This is it. The last straw. This was the place I was going to teach my boy to fish for bass. Next week I start making phone calls.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7951-1_23_10_closed.jpg.JPG

Attachment #1, (.JPG file)

Anyone have any idea as to WHY?

Buzzfish

dood you know we will be making some calls next week for a reason. This sux so bad I cant even explain it. We dont have many more places to kickboat anymore

This just totally bites.... :(

WTF? Do you think it has anything to do with DFG trying to get steelhead re-established in the bay area? I read recently that they did something to the creeks/streams (Guadalupe?) to encoourage winter runs. Maybe this is the upstream follow through...it would be sick to hook up a steelhead at SC.

Buzzfish

WOW!

http://www.alamedacreek.org/Press_Releases/Alameda%20Creek%20fishing%20regs%20PR%2012-15-09.pdf

"The new regulations provide year-round closure of all fishing for areas downstream of the major reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed, while continuing to allow catch-and-release fly-fishing (with artificial lures and barbless hooks) where there is legal access for fishing in tributaries upstream of these reservoirs, from the end of April through November 15.

The Alameda Creek Alliance, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Friends of Sausal Creek, Golden West Women Flyfishers, Mission Peak Fly Anglers, Nature in the City, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Regional Parks Association, and Tri-City Ecology Center supported the proposed changes to the fishing regulations for Alameda Creek and its tributaries."

Hey, I just donated to one of those x(

EFFN BS. Time to fight

Please read this excerpt from a recent study by the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration regarding Alameda Creek (which Arroyo Del Valle and the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs are a part of)():

Page 37 - 5.4.1.2 Task No. 2. Evaluate predator populations in the backwater pools. More should be learned about how predators (mainly bass) arrive at, and use, the backwater pools. The first step would be a literature review of bass life history requirements. Then estimates of (1) predator numbers and sizes (possibly using mark-recapture) and (2) habitat quality from late-spring through early-fall would serve as a background to contrast future management actions. One desirable management option would be to passively eliminate, or greatly suppress, bass in the backwater pools. With elimination of bass unlikely, the effects of bass predation on steelhead juvenile growth and survival might be needed in the future, once steelhead begin to repopulate the watershed.

If you think that this will stop with the back ponds, you should think again. Any study on, "where do bass come from" in Alameda creek will quickly identify Del Valle Reservoir, Shadow Cliffs main lake, the Quarry Lakes, Calaveras, and San Antonio reservoir. I know from talking to Brian Sak years ago that bass predation on landlocked steelhead in Calaveras reservoir has already been studied.

Connect the dots in your mind here. The groups that are behind steelhead restoration in Alameda creek will fall on a spectrum of beliefs and values. Some will balk at the idea of eradicating bass from the lakes or closing lakes to fishing. Other groups will not and would like nothing better.

The Center for Biological Diversity is very much involved in this Alameda creek issue and is working with the Alameda Creek Alliance () and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (). Recall that this is the same group responsible for ending trout stocking at hundreds of locations around the state, achieved via their lawsuit against the CA Department of Fish and Game.

I've said before and will say again. These groups believe they are doing nothing but good. They carry a flag of righteousness and hold it high. While I agree with much of what they are doing, I do not agree with their methods. Fundamentally these groups are putting pointless bandaids on amputated limbs.

The problem for steelhead in Alameda creek is Del Valle, Calaveras, and San Antonio reservoirs. The reason those reservoirs exist is to provide water for human use. While San Francisco water district may serve up tap water to the same people who are responsible for closing the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs to fishing, they are not about to tell those people to stop drinking it so trout can live.

The result is one less recreational opportunity for the people who live and work in the East Bay. It's not so that steelhead will be saved, it's so that people who got the closure can feel good about themselves.

My position on this issue will be that the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs should stay open to fishing on an artificial lure, catch and release only basis. In the coming weeks I will devise a plan to achieve this goal.

Update

I talked with Pete Alexander who is the fisheries guy for EBPARKS. He told me that the no-fishing regs have not gone in to effect yet. They will go in to effect March 1, 2010. So, you CAN go fish the back ponds right now if you want. He said he contacted the people at Shadow Cliffs and asked them to take down the sign posted on the photo board.

I am continuing to work on this issue and working on getting in touch with the DFG biologists who are involved. The ideal way to get it so that fishing is allowed in the back ponds again is to have DFG biologists on your side, then go to the DFG commission and follow the formal process for regulation changes. Whether or not the DFG folks involved will support that notion remains to be seen.

This tells me we now have until March 1st to get this worked out. Let me know what I can do tell help.

I will, and thank you. Today I also talked with Krissy Adkinson who is one of the DFG biologists involved with this area. She was surprised to hear about the no fishing sign and was going to look in to it more. She also said she would spend some time in the area to learn more about the waterway there. This seemed good.

I'm still in an information gathering phase, trying to get a feel for who is on what side of this. An ideal situation would be to discover that most of the involved constituents were not opposed to bass fishing in the back ponds. I don't know if that will be the case, but so far my feeling is that a compromise situation could be worked out. Stay tuned. I'm going to chip away at this each and every day.

Right on Rob! Let me know what I can do to help as well.

Thanks Wes. I wish I had something to say, "go do this!" but I don't yet. There's no value in going off half cocked here. That's why it's important to learn first. I have a list of potential contacts gathered from meeting minutes from some of the Alameda Creek Alliance meetings. I also have this thing called a job which is important also. So I'm going to work on it as best I can. With good smart people like you and John involved I know we can make something happen.

Rob:

Props to you for taking a stand on an issue that you feel strongly about. I have to tell you that you are starting what will be a long journey that likely will involve extreme frustration. Ive been through the regulation change process once in CA. My journey started while standing on the bank of a lake knowing something was wrong and ended close to seven years later after giving a lengthy presentation to the Fish and Game Commission. It can be done with motivation and determination, and having an understanding of politics doesnt hurt! If you have any questions about the process I would be more than happy to answer them for you.

Thanks Steve. Input from people who are trained as biologists like yourself and Ryan T. is very helpful. I had a chance to talk to Brian Sak on Monday which was helpful as well. Brian is a biologist for the San Francisco Municipal Utility District and also writes for Bassmaster magazine.

Like most fishermen I've done a lot of complaining about what has gone on with fishing access and trout planting in the past few years. It's all well and good but this one finally hit close enough to home to get me off my butt. We'll see where we go from here.

Today I finally found some discussion of the proposed regulations in what is called the California Regulatory Notice Register. No mention of the new regulations can be found on the DFG website in either the section

In any case, in the on page 25 is the following:

ALAMEDA CREEK SPECIAL REGULATIONS

There are substantive efforts underway to provide fish passage over the 100% migration barriers in the Alameda Creek flood control channel. While working to provide passage for anadromy, members of the Alameda Creek Work Group are, in the meantime, annually relocating anadromous steelhead from below the lower–most barrier in Alameda Creek to locations upstream of this barrier.

As part of early planning efforts to jumpstart the anadromous steelhead run, the Department is currently considering utilizing the land–locked teelhead populations located upstream of San Antonio and Calaveras Reservoirs as a genetic source of steelhead to jumpstart the anadromous run. Genetic tests indicate that these land–locked populations have the genetics of Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment steelhead.

Additionally, trapping efforts have indicated that these populations exhibit the behavioral and morphological characteristics of anadromous steelhead in their migration to and from the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs. This proposal will provide protection for the anadromous steelhead that are annually relocated upstream of the barriers in the flood control, as well as increase protection for the possible genetic source of future steelhead enhancements.

Amend subsection 7.50(b)(1.5), Alameda Creek and
Tributaries Special Regulations.

— Add year round closure for all species for areas
downstream of San Antonio, Calaveras and Del Valle
reservoirs.

So, the question is, is there still time for public comment on this issue? The DFG commission is required to take public comment on proposed regulations for 45 days. I am trying to find out if there is still any opportunity to do so. It is difficult to comprehend how the public can have an opportunity to comment when information on what is going on is so tremendously difficult to find.

I have a call in to the commision's main phone number to try and find out. Hopefully will get a call back tomorrow. There is a commission meeting on Feb 3, 2010 (next Wednesday) in Sacramento. If the opportunity is there I plan to go to the meeting. The question is whether the window for comment is still open or not.

Let's not paint the California SPortfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) as one of "these groups"... they are doing ALOT to help the salmon, steelhead and stripers, as well as overall bay/delta ecosystem issues as it relates to fish...including largemouth and smallmouth bass.

Yeah they may have had a hand in this particular instance, but that may be in part to the general silence and lack of involvement of the black bass fishing community in anything related to California fisheries politics.

While I don't really support this closure, I do feel that the salmon and steelhead are in MUCH worse shape and in dire need of assistance than the largemouth bass.

What scares me the most about all of this is the whole "predator species" and "let's study bass predation on steelhead smolt" dialogue... that is an ugly path!!! "They" (UC Davis) are already studying black bass predation in the delta.

The biggest problem for me with the predation arguments as that it distracts from the real/root causes of the problems, which are 99%+ habitat destruction (water exports and diversion)!!

For the record the CSPA vehemently opposed the AB1253 fiasco which was centered around "predator species" arguments with striped bass. It is a very positive organization for California fishermen... funded by fishermen... I highly doubt the "Shadow Cliffs Back Ponds closure" was a diabolical plot of some sort.

In any case closing the back ponds to fishing seems excessive, but the overall steelhead restoration project seems very positive in my view. Would we rather that folks weren't out there trying to restore salmon/steelhead runs? I like to fish for bass but I also like to fish for salmon, which I currently can't do at all in California!! The stripers and largies must have ate all the smolts!!! What a joke...

Marcus

Marcus,

You make a good point that the black bass community has (as far as I can tell) not done much about anything lately. There's a lot of opportunity there. I think people would like to fight but don't necessarily know how. I'm going to learn how to fight on this Shadow Cliffs issue. Maybe CSPA can help.

I hope nothing I've said gave you the impression that I thought CSPA was out to close the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs to fishing. My guess is that many of the groups involved in this process did not even consider the black bass fishing in those ponds when this decision was made. The CSPA was mentioned in the Alameda Creek Alliance press release which gave the impression that they were involved. It is a confusing implication there.

I do think that some of the groups involved in the Alameda Creek reg changes would be very happy if all the bass in those ponds could be eradicated. I think other groups involved are ambivalent, and some would be appalled at the idea. It's good to hear that you think CSPA would fall toward the latter end of that spectrum.

Unfortunately today when I got in touch with the commission people they advised that the Alameda creek closures went to notice in August, 2009 and were adopted by the commission December 2009. This means the 45 day public comment period has passed. Now the only way to make a change is to submit a recommendation for change to the DFG Commission.

I plan to do that, but it will make the road much longer. What is really sad here is that no one anywhere in the fishing community raised any sort of flag that these regs to close down the back ponds were going to go through. I am disappointed that the fishermen and fishing groups that were involved didn't seem to recognize the fact that people like to fish for bass in the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs. Probably an innocent oversight but still frustrating because so much more could have been done back in August and September.

Back to the point at hand, I did some research as to the suitability of Arroyo Del Valle creek for steelhead runs. This has been studied by at least three separate groups, and the results are published on the DFG web site and on the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration website. The results are varied and conflicting. Try this on for size and see what level of confidence you feel in these assessments:

From the Published 2005 on Page 71 (pdf page number)

"Portions of Arroyo Valle were surveyed in September 1999 as part of a steelhead restoration feasibility study. No O. mykiss were observed in two reaches downstream from Lake del Valle and the survey report noted: “No habitat offering good potential as spawning or rearing habitat was observed” (Gunther et al. 2000, pp. 73-74)."

On that same page a different study is quoted. It says:

"Survey work, including electroshocking, in September 1983 and May 1985 was performed at Arroyo Valle below Lake del Valle to document the potential for steelhead habitat. The survey report indicated that there was potential for establishing populations of O. mykiss in the creek downstream of Del Valle dam (Gray 1986b). Unpublished studies by Hanson Environmental in 2002-2003 also documented areas of suitable habitat downstream of the dam."

In the more recent study titled it says:

"The northern and more inland half of the watershed, above the Arroyo del Valle confluence with Arroyo de la Laguna, was considerably drier and variable (inter- and intra-annually). Over-summering in these headwater tributaries under very low flows and warm air temperatures required thermally stratified pools. The temporal windows for spawning success would have been much wider and more frequent (inter- and intra-annually) for adult steelhead migrating into the southern Alameda Creek watershed, than into the northern watershed."

Loosely translated to English what they are saying is that in dry years for a steelhead to live in this section would require deep enough pools for "thermal stratification" however you want to define that. Later they highlight that notion again by saying:

The Dam Population Strategy is a contemporary strategy that attempts to mimic these three primary headwater functions within a much shorter segment of tributary channel below each of the three existing dams. Capacity for 1+ steelhead juvenile production below dams on San Antonio Creek, Arroyo del Valle, and Calaveras Creek will depend almost entirely on instream flow releases. Because cold hypolimnial dam releases rapidly warm downstream, much of the habitat created will hinge as much, or more, on avoiding thermal thresholds and their timing, than on the abundance of physical habitat created (i.e., creating lots of warm habitat is not recovery). Instream flows will need to sustain over-summer juvenile rearing to
implement the Dam Population Recovery Strategy.

To translate again, what they are saying is that if you want steelhead living below the dam at Del Valle you have to let more water out of the dam than you do now. If you just leave it like it is now, it's not much of a steelhead habitat.

Marcus, like you I am all for steelhead restoration, but I am interested in achieving that goal through effective means. I don't think closing the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs his an effective way to get steelhead back in Arroyo Del Valle creek.

If I were to assign percentages to the causes of steelhead decline in the creek, I would do it as follows:

Calaveras, San Antonio, and Del Valle Dams - 70%
Barriers to upstream migration (BART weir, etc) - 25%
Normal predation by native animals/birds/fish - 0% (because this is built to any normal population in and can't be changed)
Predation by non-native fishes - 2%
Catch and keep steelhead fishing (including poaching) - 2%
Catch and release steelhead fishing resulting in mortality - .5%

If this assessment is right, the only logical conclusion is that banning all fishing on Alameda creek and its tributaries is going after the smallest possible cause. It might make people feel good about what they are doing, but it's not fixing the problem.

Now, if the situation changed in the future and flows were restored from the 3 lakes, and those flows didn't harm the endangered amphibians (this has been studied as well) and the barriers along the creek were removed, and catch and keep fishing were allowed, and the steelhead population recovered to a reasonable level, then maybe the assignment of negative factors for steelhead would look like this:

Calaveras, San Antonio, and Del Valle Dams - 50% (because the flows would still never be what they once were)
Normal predation by native animals/birds/fish - 0%
Predation by non-native fishes - 20%
Legal catch and keep steelhead fishing - 20%
Steelhead Poaching - 7%
Catch and release steelhead fishing resulting in mortality - 3%

In either case, these negative factors can be evaluated one at a time to see if it is reasonable to do something about them.

1. Calaveras, San Antonio, and Del Valle Dams: Even if some flows are allowed from the dams and we say to the water consumers (that's us) that they need to share the water with fish and risk whatever consequences, these 3 dams will continue to be the largest factor and there is nothing to be done about that short of magically shrinking the population.

2. Barriers to upstream migration: This is the best target for remediation and all groups should support removal of any barriers (like the BART weir).

3. Normal predation by native animals/birds/fish: Any biologist with a brain knows that predation is normal, natural, and in most every case good. It's a function of natural selection. Let's leave it at that. Nothing to be done about it.

4. Predation by non-native fishes: There are bass and stripers in Del Valle and the Shinn Ponds. There are bass in Calaveras, San Antonio, and the Quarry Lakes. Therefore there will always be bass in Alameda creek itself even if you eradicate them from the creek at one point in time. Short of conducting the most massive rotenone operation in the world's history I view this as a factor that can't be changed and should be ignored.

5. Legal catch and keep steelhead fishing: Assuming flows are restored and a reasonable population resumes, this is something that could be considered on a reasonable basis. But given that steelhead runs will never return to what they were before the 3 dams it might not be the best idea to ever resume catch and keep steelhead fishing. Time would have to allocated for evaluation.

6. Steelhead poaching: Should obviously be policed and enforced against as much as possible. I once met a field biologist on the Santa Ynez who told me about the frustration of surveying ponds on the lower river and seeing adult fish, then finding that those fish were gone weeks later with obvious signs that people had poached them. Poachers are scum and deserve to trip on a stick and fall in the river.

7. Catch and release steelhead fishing resulting in morality: A real concern, but probably overblown. If you need an example of how much impact c-n-r fishing has on salmonids (that means trout) go to Hot Creek in the Eastern Sierras. You will see so many brown trout your eyes will pop. They're smart as heck and very hard to catch. Some certainly die each year from being mishandled but nothing to put a meaningful dent in the population.

So, we've evaluated the factors and should consider now whether closing all fishing on Arroyo Del Valle creek is really going to do much to save steelhead. I hope you can see that it will not. The next step is to package and refine this post, learn the DFG commission regulation process and propose the change.

My initial thought was to ask for catch and release bass fishing on the back ponds (measured as between Isabel and Bernal Ave.) Having thought on it more, I think a more reasonable thing to ask for is simply a zero take on any trout or salmon species in this stretch.

If anyone has experience pushing through reg changes with the commission, this is when I am interested to learn more. swimbait at gmail dot com.

I plan to go to the back ponds this Saturday 1/30. I'll be there in the morning to take a hike around the lakes and photograph. Mid morning you will find my yellow kickboat on the Island Pond fishing for bass. Meet me there, let's chat.

We need to get BBAC invloved in this. TBF is going to renew there membership. Once done I will contact Carter at BBAC and fill him in. This is what they do and they know all the ins and outs for this sort of stuff.

I talked to the DFG commission staff again today to learn more about the regulation change process. Because Alameda Creek issues are not on the agenda for the Feb. 3, 2010 commission meeting in Sacramento, the public can comment on the issue.

I'm taking the day off work and will be going to the meeting. I think that the sooner we do something, the better. I am going to submit comments via email tonight.

Let me know if you can come also. I can drive as many as 4 other people from Dublin. The commission website advises that if multiple people are there for the same topic, that a spokesperson be appointed. I will do that bit, but having more people present cannot possibly be a bad thing. I know this is tremendously last minute and on a weekday. The meeting starts at 10am. The agenda can be found here:

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2010/020310agd.asp

Some notes about participating in the meeting (copied from the DFG website)

The public is encouraged to comment on any item on the agenda. In order for the Commission to adequately consider public comments, the public is requested to submit written comments no later than ten days prior to the meeting. Written comments received fewer than ten days preceding the meeting will be submitted to the Commission at the meeting; however, Commission staff is unable to deliver material received one day before and on the day of the meeting to the Commissioners when the meeting is not in Sacramento. Please send your comments to be received no later than two days before the meeting.

If you decide to speak at the Commission meeting, please begin by giving your name and affiliation (if any) and the number of people represented by your organization. Then tell the Commission your concerns. Time allotted for each agenda item depends upon the number of speakers for each item and the length of the agenda. The Commission is interested in your views; don't worry about how to say them. If several people have spoken, try not to be repetitious. If there are several with the same concerns, please try to appoint a spokesperson. The Commission is particularly interested in the specific reasons you are for or against a proposal because the Commission's decision needs to be based on specific reasons.
If you would like to present handouts/written material to the Commission at the meeting, please provide eleven (11) copies.

---

Interested parties may present oral and/or written comments on proposed regulations in person at Commission meetings, or may submit written comments via e-mail to fgc@fgc.ca.gov, via fax to (916) 653-5040, via mail to California Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814.

---

A business or a person submitting a comment to a proposed regulation or proposed amendment or repeal of a regulation has the right to request a copy of the final statement of reasons. Requests may also be submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814.

---

The Commissioners' ultimate decisions must reflect not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources with the interest, understanding and involvement of everyone who appreciates our magnificent fish and wildlife resources

The dilemma I see personally with alot of the steelhead and salmon restoration efforts is that the habitat is so broken and beyond repair it seems impossible to bring them back to anything meaningful. And it seems that it's been this way for 20+ years already, probably since the mid 1960s really. Feels like token efforts at this point to preserve the illusion of a real population. There was the illusion of king salmon due to hatchery programs, but really not a self sustaining population. Now the bay gets so warm the smolts are all dying after the truck dumps them.

There was a very recent horrifying study (I'll look it up and post it) about mutated striped bass fry on the Sacramento River, currently *90%* of freshly hatched stripers are so deformed they die solely from their deformities within 3 days of hatching... including in the lab!! 90% dead in the lab!!! The control group in pure clean water had an almost 0% mortality rate!! They cited pollutants in the water as the problem if I remember correctly. Severe spine deformity is the main thing showing up. So 90% of the spawn is wiped away purely from water pollution, the remaining 10% subjected to <1:1000 normal survival rate or whatever it is, then the party boats slaughter, then they get poached commercially, then pretty soon you notice that you're fishing harder and harder, chasing a dwindling angling opportunity.

Makes those big hens with their millions of eggs very very important to leave in the water!!!

I've also been catching some stripers here and there that have the hockey stick spine these evidently were not deformed enough to die quickly.

Maybe someday half the fish we catch will be deformed!

Let's keep a close eye on anything involving "predator species" language!!! We may see an effort to eradicate bass somewhere here pretty quick.

Marcus

To: DFG Commission
Date: January 28, 2010

I am writing to submit proposed regulation changes for Arroyo Del Valle Creek. Please find the proposed changes attached. I will be attending the commission hearing on February 3, 2010 in Sacramento to give public comment and ask the commission to adopt these regulations.



Respectfully,

Rob Belloni

Today I went back to the lake to explore and learn more about the creek and how it relates to the back ponds. I started at the photo board where I found the No Fishing sign was still up.

These signs are ILLEGAL. I have it direct from the DFG Commission that fishing is allowed until March 1, 2010. So on Monday my first call will be to DFG enforcement to file a complaint that the East Bay Regional Parks District is violating my rights as an angler by posting no fishing in areas that are legal to fish.

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/no_fishing.JPG

From there I walked around the back ponds, photographing and looking around. There is some water flowing through the system right now due to all of the recent rain.

Here is a view of the front lake
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/front_lake.JPG

Here is a view of the Island Pond
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/island_pond.JPG

Here is a photo of some dog people in the Arroyo Pond.
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/dogs.JPG

There were dozens of dogs jumping in the lake today. I am looking at the dog angle as an interesting side issue related to closing the back ponds. There was at one of the EBPARKS meetings a while back on shadow cliffs where the anti-fishing views of the dog people were evident. Here are some quotes:

"Dog owners are concerned about injuries from fish hooks"

"EBRPD should provide separate areas for dogs and fishermen"

While many dog owners are probably fishermen, or have no problem with fisherman, there are undoubtedly some very happy dog owners right now because of the imminent closure.

As I walked along the levee I saw a lot of birds. There were several people bird watching today with binoculars. Here is a photo of the island on the island pond. No fishing is allowed near this island so that the birds are not disturbed. I wonder if the bird watchers realize that the reason these trees are filled with cormorants is because of the stocked trout in the front pond? Just a classic example where the goals of recreation and biodiversity meet with confounding outcomes.
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/cormorants.JPG

Here are some white pelicans that are living at Shadow Cliffs only because of the man made front lake and the stocked trout.
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/white_pelicans.JPG

After a while I grabbed my tube and fished the island pond. Here is a classic shot showing the kind of great flippin cover available at these ponds.
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/cover.JPG

Fishing was pretty slow. But that was OK because my main goal was to find the point where the creek flows in to the Island Pond. It took a while but I finally found it. There was a solid wall of tullies with some current pushing through. Now ask yourself if this looks like suitable steelhead habitat, and consider the fact that we just had our big rain for the year and it rained the night before. This is IT, there is no channel here, just this wall of tullies. Fish can't swim through this!

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/creek.JPG

A bit later I saw this big fat turtle sitting on some tullies. It was fast asleep. I could have grabbed it with my hand. Took a few photos and headed on. I don't know if this is a native turtle or some pet that escaped. Herpetology isn't my thing.

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/turtle.JPG

Oh yeah, this is a fishing report too. I went to the front pond and launched my tube amongst the dog melee. Clint sprained his wrist trying to launch at one of the steeper launches the other day and I was over that. The only good launch is the big middle launch so off I went.

A bit later I had a bite, set the hook 3 times and lost the fish. It swam at me the whole way and I watched it fall off the hook. Maybe 3lber. I was using an EWG with a senko which I never do. Just forgot my regular hooks. 10 minutes later I went back to that tree and flipped in again. Similar bite and caught a 3lber. What was cool was that you could see the mark where I had missed the fish on the first go-round. Just a classic example of why EWG hooks aren't good on most baits.

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/3.1lbs.JPG

On the way out I was packing up my truck and saw a park worker open up the photo board. I thought she might be taking down the No Fishing signs so I hurried to go talk to her. We wound up chatting for about 15 minutes. She said there are 4 signs around the back ponds now that say no fishing as well. I didn't see them, so not sure on that? She said she couldn't understand why they were closing the back ponds to fishing.

So I went back to my truck, loaded up and backed out. Then I heard a sick crunching sound. That was my tire running over my rods, which had been propped on the side of the truck x( Ugggg. Most bonehead move ever. I just got thrown off my routine from talking to the lady. The damages were two curado 200's, my favorite Castaway flippin stick and a custom Performance Tackle swimbait rod :(

Clearly these reels are defective...
http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/reels.JPG

Hey Rob,
I've been seeing those reels so if you want another one or two PM me and Ill tell you where I've seen them. That is a BAD picture:-( :( ;(

Today's update...

1. Sent an email to every board member for the EBPARKS to build awareness of the issue. No replies there just yet.

2. Called DFG enforcement about the no fishing signs. Left a message. Got a call back but couldn't answer it. Sounded like I had reached the wrong people. Wound up scratching that topic for the days since ->

3. Sent an email to Pete Alexander at EBPARKS to keep him up to date on what I'm doing in regards to petitioning the DFG Commission to keep fishing open in the back ponds. We had some dialogue there and he suggested setting up a meeting with the DFG Biologist, Alameda Creeks Alliance and other EBPARKS staff. Sounded great. With luck we will meet next week. Pete reiterated that the no fishing signs should be taken down soon. The DFG Biologist is aware of the issue as well. Having a conversation is more important than the sign issue for now.

Wednesday I'm going to Sacrament to give public comment at the commission meeting. Fishing needs a victory during a time when all we are hearing about is losses. I hope to bring home a compromise on this issue that will continue to allow fishing in the back ponds. This may seem like a small issue but there are many large implications looming with what is going on here. Get informed, stay informed. If those goes poorly in the next week I will be asking for your help.

Today I drove to Sacramento to attend the DFG Commission meeting and give public comment on the Shadow Cliffs back ponds issue.

I arrived way too early and waited for 4 hours to speak for the allotted 3 minutes. The time came, I talked, and the result was that one of the directors that was running the meeting referred me to talk to Neil Manji who is the Chief of the DFG Fisheries Branch.

Another piece of info I picked up was that the Commission does fishing regulations on a 3-year cycle, and they just completed the latest cycle. So this Shadow Cliffs issue has bad timing and would have to go in as something of an "emergency" change.

Watching the Commissioners for reaction during my 3 minutes didn't give me much of a sense of how they sided on this. I think they were somewhat surprised by my comments and likely had no idea that there was a warm water fishery in the back ponds. Could be wrong, that's just the sense I got.

Any case, I had a chance to talk to Neil Manji one-on-one which was good. He was aware of the issue and had talked to the local biologist. The sense I got was that the DFG didn't really look in to the back ponds when they got on board with the recommendation to close the creek and all it's tributaries.

The good news is that I got the feeling from talking to Neil that DFG will come out in favor of allowing some fishing in the back ponds. This is not a promise, just a sense. A more important question will be how the other stakeholders come out on this.

If EBPARKS, Alameda Creek Alliance and the other large stakeholders agree right off with allowing fishing in the back ponds as I've proposed (barbless, zero take on steelhead/salmon) then it's possible we'll be back fishing the ponds by May.

If there's disagreement then the path forward becomes cloudier. I'll learn much more a week from today when I meet with EBPARKS, Alameda Creek Alliance, and DFG.

Here's a shot of the venue for the meeting. Once the meeting video is published online I will provide a link so you can see me in a suit :P

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/commission.jpg

In my big rule book of life, one of the primary rules is that it's fundamentally wrong to take a day off work and not go fishing. So, being a person of principles I drove home from Sac, grabbed a rod and went to the back ponds.

When I got there I had a nice chat with a couple of the park workers about the ponds issue. Apparently when they got the word to put up no fishing signs they were just as surprised as me and you that the ponds had been closed to fishing. The signs are down now! We chatted for a bit and then I headed over the levy for 2 hours on the water.

Conditions were nice. Cloudy, warm. 2 to 3 foot visibility. Saw a few blossoms in the trees to make me get excited about spring :)

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/blossoms.JPG

Watched an osprey with a trout in it's claws try to outrun some hungry seagulls

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/osprey.JPG

Tell me you wouldn't want to be flipping a nice jig in this cove :)

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/trees.JPG

I had 3 bites during my short session. The first two dropped it. Super soft bites. The last one stayed on there

http://www.calfishing.com/files/Images/conservation/shadow_cliffs/bass.JPG

Enough to make me happy. I drove home. Didn't run over any tackle this time.

The ponds will close March 1. But now the ball is rolling to get them back open. We are still on square one. But today progress was made.

I applaud you for your efforts, research, dedication, determination and courage to take this head on. You make me want to do more for the fisheries which unfortunately are being closed on a daily basis all around the country. I thank you, my company thanks you and everyone on this board and others you are writing on should thank you. Whether they fish there or not, you are paving the way to keep them fishing wherever they fish.

Thanks Rob!

commission video is posted from Feb 3

http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/media.pl?folder=CFG

click on Complete

Scroll to 1:34:03 in Windows Media Player

Today I participated in a meeting with EBPARKS, CA DFG, Alameda Creek Alliance, Bass-n-Tubes club (John Lake), and Northern CA Federation of Flyfishers. DFG representation included the local biologist, sr. regional biologist, and some of the main steelhead resource mgrs for the state.

The good news is that all of the parties present agreed that allowing fishing in the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs was OK by them. The exact details of what this will look like are still to be worked out and agreed on. These details will be things like the exact wording of the regs, and the exact area where an exception from the general Alameda Creek fishing closure will be in effect. The important thing is that I believe we will be successful in getting the ponds back open.

This does not mean that the work is done here! There are still many procedural barriers to cross. The exact process is a bit gray but will likely involve having each of the groups involved in the Alameda Creek watershed send letters to the commission indicating their support for keeping the back ponds open for fishing. This may take some time, as will the Commission reg change process in general. You guys have my promise that I will follow through on it until those ponds are open again.

Some interesting side issues arose from this meeting including the fact that the way Alameda Creek is being managed (no fishing whatsoever) does not agree with the DFG's overall state management plans for steelhead. This is a side issue, and not one that I will personally persue, but I am glad to have helped highlight the issue because our state resources should be managed in a consistent fashion.

The important lesson for all of us as anglers is that there is opportunity to effect change in fishing laws and regulations. We should not feel shut out from this process. We should not sit on the sidelines and complain. We should take time to get informed, understand the system and rules that govern what we are interested in and then get involved. I am no different than any of you reading this. The folks who got the creek shut down from fishing are no different either. Neither of us have special powers or ability to make law. But we are fortunate to live in a country and a state where individual citizens can get involved int he process.

Several people deserve thanks for their help on this. Pete Alexander at EBPARKS set up the meeting today and facilitated. He did not have to do this, but he did. George Neillands who is the Region 3 Sr. Fisheries Supervisor took the time to talk with me about this and the trout stocking issue in advance of the meeting. Krissy Adkinson who is the regional biologist also took time from her day to listen to my concerns and then followed up by visiting the site. All of these people could have just ignored my voicemails and emails, but they didn't.

Remember, this is not done yet. But there is a message of hope here to rally around.

Guys, here is what the Center for Biological Diversity says about the new EIR: www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/fish-stocking-01-18-2009.html

Basically they are going to sue again, and try to force DFG into doing whatever they feel needs to be done.

I think we need to write our local representatives to initiate some forms of legislation to prevent groups from this type of repeated attacks. Basically they can sue as much as they like given the amount of time and money on their hands. Every EIR is open to attack from groups like this. This is one of the reasons we struggle in this state to properly grow and deal with our expanding population. The ambiguous wording of these environmental laws provide no type of protection or certainty to them.