Would you support a bill to restructure Fish and Game ?

[fallriverfish]

If something got on the ballot in the future to restructure Fish and Game would you support it ? The goal would be to abolish the current system of governor appointees for the Board of Directors and make them elected by sportsman. Our resources are not being managed in a way that benefits sportsman, plain and simple.

Billy Downs

[Charlie S]

No. You say the directors would be elected by sportsmen? Did you forget the other 85% of the population that votes and could care less about fishing and hunting? I would support a change that would give the DFG the ability to appoint directors from various places that had the knowledge, experience and ability to deal with the many issues facing the DFG at this time.

[Darian]

I applaud the thought but agree with Charlie S. 8) IMHO, the initiative process hasn't solved much of anything in this state. Every millionaire seems to have a pet project or self interest and is willing to buy the vote. :roll: :roll:

Reorganization of DFG really doesn't change the problem. DFG's mission is so broad and schizophrenic at this time, that no amount of reorganization will solve it. look at how the Marine Life Protection Act (an initiative BTW) has impacted fishing along the CA coast. DFG is charged with providing fishing opportunities and preservation of fish stocks in that area, simultaneously. :roll: Then there's the Heritage Trout Program that diverts resources from other fisheries that are in decline (whether we agree with it or not). :? :? Furthermore, the DFG budget will not be adequate as long as there're budget shortfalls at the state level. :( IMHO, these type of problems will not be solved through the initiative process.

Then there's the other 85% of voters mentioned. Frankly, individuals are intelligent. The public, at large, is not informed and probably doesn't care that much. :( Just think about what reorganization would bring to us.... A new bunch of elected (constitutional) officials constantly running for office or looking for their next stop, with their hands out while their staff does all of the work. :x :x

NO THANKS [-X [-X

[fallriverfish]

I think the whole theory is to stop the "millionaire's" who also have the water interests. If DFG is "broad and schizophrenic" then maybe lobotomy is the cure. I just want the surgeon not to have any back door water interests. We are heading for a hatchery heaven, is that what we want to leave for our children and theirs ?

[Darian]

Maybe you're aiming at the wrong entity. :? DFG is part of the Resources Agency as is the Department of Water Resources. They have competing/differing interests/missions and different governing bodies but both have political masters that dictate matters such as funding and how much attention is paid to any particular concerns/issues/projects, etc. 8) 8)

DFG is not concerned with water distribution as DWR is. State agencies rarely argue with each other unless agency administration doesn't waht to remain in office any longer.... :roll: :roll:

I'm not sure what you can do about removing money from politics. It's been tried by legislation and initiative and over-turned by the US Supreme Court. Many State politicians are millionaires, including our governor and his wife. Where do you want to start :?: :?: :?: Being wealthy isn't necessarily bad. It all depends on what is done with that money. 8) 8) 8)

In case you haven't noticed, we're already in "hatchery heaven" and State Senator Cogdill is doing everything he can to make sure hatcheries are permanently funded. :? :?

[fallriverfish]

Darian
Thanks for enlightening me to the situation. Obviously I am ignorant when it comes to politics. Maybe it is to simple of a notion for the DFG to do everything in their power to protect our resources even if means conflicting with other state agencies. Are there any resources out there to learn more about DWR and how they go about their decision making? I think the hatchery program needs to be placed into private enterprise. It has already been proven they can do it cheaper and produce a better product. If they could use the money saved from no longer having hatcheries and hire more wardens and biologists. Wouldn't that be a good thing ? This is a frustrating subject but maybe in the frustration we can come up with something positive.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I was going to college a long time ago and was planning on being a fisheries biologist for the CA DF&G. I was working part time in a big sporting goods store at the time.

I got to talk with several DF&G employees who were also fishermen. They told me they were frustrated back then because the DF&G actually takes marching orders from the higher ups in state government and can't really get the job done the way they would like to.

I think the CA DF&G has lots of wonderful people working for them but the big boys who control the water have a responsibility to agriculture and industry that supersedes the local fishery needs.

We need to take Arnold Schwarzenegger to all our best fisheries at prime time with the best guides and show him what we have and maybe we can get some help.

We probably need to do this with the heads of the CA DF&G too.

It's all about money.......

[Frank Alessio]

Sounds good to me.... In order to Vote you need a Current California Fishing License.... How abot that????? Frank

[David Lee]

.... In order to Vote you need a Current California Fishing License.... How about that?????

Pretty much what I was thinking .

David

[Mike McKenzie]

I have to agree with Charlie and Darian, in fact, Darian has it nailed pretty good with respect to the way the process works. Having been involved for the last 12 years with tryin' to get "somethin' done", I learned one thing above all and that is a fully funded and functional Department of Fish and Game is a political impossibility, Period!

The reason is fairly obvious if one thinks about it for a minute.

A DFG that was doing its job correctly would be a huge obstacle to almost every single facet of the unmitigated development that California is so fond of!

How many vineyards wouldn't have been planted to the detriment of our fisheries?
How much water would have been allocated unrealistic and unsustainable development, again to the detriment of our fisheries, if DFG management REALLY did its job and made decisions based on all the hard work its biologists do??

Mike

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Privatizing State fish hatcheries.... That might be OK.... Let's think about that for a minute. :-k :-k Selling off the hatcheries would produce some cash for DFG (.... Hopefully not be taken for the General Fund). The private buyer would produce fingerlings/smolts for planting and be paid for their services. 8) 8)

Basic description of steps:

Deciding how much to sell (real property/facilities and equipment or just F&E).

Finding a sponsor (DFG and/or a Legislator. We already have the Governor)

Finding a buyer.

Negotiating purchase price (one time).

Negotiating price and paying for fish stocks (ongoing).

Finding a funding source to pay for fish stocks.

DFG would probably have to guarantee water availability to the hatcheries.

Facilities/equipment are already available.

Replacing certain DFG hatchery staff.

Resolve jurisdiction (who can do what to who/what stuff) issues.

Problems with all of this:

Overcoming political/philosophical objections.

Asking staff who may be displaced to work on the sale of hatcheries (not much incentive).

Funding ongoing costs (license fees :?: ).

Cost control (how to control ever increasing ongoing costs :-k ).

What to do with staff positions vacated :?: (choice of converting to cash or hire staff of another type)

Union issues.

Overcoming potential political meddling. [-o< [-o<

Jurisdiction (who can do what to who/what stuff) issues would have to be resolved.

Liability issues (who's responsible of water isn't available or fish stocks die off before delivery, etc.)

In the interest of not writing ad nauseum on this, Let's stop here. There're many more steps/obstacles to privatization but, so far, nothing that couldn't be overcome. :-k :-k

For my part, I believe that hatcheries do serve a limited purpose. But I'm not sure the thought that private enterprise can do this any better than the state applies here. Without some demonstration of capabilities on the part of the potential buyer, that thought seems like wishful thinking. :nod: :nod:

[fallriverfish]

D.F.G picks and chooses what biological information they wish to use and even retain. Thats the friggin problem. I believe Fish and Game has already had a couple of offers for privatization of the trout hatchery system, gee wizz the salmon program is working so good maybe we should just keep that rolling.

[Darian]

OK,.... Thought my last post might generate some discussion/thought about privatization but I see that frustration is leading to an all out gripe session. ](*,) ](*,)

So, I'm oughta here. It's been a slice.... ;) ;)

[flyfshrmn]

Fish and Game does need to be freed from political manipulation and I think that the Board should be structured so a majority of the members represent sport fishing and hunting. These appointments should be long term with an option for renewal by the appointee, but not subject to removal by politicians for political purposes. There is little doubt that F&G is ineffective due to under staffing and lack of funding. There are far too few enforcement officers and they are grossly underpaid compared to other law enforcement personnel. The courts do not back up F&G laws with proper penalties.

Here's my ideal solution:
1) Pay wardens a comparable salary- same as a deputy sheriff to start.
2) double the enforcement personnel in the field.
3) create a special court for fish and game violators just as we have for family courts and drug courts with mandatory penalties for repeat offenders, including forfeiture of vehicles and equipment. Fines should go back to F&G, not the general fund.
4) enforce the licensing laws - first time offenders for fishing or hunting without a license get one break - charges dismissed if they buy a lifetime license.
5) Get rid of all the damn stamps and report cards - charge a flat fee for a fishing license; or offer a combination license for fishing and hunting. Reduce the current prices for lifetime licenses and offer a lifetime combination fishing and hunting license.
6) The license should come with a stout pin on button with the numbers on it so it can be clipped to a hat , shirt, or vest without danger of loss and will be visible at a distance. You would still have to carry your license, but it would not be subject to easy loss.
7) Enforce the laws; no one should be able to plead ignorance, poverty, immigration status as a reason for getting a fish and game law violation dismissed or reduced. Being poor or illiterate should not be an excuse to take every damn thing you catch home in a bucket. Other courts do not accept such excuses as mitigation for penalties; why should F&G violations be different.
8) Commercial poachers should do jail time and be permanently banned from all fish and game activities.

[Darian]

Hope I'm not incorrect, but it sounds like you would not support an initiative to reorganize DFG.... :) :) :)

[flyfshrmn]

I don't believe a restructure is in order here; just simplify and redefine the mission and give them adequate resources to do their job and find a way to free the department from political pressure and manipulation. The big headache for F&G has been water quality enforcement and is where they got in trouble politically, during Pete the surfer's tenure. When wardens cited his political supporters for water quality violations, he retaliated by cutting the budget to the bone and blocking any increases in personnel, forcing them to fund themselves by raising license fees. It was blatant political retaliation and got no notice in the press and no public response. Can you imagine CHP being treated the same way for giving out speeding tickets to political cronies? If water quality enforcement was shifted to a more appropriate department, say the Division of Water Resources, it would help. but it will still be necessary for F&G to cite people for water violations when they impact fish and game in cases of farm runoff, stream sedimentation, or chemical and oil spills.

[Darian]

Yep,.... I agree with your assessment but am not sure there's any will on the part of the Governor, who is "hell bent for leather", and on course with additional water storage, etc., to do anything that would upset his perceived future.

OK,.... Here's an instance of overlapping authorities/responsibilities (at least partially) to illustrate. :? :?

I can't recite section(s) of the F&G Code but acknowledge there's some authority for DFG to enforce against polluters, etc., where fisheries are impacted. However, it appears that CalEpa has authority over water quality issues and enforcement of their orders. 8) 8) Also, the mission of Department of Water Resources appears to impact the other two departments and all three are part of the California Resources Agency which is run by a cabinet level, politically appointed, agency head. :roll: :roll: No relief in sight.... :( :(

[Kevin Goding]

As an applicant for the warden academy, I tend to agree with my dad, Flfshrman or however he spells his avatar. I get the monthly DFG publication and when you read about the arrests and then see the penalties for the perpetrators its almost laughable the value we place on the wildlife. There is basically no deterrence, the fines are small, and jail times extremely short.

On a side note listen to Bill, when he says money talks, he's correct. Take it from someone who worked in water quality. If you want to run yourself out of the business, go start pointing fingers at polluters who have money behind them, you'll get blacklisted overnight. Getting funds for "monitoring" is great, publishing results "identifying polluters" however is not want they want.

[fallriverfish]

Kevin
Good luck on the warden academy. I agree we put little value on our wildlife resources. The penalties and fines are not appropriate for polluters and poachers. I am glad this discussion at least got some ideas firing around.

[Phil Synhorst]

Some good thoughts all around, nice way to get the conversation started.

My problem would be with privatizing the hatcheries. Private business has One goal and One goal ONLY.....to make money. If you leave the hatcheries in the hands of DFG you have some way, no matter how difficult, to have them run in the PUBLIC INTEREST. Case in point, the county sold off our water and garbage services in my neighborhood to private corps., with the sales pitch that costs would not go up, in fact they would be lower. They were lower by less than $1, for the first few months, then the letters started coming from the companies....."in order to keep up with costs we need to raise your rates"...blah blah blah, so on and so forth.