swimbait | Tue Jan-26-10 01:34 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#11602, "Update on DFG Trout Plants"
|
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.
|
|
|
swimbait | Thu Feb-04-10 09:26 AM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#11612, "Update 2/3/10"
In response to Reply # 0
|
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.
|
|
|
swimbait | Thu Feb-04-10 07:29 PM |
Charter member
9890 posts
| |
|
#11616, "RE: Update 2/3/10"
In response to Reply # 9
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.
|