Waters that won't be stocked with fish

[Scott V]

Taken from SacBee

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y85/PsychoZ/lakes.gif


Alpine County depends heavily on fishing.
Plentiful trout in the sparsely populated area 45 miles southeast of Placerville draw anglers who, in turn, keep restaurants and hotels running.
So when the state Department of Fish and Game this week released a list of lakes and streams that won't be stocked with fish until at least 2010, it landed in Alpine County with a thud.
"These waters are our economy," said Skip Veatch, an Alpine County supervisor and its former sheriff. "If they are not populated our economy is going to go down the drain."
Last week, state Fish and Game officials agreed to stop stocking fish reared in hatcheries – including trout, bass and catfish – in lakes and streams where the practice threatens 16 native fish and nine native frog species. The deal was struck with environmental groups pushing reforms of state hatchery and stocking programs.
After a tense weekend, several communities got the news Monday: The Sierra would be hit hard.
Eleven lakes or streams in Alpine County won't be stocked until at least 2010. Sixteen El Dorado County fishing spots, including large swaths of the American River, won't be stocked. Twenty-two lakes or streams in Nevada County won't be stocked.
In Sacramento County, Lake Natoma will not be supplemented by the state.
"That's trophy trout fishing," said Dan Bacher, editor of the Fish Sniffer, a biweekly magazine for fish enthusiasts, referring to Lake Natoma. "I can't see any reason not to stock that lake."
Bacher said he has mixed feelings about the state's announcement. Fish are threatened in many places, and something needs to be done. But the lakes that won't be stocked seem random, Bacher said. And the wild fish now in those lakes might see their ranks drastically reduced.
"What might seem like a good thing for the environment – if they are putting pressure on the wild population, that's going to have the opposite effect," Bacher said.
Others offered an unqualified endorsement of the new measures.
"A lot of these lakes were historically barren," said David Lass, Northern California field coordinator of Trout Unlimited. "All of these fish have been stocked over the last 100 years, maybe in places they shouldn't have been."
In many cases, Lass said, stocking lakes and streams with hatchery fish has run counter to the state's mission of preserving native species.
"The Department of Fish and Game has kind of just been haphazardly planting fish for recreational value," Lass said. "This will make the Department of Fish and Game take a look at (its) stocking program and be strategic about it."
Others said many fisherman prefer catching wild fish, anyway. Casual fishermen who like easy catches will be disappointed, they say.
Philosophical debates aside, most agree the new rules will have a negative short-term impact on communities that depend on visits from anglers, especially those near the high-altitude, smaller lakes that tended to be targeted.
"Our county is in really bad shape," said Tonya Dowse, executive director of the Siskiyou County Economic Development Council. "So, obviously, this is very bad news."
About three dozen lakes in Siskiyou County will not be stocked by the state until at least 2010 – the highest number in California. Siskiyou is known for its rustic climate, plentiful hiking opportunities – and its fishing.
"We want to make sure nothing goes extinct, but I suppose we're just another place where they've not shown a balance," said Jim Cook, a Siskiyou County supervisor.
That imbalance has created a situation where some counties with multiple lakes that won't be stocked sit next to counties that hardly will be impacted at all.
Many popular fishing lakes, including Folsom Lake and Oroville Lake, will still be stocked.
"We could actually get some traffic coming our way," said Dan Lyster, director of Economic Development for Mono County, which sits directly south of Alpine County. Mono had only one lake on the no-stock list.
The lakes and streams were chosen according to the specific terms of a court order, said Fish and Game spokeswoman Jordan Traverso. The list is still tentative.
One option available to Cook and others is to stock the lakes themselves, Traverso confirmed. But that's unlikely given the tough budget situation many counties are in.
"Alpine County lives on a thread and they're going to destroy the economy," said Melanie Sue Bowers, whose family has owned a cabin on Lower Blue Lake since the 1930s. "What will happen is they are going to condense so many people in the area that the lakes that are going to be stocked are going to be overfished."

[Pez]

I wish they'd cut all the BS and call it as it is. Our friends, the burocrats, run out of money and randomly stop stocking certain lakes. But don't worry, next year your fishing license will go up, and up and up.
When the bait season opens, with no stockings in Putah creek, people wiil be catching and keeping the natives. Good way of protecting the native species!.

[erhetta]

I wish they'd cut all the BS and call it as it is. Our friends, the burocrats, run out of money and randomly stop stocking certain lakes. But don't worry, next year your fishing license will go up, and up and up.
When the bait season opens, with no stockings in Putah creek, people wiil be catching and keeping the natives. Good way of protecting the native species!.



Eventually they will just shut off fishing there. The whole thing seems like a big end-game that is just winding its way to the final stage...seeing a big "No Fishing" sign everywhere....

[MarcP]

I wish they'd cut all the BS and call it as it is. Our friends, the burocrats, run out of money and randomly stop stocking certain lakes. But don't worry, next year your fishing license will go up, and up and up.

Hey Pez,
Is this really a decision that the state made? I know that an environmental group recently won a court case that may put the stocking of many waters on hold until an environmental review is done to assess the impacts on threatened/endangered species.

Here is an article I recently read at Earth Share OR:


Court Orders Review Of California's Harmful Fish Stocking PracticesPress ReleasePatrick Marlette of the Sacramento Superior Court has ruled that California's fish stocking program must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and that the Department of Fish and Game shall conduct a public review of the program's impacts. The ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed in October of 2006 by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity over the Department's longstanding failure to consider the impacts of fish stocking on sensitive aquatic species throughout the state, such as the mountain yellow-legged frog, Cascades frog, California golden trout, McCloud River redband Trout, Santa Ana sucker, and others.

"This ruling is a tremendous victory for California's native fish and frogs," said Deanna Spooner, conservation director of the Pacific Rivers Council. "Now we can work to prevent future harm to these sensitive species from over-stocking of the state's streams, rivers, and lakes."

"The disastrous consequences of stocking non-native trout have been known for decades," commented Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's about time the Department of Fish and Game reviewed the environmental impacts of its stocking program."

Judge Marlette agreed there is "substantial evidence" supporting the argument that the Department's fish stocking program "has significant environmental impacts on the aquatic ecosystems into which hatchery fish are introduced, and, in particular, on native species of fish, amphibians and insects, some of which are threatened or endangered."

To comply with the judge's ruling the Department must conduct a public review of its trout stocking program. The results of the review will be documented in an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") that will govern future fish stocking management decisions. This will be the first opportunity in the state's history for the public to actively participate in how the Department can improve management of the state-wide fish stocking program to better meet the needs of California's native species and recreational anglers.

"The mountain yellow-legged frog has disappeared from more than 90% of its former range in the Sierra Nevada, and introduced trout are an important cause of this decline," stated research biologist Dr. Roland Knapp. "On a hopeful note, a cessation of stocking and the removal of nonnative trout from key waterbodies can allow the recovery of mountain-yellow legged frog populations, as well as other native species and ecosystem processes."

"An EIR means that biologists, not politicians will guide California's fishery management," said Ralph Cutter of Nevada City, renowned angling instructor and author of numerous articles and books on trout fishing. "Finally, we can protect native species such as the golden trout while maintaining or even improving the quality of fishing that we have today."

Anyone else know anything about this?
MarcP

[Tracy Chimenti]

I'm predicting a MAJOR grass roots protest in the small towns, cocessions, etc. People just won't go to Collins and Stumpy.

[Ed Wahl]

This EIR is something that DFG should have done on their own years ago. The horrible thing here in my opinion is the fact that it took a lawsuit to force them to do it.Dumping trout by the millions all over the state has had a significant and almost always bad impact on our native trout.

What's left out of the original post here is the list of waters that WILL be stocked, it's still very long.
The truck chasing hordes aren't totally up s--t creek.
Ed

[Tracy Chimenti]

There's actually two groups-- the kids and neophites that fish for Salmo Pelleti (pronounced salmo pellet-eye), and the trophy guys that that depend on plants to put trout in the double-digits!

Unless lakes like Scotts, Donner, Bowman, Jenkinson and Bear have kokanee, the growth curve for trout will be affected. I know Donner and Bowman have kokes, but the airbrakes on the planter truck are like the dinner bell for fish over 10-pounds.

Interesting, I never knew they planted Stoney Ridge. I've hiked in and float tubed there and once caught a 14-pound mack on a large rainbow Clouser.

Regardless, you are correct-- there are plenty of opportunities. But you are gonna hear it from the local economies.

[roostersgt]

Godd Grief! Now what? Where will all the bait tossers go now? I was happy with them having their easy to catch mutants in the impoundments. Keeps them from catching my "wild ones" and eating them, or throwing them in the freezer to be tossed out a few months later. Geesh! Yet another DFG blunder. I can hardly wait to see the prices of the new licenses. I can hardly wait to join a "fishing club" with private waters, like I've had to do for my hunting opportunities. Won't be long now, we'll be just like England and Europe.

Steve

[jim p]

Waters affected by this deal that historically had native rainbows/steelhead, or are considered “Waters of the U.S” in as such these “Waters” were, or are currently, navigable and/or connected to the Pacific should be managed as a native trout fishery with strict C&R regulations. Keep fishing license cost at the current prices and take the savings from a greatly reduced stocking program and do a budget transfer to the enforcement branch. Hire more fish cops that will look for poachers not hook barbs.

Also, if this deal prevents stocking a native (rainbow trout) species (albeit genetically degraded) because of the supposed threat to other native species why are we still relicensing dams? Are these not a greater threat to the survival of these species?

Oh yeah, greetings, this is my first post with exception to the "Where are you from..." thread.

[Darian]

It was reported in the print media that among the originators of the suit to halt stocking Trout were Trout Unlimited and CalTrout. While I understand the motivations behind this action, the outcome may result in a bunch of unintended consequences. :( :(

[Scott V]

Here is a link to where they will and will not be stocking fish.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/stocking/

[JD]

It was reported in the print media that among the originators of the suit to halt stocking Trout were Trout Unlimited and CalTrout.

Actually incorrect, I believe. The main culpruit is the Center for Biodiversity again. These are the same bunch that torpedoed the Paiute trout restoration project on Silver King Creek a couple of years ago.

[Scott V]

Taken from DFG website:

SACRAMENTO - An order today signed by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette will allow the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to stock more waters than would have been allowed under his Nov. 6 tentative ruling. The order is a result of weeks of negotiation among DFG, and the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, along with their counsel Stanford Legal Clinic.

“DFG fought hard in the negotiations to save its fish stocking programs,” said DFG Director Donald Koch. “We are pleased that the order allows us to continue stocking in a number of areas where the communities depend on fishing.”

The order, with some exceptions, has a broad prohibition against DFG stocking “nonnative” fish in “any California fresh water body” where surveys have demonstrated the presence of 25 specified amphibian or fish species or where a survey for those species has not yet been done. The order does not address the stocking of native fish into native waters.

The order lists exceptions to the prohibition regarding stocking nonnative fish, which include:

Stocking in human-made reservoirs larger than 1000 acres.
Stocking in human-made reservoirs less than 1000 acres that are not connected to a river or stream, or are not within red legged frog critical habitat or where red legged frogs are known to exist.
Stocking as required as state or federal mitigation.
Stocking for the purpose of enhancing salmon and steelhead populations and funded by the Commercial Trollers Salmon Stamp.
Stocking of steelhead from the Mad River Hatchery into the Mad River Basin.
DFG’s Aquarium in the Classroom program.
Stocking actions to support scientific research.
Stocking done pursuant to an existing private stocking permit or to be done under a new permit with terms similar to one that was issued in the last four years.
DFG is preparing a list of waters where stocking will cease based on these parameters. It will be available on the DFG Web site early next week.

In October 2006, Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity, represented by Stanford Law students, sued DFG over fish stocking programs it has engaged in for more than 100 years, claiming that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been completed for the programs. The result of the case was a court order requiring DFG to complete an EIR. DFG is engaged in the years-long and multimillion dollar EIR process, now scheduled to be completed in January 2010.

Due to delays in the EIR process, which involves combining the EIR with a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), on Friday, Nov. 7 Judge Marlette told the department to negotiate with the petitioners to seek an agreement on terms for how and where DFG may continue stocking fish during the time it is preparing the EIR/EIS.

[Darian]

JD,.... Thanks for your observation.... However, if you re-read the post, you'll find that I didn't exclude anyone being involved but reported what I had read. If you take a look at the wording of my statement, it reads in part, "....among the originators....", an inclusive not exclusive declaration. I've since read the same info you've read and find no reason to change my post as you've already added the additional info. :cool:

Now, if the reporter of the original info was incorrect, I suggest you take it up with he/she or it. :cool:

[bigtj]

I think this is great news. They should stop stocking all streams and go to catch and release. Limit plantings to man-made reservoirs.

This means wild trout and less crowded conditions in the long run. The findings of the EIR/EIS will show stocking is irresponsible in some watersheds and require mitigating measures like catch and release and cessation of stocking.

Ask folks in Montana about what the long-term result has been of discontinuing most stocking. The sky did not fall, in the long run it has been a good thing.

[bigtj]

While they are at it they should sue San Francisco Fly Fishers and all the other pay to play places that stock hatchery mutants in wild trout streams. If I never catch another hatchery-raised trout in my life I would be very happy.

[Bob Laskodi]

Darian, you are correct. While the current suit was indeed filed by that whacko (IMNSHO) organization known as CBD, the origins of the EIR requirement being identified to DFG go back many, many years (17 years according to Ralph Cutter) to a suit started by TU. Ralph has posted the best short historical summary of the DFG stocking suit debacle on Dan Blanton's Board at:
http://www.danblanton.com/viewmessage.php?id=113532

[Pez]

While they are at it they should sue San Francisco Fly Fishers and all the other pay to play places that stock hatchery mutants in wild trout streams. If I never catch another hatchery-raised trout in my life I would be very happy.

Sacrileg!!!!!!!!! My cane & silk screamed when I spotted the pen raised mutant!! I will not lowered myselft to hook such and aberration!!!!. C'mon guys if it weren't for the stocks you'd be catching squat!. Let's face it California is a desert with very few native trout. I agree that certain species should be favor and protected, but without the stocks we'd only be catching carp. Oh, I guess that's why they are becoming so popular!.

[bigtj]

"Without stocks we'd be catching squat"

"Without stocks we'd be catching carp"

"California is a desert with very few native trout"

I am laughing my behind off. Come on, you can't be serious. If you are serious, I feel bad because it sounds like you have never really figured out how to catch wild trout consistently, nor understand exactly how awesome of wild trout fisheries are in CA. Anybody who has caught wild trout and hatchery trout knows that hatchery fish are inferior fighters, bring disease, and cost the state a boat load of $$. On the Truckee in Nevada the hatchery fish rarely even make it through the winter, I find them dead in the river and stop catching them by November (thank God for that). Like I said, do some research about what the visionary state of Montana did about hatcheries for river stocking and ask Craig Matthews at Blue Ribbon Fly Shop in West Yellowstone how much folks up there miss hatchery dumps in rivers. Almost any knowledgeable angler you talk to up there will tell you it's the best thing the state ever did.

As far as California having "native" trout are you aware that most of the stocking of rainbow trout across the world in Europe, Austrailia, South America, and New Zealand came from California? Fish from small creeks in the Bay area and the McCloud River have been stocked all over the world. In fact, California probably has historically had one of the most diverse cross-section of unique and interesting strains of trout, including several strains in Tahoe that became extinct due to market fishing. Sure, there are a few fisheries that owe their current wild populations to stockings back in the 1800's (the Truckee is a good example) but to think that California is a desert, with very few native trout, is not only misleading, it's patently false. If you don't believe me, do a web search on Golden Trout, Paiute Cutthroat, Lahontan Cutthroat, Eagle Lake Rainbows, McCloud redside rainbows, or the Little Kern.

All we have to do is take care of the habitat and fisheries and the trout will take care of themselves. They make disease-resistant, high-survival rate babies for free, why not let em? CA has some of the best wild trout fisheries in the country - Kern River, Hat Creek, Fall River, McCloud, Truckee, Pit, Kings, Tuolumne, Stan, East Walker, Hot Creek, Owens, Sac, Yuba, the list goes on and on, and NONE of them need a single fish stocking to continue as viable trout streams with great fishing.

Hatchery dumps are fine for the whack 'em crowd on man-made lakes but they have no place in our wild and free rivers.

OUR RIVERS DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' HATCHERY MUTANTS!!!!

[Terry Thomas]

This has been a very interesting thread. I will enclose the latest partial report from the Native Fish Society. Most of the report deals with the issues facing our wild trout and steelhead. For the full report, several pages long, check the Native Fish Society's site.

NATIVE FISH SOCIETY
CONSERVATION REPORT
NUMBER Six
2008

By Bill Bakke, Director
__________________________________________________ ______________


HATCHERIES ARE AN ECOLOGICAL RISK TO WILD SALMONIDS. In her 2008 study Kathryn Kostow, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, added evidence for ecological risk to wild salmonids from hatchery fish. The following are excerpts from this paper with a few comments from me and others. Let me just say that ecological interactions between hatchery released fish, progeny of hatchery spawners, and wild salmonids has been, until recently in a few scientific papers, largely overlooked. The emphasis has been directed toward genetic impacts of hatchery fish breeding with wild fish and the loss of fitness and reproductive success of wild salmonids. This is a justified concern, but the first impact and one that is repeated annually is that of competition for food, rearing areas, disease transmission and predator attraction from hatchery fish on wild fish. Both factors, genetic introgression and ecological effects, must be taken into full account when protecting wild fish, a legal mandate under state and federal law. I encourage you to read the full paper by Ms. Kostow, and you can find it on the Native Fish Society web page at: http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/biblio/wild_vs_hatchery/documents/Kostow2008h-wecologicalimpacts.pdf

[Phil Synhorst]

Good God!!!!.....Thanks Terry.

I always knew that hatchery fish had a negative impact on wild ones, but I never thought it would be that bad.

[Mike O]

we talk about the hatchery fish with nothing said about the real culprits...dynamite the dams. Most of the fishing most of us do around Sac is tailwater fishing. A lot of the fish aren't "native" to those areas because they are not "native" areas in the natural sense. I don't have a problem protecting "native fish"......but.....Putah Creek??? What "natives" make it above Solano Dam? Like a previous poster said, now the catch 'em and bonk 'em folks will have nothing to do there.

And more importantly, where can I develop a sense of "home water" for my kid? IMHO most "hatchery mutants" (in trout streams) don't live long enough to degrade the gene pool, and those that do probably have decent genetics. Have any of you noticed much difference between a holdover and a wild fish, in terms of the sporting quality?

If you want to release, release. But let me take my kid somewhere it doesn't take much skill to catch fish, so I can get him hooked enough for him to be OK with getting skunked the next time.

[590Mike]

I am beginning to see the best solution as being stock everything, and remove catch and release restrictions.Then we will have the best smartest wild fish, and anyone who wants trout for dinner can help themselves. That will shut up the tourist industy and the purists both at the same time. We can get the Upper Sac like it was before the chemical spill and that dang "movie"

[troutbm]

Maodiver theres a hell of alot of places to take your son fishing were you and he can catch bueatifull wild trout all day long, If you do your homework you can easily locate waters that will I guess say amaze you with there numbers. They may be 4 to 10 inches but its still fun, Especially for a youngster.

[Darrin.Deel]

c&r wild fish... bonk the planters

[Mike O]

Amen Darrin.

And as far as lots of places...I've been lots of places...none of them would/could be considered home water for Woodland