Fish and Game Commission to consider ban on American R.

[Mike McKenzie]

If we had more help with persuading our idiot Governor that DFG needs more Wardens (not fewer as he's trying to do) and with the Water4Fish campaign to restore our fisheries, we probably wouldn't be in this kind of situation.....

Due to low flows in the American, which is the direct result of the excessive pumping of water south of the Delta last summer and fall, The state Fish and Game Commission is set to consider a two-month fishing ban on the lower American River. If approved at the commission's February meeting, it would mark the first such ban along that stretch of river in years.

The ban would interrupt steelhead trout season in full swing along one of the region's most popular fishing spots

The Northern California Council, a branch of the national Federation of Fly Fishers, is asking for the ban during February and March, saying the unusually low river levels increase the opportunity for "snagging." Snaggers illegally catch fish by dragging a line through the water until a fish gets hooked, often on its body.

Read more here..

http://www.sacbee.com/fishing_hunting/v-print/story/661086.html

Mike

[Scott V]

Closing a waterway during spawning season is a good idea to me. There are plenty of other places and species to fish. And calling the governor or any of our goverment names is no way to look for help in a cause against something you fell is not right. Give me one good reason why they should leave any waterway open every day of the year. Just like hunting has season so does fishing, and these seasons are made for good reason. It is only a 2 month closure, and as for myself I do not like the idea of fishing for fish that are trying to spawn to further their species population.

[mike N]

I wonder if they will prorate my license since I usually only fish the lower A when I fish. :?:

I don't like this idea, I would rather see more viglianteism for snaggers rather than an emergency closure. :lol:

MN

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Hmmmmmmmm, they are meeting on February 7th in SAN DIEGO to discuss the closure of the American River up here? Doesn't give our anglers much of a chance to voice their opinions....

[Mike McKenzie]

Closing a waterway during spawning season is a good idea to me. There are plenty of other places and species to fish. And calling the governor or any of our goverment names is no way to look for help in a cause against something you fell is not right. Give me one good reason why they should leave any waterway open every day of the year. Just like hunting has season so does fishing, and these seasons are made for good reason. It is only a 2 month closure, and as for myself I do not like the idea of fishing for fish that are trying to spawn to further their species population.

I may or may not be wrong in calling our "gummint" officials what I think they are in light of the actions they do or don't take. That aside, I think you missed the thrust of my comment. I was not arguing for whether or not we should be fishing during the "spawning season". (although if that was to become the law of the land we wouldn't be fishing for salmon or steelhead anywhere but in the ocean...
What is disgusting (to me) is the total and absolute abdication of Public Trust duty by our Governor and Resource Agencies by allowing the decline of the fisheries to the point they're at and draining the Northern Ca. reservoirs last summer to fill the ones in Southern Ca. as well as irrigating the desert for Westlands Irrigation District Corporate Ag. welfare queens.

Also, as an aside, I think that this unilateral action by the NCC/FFF makes things a little harder to bring unity to the Allied Fishing Groups in the effort to save what's left of our fisheries.

Mike

[Ed Wahl]

I've found the worst snagging going on right below the D.F.G.'s offices at Sailor Bar. C'mon, can't they just point a camera out the window to gather evidence?
I'm with Mike N. on this one. I stopped fishing at Sailor years ago because the snaggers were so blatant. When my fishing partner and I came up with what we considered a workable plan to cut lines and whack heads it was over for me and that spot. We'd have ended up in jail.
Mike McKenzie, it is indeed a sorry state we've come to when we have to close a river for any reason instead of hiring a warden to patrol it.

[Phil Synhorst]

Perhaps I'm just a bit jaded after just buying a Chromer Card for the first time in several years, and the prime time for Steelies at hand. I think Mike has the right idea, more Wardens out there and a complete about face at Water Resources would be a huge boost to all the runs on the American. Seems like this short ban is a knee jerk, quick fix solution.

[Darian]

I'm wondering if the NCCFFF has considered whether their request will change current water management practices and/or illegal fishing practices will stop because the river will be closed :?: :?: :?: There still won't be any Enforcement Division staff available to stop snagging. Does anyone here, really, believe that water will not be transported to the Westlands and Metropolitan Water Districts in the upcoming year( :?: :?: ) or to other water contractors :?: :?:

I guess a closure is a band-aid but.... Oh well :confused: :\

[Phil Synhorst]

Darian, I believe your signature quote says it all!!

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Greed and corruption = no money for good things = California

No money left = no game wardens = close river.

Can you spell "it's all down hill from here"?

[David Lee]

Time for an edit .... and perhaps a meal of Crow :oops: .

I did a bit of reading on another board .......

http://www.fishsniffer.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1201210049

Looks like the NCCFFF haven't run this idea past ANY other fishing groups .

I would have expected more from such a well-respected group .

This pooch-screw pretty much creates a 'us against them' feeling between sportfishing factions . I can understand closing the UPPER river 'till , say , April - the way it used to be .... but what is the point of closing the whole 26 miles of the American river ?? How can anyone snag Steelhead in the deep waters below I-80 ? IMO , all this possible closure does is create hostile feelings between gear fishers and fly fishers , all of whom SHOULD be joined together in fighting for the DFG to be fully funded , and to protect our waters and ecosystem .

We ALL will lose if we don't find some common ground between us to solve these problems .

David

[Charlie Gonzales]

Yeah I was deeply saddened by the way fly fisherman were put out there in this article. Definately puts us in an us VS them battle. I work with about six gear fisherman and had to stay out of sight or deal with a ration of shhh all day. Dont agree with closing the entire river for the same reasons Dave pointed and cause I start fishing the Lower section in march for stripers. But I have ALWAYS felt that the upper river should stay closed til March.

[Charlie Gonzales]

Something that just came to mind..... could a closure like this have a negative effect and allow too many hatchery fish to remain in the system and compete with the wild ones? :twisted:

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

WOW, I just read that thread. Fly-fisherman are sure gettin the axe in there. Good grief....

[Darian]

Seems to me that this closure may make it easier for illegal fishers to go undetected.... Nobody out there to observe and report (even if Warden's aren't available). 8) 8) 8)

Has anyone confronted NCCFFF with this to ask what their thoughts were based on and why they "went it alone" :?: :?: Why wasn't the request for other waters in this area, as well :?: :?: You know, just general stuff. :? :?

[caltagm]

That's my question too, Darian. If the purpose is to reduce or eliminate snaggers, then how is closing the river going to do it? Who really thinks that this illegal practice will stop just because the regulations say they can't be on the river? Especially if there aren't enough Wardens to enforce the closure. Don't the regulations already prohibit snagging? Creating new regulations does nothing except kill trees if they can't be enforced.

Mike

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

This is a letter received by the GBF Conservation Committee last month:

Low Flow American River Fishing Closure Requested
Date: December 9, 2007
To: Rick Radoff, President, Granite Bay Flycasters
From: Dave Ford, Northern California Council, Federation of Fly Fishers


FYI, at the quarterly meeting on December 1, the NCCFFF voted to request that the California Fish and Game commission close the American River to all fishing if the flows fall below 1100 cfs.

I was the one that asked for this resolution. Mike Laing (representing your club) and I (representing the NCC) are on the AROG--the American River Operating Group of the US Bureau of Reclamation. This group tries to control releases from Folsom and Nimbus to keep temperature and water quantity right for salmon and steelhead spawning. There is an agreed flow management standard between various state and federal agencies that specifies minimum American River flows for various types of weather-years. The lowest flow under this agreement is 1140 cfs, where we are now. If conditions are such that there is insufficient water in Folsom (or at least the water they can get to) there is an alternative that kicks in whereby the flows can drop to 500 cfs, and still another stage where they could drop to 200 cfs. At those release levels, almost anybody could walk across the river.

Should this occur, the snaggers will be out with pitchforks! Fish and Game surveys reported at the late November AROG meeting indicated that salmon and steelhead numbers now in the river are very low--only 30 some odd fish have been head-chopped. Normally at this time of the year, the quantities are multiple times greater than this.

So the lack of fish in the river this year and the drastically low flows led to the vote for the standby F&G Commission action, should the flows drop further. The rain these past few days may bail us out, but if it doesn't we are prepared to act.

If you have any questions, give me a call (916) 967-3847.

Dave Ford
Northern California Council
Federation of Fly Fishers

[Bob Laskodi]

<<<Should this occur, the snaggers will be out with pitchforks!>>>
So Dave Ford's recommendation is to close the A to fishing when it gets too low because the snaggers will be nailing them with pitchforks! Gee, last time I looked it's illegal to pitchfork steelies any where! :roll:
So, now no one will be out fishing to report the "pitchforkers" at all to the DFG! Seems like a fantastic solution to the problem! :shock:
I'm not sure whether or not I want a low flow closure on the A, (maybe yes, may be no) but NCCFFF approach to this problem is seriously making me rethink my membership in the FFF. :?

[Dustin Revel]

<<<
I'm not sure whether or not I want a low flow closure on the A, (maybe yes, may be no) but NCCFFF approach to this problem is seriously making me rethink my membership in the FFF. :?

I'm not going to jump ship yet, but i'm sure glad our money is going to good use :roll:

Coming from someone who has never fished the american it seems that fishermen and snaggers combined are not the root of the A's problems, and to improve that piece of water our efforts should be focused on the actual causes of the demise of our fisheries.

Dusty

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... If memory serves me correctly, Mrs. Fins (Robyn) is on the Conservation Committee of the GBF. 8) And, apparently, Mike Laing (also a GBF Member) assisted in drafting this letter, why wasn't some local notice posted earlier :?: :?: As Robyn pointed out, the letter to GBF was recieved in late December (....a month ago). :? :? :? Now, I'm not aiming this at Robyn. She just happens to be part of the chain of events.

The agreed upon flow regimes I understand as water for fish is secondary to flood protection needs along the American R and water contractors still want their deliverables. :-& :puke:

What concerns me about this is this committee formed by BuRec, SAFCA, and 2 clubs would choose to act without at least notifying local fishing clubs about this prospect. They can't say they didn't have time. Maybe things wouldn't work out any different but at least there would've been time to provide comment. 8) 8) 8)

OK,.... Enough for me. I'm outa here ](*,) ](*,)

ps. Since this action was requested unilaterally, maybe NCCFFF and GBF members should volunteer to do citizen patrol, daily, on the river during the closure.... "It's the only way to be sure", Lt. Ripley, Alien's. :wink: :wink:

[Mike McKenzie]

I’ve gotta’ say that the Bureau of Reclamation, DWR and the Water Contractors have to love this spectacle we are making out of ourselves over action by some folks to do what they thought was the right thing for the American River fishery.

While there may be a legitimate complaint with the unilateral action taken, no one that is in favor of saving our fisheries should find fault with the reasons for taking the action. I have talked Dave Ford and there were/are legitimate concerns for the American River steelhead at the low flows We all know that there are some people out there that would “duel to the death” for the right to kill the last fish on the planet. However I’ll have to let the NCCFFF explain why the unilateral action was taken.

I have also talked to Neil Manji, Chief of the Fisheries Branch Dept. of Fish and Game to see what DFG’s take on the closure might be. They are in the process of doing an evaluation of the situation from the fisheries biology standpoint as well as from an enforcement standpoint. As most of us all know DFG enforcement is almost nonexistent due to the lack of Wardens. The bottom line after a long discussion, while there are admittedly some good reasons (Pro’s) for taking the action; the “Cons” may out weigh them. At this time, the Department is “luke warm”, at the most, to the proposed ban and IMHO will likely not support it at the Feb.7th Fish and Game Commission meeting.

As I watch this whole discussion deteriorate into a diatribe about one way of fishing versus another, it is scary as hell! Lost in the vitriol and B.S. is the fact that the real enemy is our own government! The Bureau of Reclamation, the State Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency and our Governor are the real reasons our fisheries are going to hell in a hand cart, Period!

You all may remember that several years ago the different angling groups/clubs, etc. got together and formed the “Allied Fishing Groups” for the purpose of saving our fisheries from the onslaught of unmitigated development and the every increasing diversions of water from our rivers and Delta. We rallied around the decline of the delta fisheries and the fact that despite disappearing fisheries, the State was pushing the so called South Delta Improvement Process to increase pumping from the Delta. The Allied Fishing Groups sent thousands of e-mails and letters and we got the plan stopped.

Although the Allied Fishing Groups has deteriorated to a somewhat tenuous and fragile association due to lack of resources, Some of us are working on ways to rebuild it back to an effective organization, which if it were such, would hopefully preclude the present kind of unilateral actions.

Back to what I said at the beginning.. In spite of our differences we must keep our eyes on the true enemy. The reason that there are such low flows in the American River right now and the reason we are in this turmoil is because the Bureau of Reclamation allowed too much water to go to the water contractors last year and our state government, the protectors of our “Public Trust Resources” , failed its job by not forcing the BuRec. to keep enough water held back in Folsom to adequately provide for our fisheries This is where our focus needs to be!! Not on each other!! We need to stand together on our fisheries or we can kiss them good by!

Mike

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Not sure that that there's any indication that anyone here's not going to support whatever decision of the F&G commission adopts and I understand that you're attempting to keep the focus on government run water/wildlife issues. However, This subject is worth further discussion.

My reading is that we'd like to be able to comment on proposals before we're blind-sided by 'em. 8) 8) The people who made this proposal may've had good intentions but the outcome has been to disrupt cooperation and confirm that fly fishers are elitists. Not a positive outcome, regardless of intentions. Had they attempted to communicate this proposal, earlier (....and they certainly had the opportunity as evidenced by Mr. Ford's letter) maybe all of this could've been avoided. All of this adds up to evidence supporting a permanent alliance of fishing groups that communicates/coordinates effectively.

By the way, I've lived in Sacramento since 1974 during some of the worst drought years and never once ever saw a person using a "pitchfork" to poach Salmon or Steelhead.

Mike, in this instance I have to disagree with your position that the government is the enemy. After all, according to the record so far, the request was made by members of the public and fly fishing clubs (2 in particular). Sooo, I believe as a famous cartoon once stated, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

Hyperbole aside, I believe we're all open for discussion on this, but, I see no valid reason to close the entire lower American River. There's limited spawning below the "H" Street area and below Cal-expo, none. Why not leave portions of the lower river open for striper fishing, etc. 8) 8)

[Ed Wahl]

Mike, if anyone ever finds the magic formula that unites all anglers, we could demand, not request, anything we want. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but if all licensed anglers voted the same way the politicians would be falling all over themselves to get our vote. The various clubs and groups are all well and good but somehow we need to get regular Joe Fisherman. He's the majority of our population. You'll find him everywhere, fishing from banks or from boats. He fishes a couple of times a year, mostly uses bait, and takes the kids now and then to teach them how to fish. Allied Fishing Groups is a great start, however, I've never heard of it. Maybe I'm a little like Joe,I'm not much of a joiner so the clubby stuff is totally lost on me. When I become aware of a threat to my fishing I'll act, but I must be made aware first. You find that magic formula, we'll control our fisheries. Ed

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

You said:
"My reading is that we'd like to be able to comment on proposals before we're blind-sided by 'em. 8) 8) The people who made this proposal may've had good intentions but the outcome has been to disrupt cooperation and confirm that fly fishers are elitists. Not a positive outcome, regardless of intentions. Had they attempted to communicate this proposal, earlier (....and they certainly had the opportunity as evidenced by Mr. Ford's letter) maybe all of this could've been avoided. All of this adds up to evidence supporting a permanent alliance of fishing groups that communicates/coordinates effectively."

This is exactly what I meant when I said "Although the Allied Fishing Groups has deteriorated to a somewhat tenuous and fragile association due to lack of resources, Some of us are working on ways to rebuild it back to an effective organization, which if it were such, would hopefully preclude the present kind of unilateral actions."
In other words the idea is to build back a strong alliance of the fishing groups with a good solid and efficient communication network with a representative process making decisions before going public with them. If we can't all get on the same page with the common issues such as water and enforcement with out all the divisiveness demonstrated by this incident, we have lost our fisheries, period!

You also said:

Mike, in this instance I have to disagree with your position that the government is the enemy. After all, according to the record so far, the request was made by members of the public and fly fishing clubs (2 in particular). Sooo, I believe as a famous cartoon once stated, "we have met the enemy and he is us".


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with my assessment of the governments role here, unless you can convince me that the the request for action by the people you mention was not predicated by the governments total failure to do their job, as I iterated in my post, then I maintain that with respect to our fisheries they are the enemy. Had the government held back water for the fish instead of giving it to corporate ag. we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?? As far as the quote from Pogo goes, you are quite right because we are the ones that elect the folks that run the bureaucracies!

I wish we could have a Hi-light feature with quotes, It'd sure make this stuff easier!
Mike

P.S.
Ed,
The Allied Fishing Groups could be exactly what you are talking about, a clearing house for all angler opinions with the caveat that the majority rules on each issue before it is presented to the public. If you have never heard of the group then we weren't doing a very good job communicating in the past...

Mike

[Bryan Morgan]

The snagging takes place up by the Dam, as said in previous posts. It is not a poaching problem, it is a water release regulation that is sending our water south.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Darian, just to clarify, I just joined the conservation committee at GBF this month. I didn't realize that letter had been received until it was e-mailed to me and the rest of the conservation committtee from our webmaster the same day I posted it.

I just thought I would share the correspondence that I had access to for purposes of thsi discussion. I am by no means endorsing it, nor against it. I am too new of a fly-fisher to have that strong of an opinion about the issue.

I will say that discussions like these are very educating, and I am following this closely, so I can try and see all perspectives voiced. As long as they don't get nasty anyway.

I have fallen in love with this sport, and am apalled at the bashing going on in the "gear-head" forums.... Just crazy.

Thank you to all for your participation in this (not that I started it). This is the kind of communication that needed to happen long before this proposal was given to DFG.

[Ed Wahl]

Mike, that was my point exactly. When the bait soakers, lure tossers, bobber flingers, and fly casters can agree on something it will happen. The sheer number of us will guarantee it. Ed

[Darian]

Mike,.... I do tend to go along at times.... I hope you believe and understand that I do support your work in re-establishing the existing "alliance" as I, and I think at least Ed, believe that it is the only real solution to brining Fish & Wildlife issues the attention of powers to be in this state. However, re-establishing this alliance will only work well if it communicates/coordinates actively. Ed's post pointed out the magnitude of the problem. Reaching "....Joe fisherman...." I believe that's why, as you put it on Blanton's BB, "....all hell broke loose...." when the closure request became well circulated. 8) 8)

As all of my previous discussions under other threads demonstrate, I'm a believer that issues involving water, development, conservation, etc., whether driven by governmental, quasi-governmental or private entities are of concern to me. 8)

Your assessment of the contribution of government in this case almost sounds to me like a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" discussion. In this instance, it's apparent that the committee discussed this subject and that two club/committee members agreed to draft and forward the request (doesn't matter whether with or without approval) and the Commission agreed to hear the request. The request wasn't based on any scientific data and, apparently didn't consider potential negatives beyond the "pitchfork" statement in Ford's letter to GBF.

Agreements for flow regime's in the lower American River are based on the needs of several entities and for a number of purposes. Among others, the purposes of the agreements are (1) flood control, (2) deliveries water contracts, (3) slowing salt water intrusion into the Delta.... (some I can't recall). The flood agreement by between BuRec and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was re-negotiated last year and was the subject of a couple of posts on my part that generated no apparent interest even though that agreement dictates how much water is retained in Folsom Reservoir during periods of high water and takes precedent over water for fish. I think it's safe to say that the SAFCA agreement is viewed as a positive for those who live on the flood plane or along the river. An argument can be made that all of these agreements contributed to the current state of flows in the lower American River but which among all of the contributing circumstances would you blame first??? Channelizing of the rivers (rip-rap banks), levee building, economic or real development, loss of habitat, water deliveries??? Government contributed to some of these issues but everyone, public or private, also had something to do with it. What about last years dry weather????

As an aside, when government does something well, it gets no favorable comment (probably because that doesn't happen often). I guess I just don't believe that every issue that goes wrong can be traced back to government. For every water contract given out by BuRec, a water contractor (even "corporate welfare" agri-businesses) benefited at the other end. For every project that ran over time and budget there's a private company on the other end that contributed to the problem. All of these deals speak of "pork barrel" politics. :nod: :nod: That's why I said the individuals/clubs are responsible in this case.

I'm very cynical but not that cynical. :lol: :lol:

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

NCCFFF responds:


This was my response to Dan Bacher's criticism of the NCCFFF position on the Lower American. Hopefully, it expands the dialogue. I'm working today to get CalTrout and Trout Unlimited to support our closure request, and will be talking with Region 3 director Sandy Morey to try to get their support.

Mark Rockwell

NCCFFF



I guess I have to "weigh in" on this, since NCCFFF asked for the closure. As it states, this in an emergency request, based upon the current stress on the fishery due to low flows. It is not designed to be the "answer to the problems." Much effort has taken place to establish flow standards on the lower American by SARA, AROG and the Water Forum, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has agreed to these standards, and is working to get water rights approval so it can happen. However, the current court order from Judge Wenger on Delta Smelt has put that on hold, and I don't know if anyone knows exactly what will happen as we go forward. I think taking out the big stick on BOR, in this case, is not appropriate because they have been working for the benefit of the river, and chastising them on this is inappropriate.



That said, this request is only to protect the fishery due to the current low flows. The reality is that today, we do not have, and will not have enough wardens to enforce much, especially snagging. It is much simpler to enforce no-fishing than how someone is fishing.



Because the water level is so low, fish pod up, become more vulnerable, and their redds (nests) become more available to damage due to foot traffic and other impacts. We are in the second year of low salmon and steelhead returns, this year worse than last. If the fishing community can't muster the will to protect the fishery during times of extreme stress, what does that say about our real moral purpose? Are we only about catching fish, or are we more than that? If we ask BOR, FWS, NNFS and DFG to do more to protect a fishery, shouldn't we "step up" when appropriate? This is a time for all of us to shine and do the right thing. We should take pride in our ability to "do the right thing" when it is appropriate. It makes it easier to ask the same of federal and state agencies when necessary.



Mark Rockwell

V.P. Conservation

NCCFFF



P.S. We did not avoid consulting others for any other reason than this is an emergency situation, and there is no time for much dialogue. It seemed like a no-brainer for those trying to protect the meager returns this year. I guess that was an inaccurate assumption. However, most organizations do not consult others in their organizational decisions. Perhaps we need to work on this throughout our network.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/27/2008 2:57:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, c@davidnesmith.com writes:

"Instead of assuring flows for fish on the American River, DFG considers fishing closure. Dan's article correctly assails DFG and the Gov. We are all left with impossible dilemmas when the basic resource of water for the environment is not provided by the agencies with the responsibility to do so. In these situations, the best we can do is stay united against the real miscreants."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin forwarded message:




From: Dan Bacher <danielbacher>

Date: January 26, 2008 4:17:17 PM PST

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: Make Your Voice Heard Regarding Proposed American River Closure!



Make Your Voice Heard Regarding Proposed American River Closure!

by Dan Bacher



If you want to make your voice heard on the proposed fishing closure of the American River February and March during low flow periods, you need to contact the California Fish and Game Commission right away.



You must get your letters to the Commission by January 28 to be included in the Commission’s packet for their meeting in San Diego on February 7. The best and quickest way to send a letter is by fax at 916-653-5040 or by e-mail to fgc@dfg.ca.gov.



The announcement of this proposed closure came as a complete surprise to most of the fishing organizations and conservation groups concerned about fishery restoration on the American River. It was only brought to my attention through an article in the Sacramento Bee on Thursday and Friday.



To say I was stunned by the lack of communication between the proponents of the closure, Dave Ford and Wayne Chubb of the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, and fishing and environmental organizations is an understatement.



When I spoke to Ford last night, he told me the closure was proposed “to try to protect the wild fish from snagging when flows go below 1,100 cfs” and to “shine the spotlight on the need to get more wardens on the river to enforce Fish and Game laws.”



“The DFG has low flow closures in place on the Smith, Eel, Van Duzen, Mattole and other coastal rivers to prevent snagging when the flows go below certain flow levels,” said Ford. “Why can’t they do a similar thing with Central Valley rivers to protect steelhead?”


He had no explanation why he and other proponents of the closure hadn’t consulted with the angling community before submitting the proposal to the Commission. But at this point, pardon the pun, that’s water under the bridge.



I don’t support the closure because I think that recreational anglers already have too many regulations and closures imposed upon them by the state and federal governments. We don’t need yet another fishing closure on our public trust rivers – we need enforcement of the existing laws! Snagging is an enforcement problem, but the Governor refuses to hire wardens to enforce the Fish and Game Code on the American.



However, I must emphasize that although I don’t support the closure and am shocked that Ford didn't submit this proposal for review by the angling community with more advance notice, we must now take advantage of the media spotlight to highlight the state and federal mismanagement of the American River fishery.



Our enemies are not Ford and other anglers, but the Bureau of Reclamation and the Governor! Anglers need to unite and work together, although we often disagree, to make the American River a better habitat for steelhead, salmon and other fish!



First, we must make it clear that the Bureau, after agreeing in principle to water flow and water temperature standards for the American River in 2006, still hasn’t adopted them. We must keep pressure on the Bureau to adopt water and flow temperature standards.



Secondly, the low flows we are seeing now on the American are caused by the massive export of water to the Westlands Water District and Southern California. Every spring and summer Folsom is effectively drained so that there is little water in the fall and early winter for steelhead and salmon.



At the same time that the Bureau reduces flows on the American to serve subsidized agribusiness, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger every year slashes the DFG budget so game wardens can’t be hired to patrol the American and other rivers. Snagging of steelhead is an enforcement problem; the problem is addressed by enforcing existing fish and game laws, not by adopting new regulations that won’t be enforced,



Jim Crenshaw, president of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, suggests that the Bureau of Reclamation should, as mitigation for the fisheries it has destroyed over the years, provide funding to the state for DFG Wardens to patrol the river. I think that is a great idea!



Here is a letter from Bill Back (see below), a longtime steelhead angler and ardent conservationist that I have fished with many times on the American, submitted to the Commission today. Back wrote this letter after walking the banks of the river informing anglers about the proposed closure and urging them to write letters while giving them post-its with the Commission’s fax number.



When you write your letter, write from the heart because it will have more impact on the Commission. Also, remember to keep it short and succinct.



Here is Bill Back’s letter to the Commission. I like it because he addresses the key points of (1) the Bureau’s mismanagement of flows for fish, and (2) the lack of DFG wardens on the river. Also, I like the fact that he stays away from bashing proponents of the closure and concentrates on the real issues.



I suggest that you address these points also to make your letter most effective.



Here’s the Commission contact information:

Mr. Richard B. Rogers, President

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, California 95814

TEL: 916-653-4899

FAX: 916-653-5040

EMAIL: fgc@dfg.ca.gov

Please email copies of your letter to danielbacher@fishsniffer.com, and Jim Martin of RFA, flatland@mcn.org, who will be attending the Commission meeting in San Diego on February 7.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

01/26/08

To: California Fish and Game Commission

From: Bill Back

Re: Proposed American River Closure



Commissioners



On Friday 01/25, I read an article in the Sacramento Bee dealing with the proposed two month closure of the lower American River to all fishing requested by the Northern California Coucil of The Federation Of Fly Fishers. I was extremely alarmed that a proposal of this magnitude could surface without the knowledge of the general fishing public at the eleventh hour. As a concerned citizen and avid angler, I could not sit and let this proposal come in front of you without sending you my comments.



The American River, as I am sure you are aware is a very popular area for thousands of anglers to use every year. I have regularly fished this area since the 70’s and am very aware of the challenges this system brings forth.



The article in the Bee states,” The state Fish and Game Commission is set to consider a two-month fishing ban on the lower American River as a way to ward off poaching and preserve the steelhead trout population.”



As I see it this, is really a two-fold problem that will not be solved by this closure. The first is the amount of water released into the river by the Bureau of Reclamation and the second is the illegal “snagging” that occurs. I would like you to consider my thoughts on both of these issues.



First of all, the flows in the American River have been a problem for some time. It is my belief that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is and has been to blame for this problem. Their management of the watershed above Nimbus Dam is absolutely horrible.



The health of the salmon and steelhead runs on the American River are totally dependent on adequate water flows or simply put “no water, no fish.” Folsom Lake is at extremely low levels due to releases being higher then needed during the spring and summer months and to the exporting of water to other areas. The Bureau needs to be held accountable for their mismanagement.



Secondly, the fly fishing group is saying that unusually low flows make the fish more susceptible to “snagging.” I can tell you that “snagging” has been taking place on this river for a long time and that water levels have very little to do with it. I have seen “snaggers” hooking fish with every gate on Nimbus Dam open. This would be over 20,000 cfs.



The real problem is that the people that practice this type of angling are quite good at what they do because there is not much chance of them being caught. Lack of enforcement is the real problem. The majority of this illegal activity takes place within the view of the region 2 office of the Fish and Game.



Today is the 26th day that this lower section of the river has been open and until today, I have not seen one warden. Not one. Last year, I didn’t see any wardens the entire season. The two wardens I talked to today told me their area stretches all the way to the Bay Area.



I feel that an area like the American River with the amount of people that use it needs a warden dedicated to it for the bulk of their time during peak periods (August - March). In the past, when we would see wardens regularly, poaching was noticeably minimized.



Closing the American River will not solve any of the problems I have mentioned. It would at best be a band-aid. I would ask you to work with the Governor and legislature to hold the Bureau accountable for adequate flows on the American River and to acquire funding for one dedicated warden for this area.



In closing, I would like to ask each of you to deny the proposal for the two-month closure on the American River.



Sincerely

Bill Back

Orangevale, CA

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Here is Dave's reply sent to concerned fly fishers Friday:


Background on the NCCFFF request for a temporary fishing closure on the American River

January 26, 2008



1) At our December meeting, the Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers (NCCFFF) voted to request a temporary closure on the American River (AR) if flows went below 1100 cfs. This happened in mid-January, so the closure request was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission.



2) We sent a clarifying letter, pointing out that what was sought was closures only during February and March, and only when flows are below 1100 cfs. The letter was sent to the Commission this week. Although told this, it did not make it into the front-page article in Friday’s Sacramento Bee.



3) An NCCFFF board member received a call Thursday night about “elitist” fly fishermen pushing this change. Thus, this background information for NCCFF board members is being sent.



4) The bulk of steelhead spawning on the American takes place in the upper half of the 26 mile river between the mouth, where it joins the Sacramento, and Nimbus dam, which blocks further upstream migration. DFG has a fish hatchery, which raises salmon and steelhead, just below the dam.



5) The river is closed at about the halfway point upstream to the dam during the fall. This protects in-stream salmon spawning, the vast bulk of which occurs before the January 1 reopening. It does not protect in-stream steelhead, which spawn primarily in the January through March timeframe, peaking in February.



6) DFG seems to consider the river spawning steelhead to be different from wild fish. The original AR steelhead are believed to have been wiped out, so DFG replaced them with other strains of steelhead. The predominant strain in the river now is an Eel River strain. This somehow leads DFG to conclude AR fish are not “wild”, apparently including those with an adipose fin (hatchery fish are fin clipped). Regulations require release of fish with an adipose fin.



7) With the current (low number of) California game wardens, enforcement is a problem. And snagging enforcement is very difficult. Catching a snagger can take three wardens, including one in plain clothes, in order to verify that the fish was illegally hooked. The American flows through a center of a population exceeding one million people. The American River Parkway, a natural area along the river corridor, complicates enforcement as vegetation and limited road access makes enforcement difficult.



8) With temporary closures, enforcement should be easier––if someone is fishing, it is a violation. This would aid enforcement efficiency.



9) What the NCCFFF requested was a closure system like that used on north coast steelhead streams - whenever flows drop below a certain amount, anglers are required to call a hotline to check whether fishing is open. No such system is currently in place on the steelhead streams flowing into the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins



10) The American is a political river. In addition to running through the state capitol city, the river is the closest one in the Central Valley supply system to the Delta. Its waters are fed from Folsom Lake, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento is among the most flood-prone cities in the country. So the amount of water that is allowed to be stored in Folsom Lake is restricted by the time of year. This is further complicated by recent dry years, and the Folsom Lake reservoir currently is less than 1/3 full.



11) AR waters, being closest to the Delta, are used to counter emergency events, like saline intrusion into the Delta, which can knock out municipal water supplies. So water to counter unexpected Delta events is provided by releases to the American. And much of the water stored in Folsom is contracted for farming use.



12) To look out for the interest of the fish, an advisory committee called the American River Operating Group (AROG) was established. Its membership consists of people representing DFG, the Bureau, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Sacramento Water Forum, and other government and NGO organizations, including the NCCFFF. The primary function of this group in recent years has been to allocate water releases to achieve river temperatures that support fall salmon spawning. This involves complicated balancing between flood control, farming and municipal, power generation and fish water needs.



As to the “elitist” comment––my take on that (having lived seven years of my adult life in Europe) is that term originated there. In Europe, most waters are owned, and it was (and still is to some extent) the “landed gentry” that owned the bulk of the streams. If the owner chooses to not allow fishing outside family and friends, there is a pay-to-play charge. Most fly fishing clubs lease streams and exchange fishing rights on those streams with a handful of other clubs. Guards are often hired to patrol the streams to keep the “unwashed” out.

†

In the American River situation, we (supposed) “elitists” are asking to exclude ourselves from the fishing. That hardly makes the title fit, one would think!

[Darian]

After reviewing the letters/responses, I gotta say that the authors of this proposal/request still don't get it.... Nothing new in those letters/responses. At the last of the final NCCFFF response are two statements (1),

As to the “elitist” comment––my take on that (having lived seven years of my adult life in Europe) is that term originated there. In Europe, most waters are owned, and it was (and still is to some extent) the “landed gentry” that owned the bulk of the streams. If the owner chooses to not allow fishing outside family and friends, there is a pay-to-play charge. Most fly fishing clubs lease streams and exchange fishing rights on those streams with a handful of other clubs. Guards are often hired to patrol the streams to keep the “unwashed” out. and (2),

"In the American River situation, we (supposed) “elitists” are asking to exclude ourselves from the fishing. That hardly makes the title fit, one would think!" and (2),

The first statement has little to do with reality/perception of elitism as it applies to fly fisherman in this country. The second, smug statement "....we (supposed) 'elitists'.... excluding ourselves...." actually illustrates how complete the misunderstanding was and remains. The request, if adopted, would exclude a bunch more people than just NCCFFF fly fishers. I'd be willing to bet that most NCCFFF members weren't anymore aware of the request than any of the rest of us.

The NCCFFF letters/responses reflect a failure to understand that the authors are not and should not be the sole authority for requests of this nature regardless of their motives. As once was said, "....methinks he doth protest too much".

Enough of this. It's all over but the shouting.... 8) 8) 8)

[mike N]

I don't think I'll be joining the NCCFFF anytime soon. I think that is because I think for myself and actually prefer to do so.

It is uncomfortable to know that others feel they can think for us.

MN

[Bob Laskodi]

Well said Darian, I agree 100% with your assessment. Especially this one: "The NCCFFF letters/responses reflect a failure to understand that the authors are not and should not be the sole authority for requests of this nature regardless of their motives". Me thinks the NCCFFF has shot themselves in the you-know-what with this, and has used up what little "good will" they had left with other angling organizations. A crying shame because the fish need all the friends they can get these days, regardless of whether they fling flies, bait, or lures.

[Mike McKenzie]

I was asked by the NCCFFF to post this, so here it is...

NCCFFF action on the American River

The NCCFFF has been asked to explain why we did what we did in requesting a temporary fishing closure on the American River.

We have long been involved with the American River. In 2006, The NCC worked with Friends of the River, CSPA, local fly clubs and others in getting Sacramento Municipal Utility District to negotiate more fish friendly operations on their upper AR FERC relicensing. Also in 2006, we recruited bucket-brigade labor from three Sacramento area affiliated clubs to open a steelhead stranding area near the Sunrise Bridge.

The NCC has participated in the American River Operating Group (AROG) since 2005. The AROG is an advisory group to the US Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento, and is comprised of federal (the Bureau, NOOA, US fish and Wildlife Service), and state (DFG, DWR) agencies, plus NGOs (Sac State, Save the American River Assn., and others). Its function is to advise the Bureau on operating Folsom Dam releases in a fish-supportive manner.

Geography put the American in the worst place politically. Being closest, the river serves as the quick reaction resource for Delta problems. AR water gets to the Delta in a day while water from Shasta, for example, takes five days. So when there is a problem, American river water becomes the quick solution. This year, coming off a dry winter, the Bureau kept summer releases high, drawing storage behind Folsom Dam down. There are huge competing demands on Folsom water for salinity control, agriculture and municipal water supply to name a few.

The primary fish consideration in Folsom operations has been maintaining cool river water temperatures. In 2007, as the pool in Folsom Lake dried up, the Bureau’s ability to provide cold water to the river declined. By luck, ambient temperatures from August on into the fall were below average, enabling river temperatures to be kept within goals. However, by late fall, the pool was drastically low, and long range weather forecasts held little hope of rain.

At a 1 Dec meeting, the NCC board voted a standby action to ask for an emergency closure for protection of in-stream steelhead spawning if river flows dropped below 1100 cfs. A lot of steelhead snagging had been reported the previous winter when flows were much higher than this year. And little was seen in enforcement actions. At that time, very few returning steelhead had been seen in the river

In the fall, the American is closed to fishing in the upper reaches where the bulk of the in-river salmon spawning, takes place. But it reopens on Jan 1, and the majority of steelhead spawning takes place in January through March. So the standby action would ask for a fishing closure if flows dropped below 1100 cfs during February and March. At the December AROG meeting, the weather forecast showed a potent winter storm for the holidays. That occurred, leaving several feet of snow in the Sierra, but little water inflow into Folsom. Inflows did rise a bit, raising hopes the closure request would not be needed. But when the AROG next met on 8 January, the long-range rainfall was grim, and the Bureau announced they planned to drop flows to below 1100, then talked of going down as low as the 900s! At that time, the AROG was briefed on the NCC standby action.

A few days later, the flows did drop into the 1000s, the lowest in many years. So the standby action was activated. There is a Fish and Game Commission meeting in San Diego on 7 Feb. For an item to be on their agenda, it had to be at the Commission 15 days before the meeting, a very tight timeline. The DFG director was notified of the action as was the chief warden, and a subsequent discussion was held with the Region II director. The three local fly clubs were notified. The SARA board was briefed on 15 January.

To insure the commission clearly understood what was being asked for, a follow-up letter was sent. It emphasized that a temporary closure, only when river flows were below 1100 cfs, and only during the months of February and March 2008. But that letter arrived too late to be included in the agenized item.

In summary, there was no attempt to hide the NCC action. At least fifty people were made aware of it through the AROG and other briefings. And these were the representatives of the organizations believed to be involved in the American River.

The goal of this was not to deny fishing in any legal form. The goal is to protect steelhead spawning in the American River, for now and so that there is an AR steelhead fishery in the future. The steelhead are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The real solution involves more water being released to the river and more enforcement. It is hoped that the NCC action will shine a bright light on the problems of insufficient releases to the river and the lack of wardens.

We are fully open to constructive ideas and help from anyone.

O.K. There you have the NCCFFF official explanation of the what and why...

I've already commented on this in a previous post and nothing has been said since that makes me want to change my position. That is, if the BurRec. had implemented the flow and temperature standards they agreed to back in 2004 we would not be having this discussion. Instead they have resisted doing the right thing for our fisheries and now, due to the Wanger delta smelt decision they have another excuse not to implement the agreement.

Mike

[Mike McKenzie]

"SAN FRANCISCO --

The number of chinook salmon returning to California's Central Valley reached a near-record low last year, pointing to an "unprecedented collapse" that could lead to severe restrictions on West Coast salmon fishing this year, according to federal fishery regulators.

The sharp drop in chinook or "king" salmon returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Sacramento River and its tributaries this past fall is part of broader decline in wild salmon runs in rivers across the West.

Regulators are still trying to understand the reasons for the shrinking number of spawners; some scientists believe it's related to changes in the ocean linked to global warming."

http://www.kcra.com/news/15166060/detail.html

Yeah! sure.... Now they have another "excuse", global warming disrupting the ocean environment.
Never mind that salmon smolts can't survive long enough to get to the ocean due to the lack of proper water management, especially here in the central valley where they are either entrained in the export system (because the water contractors refuse to pay for modern state of the art fish screens) or starve to death in a dead zone called the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta..... When are we going to put a stop to all this??

End of Rant!!
Mike

[Darian]

Thanks for posting the article about the Salmon population crash Mike. Very disturbing but seems it should've been predictable.... I guess we'll all be warm and salt water fly fisherman in the future....

One of the approaches we might use to protect fish at the pumps is to urge water regulators to install the "state of the art" screens that you mentioned and then bill Westlands, etc., for the cost. 8) That undoubtedly would end up in the courts where there is the potential to fix that cost and hold them responsible for payment of the judgment.... At the least we might get a settlement out of 'em. 8) 8) Just dreamin'.... :) :) :)

[Mike McKenzie]

The Water Contractors are going after Striped Bass...next comes Largemouth, Smallmouth, Shad, Bluegills and all the rest of our introduced fisheries....

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Jann Taber 916/391-8811
January 29, 2008

Coalition for a Sustainable Delta Files Lawsuit Regarding
Striped Bass Sports Fishing Regulations
State Department of Fish and Game Sued Over Clear Violations of Federal Endangered Species Act

SACRAMENTO, CA – The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for violating the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). State sport fishing regulations protect the non-native striped bass, a known predator of several native endangered and threatened species including the Delta smelt. The state agencies were put on notice in late October of the Coalition’s concerns with ongoing striped bass programs, however, the agencies failed to take corrective actions.

“We are taking legal action today to correct clear and continuing violations by state fish and game regulators that are harming the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. Prompt action is necessary to prevent further decline of critical fisheries and to protect the state’s environmental and economic health,” said Michael Boccadoro, spokesperson for the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta. “Fostering the destruction of thousands of native threatened and endangered species is a clear violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and must be stopped. Allowing this destruction to continue when the populations of several of these species – including the Delta Smelt – are crashing is outrageous.”

The non-native striped bass is widely recognized as a voracious predator that feasts on some of the most endangered native species in the Delta. The striped bass was introduced into the Delta region in the late 19th Century. Its population has fluctuated from a low of approximately 600,000 to a high of three million.

In the early 1980’s the sports fishing industry successfully lobbied the State of California to enact legislation that created a striped bass fishing stamp. CDFG used the money raised by the stamp to support the striped bass population in the Delta. The hatchery program run by the state added more than 5.5 million striped bass to the Delta over the life of the restocking program.

The funds were also used to develop the Striped Bass Restoration and Management Plan. Consistent with the plan and CFGC policy, the Department continues to enforce “size” and “bag” limits for striped bass fishing in the state. Fishermen are limited to two fish and each fish must be at least 18 inches in length. The “bag” and “size” limits are designed to further the commission’s official striped bass restoration goal of three million fish. These regulations, however, also effectively foster the demise of tens of thousands of native Delta fish that are protected under the ESA.

Striped bass prey upon four listed fish species: the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon; the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon; the Central Valley steelhead; and the Delta smelt. While the salmon and the steelhead spend most of their lives in the ocean, they return to the Delta to spawn.

Unfortunately, the Delta smelt and other endangered fish provide a readily available food supply for the striped bass. According to CDFG’s own estimates, each year up to six percent of the population of these endangered species are consumed by the striped bass – a fish that is not supposed to be in the Delta in the first place. Two federal agencies also readily acknowledged the problem. In its 2007 Recovery Outline, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers the striped bass as a threat to the salmon and steelhead. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is on record stating, “It is quite possible that at low population levels interactions with [striped bass] could prevent recovery (of the Delta Smelt).”

Recently, a federal district court in Fresno ruled that water deliveries to a majority of the state’s residents, farms and businesses must be substantially reduced to protect the delta smelt. The California Department of Water Resources has estimated the court ruling will reduce water deliveries by 22-30 percent in average water years. A host of factors however continue to impact the estuary and contribute to the fishery decline. These “stressors” include toxic urban and agricultural run-off, thousands of unscreened in-delta diversions, increased discharge of municipal wastewater, industrial discharges and increased competition and predation from invasive species.

“Scientific research demonstrates that the health of the delta is at risk from a multitude of factors, including non-native striped bass preying on threatened and endangered native fish,” said Boccadoro. “Unless and until all of these factors are addressed, long-term sustainability of the estuary cannot and will not be achieved. State and federal regulators and the courts cannot turn a blind-eye to these other factors while continuing to allow the water supplies for 25 million residents of the state to be sharply reduced.”

The Coalition for a Sustainable Delta is working to address all of the stressors that impact the estuary through education, cooperation, research and, where necessary legal action. Mirant Delta LLC was put on similar notice for clear violations of the ESA in September, 2007 in connection with their operation of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. The Coalition has also launched a far-reaching research effort to better understand critical impacts on the estuary and has developed an educational video entitled Understanding and Solving the Delta Crisis.

Following is the cover of CDFG’s Striped Bass Restoration and Management Plan, which depicts a striped bass preying on a school of Delta smelt.


# # #

For a copy of the lawsuit and for more information, visit www.sustainabledelta.com
Back to top

[Darian]

And the hits just keep on coming..... Took a look at the materials on the link you (Mike) provided and tried to locate the so called Striped Bass Recovery Plan on DFG's website but couldn't find it. :? :? Am I missing something :?: :?:

Unfortunately, this looks like the water distributors have watched, learned and are turning our tactics of using an endangered species to meet our desired outcome thru the courts. :( :( I guess everything is a "two edged sword". 8) 8) Time to get out the thinking cap and see what can be done to help defeat this litigation. 8) 8) 8)

Hmmm,..... Wasn't there a post somewhere on this BB about the Pres., signing a protective order for Stripers :?: :?: :?:

[HC]

Well we got their attention now and they are focused right on our weak link, the Striper. Call it a surge if like, but this is just the start of new and dirtier tactics to attack us through our objects, the fish. But then its all temporary for once they have the Sac R. piped around the Delta right straight to LA they will forget all about the our little fish, if any remain. Its comming you know, for they have aquired a taste for fresh water, ours... And here we are bickering with each other once more over which puny sport fishing group speaks for us. The opposition is united in their cause and is funding a plan of attack by taking their corrupt message to the misinforned masses via paid advertisers, known formerly as new papers. Print space for money and so on. I am not convinced that the masses would side with fishing groups anyway, if the arguements go on in present form. Water diversion should be our over arching focus. Lets not be distracted by the tactic of our opponents. HC

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

A quick response as there ain't enough hours in the day for me right now....
The recovery plan is now Fish and Game Commission "Policy" with, the as of now unstated caveat, that there is no longer allowed any artificial population enhancement ie; Hatchery augmentation or any pen rearing of salvaged fish...Long story about that, I'll have to tell later....
Anyway find it here:

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/p2fish.html#STRIPED


As far as what protection for striped bass that Bush signed goes..It only applies to striped bass in federal waters on the east coast. In other words it wasn't really much help to stripers....
I thought I posted that clarification on my original post, I guess I didn't.....

Mike

[Darian]

Thanks for the info Mike. As to the Executive Order for Stripers, you did clarify its application in a prior post. 8) I just had a senior moment.... :o :o :o

[Ed Wahl]

Just to play Devils Advocat, not slamming anyone or anyone's point of view about Stripers vs Salmon. Here's an example that the water barons would like to show as evidence. I'm extending advance apologies to Bill and K.D. This just smacked me in the head. Ed http://www.kiene.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=8207&highlight=

[HC]

Hey Ed, The same thought went through my head too. But then its the DFG that is doing this and Bill is only stating the fact. There will be some fishers standing by to take advantage of the feeding frenzy. So would those who catch and kill the predator fish be heros then? Those peta folks live for moments like this, not to mention those sustainable delta freaks. Couple that with all the talk about low life snaggers, and pitch forkers running amuck and its an ugly image. The fishing community does need to put forward a positive image. The fish rescue was really positive stuff and we could use more good press to help sway public opinion our way for when the big fight comes along. This is not a swipe aimed at any individuals, just my view of things. HC

[Mike McKenzie]

The issue isn't with striper predation of hatchery salmonids...If it was, then DFG wouldn't be so bull headed about their hatchery release practices. The issue is the perceived striped bass predation on wild salmonids and thats where the rub lies. While one would assume there is some predation of wild smolts by stripers ( DFG has a WAG at about 6%). There is not much documentation of the said predation other than in Clifton Court Forebay, where the smolts are doomed anway. The recent trials where they are testing radio tracking of the smolts may shed some answers but then again they're tracking hatchery fish.... The truth of the matter is, in order for smolts to reach maturity and return as adults, they first have to reach the ocean as healthy fish. It is lookin' more and more like the smolts are not making it through the "black hole" of the delta with out starving to death. Getting eaten by a striper may be the least of their worries... We'll see what shows up in the studies...

[Darian]

Hmmmm,..... If hatchery bred fish are deemed to be harmfull to naturally spawning fish, couldn't an argument be made that Stripers are contributing to a healthier environment by reducing the number of returning hatchery fish :?: :?: :lol: , Really.... :lol: :lol:

Actually, I'm wondering how much invasive species, such as snails (filter feeders), contribute to the reduction of food for anadromous fishes in the Delta :? :? :? I think I read somewhere that invasive snails have altered the food chain as they're so efficient at gathering food and are numerous. :( :( :(

Anybody know how many municipal and power generating pump stations there are in the Delta, Suisun and SF Bays :?: :?: Maybe the combined affect of all that pumping is just as much of a problem as the pumps at Tracy.... :? :? :?

[davkrat]

The invasive organism in the Delta that has changed the availability of food to filter feeders, like young fish, are the asian clams. You know the millions of clam shells you see in the Delta. Those are not native and they have completely changed the level of plankton, food, in the water column that young filter feeding fish rely on. Much the same as Zebra/Quagga mussels have impacted the Great Lakes. Oh yeah we will have those here soon enough. The New Zealand mudsnail is in several local streams but it is more likely to compete with aquatic insect larva, i.e. mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies.

That said any one who does not think that a voracious predator as a striper does not impact salmon running down stream needs to take the blindfold off. Fish and Game trucks/boats smolts downstream for a reason, to get them past all the hungry striper waiting for the smolts to run the gauntlet. Striper are as voracious as pike, I've seen pics of striper with big half-pounder steelhead in there throats. Tell me that doesn't impact a fishery. I personally think we should only be concerned with preserving native fish.

[Mike McKenzie]

"davkrat"... You know the millions of clam shells you see in the Delta. Those are not native.....

Actually, not a true statement... the vast majority of the clam shells one sees in the Delta rivers, sloughs and back waters above Suisun Bay are those of native Clams. The Asian clams you speak of are saltwater species, otherwise known Corbula amurensis. Here's a little info on them...

"First noted in the mid-1980s, this bivalve probably constitutes most of the benthic biomass in the bay. Its vast numbers have resulted in a drastic reduction in plankton in the North Bay, which may be adversely affecting the delta smelt, an endangered native fish considered an indicator of estuary health.

The clam also has the unfortunate propensity of concentrating selenium in its tissues, an element that is toxic at moderate to high levels. This may be having a malign effect on fish and aquatic birds that feed on the clam, specifically white sturgeon and northern scaup.

Some researchers say some control could be established on the clam in the North Bay by altering the way water flows through the delta. Historically, the delta was almost wholly brackish, with fresh water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers mixing with salt water from the San Francisco Bay. Today, the system is bifurcated, managed in the upper reaches as a freshwater reservoir for the giant government pumps that send water to Southern California. The lower delta -- which from a hydrological point of view once included Suisun and portions of San Pablo bays -- has essentially become an extension of salty San Francisco Bay."



That said any one who does not think that a voracious predator as a striper does not impact salmon running down stream needs to take the blindfold off. Fish and Game trucks/boats smolts downstream for a reason, to get them past all the hungry striper waiting for the smolts to run the gauntlet


Again, not quite a true statement. Trucking salmon smolts down to the bay doesn't solve the problem of predation by "non native" stripers and other "native" fish. Just go see what happens when the hatchery truck starts dumping smolts anywhere......
The main reason the the trucking program was instituted was to get the smolts transported around the myriad of sucking pumps that have a tendency to remove the smolts from the water and put them in irrigation ditches or the delta water export system.....

Mike

[davkrat]

Sorry but you are wrong. The freshwater Asiatic clam in the Delta is Corbicula fluminea. You are correct that Corbula amurensis is common in the salty bay waters.

As to predation by "native" fish in the Delta would you please enlighten me as to what native fish you believe are feeding on smolts in the Delta. If you believe that Centrarchids, sunfish, largemouth bass are native species you are wrong once again. Carp, not native either. Wait maybe the Sacramento Perch, oh yeah those have been exterminated from their native range so it must not be them. Perhaps squawfish but I do not see many of them in the Delta when I am working there all summer. Usually I see them in the backwater channels and up the creeks that feed into the upper reaches of the Delta. I'm not sure about the various catfish that occur in the Delta but I'm positive at least some of them have been introduced.

[David Lee]

Sorry but you are wrong. The freshwater Asiatic clam in the Delta is Corbicula fluminea. You are correct that Corbula amurensis is common in the salty bay waters.

As to predation by "native" fish in the Delta would you please enlighten me as to what native fish you believe are feeding on smolts in the Delta. If you believe that Centrarchids, sunfish, largemouth bass are native species you are wrong once again. Carp, not native either. Wait maybe the Sacramento Perch, oh yeah those have been exterminated from their native range so it must not be them. Perhaps squawfish but I do not see many of them in the Delta when I am working there all summer. Usually I see them in the backwater channels and up the creeks that feed into the upper reaches of the Delta. I'm not sure about the various catfish that occur in the Delta but I'm positive at least some of them have been introduced.

While we're gettin' rid of those horrible , horrible non-native Stripers ... Why don't we get rid of all the non-native White folks (like me and you) - since when the Europeans came here , they over-populated the state , Dammed the rivers , diverted the water , over-fished the native species, killed-off all the REAL Native Californians , and have generally mucked-up the way things are here .

Those silly ol' Stripes ain't the problem . They never were the problem . Overpopulation is THE problem , coupled with greed . Cut the profits from water exports and see how fast exports drop .

Erradicating Striped Bass makes as much sense (to ME) as getting rid of the people here - not such a bad idea , just unlikely to happen anytime soon . You can kill off EVERY introduced species and still have NATIVE Salmon/Steelhead in trouble (if in fact there are ANY totally pure Native Salmonids left here) . Making Striped Bass the 'bad guy' in this current situation is just a little warped .

David

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Seems like we're getting into that ol' native vs non-native thing again....

I kinda like what Tristan added to this discussion (not all of it, tho :lol: ). Stripers are here to stay as are some other less desirable, invasive species. It's just unrealistic to think they could be eradicated without making some high impact changes. Changes WE as fisherman/taxpayers are, apparently, unwilling to make or fund. :? :? (I'm including myself in this group as my volunteer work tends to involve civic duties, governance/taxation issues)

Since I'm in the camp that likes Black and Striped Bass, I wouldn't like to see them eradicated from the Delta. However, if the flow regimes changed to a more natural state and, as a result, anadromous Salmonids were restored to historic levels I wouldn't object even tho that may reduce the Black Bass population (....as I recall from my summer in the Mississippi River delta, Black Bass can live quite well in brackish water). Not a likely scenario, tho. So, I guess I'd advocate a return to what may be realistically accomplished from our end.

Tristan makes a good point about our choices. Everything we do or don't do is about choices we make or don't make. We can choose not to participate in government by failing to vote or trying to inform ourselves. We can choose to volunteer (a la David, Ed and others on this BB) or make any number of other personal choices. What we have now is the result of many years of people making the choice to just go along to get along. Choosing to go along or not participate insures that we get what we currently have (especially in the area of government and environmental issues).... 8) 8) 8)

[OceanSunfish]

The best thing for striped bass, is to restore the delta to some of its former function, …..

I think this is the best thing for all fish, not just the striped bass. And, I bet the largemouth bass find a way to adapt too.

Perhaps this would take some pressure off the salmon smolt since their predators would be preoccupied with feeding elsewhere as they were during the "productive years", as Tristan put it.

Finally, I take my oldest son to the hatchery to feed the smolt in the "Federal" raceways as well as the trout in the DF&G raceways. I always point out the map to my son that shows all the dams and the hundreds of miles of blocked off natural spawning grounds. (The American River is so short it's hardly worthy of any 'wild' fish.)

During our last visit, my son bid a farewell to the steelhead smolt and wished them good luck after I told him that they would probably not be there the next time we return. As I looked at a few smallish smolt in front of me eating pellets :roll: , I'm thinking what the odds are that those little 'guys' will be eaten by something (bird or fish) within the week. :roll:

Also, nearby sit the trucks with the words, "DF&G and Salmon Trollers" printed on the tanks.

The entire scene makes me laugh cynically inside despite the sweetness that my son brings to the situation.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Thats great to hear salmon and steelhead have gone past the area where the dam was located.

I guess the water upstream is in fine shape for spawning?

In our lifetime they are finally just now starting to remove dams that no longer "work".

This is good for the soul but you younger Steelhead fly fishers here will get to see more of it, hopefully, that old timers like Darian and I.

[Big Dave]

I personally think we should only be concerned with preserving native fish.

Tell me please , exactly what species should be protected/preserved and which ones shouldnt.

How long does a particular species need to inhabit an area before it becomes "naturalized" ?

[OceanSunfish]

Frankly, speaking I think people just need to fish different places for stripers...there are plenty of them around, but fly fishers don't fish nearly as often or to the extent of the conventional crowd. (Think around Colusa)…..

Tristan: Do you think "different places" is due to the fact that striped bass have adapted to the negative changes to the delta thus forcing them to move farther to feed than they would have 35 to 50 years ago? We all know they are very adaptive to survive.

Secondly, do you feel that if the delta were restored to its intricate tidal flows of decades past (healthy delta again) that it would again concentrate the majority of the striped bass, holding them in place longer during a 'season' and remove them from the thoroughfares sutied for salmon/steelhead smolt.

Thirdly, does the demise of south San Francisco Bay play into the demise of both species. That's a lot of area that once was home to quite a few striped bass, sturgeon, and bait fish/shrimp etc. Again, another area that would've taken striped bass away from the waterways for migrating smolt, et al.

I volunteered at Prospect Island late last year. I was able to see what wonderful habitat that flooded island provided to so many fish. It was its own ecosystem. I couldn't imagine the majority of those fish leaving the island any time soon. I imagined that the delta of 50+ years ago was probably litered with similar flooded tracts offering outstanding habitat that no longer exists today. (Franks wasn't a weedy mess)

After seeing Prospect Island firsthand, I immediatley wondered why there isn't a set of 6 to 8 islands established for flooding and reclamation over the course of 100 years. 4 islands overgrown with trees and other slow decomp vegitation flooded for 40 years while the other 4 islands are reclaimed and regrown for flooding 40 years later. It seems so simple. :!:

I agree, there are more and more stripers going further upriver because the habitat suits them so well. But, I surmise they are doing so because the delta stinks as a home now as does the south bay, redwood shores, etc.

"Big Dave's" sentiments are horrible. :? We must give up choosing species and fight for the bigger cause and that's the restoration of the habitat, which I feel will benefit all the fish currently swimming around today. IMO, choosing a species means that we've accepted that the ecosystem is no longer big enough for all fish to coexists with current human population growth and development. I think a lot of waste, poor planning, and greed need to vaporize before we cave into having to choose one fish over another.

This is purely my observation as I am not a trained biologist, etc.

[Mike McKenzie]

"davkrat"Sorry but you are wrong. The freshwater Asiatic clam in the Delta is Corbicula fluminea. You are correct that Corbula amurensis is common in the salty bay waters.

Well you are right in the fact that the freshwater clam is Corbicula fluminea. Since this clam has been in the delta for my lifetime (67 years and counting) I was not aware of that anyone called it an "asian clam" To be honest I never thought of it as anything other than "native". That said, It is not the clam which has been in the discussions with regard to the collapse of the delta and P.O.D. The clam of concern is the one I said, the Corbula amurensis, also referred to as an asian clam but better known to the biologists doing work on the delta P.O.D., as the "asian overbite clam". This is the clam that has dramatically changed the ecology of what used to be the primary nursery areas, used by the delta smelt and also juvenile striped bass, in the lower delta. It has only been around 20 years
Read about it here:
http://www.exoticsguide.org/species_pages/c_amurensis.html




As to predation by "native" fish in the Delta would you please enlighten me as to what native fish you believe are feeding on smolts in the Delta. If you believe that Centrarchids, sunfish, largemouth bass are native species you are wrong once again. Carp, not native either. Wait maybe the Sacramento Perch, oh yeah those have been exterminated from their native range so it must not be them. Perhaps squawfish but I do not see many of them in the Delta when I am working there all summer. Usually I see them in the backwater channels and up the creeks that feed into the upper reaches of the Delta. I'm not sure about the various catfish that occur in the Delta but I'm positive at least some of them have been introduced.

Well, Nice rant about what fishes are non-native to the delta. Its pretty obvious that exotic fish species far out number native species. However, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.. and that was the reason DFG started trucking the smolts to the bay.. Simply put, water diversions were the main reason...

Since you brought it up, the Sacramento Pikeminnow preys heavily on salmonid smolts especially under the ideal conditions we've created for them...(Red bluff diversion dam, the tailwaters of all the tributary rivers,etc) and Yes even in the delta. Pikeminnows have the run of the delta. I have caught them everywhere north to south, east to west but mostly they're are right there, getting their share with the stripers, large and smallmouth bass, crappie and a bunch of different catfish, whenever the hatchery trucks are dumping smolts in the delta. Also during fish salvage operations from at the export facilities, whenever they dump the salvaged fish in either the Sacramento River or the San Joaquin.
I have never stated the Striped Bass do not prey on salmonid smolts, What I have said and the studies show, is that there is high predation rates associated with hatchery releases (mostly because of the way they do it.) Also, again, striped bass stomach sampling studies that I've read support what I say. Clifton Court Forebay also is fatal to the smolts in that there are either eaten by predatory fish or otherwise removed from the system.
The bottom line is that no one knows how much, if any, predation occurs in the delta proper. (other than where fish are being dumped or in Clifton Court) The new radio tracking studies may give some of those answers but I haven't seen any of the results yet....
One cannot ignore the fact that stripers, salmon and steelhead were all abundant until we started diverting most of the water out of our rivers and polluting the rest of it. To try and scape goat the striped bass for salmonid declines is patiently absurd.

Mike

[davkrat]

First of all let me say that I never called for an active eradication effort for striped bass. All I said was that we should concentrate our efforts on preserving native fish. As far as a organism becoming "naturalized" that has absolutely nothing to do with being native. Salmon and steelhead, I know we have eel river steelhead in the American now as the native American strain is now gone (I have often wondered if the halfpounders are remnants of the smaller American River strain), have existed on the west coast for millions of years. Striped bass were carried across the continent by us and planted in the pacific. Nothing remotely similar to them occurs on the west coast of North America. They are already here and naturalized as they have established a active breeding population.

I guarantee I know more about invasive species eradication than anyone on this board as I have worked towards eradicating non-native noxious/invasive plants from California for the last ten years. For the last five years I have concentrated on aquatic plants, which are even harder to deal with than terrestrials. Any time you throw water into the mix things get exponentially harder and more expensive. I would never in a million years suggest we try to eradicate striped bass because it could never be done. When invasive plants are as wide spread and established as the striped bass are we go into control mode, limiting their distribution by making it illegal to transport, cultivate or sell in California. When new infestations are found eradication might be attempted if they are small enough and far removed from other infestations. As an example we don't do much other than biological control methods for Yellow Starthistle in the central valley, but when it showed up on a ranch in Plumas County my bosses at the time sent me out to ERADICATE it as they knew how bad it is in other parts of California. I think we should treat stripers the same way, let them be where they are, do not introduce them to new areas, though reservoirs where they might be planted can't be considered natural systems so who cares. We should not waste another penny working towards preserving them, any improvements we make in the Bay/Delta should be directed towards improving salmon and steelhead.

Habitat conservation is the number one most important conservation tool we have. WE humans, the most invasive organism in the history of the world, quite often have the most detrimental effects on any natural system. Once we develop land it is lost forever, invasive species can't compete with asphalt. That said simply buying land and setting aside to be choked off by invasive species does not do much for species recovery either. After purchasing land the second most expensive aspect of restoration is invasive species removal. Go look at a abandoned lot in Mendocino county covered with Gorse and tell me how useful it is to wildlife. Look at a backwater slough in the Delta full of Egeria and milfoil or covered over with Hyacinth and tell me how many fish you see in the dead zone of water completely devoid of DO. I know the edges of those weed matts can be great places for non-native centrarchids, but unchecked they turn into nothing but rotting vegetation.

Returning the Delta to it’s historic flows and periods of increased salinity would do wonders for all native organisms. Increasing floodplains for juvenile salmon to feed in, like they have done at the Consumnes River Preserve, would do wonders for salmon smolts as well as native trees. All native organisms would do better if we stepped back and stopped screwing with the system. I do not in any way shape or form suggest we should try to eradicate all the non-native fish in the delta. I like to catch them too. As others have said if the Delta got saltier many of the non-native species would probably be forced to adapt an find new niches. That would be fine with me. As the Delta is managed today the conditions are most favorable to non-native fish. Perhaps if we tipped the scale back towards conditions favorable to our natives they might be able to coexist even better. Why can’t people give up a little bit of bass fishing opportunities for increased opportunities to fish for natives. There are bass, sunfish and stripers all over California. Many more opportunities to fish for them than there are for salmon and steelhead, yet salmon and steelhead are the organisms that evolved here millions of years ago. That is one of the saddest statements you could possibly make about any region in the world. People love to fish for Sacramento Perch in the Midwest but we have to drive several hours to the eastern side of the Sierra to even hope to catch one. What kind of crazy world do we live in. Stop bickering about non-native fish and wasting taxpayers money to support them and start working towards defending our native fish before they are all gone. The salmon and steelhead should be an indicator of what might eventually happen to all fish in the Delta. I hope 50 years from now we don’t end up with a complete dead zone out there because we did not start reversing the problems we created by altering the system. Working towards better salmon and steelhead habitat in the long run will surely improve fishing for all fish in the area as it will help return the Delta to a healthy system.

[Darian]

Sorry to be a wet blanket but I'm quite sure that this topic will never be resolved on this BB. Simply put, restoration of all available habitat/water flows is laudable but probably not realistic. The fact is that water will be diverted and development will continue in spite of anyone here's best efforts.... 8) 8) For those of us who wish to return to the past, I don't think there's much chance of that happening. I'm certainly going to continue trying to stop things from degenerating further but hold little hope that our politicians have the wherewithal to do anything about it.

For example, let's talk about power generation in this state. If I recall correctly, 40% of all the power generated in this state is from hydroelectric sources (dams). Then a certain amount (unknown to me) is generated from Nuclear sources (Diablo Canyon and San Onofre). Most of the rest is generated from coal fired plants. Is it realistic to remove dams without deciding how to replace the power lost. Sure one dam won't hurt much but how about the cumulative affect of many removals :?: :?: That makes us rely more on the other major sources that make their own contribution to pollution. Does anyone recall how bad management of Rancho Seco was before it was voted to close the station :?: :?: There has been a recent revelation of problems at the other nuclear plants in this state, as well. Nuclear power is a good clean source. However, it seems that problems occur with running or managing these stations more than the plant itself. I'm certainly not willing to trust managers and bean counters with that kind of power, again. 8) Alternative sources of power such as geothermal are limited in scope, to date. Many are "dirty" and require so much maintenance that cost are prohibitive. I don't know about anyone else but wind power isn't "big" and those towers are ugly monstrosities that kill a lot of birds. So, what's the answer :?: :?:

In an earlier post, I made a statement about changes required and that I didn't think we were prepared to make those changes or pay for them. My opinion hasn't changed on that point. :? :?

Finally, I'm done with arguing the points surrounding native vs non-native species. It doesn't appear serve any purpose and return to the past is probably unrealistic given the current state of affairs (politically and otherwise). 8) 8)

[OceanSunfish]

My replies were me thinking aloud, mostly. Just putting ideas out there for comment. I'm fully aware of the current state of affairs that hinder our causes. Sad.

I like to stick my head into these forums because I do care, but unfortunately, when I do, I get more agitated and angry. It's time for another break.

[Big Dave]

OS , my post went straight over your head !!!

Theres no doubt that Davkrat has the background and education to speak about native species and such.

Any time somebody comes along ( I dont care if its the Director of F&G ) and makes comments regarding native and non-native species , I have an issue with it. I take my stand with a high school education and years of observation on the Delta....thats it !

All of these species co-existed for quite some time in the Delta for decades didnt they ? AND in abundance....no ? You dont have to be an old timer to see how the changes have come and how the environment has been affected. When did that happen ? Ohhh about the same time the water exports ramp up.

If these Stripers are as voracious as is suggested , then the numbers of other species should be booming shouldnt they ? After all , Striper populations are at all time lows ( or have I got that wrong ? )

The point I was trying to make is , take a look at ALL species swimming in the waters. Which ones are natives and which ones arent. Where do you start , which ones get protected , the more popular ones or all of them ?

( The Florida strain LMBs do a fair share of eating too. Box em up and ship em back to Florida ? They are introduced after all )

[OceanSunfish]

OS , my post went straight over your head !!!

My apologies to "Big Dave". I think I got confused between who was saying what during this long thread. Obviously, we're on the same page by what I wrote elsewhere, etc.

I'm tired of reading about "native vs. non-native" argument. It "class-room" theory that sounds great on paper, but has no practical application under the 'real' current state of affairs our State is in that Darian brings to light. (Heck, it's not just the waterways that I'd like to see return to the past too, but of course, it isn't going to happen.)

Finally, I'm not in favor of closing the river to fishing in February and March. IMO, the river runs through a major metropolitan area which is good and bad. The good is that it's in the faces of a lot of non fishers (voters) every day. The bad is that is easily accessible to the unsportsman element. I think the American River needs to be looked at as a "lost leader" in retail sales terminology.

[davkrat]

First of all let me state that I am in no way a Fisheries Biologist. I am a invasive plant biologist with an aquatic weed emphasis in recent years. I do not have any pull or control when it comes to fisheries management. I am simply stating my opinion. I love to fish and spend the majority of my life dealing with invasive organisms. I too hate having the native vs. non-native discussion; I get enough of that at work. My job is currently transitioning towards outreach and education. Here in California the general public has virtually no experience/education in regards to invasive organisms. When I tell people I work on weeds they all assume I work for the DEA or CAMP. Recently I have heard of some groups looking at attempts to control invasives as a form of prejudice or racism. Next they will tell us the Lion will lay down with the Lamb. That said if anybody ever wants help or information on invasive plants please feel free to contact me. If you would like a presentation on invasive aquatic weeds or identification of the plants you see out there I will be more than happy to help.

Getting back to the post, it is true that there are many other variables in the Delta that are leading to the demise of the fishery. Non-native fish definitely play a part. I never said they were the scapegoat or smoking gun. I also have never once suggested we should try to eradicate/remove them from the system, that would be cost prohibitive if not impossible. There are many other problems and possible solutions in the Delta. Restoration of flood plains to increasing foraging opportunities of salmon smolts. Research suggests that floodplain feeding by salmon smolts leads to significant increases in growth over smolts that feed only in river channels. When working on the San Joaquin between Mossdale and the Port of Stockton I have traveled through patches of frothy water that is so rank it made my eyes burn. Nutrient loading and decreased dissolved oxygen lead to dead zones that kill young fish as they migrate through. Franks Tract and Clifton Court act like giant sumps with one way valves that fish get sucked into and cannot get out of. While there introduced centrarchids (BASS) devour them. I have seen pictures of large stripers from the American with adult steelhead in their throats. Reversed flows to the Old and Middle River confuse migrating fish thinking they are swimming downstream towards the ocean. Invasive plants change the ecosystem, nutrient recycling, provide ambush cover, reduce turbidity, etc.

All these conditions impact native anadramous fish as they make their way to the ocean. Many of these problems could probably be improved if the historic conditions of the Delta, increased summer salinity, returned. As it is now the Delta is managed as a massive freshwater lake. This goes against the native species that evolved here and is totally in favor of non-native introductions. I hate to think that anybody would fight to support a non-native organism in the Delta that DOES impact the recovery of native fish. There are hundreds of opportunities to fish for bass and stripers in area reservoirs. Have you ever seen the Striper they pull out of San Luis and Mendocino? We do not have those same options for salmon/steelhead. The Delta and Sacramento River system are it. The San Joaquin run is already gone. The recent crash of the Sacramento system salmon runs might close down the entire west coast salmon industry.

We should look at salmon/steelhead as an indicator of the future. If we continue running the Delta into the ground we may be looking forward to no fishing opportunities. What if the salmon/steelhead runs crash? What if we then get a massive earthquake causing subsidence in the Delta that leads to levee failure, leading to a catastrophic increase in salinity? What if this wiped out the majority of the introduced centrarchids and there were no native stocks left that can tolerate those conditions? Surely some would retreat and find new niches but the overall numbers in the Delta would surely go down. I know that sounds very doomsday but that is the beauty of native organisms. They have adapted to historic conditions in the region. You lose those genes and you are really gambling. The introduced fish are doing well in a system that is highly manipulated by humans. Now all the above could occur and salmon/steelhead would probably thrive. Perhaps Sacramento Perch would be able to be reintroduced to their native range and survive in the floodplains. Striped bass may even benefit from increased pelagic food sources in the saltier western Delta. Invasive aquatic plants in the Delta (you would not believe how many of the plants you see out there are not native) would most likely be impacted by higher salinities. These plants provide centrarchids ambush sites to intercept smolts as they migrate downstream. These fish would most likely move farther upstream to fresh water while giving salmon smolts a chance to grow in the saltier Delta. If all of this happened you would still be able to go fish for striper and bass in area reservoirs.

I am done with this discussion. There will always be people who see things differently than me. People are always hesitant to give up a little for the greater good. People are against closed zones or refuges as they see those as wasted government land because they can’t go in and hunt/fish there. It has been proven time and again that refuges lead to increased hunting/fishing opportunities in the area. I am not saying one way or another that I support closing the American River. I was just bothered by the fact that someone would start a lawsuit saying the State of California should do more to support a non-native fish in the Delta when that fish HAS an impact on the recovery of native fish. We need to stop managing the Delta as a freshwater transport corridor and move towards recovery of our native fish. I believe that with some creative thinking we can attempt to solve some of these issues. Just take a look at the PPIC Report on the future of the Delta http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=671 The bottom line is that somebody is going to lose out whether it be farmers, water users, developers, wildlife. We cannot keep managing the Delta the way we do. When change finally happens there will be resistance and lawsuits. I just hope that any resistance from the fishing community is in the name of native fish and not introduced species. I don’t know why I get so worked up on message boards. As others have said nothing is ever going to come of it. This settles no more than a couple guys bickering in a bar does, except then at least there would be a face to associate with a name. Thanks for reading.

[davkrat]

Thanks Tristan. I hastely wrote a reply this morning which got lost. I don't believe I was logged on. It's always better to sit back and think out a response. For the last five years I have worked on a Invasive Species Control Project that was funded by CalFed. Because of that I have been to numerous CalFed meetings and read reports of other research projects. I also know people at DFG so I hear alot from them. I worked on the Stream Evaluation Program while I went to Sac State. I worked for Rob Titus doing counts of salmon in the rotating screw trap there by the Watt Ave. bridge. We also did several trauls in the American down near the confluence with the Sacramento. We actually caught a steelhead in one of the trauls which apparently never happened. Caught plenty of trees though! I certainly wish I could go back in time and see what the world looked like before we started messing it up. I know that will never happen so I try my best to keep what we have left. Take care, see you on the river. Come on last Saturday in April!

[OceanSunfish]

The bottom line is that somebody is going to lose out whether it be farmers, water users, developers, wildlife. We cannot keep managing the Delta the way we do.

Sadly, I just don't see 'developers' or 'water users/grabber' "losing out". That's my "Darian-ism" for ya! :D

Your entire reply was well written and informative. I'd like to hear more about these invasive plants, etc. myself. I know they've played a big role in how the delta has changed over the years too. I'd like to know how much a role (or not) ag run off and the residential fertilizers have played in allowing these undesireable plants to thrive. Please post more info when you have the time. I'm sure we'd all like to learn.

IMO, the proposed changes you suggest should be acceptable to all anglers that use the delta and really aren't species specific. How can your suggested changes not be favorable to other species than salmon/steelhead that would simply benefit by an overall healthier ecosystem? If some species are put off by a saltier western delta , then I surmise that that's a small price to pay for the recovery of salmon/steelhead and the 'tag along' benefactor, striped bass. Again, I think what changes made to the habitat for salmon/steelhead are also good for the striped bass.

Lastly, keep on contributing to this forum. We may not all agree all the time, but I think everyone is civil, understanding and replies can get rather passionate/emotional at times. But, most importantly, we all want our deminished existing fisheries to thrive again and even though problems may not get resolved on this BB, some good does come of it.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

American River Closure Rejected - Meeting notes

Posted by “FishinRaiders” at

FishSniffer.com Forums › The Issues › Strictly Fishing Issues
02/07/08 at 4:55pm

http://www.fishsniffer.com/cgi-bin/forumsyabb/YaBB.pl?num=1202432120



The guy for the Fish & Game...I didn't catch his name… had an excellent talk about the American River.

First Item: River flows...He said in the last 50 years the flow has only been under 1100 cfs 7 times. He said they are taking a look at snowpack which is 123% of normal and deliveries look to be about 80% so far...so far so good...He said Folsom Lake was at 305,000 acre feet and inflow was about 2000 cfs daily. He said when it gets to 350,000 acre feet they start looking to release more water. A warm spell or warmer rain will increase inflow to Folsom lake. They will be keeping an eye on the releases.

Snagging: He said the barbless hook helps a lot and they thought the new regulations cover this pretty well.

Fish Counts: 2003-2007: an average of about 1300 fish into the hatchery. The hatchery has enough fish to raise 430,000 yearlings. 691 fish caught at the hatchery so far. March typically has about 50-60 fish into the hatchery. 89% of the fishers in the creel survey are catch and release. 75% of the run is over at the end of February. 25% of the fish come up in March & April.

Once again he said the biggest problem is the water flows. He said they would study a system like on the north coast creeks and rivers where they have a low flow closure. Possibly on the American River if it goes below 1100 cfs where it has been for awhile.

They where going to send a letter to the Bureau of Reclamation asking them to possibly fund some of the Fish & Game’s enforcement on the American River and pay wardens more.

In conclusion they voted not to close the American River, but further study possible regulations for 2009.

===============================================
:roll: