Proposed Striped Bass Reg. change discussion workshop..

[Mike McKenzie]

All,
FYI..Folks that can get there should go....

Mike

Media Contacts:
Marty Gingras, DFG Region 3, (209) 948-3702
Kirsten Macintyre, DFG Communications, (916) 322-8988

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) will hold a public workshop to review its proposal to change sport fishing regulations related to striped bass. The workshop will be held Tuesday, Nov. 8 at 7 p.m. at the Rio Vista City Hall, One Main Street in Rio Vista.

The proposal is supported by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and is intended to help recover several fish species listed under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts. The proposed changes affect the striped bass bag, size and possession limits.

The proposal will be presented to the California Fish and Game Commission for consideration at its December meeting.

Striped bass have been abundant in California waterways since they were introduced from the Atlantic Coast in the 1800s. DFG scientists believe that the striped bass population in California has numbered in the millions every year for more than a century.

Striped bass are known and/or expected to prey on listed Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, longfin smelt and tidewater goby. While the extent of striped bass predation on listed species cannot be precisely determined, the best available science indicates that the impact could be substantial.

Efforts to manage striped bass became controversial in the 1990s with the listing of Chinook salmon and delta smelt under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and have remained controversial since. To address concerns about winter-run Chinook salmon, DFG temporarily stopped stocking striped bass in 1990. DFG worked until 1999 to receive federal permits from the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to begin stocking striped bass again, and in 2000 suspended all stocking to address concerns about several listed fish species in the Central Valley. Controversy over striped bass management peaked in 2008 when the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta sued DFG under the federal Endangered Species Act, seeking to require the department to apply for federal permits to enforce one of the fishing regulations that limits sport harvest of striped bass. Both as part of a settlement agreement and as a result of continuing work by USFWS, NOAA Fisheries and DFG to recover the listed species, DFG and the federal agencies developed the proposal to modify striped bass fishing regulations in an effort to reduce striped bass predation on the listed species.

Although the amount of impact attributable to striped bass predation is not certain,DFG strongly suspects that the impact can be reduced by the proposed regulations. With the proposed changes, striped bass would likely become somewhat less abundant and the average size of striped bass would decline, but fishing effort and fishing success would likely increase for a period of at least several years.

DFG is also recommending an adaptive management plan that will help assess how the new regulations influence the fishery.

[Mr T]

This is infuriating.

I made the mistake of supplying information on striper and sturgeon fishing to one of the listed contacts in this post, and at that time it was made clear the intent was to help increase the number of stripers in the system. To see it get twisted to the point where now the striper are being blamed for the decline in salmon population is BS at it worst. Salmon and striper have existed in the delta for decades. Anyone who thinks striper eating smolts is the root casue of the decline of the watershed is being myopic.

I do not for a MINUTE think this is a valid scientific observation. I find it to be a thinly veiled attempt to draw attention from the real cause which IMO is the use of the delta as nothing more than conduit to transport water, which has resulted in a massive imbalance of the fresh/salt water relationship that exists there.

I think the intent here is to simply get rid of the stripers. We already have a collapsing salmon fishery, (notwithstanding this years bumper crop of jacks), and I think what is done here will dovetail with the (again, IMO), iminent decline and collapse of the delta and fishery. Once that happens, big agribusiness will have fewer hurdles to navingate.

If there are no fish to catch in the delta, there will be no fishers for them, and less people to speak for them.

Water exports will increase, and there you have it.

[KD]

"striped bass would likely become somewhat less abundant and the average size of striped bass would decline, but fishing effort and fishing success would likely increase for a period of at least several years."...Otherwise stated, it will be a "free for all" until nothing is left..then fishing will decline BECAUSE no one will be able to catch anything!

People of this State and Nation are being led around by a bunch of imbiciles.

[Jgoding]

If the sole purpose of this bs is to help restore salmon etc... then why don't the main water exporters have to concede anything as well??

[Darian]

Wonder what the point of the meeting/workshop is if the proposed change hasn't been put into the publics hands, yet :question: I suppose it's to be an introduction but it seems to me that this discussion format will only result in a lot of emotion filled, high volume rhetoric. :confused: :confused: I can't imagine that anyone would like to sit thru a shouting match by a bunch of angry Striper guys. :shock:

It, also, seems that since the prior suit was unsuccessful, the new point of attack is predation on all listed species.... Of course, there's no question that Stripers do dine on endangered species in the Delta. The question is to what extent that occurs. How much does the Striped Bass contribute to the demise of other species :question:

[OceanSunfish]

People of this State and Nation are being led around by a bunch of imbiciles.

Well paid and bought "imbiciles" at that too!

[Double_Haul]

"The average size of stripers would decline"

The average size is currently about 17" from what I see. How much smaller would they like it to be!

To think some of our Delta stamp money was going to the little DFG censous takers just to compile data against the stripers and shad infuriates me. Ever since I heard about the striper lawsuit I just tell the takers I haven't caught any stripers or shad, they don't exist and give them the middle finger as they leave.

The other thing that pisses me of is that a couple of years ago Marty asked for fishing reports posted on their site with detailed info with the pretense of helping the stripers. I almost went for it. Shortly after this Marty's depostions were conviniently leaked indicating DFG's true attitude towards stripers.

[amoeba]

Wonder what the point of the meeting/workshop is if the proposed change hasn't been put into the publics hands, yet :question: I suppose it's to be an introduction but it seems to me that this discussion format will only result in a lot of emotion filled, high volume rhetoric. :confused: :confused: I can't imagine that anyone would like to sit thru a shouting match by a bunch of angry Striper guys. :shock:

....:

The point is public disclosure and opportunity to comment; meeting/workshops are not so you can "vote", but simply say whatever is on your mind. you won't be able to change science, or create science, or make unknowns into knowns, by talking in numbers. DFG will listen, then publish their regulations forthwith.

[Darian]

Amoeba,.... Thanks for stating the obvious. :-| I'm quite familiar with the reasons why public entities hold public workshops. I was thinking out loud and whether the productivity of this particular workshop is doomed as the specific proposal hasn't been provided by the agency beforehand. :confused:

IMO, a vote on the part of the public was never in the cards for this. Nor, apparently is any potential for changing the proposal; if we can judge the outcome by the lack of information available from the agency. Judging from the tenor of the posts on other BB's about this it doesn't sound like discussion is what's likely to result. :-\"

This workshop sounds very much like what a person described on another BB (paraphrasing here), a solution seeking an approval (no matter how informal). :nod:

So, I continue to wonder, what's the point (agenda) :?: :?: If it's PR as the last sentence in your post would indicate, it's a failure to start as, apparently, DFG/Commission will pass the proposal, regardless. :-k

Frankly, it would help if you wouldn't jump to conclusions about what was said or not in my original post. Not sure where you got the idea but nothing in that post could be considered an attempt to advocate any changes in "....science, or create science, or make unknowns into knowns, by talking in numbers." [-X

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Hi all and DFG is holding a public meeting to go over the regulations change they are proposing for Striped Bass. The workshop will be held Tuesday, Nov 8 at 7 p.m. at the Rio Vista City Hall, One Main Street in Rio Vista. Since this has been created as the result of a settlement agreement between Citizens for a Sustainable Delta and state and federal agencies, it is not going to be a regulation change we can support. I'm searching for the proposal now, and will pass along when I get it. I believe at least two actions are required:

1. For those who can, please attend this meeting and speak out vociferously against the change. Question the statements in the press release that "millions" of striped bass have been in the estuary for many years. That simply does not equate with either the "young of the year" numbers or the "adult estimates" done earlier this year. Also question why DFG, which has a mission statement that focuses on increasing hunting and fishing opportunities in California would make this move to eliminate the striped bass fishery - third most popular among state fishers. Lastly, what is DFG doing about other predators - birds, orcas, black bass, sea lions, sharks, etc.? Why only Stripers? Why not focus on eliminating the infrastructure that focuses stripers into locations where listed species are drawn due to water operations?
2. Get ready for a major effort before the Fish and Game Commission in December. For those of us who have been involved - Anne Marie Bakker and myself, we will help organize this effort, in conjunction with the Calif. Striped Bass Assn., CSPA and Striperfest. For those attending Striperfest, we need some organization from that get together to get fishers involved. Contact me, summerhillfarmpv@aol.com, 530 432-0100 if you are willing to help.

It is time for all hands on deck on behalf of striped bass.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

So, I continue to wonder, what's the point (agenda) :?: :?: If it's PR as the last sentence in your post would indicate, it's a failure to start as, apparently, DFG/Commission will pass the proposal, regardless. :-k

[-X

It is for no other reason than to fulfill the public notice requirement prior to submitting their recommendations to the commission in December. Basically, what has happened is DFG and the 'Plaintiffs' in the lawsuit have come to an agreement on changes to the current regulations, per the settlement agreement.

What concerns me is the statement that USFWS and NMFS are supporting whatever these recommendations are. We [NCCFFF] met with NMFS in the spring to discuss the possibility of a slot limit, to which they seemed quite receptive to. I just hope this is part of the recommendation.[-o<

As for the public Fish & Game Commission hearing - this will be our last chance to object to whatever recommendations they've come up with. As Mark says - we need ALL HANDS ON DECK at that meeting in December! :nod:

[Darian]

OK,.... I've been following this proposal and DFG comments from Blantons BB and believe, as Robin has said, that this proposal arises from the settlement of the Striper lawsuit. That being the case, any proposed change has impetus by/of the USDC. The alternative for DFG and other agencies who are party to the settlement proposing the agreed upon changes is a return to the courtroom. That is not a desirable outcome. A very good attorney once told me that a good settlement is better than a bad lawsuit. I believe it and that the agencies see it that way as well. :-|

As I understand it development of an "adaptive management plan" will be part of the proposal (not sure of that's immediate or later). Adaptive management probably doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to DFG but it sounds good and I, for one, would welcome some type of plan instead of the vacuum that exists today. One item that would be ripe for inclusion in a plan of this nature should be the potential for implementation of slot limits. Inclusion of that could be discussed at the meeting in Rio Vista to see what type of reception it gets. Who knows, it just might get an audience.... :)

From Marks comments: "....what is DFG doing about other predators - birds, orcas, black bass, sea lions, sharks, etc.? Why only Stripers? Why not focus on eliminating the infrastructure that focuses stripers into locations where listed species are drawn due to water operations?" While all of this may be true, it is not germane to the terms of the settlement. The target of the suit/settlement was predation by Striped Bass. Anything else would be an unacceptable distraction from that end.

Only one thing's for sure, there will be some type of change to reduce restrictions on take of Stripers adopted from all of this. How much may be all we can hope to influence.... :-k