass. And since those stinky little puss belly hatchery trout contribute to growing huge bass, then I support stocking RESERVOIRS with hatchery fish.

Spawning wild or native fish does not remove the fact that they are wild or native. These fish are spawned in the waters where they live, not in a hatchery.

If you do not advocate putting fish in waters where they are not native, then why do you fish for bass? Bass were never native to California, they were brought here and planted by DFG hatchery personnel.

Brad
www.friendsofcaliforniahatcheries.org

Why would a native trout need to be artificially spawned within the river where it lives? That makes no sense. I advocate minimizing human disturbance and human intervention to the fullest extent.

First and foremost, I fully support maintaining native stocks and wild genes. Any action that threatens that I oppose. For example, I would not support stocking largemouth bass in the Smith River.

Now, if you notice I bolded the word Reservoir in my previous post. There is a good reason for this and the answer answers your second question.

The act of damming and creating a reservoir destroyed native salmonid habitat. Its pointless to try to maintain such populations (native salmonids that is) within reservoirs. We have to accept the fact that reservoirs do not provide suitable salmonid habitat. However, reservoirs do in fact provide great habitat for warmwater species. So the rationalization part is this: Im fishing for a non-native within a habitat that is non-native as well (so to speak), and this habitat is no longer suitable for native species nor will it ever be; thus I may as well support non-native populations within reservoirs (this is kinda hard to describe). So, I have no problem stocking puss bellies in reservoirs, theyll die anyway and will not spawn. And I have no problem with the non-native bass eating the modified trout. Its kinda like this "the system has been altered from its natural state and is beyond repair, so who cares what goes on within its waters".

Just keep in mine that I only support non-natives within areas altered to the point where native species no longer can survive in. I definitely would not support stocking smallmouth bass in any alpine lake.

Steve, just admit it, you only like trout because they wind up as bass food. LOL.

On a serious note, I am always interested in cases where humans try to modify animals and their habitat to bring things back to some type of original state. Search online about restoring wolves to Yellowstone or Bighorn Sheep to the Eastern Sierras. I just watched a show last week about the Bighorn sheep deal. Its crazy, they hunt down mountain lions in that area, then they put a radio collar on them. Then they monitor the lions to see if they are getting near the sheep. If they get too close to the sheep and start preying on them, they kill the lions. Is that a good strategy or a bad one? Tough question.

On a less dramatic level, my Mom is a docent for a project where they are trying to restore the snowy plover population around Santa Barbara. Basically they sit at the beach all day and try to keep people and dogs from trompling them while they're in the nest. Is this a good strategy or a bad one? It seems like a good idea to me, but tell that to a pissed off dog owner.

In regards to trout, I feel fine about the current trout programs around the state, and hope the hatcheries continue to operate and stock lots of trout in the appropriate places. Defining appropriate places is the crux of the issue though.

Take this real life example...

The Santa Ynez river historically had a large steelhead run. These steelhead have been identified as being genetically different than other steelhead along the coast and are called the Southern Steelhead. The Southern Steelhead as far as I know is now listed as an endangered species. Lake Cachuma was built on the Santa Ynez and put a huge dent in the steelhead run to the point where only a few fish make the migration any more, and only on high water years.

I happen to know for a fact that when lake Cachuma spills, the planted rainbow trout in the lake spill over the dam in to the river below. I know this because I've fished the river below the dam years ago and we caught a large number of trout that were very obviously planter trout. They were big and were starting to regrow their fins, but I don't need a scientific study to show me that these were planters. One can only assume that there is a risk that these stocked trout will provide competition for native Southern Steelhead that make it up the river and that they will also potentially breed with them.

So Cachuma is a resevoir, but Cachuma's stocked trout are very likely to have an impact on native fish when they wash over the dam. Should trout stocks stop at Lake Cachuma? It would sure put a dent in the swimbait bite at that lake. Where do our priorities as angler's lie? What are our obligations to the natural environment?

It seems to me that there are too many complicated situatoins like this out there to make a definitive comment about what should and should not be done. I'd advocate for a case by case review any time new waters are scheduled to be stocked with fish, and I can only hope that the people in charge of deciding where fish are stocked can make decisions that benefit both the environment and the angler.

Well, now hold on. I do like WILD trout (see photo, dont tell anybody), but admit the only utility for a hatchery raised stocker IMO is to increase growth rates and condition of largemouth bass.

"Defining appropriate places is the crux of the issue though", I guess thats really the point of what I was saying, I just didnt articulate that very well. And really that sums up my opinion and beliefs. Reservoirs are too far gone, let go, accept them for what they are (i.e., stop putting salmon in Oroville and Trinity and focus more on warmwater which is the only thing that reservoirs are good for).

The Santa Ynez pop is in the Southern California ESU (evolutionarilly significant unit) and listed as endangered, one of 15 steelhead ESU's on the left coast. ESU's also are considered separate pop's, and managed as such. Several people here have been heavily involved with the Santa Ynez issue, and they did say that those involved considered or were concerned about mingling with stockers, but they said the issue was not really that big of a deal.

And issues do need to be treated on a case by case scenario. One of the major issues or questions when considering projects is "is this project economically and biologically reasonable, or could the funding go to a better cause". For example, what could we have accomplished if we took all the money that has been spent on the Condor program? Another one would be was it worth the money to try and "save" the florida panther, or could that money have been better spent elsewhere (such as rehabilitating Lake Okeechobee). Many argue that florida panthers are no longer genetically viable because of so few numbers (yeah, you can define genetic viability, and once you go below the minimum threshold, that species is done, and least genetically). IMO, some of the hatchery procedures are not a wise use of funding, and that funding could be used on something more important.

Ok, I gotta get back to work:(

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/4046-Dont_tell.JPG

Attachment #1, (.JPG file)

OK, ill admit, my attitude towards salmonids is a bit sour because I cant figure out how to get a job managing bass populations. Instead, I get to deal with slimy, stinky, good for nothin half breed salmonids all day long. Ha ha ha ha......

Now that I think about it, thats not funny at all;(

Salmons definitely are slimy... To me they look like giant anchovies :) I wish all native fish the best though regardless and I don't discriminate against fish based on looks :)

How about a thread on name the endagered fish species you've caught, lol. I've caught a few over the years like a 3 spine stickeback in the upper Sespe, some type of chub or squawfish on the Green River that our rafting guide freaked out about when I showed it to him (don't worry we let it go just fine), and what were probably Southern Steelhead smolt on Matilija creek and Piedras Blancas creek.

I wish the salomids would rebound. I love to fish for both trout and bass and I believe that if it can be caught and fought, it's a gamefish.Except the endangerd species of course. Did you guys know the Sespe once had a run of over 9,000 Southern Steelhead, before the development of the San Fernado Valley? Kind of sad now when you think what we've traded them for. :(

Bass + Fisherman= BAASS ADDICTT!!!

I wish the fisheries in the Southeastern US would start stocking trout (genetically modified of course to withstand heat!:7 ) so we could grow some bass like you folks have out there, and I wouldn't have to envy you California boys!:D
Kevin

Hey, I gotta tell you this. I dont really know where your town is in AL, but there is something that has to be done. And this is what it is.

I lived in Auburn for a few years, and was lucky enough to have a job travelling the state and fishing most of the reservoirs in AL. I worked at Smith Lake a ton. Just below Smith Dam is a bridge, its the first bridge that crosses that river (cant remember the bridge name or the river name). If you stand on this bridge and look down into the river you will see many very large stripers, many approaching 50 pounds. Also, this river is the only river in AL that has trout. When I worked there, my partner and I were always trying to figure out how to get down the bank (its very steep with extreme kudzoo coverage) so that we could catch those stripers. We never did try, unfortunately. I still talk to my partner, he lives in Magnolia Springs, and to this day we still talk about those stripers.

If you monitor this site, youve read all about swimbaits. Im telling ya, if you get an ROF 5 Huddleston in trout, and figure out how to get down that bank, you will pound those huge fish. Somebody has to try it, it may as well be you. Ive almost convinced my buddy to drive the 6 hours or so with huddleston in hand to finally go after those fish.

Anyway, if you try it, let us know what happens. It would be like taking candy from a baby!

I live close to Gulf Shores south of I-10; Where is this lake located, and how do I get there? Most of my fishing is wiped out from hurricanes, and I could do a road trip...;) I got some castaic soft trouts and they look pretty good!

How far is it down to the water? I am used to fishing piers that are pretty high up...:D

Gulf shores is a long way from Smith Lake (I also lived in Bay Minette).

Just get a map, the lake is in the north west part of the state. Find the dam on the map, follow the river, and find the first road that crosses the river below the dam. Thats the spot. With a map its easy to find.