Trout plants halted at the following...

[Tracy Chimenti]

...so much for my crisp, winter no-brainer trolling outings at Indian Valley Reservoir for scrappy Ealge Lake Rainbows... This from one of Tom Stienstra's columns... It seems that collateral damage is the word of the day!



No stocks
Notable lakes and streams that will not be stocked in the future include (north to south):

Bay-Delta region: Contra Costa County: Lafayette Res., San Pablo Res.; Marin County: Alpine Lake, Bon Tempe Res., Lagunitas Lake; Napa County: Lake Hennessey; Santa Clara County: Cottonwood Lake, Coyote Res., Lexington Res., Stevens Creek Res.; Santa Cruz County: Loch Lomond Res.; Solano County: Putah Creek, Lake Solano.

North Central region: Alpine County: Alpine Lake, Upper Blue Lake, Carson River (both East Fork and West Fork), Mosquito Lake, Silver Creek, Spicer Meadows Res., Union Res. Amador County: Lake Amador, Bear River Res., Mokelumne River. Butte County: Paradise Res., Thermalito Forebay.

Calaveras County: White Pines Lake; Colusa County: Letts Lake. El Dorado County: American River, both Silver Fork and South Fork; Echo Lakes, Ice House Res., Jenkinson Lake, Stumpy Meadows Res., Taylor Creek, Wrights Lake. Glenn County: Plaskett Meadow Pond.

Lake County: Upper Blue Lake, Cache Creek, Indian Valley Res., Lake Pillsbury. Nevada County: Boca Res., Bowman Lake, Donner Lake, Lyons Lake, Martis Creek Res., Prosser Res. Rollins Lake, Scott Flat Lake, Lake Spaulding; Placer County: Sugar Pine Res., Truckee River. Plumas County: Antelope Lake, Middle Fork and North Fork Feather River, Jamison Creek, Spanish Creek. Sacramento County: Lake Natoma. Sierra County: Little Truckee River, Yuba River.

Northern region: Humboldt County: Freshwater Lagoon. Siskiyou County: Castle Lake, Dobkins Lake, Gumboot Lake, Big Hancock Lake, Sky High Lakes, Taylor Lake, Toad Lake, Paradise Lake, many others in Trinity Alps, Russian and Marble Mountain Wilderness areas. Trinity County: Boulder Lake, Bull Lake, Grizzly Lake, Tamarack Lake. Lassen County: Ash Creek. Modoc County: South Fork Pit River.

Central region: Kern County: Kern River. Tulare County: Kaweah River, lower Kern River. Tuolumne County: South Fork Stanislaus River.

[bigtj]

Good news. See this link:

http://www.calsport.org/12-17-08.htm

When all is said and done everybody will be glad that DF&G did an EIR, in the long run it will mean better fish management policies. It's time they started thinking about what they are doing to our trout populations.

[Darian]

I recognize the need for EIR's but this case is so loaded with emotion and overstated, as in the comparison with what Montana has chosen (apples to oranges comparison), that it smacks of yet another attempt to exclude human contact. Even the interim settlement that bans stocking in specified waters makes little sense. :confused: Take for example that the settlement excludes "....private hatcheries....". I find it difficult to understand that this provision allows continued stocking of hatchery fish in the Smith River where it's clear that native and hatchery fish have co-existed since at least the mid '70s. I'd think that river would be one that would benefit from some real science. :neutral:

What is it that makes people forget that they condemn DFG policies on one hand and applaud them on the other.... :question: :rolleyes: Has everyone forgotten how they condemned DFG for the political influence used to trump science within state government :question: Why is it that people think that the only target of this proposed EIR is Trout :question: :confused: There's a bunch of amphibians out there that will be studied, as well. :cool:

Frankly, I believe that this might be a case of being careful what you wish for as you just might get it. As for me, I'll stand by the statement by H. L. Menken in my signature line (below) :cool: :cool:

[bigtj]

I don't see anything apple and orange about what Montana has done in comparison to CA. Montana thought, hey, is this stocking thing really working? So they studied it. Guess what? It wasn't (duh, I could have told you that). Their forward-looking fish and game divsion decided to stop stocking, and most folks had a freak-out session about it. Which was totally unjustified, because in the long run fishing has just gotten better.

I don't understand why people are so scared by EIRs. I have been involved in dozens of EIS's and EIR's over the past decades. The results are generally fair and reasonable. And it's the law. If we don't like them then we need to change the legislation. But if anybody wants to go back to the days before environmental regulations, now that would be something that would be very, very scary.

Anybody who thinks that there isn't a good reason for this EIR should take a look at the facts. In order for an EIR to even get off the ground, the pertinent agencies have to look at the problem and see if there is any meat to the situation. Well in this case there is a big list of all the reasons why hatchery programs could be detrimental to the environment:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/Impacts_Identified_Board.pdf

Keep in mind that just because the way we do things now is detrimental doesn't mean it has to be that way. The EIR will identify mitigating measures and risk, so that the worst-case situations can be dealt with, and the lesser offenders mitigated. Does anybody think it's a good idea to just blindly move ahead with the staus quo and not look at what can be done better and smarter to protect native species, especially endangered fish and amphibians?

The whole reason that this decision has come to pass is the DF&G wasn't astute enough to keep it from happening. CEQA isn't exactly a new thing. If you don't give the opposition the opportunity to take you to court, you don't get sued. And lose. It's not a complicated formula.

The simple fact is that DF&G has been irresponsibly following outdated policies on fish planting for years. Now I'm not saying they have done this maliciously, clearly they have had a mandate for over 100 years to do what they do. And I think we have to give them credit for the wild trout programs, especially for the recent opening of winter fisheries, but come on the dragging of feet on this stocking issue is justifiably their own fault.

[Darian]

Bigtj,.... You, ....uhhhh....., wouldn't be promoting this EIR so heavily on all of the BB's you're visiting because you might be one of the potential contractors, would you :question: :question: Hmmmm :question: :question:

The notion that it's valid to compare Montana to California is beyond me. The only thing that's the same between what Montana did and what we may choose to do is the choice itself and the outcome of that decision (good or bad) is yet to be determined. I'd like to point out why the differences between California and Montana are so wide. For example:

Economically, California is, arguably, the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. You can't even see Montana from there. Not much industry up there, either. Mineral development and ranching....

Montana is the 4th largest state in area yet the 44th state in human population (total: 944,632 - 2006). California has a population somewhere near 36 million as of the same year.

Montana is underdeveloped as illustrated by the number of private, non-farming building permits issued in 2005: 4,542. California issued 35,736 permits in that same period. (1 year)

The habitat (riparian, rivers and streams) of this state is in a rapid state of decline with water quality and availability always in question; whether northern, southern, west or eastern Sierra and even at altitude.... Montana has little or no shortage of water or at least it's not a constant.

Demands on water supplies from outside state borders are not too evident in montana. Demands for run-off water from the east side of the Sierra's comes from both, Nevada and Arizona for agriculture and population centers.

There're too many more differences between the two states to list here. Montana's choice was probably not made with the benefit of an EIR, either. They had the luxury of not being involved with EPA (Cal or fed) and the outcry from the people of Montana at the choice their DFG made must've been less than dynamic, given their population numbers....

Can't disagree with the theory behind an EIR.... I am, however, cynical about the potential for political influence over the outcome. One thing I've learned after watching state government up close and personal for apprximately 38 years is that if things can go wrong, they will (Murphy's Law). Frankly, The conclusion that the EIR will "....identify mitigating measures...." brings to mind the thought that hatcheries were seen as mitigation for loss of spawning grounds when dams or blockages were constructed, here. the issue about the exemption for private hatcheries is another example of what I was getting at.

It gives me peace of mind to know that there're people in the world who are so certain about the outcome of studies undertaken by governmental agencies before they're even initiated.... :roll: Given the state of our current budget/revenues, it seems to me that this EIR won't get done in the time frame provided, will end up in lengthy litigation and make a bunch of contractors and lawyers a whole lot of money.... But that's OK 'cause we have pronounced it a success, apriori. :lol: :lol:

[Darian]

Sorry, I can't agree with you guys (Tristan & Bigtj). The first part of my last post was more sarcasm than an attack, but.... :-\"

Let's clarify something. I don't believe that "....government studies are wrong...." Studies are never wrong (maybe not necessary). I've certainly participated in more than my share of them. What I've seen is tampering with outcomes to support hidden agendas and that's what I'm cynical about. As I said previously, this EIR hasn't even been initiated and we're already saying it will be a success. I wonder if the EIR will be considered a success if it turns out that stocking of hatchery raised fish is OK, here....

As to the rest,.... I'm not convinced. Lets see what shakes out before pronouncing success.... :nod:

[bigtj]

Darian,

I could care less for you throwing bombs my way, it's not big deal, I really don't care what you think about me. Doing what you suggested would be a conflict of interest and against my code of ethics as a professional engineer. If I were working as a consultant for DF&G on this you would not hear a peep from me on it. (Tristan my location has nothing to do with the project, agencies like DF&G often use expert consultants from all over the US, so location is irrelevant). I am not a contractor, just passionate about doing the right thing and not having knee-jerk reaction like all the ill-informed anglers that are freaking out because their hatchery meat-wagon has just left the state.

All I am trying to say is that stocking without looking at the consequences is foolish, short-sighted, and whatever falls out of this EIR will be a step in the right direction and in the long run we will be glad it happened. I am not saying it will be perfect, or without flaws, it's just that policies will be changed so that a blind eye will no longer be turned at what effects fish stocking will have. And they will find that in most cases wild trout fisheries are better for the environment and result in higher trout densities that are more disease resistant, more resilient to drought, and less likely to create long-term problems for the ecosystem. And just to be perfectly clear, if the EIR determines that stocking certain lakes and rivers is OK and it has the data to support it (and I'm sure it will) then it think that's great. What I would be you $1,000 right now is that the EIR WILL find that at least a portion of the stocking is a threat, and the stocking procedure will change, be mitigated, or be halted, and in the long run that will be a good thing because it is harmful to our fisheries and ecosystem.

Tristan,

Well I can always count on you to correct me. DUH!!! by "any meat to the situation" of course I was talking to a finding of significant potential for environmental effects, I was trying to simplify and use non-technical jargon so that Darian or other readerswould get the gist of what I was saying. Like I was saying, and EIR can't get off the ground if there isn't any reason not to do it, i.e. if there aren't potentially significant effects. Of course in this case Part of both the NEPA and CEQA process is to evaluate whether a project needs a full blown EIR/EIS. There are plenty of resources on the web on the CEQA process if anybody is interested check it out:

http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/flowchart/index.html

If the project is exempt, because it doesn't present the potential for significant effects, then and EIR isn't necessary. My point is if there wasn't a real threat to the environment, from a basic standard, there wouldn't be an EIR happening. Well guess what? Fish stocking is a potentially significant threat to the environment, so we got us an EIR. And about time.

By the way I think the reason why they aren't looking at private hatcheries under this EIR is that that would have to be done on a case-by-case basis because the private hatcheries are private entities. I suspect that the enviro groups may go after some of the bigger private hatcheries next. I don't think you can lump the private all together in with DF&G. I wish they could be lumped in but I am pretty sure the legislation on CEQA definitions of "agencies" make it so they can't. If anybody knows why the aren't going after the private hatcheries I'd like to know but I bet that's it. Got to start somewhere first I guess.

-John

[Darian]

Bombs....:question: :question: C'mon John.... :rolleyes: I explained that the comment in my post was more sarcasm than an attack. So, neither you or Tristan needs to get your shorts in a bunch.... It isn't "heated" from my end and, frankly, I don't understand how you could see any of this as a personal attack. :cool: If you do, that's too bad. :-|

Believe it or not, we've just been having a debate over differing opinions here and my positions are just as passionate as yours. Thus, we're gonna debate/disagree. I think that's OK. If you're unable to do that without feeling as though you've been attacked, maybe you shouldn't participate. :confused:

I just don't accept all of your ideas about the outcome of a study, that as yet has not begun, as anything but premature. Nor do I accept that a comparison of the choice made by Montana to what you believe would happen here is valid. As I have said, we're not destined to agree on this, at this point in time. If it turns out that you're correct, later. I'll be the first to acknowledge it. :nod:

As you've pointed out, we're all entitled to our opinions. I've based mine on prior personal experiences with governmental studies (usually in acquisitions or staff areas) and the potential for hidden agendas or unanticipated outcomes. Also, I've based my comments about the comparison between the two states on statistical info about them (far too much to post here) and available to anyone who cares to investigate it. :)

Finally, I think you may've jumped to a conclusion about my position in this. You appear to think I want the current status to remain as it is. That's incorrect. I believe things will have to change (and will regardless of completing an EIR) but studying something that took 17 years to come to the top of the courts docket indicates how important the administration and justice systems in this state care about it. :-| Remember, the same managers/staff members at DFG that have avoided this EIR for 17 years are the ones who'll complete the study (provided Tristan is correct about it being done in-house). :rolleyes:

Now, I'm fairly sure that we've talked about this enough. So, from my end, I'm going to wait and see what happens.... :cool:

Happy Holidays, John (sincerely) :)

[Frank Alessio]

Is this a Study or a Law Suit by an Environmental Group??????????

[bigtj]

Darian,

Well Darian I agree to disagree, you made your comments personal with or without sarcasm they are personally pointed at me and my ethics so I'll leave that up to you to be responsible for. Those little emoticons and later comments don't change the words in your post that accused me of having a personal stake in this matter. You intimated, in a public place where anybody can view, that I was using a public forum to sway opinion about a job that I had a financial stake in. That would be unethical and wrong. if your comments aren't personal, then I don't know what they are. And, rather than taken shots back at you, I simply cleared the air on your comment, and did not take the opportunity to make my reply personal.

At any rate, I have to laugh because we do seem to find ourselves on either side of the fence from time to time. Your points are well taken, we both want the same thing (good fishing and healthy trout populations) so let's say merry christmas and call it good until the draft comes out.

Frank,

An EIR is a government-mandated study about the potential environment consequences of a "project". It can be anything from a coal mine to a nuclear waste depository. In this case the "project" is fish stocking and hatchery operations. What happens is this - the "lead agency" sponsors a scientific study that has to identify the affected resource(s) and potential environmental consequences of the project (in this case DF&G will be the lead agency), the level of those consequences, and how they can be mitigated. Usually the study is done by experts hired by the lead agency, usually environmental consulting companies that have world-renowned experts on their staffs. The study goes through extensive review by the public and other agencies such as the USF&WS, EPA, DOI, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. At the end of the day a decision is made about what the consequences are of the "project", if it can go forward (in this case continue to operate) and what mitigating measures need to be taken to offset the environmental consequences of the project. If the findings of the EIR are grossly inadequate or wrong, they can later be challenged in court. Post-EIR legal challenges are a rare occurrence that are usually associated with the most controversial issues, but I could see this one being a candidate, let's hope not. DF&G has a lot to lose if they come up with a crap EIR so I don't think it will happen, they need to be on their toes on this one or they will really shoot themselves in the foot.

The lawsuit part of this EIR so far happened prior to the EIR, the DF&G got sued because they did not finish an EIR yet even though they should have and they are still stocking without knowledge of the potential environmental consequences.

The best analogy I can think of for the present situation would be if somebody built a coal fired power plant prior to CEQA enactment and it was continuing to put out above-standard emissions and the power company got sued so that they had to do an EIR to see what the emissions were doing to the environment. Then an agreement could be made with the power company to operate at some lower production rate with safer emissions while the EIR was being done so the plant would not have to be shut down. That's basically what is happening here with the stocking.

[jbird]

Very intersting thread going here...

Jay

[Darian]

John,.... Sorry if you were offended. However, given your profession and your comments in this and other threads about your expertise and participation in completion of several other EIR's and on this subject, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that you might be a contractor/consultant to Cal DFG in this one. Thus, my question was/is legitimate (whether offensive in yours eyes or not). Had we been in a face to face discussion, I would've asked the same question and expected a rationale answer. Difficult to do that on-line without room for misinterpretation....

I do take issue with part of your statement that:

"....rather than taken shots back at you, I simply cleared the air on your comment, and did not take the opportunity to make my reply personal."

In a prior post, you characterized anyone who would disagree with you as those having a knee jerk reaction. Further, that they were:

"....like all the ill-informed anglers that are freaking out because their hatchery meat-wagon has just left the state."

You apparently don't see that as a personal comment and it's not much of an insult (very condescending) but in light of your comment about not making your reply personal is a bit like the "pot calling the kettle black" don't you think.... (I'll leave the emoticon's out of this).... OK, enough of that.

I think we're on the same side of the fence, actually. The only real difference is that you're only able to see a single outcome to this study. I see the potential for more than one outcome (including yours) and they aren't all good.

BTW, The latter part of your post (directed to Frank) has some very good info in it. If the outcome of the EIR is as you see it happening, I see the potential for litigation over that outcome as very high for the reason that 2 or 3 years ago, AB-7 was passed, guaranteeing funding for publicly owned hatchery activities. Passage was widely supported by people in SoCal and the author/sponsor of the legislation is now a major republican player in the state legislature....

[Frank Alessio]

Great Discussion........ Merry Christmas Guys and Gals on the Board... I hope We all have

A real fine fun New Year of Fishing..... Frank Alessio

[Tracy Chimenti]

It looks like stocking will likely remain where it is applicable, barring delays in determining viability and stockability. Personally, I like wild trout and I want to see more of them.

Eagle Lake trout are an excellent control for lakes with rough fish and are planted all over the state for this reason. Indian Valley Res. is infested with minnows and squaw fish and so the table is set for these rainbows. This is an excellent place to plant them, but since the impoundment is bound by the surface acre requirement, it will likely have a lapse in planting. I'm hoping that somebody doesn't come along and claim that the limited tailwater below the dam has to be protected from hatchery-born vectors and that we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater! This type of thing is really my only concern.

I think we all would rather see wild, square-tailed bullets in our rivers, but I want to see effective, accurate, non-emotional decision making.

[Darian]

Tracy,.... You brought up a point that I hadn't really considered up to now; that of releasing fish (Trout) from lakes where fish are not able to spawn naturally as at Eagle Lake. Those Trout are spawned artificially in a trap in Pine Creek (trib. to Eagle Lake) and then maintained in a state run hatchery until released. Brood stock for Eagle Lake Trout are maintained at Crystal Lake Hatchery. This is done to facilitate spawning of a Trout that occurs in Eagle Lake but is blocked from reaching spawning areas by low water, etc.

So far, we've only discussed the single outcome of reduction or elimination of stocked fish in favor of naturally spawned fish as a result of the EIR.

In the case of Eagle Lake Trout, they originated in Eagle Lake but were blocked from spawning naturally. In this case, mitigation has already occurred to allow a native fish to procreate, artificially, and be released to its native waters. Thus, providing continuity....

I don't recall seeing a ban on stocking at Eagle Lake but, I suppose, that could be one potential consequence of the study.... There're other lakes in this category (Heenan Lake, etc.).

Stuff like this makes it difficult to conduct a "one size fits all" EIR without unintended consequences.... The original plaintiffs in the litigation wanted to complete an EIR for each body of water where stocking occured. The result of discussions is the settlement we're seeing, now. Can you imagine how much time and money it would take to meet that requirement in this state????....

[Tracy Chimenti]

I'm gonna tell my boy to forget being a fireman... be a biologist!

[Darian]

Good advice. I'd add that neither profession is a bad choice. :cool: :cool:

[590Mike]

Merry Christmas Frank and good fishing to you!

I normally ignore the hot air that passes across this site,not today!

I am going to use little short commonfolk layman words. So when I reread this I won't have to move my lips to understand everything. The CA DFG has been addressing the "take and place" wants of sportsfishing for sometime. People for some time wanted to catch and eat fish. Unfortunatley most end up in the freezer and get thrown out 6 months later.hence place =hatchery fish. Ok if only 1/2% of this states population fished and each took 5 fish we run out of fish, fast. Hence hatchery fish. As things have changed,C&R is becoming more recognized. The quest is now for pristine wild, and pure strain of fish otherwise it is substandard. Get the hell off your high horse ! ( should the hs' been capitalized?). Is it time to change? Maybe

I know this,residents of California have been hearing about EIRs and results for a while. It goes something like this.... Well that way is stupid outdated , expensive and wrong, so were going to do it this way which is the only right way to do it and you are going to like it." Example....hydroelectric plants, dams, water diversion especiallly Red Bluff. Again we're going to be happy. This is coming from a state run by Democrats for the last 40 years so the last 8 years of federal administration isn't the patent holder on altered studies or hidden reports.

Quite frankly any contractor/consultant or vendor that is willing to go on a public forum and berate " the last 100 years of policy" and use insinuations like "not astute enough" irresponsible, short sighted and so on is clearly unethical. You are saying "that dept is incompetent, hire me." Some folks might be impressed I for one am not.

Are planters bad for the "wild fisheries" ? Most likely, does something need to be done about it ? Maybe, maybe not. Hatchery fish are raised to be taken and they are not pure wild fish, wild fish don't do well in concrete tanks. Its clear if we want wild fish,fix wild habitat. Hold water levels stable, stop de-watering redds, remove silt from spawing beds and the fish will return. ( I'm referring to streams at the moment). This worked on the Trinity and will work else where ( archive Flyfisherman mag "Wild vs Hatchery steelhead").And while I'm at it let's close the American River above Sunrise bridge, permanantly!!

I made a couple phone call while writing this. My grandfathers friend who retired DFG after 36 years. He says I need to go fishing. He also asked which part of the environment would be studied? Impact of food for eagles? Too many frogs what? When someone is trying to push a study you can bet someone is gonna make money.

[bigtj]

Mike,

Funny stuff my man, if I wanted to make some extra bucks do you really think I would try to troll around on a BB for fame and wealth or maybe clients? Great business model, hang out with a bunch of geeks online, and anonymously troll for new business contacts while arguing about trout stocking. I can just see the $$ rolling in my pocket right now. I'm not a contractor, consultant or vendor to this project, and even if I was the thought of gaining money hanging out with this crowd is the biggest joke I've seen since Tropic Thunder. I could make a lot more money selling the Sunday times at the shopping mall.

Look you guys we can try to hold on to the ideas taught to us by grandpappy, or we can move ahead into the 21st century. Look at all the good things that have fallen out of environmental regs in the past 25 years. If I remember correctly, 25 years ago there was still a 2-fish limit on southern california steelhead and a 10-fish limit on wild trout in the Truckee. What do we have now? Catch and release, an emphasis on wild trout, habitat improvements, a real effort to save wild steelhead especially endangered southern california steelhead, the possibility of dam removal on Matilija Creek, Malibu Creek, and maybe even the Klamath. The trout fishing just keeps getting better and better. Do we really just want the status quo, or even revert back to the olden days, or do we want something better? Personally I am all for moving ahead.

Regardless of what anybody thinks or says here, when this EIR goes final things are going to change, for better or worse. I just happen to think it will be for the better.

[David Lee]

......hanging out with a bunch of geeks online .......



We're not REALLY geeks , are we ? Hmmmmmmm ...........

David

[bigtj]

Sorry David, face it we ARE geeks.

By the way here is a summary of the information I have on why I think DF&G only has themselves to blame for the situation they are in. I am not singling out people who work there, there are some great folks, but overall the department has some huge issues (if you are interested in what DF&G employees really think about the department, check this out:http://www.peer.org/pubs/surveys/1998_ca_fishandgame.pdf

This info is from a blog on the topic, and it really puts a lot of perspective on the situation. As anglers we should all be REALLY PISSED OFF about the situation we are in. If DF&G had been forward thinking, the EIR would have been done 5 years ago and no temporary injunctions would be needed. Anyway, read on:


By the late-1990s, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) was increasingly under fire for its failure to consider the impacts of its Sierra Nevada fish stocking program on native aquatic species, including the mountain yellow-legged frog. Despite an unprecedented effort by the CDFG to survey the thousands of lakes and ponds under their jurisdiction for amphibians and nonnative trout (and the resulting internal report describing widespread impacts of nonnative trout on amphibians), the CDFG never formalized any fish stocking guidelines designed to minimize impacts to Sierra Nevada ecosystems. I suppose the logic was that if there was no official CDFG policy, then the stocking program could not be held to account. Rumors of internal (unofficial) policy changes circulated for years, but it was clear that these guidelines were not being followed consistently across the Sierra Nevada. If changes were made to the fish stocking program, they were made behind closed doors and were never disclosed to the public.

Despite an overwhelming body of scientific evidence pointing to impacts of nonnative trout on Sierra Nevada lake ecosystems, the CDFG continued to claim that the stocking program was except from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA was signed into law in 1970 to ensure that projects carried out by public and private entities (including State agencies) were conducted such that significant effects on the environment were avoided or mitigated. As I wrote in a chapter in the 1996 Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final report (Volume 3, Chapter 8), the CDFG claim that the fish stocking program did not have the potential to cause environmental impacts and was therefore except from CEQA was clearly not justified.

Several environmental groups, particularly Trout Unlimited, Pacific Rivers Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity, repeatedly warned the CDFG that unless the fish stocking program was modified to reduce environmental impacts they would challenge the CEQA exemption that the CDFG had claimed for 35 years. Once again, denial ruled the day and stocking continued as usual. On October 5, 2006, the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic sued the CDFG on behalf of the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that all further fish stocking throughout California be halted until the CDFG complied with CEQA.

On May 4, 2007, the Court ruled that the CDFG fish stocking program is not exempt from CEQA and that the CDFG is violating CEQA by their failure to conduct an environmental review of the program (ruling available here). In response, the CDFG agreed to write an Environmental Impact Report for the stocking program by late 2008. So, for the first time in the history of this program the CDFG will finally have to disclose to the public the program's scope, impacts, and mitigations. I'm hopeful this disclosure will result in a fish stocking program that is more closely guided by the best available science. That can only lead to better management of California's recreational fisheries. It's too bad it took a lawsuit to achieve this end.[/QUOTE]

[bigtj]

One more source of info, then I'll give it a rest, I've already said too much.

Check out this information from CalTrout. I think CalTrout is a great and balanced organization. Their summary of the hatchery moratorium exactly mirrors my thoughts on the situation, and it's worth reading:

http://www.caltrout.org/article.asp?id=379&bc=1

Merry Christmas everyone.

[Darian]

John,.... After reading the results of the survey under the headings, It certainly seems that it tends to support my conclusion about the potential for hidden agenda's and unintended consequences in completing EIR's by DFG (sorry Tristan). Of course, I'll concede that the survey was completed in the '90s. Maybe things have improved there.... :confused:

Your post says the quoted text was posted somewhere. Would you mind sharing where (link) :question:

Was the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project part of the PEER review or a state sponsored project :question:

I notice you cite the CEQA as signed into law during the '70s. I recall thinking, at the time, that CEQA was finally gonna start to turn things around. It's probably been as effective as population density, human activities, rampant development and dis-functional governmental activities have allowed it to be within the borders of this state.... ](*,)

[590Mike]

First off if they would have listened to the guys in the field 30-40 years ago most of this wouldn't be happening. My grandfather talked to us about the salmon with most of their heads rubbed off trying to get upstream through the diversion dam.Then changes to the fish ladder. After more decline of salmon the center gate was opened after years of decline. But as my grandpappy as you called him (in a poor attempt to be condesending ) Along with quite a few other lowly field DFG warden etc. Have been saying for years fix the damned spawning beds and close them off !

Now I am sure this is anecdotal to you but I really don't care.

Now you have made an attempt to skirt the State of California contract issue which tells me you have worked on project for this state. Reread my first post.

The easiest way to put it.... Read Darians signature it says it all.

[Darian]

After reading the balance of the PEER article. I'm really disappointed with some of the comments, quoted, from DFG staff. I recognize that the thoughts are a result of low morale levels but.... DFG probably needs to have a portion of their current responsibilities reassigned to another appropriate agency/department. Their current responsibilities make for competing and divided priorities.... :confused: From personal contacts with DFG managers and what is quoted in the PEER article, (IMHO) they may be responsible to complete the EIR but are ill suited to do so. John, I'm sorry I can't share your positive outlook on this.

I used to laugh every time Berney Richter used to propose legislation that would divide the state in half (....at one point, he proposed dividing it by three). Never did figure out whether he did that with "tongue in cheek" or not. Considering the paralysis by our leaders on the current budget and many other issues, I'm beginning to see that as the real solution. It would at least cause a reconstruction/review of current water policies and contracts. I'm wandering off point here.... :rolleyes:

[Tracy Chimenti]

About 15-years ago the Department of Fish and Game was placed under the auspices of the Resource Agency. It's thinned out the staff, clouded their mission, and diverted decreasing financial resources to areas that aren't so important to hunters and fishermen.

[bigtj]

Mike,

30-40 years ago a lot (not all) people "in the field" for DF&G still thought dams + hatcheries = just fine returns. Heck that line of thinking was still a big factor with some biologists I've talked to over the past couple of decades in California, Oregon, and Washington. That line of thinking that hatcheries are the solution has lead to and endless boom-bust cycle of declining native runs of anadramous fish, whirling disease outbreaks, and huge operating costs. If that's your idea of a good solution, then I'll pass. We still have a lot to learn about fisheries management, but to say we knew more about fisheries management in the 1950's than what we do today is a pretty long stretch of the imagination.

As far as your insistence that I work for the State of California, well I guess you are entitled to your opinion but take another look at the last word in Darian's signature, that would pretty much sum up your position on my list of clients. Besides, who cares who I work for - it has nothing to do with this issue.

Happy New Year folks

[590Mike]

What I am saying is we have been told a lot of crap over the years and have been told by people like you how right you are.
I have been told if we clean up the natural habitat and keep people from walking through spawing beds the wild fish population will be stronger than
any stocked fishery. That is basic, simple.Clearly something you are against. Wild fish have the genetics to surive,hatchery fish are bred and raised to live in a different environment and can live without being the strongest of the species. So the gene pool is stronger in wild fish. Basic biology.

Your implication that I said we knew more about fisheries managment in the 50's is inacurate, and you know it. Science didn't know how photosynthesis worked until the late 60's or early 70's so I know better.
And quite frankly trying to say I thought hatcheries are a solution is a load,but you knew that also.
Also, if you accecpt money in any way from any California agency regarding this issue and then bemoan the policies or actions of this state your integrity is clearly flawed! Meaning you cannot stand behind your "professional code of ethics" as being above question.

[jbird]

What I am saying is we have been told a lot of crap over the years and have been told by people like you how right you are.
I have been told if we clean up the natural habitat and keep people from walking through spawing beds the wild fish population will be stronger than
any stocked fishery. That is basic, simple.Clearly something you are against. Wild fish have the genetics to surive,hatchery fish are bred and raised to live in a different environment and can live without being the strongest of the species. So the gene pool is stronger in wild fish. Basic biology.

Your implication that I said we knew more about fisheries managment in the 50's is inacurate, and you know it. Science didn't know how photosynthesis worked until the late 60's or early 70's so I know better.
And quite frankly trying to say I thought hatcheries are a solution is a load,but you knew that also.
Also, if you accecpt money in any way from any California agency regarding this issue and then bemoan the policies or actions of this state your integrity is clearly flawed! Meaning you cannot stand behind your "professional code of ethics" as being above question.

Talk about code of ethics?!! Lay off man. This thread has gone straight to the rats.

[Tracy Chimenti]

Suffice it to say that effectively managing a flourishing wild trout population in an environment that is resource deficient, is about on par with the managing of hatchery fish with same. I find these terms to be mutually exclusive, but am hoping this paper dream can fly with hot, little, or no water at all... and with minimal expense. Is that asking for too much?

Tracy

[flytyinfreak]

you know what I don't like?..... They didn't change any harvest rules for any of the non-stocked waters! What are they thinking? as far as Montana v Oregon, remember there are more cows in Montana then there are people! The trout fishing population of California is going to devastate the trout population of this stat! MARK MY WORDS! It is idiotic government intervention with little of no forethought that has my wife and I planning on taking our combined 200k a year income and tax base out of this state and go where there are still trout and intelligent environmental governing bodies! goodbye yall. we'll be out of here by the end of 09

[Ed Wahl]

Must..........Resist.........

Whew, I almost got sucked into this.:-# :\\

[Scott V]

Must..........Resist.........

Whew, I almost got sucked into this.:-# :\\

Just walk away Ed and don't look back.

[jbird]

Hey Ed...come 'ere! Theres a little fire burning over hear, come on over and get warm. Tell us a little story as long as you're here ;-)

[bigtj]

Flytyin freak,

Agree totally, should be some temporary reg changes, those may be forthcoming we need to see what happens. Hopefully this spring, before the start of trout season. It's not to late to write a letter to DF&G, to see if they'll listen. A lot of folks are already suggesting this measure. I think it's a great idea.

As far as looking elsewhere for better trout fishing, be aware the grass isn't always that much greener on the other side of the fence. I spent 3 years in Colorado and after dealing with the worst crowds I have ever experienced during that time all I could think about was getting back to Reno so I could fish in CA. And since I got back I have not been disappointed. So many rivers in CO, ID, and Montana are so over-run with drift boats and guides it's silly. I don't know what it is, but I always seem to find the most solitude and best fishing right here at home.

[bigtj]

Mike,

Well it just sounds like I misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize for that. I totally agree, wild fish are the way to go. No disagreement there.

-John

[Ed Wahl]

[quote=jbird;54112]hey ed...come 'ere! Theres a little fire burning over hear, come on over and get warm. Tell us a little story as long as you're here ;-)[/quote

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[jbird]

Ed, btw, being a huge Blues Bro.s fan, I love your quote! lol

[590Mike]

Bigtj
No need to apologise. Just fix the water flows ,clear the spawning beds, stop poachers, reverse male pattern baldness and get the cover sheets on your TPS reports.

[Scott V]

Bigtj
No need to apologise. Just fix the water flows ,clear the spawning beds, stop poachers, reverse male pattern baldness and get the cover sheets on your TPS reports.

Enough of the damn TPS reports, I know there is a new cover I used them to clean the stripers on my desk.:D

[590Mike]

UUUhhhhh thatud be greaaattttt.......

[bigtj]

I might be able help on #1, but have no idea what a TSP report is so can't help you there. I'm a groundwater hydrogeologist/engineer not a biologist, medical researcher or warden.

Best,

-John