Short summary:

It's likely that DFG will never stock trout again at many of your favorite fishing locations around the state.

Longer explanation:

As many of you know, the DFG was forced to stop stocking trout at many locations throughout the state because of a lawsuit by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity. After over two years with no trout stocks at many locations, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the DFG was forced to perform was completed on January 11, 2010. The DFG was also required to review the hatchery Bill AB7 which required that 1/3 of fishing license revenue go toward stocking trout. The full EIR can be reviewed here:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/

The most relavent portion is the Alternatives section where DFG and the US Fish and Wildlife Service identify their preferred alternative. This is it:

"This alternative would adjust the current Program by implementing pre-stocking evaluation protocols (PSEPs), hatchery genetic management plans (HGMPs), and recommendations for alterations in issuing private stocking permits.

DFG and USFWS are identifying Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. This means that Fish and Game intends to continue to operate its hatchery and stocking into the future based on the guidelines and mitigation measures presented in Alternative 2. The USFWS would continue to fund associated eligible activities."

Assuming this is the alternative selected, figuring out what it would mean in concrete terms is still difficult. Will they stock trout at Coyote or not? What about Santa Margarita, Los Banos or Sandy Wool?

As best I understand it, the new ground rules for stocking trout would be based primarily on this Pre-stocking Evaluation Protocol (PSEP). The protocol is defined here:

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=16303

Translated in to English this says that if stocking trout is going to affect any one of a long list of native species, they are not likely to stock. The long list (84 species total) of what they call "decision species" can be found on page 11 of this doc. Calling an animal a decision species is a truly masterful butchering of the English language. Kudos to whoever made that up.

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15295

Why green sturgeon and bald eagles are included on this list, I don't know. Maybe DFG will have to evaluate what will happen to bald eagles who have gotten fat eating stocked trout when all those trout are gone?

In any case, if this alternative is selected, this new process will be used to perform a lake-by-lake and creek-by-creek assessment. The final decision on whether to stock or not will then be based on vagaries like whether there is a, "substantial impact on a decision species". Who defines substantial and how they define it is not clear. Maybe a biologist who likes fishing will say that stocked trout won't have a substantial impact to a certain frog species. But maybe the biologist who hates fishermen and will say that there will be a substantial impact.

Maybe at Coyote Lake they'll take the time to catch a few hundred stocked trout, check their stomach contents and discover that there are no frogs or tadpoles there. Or maybe biologists will just infer that if trout and frogs live in the same place that the trout must eat the frogs at some point. For all we know the biologist might put a trout and a tadpole in the same tank and wait until the trout eats the tadpole, then assume the same will occur in nature.

Perhaps the biologists will take a holistic view and realize that if stocked trout are not present in a lake that hungry cormorants, ospreys, bass, catfish, and herons will turn on the frogs and eat them instead. Will the biologists shoot ospreys with tranq darts to suction their stomach and find out if there are frogs in there? Will they electrofish bass before trout plants are stopped and check stomach contents, then electrofish them again after the plants are stopped and search for frogs?

Wait, the plants have already been stopped. So there is no opportunity to rewind the clock and understand the environment before it was altered by the cessation of the trout plants. Great job Center for Biological Diversity! Insert sarcasm.

All of this just highlights the fact that when you do not publish the methods used to determine if "decision species" are affected by stocked trout, you leave the entire decision open ended. When the decision is open ended, it will be interpreted by individuals who have bias.

I'm an optimist by nature but when I read these documents my gut feels fear. It's the fear that people with agendas will use complexities that they invent to make changes to the environment that are not in the best interest of anyone - themselves included. It's a fear that people who have spent a lifetime behind a desk will succeed in modifying the environment in ways they THINK is a good thing, but in reality is not. Let's hope the DFG biologists out there see the forest for the trees.

This state is so jacked up. When will it end

This issue is large and more difficult to tackle. I sense from reading the EIR that the DFG would like to continue most of their stocking programs. But they are taking it from both ends. They're dealing with these groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and they're hearing from fisherman who want to catch trout.

Something that I am starting to understand about what has been going down lately in fishing is that there is a distinct strategy being employed by groups like the Center for Biological Diversity. That strategy is a "chip away" strategy. Instead of going after big targets like tearing down dams or killing off non-native fish with poison, they are going after smaller things. Things like the stocking of rainbow trout or Alameda creek steelhead runs.

In this case they may not win outright and get the DFG to stop stocking all trout. But they will probably come away from this with a healthy list of lakes that won't be stocked any more. The number of locations that used to be stocked but aren't today because of their lawsuit is 109. If DFG evaluates and that number gets down to 50, it's still 50. It's not a big victory, but it still is a victory to them.

It's a victory because now precedent is established so further chipping away can be attempted. Close down all fishing in Alameda creek and a byproduct is that the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs. Chip chip chip. That's the program. It's not going to stop there. There are lawyers involved on their end. Lawyers understand strategy. Lawyers layer up their cases and when the other side whittles down and thinks they reached compromise, all they really reached was what the lawyer wanted in the first place.

The problem is not the state. The problem is letting people who don't know much about the outdoors manage nature. They don't have explicit control, but they can influence the people that do (the DFG) through lawsuits and regulation changes. Chip chip chip.

I've never been very politically active in my life. Well I did marry my wife who was a Political Science major :) But that aside, I've never stood up and done much. With the Shadow Cliffs thing I am now awake. It is now time to do something. Shadow Cliffs back ponds are my main focus and my first goal. We need to be successful there. My strategy will be the same as theirs. Chip chip chip. Later maybe we can take on trout stocking. In the mean time we must at least keep informed.

When I am ready for help I will ask for it. The time is not yet. I need information first. But maybe soon :)

In the mean time keep informed. Here is a list I made that shows many of the lost recreational fishing opportunities in Northern California - just in the past 5 years. Think about the chip away strategy. Chip chip chip.

San Justo Reservoir - Closed to all fishing due to zebra mussels

Pinto Lake - Any boat with a bilge or livewell is banned from launching. Inspections for quagga mussels only conducted on certain days/times

Coyote Lake - Closed to all boating Nov - April every year (5 months). Increased launch fees. Strict mussel inspections. Rainbow trout stocks canceled.

Anderson Lake - Lake closed Wed/Thurs every week Nov - April. Increased launch fees. Strict mussel inspections

Calero Lake - Lake closed Mon/Tues every week Nov - April. Increased launch fees. Strict mussel inspections. No night fishing allowed

Uvas Lake - Closed to all boating

Chesbro Reservoir - Closed to all boating

Loch Lomond Reservoir - Closed to all private boats. Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Steven's Creek - Closed to all boating November - April every year (5 months) Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Lexington Reservoir - Closed to all boating. Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Almaden - Closed to all boating

Cottonwood Lake - Closed to all boating. Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Lake Chabot - Increased fees for car top and inflatable launch

Shadow Cliffs - Back ponds closed to all fishing

Del Valle Reservoir - Increased launch fees. Strict mussel inspections

San Pablo Dam - Increased launch fees. Shortened lake hours in addition to Nov-Feb closure. DFG rainbow trout stocks canceled

Lafayette Reservoir - Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Contra Loma Reservoir - Increased launch fees. Mussel inspections

Alpine Lake - Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Spring Lake - Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Los Banos Creek - Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Hennessey Lake - Rainbow trout stocks canceled

Coyote Point (SF Bay) - No night fishing allowed

SF Bay / Ocean - No salmon fishing

Rob -

Thanks for compiling the list of lakes and their restrictions. I had to double check to confirm that your Pinto Lake is the place I remember as a little kid in the late 60s when we briefly lived in Watsonville.

One of the interesting things about your list is that the various restrictions are imposed by different organizations.
- Mussel related restrictions: Individual municipal water disctricts (especially in So-Cal) or in the case of Pinto Lake, the Watsonville City Council.
- Trout stocking restrictions: DFG lawsuit
- Access restrictions (both # of hours and boat launch): Due to lack of state/local finances?

I wish I had some words of wisdom but all I have is more questions.

Thanks for keeping everybody informed.

Tim

Oh, don't stop there. Just about every major body of water in Norcal with the exception of the delta has increased launch fees, restricted hours, and mussel inspections!!!
Rob, there are a lot of currently silent parties that will act when called upon.

www.dobynsrods.com
www.dirtyjigstackle.com

Dang Rob you are one hard working individual. I applaud what you are doing here. You know you can count on my support any time.

I have been noticing for a while now this "chip away" strategy and how we are getting back doored by all these self righteous do gooders who want to save something, anything, just to feel like they have made a positive contribution to society.

The way I see it If you enjoy hunting and fishing in California we better get politically active now or our days are numbered. And you won't even see it coming or know how it happened.

It's domestic terrorism against sportsmen I tell ya.

MT

Yesterday I went to Sacramento to give public comment on the Shadow Cliffs back ponds fishing closure. During the Commission's meeting, the director of the DFG, John McCamman, gave his director's report to the commission.

During his report he indicated that DFG had adopted the preferred alternative. Here's what this means for anglers.

1. Private hatcheries will be required to certify that the fish they provide are disease free and invasive species free. This means the cost of stocking private hatchery fish will increase. There are two possible outcomes for fishermen.

A. Lakes that stock private fish will stock less fish

B. Lakes that stock private fish will increase fishing permit fees

2. The department will begin studying locations where they stock trout to determine if threatened or endangered species will be negatively affected. It was not clear from the Director's comments where they would study, but I would expect that at a minimum that will include the 109 locations where stocking was stopped 2 years back.

For you swimbait chuckers this means places like:

Santa Margarita Lake
Coyote Lake
San Pablo Dam
Loch Lomond
Lafeyette
Los Banos

and many more

For you lure makers who make a living selling lures that look like trout, wake up guys. For you tackle manufacturers that sell swimbait rods and reels, wake up. This is it. This is the time when DFG biologists are going to study these lakes and give a permanent ruling about whether trout will ever be stocked again.

Nico and I have been discussing this, and thinking about ways to get involved. After the Shadow Cliffs pond issue, this is the next one I am getting involved in because guys, the groups that are behind this are the same groups that shut down fishing in the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs. Same exact. If you like to fish for bass or trout in this state you need to wake up and get ready to get involved.

I'm continually impressed with the progress you've made, with just one voice. I will do whatever I can to help.

Here's some ways to help on the trout stocking issue. Anyone can help here by finding out the following for each location:

1. Who will be conducting the pre-stocking assessments?

2. Will private groups be funding these assessments, or allowed to fund them. In other words, will the Center for Biological Diversity be allowed to fund them?

3. When will these assessments be conducted?

4. Who are the regional DFG people involved in the assessments?

5. Will fishermen be asked to provide input on the presence of threatened/endangered species?

6. What is the criteria for the assessments. Some very important questions are things like

A. Does the area have to have threatened/endangered species now, or will historical presence be enough to stop stocking?

B. Will the current environment be assessed? Meaning, will they take in to account the effect of removing planted trout from the environment on threatened/endangered species. Will they consider that hungry cormorants, deprived of stocked trout, will turn on native species and eat them?

These are all very important questions. Will we as fishermen let other groups dictate the ground rules for the DFG to follow, or will we get involved to make sure this is a fair and unbiased process?

For the south coast region the fishery biologist is Dr Dwayne Maxwell. As of this time lakes, casitas, cachuma, piru, and castaic( upper and lower), are in trouble. They all have access to waters which are known habitat to southern california steelhead.

Dr Maxwell is awaiting decision from the dfg director on how to proceed with these bodies of water. If mitigation is required here dr Maxwell proposes the stocking of steril trouts in these waters.

Problem here is they have to deal with NOAA. Very scary times! He said not to expect a quick resolution to this. If stocking never resumes we are looking at the destruction of two of the greatest trophy fisheries ever.

Dr Maxwell can be reached at the following 562 342 7152.

I also encourage everyone to submit. Well written email to dfg director

thanks rob I will do whatever is necessary to stop this

Brian, thanks, good info. Glad you are getting involved in So-Cal. Can you find out anything about which lakes will be assessed? You are naming off some lakes that avoided the stocking ban initially because they are larger than 1,000 acres. Is DFG evaluating everything?

You brought up some interesting points, like the notion of stocking sterile trout. That could be a great compromise for the places that have steelhead downstream. I can tell you a few stories about the amazing trout fishing below lake Cachuma back 15 years ago. We would hike down there and catch big 2lb+ stocked trout that had come over the dam. Here's a photo of one. You can see the rubbed off tail:

http://www.calfishing.com/gallery/d/700-2/robsy.jpg

At the time it was Wed/Sat/Sun barbless c-n-r only so we were all legal. Thomas Bouyants with single hooks were great. I digress...

Point is, on the dams that spill over, stocked trout do go downstream. After 15 or 50 years of this, you could argue that all the damage that is going to be done to the gene pool has been done, but maybe not. Who knows. Has anyone ever seen a planted trout spawn with a steelhead? Who knows. Need to research and find out.

Either way, a sterile trout is great to catch and good for any steelhead dumb enough to try and spawn with a stocked trout. So it's interesting.

As far as frogs and amphibians and other things that trout might eat, that's a whole other story. It would be easy to say that just about any lake in this state could be potential habitat for an endangered species. Will that be the test? Or will the endangered species have to be there right now for DFG to stop stocking forever?

At the risk of sounding like I hate native species, I should point out that in some places planting trout was an ill conceived plan from day 1 and we shouldn't plant there any more. But in most man-made lakes that have been getting trout for 20 or 40 or 100 years you will have to really convince me of the benefits of stopping stocking trout.

This will be a location-by-location issue and I can guarantee if fishermen sit back and do nothing there will be no trout to fish for and no swimbait bass to fish for either.

Rob, here is the email I recieved in response to the one I sent to DFG director regarding this issue on Friday of last week.
"
The Director has asked that I assist you with your question about our stocking program.

The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has completed the Environmental Impact Report as a requirement of the lawsuit brought against the Department. This EIR/EIS can be viewed at the following Internet address: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/ . Of particular interest will be Appendix K Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol as it is the guiding force behind our stocking activities over the next few months. The Department has begun implementing the conditions in the EIR/EIS and one of those conditions is the implementation of the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol. The purpose of this protocol is to allow the Department to stock a given water body if the conditions outlined in the protocol are met. Department staff are moving forward with the review process of all of our proposed stocking location to determine if it is appropriate to continue stocking these sites. The implementation of this process is to be handled by our Regional Offices and they would be the ones to tell you when they anticipate reviewing any particular water body. Lake Casitas evaluation will be handled by our Southern Coast Region and they can be reached at the following phone number <(858) 467-4201>. You will need to talk with the Senior Fishery Biologist conducting the evaluations, unfortunately I do not know who has been assigned that task.

If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me directly at the following email address.
"
So in other words they are evaluating each lake on a case by case basis. I have noticed that the inner city lakes and parks are still getting trout.

I called the number and was directed to Dwayne Maxwell who is our regional fisheries biologist, where we had the conversation in regards to our lakes down here.

Rob, BTW, everytime I show up to go fishing at the lagoon, I think of you just rolling in here and sticking that 15.2! Nice job! Been fishing here a year now and haven't had a look at one that big. Caught a good number of DD's for my first year fishing, but that's awesome you got one like that here. Without trout, it won't be long before those big ones are gone. Maybe 3 years. You've seen how many fish are in this place. But I think without the trout, they will eventually eat all the bait, then it's game over.

>
>This will be a location-by-location issue and I can guarantee
>if fishermen sit back and do nothing there will be no trout to
>fish for and no swimbait bass to fish for either.

Bingo!! All politics is local but we are on a path of generally degraded fishing on all fronts...bass, stripers, steelhead, salmon, wild trout, truck trout, everything!!

Your post about the sterile trout got me to thinking last night about some out of the box ways to find compromises that allow for stocked fish and still protect rare species. First, some background, since this topic can be complicated:

1. Steelhead have been categorized in to 6 separate Distinctive Population Segments (DPS) which include:

Steelhead (Klamath Mountains Province DPS)
Steelhead (northern California DPS)
Steelhead (Central Valley DPS)
Steelhead (central California coast DPS)
Steelhead (south/central California coast DPS)
Steelhead (southern California DPS)

2. Fundamentally the Center for Biological Diversity (the group behind the trout stocking lawsuit and the closure of the back ponds at Shadwo Cliffs) says two things:

A. The genetic differences between these steelhead population segements are valuable and in need of protection.
B. Stocked fish eat or impact rare species, which is bad.

OK great. Now let's think about ways to reconcile these two agendas against the idea that it's nice to stock trout and other fish for people to catch while they enjoy the outdoors. But first some more background...

Topic 1: Stocked trout - effects through interbreeding with native steelhead, and does it even happen:

Chapter 4 of the DFG's Environmental Impact Report on trout stocking suggests that they have an idea of how often stocked trout spawn with wild steelhead. They say, "The degree of interbreeding between wild and hatchery fish can sometimes be quantified, a topic discussed in more detail in Appendix F."

I headed over to Appendix F and the best they could come up with is, "While the number of hatchery fish that actually interbreed may be low, the sheer number of hatchery fish present may be very large and may have asignificant ecological effect (Kostow 2003, 2004; Kostow and Zhou 2006). The concern is that hatchery fish may compete effectively at the juvenile stage but have inferior reproductive success.

The problem here is apparent. It's hard to quantify the interbreeding that occurs. To do that you'd have to find locations where stocked trout encounter wild steelhead. For example, below Bradbury dam during high water years. Then you'd have to find the redds (spawning beds) where trout are spawning. Then you'd have to shock the spawning pairs and identify either visually or through genetic tests whether any of the spawning pairs were comprised of stocked and wild partners. It's an unappetizing experiment since shocking spawning fish isn't very polite.

I tried to find out if anyone has done this. There are a few studies on this topic. . They're studying hatchery steelhead vs. hatchery rainbow trout, and they repeatedly bring up the subject of interbreeding but I can't find any place where they give a percentage of spawning pairs observed where a hatchery fish was spawning with a wild fish. They seem to just make an automatic assumption that it happens. This study is a pretty good read, in spite of the author's habit of throwing in big phrases like, "deleterious alleles."

Common sense says that stocked fish and wild fish will spawn together. But putting a percentage of occurrence on this is very hard. I sense that the answer to whether stocked trout spawn with native steelhead is "very probably". And as to how often it occurs, the answer is "unknown".

Topic 2: Stocked trout - effect on other species:

Let's use an example here. One of the reasons no trout are being stocked in Coyote lake right now is because of a fear that stocked trout will have a bad impact on rare species like red-legged frogs. In other words, they'll eat their tadpoles (a full grown red-legged frog is too big for a trout to eat). Here's some more info on . It's the one that fills up Coyote and Anderson Lakes. OK, trout eating frogs - good concern. Now let's peel back the onion, starting some time back in the past. Let's start 500 years ago.

500 years ago Coyote Creek didn't have a dam or probably all that many people living around it. There were red-legged frogs and steelhead and king salmon and a lot of other critters living in the creek. During wet years the creek got more steelhead (steelhead are like that). With more steelhead around more red-legged frog tadpoles got eaten. In dry years there were less steelhead and likely less frog tadpoles got eaten. King Salmon don't feed when they go up to spawn, but they do get grumpy about things that get in their face so they might have killed a few frogs or tadpoles. Fundamentally, there was balance. That's what nature does when you leave it alone, it reaches balance points.

74 years ago Coyote Dam got built. 14 years later, Anderson Dam was built. Now the balance was gone. For sure less steelhead made it up the creek. What did this do to the frogs? Was it a happy day in frog land with the steelhead gone? Did the frog population explode with the two large lakes to live in and their many fresh miles of shoreline? Or did the frogs fare badly downstream of Anderson Dam because less water was available to live in? Did stocked trout in Coyote Lake spell doom for the frogs, however many happened to live there? Did anyone study any of this? Unlikely.

Point is, a new balance was reached and groups like the Center for Biological Diversity say this balance is wrong. They are saying that they know better what the balance should be and they have plans to enforce their view of the balance. Taking down the dams isn't an attainable goal so they are going after other things like stocked fish which have an effect on the balance. You can read what they have to say about stocked fish .

Now back to the topic at hand - ideas for balancing recreation with the agenda of the Center for Biological Diversity. Some thoughts that come to mind in addition to the sterile trout idea:

1. Stock lakes and streams with local fish. If the Southern Steelhead is a genetically distinct population, why not stock lake lakes with local fish? Costs increase but the genetics issue is addressed.

2. Micro-hatheries If you're going to stock with local fish, why not raise them locally? Now you've removed the invasive species problem. Sure there are costs here, but the Center for Biological Diversity clearly has ample cash to fire off lawsuits. Why not spend that on things like this instead? What a great opportunity for that group to win some friends in the fishing world.

3. Give up on some stream flow issues People need water and the dams in this state aren't coming down. Creek flows will never be what they once were because the total amount of water in the creek is not the same after people take a big chunk of it. If you can't stand that the creeks don't run like they used to, go fight for population control or move to a country like China where you can only have 1 child. Ahem.

4. Give up on some introduced fish species issues In some confined locations it may be worth it to kill off introduced fish in order to protect native fish species. That's already being done in some places. where they are shocking up bass, catfish and bluegill and killing them. You know something, I don't have a problem with that. But in places where you'll never be able to get rid of introduced fish without wholesale poisining, give up. We don't need to go the route that Japan has gone with mandatory catch and kill on bass, and we don't need an unrestricted limit on striped bass at the delta. Those aren't solutions, they're just feel good deals for environmentalists.

What will be very interesting with this trout stocking deal is finding out if the Center for Biological Diversity is willing to accept any sort of compromises like this, or if this is all just a guise to end fishing and hunting. I don't know yet but I've read a lot of their online literature and yesterday I ordered a book about their group called . If you give a damn about fishing and hunting, you should think about getting this book too.

In the end, there's one thing for sure. Humans love to play God and try to be lords of the animal kingdom, picking and choosing their favorite species and doing things to promote what they want. Let's hear your ideas for playing God, I've jotted down a few of mine.

For some fun reading check this out: www.casitaswater.org/fishpassagefacility/Robles%20BO.pdf

This is the biological opinion on the necessity to install the robles fish passage. This is now installed in the ventura river, and is part of the lake casitas water diversion.

At this time, they still have to move the fish from puddle to puddle, because they get stuck, and the birds eat them!

All this after spending the money on this thing.

From 1987-1992, the river never reached the ocean! That fact right there could have extincted the fish that spawned there?

I would like to challenge the authenticity of the fish population numbers they came up with. They base this whole thing on 1946 studies and flat out say they don't really have any data that in my opinion justifies this fish passage or the need to spend $11,000,000 to install this thing.

Can someone help us with determining the basis for which a species is determined to be endangered, and to what extent the government can infringe upon our recreational rights or wants to try and reestablish this species.

At what time did this species take residence in these streams? Perhaps they were an invasive species from the ocean which destroyed the fish that lived there first?

How do we know these fish are native? How do we know the autenthicity of the fish stocking in these rivers?

Has anyone ever challenged these groups? Maybe its time they get a taste of their own medicine.

Who checks the authenticity of their biological opinions?

Is there some sort of check and balance loop holes in which we can ask of this?

Sorry I am just rambling off the ideas in my head right now.

Today when I was out fishing, this was all I was thinking about. This and the fact that it was raining and cold as hell!

I hate to think of this as Eco-Freaks! I would like to work with groups to help preserve our fisheries. I would like to see our kids enjoy the same types of recreational opportunities I have. But at this rate, there will be nothing left. There has to be a balance struck. Our fisheries should not be jeopardized! To me, that is a greater injustice upon our environment.

Does anyone think, the loss of these things could form some type of litigation against these groups?

Just curious,
Brian

>Can someone help us with determining the basis for which a
>species is determined to be endangered, and to what extent the
>government can infringe upon our recreational rights or wants
>to try and reestablish this species.

I do believe the criteria are listed in the Federal Endangered Species Act. You can also go to the Federal Register, and search for some fish that has been listed as endangered (heres a recent one, the Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic Salmon) recently, and you will get a major rundown including review of listing criteria.

>
>Who checks the authenticity of their biological opinions?

Its a multi-tiered internal review process. But keep in mind its a public document, so its there for anybody and everybody to see, and challenge if they want. Thats why we have watchgroups who scour places these things are released publicly. Yes, many BO's have been challenged, and many agencies have been brought to court concerning BO's and resulting actions.

DFG
http://dfg.ca.gov/regions/

Region 1 - Northern Region - (530) 225-2300

Region 2 - North Central Region - (916) 358-2900

Region 3 - Bay Delta Region - (707) 944-5500

Region 4 - Central Region - (559) 243-4005

Region 5 - South Coast Region - (858) 467-4201

Region 6 - Inland Deserts Region - (909) 484-0167

Center for Biological Diversity (they initiated the lawsuit that caused this)
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
center@biologicaldiversity.org
(520) 623.5252

Pacific Rivers Council (they were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the DFG)
http://pacificrivers.org/

Stanford Environmental Law Clinic (they worked for free to sue the DFG for the Center for Biological Diversity / Pacific Rivers Council)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/105/
Director: Deborah A. Sivas
dsivas@stanford.edu
650 723.0325

Thank You Rob.

Email Contacts:

John McCamman (Director of DFG)
Director@dfg.ca.go

Dwayne Maxwell (South Coast Region Senior Biologist Supervisor)
dmaxwell@dfg.ca.gov

Margaret Paul (Central Region Senior Biologist Specialist)
mpaul@dfg.ca.gov

Bob Coey (Delta Bay Region Senior Fishery Biologist Supervisor)
bcoey@dfg.ca.gov

Gary Flosi (Northern Region Senior Biologist Supervisor)
gflosi@dfg.ca.gov

If you would like to know who will be conducting and/or be in charge of the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol for your local waters, these individuals maybe worth contacting.

For more email contacts, go here: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Administration/Grants/FRGP/RegionalSupport.asp

Fumio

Hi gang, had a chance to talk with some people in R3 (this is the Bay Area region). Here's what I learned...

1. DFG is pretty understaffed in this region.

2. Trout stocks are all on hold right now.

3. They've divided up the stocking waters in to categories. Category 1 is places that there's confidence no threatened species will be impacted. They're hoping to get those places cleared for stocking soon, as in a few weeks.

Category 2 waters are places like San Pablo, Loch Lomond, Stevens Creek, and Coyote. Those are places where threatened species are likely present and will need big evaluations. Whether they will ever stock again there is unknown. It will depend on whether an acceptable biological diversity mitigation plan can be put in place. What that would look like, I do not know at this time. These evaluations may take months or years.

4. As far as I can tell, groups like the Center for Biological diversity will not be allowed to conduct the pre-stocking assessments. However, regional parks and lake management groups like counties will provide data to the DFG. So, Santa Clara County will likely provide data for Coyote and Stevens Creek, and EBPARKS will provide data for their lakes, etc.

5. If trout stocking is put on hold for too long, or not enough waters are available, current hatchery fish will have to be killed because the fish will grow too large and be unsustainable in the hatcheries. This is a real concern, and there is a real concern with how these new stocking rules will contradict Hatchery Bill AB7's mandates of more trout. If 1/3 of license revenues are spent on hatcheries and they wind up having to kill the fish, that's a big issue.

There are a couple of avenues that could be used to fight on these issues. I am researching and formulating some plans. Please always remember in this that DFG is caught in the middle and NOT the ones who initiated this.

Hi all,

First, apologies for the long message. I got in touch with Dr. Dwayne Maxwell, SR. Biologist of the S. Ca. region. Here are some answers to questions suggested by Rob in a previous post.

1. Who will be in charge of the Pre-Stocking Evaluations?
“The fisheries function of each Region has been working on the waters within the regional boundaries. In the South Coast Region, the Pre-Stocking Evaluations have been given the highest priority for the fisheries staff.”

2. Is there a timeline for these evaluations?
“No. We are working on the evaluations full time. They will be completed as quickly and as accurately as we can manage. We have tried to triage our waters to get the easy ones finished first. This will allow our hatcheries to start planting fish and get some stock out of the hatcheries. Some waters, such as rim dams, are going to be more difficult and time consuming.”

3. Will the evaluations be entirely funded by DFG? “Yes.”

4. Will the evaluation process be open to public opinion?
“The evaluations will not be opened for public review before approval. We discussed this option and if we have to offer a public review of each evaluation, any decisions will be months in the making. The evaluations may be made available on our website within some reasonable time but not before regional and Fisheries Branch approval.”

5. What are some of the main criteria that will be used for these evaluations?
“The evaluations consider the list of decision species contained in the EIR/EIS and the need as identified in the document for mitigation. As we go through the flow charts of Appendix K, the presence of the species is considered along with historical ranges, critical habitat designations, recovery plan conflicts, and listing status. There are a few listed species, southwest arroyo toad for example, that are listed but the impact of stocking rainbow trout in these waters is considered to be less than significant. Before these waters are cleared, we still need to consult with the federal agencies responsible for the species to be certain we have considered all the ramifications of stocking trout in these waters.”

Of important note to us S. Ca. anglers. Lakes Cachuma, Piru, Casitas, and Castaic, apparently, will be the most difficult bodies of water to evaluate (unfortunately). This is due to the potential effects of stockings on anadromous species (meaning steelhead). Stockings in these waters will be resumed if and only when clear mitigation measures can be defined and put in place. They (DFG) have already met and held long discussions on what this mitigation might be. However, the process of defining this mitigation is just starting. Combined with the fact that they want to evaluate the "easy ones first", restocking in these waters (if it ever happens) could take a long time.

As posted already, reminder that the DFG (which is very understaffed) is caught in the middle of all this mess, and are trying to get stockings resumed if possible.

Keep yourselves informed and share info with us. As Rob stated in another forum: "It is all about balancing habitat, species, and human use. This doesn't have to be an us-vs-them scenario." Also, as someone with the handle "jigginpig" stated, I too am sympathetic to the dilemma. Ranting about the government and how eco groups are tyring to eliminate fishermen will not help win over the DFG's sympathy for anglers.

Today, I hope to get in touch with Curtis Milliron of DFG, another biologist in the south region. Will post any pertinent information from our coversation later.

Send well written emails to DFG biologist on how fishing is important to you and how you want future generations to have the fishing opportunities we have. I've found that many DFG biologists are very generous with their time and detailed in their explanations.

Fumio

Thx Fumio,

I had a chance to talk with Curtis yesterday at length. Like you pointed out, the people at DFG are incredible in terms of spending time to answer questions from the public.

Curtis is coordinating this whole pre-stocking thing for DFG. Most of what he said echoed what you just posted. They're trying to stock the "easy ones" right away, but in the areas where there are decision species that could be affected by trout it may take considerable time to evaluate.

It's important for DFG to be consistent in their evaluation methods across all of the regions. From what I gather, the Center for Biological Diversity is not pleased with the outcome of the EIR and these pre-stocking assessment protocols. It seems very likely (from my point of view) that they will sue again.

So DFG has to be scientific and consistent in their methods. As fishermen that means we will probably have to wait a while, maybe a long while for evaluations and mitigation plans to be developed.

One thing that left me feeling good after yesterday's conversations is that Curtis understands this issue perfectly. He's spent years studying trout effects on yellow-leg frogs in the Sierras. He gets it that environments are complex and that one species can have effects (both good and bad) that go well beyond the obvious. I feel like right person is in charge of this to strike a balance between recreation and nature.

Hi Anglers,

I also had a chance to talk with Curtis Milliron today. He reiterated the information I received from Dr. Dwayne Maxwell. Curtis was very generous with his time, and he appreciates anglers that want to inform themselves of the situation and especially those who share the info with other anglers.

Basically at this point, it seems that we just have to sit and cross our fingers that our favorite waters will be stocked again, if stocking has not resumed already. The evaluation process will be easy for some places, very difficult for others. Curtis informed me that at many locations, stockings will likely resume with little difficulty. However, some areas will be delayed, and some areas may never resume stocking. Once an evaluation is completed for a particular body of water, a conclusion will be made whether stocking will resume or not. The conclusion will be either yes or no, no in between actions, like stocking less than normal or stocking for a shorter time period, etc.

Curtis also thinks that the phrase "decision species" may not have been the best choice to describe these sensitive species. If an area supports any one of the 84 "decision species", it does not necessarily mean that that location will not be stocked. They are going to consider mainly the "top" "decision species" ("critical decision species") as part of their evaluation protocol. For some decision species, such as the willow flycatcher, Curtis told me that the lack of impact on them from trout stockings will be relatively easy to show.

The steelhead issue is very critical for some waters. The DFG does not want to do anything that could potentially jeopardize the genetic pool of the existing population. Any body of water in which native steelhead is involved, the evaluation process will take longer and there is the potential that stockings will never resume. For us S. Ca anglers, that could potentially include Cachuma, Casitas, Castaic, Piru... yikes! The DFG does understand the significant importance of resuming stocks at these locations, if at all possible.

DFG has already looked into planting sterile trout as one of their potential answers to this dilemma. They have one equipment which is capable of producing sterile trout by the "pressure shock" method. This equipment has been sent to the hatchery in Shasta, and apparently already in operation. They can produce up to 150,000 eggs per day, but apparently mortality of these sterile trout is very high (around 50%). This procedure produces the triploid sterile trout. Also, they have purchased some sterile trout and stocked these in certain areas already. However, the sterile trout from Shasta and the purchased ones combined, will not even come close to the planting goals of DFG. By the way, arent the triploids the ones that get real big? Will they eat all the bass?... Will we end up chucking bass shaped swimbaits for giant mutant trout??

As anglers, I asked what can we do to help along this evaluation process? The answer was, basically not much. I do believe that the DFG is trying to resume stockings as soon as possible in many areas. They are getting pressure from the hatcheries that do not want to keep on feeding their fish that are ready to be stocked (not to mention pressure from the anglers). I also know that they are severely understaffed. If this process is going to proceed as fast as possible, then no doubt their biologists would have to work extra and go beyond their normal duties. If that is the case, I don't think it can hurt to send them courteous messages stating how important stockings are to the fishing community and that any efforts to get the evaluations completed as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated.

I also got the feeling that Curtis is the right person to be in charge of the evaluation protocols. If the evaluation ends up with the conclusion that my favorite bass haunt will no longer receive trout, will I be able to live with that? Well, that is a question I havent answered yet...

Fumio

Thanks Fumio! You are awesome! For those of you who don't know Fumio, he is one of the nicest people I have ever met. We often are at the lake at the same time, and it is always a pleasure to see and speak with him. The other day he got a really nice fish. Good job buddy!

Through the grapevine I have heard there is going to be a possible public forum meeting in regards to this matter. From what I know right now it will be in Solvang sometime in march. I will keep you posted.

Lake Casitas has an on staff biologist who is responsible for studying and reporting on the steelhead in the Ventura River. They have extinsive data on the amount of fish in the river. Hopefully this data can be of great assistance to DFG. What is also of interest is that the lake has only went over the spillway 5 times since it was built in the 50's. They also have the ability to release water through filtered screens during high water flows to eliminate the lake spilling over during this time.

Lake Piru spills over more frequently. But they have the ability to release water also. Lake Staff at piru where unaware of what has been happening until a few days ago.

What scares me is the lagoon. If you look into DFG's data when they were investigating Steelhead Habitat, it is noted that no steelhead were found in the river in which it outflows. But there is nothing in place to prevent fish from flowing over the spillway. Often times you will see people illegally fishing downstream for the trout that spillover.

Cachuma is also very scary because it dams off a river system. I am not very familiar with this lake, but I would hate to see any presedence take place in which a lake or area could lose trout plants and the fishing opportunity they present.

I also have seen a letter from the Center of Biological Diversity stating their displeasure with the EIR. They say DFG has released a "Flawed EIR". Great! I would assume more litigation is pending. I suggest we all write to our local representatives and inform them of this problem. We cannot continue down this path of constant litigations in regards to EIR's. We are the people who end up paying for these types of litigations when they attack government entities. Maybe Stanford Law would represent us in a lawsuit for free? HAH!

Brian

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.

Brian/Fumio,

Great info, thanks for staying right on this thing. It is not a surprise that the Center for Biological Diversity is going to sue again. They have filed over 500 lawsuits since their founding. Their primary method is the one being used here which is to sue government agencies under the endangered species act.

Their strategy, as we are seeing here, is to sue repeatedly to badger the government organization until they get what they want. This is all spelled out in the book I keep mentioning, .

Brian is on the right track now in that we need to start thinking about ways to fight back and temper the rigid environmental views of the CBD. I'm thinking about the proper strategy and it will require some research. Potential avenues could include.

- Begin a letter writing campaign directed at the CBD to try and convince them to back off on these fisheries issues.

- Contact the lawyers who are aiding the CBD on a pro bono basis and try to convince them that what they are doing is wrong.

- Set up an RSS feed or similar on the site here so we can stay on top of what the CBD is doing and act preemptively.

- Sue the DFG because the guidelines in the hatchery bill AB7 to use 1/3 of license revenue for stocking, and to stock a certain amount of trout are not being met.

- Sue the CBD under some form of frivolous lawsuit law.

- If DFG has to revise the EIR, sue (just like the CBD is going to) because we feel the EIR is flawed.

- Join with other groups who are being badgered by the CBD and attempt a national campaign to modify environmental law.


Anyone know any lawyers? I know a few. It may be time for me to set up a non-profit as well. With people like the people I've met and talked to in the past 3 weeks about this stuff we could do a lot.

Dammit! So I just went and bought Eco Barons and it pisses me off that I had to spend 28 bucks but in order to deal with this we must first understand what and with whom we are dealing with.

I believe we can get a tremendous amount of support from groups who are having difficulty with CBD.

I know from reading the website for Stanford environmental school of law they champion the fact that they have successfully litigated numerous closures and bans that protect endangered species.

I have often tossed around the idea of obtaining a law degree to be a guy who stands up for people against this kind of crap. I believe a common sense approach is sorely missing these days in regards to these matters. Hopefully we can contact attorneys who have the same visions and view on these matters. I will start looking.

But I will do anything to be proactive now to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the tremendous fishing and recreation opportunity this state provides. Perhaps soon we can all get together to brain storm and start coming up with a vision and direction for whatever it is we need to do.

When I go on all the other sites it seems like a bunch of idiots fighting like turds. My fear is alot of fishermen are uninformed and probably don't really worry
much about what happens outside their realm or consciousness. I know I dropped the ball about this issue.

Or perhaps we can work with these people and come up with solutions that work for all of us. I by no means want to see our precious resources destroyed but this type of activism doesn't sit well with me.

I am not happy with the wording or the lack of concrete solutions this EIR presents. To me it is a ticking time bomb with many options for interpretation. Perhaps we could contact the petitioners of this law suit to find their concrete stances on these issues. Maybe we could establish guidelines that serve us all.

I had also thought about the idea of litigations toward DFG in regards to this. But what sucks about that is we end up paying the bill for that.

Let me know rob when you have a chance for a phone call. I would like to move ASAP.

Thanks everyone

Brian

Soon.

Noah Greenwald, (503) 494-7495 is the guy running this on the CBD side. Been thinking about calling him as well. Haven't had time yet. Don't let me hold you back. Would very much like to understand their position clearly. What are they after exactly?

Ok gotta get my ducks in row and make sure I am fully defined on our stance towards this issue. I don't have a problem with the high Sierra lakes in which we planted fish were there were none before. I do think the man made lakes should be left alone. How can they pick and choose which species stays and which goes.. If they can say a trout effects a species then what about the other fish? Is their position that all non native species be removed?

Those are my important issues let me know what else we need to think about

Here's something to look at in the Kern River

http://www.turnto23.com/mountain/22527698/detail.html

Apparently a judge was involved, which implies a lawsuit on the part of fishing groups to get trout stocks going again. Trout were in fact stocked. This needs to be investigated more.

Here is a letter sent to DFG by that areas representative.
http://krvr.org/components/com_joomlaboard/uploaded/files/DFG_EIR_Comments_Fuller_10_28_09.pdf

I suggest we find out who our local reps are and ask for similar type letters.

We can argue that the stocking of the trout into the lakes, from which the minimal escape of these fish, poses "Less than significant" impact on the steelhead.

I will find out who the local reps are in SoCal. I will submit my own letter, and post it here for others to follow.

Any Idea who the judge is who reinstated the stocking?

So-Cal reps for affected lakes: Casitas, Piru, Castaic, Cachuma

Assembly
AD 37 Audra Strickland(R) Casitas, Piru, Castaic
http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/37/?p=email

AD 35 Pedro Nava (D) Santa Barbara Cachuma
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a35/

Senate
SD 17 George Runner(R) Castaic, Piru, Areas above Casitas and Ojai
http://cssrc.us/web/17/default.aspx

SD 19 Tony Strickland(R) Cachuma,Casitas and areas of western ventura and Santa Barbara counties
http://cssrc.us/web/19/

From the links you can email them directly. All of their contact info is on the links here.

Well it looks like CBD has indeed filed a lawsuit alleging an "utter failure" by DFG in regards to the EIR.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/fish-stocking-02-10-2009.html

Here is a letter that looks interesting:
http://krvr.org/components/com_joomlaboard/uploaded/files/Letter_to_Honorable_Patrick_Marlette_1_22_2010.pdf

I don't know how this will affect the fish stocking, perhaps it could continue as before in the tentative agreement. If this is the case, we should all take a much more active role in commenting on the EIR if it indeed needs to be redone.

Over the past two weeks I've been emailing back and forth with Noah Greenwald who is leading the CA DFG trout stocking lawsuits from the Center for Biological Diversity. The point of this dialogue was to learn what their intent is with their second lawsuit. I asked questions like:

- Is the Center's goal to end all trout stocking in the state of CA? If not, what stocking does the Center support?

- What specific actions would the CA DFG have to take to ensure the CBD did not sue them again on this issue?

- Is the CBD proposing to end stocking anywhere one of the 84 decision species are present, including species like the bald eagle which are present throughout all locations?

To the first question, Mr. Greenwald said they are not trying to end all stocking in the state. I could not get an answer to the second or third question and despite a dozen or so emails back and forth it remains totally unclear to me what the CBD's preferred outcome is from their lawsuits. From this discussion I can only infer that the CBD is being intentionally vague.

It has become apparent to me that the CBD's negotiating strategy is simple. They sue for everything they want and more. They do this knowing that they may have to settle closer to the middle, but they will never start toward the middle and they will never settle outside court if they think they can get more of what they want in court.

This strategy is unfortunate because it takes away the opportunity for dialogue and compromise. It's also unfortunate because the only way to combat it is through the courts in hard-nose win-lose lawsuits.

I've been talking with an attorney to learn more about what can be done here. Interestingly there is no record of the lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior court that the CBD on Feb 10, 2010. Still digging on that. As soon as I get a copy of the suit I will post it here.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7972-biodiver.jpg

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)

Rob,

As a paralegal I also checked the U.S. District court docket for the Eastern District Of California (the federal court here in Sacramento) The only case I can find here is Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar et al. filed on 2/17/10. Looking at the complaint it has nothing to do with fish planting but rather trying to get multiple species added to the endangered species list. I sent a copy of the complaint to your gmail account in case you want to look at it.

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have-yous

Thanks John. If you do see the complaint surface in one of the courts, could you let me know.

An update for the East Bay Regional Parks Lakes (Contra Loma, Shadow Cliffs, Del Valle, Chabot, etc)

They are NOT recieving any DFG trout stocks at this time. The parks district has provided data on 'decision' species at the EBPARKS stocking locations to the DFG. DFG will have to evaluate now using the pre-stocking assessment protocol, then decide whether to stock, mitigate, or not stock.

How long this will take is unknown. Private trout stocks will continue in the mean time. My understanding with the private stocks is that they will be allowed to continue until the end of the year. After that if the lake is on a DFG no-stock list, then private stocks will not be allowed either.

Hey guys

Sorry but I have been busy and trying to fish a little also. I've sent emails to my local reps, and also to Noah Greenwald. I also have a phone call into him at this time. Let me know if I can do anything else.

Brian

Fumio and I were talking the other day and he mentioned something that I had seen also. Is anybody else aware of dfg's program for trophy bass? I looked into it a little and it says dfg must maintain at least one lake in each region in accordance with this program to provide anglers the opportunity to catch a trophy bass withis a spot or smally over 6 lbs and a largey over ten. Socal's lake is castaic which has been whiped out by the stripers.

Let me know what you guys think. Maybe this could be a vehicle to provide trout stockings at lakes that are designated trophy fisheries and we could petitiion dfg to place lakes like casitas or other big bass lakes on this list.

whats up everyone, i used to post here as bmxbasser back in the day, ive come a long way since then ha, anyways last word i heard about castaic was no more trout in the lower ever again(major bummer), but the upper will get stocked sometime just don't know when, thats coming from someone i trust who just happened to be there when the biologist was there, hey dick why casitas that place just has rats ha... just messin with ya(dfg please pick lower lake over casitas ha j/k) sorry just going thru post trout depression like most of us

oh yeah reason for lower lake not getting trout is due to the water flowing out right there at the bridge that you drive over just before the turn to the launch ramp, dunno if i should post this but i am sick of this bs

Hey dude what's up and welcome back. I only fish the lagoon so I am gettin a major screwing but don't wanna seem like I would pick one over the other. I love both lakes. I hate that anyone could lose their trophy fishery. What is butch gonna do if they kill that lower lake his life is built around fishing there.

I have been working with lake casitas to get them back going in the right direction in regards to the fishery. They are buying 50 grand worth of trout for next month and if things with the biologist go ok they will continue to supplement dfg trout plants with their own in order to return that lake to where it belongs.

That's what started this whole thing for me. I heard the ranger was going to buy small mouth bass instead of trout and I about flipped! I was up there waiting for dfg truck buy it never came. I had just got casitas to go ahead and buy trout then this thing with the eir went down.

Sucks way bad

According to this article on wonews.com, the 2nd lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity may have been dropped:

http://www.wonews.com/t-SCFreshReports_schweit_rivers_021710.aspx

"the Center for Biological Diversity dropped the second lawsuit a few days after filing; thus marking a major victory for both Kern River anglers and businesses…"

This could explain why its not showing up in the courts. I don't have time today to make calls to WON to find out for sure, just passing along.

I've gotten a copy of the pre-stocking assessment sheets for Del Valle and Shadow Cliffs (attached below in PDF format). We can learn a lot from these sheets.

1. There are 13 species that require mitigation if they are present where trout are stocked in this region. We don't know what "mitigation" means yet but most likely it means NO TROUT STOCKED FOREVER. The other species do not require mitigation. I'm not sure why they are listed other than to think that this could be a hedging by the CBD in case any of these additional species become endangered (then the mitigation flag would be set for them). The list of the 13 that matter is below.

2. It looks like in DFG Region 3, any reservoir that has an outflow where steelhead trout are present will NOT be stocked EVER AGAIN. For the East Bay Regional Parks that means Lake Chabot and Lake Don Castro. Del Valle is questionable. It is unknown whether they will try to get approval for sterile trout.

3. There is still tremendous gray area in terms of how these assessments will be evaluated. For example, golden eagles require mitigation. But what does that LOOK LIKE? Godlen eagles EAT TROUT. How a trout could negatively affect a golden eagle is beyond my comprehension. Yet there they are on this list of species that require mitigation. As soon as I learn more about how these evaluations will work I will post it.

I want to lay out a scenario for you guys, and I'll use Lake Chabot as an example.

If, as appears to be the case, trout are never stocked again in Lake Chabot - what can we expect to happen?

For starters, the number of anglers who visit the lake will decline dramatically with in 1 year. By the 2nd year I would estimate a 90% reduction in the number of fishermen. The marina will fold for lack of business. The kids working the docks as a summer job will lose their jobs. The cormorants, ospreys, and herons that used to eat trout will either switch their food source, die, or fly away. The bass and catfish that ate trout will become emaciated and their population will decline precipitously in 2 to 4 years.

What will be left? They'll probably keep the gate open at Chabot because it gets a lot of joggers and picnickers. There probably won't be a boat rental, not even the sight-seeing boat. Fishing will be average for bass with few fish over 10lbs. Crappie and bluegill may do well, but then again they might get eaten up by the hungry predators.

Can you see how stocked trout form the cornerstone of recreation and angling at these lakes? Can you see what is going to happen when it's gone? We gotta do something here, big time.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7974-DelValle.pdf

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7975-ShadowCliffs.pdf

13 species requiring mitigation:

Steelhead (Central Valley DPS)
Steelhead (central California coast DPS)
Steelhead (south/central California coast DPS)
Chinook salmon (California coastal ESU)
Chinook salmon (Central Valley fall-/late fall–run ESU)
California tiger salamander
California red-legged frog
Foothill yellow-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
Golden eagle
Willow flycatcher (except southwestern subspecies)
Bank Swallow (nesting)
California Black Rail

Attachment #1, (.pdf file)
Attachment #2, (.pdf file)

I got a copy of the 2nd lawsuit filed by the Center for Bio Diversity. See attached. Haven't had time to review in detail yet but it looks like they are trying to get the DFG's EIR thrown out completely and stay with the current stocking rules that have been in place since the court injunction in 2007.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7980-Supplemental_Verified_Petition_for_Writ_of_Mandate.pdf

Attachment #1, (.pdf file)