F&G Commission moves meeting from San Diego to Sacramento

[Mike McKenzie]

They heard us loud and clear last Tuesday


Commission to Receive Public Comment on Striped Bass in February

November 16, 2011 by CA DFG News

Media Contacts:
Jordan Traverso,DFGCommunications, (916) 654-9937

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) decided today to consider proposed striped bass regulations at their February meeting in Sacramento. Consideration of the proposed regulations was originally scheduled to take place at the Commission meeting in San Diego in December. This decision came after Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Director Charlton H. Bonham requested the change in order to allow interested members of the public residing near the Delta the opportunity to voice their opinions to the Commission.

“After the DFG public meeting in the Delta last week, we learned there are many passionate anglers who would like the opportunity to share their views on the draft proposal,” Bonham said. “I think it’s important to hear these views. The discussion is welcome. Moving the public discussion to Sacramento from San Diego will allow these constituents to attend the meeting. It’s the right thing to do.”

The proposed draft changes regulations 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.

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 Commissioners will decide whether to pursue the proposed regulations at their February meeting in Sacramento. If they choose to pursue the proposal it begins a process that includes at least three public hearings and the completion of an environmental document. A final decision is not expected until later in 2012.

[STEELIES/26c3]

That kicks ass!

And saves gass~;)

thanks mike! And thanks dfg commies!!

[STEELIES/26c3]

Did I say commies?

I meant commissioners~;)

[Scott V]

What a novel idea, how the meeting where the planned changes are going to impact. To hold it in San Diego basically told me that they do not care what we have to say and that they will do what they feel is right.

[Larry S]

Well, they held the September session in Redding. It was at this meeting that they
discussed implementation of the South Coast MLPA's. Divide and conquer!
Good for those of you that helped convince them to move the proceedings!
Best,
Larry S

[Darian]

We need to give some credit to the director, Bonham, for requesting the change in the location of this meeting. The commissioners listened (to their credit) as well. 8)

I'd really like to know what the "adaptive management plan" is. If I'm correct, an assessment on the impact of these changes would take a bunch of time and be costly to pursue. Also, it would take place after any potential damage has been done. My concern is that it's a bit like trying to close the door after the horses have escaped. Worst of all, these changes/plan may not do anything to change the fate of the Delta/longfin Smelt. :neutral:

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

"Adaptive management" is nothing other than bureaucratic lingo for "we'll manage them to extinction". That language has been in every document since it was "coined" during the CalFed process and is basically meaningless.

Mike

[STEELIES/26c3]

"Adaptive management"

Adaptive = of, like, able to adapt or change (especially without any rational OR sound accountability, responsibility).

Management = to manage, oversee, make the rules and regulations regarding, surrounding, affecting (also often without any rational OR sound accountability, responsibility).

Adaptive Management = Basically, a mentality of carelessly changing the rules to suit one's needs and carrying out such process/es without nailing down anything too specific nor overly scientific so as to maintain the status quo of ever-reliable shiftiness...

Change fishing regulations to accommodate the political and fiscal securities of those in control at the expense of the natural resources which should be safeguarded under OUR Public Trust Doctrine.

Assuming the name "Coalition for a Sustainable Delta" was a great example of this...

END RANT

[STEELIES/26c3]

some credit to the director, Bonham

Bonham was a great drummer in the 1970's

OK, joking aside...

My optimistic side says, "WOW! They listened and moved the meeting... Maybe there IS some hope...!" :)

BUT My cynical side still says, "Damn Conspiracy... They did that just to make it LOOK like it's not already a done deal..." :(

[Lew Riffle]

When was the last time a DFG Director directed like Bonham has just done?
This is a big time issue and this is a big time move on his part. There is a new sherrif in town and hope he does not get a gun shoved in his back.
Lew Riffle

[OceanSunfish]

Well, they held the September session in Redding. It was at this meeting that they
discussed implementation of the South Coast MLPA's. Divide and conquer!
Good for those of you that helped convince them to move the proceedings!
Best,
Larry S

I'm not trying to make excuses for State of CA agencies, but I suspect that these meetings are scheduled (time and place) maybe as much as a year ahead of time.

In the case of the striper proposal, was it coincidence that the proposal just happened to be up for review when the meeting was scheduled in San Diego in December? Hard to say....

The fact is that DFG Director got the proposal review moved to the scheduled February meeting held in Sacramento. Common sense?..... I know, rare in these times.

I hope everyone will use this extra time wisely and build more support for our cause, not get complacent and lulled to sleep.

[Larry S]

Check out http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/disapproval_decisions/2011/2011-0722-04S-DisappDec.pdf

You really only have to read the 3rd paragraph from the top to discover the reasons
for the original start date of Oct 1 being rejected by the state's Office of
Administrative Law. I'm talking about the South Coast MLPA's. A classic case of
"rush to judgment!"
I've ranted on the Kiene board before about this issue and will spare you a repeat
performance.
The "do-gooders" are in a hurry about this.
Best,
Larry S

[Darian]

Well,.... If you dig long enough eventually you'll find an answer.... :!: The Adaptive Management Plan I've been wondering about is part of the Settlement Agreement. :neutral:

I'm summarizing here.... The requirements of the planning effort are set out in terms and objectives in writing. It, also, requires a list the approvals required. As a part of the agreement, a scientific review panel (consisting of 5 members) is to be established. DFG is required to set aside $1.0 million to fund research activity.

The proposal we're currently digesting and commenting on is actually included in this agreement. The objective being to reduce predation by Striped Bass on listed species. Apparently, the chosen method is to reduce population and size of Stripers. That being the case, I have a question....

(I posted this first in a question addressed to Marty Gringas on Blanton's BB:

"Not sure whether this subject/question has arisen yet but the 2011 FYKE trap effort on Striped Bass lead to the conclusion that the current ratio of males to females was 37 to 1. Also, the effort concluded that there was a 35% increase in the number of sub-legal size Stripers.... Seems like a very high proportion of ssub-legal size Stripers already exists. The proposed changes to the regs encourages retention of the larger (females). Females being the larger of the two sexes, wouldn't the proposed changes result in a population of almost entirely males over time??? Also, wouldn't the lack of eggs produced have a large impact on birth rates and recruitment in future years??? I guess I'm answering my own questions as I write this note but have been wondering if this condition was part of the consideration in developing the proposal :question:"

After reading the agreement, I have answered my own question but wonder if you guys see this as I do; a very dangerous experiment. By encouraging catch/keep of the larger, less numerous, egg producing females aren't we coming very close to crossing over into creating another species that will qualify for listing :question: And, will Delta/Long Fin Smelts recover to a stable population as a result :question:

[STEELIES/26c3]

After reading the agreement, I have answered my own question but wonder if you guys see this as I do; a very dangerous experiment. By encouraging catch/keep of the larger, less numerous, egg producing females aren't we coming very close to crossing over into creating another species that will qualify for listing And, will Delta/Long Fin Smelts recover to a stable population as a result

IMO, The proposal favors rather non-discriminant over-harvesting and ultimately, yes the population will crash.

Unfortunately, from a biological/political perspective... and it's such a damn shame we must mix the two... USFWS to whom CDFG must answer on many levels... doesn't view striped bass as a worthwhile candidate for listing as anything since it isn't a native species.

In most instances... ESA, NEPA, CEQA, et al... are scientifically-well-founded, beneficial and meritous bits of legislation.

However when taken out of context and misapplied, and used as political and economic weapons... they are dastardly and destructive.

Perhaps your Mencken said it best... "There is always an easy solution to every problem....; neat, plausible and wrong.

M

[Mike McKenzie]

... USFWS to whom CDFG must answer on many levels.

Maybe on some levels but certainly not in this instance, the F&G Commission should let to process work..(Due Diligence) and when the final Draft Reg change comes to them they can tell them all to go pound salt by simply rejecting the proposal. The lawsuit goes away for good, also. If we can get enough support from the fishing community that will be the likely out-come. The big question is will that support be there?? The letter count (to the commissioners) will tell the tale in the end. If we lose this, Fish and Game Codes will managed by the courts. Do we really want that?

Mike

[STEELIES/26c3]

I just meant that FEDERAL Endangered Species Act legislation often overrides STATE proposals, legislation and regulations.

This is not a typical scenario.

Typical politics yes but a strange situation (in which an ad-hoc agribusiness committee used Federal law and a law suit to promote its water agenda...)

And I know you know all this better than I do but just clarifying for those who may not...

Thanks for all you have done and continue to do Mike~:)

Cya at 'the next gathering'

Mark

[Darian]

I guess everything is a two edged sword.... :confused:

[Marty Gingras]

...not sure whether this subject/question has arisen yet but the 2011 FYKE trap effort on Striped Bass lead to the conclusion that the current ratio of males to females was 37 to 1...

Sorry I didn't post a reply on Blanton.

The sex ratio of the adult striped bass we sample has been shifting towards males since we started in 1969. It was about 1:1 (males:females) and it's now more like 10:1. The reason isn't clear, but could have to do with these and a few other possibilities: (1) differential survival rates by age and/or sex, (2) run timing, and/or (3) spawning location.

This sex-ratio shift could indeed explain part of why we've got a relatively large population of adults producing seemingly small numbers of young. We've also learned that the distribution of young striped bass has shifted somewhat toward channel margins, meaning our traditional abundance indices (e.g., FMWT and TNS) are biased a bit low for young striped bass.

We developed the proposed regulations knowing this about striped bass.

[Darian]

Marty,.... Thanks for the responses. :D