Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 122
  1. #102
    Team Fish Sniffer AnglingWes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fair Oaks, California
    Age
    42
    Posts
    6,062
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishbucket View Post
    If it's wise to remove all non-native fish from California...

    Who's going to tell the aquarium owners to hand over their fish?
    There's also a few salmon and steelhead without adipose fins out there. If we call non-hatchery fish "native", then the implication is that all hatchery fish are "non-native."

  2. #101
    Yes, Senior Member Fishbucket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Franklinville, NC
    Posts
    2,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    If it's wise to remove all non-native fish from California...

    Who's going to tell the aquarium owners to hand over their fish?

  3. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Prepared Statement of John Laird, Secretary

    This is a portion of John Lairds (California's Secretary, Natural Resources Agency) statement to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1837 (Nunes) June 2, 2011 .

    Comments on Section 108(b)(2) Native Species Protection:
    o Section 108(b)(2), which preempts any state restrictions on the take of non-native or introduced species that prey on native fish in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, their tributaries, and the Delta, will have a significant detrimental impact on popular and economically productive sport fisheries. In particular, highly popular fisheries for striped bass, black bass, brown trout, brook trout, and catfish could be drastically reduced or even eliminated if current regulations are preempted. California sells nearly two million fishing licenses a year, and more than 300,000 anglers fish in the Delta alone each year. Studies have estimated the value of the Delta fisheries at more than $300,000,000 annually. Section 108(b)(2) will radically restrict recreational opportunities, devastate local businesses throughout the region that serve recreational anglers, and cost the State of California significant revenue.

    o The sudden elimination of all state restrictions on harvest of nonnative or introduced species could also have significant unintended consequences for the Delta and Sacramento and San Joaquin River ecosystems. A significant reduction in the populations of non-native fish, many of which have existed in the Delta and rivers for more than one hundred years, could inadvertently lead to significant increases in the population of native species that prey upon or compete with endangered and threatened fish species. In some cases the native predators and competitors could have more significant impacts on the endangered and threatened fish species than non-native predators do now.
    Last edited by Dwight Manley; 11-08-2011 at 02:44 PM.

  4. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Polebrother View Post
    Wouldn't an economic impact statement possibly be a strong cornerstone of any serious DFG defense against said lawsuit?
    I'm sure our Office of General Council is providing good advise on-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polebrother View Post
    Are you sure your proposed changes, if implemented, will never lead to lawsuits that would force the state of California (or Feds) to pay millions of tax dollars to professionals in the fishing industry who will lose income when stripers disappear?
    I'm sure our Office of General Council is providing good advise on-topic.

  5. #98
    Senior Member Polebrother's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brentwood
    Posts
    1,524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Marty Gingras View Post
    It's certainly not all inclusive. An all-inclusive list for would include thousands of references. I assumed you were implying that the list was biased, because you'd previously described it as a long list.



    At this stage in the process, we are not obligated to do an economic assessment and indeed we have not done one.
    Seems a bit irresponsible that the DFG would offer the aforementioned draconian proposed changes to striped bass bag limits, daily possession and size without conducting at least a cursory examination of the economic impact such drastic changes will have on people, communities and other extended entities, NorCal and beyond. Wouldn't an economic impact statement possibly be a strong cornerstone of any serious DFG defense against said lawsuit? Then again, if you're "not obligated" why care?

    Are you sure your proposed changes, if implemented, will never lead to lawsuits that would force the state of California (or Feds) to pay millions of tax dollars to professionals in the fishing industry who will lose income when stripers disappear? Such a precedent was set during the recent decline of salmon and governmental denial of access to same. In other words, will your proposed actions lead to taxpayer bailouts down the road? Certainly such lawsuits will follow.
    Last edited by Polebrother; 11-08-2011 at 12:02 AM. Reason: Add info

    In fishing, I throw myself away and find myself again and again.

  6. #97
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

  7. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by swimbait View Post
    The greatest irony in this case is that the striper regs will be used as leverage to get more water out of the Delta - which is the exact worse case scenario for all fish.
    Because of what went on during the litigation, it's pretty clear that that is a matter of intense legal dispute.

  8. #95
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Marty - I give you a lot of credit for coming online and talking about this stuff. Fishermen, including me, need education.

    Doing more research today I began to understand what is really going on here, and it makes me sad to see that once again DFG is being used a pawn. A legal punching bag if you will. You may be entirely aware of this, or only partially. Let me try to lay it out a little more...

    Stewart Resnsick owns somewhere north of 118,000 acres in the central valley. He also owns a bevy of other companies like Fiji Water and POM Wonderful. Apparently he wants more water for his orchards. Stewart Resnick, like many businessmen, sues people to get what he wants.

    One way to get more water out of the Delta is to prove that fish don't need so much. If striper need water, have them labeled as invasive and try to force the CA DFG to put regulations in that demonstrate their worthlessness. Then use that as evidence to get more water.

    If native fish are threatened, try to prove that striper and largemouth are the problem, and again use DFG regulations as evidence of this. Now turn around and use this as a lever to get more water.

    It's a clever strategy. Very similar to the strategy the Center for Biological Diversity has employed over the past few years, repeatedly suing the CA DFG to force regulation changes.

    Frankly, it's disgusting, and the message it sends to the public is that if one private citizen has enough money, they can badger public agencies to do their will.

    The greatest irony in this case is that the striper regs will be used as leverage to get more water out of the Delta - which is the exact worse case scenario for all fish. Hope to hell the Commission sees this and votes no to the proposal. Not because the proposal isn't right for native fish (it might be taken by itself) but because the end result will be far worse than the proposal.

  9. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    474
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by Polebrother View Post
    Oh, is it all-inclusive?
    It's certainly not all inclusive. An all-inclusive list for would include thousands of references. I assumed you were implying that the list was biased, because you'd previously described it as a long list.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polebrother View Post
    Okay. Still seeking a response to my original question which you answered with a question of your own. Economic assessment please. Well?
    At this stage in the process, we are not obligated to do an economic assessment and indeed we have not done one.
    Last edited by Marty Gingras; 11-07-2011 at 08:44 PM.

  10. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    487
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Here' they are ..the DFG's striper reg change proposals

    Quote Originally Posted by hotdog View Post
    http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/OCAP/docs/OCAP_BA_007.pdf

    I came across this while looking for historical smelt populations (I didn't check to see if Marty already linked it). Page 7-6 is interesting, it discusses POD ('pelagic organism decline') and includes stripers with the smelt as being in decline together due to conditions in the early 2000's. I think there was another important species having trouble during that period also...
    Two - threadfin and kings. Not sure about steelie numbers, however.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123458 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •