Squawfish as Stressors

[Tony Buzolich]

Last Tuesday I went to the Assembly meeting and voiced my opposition to the bill and at the end I added that the committee should also consider the native stressors as well as the non-natives. I mentioned the Pike Minnow (Squawfish), as well as the cormorants and the merganser ducks that all take their toll on salmon and steelhead smolt.

As I read a bit more on the pike minnow, there have been numerous studies about their predation especially on salmon and steelhead smolt. At Lake Pillsbury they were introduced which lead to a complete devistation of the salmon and steelhead on the Eel River. Oregon has had a bounty on them in the Columbia River system where there are no striped bass. The Russian River right here in California has had a bounty on them for some time. These "native" stressors are prolific in every river system they enter, and they gorge native salmon, trout, and I'm sure Delta Smelt too.

I think if anyone were to compare the damage by predation between squawfish and striped bass, they'd see that squawfish are a much bigger threat to endangered species than ever thought.

On the Sacramento and Feather rivers these things are as thick as fleas and they're not small by any means. They eat tons of smolt and fry all year long. I'd like to see more concern get placed on these pike minnows as a culprit and get away from blaming striped bass for everything.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b320/buzolich/Frank-squawfish.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b320/buzolich/Bill-squawfishupload.jpg

[windwalker]

Tony, I hope you are giving those squawfish the old heave hoe on the bank when you are done with the pics. We all must do our part in feeding the coyote's.

[Rockman]

To be humane, give'em a "bonk on the head" so they don't suffer before you make them coyote food on the bank:tear:

[Charlie Gonzales]

Anybody ever keep one? In theory they shouldnt taste any different than a largemouth, or smallie; they live in the same water and eat the same thing. Maybe smoke em?

[Frank Alessio]

Too salty... Might have been in the brine too long.. I did not try a second time Charley..

[IronMtn]

We used to eat squaw fish out of Priest Lake in ID, but they were pretty fishy tasting. More so than a bass. It might sound weird, but we used to soak the steaks in whole milk for a few hours before we'd cook 'em, which would help knock down the fishy taste. After that they weren't too bad.

As for smoking them; I don't know, maybe... I'm guessing they'd be pretty hard to keep lit...

[Jgoding]

I don't know.... I can never blame something for doing what it does..... especially when it's mainly our fault the species in question are in decline. In the end, I guess nothing is wasted anyways as something recycles them...

[Mr. Striper]

they are only good for bait and fertilizer.

[OceanSunfish]

I'll preface by saying that the State and Federal water projects are the culprit, as well all know. They have created the inbalance and thus turned somethings into "stressors" where they weren't before......

A bit of irony.... Striped Bass help keep the squawfish/pikeminnow population in check. If you see that the river's population of squawfish/pikeminnow is rather robust, assume that the striped bass haven't been around in greater numbers as in year's past.....

In summary, our fisheries/ecosystem/food chain lived harmoniously together until the water projects and politics turned it all upside down.

[Darian]

Since we're considering native stressors, how about predation by Salmon/Steelhead on their own Alevin or smolts.... :?: They pretty much eat anything in the ocean. Ever wonder why Alevin flies work or occasionally catch a Salmon or Steelhead in rivers using a Rainbow pattern :?: :?:

[Dustin Revel]

there are millions of stressors that live down south. Lets feed them to the coyotes!

[590Mike]

Anybody ever keep one? . Maybe smoke em?

I could never keep them lit, I gonna stick with cigars.

[Frank Alessio]

Tony .... I like your approach, you not only went to the meeting to oppose the Bill but you at the same time gave them something to think about other than their target fish.... It is rather sad we have to keep fighting our own elected officials to keep our Fishing and Hunting (Bear and Doves)... We need to think hard when we go to the Polls in November... No more Reckless Voting that gave us what we have now......Thanks Again

[malbers]

Bear and Doves --- Mountain Lion taste like pork roast. CA rules prohibit that too.

[Frank Alessio]

Lick your lips in Nevada... Mountain Lion Hunting in California is gone FOREVER......

[Frank Alessio]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk46/alessio_62/Coyotes016.jpg
Her is one for you Dustin R....

[Dustin Revel]

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk46/alessio_62/Coyotes016.jpg
Her is one for you Dustin R....

IMHO its more fun at night with a 12 gauge...

[ycflyfisher]

Last Tuesday I went to the Assembly meeting and voiced my opposition to the bill and at the end I added that the committee should also consider the native stressors as well as the non-natives. I mentioned the Pike Minnow (Squawfish), as well as the cormorants and the merganser ducks that all take their toll on salmon and steelhead smolt.

As I read a bit more on the pike minnow, there have been numerous studies about their predation especially on salmon and steelhead smolt. At Lake Pillsbury they were introduced which lead to a complete devistation of the salmon and steelhead on the Eel River. Oregon has had a bounty on them in the Columbia River system where there are no striped bass. The Russian River right here in California has had a bounty on them for some time. These "native" stressors are prolific in every river system they enter, and they gorge native salmon, trout, and I'm sure Delta Smelt too.

I think if anyone were to compare the damage by predation between squawfish and striped bass, they'd see that squawfish are a much bigger threat to endangered species than ever thought.

On the Sacramento and Feather rivers these things are as thick as fleas and they're not small by any means. They eat tons of smolt and fry all year long. I'd like to see more concern get placed on these pike minnows as a culprit and get away from blaming striped bass for everything.




No offense meant Tony, but the squawfish conspiracy theory you seem compelled to advance is laughable and the conclusions you seem to arrive at regarding PM’s, to put it as bluntly as possible, are largely wrong and/or misleading. I’d encourage you and anyone else who feels compelled to fight this one to ditch the total striper worship mentality and also the abject hatred for the water projects(they’re both potential contributors to very differing degrees IMO) and familiarize yourself with the available science regarding the POD and Sac River Chinook collapse. Can’t say stripers are my forte and it’s been 2-3 years since I’ve read anything on the POD, but even back then the science around the root causes of the POD were pretty well developed as was/is the cause of the Salmon collapse. The science in this case, was almost completely on your side and makes what was gutted from AB2336 look as ridiculous as this PM theory, and I can’t imagine it (the science) has changed direction in the last few years.

[Tony Buzolich]

If you had gone to the assembly meeting last Tuesday you would have heard the term "stressor" brought up numerous times. It's a new word for me that I've never used before but it seemed to fit the discussion. Stressing the delta's water system was the obvious subject everyone there was dancing around. Fuller's attack on striped bass was simply a diversionary tactic that failed and she had to quickly amend her proposal. I believe that the plan was to eliminate the striped bass, eliminate the salmon, and in so doing eliminate fishermen from fishing. If there's no one fishing, there will be no one to complain about the lack of water and the dying delta. It Didn't Work!

As for the squawfish (I'm old school), they're just another nail in the coffin. They're not the only cause for the salmon failure, but they're a damn big one. Everywhere they exist salmon and steelhead have suffered. Sure, damming, logging, and siltation have all added to the problem too while at the same time improving the habitat for the squawfish.

All different kinds "stressors" are contributing to a failing enviroment and it all comes down to WATER. Our state is over-run with "illegals" ALL drinking water. The world population is growing beyond capacity and sooner or later everything is going to suffer and unfortunately our natural enviroment is first to feel the effects of limited supply.

Anytime some one attacks something you love, you respond aggressively. I love striped bass just as many others on this board love steelhead or tarpon or bird-watching, and if we can all contribute something toward saving a little bit of nature maybe our grandkids will get to see a little of what we've come to enjoy. And, if killing a few squawfish along the way helps save a few remaining striped bass and salmon, I'll bonk a lot more of them.

[Dustin Revel]

and if we can all contribute something toward saving a little bit of nature maybe our grandkids will get to see a little of what we've come to enjoy.

Sorry Tony, but Striped bass are not natural to the west coast. Pike minnow are! as far as i'm concerned we should be bonking stripers not PM. sometimes we must look past our own personal enjoyment to do what is right.

[ycflyfisher]

If you had gone to the assembly meeting last Tuesday you would have heard the term "stressor" brought up numerous times. It's a new word for me that I've never used before but it seemed to fit the discussion. Stressing the delta's water system was the obvious subject everyone there was dancing around. Fuller's attack on striped bass was simply a diversionary tactic that failed and she had to quickly amend her proposal. I believe that the plan was to eliminate the striped bass, eliminate the salmon, and in so doing eliminate fishermen from fishing. If there's no one fishing, there will be no one to complain about the lack of water and the dying delta. It Didn't Work!

As for the squawfish (I'm old school), they're just another nail in the coffin. They're not the only cause for the salmon failure, but they're a damn big one. Everywhere they exist salmon and steelhead have suffered. Sure, damming, logging, and siltation have all added to the problem too while at the same time improving the habitat for the squawfish.

All different kinds "stressors" are contributing to a failing enviroment and it all comes down to WATER. Our state is over-run with "illegals" ALL drinking water. The world population is growing beyond capacity and sooner or later everything is going to suffer and unfortunately our natural enviroment is first to feel the effects of limited supply.

Anytime some one attacks something you love, you respond aggressively. I love striped bass just as many others on this board love steelhead or tarpon or bird-watching, and if we can all contribute something toward saving a little bit of nature maybe our grandkids will get to see a little of what we've come to enjoy. And, if killing a few squawfish along the way helps save a few remaining striped bass and salmon, I'll bonk a lot more of them.

"Stressor” is far from a new word, and when used in biological terms it has a very concise definition. Might wanna look it up. You're literally attempting to redefine the term with your Squawfish conspiracy theory.

You can believe that AB2336 was gutted at the last minute because those politicians were all in awe of a large group of anglers all advancing squawfish conspiracy theories and the like, showed up to voice their obviously biased, "bucket biology" opinions. I chose to believe that it was gutted because those politicians that were advancing the AB for the ag interests were finally clued in by someone that was paying some attention to the fact their own state agency scientists have included the striper as one of the impacted species in the ongoing interagency POD studies and their own science was going to be the nail in their own coffin to their equally ridiculous striper predation argument. Only one of us is right. I'd be willing to bet old Mcdonald's entire farm, from the ranch house to the shithouse, to the E-I-E-I-O that it ain't you. Don't think I'm going out on a limb stating that your going to see a better written and thought out incarnation of the same AB again sometime in the future.

You striper guys can fight this one any way you want to. Fight it smart if you want, fight it aggressively with tons on knee-jerk emotion if you must. Fight it with your hearts and the clear bias that you all have if it makes you feel better. You can all admire your “passion” and your creative conspiracy theories for the fight after it's over and done.

Any even remote thought of fighting it with your head instead??? If so, as stated previously I’d bring yourself AND YOUR GROUP up to speed on the available for peer review science that has been conducted on the mechanism of the POD and the Sacto salmon collapse and stick COMPLETELY to arguments centered around what IS known. As previously stated, the science for the POD was largely on your side last time I looked at it and the science for the salmon collapse still is. Those politicians very own DFG staffers are confident enough that the main contributing factor to the salmon collapse IS deleterious conditions in the gulf of the Farrallons and the abundance breakdown largely isn't happening inland. I agree with the science. The science pertaining to the salmon collapse IMO is sound, and the 'problem' I think has been accurately identified, but the salmon crisis is far from over simply because the problem cannot be controlled and numerous other issues that could adversely affect Sacto fall Chinook abundance are looming in the background. But that's another thread.......

The POD and your stripers and the delta aren't my cup of tea and as stated, and aren't something I know much about. That said, the POD IMO is something of a "perfect storm" type collapse where there's lot's of SIGNIFICANT contributing factors working synergistically together to facilitate the collapse, and lots of other potential contributing factors that may or may not be significant. Predation by mature stripers IS a potential contributing factor (but not a significant one IMO and I think not significant in the opinion of anyone remotely familiar with the actual potential causal issues surrounding the POD).

Should you and yours continue to overlook this fact and continue to cook up insanely laughable, totally out of context, squawfish conspiracy theories and the like and and fail to accept and acknowledge the fact that your beloved linesides will eat not only migrating salmonids and the other 3 pelagics that are on the decline by the tonage, as well as YOY and yearling stripers given the chance, this "passion" of yours is only going to serve to destroy your own groups credibility IMO. The flyfishing subculture is the only one in the world that I'm aware of where the word "passion" can be interchanged without consequence with the word "stupid".

I'm just a fairly well read angler with an interest in fish and their ecosystems, with no preformed bias on this issue and no real interest in stripers or the delta in general. For disclosure, I do voluntarily belong to (not employed by) a group that IS listed as supporting the AB. I do not endorse their support of this AB. As someone who knows you if any bias exists it would be one that's receptive to what you had to say..... until you made the totally ridiculous statement by sticking to your squawfish guns that you're certain that native PM's are measurably impacting the abundance of the salmonids they've coexisted with for eons in the CV and of all things delta smelt that are totally isolated to the X zone of the Sac delta??? I ain't buying that BS at face value or any deeply discounted price. I'm just someone that's read enough about the POD/salmon issues to know that your credibility and obvious bias in regards to the issue at hand just hit the skids with that statement. Right then. Right there. Right now...... and there's nothing you can from that point on to get it back.

How far really do you think that this type of ridiculousness is going to fly when push eventually comes to shove when the well funded political interests you're fighting finally decide their ducks are lined in a row and they're armed with the experts who collectively wrote what I simply took the time to read? All of whom will be put in a position to point out the numerous fallacies to your groups twisted, unsupportable logic even though they don't support this AB (and none of them likely will)


The available science as stated IMO is very much in your favor. IMO it's the ONLY thing that isn't stacked against you and your group.

Fight it however you want to fight it. Fight it smart or fight it with biased, knee-jerk emotion. It's your fight and your time. If it were my fight I'd get familiar with the science and stick what is known about the issues at hand and form my argument around what is known and can be supported.

[Hairstacker]

ycflyfisher, you seem to make a lot sense but do you have to say it in such an obnoxious way?

[Dustin Revel]

well this thread has definately been good for a laugh. can we agree to dismiss the squaw fish theory?

[OceanSunfish]

"You striper fisherman" or "your group" ??

Geeze, don't we all enjoy fishing and shouldn't we all be fighting the 'good fight' as a united entity?

[Frank Alessio]

Kind of reminds me of the Hunters that say " What do those guys need those BLACK RIFLES for?"........

[lee s.]

ycflyfisher,
I know not your background but you sound well schooled and it sounds as if you may have a prominent desk nailed to the floor somewhere dealing with these problems. A desk that is bought and paid for by ag interests and developement interests. IMO those type people should have the nails driven through their feet also before driving them through the desk. It might just keep them at their desk and out of the field where often their "book learning" and lack of common sense application do more harm to our envirions than listening to some of the "bucket biology" gleaned from old, grey, rotund individuals that have had their feet out there IN the envirioment.
"As previously stated, the science for the POD was largely on your side last time I looked at it and the science for the salmon collapse still is. Those politicians very own DFG staffers are confident enough that the main contributing factor to the salmon collapse IS deleterious conditions in the gulf of the Farrallons and the abundance breakdown largely isn't happening inland. I agree with the science."
Being old, Eyetalian, and rotund myself, I NEED to keep it REAL simple. Our fish NEED water.....CLEAN water, especially for raising the babies. We are left with SOME water right now. However this water has TOO MUCH temperature, TOO MUCH turbidity, and TOO MUCH toxins in it. It is LETHAL to the fry. ANY scientist who ignores this condition in the search for solutions to the problem of decreasing resources as far as anadromous fisheries goes, is simply assinine IMO.
One doesn't need years of schooling to follow the increase in human intrusion with developement and agriculture and the corresponding decline in anadromous fisheries. It is obvious in ALL of our watersheds.
By the way, what is this POD you speak of and where can I find these on this machine.....a machine I am completely non-functional with.
TONY,
YOU GO MAN!!!! Even a LITTLE of your aquired knowledge and logic far exceeds the common sense of desk jockies such as these DFG biologists so far.
.........lee s.

[Darian]

This thread is beginning to slide away from discourse.... :confused: agree with the point that Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) is mainly due to ocean conditions. Altho, I'm wondering Is the Gulf of Farallons the water surrounding the islands :?: How large (in square miles) would this gulf be :?: Pelagic organisms are a much larger and diverse group of organisms than just anadromous fish and some are more mobile than others. I'm curious if POD is attributable to north/eastern Pacific Ocean conditions in general :?:

If I recall correctly, Salmon originating from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River systems roam inshore/offshore waters off California/Oregon/Washington. If so, wouldn't they be able to escape the gulf to more productive waters.... :?: Or, maybe I'm just not understanding this.... :confused:

[matt johnson]

The POD is a name referencing the steep decline of several pelagic (open-water) fishes (delta smelt, longfin smelt, juvenile striped bass, and threadfin shad) in the freshwater portion of the Delta estuary. It does not have anything to do with the ocean.

The Gulf of the Farallones is an area of the Pacific just outside the Golden Gate where the upwelling of cold nutrient rich water occurrs in the spring and summer. This event drives the primary production of the food web in this part of the North Pacific.

The vast majority of the juvenilles of all four races of Central Valley Chinook salmon exit the delta/lower Sacramento River in the spring/early summer to meet this upwelling head on. Upon leaving freshwater and entering the ocean, these juvenilles need to find and eat lots of food RIGHT NOW or they don't make it. They do not have the energy stores to travel far up or down or out to find food.

Back in 05' and 06' there was a snafu with this upwelling. The juveniles did not have much to eat. Survival was really low. This is the best explaination for the Central Valley "Salmon Crash" in 08' and 09'. The "Salmon Crash" was experienced by all four races of Central Valley Chinook in 08' and 09'.

A healthier delta ecosystem, reduced water exports, better upstream spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for salmon, and more wild instead of hatchery salmon probably would have better buffered the salmon against the poor ocean conditions the juveniles faced in 05' and 06', and the "Crash" might not have been so dramatic.

Just my .02. Matt

[Darian]

Thanks for the explanation/info Matt. :D :D

[OceanSunfish]

A healthier delta ecosystem, reduced water exports, better upstream spawning and juvenile rearing habitat for salmon, and more wild instead of hatchery salmon probably would have better buffered the salmon against the poor ocean conditions the juveniles faced in 05' and 06', and the "Crash" might not have been so dramatic.

I agree. Fix the "house" first, then all of its inhabitants will not only benefit, but they will also be able to fend off the ocasional natural threats to their survivial.

[ycflyfisher]

ycflyfisher,
I know not your background but you sound well schooled and it sounds as if you may have a prominent desk nailed to the floor somewhere dealing with these problems. A desk that is bought and paid for by ag interests and developement interests. IMO those type people should have the nails driven through their feet also before driving them through the desk. It might just keep them at their desk and out of the field where often their "book learning" and lack of common sense application do more harm to our envirions than listening to some of the "bucket biology" gleaned from old, grey, rotund individuals that have had their feet out there IN the envirioment.
........lee s.

Guess you got me all figured out huh? Hate to break the news to you, but you know quite a bit about my background. Not only have we exchanged emails a few times, met a few times, we’ve actually made a couple of casts together before numerous years ago. Seem to recall you having a pet peeve about waterloading the line on the backcast to get any distance…….. Sound like something you’d say? It should, because I can remember you saying it to several people numerous times…..

As stated above since you missed it, I’m just an angler who has a voluntary membership in one of the groups that’s listed as supporting the AB. Also since you missed it, I don’t agree with or support the AB. Can’t say my employment is in either ag or development. Don’t actually have a desk at work and don’t exactly fit the “evil desk jockey profile” that you and the religious faithful here seems to require of anyone voicing a dissenting opinion to what’s generally a bad idea supported by the forum concensus, but hell man, if it makes you feel like you’ve got everything figured out feel free to break out the brushes, rollers and rattle cans and paint me the bad guy and nail my feet to the floor.

What in the hell is it that I said that makes you think that I work for or have an ag interest and am somehow attempting to derail the attempt to fight this bill? You striper fanatics can stick to the squawfishlike guide and angler observation/emotional based arguments if you elect to, but they're never going to gain any traction. Do you guys ever stop for a second and THINK about how naive these arguments are? The native Sacto PM's that evolved in basin, are eating the native salmonids and the 2 native pelagics that they've coexisted with for eons and the 2 introduced pelagics that they've coexisted with for decades into oblivion? C'mon man, who's really going to buy that?

Truth be told, the only reason I've been following the progress of this AB is that as far as I'm aware, there IS NO existing science that indicates that predation by stripers is having a terminal impact the abundance of salmonids or the other pelagics in the Sacto basin and I'm curious as to what the other side is going to come up with. You and Tony and the rest of the conspiracy theorists likely believe that all the other side has to do is wave a political magic wand, throw a handful of cash in the air, say the magic word in legal doublespeak, and that science will magically appear. Fortunately it's a bit more complicated than that. Stripers eat fish. They've been eating fish since their introduction to the delta. They have yet to eat anything into extinction.

They (the big money ag interests that you seem convinced that I'm a part of and their reps) are going to have to produce SOMETHING, some peer reviewed science that is indicative that there's some measurable, terminal predation impact on the declining species. I've got no clue as to what that position is going to be built on. I have doubts it's going to be derived from the Sacramento basin. I don't know enough about stripers to know if they've ever driven anything to extirpation via predation in their native range or any other watersheds they may have been introduced to, but if they have, I'm guessing that will be the foundation of their evidence

Don't have anything on the POD or the salmon collapse on this comp, but when I get back to work (providing I can of get a coworker to pry the nails out of my feet....) I'll dig up what I've got and post it here.

[Bob Laskodi]

I usually try and stay out of "train wreck" threads like this one, but here is some current info.
<<<as far as I'm aware, there IS NO existing science that indicates that predation by stripers is having a terminal impact the abundance of salmonids or the other pelagics in the Sacto basin>>>
The above is a true statement that is currently being addressed via numerous predation studies that are currently underway. A particularly interesting one involves catching striped bass and examining their stomach contents using DNA analysis to accurately determine stomach/digestive system contents and quantify the amounts. It will be a while until this study is complete, but initial results are showing significant predation on salmon smolts by striped bass. DFG's latest estimate is that 15-30% of the downstream salmon smolt run are lost to predation. It looks like that estimate is pretty close based on initial survey results.

[Darian]

Bob,.... Who's conducting the study you refer to :question: Have you heard when the target completion date is :question:

As an aside, there's an article in todays SacBee on rapid ocean acidification. "A national research council" says that the ocean absorbs 1 million tons of CO2 an hour. :eek: Also, that the amount absorbed is "increasing at an unprecedented rate." According to the group, the oceans absorb 30 percent of the total CO2 emissions.... Scary stuff.

The affects of this acidification may be more pronounced off the west coast brought up by upwellings. Apparently these upwellings are more acidic, already, and when they are brought up the surface, they become more saturated with CO2.... The outcome of all of this is likely to be major changes in marine life growth and survival rates.... :neutral:

Of course, there's always another side and scientists who oppose this idea are lining up to testify.... :neutral:

[Bob Laskodi]

Darian, most every private ecological consulting firms, water agencies, and public resource agencies in CA are looking at the striper predation issue. Not a study, but many many studies. I personally know (and fish with) biologists/scientists from all three areas that are actively in the field collecting data. All of the studies are long term with no immediate completion dates. And no, I'm not naming names of people I know (or their agencies/companies) because I will never jeopardize their jobs. And because they all know I won't compromise their jobs they are willing to talk freely with me about their findings. Amazing what info you can get from people if you take them out fishing!!!! And the much discussed response by fishing proponents that bring out old outdated studies that stripers don't eat significant numbers of salmon smolts are going to get blown out of the water when these studies are completed. I'm a striper fly flinger (and have been for a long time) and IMNSHO, I better think about selling my striper boat because I see the handwriting on the wall.

[Darian]

Actually, Bob, I wasn't seeking any individuals name. naming the organizations was enough. I'm curious, tho, how the outcome of a "....long term...." study is already known. :?: :confused: Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind.... :?: :?:

[Bob Laskodi]

Darian, your response is typical and ignorant on how scientific studies actually work. I am done discussing this issue. Feel free to go on believing what ever it is you want to believe.

[huntindog]

Actually, Bob, I wasn't seeking any individuals name. naming the organizations was enough. I'm curious, tho, how the outcome of a "....long term...." study is already known. :?: :confused: Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind.... :?: :?:

they don't have an outcome in mind. they are discussing the results they are seeing. As for people in public resource agencies all having an interest in seeing higher water exports....are you out of your fricking mind..I know many biologists in the field working publicly and privately and i have never met one that wants to see increased water exports. That has to be the most ignorant statement in this whole thread.

[Darian]

Bob,.... unlike what you seem to think you are, I'm not a scientist and I'll probably continue to think for myself.... Sorry you got your shorts in a bunch but the questions I asked were to find answers to some questions that have been nagging me. Lighten up.... (not that I'm gonna care much if you don't). :\\

huntindog,.... If you had bothered to read the last few sentences in Bob's second post about the results of these long term studies you might be forgiven about arriving at the same conclusion (or not). :-s According to Bob (who seems to have an inside track on all of this), the results will, "....get blown out of the water when these studies are completed." BTW, these studies are long term and with no target date to complete them. Preliminary results aside, why don't we wait to see the actual results :question: Naw!!!! It's always more fun to leap to a conclusion.... H..l!!! It's the American way.... :rolleyes:

Furthermore, should you take time to re-read what I said in relation to the organizations involved. Never did I mention individuals of any discipline. Biologists or any other. If you choose to believe that all biological opinions and/or studies are never overridden by the entities who employ Biologists, then you have very little knowledge of the history of the dealing in water or fisheries issues of federal, state and private organizations. Many of which support increased water exports from the Delta. Of course, there's always the possibility that you have a limited knowledge of those agencies.... Check out the list of supporters of AB 2336. You'll find a list of the who's who of entities wanting to increase water exports (many of which are water agencies and who employ biologists). :nod:

Maybe you should ask a couple of questions before being so quick to condemn. :rolleyes: Of course, you could always choose to keep your head in the sand or up your.... :\\

[Dustin Revel]

Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind.... :?: :?:

exactly what makes you think they all have an interest in seeing higher water exports? Maybe i'm getting lost in all the emoticons but i can't fish out any logical reasoning..??

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

Have to agree with Bob that the agency scientists are much more interested in the science and aren't looking to forward any hidden agendas. If they have any bias at all it leans toward the fish IMO. I don't know any biologists that aren't also anglers. Most of 'em fish, and most of 'em probably spend more time fishing than the majority of other anglers.

Aware of the predation studies that Bob mentions, but don't think it is really appropriate to discuss stuff that's still pretty far from the draft stage let alone being released for peer review.

Can't say I agree with his conclusion that these studies are going to likely be as damning as he seems to think they are, they'll just be confirming what we already knew, that stripers eat fish.

[jbird]

they'll just be confirming what we already knew......

Isnt this what the majority of scientists do with our tax dollars anyway???? ;-)

[Darian]

OK,.... One more try.... It’s naïve to think that in the current economic/political climate that there’s no incentive to maintain or increase water exports from the delta. It’s entirely obvious that the current water infrastructure in this state isn’t adequate to provide water for agriculture, development or municipal suppliers and demand continues to increase (It’s been widely reported that Department of Water Resources has consistently over allocated available water supplies). Water is a scarce commodity and the potential for profits from its sale has never been higher. :cool:

Water agencies, whether federal, state or private, that are in charge of capture, storage and sale of water in accord with rights have a legal obligation to deliver on contracts they have executed with all of their customers. Further, the current administration of this state has committed itself to establishing a “….reliable water supply” for the rest of the state. Water is being sold to private water holding companies for delivery at a later date and for high profits. So, it’s not much of a stretch to see that there’s a high incentive to maintain or increase water exports from the Delta, the primary source. BTW, I don't see this as some kind of conspiracy but recognition of business making activities. :cool:

Comments from my prior post weren't/aren't directed at individual biologists but at the organizations that employ them. However, I don't think scientists are much different than the rest of us. They're human, after all, subject to the same pressures to perform (or not) all of us are and being human beings they have personal biases. I think you might concur that bias can be insinuated into projects thru choices made by individual project team members and/or management, as well. IMHO, Some of that bias could originate with scientists. :cool:

Like anyone else, a biologist/engineer/scientist employed by any of the water agencies who did not agree with the direction imposed by agency/project management has a choice; follow direction and keep quiet or quit and go to work where they fit in. So, regardless of how they personally feel, s__t can happen. BTW, I don't see a conspiracy in this. As Rockeffeler once said, "The business of America is Business." :cool:

[Mr. Striper]

LMFAO, It seems to me that there are some people who like blame storming on this issue. Or, some just have not been fishing here in this great state ( yeah rite) long enough.

[Dustin Revel]

OK,.... One more try.... It’s naïve to think that in the current economic/political climate that there’s no incentive to maintain or increase water exports from the delta. It’s entirely obvious that the current water infrastructure in this state isn’t adequate to provide water for agriculture, development or municipal suppliers and demand continues to increase (It’s been widely reported that Department of Water Resources has consistently over allocated available water supplies). Water is a scarce commodity and the potential for profits from its sale has never been higher. :cool:

Water agencies, whether federal, state or private, that are in charge of capture, storage and sale of water in accord with rights have a legal obligation to deliver on contracts they have executed with all of their customers. Further, the current administration of this state has committed itself to establishing a “….reliable water supply” for the rest of the state. Water is being sold to private water holding companies for delivery at a later date and for high profits. So, it’s not much of a stretch to see that there’s a high incentive to maintain or increase water exports from the Delta, the primary source. BTW, I don't see this as some kind of conspiracy but recognition of business making activities. :cool:

Comments from my prior post weren't/aren't directed at individual biologists but at the organizations that employ them. However, I don't think scientists are much different than the rest of us. They're human, after all, subject to the same pressures to perform (or not) all of us are and being human beings they have personal biases. I think you might concur that bias can be insinuated into projects thru choices made by individual project team members and/or management, as well. IMHO, Some of that bias could originate with scientists. :cool:

Like anyone else, a biologist/engineer/scientist employed by any of the water agencies who did not agree with the direction imposed by agency/project management has a choice; follow direction and keep quiet or quit and go to work where they fit in. So, regardless of how they personally feel, s__t can happen. BTW, I don't see a conspiracy in this. As Rockeffeler once said, "The business of America is Business." :cool:

You truly do not understand scientists especially fisheries biologists. Someone with a bachelor's degree in fisheries biology will rarely become more than a field technician; they are not in it for the money.
It is their job to present accurate data, and if they do not do that they lose their job. The only bias present in a study is generally systematic in nature. Say they were capturing adult striped bass using lures that look like salmon smolt 9which they obviously wouldn't do), and checking their stomach contents for salmon dna, which would be a bias due to sampling technique. When this kind of bias is included in a study it is usually dismissed during peer review.
I know you said it doesn’t come from the individual biologists themselves, but these studies are ultimately designed by biologists who have spent the greater part of a decade studying fish and sampling techniques (they’re a little weird about fish).

Dustin

[Darian]

Dustin,.... Perhaps you're right about my understanding of fisheries biologists (at least I hope so). Having been a project manager, myself, I do understand how bias can intrude into the design/analysis/sampling processes and how results can be influenced. There're numerous examples of the latter over recent years.

My cynicism is based on a lot of interaction (frequently adversarial) with businesses and government over many years. I've not seen too many people who didn't have some sort of greedy intent and, because of that, I rarely take anything of importance at face value.

[bart]

If you people are interested,i'll ask Marty Gringas of f&g to post here onse in awhile.He heads the bay-delta office.

[Darian]

Bart,.... I thought it was already acceptable for him to post here. Great guy, good info he posts. :D I've seen a lot of his stuff over Blanton's BB. Kinda felt sorry about some of the verbal assaults he's taken over there.... ;)

[bart]

I've worked with Marty since he came on board of b/d comm.Nice guy,but he don't fish,so that makes him suspect!!lol