Facebook YouTube Tacklewarehouse.com
Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Top Calfishing.com Freshwater Fishing in California topic #18250
View in linear mode

Subject: "Los Vaqueros Trout Plants" Previous topic | Next topic
swimbaitMon Sep-26-11 08:55 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18250, "Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"


  

          

On the environmental scoreboard, the score right now in my mind is 1 to 1.

We won the Shadow Cliffs back ponds issue.

The ongoing battle is over trout plants.

You, me and anyone with half a brain knows that stocked trout are not an environmental problem in our warm water fisheries. But the Center for Biological Diversity has sued the California Department of Fish and Game and forced them to study every single location in the state where trout are stocked to see if it's OK to stock trout.

In thinking about this (and boy have I thought about this) I think the best way to fight this right now is to go after one specific location and try to get trout stocked again.

I think Los Vaqueros reservoir near Livermore, CA is the place to wage the battle.

Los Vaqueros is as man-made as they come. There was a tiny creek there - dry most of the year - that was dammed up to make a lake that is filled with Delta water.

From that Delta water comes every possible variety of delta fish. Striped bass, silverside, Wakasagi Minnow, carp, threadfin shad, Sacramento Blackfish, etc. And in to that mix they've stocked landlocked king salmon, rainbow trout, kokanee salmon, brown trout, largemouth bass, channel catfish, and how knows what else (crappie, bluegill, ???)

The notion that stocked rainbow trout offer any substantive threat to native species (the species whose entire habitat was flooded by a lake mind you) is beyond absurd. It's ludicrous to the point of insanity.

And yet here we are, years after the lawsuit, and the CA DFG doesn't have the budget to conduct the right studies to prove the trout won't impact red legged frogs and tiger salamanders. On top of that, for some reason that I am still exploring, the Department is being required to get approval from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in addition to whatever survey they conduct.

This additional level of study is unprecedented at other locations on the approved waters list (do you really think USFWS signed off to stock Contra Loma or Rancho Seco!). It's complete nonsense and if I had to guess it's simply a legal maneuver from a beleaguered DFG that has become gun shy in the midst of legal action and bureaucratic mud.

So I don't know how to win this one. But I didn't know how to get Shadow Cliffs reopened either. And I've been after the trout stocking thing for a while now with no real progress yet. But I'm feeling buoyed by a little success and spoiling for a new fight.

Noah Greenwald and Deborah Sivas, if you are reading this, you are two truly sad and ignorant human beings. Ignorant to the environment you live in, naive to the reality of nature, naive to the complexities of of real ecosystems.

You've sued the CA DFG and forced them to make the environment worse. You've taken away recreation for the average citizen and turned kids to video games and drugs. You've sent people who would have been happy to catch a stocked fish off to hunt down our real native species. You've wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money that could have been spent protecting and improving the environment.

I'm tired of you and your wrongheaded, ignorant policy. Open your mind zealots. Get away from the computer and get out in to nature. Learn what you are really doing. Realize that all you've done in our warm water reservoirs is cause harm.

I'm coming after this one. Los Vaqueros. Trout. It's time to get it right.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 27th 2011, #1
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 28th 2011, #3
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Urban, Sep 30th 2011, #7
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 28th 2011, #2
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Sacto John, Sep 29th 2011, #4
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 29th 2011, #5
      RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Sacto John, Sep 29th 2011, #6
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 30th 2011, #8
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 30th 2011, #9
      RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Urban, Sep 30th 2011, #10
           RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 30th 2011, #11
                RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Urban, Sep 30th 2011, #12
                     RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Nico, Sep 30th 2011, #13
                     RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 30th 2011, #14
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Sep 30th 2011, #15
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Urban, Oct 01st 2011, #16
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Nufo, Oct 01st 2011, #17
      RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Oct 01st 2011, #18
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Oct 03rd 2011, #19
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, swimbait, Oct 13th 2011, #20
RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants, Nico, Oct 14th 2011, #21

swimbaitTue Sep-27-11 07:42 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18251, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Did some more homework and learned a few things.

The federal govt. is involved in this via USFWS because they were party to the Hatchery Environmental Impact Review put out by CA DFG in 2010 and are in some way specifically involved with Los Vaqueros.

How exactly they are involved, and why they might have a say here is unclear but word is DFG is waiting for the USFWS to look at the situation and give their blessing on trout stocking. Sounds like USFWS carries the bigger stick here.

Meanwhile USFWS are reportedly "short staffed" so they aren't able to give the blessing.

Short staffed could mean they are dying to do it but don't have time. It could mean they don't care at all and are using "short staffing" as an excuse to do nothing. Short staffed could mean they prefer tromping around in the brush hunting frogs or downloading the latest cool ringtones for their phones.

It could mean something in between those spectrums. One thing's for sure - they did have time to write page after page of detail about how to protect frogs and salamanders during the recent dam construction

https://www.communicationsmgr.com/projects/losvaqueros/docs/2009-0201-1%20Los%20Vaqueros%20Reservior.pdf

Interesting to note that frog barriers must be made from jute, coconut, twine or similar fibers. Who knew you could make frog barriers from jute?

Also interesting to see that when a water district wants to flood out a couple hundred acres of land to make a dam, they have to compensate by protecting land at about a 1 to 3 ratio. So for flooding 460 acres they have to protect 1,380 other acres. And for screwing up 2.18 acres of frog habitat and .82 acres of salamander habitat, they have to create, restore or enhance 6.54 acres somewhere else. It's sort of an eye for 3 eyes policy. An interesting and not altogether terrible plan.

While browsing these wonderful documents filled with fun words like extant and extirpate, I did some map study. In the where they talk about Los Vaqueros and how it relates to the Red Legged frog, they talk about a place called Unit ALA-1A.

I cut the map from the government site and overlayed a little google earth screenshot so show how this "Unit ALA-1A" where frogs have some form of special protection compares with the location of the lake. They don't seem to overlap. A puzzle? If ALA-1A doesn't cover the lake, maybe USFWS has no jurisdiction at all? Maybe the map I found is just old. Maybe USFWS has jurisdiction anywhere frogs might be.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/8789-map.jpg

So more homework is needed. With the goal being to identify the people in the US Fish and Wildlife Service who have the power to give the blessing of the stocked trout. I wonder if they issue a decree like a king, or a snazzy PDF filled with science jargon. Or maybe, like Ceasar they simply take their thumb and point it upward.

Upward and onward.

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
swimbaitWed Sep-28-11 07:22 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18253, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 1
Wed Sep-28-11 07:23 PM by swimbait

  

          

Day 3, part 2. This is a great read:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/policy-conserving-species.html

I'd like to meet the person that wrote it. A real scientist. Someone to be respected. Check out this quote.

"In the past, resource managers may not have understood many of the effects of some management actions on ecosystems to the extent they do today. Habitat alteration and degradation, heavy fishing pressure, and introduction of non-native species often resulted in unexpected negative impacts to other ecosystem components. As today's managers realize more fully the impacts of their actions, they also realize that they must be more cautious in the activities they prescribe in natural ecosystems. The benefits gained by some actions may result in losses to non-target species or habitats. This has led to conflicts between some efforts to conserve native species and their communities, and obligations to maintain and enhance recreational fishing opportunities. These issues have been of particular concern in those instances where the Services' responsibilities for both recreational fisheries and recovery of federally protected species have been in conflict.

The altered condition of many aquatic ecosystems limits their ability to support fish and other aquatic organisms. Successful future management of the Nation's aquatic resources must become more focused on an ecosystem approach to management that recognizes multiple uses of aquatic systems. Management of biological resources must be based on a sound scientific understanding of species' life histories, habitat requirements, and ecosystem processes. Resource managers and administrators must recognize the intrinsic, aesthetic, recreational, and economic importance of these same resources and assess their ability to meet the needs and desires of a variety of interests. Successful future management of aquatic resources requires substantive cooperative partnerships and a willingness to resolve differences among the Services and other Federal agencies, States, Native American governments, and private stakeholders. Such cooperation and problem solving must be based on a framework of mutually recognized concerns and common goals developed by all the stakeholders in a given area."

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
UrbanFri Sep-30-11 12:33 AM
Member since Sep 22nd 2004
402 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18257, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 1


          

USFWS has jurisdiction anywhere the frogs or any other terrestrial and non-anadromous fish listed under the federal endangered species act resides. In rare instances USFWS also has jurisdiction over anadromous fish issue.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

swimbaitWed Sep-28-11 07:19 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18252, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Day 3. I understand how to get trout stocked in Los Vaqueros now. The way to get trout stocked is to convince the US Fish and Wildlife Service to agree that stocking trout is OK in the eyes of the laws they operate under (Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and whatever else). Need to define 'whatever else'

Who is the person who can give this approval? Do they have to go to their boss first to check? Is it done by committee? Does someone have to request that they do something, or will they do it in due time?

All that remains to be found.

But we should begin at the beginning. So I started with the of the USFWS and found immediate irony on line 1, which lets us know that in 1871, one of the very first thing the US Fish and Wildlife Service did was to send fertilized salmon eggs from Northern California across the country to be stocked in other places.

The horrors.

It's an interesting agency, one that I know little about. It will be fun to learn more.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Sacto JohnThu Sep-29-11 09:49 AM
Charter member
1105 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18254, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Looking at the Los Vaqueros website they list that they received 7000lbs of planted "fish" last year. 6000lbs of it coming from the Calaveras Trout Farm (so the lake is getting stocked trout??). The website also lists 1000lbs of fish being supplied by the DFG (it dos not say what kind of fish were provided by the DFG)

So can a lake privately stock trout at a lake that the DFG is barred from doing so by the lawsuit? If that is the case then the lawsuit is even more BS then I know it was already.

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have-yous

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
swimbaitThu Sep-29-11 09:56 AM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18255, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

Private stocking is allowed, and continues at many lakes where DFG cannot plant. They almost shut that down last year but were given an extension in October apparently.

Examples of this ridiculous scenario are places like Los Vaqueros, San Pablo Dam, and Casitas where the local marina operators and parks districts plant private hatchery trout, but no DFG trout are stocked.

Maybe the private hatchery trout are trained not to eat native species?

Los Vaqueros (through some "error" I'm told) was placed on the approved waters list for DFG earlier this year. DFG came one time and planted fingerling salmon. That is the 1,000lbs you see on the website. As soon as that happened, they took Los Vaqueros off the approved list. I don't know the rest of the story.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Sacto JohnThu Sep-29-11 11:43 AM
Charter member
1105 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18256, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          


>
>Maybe the private hatchery trout are trained not to eat native
>species?
>

That's got to be it

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have-yous

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

swimbaitFri Sep-30-11 09:39 AM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18258, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

A few answers from the FAQ on section 7 consultations on the FWS website are quoted below .

Reading this I'm guessing that Contra Costa County Water District is playing the role of 'designated non-Federal entity' who has requested a consultation. There's no specific time frame on FWS responding to that, so I'm going to make some calls to try and find out what is going on.

If, as will certainly be the case here, FWS says there are red legged frogs and tiger salamanders that could be adversely affected by DFG trout stocks, then they have to do a "formal consultation" which can take up to 135 days, not counting any time going back and forth if the "package" of information sent to FWS is not complete.

What steps are involved in a section 7 consultation?

The Federal agency, or the applicant as the designated non-Federal entity, contacts the appropriate local Service office to determine if listed species are present within the action area. The Service responds to the request by providing a list of species that are known to occur or may occur in the vicinity; if the Service provides a negative response, no further consultation is required unless the scope or nature of the project is altered or new information indicates that listed species may be affected.

If listed species are present, the Federal agency must determine if the action may affect them. A may affect determination includes those actions that are not likely to adversely affect as well as likely to adversely affect listed species. If the Federal agency determines that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species (e.g., the effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable), and the Service agrees with that determination, the Service provides concurrence in writing and no further consultation is required.

If the Federal agency determines that the action is likely to adversely affect listed species, then it must request initiation of formal consultation. This request is made in writing to the Services, and includes a complete initiation package. Up to that point, interactions have been conducted as informal consultation; however, once a request for formal consultation is received, the process becomes formal, and specific timeframes come into play. Formal consultation is initiated on the date the package is received, unless the initiation package is incomplete. If the package is incomplete, the Service notifies the Federal agency of the deficiencies. If a complete package is submitted, the Service should provide written acknowledgment of the request within 30 working days. This written acknowledgment is not mandatory, but is encouraged so that there is documentation in the administrative record that formal consultation has been initiated.

From the date that formal consultation is initiated, the Service is allowed 90 days to consult with the agency and applicant (if any) and 45 days to prepare and submit a biological opinion; thus, a biological opinion is submitted to the Federal agency within 135 days of initiating formal consultation. The 90-day consultation period can be extended by mutual agreement of the Federal agency and the Service; however, if an applicant is involved the consultation period cannot be extended more than 60 days without the consent of the applicant. The extension should not be indefinite, and a schedule for completion should be specified.

What are the potential outcomes of a biological opinion?
The biological opinion is the document that states the opinion of the Service as to whether or not the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
swimbaitFri Sep-30-11 09:44 AM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18259, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

Alrighty. Now the fun begins :) Called the Sacramento division of the FWS. They sent me to the 'Coast Bay Division', where I promptly got voicemail.

Left a message to try and find out the status of the Contra Costa County Water District's request for consultation regarding trout stocking in Los Vaqueros reservoir.

I wonder what will happen next?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
UrbanFri Sep-30-11 11:03 AM
Member since Sep 22nd 2004
402 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18260, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 9


          

Welcome to my world Rob. You have now entered a time warp where time will crawl at a snails pace and you will be convinced that federal employees never work.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
swimbaitFri Sep-30-11 01:52 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18261, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          

It's ok. It took 18 months to get the shadow cliffs back ponds open. Maybe this will take 36. I'm not going anywhere, and I want those trout stocks to start again because there is not one single half-way good reason why they shouldn't stock.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
UrbanFri Sep-30-11 04:28 PM
Member since Sep 22nd 2004
402 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18262, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 11


          

Just out of curiosity, why Los Vaqueros? Also, I havent looked into the issue you are checking out, but I do know that in many lakes the issue with stocking trout has nothing to do with frogs or any other amphibian. It has to do with the potential for stocked trout to get downstream of the dam and inter-breed with steelhead. Genetic introgression is a bad thing. This is why the lower Lagoon does not get stocked anymore. Im not gonna get into it, but one look at the outflow of the Lagoon, and knowing it flows through heavily populated areas before reaching the ocean, is pretty much all I need to be pissed about the whole process. But dont worry, triploid stockings are on the way, just no telling how long before implementation.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
NicoFri Sep-30-11 06:02 PM
Member since Nov 03rd 2001
1914 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18263, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

Rob and I both live about 15 minutes away from Vaqueros, so there's a large incentive to make sure the fishing close to home is not being destroyed. The lake is currently kind of screwed up from the big drawdown/dam construction. But once they start filling it up again, stocked trout will be important to making it a great fishing lake in the years to come. It used to kick out some nice largemouth and striper, but most of the larger fish are all starved out and skinny now. Not nice.

The lake also is unique in the sense that it's totally artificial, so no pre-existing steelhead condition that I know of. Anyway, getting the trout back sounds like a real possibility at this point. Definitely worth fighting for!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
swimbaitFri Sep-30-11 06:16 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18264, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

Los Vaqueros because it's as man made as a lake can be. The creek that flows in is tiny, most all of the water is pumped in from the Delta and sucked right out to go other places. There's virtually no downstream flow and so virtually no risk of inbred steelhead issues.

It's also filled with large predatory fish, most of which were introduced intentionally and reproduce naturally in the lake. You'll never, ever get rid of those fish (imagine telling Contra Costa County residents you were going to rotenone it).

Since there's no steelhead issue, and the other predatory fish - which you will never get rid of - are far more effective predators of frogs and salamanders, adding more trout to the mix is inconsequential. If anything, it satisfies the large predatory fish!

So just like reopening the back ponds at Shadow Cliffs to fishing was the right thing to do because closing them saved nothing and protected nothing, planting trout at Los Vaqueros is also the right thing to do.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

swimbaitFri Sep-30-11 06:26 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18266, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Day 5. What's new...

I learned today that the Fish and Wildlife service has indicated verbally they are in favor of stocking trout at Vaqueros. Great news!

The missing link is a formal request (written letter style) from CA DFG to Fish and Wildlife making the case and asking for the official ruling.

Well, word is DFG might just be sending that right now. Next week. So I feel that silly wave of optimism hitting me. But I'm girding for a 36 month ordeal :)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
UrbanSat Oct-01-11 06:15 AM
Member since Sep 22nd 2004
402 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18267, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 15


          

Right on Rob, as always Im stoked for your enthusiasm, its encouraging for me considering what I deal with day to day. Its very hard for me to deal with this type stuff on a day to day basis, so when I see somebody from the so called general public take a stance it gives me well needed inspiration and I thank you for that.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
NufoSat Oct-01-11 11:26 AM
Member since Oct 22nd 2007
17 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18268, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 15


          

Rob,

Awesome job. I love Los v and your tenacity

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
swimbaitSat Oct-01-11 12:18 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18269, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

The marina folks are saying they have a good budget for fish stocking right now but with all the dam work going on and the corresponding closing down of the marina and a lot of the fishing access, they may wait until next year to plant.

I can understand why they are doing it. But in the mean time if the DFG can come in and stock this fall/winter it would be great to fill the gap through until next year.

One thing that I think happens with the trout is that it takes a certain volume of stocking to overcome predation by striper and birds and get to the point where trout fishing is solid. Other years from what I gather, you could go fish from shore throughout the year and get trout.

The last few years since DFG stopped stocking, they've been planting private hatchery trout only, and trout fishing has only been good during the stock. After that the striper, birds, and fishermen get the rest and there isn't much left to catch.

By next winter, if DFG and private stocks are going in, along with the lake refilling after the dam expansion, I think you could see quality trout fishing again. Which in turns bring more people to the lake and adds to the quality of the experience.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

swimbaitMon Oct-03-11 04:01 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18274, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Hey where is my return phone call from FWS?

Unsurprisingly, I haven't gotten one.

I think I'll call again tomorrow :)

With today's storm the water temps should be getting in to nice trout planting range. Sad when I look at the DFG stocking page and see only a handful of lakes on the schedule. We gotta fix this!

http://dfg.ca.gov/fish/Hatcheries/FishPlanting/BayDelta.asp

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

swimbaitThu Oct-13-11 07:52 PM
Charter member
9890 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18278, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Oct-13-11 07:53 PM by swimbait

  

          

Day eleventeen, what have we learned...

DFG is saying the letter to FWS is going next week. This is really (no joke) pretty fast progress so I'm still feeling happy about Los Vaqueros potentially getting trout soon.

DFG indicates they don't have a full allotment of trout ready to go to Vaqueros should it open, but they do have some. So we may really see trout soon there.

I also learned today that the Pre-stocking Evaluation (PSE in acronym form) for San Pablo Dam is waiting one last approval before DFG trout can be stocked there again. The vibe is that's it's close. FWS doesn't seem to be involved in that one.

With San Pablo full of water and trout plants, there's some hope that big bass fishing could one day be good again. It's a small hope though with the ratio of spotted bass to largemouth bass somewhere around 20 to 1 at this point. We'll always remember the glory days, but San Pablo will never be the lake it once was.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms, San Pablo was the best Nor-Cal bass lake for fish over 15lbs up until 2006. There were dozens of fish from 15 to 19+ pounds in that lake. If not for the barni fishermen that illegally stocked spotted bass in the lake, it might have had a chance to regain that prominence.

The word at Coyote is that DFG doesn't have the resources to conduct the needed studies to secure approval to stock trout again. The blame on this one can be directed at the Santa Clara County Water District 100%.

You see... lake managers that manage their lakes for fishing like East Bay Regional Parks did the frog and steelhead evaluations themselves and provided DFG with the data. So places like Del Valle and the front lake at Shadow Cliffs could get trout right away after the initial shut down of stocking.

But the Santa Clara County Water district, from every indication I've gotten, doesn't care about fishing at their lakes. The park rangers and their union may be in favor, but the water district people could do without the hassle of recreational lake usage.

They're in it for the water, and things like stocked trout, quagga mussel, and MTBE fuel are all just a thorn in their side.

Someone should step and and run for the board. It's a free country after all. Do these people look like they ever go outside?

http://www.valleywater.org/About/BoardMembers.aspx

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
NicoFri Oct-14-11 12:56 PM
Member since Nov 03rd 2001
1914 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18280, "RE: Los Vaqueros Trout Plants"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

Interesting news. Thanks for digging up the details.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Top Calfishing.com Freshwater Fishing in California topic #18250 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+
© Copyright Robert Belloni 1997-2012. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without express written consent.