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.