Resources vs. Pressure

[JerryInLodi]

A healthy discussion is in progress regarding whether to post with details or not to post. I think the whole issue speaks to a problem with our fisheries in general, that there are so few managed for quality fishing that those seeking that experience have very few choices of where to fish. California is blessed with thousands of miles of streams and yet fly fishers seem to end up at very few locations, Hat Creek, Fall River, Lower Sac, Upper Sac, McCloud Conservancy, Manzanita Lake, etc.

My question is, is it because these fisheries are so superior in nature to other possibilities or is it that the other fisheries have been so poorly managed or NOT managed to the extent that they have been degraded to put and take waterways where the cycle is based on the planting crews?

I believe that the reason we find ourselves so CROWDED on these small pieces of water is that the rest of the water has been abused to the point of being almost sterile. I've fished some streams and have participated with DFG in some shocking programs. It was sad to see the few fish over 10 inches in a hundred feet of perfect pocket water (1).

If we find ourselves crowded into a few fish producing streams we should put more pressure on the state to manage our fisheries better so that more water is available to catch and release. If the fishing population has shifted as some have stated, than we NEED more quality water for this shift.

In addition, enforcement is needed on some of these C&R waters as well. I've walked C&R streams and found the banks lined with Pautzke's Salmon Egg jars, power bait jars and worm and cricket containers. I don't think these people were releasing the fish they caught. If there was enough quality water, we wouldn't find ourselves so crowded, we'd just have to ponder which water to fish!

[Darian]

Hi Jerry,.... Interesting question about the management or lack thereof of the resource. :) :) I'm assumming we're talking about freshwater fisheries here.

What makes a particular water more enticing than another :?: :?: That appears to be an individual choice. If catching is the objective, then put/take fisheries are the answer (supported by the proposal for guaranteed funding for hatcheries in AB 7, passed as urgency legislation last year). The total experience would include keeping the catch for a meal. :? If catch/release is the objective, then quality of the fishery over quantity is the answer and the size or edibility of the fish caught may not be of concern, for wahtever reason. 8) 8) Doesn't answer your question but may provide some perspective. 8) 8)

That brings me to the subject of managing the resource. In this state, DFG has competing requirements/priorities with other state agencies for control of some of the same resources. Also, like it or not, DFG is a political entity and subject to appointed/elected officials from the Administration and Legislature. :? :? :?

Then we have the institutionalized problems associated with DFG (e.g. budgets, inept management, "The board", etc.). As evidence of these problems, I offer the material developed from audits conducted by the Bureau of State Audits (the audit arm of the legislature). There have been three reviews completed since 1995 (about every five years) and all of them deal with deficiencies in spending, land management lack of planning efforts and more. :( :( Not a pretty picture. :( I believe that until CA DFG is somehow depoliticized, it will never even meet it's stated agency mission. :( :( I'm not sure that looking to DFG for this outcome is realistic.

If you'd care to read this info yourselves, check out the legislative website. 8) 8) 8) The reports are lengthy but have summaries in front. 8)

[Digger]

Jerry-I think you answered your own question in regards to management.
Look at the whole salmon fishing debacle of last year.

Also start with the dilemna that Ca is the most populated state. It has the most anglers of any state, with Florida coming a distant 2nd.

Priorities of this State do not necessarily lie in the outdoor recreation industry, although WE may like to see it so. Industries like agriculture, energy generation, trump fishing hands down and affects the watersheds tremendously.

Popularizing a location enough will draw attention and pressure. How many more publications exist today, versus 10 years ago? And what about the 'internet' itself? Real time conditions and reports are available, not like yester-year. Obviously, easily accessed locations, magnifies the problem.
And where do the guides make their living? Taking clients to the headwaters of some obscure creek no ones ever heard of? I think not.

Who is the angler? Most likely a middle-aged or older white male. Plenty of those in the baby boom generation. And speaking of the BB gen, they are now retiring and over the next 20+ yrs, more will be looking for leisure/recreative activities to do.
If you doubt this, look at the boom in 2nd homes all over the Sierra's and places like Redding. Unfortunately, I can only see it getting worse.

[David Lee]

Also start with the dilemna that Ca is the most populated state. It has the most anglers of any state, with Florida coming a distant 2nd.


That's the bottom line .

We're SOOOO overpopulated it ain't even funny - I'm suprised the state has not yet sunk into the Pacific from the weight of the masses . If we had better planning way back when (remember logic ??), we wouldn't have to ship water to grow and support a population of well over 15 million in a DESERT .

It's stupid .... but then , that's human nature . We do what we want to , and nevermind the natural order of things . Put 10,000 Rabbits on an acre of land and see how long food/water lasts , or how many kinds of 'interesting' plagues pop-up .

I know ..... I'm being very UN-P.C. . Oh , well ....... God forbid anyone talks about population/birth control :roll:

BTW - Congratulations , Digger - 200 posts (I knew ya had it in ya !!)

David :)

[dtp916]

You all are absolutely right - the fishery and resource management in our state sucks.

The flows are so low on Putah Creek right now, a lot of redds are being exposed dry...45 cfs is not enough for it. And this is only 1 stream out of many, many more in CA, regulated or not.

I'm happy to say that many streams have been restored or at least attempted to restore, and hopefully their are many more to come. But there are still plenty of watershed being destroyed on a near daily basis. :? :? :?

I take it upon myself to pick up trash and debris along the rivers and creeks I fish, hoping one day people just learn to clean up after themselves...

[David Lee]

David, although it may not be your most eloquent post, you are absolutely right. :wink:

:shock: :shock: :oops:

Uh , ohhh ..... here comes the hiding from an English major !!

David :P

[Darian]

Well,.... I don't know about you guys but, IMHO, the population explosion in CA is beyond my/our capabilties to control even though it is an indisputable fact. No disrespect intended here but considering it as a factor only leads to stalemate. In this case, stalemate means the status quo remains in affect. For this discussion, we should consider factors that we can hope to influence.

It is possible to place a large portion of the responbility for the condition of our natural resources squarely on the backs of the politico's at the Resources Agency (which includes DFG) as evidenced by audit reviews. Of course, federal/local agencies all contribute to the problems on their own. 8) 8) The real question here is, what are we prepared to do about it :?: :?: Conservation organizations are attempting to address specific areas of need but are unable to adopt an overall approach to solving some of these problems. we should be trying to identify areas that need attention/help and fit into those situations.

As for me, I've been active as a volunteer for a non-profit that believes "good government" should be our goal. Good government holding politico's accountable and responsibe for doing a better job (includes planning and management of available resources). And, when not possible to make that happen, seeking legislation to make those changes. 8) 8)

[Digger]

Well,.... I don't know about you guys but, IMHO, the population explosion in CA is beyond my/our capabilties to control even though it is an indisputable fact. No disrespect intended here but considering it as a factor only leads to stalemate. In this case, stalemate means the status quo remains in affect. For this discussion, we should consider factors that we can hope to influence.

You are correct in stating there is little which can be done about the population, none the less, this is the 800 lb Gorilla.

As you suggest goverment is at the crux of this issue, but I have little faith that that path will yield much success. History says it has not.

Increasing supply, means creating more fisheries, more access, exploiting available resources. Even though there are some things that can be done, resources are pretty much finite.

Decreasing demand, means effectivly limiting the number of anglers.
Can we limit the number of licenses sold? This would reduce pressure (provided all anglers buy a license), however at the same time limit DFG revenues. Do you raise the price of a license past the equilibrium of supply and demand, thus reduce the number sold?

[Digger]

BTW - Congratulations , Digger - 200 posts (I knew ya had it in ya !!)

David :)

David, you've reminded me about the old BB, with the threads all piled upon one another and no categories, see some things do get better with time!

[JerryInLodi]

Guys, you're all decrying the increased number of anglers! Not so, while the population of California has grown steadily with the exception of last year when we posted negative numbers, the fishing population, at least the licensed one has DROPPED by OVER 50% from the mid 80's with only about 1.27 million licenses sold last year! The number of life time licenses has not been great enough to be considered a a factor! Fly shops and bait shops are closing, not opening!

Our population is a cause for demanding excellent management, not a liability! We are accepting less than we should from our government. The majority of our population lives on the coast and in the south. We can't blame them for the poor state of the fisheries in the other parts of the state.

Many excuses are made, citing ever increasing demand for water in the south state but metropolitan water use is less than 15 percent of the water shipped south. Most goes as subsidized water to large agri-business, much of it owned by international corporations, many in the petroleum business and already making windfall profits! A simple solution is to merely charge the full price for all water shipped south, not sell it at 4-6 dollars per cubic acre feet to big agricultural interests while charging the muni user $600 per cubic acre foot.

We need to take on these big water users and at the same time, demand that government manage our natural resources. Yes, it's a lot of work and will cost a lot of money.

We need to make our wheels squeak more!

[Jeff F.]

There are 1000's of miles of quality water in CA. However, most folks won't walk more than 1/4 mile to fish and don't have the wherewithall to look at a map. Believe me, it's very very easy to find yourself a quality water with quality fish and quality isolation if you just take it upon yourself to look around instead of just heading to where Flyfisherman Magazine says you should be fishing.

Places such as the Hat and other streams you mentioned are NOT secrets. They are what they are and will always be crowded. Therefore, it doesn't bother me one bit that people "talk" about such places because everyone already knows about them anyway.

People are lazy, and they're gonna search out places that are easily accessed and produce fish. These people don't care if there are crowds, because they're used to it and just assume that that's what fishing is about.

And finally, I don't really get pissed anymore when on the rare occasion someone will talk about one of my favorite "secret" spots. Because I know that 90% of the people who hear about it will then ask "how do I get there", then say...."screw that" and head directly to the Hat!

[Flycanoe]

I agree 100% with Jeff that there is plenty of quality water if your willing to do the research and work for it.

I didn't realize licenses are down so much from the 80's. That is good news for the rest of us that want to find quality water.

And there seems to be a trend by the DFG to open more rivers to year round C & R only fishing during the winter. So we have an opportunity to fish more popular waters and avoid the peak season crowds.

[Darian]

Hmmmm,..... Seems like the two subjects have reached a convergence. :? :?

[Darian]

Jeff/flycanoe,..... I'm not sure anyone on this Board would disagree with the idea that quality waters are still available with research/exercise.... The point is they've become fewer in number over the years. Largely due to loss of habitat or water related concerns/issues.

It says good things about you that you're able to accommodate crowds while fishing or try to locate your own privacy while fishing as, IMHO, you'll probably have to do more of the latter to find privacy in future years.

However, the implication of your position is that the status quo is OK with you. I would imagine that position will be fine until your fisheries are impacted in negative way; but, by then, it may too late to do anything about those impacts.... Your position would, also, ignore the fact that a major ecosystem (fishery) in this area is on the verge of a collapse. I'm talking about the delta, here.... With all due respect for both of you and your opinions, that's a choice I cannot make for myself. :( :(

[Ed Wahl]

Ahha! The crux of the matter. Where the rubbber meets the road. ( I am a truck driver, so sorry about that). What to do to preserve, at least at todays levels, the fisheries we have. Populations not gonna stop, here or any other state. The answer in my opinion, and bear in mind I am just a truck driver, is gonna have to be political. Politics rule the world, and to get anything done we're going to have to become a political force. The retirees did it with AARP, the biggest PAC out there, but I think the total numbers of anglers in the state might be even greater. Until we can all get together under one roof we're going to remain a wierd fringe group in the eyes of the public, and it's John Q. Public that wil decide the fate of our waterways. It sucks I know. Hey, on the lighter side, the American River drainage scored big on the SMUD relicencing project. We're getting quite a bit more flows in all the streams from this. My little corner of the world is looking up. :D :D :D Ed

[Ed Wahl]

ERRRRRRRR, the wife says I gotta add this. KEEP THE SHINEY SIDE UP AND THE GREASY SIDE DOWN, I'M OUT. ED

[Jeff F.]

Yeah, I think we should all be doing things to improve our world. However, if you're saying that we should all become activists, it's not realistic. Some people, like myself, haven't been pushed to that level yet. But believe me.....I respect the people who are, and thank them for their actions. I try to do my part by picking up trash and "educating" kids or other people on regs, ettiquette, etc. But most folks leave the actual activism up to those who are better at it. I think you know what I mean...

Personally, I fish in the most remote, inaccessible places I can get to without having to use ropes or bushwack through poison oak. And I gotta tell ya, it is very rare that I, nor my partner in crime, Jeff C, EVER see any sign of human beings, except some old mining stuff or the miners themselves.

So, therefore, I guess I'm becoming blind to the crowd problems because I never experience them.

It's funny......I was flipping through my DeLorme last night thinking about this thread. I live in Sac, so within a 2hr drive....northeast, east, or southeast...I can be in a remote area with quality fishing and no people. And many of those don't require any hiking at all.

I feel blessd to live in CA, and I will never leave. :fish:

[JerryInLodi]

Jeff, you don't necessarily need to become an activist but you do need to stay informed and make sure you VOTE in every election. Issues exist even at the county level that can make a difference. For example, how do the counties you fish in spend the money they collect from Fish and Game fines? Do they just not spend it until it reverts to the general fund?

Issues at the state level are now critical. Keeping informed and telling your friends of your concerns and why you're supporting certain candidates CAN make a difference.

However, someday when you find your favorite stream trashed or a proposal to build a small hydroelectric plant on it or an access road through it you MIGHT get upset enough to do more.

[Jeff F.]

I work as a Planner for Sac County, so I've got a pretty good understanding of how governments operate. And believe me Jerry, I see some jacked up stuff going on that really pisses me off....and of course, all of it has something to do with money.

And please don't take this the wrong way, but for ME PERSONALLY....I'd rather spend my time fishing than calling my local Senator's office! No, I'm not a defeatest, but I have a serious, serious dislike of politicians and politics in general. I do always sign those boilerplate email letters and send them in though. Better than nothing, right?

[Flycanoe]

Although my post may have implied the status quo was OK, I do believe in continuous improvement of our environment and oppose changes that worsen it over the long term.

My statement was really more geared towards near term fishing options. Such as where I can fish this year and avoid both over crowding and adding to the problem of over fishing popular waters.

[Ed Wahl]

Jeff, we're fishing some of the same waters. shhhhhh. ;) Ed