Here are DFG's proposed Striped Bass reg changes

[Mike McKenzie]

Topic of discussion Tuesday night...

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

The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has released a draft of proposed regulations changes related to anadromous striped bass. The draft language, which is now available at https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=39586, would authorize additional harvest of striped bass.

Due to extensive interest in the issue, the scheduled public workshop at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 8 has been moved to a larger venue. The new location is the Rio Vista & Isleton Club, 295 South 7th Street, Rio Vista, 94571.

The basic proposed changes are as follows:

* Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.
* Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.
* Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.
* Establishing a “hot spot” for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
* Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.

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

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

Mike

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks Mike.

BTW, the poachers are not going to notice a difference in the regulations...... sad.

[Darian]

WOW!!!! Might as well remove all limits in the priority areas. I was trying to keep an objective point of view on this but I'm absolutely amazed that DFG would agree to an increase in bag limit of 20 fish daily with possession limit of 40 fish :?: Surely they must've realized that this essentially creates what amounts to a commercial fishery at the hot spot and "specified adjacent waterways...." Wonder how broad the application of what constitutes specified water will be. :?: Not sure anyone needs "....an adaptive management plan...." to assess the impact of this to see what the result will be.

I'd like to get hold of a copy of the settlement to get at least some idea of the rationale involved.... :|

[KD]

Lowering the size limit to sub spawning size?!!
THEY want TO eventually KILL OFF every one of them!!
BBass are next.

Maybe the new (hotspot?) punchcard will only be 4ft long!

[ssy]

Topic of discussion Tuesday night...

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

The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has released a draft of proposed regulations changes related to anadromous striped bass. The draft language, which is now available at https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=39586, would authorize additional harvest of striped bass.

Due to extensive interest in the issue, the scheduled public workshop at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 8 has been moved to a larger venue. The new location is the Rio Vista & Isleton Club, 295 South 7th Street, Rio Vista, 94571.

The basic proposed changes are as follows:

* Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.
* Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.
* Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.
* Establishing a “hot spot” for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
* Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.

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

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

Mike

How stupid is that proposal!

Whats next..........The DFG wardens being run by the Humane Society/HSUS?

Stupid politics!!!!!

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

OK - so, all of that said.... WHO'S GOING TO BE THERE TO VOICE THESE OPINIONS?!?!?! :-k

Paul and I are trying to figure out how long it would take us to get down there after work from Natomas.... Without the boat, we're thinking we could make it :nod:

[Darian]

I'm planning on attending but have little confidence that anything said while there will result in changes to the proposal as it still is based on the need to meet terms of "the settlement". Also, this meeting has all the potential of turning in to an emotional shouting match. Not my cup of tea.... :neutral:

All is not lost, however. there're still more opportunities for a chance to make changes to the proposal at the F&G Commission and the USDC where the final version must be approved. :neutral:

Hmmm,.... Not sure if there have been any changes the the process of adopting admin regs or not but they were all required to be submitted to the State Office of Admin Law for review/approval before adoption. If that's still the case, there's another step in the process for input.... :confused:

[Darian]

Just to add some fuel to the fire, after reading the proposed changes to the regs, it looks to me as though a cumulative (2 day) possession limit would 52 fish with no size limit in the hot spot. So, if I chose to fish the hot spot and catch a daily bag limit of 20 fish of any size, I could then leave the hot spot and go to another part of the Delta and catch another 6 fish above 12" in length. Total for the day would be 26 fish. The next day I could do the same thing for a total 2 day possession limit of 52 fish.

Now, if I'm a guy who would sell my catch to a restaurant for instance, I could potentially sell my entire catch at the end of the second day and begin the same process over again, ad nauseum. :\\

Well, maybe when the Striper population reaches threatened numbers, we'll end up filing for protected status for them.... ;)

[STEELIES/26c3]

I really don't like 'that other place'

but there is some positive awareness and good, on-topic discussion being had there:

http://www.fishsniffer.com/freshwater-striper-board/93407-here-they-dfgs-striper-reg-change-proposals-2.html

Yes, I'll be in Rio Vista on the 8th.

M

[steelie]

Mr. SSY, how did you know that.



PLACERVILLE — In a plot as insidious as anything you've ever seen, the California Department of Fish and Game has gone into partnership with the largest anti-hunting group in the nation, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The DFG has been infiltrated by the world's largest anti-hunting group, HSUS, which is dedicated to outlawing hunting of all types, and is even now focusing on outlawing the raising and hunting of game birds, using dogs for hunting, and even having farm animals and household pets. They are now helping to fund the DFG, are being trained at the DFG warden training school, and are even teaching classes to DFG wardens.

In began simply enough with a $5,000 donation to the DFG Game Wardens to help with feeding their canine program about 2 years ago. That in itself was enough to raise the ire of California sportsmen and women and outdoor groups. But that was also enough for HSUS to buy their way into the DFG's graces, and head Law Enforcement officer of the DFG, Nancy Foley, has now gone far beyond that in her association with HSUS.

HSUS "Law Enforcement Officers" are now being trained in the California DFG training Center in Paradise, Ca., and working under the auspices and authority of the California DFG. They are now, believe it or not, actually instructors training line officer DFG wardens!

If that's not enough, Jennifer Fearing, the California Senior State Director of HSUS was elected to the CalTIP Foundation Board of Directors at their last meeting on Oct. 6, 2011. The HSUS already has a Secret Witness Program for poaching with a standard reward of $2,500. Is the DFG pleased? Apparently so: "This is the kind of support that we have needed for 30 years. Please be happy for the Wildlife Resource and the CalTIP Foundation….I am," said Charlie Moss, Chair of the CalTIP Foundation.

Imagine the "Got Meat" commercials hiring a vegan for their spokesman; or the fur industry asking for the endorsement of PETA. That's exactly the same thing as the California Department of Fish and Game accepting the nations largest anti-hunting organizations, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), as a partner.

What is the Humane Society of the United States, exactly? First and foremost, they are not an animal "welfare" group, which is concerned about the health and well-being of animals. They are an extreme animal "rights" group, which believes that animals have equal rights to human beings.

HSUS spends millions of dollars annually to economically cripple meat and dairy producers, eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs, phase out pet breeding and to eliminate zoos and circus animal acts. They are against anyone having pets, even fish in aquariums. They demonize hunters as crazed lunatics, and are against any hunting in any form, despite its acceptance by the vast majority of people in the United States who are just fine with it, as long as it's done legally and with a sound scientific and biological base.

According to HSUS President, Wayne Pacelle, "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts, and we're phasing out animals used in research. If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." Pacelle carefully uses the word "sport" in all his diatribes, intending to convince people that hunters are only out for "sport," and that it has nothing to do with enjoyment, to help curb animal populations, and for the ultimate goal of putting meat on the table.

According to ACTIVISTCASH.com, the budget for HSUS in 2008 was $97 million. Of that, $27.5 million was spent on fundraising, $28.0 million on Campaigns, Litigation and Investigation, and $38 million on salaries. The remainder of their budget that year, about $5 million, was spent on travel. Zero dollars were spent on anything pertaining to the health and welfare of animals. In fact, their budget would be enough to fund every single animal shelter in the United States, and yet they don't own or operate a single one!

This is the organization that the California Department of Fish and Game has teamed up with, and Foley thinks it's just fine. In her own words, Foley said "We are again very grateful to the Humane Society of the United States for their support of the wardens' efforts to combat the increase in poaching. We look forward to continued collaboration on this issue." And now, HSUS has actual law enforcement officers here in California, trained at the DFG Training Center at Butte College in Paradise, and some of those officers are actual instructors, teaching DFG wardens!

How can someone who is hired by an animal-rights group, and believes animals have the same rights as humans, be teaching a Fish and Game enforcement officer? According to one attendee in one of the classes, the instructor showed a photo of hounds chasing a wild boar and said it was "animal cruelty." Until some in the class reminded the instructor that it was legal.

What the Humane Society of the United States has done here, is buy the Department of Fish and Game, and it's support, for a few thousands dollars. The DFG recently issued a news release that was headed "Department of Fish and Game and the Humane Society offer Reward for Mountain Lion poachers." That in itself is very troubling, that the DFG is lending its name and credibility to an animal-rights, anti-hunting group. What's worse, is that HSUS is given a form of credibility by that, when they are not at all a credible organization, at least not in the eyes of sportsmen and women.

Sportsmen should be afraid that there are actually HSUS law enforcement officers now in California, acting as "special investigators" under penal code section 830, and apparently under the auspices of the DFG.

The California Department of Fish and Game is a state agency responsible for the fish and wildlife of California, and is funded in great part by the sale of fishing and hunting licenses to sportsmen and women in California. They, and all Californians who believe that fish and wildlife should be managed by sound scientific and biological principles, should be infuriated that such an element as the Humane Society of the United States, who do not believe in such principles, should be associated with a state agency such as the DFG.

The partnership should end, and it should end now.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Occupy the fish and game commission proposal

OMG - I love it! =D>

[Darian]

WOW!!!! Steelie,.... I'm really impressed with that conspiracy theory. =D> Of course, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. :confused:

But something I once saw on a poster seems to fit here, "Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." :-\"

[ycflyfisher]

Reading the link to the Fish Sniffer discussion it looks like this one is a done deal in terms of what's going to the commission. That doesn't mean it has to be permanent.

I see this one turning into a mess with a mob of angry, overly emotional anglers all voicing the same rather ignorant opinion that some how the water projects and not predation by stripers is what led to the collapse in abundance of SRFC. I haven't really kept up on either the POD or stripers because it isn't where my interest lies. The SRFC collapse is however well defined. Those studies were conducted years ago, have stood up to intensive peer review and the cause was rather definitively determined to have occurred no where near the delta or anywhere inland. There's a massive body of evidence that other species along with SRFC that are dependent on the upwelling cycle in the GOF to maintain population abundance also crashed where the breakdown happened. There's no doubt that both abundance loss to the water projects and predation by stripers has an affect on the abundance of smolting SRFC that actually hit the salt, but I'm not aware of any actual science that shows or even suggests that either are having a terminal effect on population abundance of SRFC. I think that both the available science and decades of history are on the side of those that are opposed to the reg change.

I'd advocate that anyone that's going to take the time to voice your opinion on this one, do your own due diligence and familiarize yourself with the science on this issue. I am however not seeing a huge mob of angry, emotional anglers all taking the time to voice variations of the same opinion "the water projects and not the stripers led to the salmon collapse" conveying the message that I'd like to see conveyed if I felt I had a horse in this race. Repetition doesn't count for anything. Particularly when the rationalization being repeated is based on nothing more than pure ignorance and angler rhetoric. That argument is rather comical and flies in the face of the available science surrounding the collapse. I'd also find out if any of the predation studies that were being conducted are completed and are available for review.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I haven't really kept up on either the POD or stripers because it isn't where my interest lies.

If this species is not your cup of tea, then why weigh in on the discussion? Science does not support the Coalition's claims that striped bass predation has been the primary cause of the decline of salmon [-( . Had this lawsuit gone to trial, the Coalition would have lost. And, being a part of the group of intervenors in this lawsuit, I can tell you that predation studies have not been completed - that's the whole stink of this mess!


Particularly when the rationalization being repeated is based on nothing more than pure ignorance and angler rhetoric. That argument is rather comical and flies in the face of the available science surrounding the collapse. I'd also find out if any of the predation studies that were being conducted are completed and are available for review.

The lack of water having a signifcant impact on the salmon's survival is not a mere ignorant opinion [-( . That fact is actually backed up by studies that were done for the Blue Ribbon Task Force by UC Davis biologists.

No striped bass fisherman I know denies the fact that stripers do, in fact, predate on salmon smolt. They are opportunistic feeders that eat whatever they can find, same as any other predator. Although, there are studies which have been released finding that their preferred meal is actually a crustacean and not smolts.

The argument here is that they are not the primary reason for the salmon decline, which can easily be evidenced by the fact that the striped bass populations have declined just as fast and in the same time period as the salmon populations :nod: .

This all comes down to politics, and as a result, one of California's biggest recreational fishing industries is suffering :confused: . The ag interests that make up the 'Coalition for a Sustainable Delta' knew that if they could pinpoint a cause for the salmon decline was due to anything other than water shortage, they would have a better shot at getting the water they want for their crops - much of which is not always used and ends up being sold later to other agencies. It is simply MADDENING! :mad:

[ssy]

Mr. SSY, how did you know that.



PLACERVILLE — In a plot as insidious as anything you've ever seen, the California Department of Fish and Game has gone into partnership with the largest anti-hunting group in the nation, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The DFG has been infiltrated by the world's largest anti-hunting group, HSUS, which is dedicated to outlawing hunting of all types, and is even now focusing on outlawing the raising and hunting of game birds, using dogs for hunting, and even having farm animals and household pets. They are now helping to fund the DFG, are being trained at the DFG warden training school, and are even teaching classes to DFG wardens.

In began simply enough with a $5,000 donation to the DFG Game Wardens to help with feeding their canine program about 2 years ago. That in itself was enough to raise the ire of California sportsmen and women and outdoor groups. But that was also enough for HSUS to buy their way into the DFG's graces, and head Law Enforcement officer of the DFG, Nancy Foley, has now gone far beyond that in her association with HSUS.

HSUS "Law Enforcement Officers" are now being trained in the California DFG training Center in Paradise, Ca., and working under the auspices and authority of the California DFG. They are now, believe it or not, actually instructors training line officer DFG wardens!

If that's not enough, Jennifer Fearing, the California Senior State Director of HSUS was elected to the CalTIP Foundation Board of Directors at their last meeting on Oct. 6, 2011. The HSUS already has a Secret Witness Program for poaching with a standard reward of $2,500. Is the DFG pleased? Apparently so: "This is the kind of support that we have needed for 30 years. Please be happy for the Wildlife Resource and the CalTIP Foundation….I am," said Charlie Moss, Chair of the CalTIP Foundation.

Imagine the "Got Meat" commercials hiring a vegan for their spokesman; or the fur industry asking for the endorsement of PETA. That's exactly the same thing as the California Department of Fish and Game accepting the nations largest anti-hunting organizations, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), as a partner.

What is the Humane Society of the United States, exactly? First and foremost, they are not an animal "welfare" group, which is concerned about the health and well-being of animals. They are an extreme animal "rights" group, which believes that animals have equal rights to human beings.

HSUS spends millions of dollars annually to economically cripple meat and dairy producers, eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs, phase out pet breeding and to eliminate zoos and circus animal acts. They are against anyone having pets, even fish in aquariums. They demonize hunters as crazed lunatics, and are against any hunting in any form, despite its acceptance by the vast majority of people in the United States who are just fine with it, as long as it's done legally and with a sound scientific and biological base.

According to HSUS President, Wayne Pacelle, "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts, and we're phasing out animals used in research. If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." Pacelle carefully uses the word "sport" in all his diatribes, intending to convince people that hunters are only out for "sport," and that it has nothing to do with enjoyment, to help curb animal populations, and for the ultimate goal of putting meat on the table.

According to ACTIVISTCASH.com, the budget for HSUS in 2008 was $97 million. Of that, $27.5 million was spent on fundraising, $28.0 million on Campaigns, Litigation and Investigation, and $38 million on salaries. The remainder of their budget that year, about $5 million, was spent on travel. Zero dollars were spent on anything pertaining to the health and welfare of animals. In fact, their budget would be enough to fund every single animal shelter in the United States, and yet they don't own or operate a single one!

This is the organization that the California Department of Fish and Game has teamed up with, and Foley thinks it's just fine. In her own words, Foley said "We are again very grateful to the Humane Society of the United States for their support of the wardens' efforts to combat the increase in poaching. We look forward to continued collaboration on this issue." And now, HSUS has actual law enforcement officers here in California, trained at the DFG Training Center at Butte College in Paradise, and some of those officers are actual instructors, teaching DFG wardens!

How can someone who is hired by an animal-rights group, and believes animals have the same rights as humans, be teaching a Fish and Game enforcement officer? According to one attendee in one of the classes, the instructor showed a photo of hounds chasing a wild boar and said it was "animal cruelty." Until some in the class reminded the instructor that it was legal.

What the Humane Society of the United States has done here, is buy the Department of Fish and Game, and it's support, for a few thousands dollars. The DFG recently issued a news release that was headed "Department of Fish and Game and the Humane Society offer Reward for Mountain Lion poachers." That in itself is very troubling, that the DFG is lending its name and credibility to an animal-rights, anti-hunting group. What's worse, is that HSUS is given a form of credibility by that, when they are not at all a credible organization, at least not in the eyes of sportsmen and women.

Sportsmen should be afraid that there are actually HSUS law enforcement officers now in California, acting as "special investigators" under penal code section 830, and apparently under the auspices of the DFG.

The California Department of Fish and Game is a state agency responsible for the fish and wildlife of California, and is funded in great part by the sale of fishing and hunting licenses to sportsmen and women in California. They, and all Californians who believe that fish and wildlife should be managed by sound scientific and biological principles, should be infuriated that such an element as the Humane Society of the United States, who do not believe in such principles, should be associated with a state agency such as the DFG.

The partnership should end, and it should end now.

Steelie,

I read it from Western Outdoor News.

Very disturbing!

[Darian]

I didn't get the same thing out of the post by YCflyfisher. While it's true that his interest is not in the area of this issue, he's just making an observation. Nothing wrong with that.

It seems to me that his point was based on the inescapable fact that virtually every post on Blantons BB and others I've read tries to place blame for the entire issue on water exports. Judging from the tone of those posts, I agree with his assessment that the upcoming meeting will most likely degenerate into an very loud, angry, emotional exchange not based on any science... I haven't seen or heard anyone saying they will present anything other than the water issue (just one of many contributing factors) and trying to demonize the coalition and/or DFG. I've committed to attend to provide number support but will not speak. I'm picking up copies of the proposed change and the "adaptive management plan" if there is one. As I've said earlier, this type of workshop is not my cup of tea.

Agree that changes are not likely to come out of this meeting as the proposal is based on requirements of the settlement. However, as I've said in a prior post, there're still some chances to be heard on this....

IMO not so sure the coalition would have lost if this issue had gone to trial. Especially if this is, as Robin says, about politics/money. Judge Wanger made as many rulings in favor of agri-business as he did in favor of their opponents and he's considered to be an expert in water law. Altho he's now retired, his replacement may be much more conservative and less well informed about water issues making the outcome less predictable. Seems to me that there must've been some incentive to enter into this settlement agreement (other than the usual "DFG sold us out theory") for the state to participate or it wouldn't have done so.

Now, having said all of that, I recognize this is a very emotional issue for all of us and some of these posts on Blanton's BB, in particular, are/were made by those who really know better. Some of these same people would undoubtedly make a more informed (less emotional) presentation when given a chance. I hope they and Robin get a chance to speak their piece at the meeting.... :D

[huntindog]

gonna go get me some fish and chips...wooohooo

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I didn't get the same thing out of the post by YCflyfisher. While it's true that his interest is not in the area of this issue, he's just making an observation. Nothing wrong with that.

It seems to me that his point was based on the inescapable fact that virtually every post on Blantons BB and others I've read tries to place blame for the entire issue on water exports. Judging from the tone of those posts, I agree with his assessment that the upcoming meeting will most likely degenerate into an very loud, angry, emotional exchange not based on any science... I haven't seen or heard anyone saying they will present anything other than the water issue (just one of many contributing factors) and trying to demonize the coalition and/or DFG. I've committed to attend to provide number support but will not speak. I'm picking up copies of the proposed change and the "adaptive management plan" if there is one. As I've said earlier, this type of workshop is not my cup of tea.

Agree that changes are not likely to come out of this meeting as the proposal is based on requirements of the settlement. However, as I've said in a prior post, there're still some chances to be heard on this....

IMO not so sure the coalition would have lost if this issue had gone to trial. Especially if this is, as Robin says, about politics/money. Judge Wanger made as many rulings in favor of agri-business as he did in favor of their opponents and he's considered to be an expert in water law. Altho he's now retired, his replacement may be much more conservative and less well informed about water issues making the outcome less predictable. Seems to me that there must've been some incentive to enter into this settlement agreement (other than the usual "DFG sold us out theory") for the state to participate or it wouldn't have done so.

Now, having said all of that, I recognize this is a very emotional issue for all of us and some of these posts on Blanton's BB, in particular, are/were made by those who really know better. Some of these same people would undoubtedly make a more informed (less emotional) presentation when given a chance. I hope they and Robin get a chance to speak their piece at the meeting.... :D

Fair enough, and thanks Darian :D - I get a little 'over-emotional' about these fish sometimes :oops: :nod:

Paul and I do plan to be at the meeting tomorrow evening... :unibrow:

[Mike McKenzie]

For them that want, go to the meeting tomorrow night and "bitch 'em out" and get it out of your system! THEN when the necessary info comes out (as soon as we get it fully prepared) expend all the energy you have left writing a cogent, factual letter to the F&G Commission explaining why the proposed reg. changes are wrong. We need to expend every effort we can to get the message across to them and we'll need a lot more help from the fishing community than we've ever had in the past. The Commission needs to understand that it is no more business as usual in California with regard to our public trust resources.
The meeting will be December 14th & 15th in San Diego. Those than can go and make your voices heard, do so! The rest of you, write letters. We can beat this at that meeting if we are articulate enough to get our message across, period! If we are successful and the Commission rejects the proposal, it's game over and the Plaintiff's have to file for dismissal of the suit with prejudice!

Guidelines and talking points will be forth coming over the next week or so. Be patient and do not speculate!

Thank You
Mike

[cyama]

Having a little experience with getting regulation changes through the FGC we prepared a form letter to allow everyone to voice their opinion. Seeing the proposed regulations you might as well kiss striped bass fishing goodbye. Is there any way NCCFFF can prepare an editable form letter for everyone to voice their opinion?? Reducing the size limit to 12 inches that is ridiculous. If everyone sends in a letter the FGC has to take a better look at the reg changes. Trying to sit through one of their meetings especially in San Diego is crazy.

[Darian]

cyama,.... Water4fish has a petition ready for draft/signature and mailing. Check out the link:

http://water4fish.org/write-letters-to-legislators/index.php/id/.215/

After completing the petition note you can address it in an e-mail to:

BDO@usbr.gov

In doing some rummaging around on grower websites, I came across the Family Farm Alliance. This is an advocacy group for farming issues and, apparently, very influential. They spread a bunch of money around and associate with governmental officials at all levels. They're educated and well prepared on most issues, including water.

If you dig deep enough into some of these websites, it becomes obvious that there is a plan/strategy to utilize the EPA/ESA to advance their agenda which is to reduce obstacles to securing water for irrigation. Some of the publications I've seen address the need to identify and eliminate each and every one of the so-called invasive species, one-by-one and they appear to be ready to litigate to back that up. These publications are polished and professional and make their case in terms that sound quite logical and are backed up with science by industry organizations. So,.... With that in mind, we're in for a lengthy and difficult fight. We'll need to adopt a professional approach.

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

The petition you cite has nothing to do with the proposed Striped Bass reg. changes. Although its a worthy cause and something worth signing on to, it won't help with the issue of convincing the F&G Commission to reject DFG's proposed reg. change. As I said in my previous post we will be coming out a sample letter and data based talking points for the effort at the December Commission meeting. It will answer "cyama"'s questions too. Again, everyone.. Please be patient..It's coming!

Mike

[Darian]

Yep!!! I didn't read the proposed letter before posting the link. My bad. :o The letter, with a few changes, does serve a good purpose. I plan on using the template to protest the MOA. 8)

[Hatch]

Mike McKenzie,
Thank you immensely for all that you do and have done for the fly rod striper addict. Keep up the good work.
HATCH

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

A lot of angry, but respectful fisherman/ladies at the 'workshop' this evening. Jerry posted a photo on FB: http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=283364408353595&set=a.168908233132547.31486.168675733155797&type=1&theater

Besides Jerry[inLodi], I saw Darian, lots of CSBA members, a few CSPA members [Mike McKenzie, Chris Shutes, John Ryzanich], and several guides [Mike Costello, Mike Gravert among others] and tackle shop owners as well as Dan Bacher. Thank you to all who made the trip! I'm sure there were others there that I didn't see.

There were 6 or so armed DFG wardens standing in the back of the room and Director Bonham was nowhere in site. I have to say Marty Gingras had his hands full.

Basically, Marty showed and very briefly explained a powerpoint presentation on 'some' research that had been done to back up their recommendations. He stated that the presentation would be available on the DFG website 'sometime soon'. Still not enough science there as far as I'm concerned. Then, one-by-one, members of the audience were permitted up to 3 minutes to speak their piece. A lot of them wanted to know why water was not being targeted... I'm not sure they understand that DFG is making these recommendations strictly to fulfill the requirements of the settlement. Paul came up with an interesting theory - maybe they came up with these regulations that seem so unreasonable, on purpose, so that the Fish & Game Commission would be sure to reject them - effectively putting an end to the lawsuit anyway... hmmmm :-k .

Paul and I are seriously considering a trip down to San Diego for the FGC meeting in December. We'll need all hands on deck as well as as many letters as possible sent in to DFG/FGC to dispute these regulations once CSPA issues their form letter. Be ready folks!

[briansII]

Mike McKenzie,
Thank you immensely for all that you do and have done for the fly rod striper addict. Keep up the good work.
HATCH

+1 Mr. McKenzie. Thank you very much for fighting the good fight.



A lot of angry, but respectful fisherman/ladies at the 'workshop' this evening. Jerry posted a photo on FB: http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=283364408353595&set=a.168908233132547.31486.168675733155797&type=1&theater

Besides Jerry[inLodi], I saw Darian, lots of CSBA members, a few CSPA members [Mike McKenzie, Chris Shutes, John Ryzanich], and several guides [Mike Costello, Mike Gravert among others] and tackle shop owners as well as Dan Bacher. Thank you to all who made the trip! I'm sure there were others there that I didn't see.

There were 6 or so armed DFG wardens standing in the back of the room and Director Bonham was nowhere in site. I have to say Marty Gingras had his hands full.

Basically, Marty showed and very briefly explained a powerpoint presentation on 'some' research that had been done to back up their recommendations. He stated that the presentation would be available on the DFG website 'sometime soon'. Still not enough science there as far as I'm concerned. Then, one-by-one, members of the audience were permitted up to 3 minutes to speak their piece. A lot of them wanted to know why water was not being targeted... I'm not sure they understand that DFG is making these recommendations strictly to fulfill the requirements of the settlement. Paul came up with an interesting theory - maybe they came up with these regulations that seem so unreasonable, on purpose, so that the Fish & Game Commission would be sure to reject them - effectively putting an end to the lawsuit anyway... hmmmm :-k .

Paul and I are seriously considering a trip down to San Diego for the FGC meeting in December. We'll need all hands on deck as well as as many letters as possible sent in to DFG/FGC to dispute these regulations once CSPA issues their form letter. Be ready folks!


Thank you for the report on the meeting. I'm very glade to hear there was a good turn out. Waiting to hear the next steps, and how we, the folks that cannot attend meetings, can help.

briansII

[Darian]

Brian,.... The important next step is to read/absorb the info upcoming from DFG, on-line and, as Mike suggests, "expend all the energy you have left writing a cogent, factual letter to the F&G Commission explaining why the proposed reg. changes are wrong." 8-)

The meeting last night turned out to be better than I expected. DFG staff clarified the process involved in developing and making this proposal. For the most part, people who spoke were civil. With the exception of one or two speakers, it was obvious that they were controlling themselves. There were a couple of clearly inappropriate questions asked but for the most part the questions asked were pointed and what I expected. 8-)

To their credit, DFG staff made a genuine effort to answer the questions they could. Gotta give "props" to Marty Gringas for putting up with a lot of heat sent in his direction in a calm/collected manor (I sure don't have that much patience :mad: ). Some of the questions couldn't/shouldn't be answered by DFG staff but they agreed to take the questions back to their director for response.... :nod:

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Has anybody read this?

http://www.swr.noaa.gov/media/SalmonDeclineReport.pdf

Thoughts?

A WHOLE lot of discussion going on over on the Blanton BB this morning...

[briansII]

Brian,.... The important next step is to read/absorb the info upcoming from DFG, on-line and, as Mike suggests, "expend all the energy you have left writing a cogent, factual letter to the F&G Commission explaining why the proposed reg. changes are wrong." 8-)

The meeting last night turned out to be better than I expected. DFG staff clarified the process involved in developing and making this proposal. For the most part, people who spoke were civil. With the exception of one or two speakers, it was obvious that they were controlling themselves. There were a couple of clearly inappropriate questions asked but for the most part the questions asked were pointed and what I expected. 8-)

To their credit, DFG staff made a genuine effort to answer the questions they could. Gotta give "props" to Marty Gringas for putting up with a lot of heat sent in his direction in a calm/collected manor (I sure don't have that much patience :mad: ). Some of the questions couldn't/shouldn't be answered by DFG staff but they agreed to take the questions back to their director for response.... :nod:


Thanks Darian. I've been following along as best I can. I do plan on sending a letter(s) when I have digested enough to make a coherent argument against the proposed regulation change. Hopefully, lots of other folks will do the same.

briansII

[OceanSunfish]

If you are interested in reading more, go to

http://forums.coastsidefishingclub.com/showthread.php?24811-Public-Invited-to-Discuss-Proposed-Regulation-Changes-for-Striped-Bass

Continued signficant back and forth dialogue including Marty Gingras where he answers many questions after yesterday's meeting.

You Tube Video of the meeting is included in the thread. I would post the link to the youtube vids but wasn't sure I am allowed to do that......

Playback only includes the Presentation by Stafford and Marty.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I couldn't get to the forum you listed below... I don't see why the videos can't be posted, they are public videos if uploaded to YouTube:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fvXcczSACGs

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Es-9aMcx1Q&feature=related

Thank you to Coastside Fishing Club for uploading these as this allows those who couldn't make it to the meeting at least see the presentation portion.

Thanks for the forum link OSF! \\:D/