Striped bass...

[Marty Gingras]

Hi all,

Thanks for the invitation to post here.

The service I can provide you is information about the 'who, what, where, when, and how' about striped bass (etc), not the 'why' about policy or legal matters.

I've been posting on fishing forums since 2005 and have learned that it is usually not helpful for me to post my opinion, so I don't.

I've also learned that --- whether due to the communication format or intent of the poster --- a lot of seemingly rhetorical questions get asked. Rhetorical questions are great of course, but it's gets messy when I try to deal with those. Thus, I'm going to avoid answering rhetorical questions and I may ask if a question is rhetorical.

Let me start with a 'what' sort of answer to a common 'why' question: If we had lost the litigation brought by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, we would likely be in a situation where a federal judge would either order us to stop enforcing certain State fishing regulations or we would have had to treat enforcement of State regulations as a 'project' under the federal ESA.

Take care

Marty Gingras
BDR-IEP Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
Bay Delta Region
4001 North Wilson Way
Stockton, California 95205

Phone (209) 948-3702
Phone (831) 372-2581
FAX (209) 946-6355
email mgingras@dfg.ca.gov

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Welcome to our forum Marty.

It will be nice to hear some of your feed back.

[Tony Buzolich]

Marty,
Glad to see you on board as well and hopefully we'll stay away from politics and religion:).

Here's your first question that seems to come up regularly. Is there an easy way to accurately identify the sex of a striped bass without gutting it?

Most of us know that females tend to be larger when mature but what about immature females? And conversely, I've taken larger stripers (15lbs.) that I would have sworn were females that were spilling milt (obviously male).

Again, welcome to the board,
TONY

[Darian]

Welcome Marty,.... I'm wondering what the basis for choosing the numbers for bag/possession limits was (e.g. 6 per day/12 in possession and 20 per day/40 in possession) :?: Why not 4 or even 10 per day, etc. :?:

[Tony Buzolich]

Darian, you're starting right out with a "why". :)

.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Actually - it looks like Darian's asking "What was the basis for choosing the numbers for bag/possession limits was (e.g. 6 per day/12 in possession and 20 per day/40 in possession)" even though he followed it up with 'Why' question of sorts... 8)

I'd be interested in hearing more about what that basis was as well... :-k

[Mike McKenzie]

I guess my e-mail got to the right folks and the glitch got fixed, .....Welcome to the Board and have fun!:)
Mike

[Darian]

In clarification, I asked the why question as it is the follow-up that clarifies the original and doesn't appear to require and answer dealing with legal or policy issues. But, I'll leave it to Marty to decide that one.... :unibrow:

[Marty Gingras]

Is there an easy way to accurately identify the sex of a striped bass without gutting it?

Unfortunately no. Except (of course) for spawners during spawning season.

When we tag striped bass for the population study, it's during April and May and we sex them by seeing if they release milt. Those that don't release milt are called females even though they could be spent males. In recent years we sacrificed some fish and found that our method of assigning sex to the sample was 100% correct. Plenty of the big fish we see are males...


I'm wondering what the basis for choosing the numbers for bag/possession limits was (e.g. 6 per day/12 in possession and 20 per day/40 in possession) :?: Why not 4 or even 10 per day, etc. :?:

That's a 'why' question, but I'll offer this: The selection of bag limits and size limits was not the result of a quantitative analysis. The proposed size limit is in large part about the size at which striped bass become heavily piscivorous and the relatively great abundance of striped bass that size. The proposed bag (and possession) limits are in large part about enforcement, where higher limits are more likely than smaller limits to result in illegal commercialization --- and illegal commercialization is bad.

[Marty Gingras]

Hi all,

Our Staff Report should be released next week some time. It's the narrative rationale for our proposal.

For those inclined to do some reading, here is a link to the documents cited:

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Sturgeon_and_Striped_Bass/Staff%20Report%20---%20Literature%20Cited/

I would post the entire Literature Cited and Other Pertinent Literature sections of the Staff Report, but the post would be too long. I'll make a document of those sections and update this post with a link...

Thanks

Marty Gingras
BDR-IEP Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
Bay Delta Region
4001 North Wilson Way
Stockton, California 95205

Phone (209) 948-3702
Phone (831) 372-2581
FAX (209) 946-6355
email mgingras@dfg.ca.gov

[Darian]

Marty,.... As I recall, the Division Chief that attended the meeting in Rio Vista mentioned completion of a report as part of the process in adoption of the proposed changes to the regs. Would that report (if any) be an EIR :question:

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,.... As I recall, the Division Chief that attended the meeting in Rio Vista mentioned completion of a report as part of the process in adoption of the proposed changes to the regs. Would that report (if any) be an EIR :question:

That was Stafford Lehr, Chief of Fisheries Branch. If the Commission directs us (and Commission staff) to start a formal public process that could lead to a regulation change, then some decision-maker will decide what document would be appropriate for satisfaction of CEQA. What that document would be (e.g., Neg Dec, EIR) would depend on what regulation is being considered.

[Larry S]

Marty:
I admire your willingness, patience, and maybe even courage, in expressing
your points here at Kiene and, also, over at the Blanton board. Would be nice
to see more of this from our state agencies.
Best,
Larry S

[Marty Gingras]

Thanks Larry S. The forums are a great way for biologist-types to share resource management 'process' information and fisheries information that is ordinarily housed somewhere relatively obscure, and for anglers to tell biologist-types what's up. I think it was Mike McKenzie (maybe Red B.) who turned me onto them back around 2005. I can't imagine trying to do my work with sturgeon and striped bass w/o them.

I know many biologist-types who would love to post, but it's an acquired skill (e.g., staying constructive while getting blasted!) and getting it wrong is messy. I've been banned from two, been contacted by higher-ups who received a complaint for my use of a word I considered benign, and have been threatened for not(!?) posting on another. Forums have personalities and several are really good (e.g., this one).

[cyama]

What is the proposed time frame for this reg change? Since the reg change could not be listed in the 2012 regs. Is this to start in 2013? if approved.... Is the DFG considering this an emergency reg change?

[Marty Gingras]

What is the proposed time frame for this reg change? Since the reg change could not be listed in the 2012 regs. Is this to start in 2013? if approved.... Is the DFG considering this an emergency reg change?

DFG has not recommended that the regulations we've proposed be implemented on an emergency basis.

Given the process, there is basically no chance that regulations along the lines of what we propose could be implemented during 2012.

Happy Thanksgiving

[malbers]

Marty,

This is all very hypothetical, but given that the angling population is unable to pursued the regulations changes from being pushed through, has there ever been discussion on creating a slot size limit for Striped Bass? Taking more little ones, and have everyone be forced to put the larger breeding males and females back to propagate the species.

Thank you,

[Marty Gingras]

...has there ever been discussion on creating a slot size limit for Striped Bass?

Back in 2006, Doug Lovell sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission, and made a presentation to the Commission, proposing a slot limit of 17 to 30 inches. The proposed maximum size limit was a legitimate striped bass conservation measure and the proposed minimum size limit was a potential conservation measure for native fishes. I haven't heard of formal proposals for a slot limit since 2006.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Back in 2006, Doug Lovell sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission, and made a presentation to the Commission, proposing a slot limit of 17 to 30 inches. The proposed maximum size limit was a legitimate striped bass conservation measure and the proposed minimum size limit was a potential conservation measure for native fishes. I haven't heard of formal proposals for a slot limit since 2006.

I would think that there would be a major concern for human consumption of the larger fish in regards to the levels of mercury in their systems. Increasing the take of these fish will inevitably increase the public's consumption of this toxic chemical. This consequence, however unintended it may be, is still a consequence.

I would think a slot limit of 16 " to 28" would suffice. This lets the little guys get big enough to be meal worthy (who in the world would really eat a 12" striped bass? #-o), but leaves the big toxic fish in the water. Isn't it really the 'schoolies' (1 - 10 lbs or so) that are more likely to be feeding on minnows [smolt] anyway? I would think the bigger fish eat the younger striped bass... Bigger meal = less energy spent?

Have any dietary studies been done based on the size of the specimen being collected? Or have they simply been done based on the species as a whole?

[Darian]

I, too, have been wondering about the health warnings for consumption of Stripers over certain sizes and at specified intervals but for a different reason. Adoption of the proposed changes is supposed to encourage keeping Stripers of any size in the hot spots, many or all of which will be consumed. Yet, the health warnings in the F&G Regs seems to discourage consumption of larger Stripers and only at specified intervals. :neutral:

Further, there are log established regulations against waste of fish/game. The proposed regs would appear to encourage waste since very few individuals or their families could eat 26 Stripers per day. All of this seems to be sending a conflicting message.... :confused:

Sooo,.... The question is, was any of this taken into consideration in developing the proposed changes and if the goal is to reduce the Striper population, wouldn't it work better if all conflicting sections were amended as well :question:

[Marty Gingras]

Have any dietary studies been done based on the size of the specimen being collected? Or have they simply been done based on the species as a whole?

The dietary studies I'm familiar with have all collected the data necessary to identify the fish eaten by striped bass of a particular size, but only most of the studies have also documented the size of prey. Due to rapid digestion of prey, it's actually quite tough (read, expensive) to get accurate lengths of prey items.


...was any of this taken into consideration in developing the proposed changes...

It was indeed.

W/regard to the proposed possession limits and the safe-eating guidelines, there are many different ways to think about our proposal. Here are a few:

(1) Due to striped bass demographics, the proposal would have the effect of allowing people to limit on small fish rather than large fish and --- because small fish have somewhat lower Mercury concentrations and relatively small mass --- those small-fish limits are safer than large-fish limits;

(2) the present bag and possession limits allow people to eat ~730 striped bass per year, yet you don't hear about people doing that;

(3) white sturgeon and striped bass have similar Mercury concentrations, even though a white sturgeon limit likely has much more Mercury (due to fish size) than the proposed striped bass limit.

[Darian]

Thanks for the response, Marty. I guess the consideration reflected is the opposite of what I thought it might be....

Would you say that the reason you don't hear about people eating the amount of Stripers possible in a given year is due to catch & release practices or just that nobody has actually checked on it :?:

[ssy]

The dietary studies I'm familiar with have all collected the data necessary to identify the fish eaten by striped bass of a particular size, but only most of the studies have also documented the size of prey. Due to rapid digestion of prey, it's actually quite tough (read, expensive) to get accurate lengths of prey items.



It was indeed.

W/regard to the proposed possession limits and the safe-eating guidelines, there are many different ways to think about our proposal. Here are a few:

(1) Due to striped bass demographics, the proposal would have the effect of allowing people to limit on small fish rather than large fish and --- because small fish have somewhat lower Mercury concentrations and relatively small mass --- those small-fish limits are safer than large-fish limits;

(2) the present bag and possession limits allow people to eat ~730 striped bass per year, yet you don't hear about people doing that;

(3) white sturgeon and striped bass have similar Mercury concentrations, even though a white sturgeon limit likely has much more Mercury (due to fish size) than the proposed striped bass limit.

(1) Nice way of sugar-coating it!

[Marty Gingras]

Would you say that the reason you don't hear about people eating the amount of Stripers possible in a given year is due to catch & release practices or just that nobody has actually checked on it :?:

From our creel data, the population of successful striped bass anglers are on average taking home less than the daily bag limit and releasing a lot of striped bass. That said, some may take limits frequently and some may eat quite a lot of striped bass.

I've never found any sign of a study about the eating habits of local striped bass anglers (or any anglers for that matter). It could be done, but would be expensive and pretty challenging.

[Darian]

Hi Marty,.... Just so you won't think we were giving you some time off for the holidays ;) , I have a question related to invasives. How much impact, if any, has the unusually large volume of hyacinth had on the low end of the food chain in the delta and on food sources for the Delta/Longfin Smelt :?: It must be part of the reason some parts of the Delta waters are so clear.... :confused:

A follow-up on the above question is, what impact, if any, on the low end food chain has spraying to control hyacinth had on food sources for the same species :?:

[Marty Gingras]

Hi Marty,.... Just so you won't think we were giving you some time off for the holidays ;)

No problem at all!


How much impact, if any, has the unusually large volume of hyacinth had on the low end of the food chain in the delta and on food sources for the Delta/Longfin Smelt :?: It must be part of the reason some parts of the Delta waters are so clear....

Since 2003 at least, discussion of exotic plants impacting fish has been about Egeria densa (Brazilian waterweed) rather hyacinth. Egeria is thought to have been a major part of the observed increase in water clarity.


A follow-up on the above question is, what impact, if any, on the low end food chain has spraying to control hyacinth had on food sources for the same species :?:

I looked into this a while back and didn't find much information. The science is done by Department of Boating and Waterways. I can't do the topic justice here now, but there are a few threads about weed control on Blanton's Board, the following being (as I recall) the most fact-based:

http://www.danblanton.com/viewmessage.php?id=153787

Current emphasis on food for delta smelt is focused on the low-salinity zone (aka X2) during Fall. Research is on-going actually and is urgent, because one of the RPAs in the OCAP BO for delta smelt requires X2 to be farther downstream under certain circumstances and the rationale is (in part, basically) that delta smelt growth and survival is better when X2 is relatively far downstream during Fall.

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Is X2 (Low salinity zone) where Smelt spend the majority of the year in the bays/Delta :question:

Thinking out loud here.... I suppose the study of Smelt food sources in the fall is more reflective of impacts on food sources in X2 of low water (due to reduced input flows) than the rest of the year.... ( :?: :confused: )

But, until it rains in the fall the only solution to moving X2 downstream appears to be increased releases from upstream storage. Do the upstream releases of water for Salmon spawning help or hinder the movement of X2 in favor of the Smelt or are there some timing issues :?:

The more I think about this stuff, the more I realize how complex the overall relationships really are.... :neutral:

[ycflyfisher]

Marty,

Did the multiagency task force ever complete the study that was being conducted on the POD? If so is it available for public review? If not, is there anything more recent that the "Progress Report" from 2008 available?

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,

Did the multiagency task force ever complete the study that was being conducted on the POD? If so is it available for public review? If not, is there anything more recent that the "Progress Report" from 2008 available?

The POD investigations are still going on. Here is the web site:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/

Here is a link to the latest synthesis of findings:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/synthesis_results_workplans.cfm

[Marty Gingras]

Is X2 (Low salinity zone) where Smelt spend the majority of the year in the bays/Delta :question:

Sort of. Here are 'interactive' maps:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=20mm

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=SLS

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=SKT

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=TOWNET


Do the upstream releases of water for Salmon spawning help or hinder the movement of X2 in favor of the Smelt or are there some timing issues :?:

I can't do that question justice. Suffice to say that there are plans afoot to (sort of) consolidate the NMFS and USFWS OCAP Biological Opinions so that interactions can be better addressed.


The more I think about this stuff, the more I realize how complex the overall relationships really are.... :neutral:

I do believe that ours is the most-complicated system in the country where major efforts are underway to understand and improve things.

[Darian]

Marty,.... Are Salmon/Steelhead included as potential predators of listed species (either in larval or adult stages) in the Delta :?: I'm thinking that outmigrating or returning Salmon/Steelhead have the opportunity to feed on larval and adult stages of Smelts and are certainly capable of canabalism, at least until they are incapable of digesting their food.... :neutral:

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,.... Are Salmon/Steelhead included as potential predators of listed species (either in larval or adult stages) in the Delta :?: I'm thinking that outmigrating or returning Salmon/Steelhead have the opportunity to feed on larval and adult stages of Smelts and are certainly capable of canabalism, at least until they are incapable of digesting their food.... :neutral:

In the longfin smelt status report, in which we recommended that species become listed as threatened under the California ESA (it did), we wrote this on-topic:

"In late-winter and spring when longfin smelt larvae are present, large numbers of Chinook salmon juveniles migrate through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Because juveniles of both species are known to eat larval fishes (Merz 2001 and 2002), they may eat larval longfin smelt." [Edit: It should say 'Chinook salmon and steelhead' rather than 'Chinook'...]

Merz, J. E. 2001. Diet of juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon in the lower Mokelumne River, California. California Fish & Game 87(3):102-114.

Merz, J. E. 2002. Seasonal feeding habits, growth, and movement of steelhead trout in the lower Mokelumne River, California. California Fish & Game 88(3):95-111.

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10263

No doubt there are a few other feeding studies that speak to this.

[Marty Gingras]

I just realized that it's probably important to make sure folks understand the following about 'sampling effort':

Folks latch on to the fact that we report finding few listed fish inside the stomachs of striped bass and that listed fish often get salvaged and lost at the south Delta diversions.

I've said that we find few listed fish inside the stomachs of striped bass because listed fish are so rare (and quickly digested; we have data on this) and striped bass are so abundant, such that finding listed fish inside striped bass is like finding a needle in a haystack.

I have not made it clear that even our largest feeding studies have looked at an incredibly tiny fraction of the predator-sized striped bass. I'll get the data together, but I suspect our biggest feeding studies have looked at less than 1000 striped bass in a year, though there have been a million or more predatory striped bass each year.

I have not made it clear that salvage is conducted 24-7 when water is being diverted, and all diverted water is screened, such that a large fraction of all diverted water (Bacher calls diverted water 'predation') is sampled for listed fish.

If the proportion of diverted water we've looked at for listed fish was as tiny as the proportion of the striped bass population we've looked at for listed fish, we'd probably never have seen a salvaged delta smelt or longfin smelt and would rarely have seen a salvaged salmon.

[Justin]

Marty,

Posting information on what you "think" would be the outcome, based on effort, seems to be a justification for DFG's action. I think personal opinions should be left as such. The simple fact that water diversion is not the topic, but stripers are, makes me sick. I would much rather see my dollars spent attacking the real issues, the facts. Not because I love stripers so much, but because I honestly care about the health of the Delta, and the water that makes it such. But thats my opinion. Another opinion, 20 years from now, if nothing changes but striper regs, the Delta will be a void less water way. Please attack the real issues, for my son, and the next generation that will ply the delta for that next adventure

Justin

[Darian]

Justin,.... I believe that what Marty posted was not personal opinion or unreasonable. I welcome the clarification as it promotes better understanding. If that helps justify DFG's proposal, so be it. After all, Marty is a DFG employee. That's part of his job.

Let's keep the venting in this thread to a minimum. :)

[Marty Gingras]

I've been posting on fishing forums since 2005 and have learned that it is usually not helpful for me to post my opinion, so I don't.


...we'd probably never have seen a salvaged delta smelt or longfin smelt and would rarely have seen a salvaged salmon.


Posting information on what you "think" would be the outcome, based on effort, seems to be a justification for DFG's action.

I'm completely not offended or concerned by Justin's mild rebuke of my use of the term 'probably' (I take his point as constructive), but it's a classic example of just how tricky it is for me to post on fishing forums. I could have posted a formula rather than used the term 'probably' or I could have left the implication unsaid, but that's not particularly clear communication...

[Justin]

After re-reading my post, I can see how it could be viewed as venting. That was not my intention. My intention is not to attack Marty either. He has stood strong on his views in the midst of an uproar. This proposal will define the Delta for years to come. If the data supports the proposal, than fine. But it has not been produced as of yet, just speculation. I felt it necessary to make clear that what Marty posted was a derived thought on what possibly would be the outcome, not on what is shown by data. Of course, with further release of information or studies, his points could be shown as "facts". Predator consumption is not known. Fish kill to water loss is a no brainer. I know what I am saying has been said 100 times, so I will shut my mouth.

Justin

[Darian]

Justin,.... Thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree that what's at stake is the future shape of the Delta and share the sentiment about scientific proof. (Altho, I'm not a scientist)

I don't believe for a minute that the changes proposed by DFG will be the last to come from any/all sources. Stripers are just the current issue by virtue of the settlement. We're on the same page. Hope you'll Keep commenting on this stuff.... :D

[Marty Gingras]

I would post the entire Literature Cited and Other Pertinent Literature sections of the Staff Report, but the post would be too long. I'll make a document of those sections and update this post with a link...

Sorry it took me so long to follow through with the bibliography for the Staff Report we will soon release in support of the regulatory proposal.

Here is a link to a draft of the bibliography:

ftp://ftp.delta.dfg.ca.gov/Adult_Sturgeon_and_Striped_Bass/DRAFT%20REFERENCES.pdf

The Staff Report really should be out this week.

Also, last week we posted an 'annotated' version of the presentation we gave at Rio Vista:

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=40078

[Darian]

Marty,.... In the PowerPoint presentation to the F&G Comm concerning the proposed changes, on the final slide, there's mention that the proposal was developed in conjunction with several entities, among which were the intervenors in the cause of action. Could you provide the names of the intervenors who participated :?: If unable to provide the names, could you tell me the appropriate person to direct this question to :?:

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Marty,.... In the PowerPoint presentation to the F&G Comm concerning the proposed changes, on the final slide, there's mention that the proposal was developed in conjunction with several entities, among which were the intervenors in the cause of action. Could you provide the names of the intervenors who participated :?: If unable to provide the names, could you tell me the appropriate person to direct this question to :?:

Yes - I'd like to know as well because NCCFFF were intervenors, and we were not included in the development of these proposed changes... [-(

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,.... In the PowerPoint presentation to the F&G Comm concerning the proposed changes, on the final slide, there's mention that the proposal was developed in conjunction with several entities, among which were the intervenors in the cause of action. Could you provide the names of the intervenors who participated :?: If unable to provide the names, could you tell me the appropriate person to direct this question to :?:

We are not making any sort of representation that the Intervenors support any aspect of the proposal.

That slide says the proposal was developed "...with input from Federal Agencies, Plaintiffs and Intervenors...", not "...in conjunction with Federal Agencies, Plaintiffs and Intervenors..."

Both Intervenors participated in a meeting with us that we requested. They gave us their opinion about changing the striped bass regulations. I don't have the names of those who participated in the meeting, but our Office of General Counsel does.

[Dave Sellers]

Hi Darian,

Unfortunately Marty is leaving out some important details.

We as intervenors, protested the arrangement between the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta (CSA) and the DFG when they entered into settlement talks with a magistrate judge as being "out of bounds" because it did not include us. Judge Wanger was equally upset, as it was not normal and subjected the process to the calamity we are working through now. Nevertheless, we were ultimately, by Judge Wanger, given the opportunity to input on the settlement agreement and we provided a "redlined" document (edits in red) and the DFG and CSA rejected all of our edits. Ultimately we had NO input, NONE, ZERO, make no mistake on this point.

So, when I hear from Marty now that we had input, I would like to remind him that "input" implies that important points sympathetic to our perspective were included in the settlement agreement and they were not. Nothing we asked for was considered. He's welcome to argue this point but he'll never get purchase with me (or Robin) as we were there through the entire process.

My personal advice for Marty is that he recapture integrity on this point and simply state that the angling community was left out of the settlement agreement process. Then he can soften the blow if by saying that NOW we are given a chance to advocate through the public input process. But how Marty conducts himself is up to him and his superiors I suppose.

Dave

[Marty Gingras]

So, when I hear from Marty now that we had input, I would like to remind him that "input" implies that important points sympathetic to our perspective were included in the settlement agreement and they were not. Nothing we asked for was considered. He's welcome to argue this point but he'll never get purchase with me (or Robin) as we were there through the entire process.

Dave's welcome to re-define the word 'input', and to (it seems) conflate the Settlement Agreement with the regulatory proposal, but (1) we weren't discussing the Settlement Agreement and (2) my statement about the regulatory proposal remains accurate.


My personal advice for Marty is that he recapture integrity on this point and simply state that the angling community was left out of the settlement agreement process.

My integrity is whole Dave.

[Dave Sellers]

Marty,

You can be as comfortable as you want with the word "input" but you're still misrepresented the facts as the readers here might interpret them. So, if you want to drag this out, let me ask you a simple question. Were any of the intervenor "inputs" in the red line document addressed in the final settlement agreement? Yes or no will do.

As for your integrity, that's yours to decide not mine.



For the Readers of Bill Kiene's forum, in case some of you don't know, let's look at the facts:

The DFG rigorously opposed ANY change to the striped bass regs. in the trial

The DFG repelled (or should I say the judge repelled) a summary judgement stating that the plaintiff (CSD) had simply not proven it's case. The DFG stood it's ground.

The DFG then (much to the surprise of Judge Wanger) entered into a settlement agreement, under the guidance of a magistrate judge, (not Judge Wanger) and neither side solicited input from the intervenors in the talks, they were secret.

We were given the opportunity to input on the settlement agreement when Judge Wanger heard that we were left out of the secret settlement agreement talks. He was NOT happy that the talks were secret and kept from us.

We took the opportunity and provided input, the DFG and CSD rejected our input, so we had NO input.

We had the chance to sign on to the agreement or to reject it outright, we had no choice but to reject because none of our concerns were addressed, so, again, we had NO input.

That's what happened. I think all of you who follow Kiene's forum should know this. And Marty will not refute any of this because it's the truth.

How we proceed from here should be, in some part, informed by what I've laid out here, because I feel, and I think you'll agree, it's pertinent.

Remember first and foremost that the DFG was, only a little over a year ago, desperately fighting (to the tax payer dollar tune of several million dollars) ANY change in striper regs.

They developed a case of cold feet because they thought they could be liable for more money (legal fees for the plaintiffs) and legal peril for themselves and other States if they lost (federal law exposes other State's as well). So, basically, they were ultimately not "in it to win it" as they say.

Now we're living with the consequences. We have a DFG that is arguing the case of the plaintiffs. Gotta love it.

Just keep this in mind as you read Marty's posts. It will provide perspective, but probably won't provide comfort.

Going forward, we'll have to assume the role the DFG arguably should have played all along. Only now we are (amazing irony) fighting the DFG and it's paid staffers arguing against them on their original case. Incredible

Dave

[Marty Gingras]

You can be as comfortable as you want with the word "input" but you're still misrepresented the facts as the readers here might interpret them...

Dave: If the folks here need you to argue their questions and concerns, or seek your proactive clarification of what they might misinterpret, I'd be surprised. We are talking about moving forward and the process is clear --- The Commission can adopt, amend, or reject the proposal. Anglers are encouraged to provide feedback/recommendations to the Commission. Anglers can give feedback/recommendations on (for example) political, economic, and/or scientific-oriented bases. I'm here only to provide information about scientific-oriented and (to a limited extent) process matters.

[Darian]

OK,.... For the purposes of this exchange, can we all agree that providing input to any process can be verbal or written and that a legitimate response to that input can be a rejection or acceptance of all or a part of the input :question: In that context, input was provided but, apparently, rejected by DFG. :neutral:

Here's some additional, high level perspective.... For whatever reason, DFG chose to enter into an agreement that was ultimately approved by former Judge Wanger to perform certain actions and the proposal is all or a part of the outcome of that agreement. :neutral:

Settlements are quite common in dealing with lawsuits where it's unclear what the outcome of litigation will be regardless of who the adversaries are. As I've said in another post in this thread, "a good settlement is better than a bad lawsuit." Apparently both the plaintiffs and DFG had reason to believe that it was better to settle than litigate regardless of whether either had a good case. :neutral:

On the other hand, sometimes a settlement doesn't work out the way all parties (including intervenors) to a particular action may want it too. That's the case here. Regardless of the reason(s) DFG entered into the agreement, it was approved by the court and we (almost everyone else) disapprove. All past history. Time to look forward. 8)

Marty,.... Your response answered a question that popped into my head when I read that presentation to the Commission.... :neutral:

I do have one observation about the choice of words in the presentation, tho. It seems to me that there's a very fine line between stating the proposal was developed with input and in conjunction with. Both imply that input provided was used in the development process. Neither choice of wording suggests the input was rejected. :-k Perhaps a tactical choice in making the presentation by those developing the slides, tho. :neutral:

[Dave Sellers]

"input" implies (standard defintion) that the "input" influenced the outcome, which in this case it did not. If my clarification is "proactive", so be it.

I would prefer that Marty stick to his very last paragraph as it's the realm in which he is safest within the context of his outreach obligations and the most valuable to us in our advocacy efforts:

"Commission can adopt, amend, or reject the proposal. Anglers are encouraged to provide feedback/recommendations to the Commission. Anglers can give feedback/recommendations on (for example) political, economic, and/or scientific-oriented bases. I'm here only to provide information about scientific-oriented and (to a limited extent) process matters."

There is a political and legal subtext to all of this, and it's valuable, in my opinion, for everyone to be aware of where we've been in order to wisely move forward.


Dave

[Marty Gingras]

I do have one observation about the choice of words in the presentation, tho. It seems to me that there's a very fine line between stating the proposal was developed with input and in conjunction with. Both imply that input provided was used in the development process. Neither choice of wording suggests the input was rejected. :-k Perhaps a tactical choice in making the presentation by those developing the slides, tho. :neutral:

Fair enough, for sure. It's become clear that word-choice is extremely important. Let me offer this though as a rhetorical: Since no one knows what our regulatory proposal would have been in absence of the statements made to us by the Intervenors at the meeting we invited them to, how can anyone say --- especially with 'ALL CAPS' certainty --- that those statements did not in fact heavily influence the regulatory proposal? My personal opinion is that the proposal is not what it would have been in absence of statements by the Intervenors...

[Dave Sellers]

Marty,

The intervenors were left out of the settlement talks and our mark up of the settlement agreement was dismissed by the DFG and the CSD.

If I read your words correctly, you are saying that despite the statement above, the intervenors did influence the outcome of the reg change proposal.

So, without our input, it seems you are saying that it could have been worse.

If that is your opinion, then I think people should know it, and I appreciate your offering it. Do you care to elaborate on what the proposal might have been had our concerns not been part of the process?

BTW, apologies for questioning your "personal" integrity. Despite my often sharp words directed at you as a representative of the DFG, in this process, I have worked hard to avoid the personal in all of my discussions with you. My patience runs thin at times but that should not be an excuse to make it personal. So, again, my apologies.

Dave

[briansII]

Dave. Thanking you for taking the time to shed more light on this subject. It's good to read additional, firsthand knowledge on this process. I hope to learn more as we move forward.

briansII

[Darian]

Interesting.... The historical perspective is important but it's just history and all of it was discussed at length on Dan's BB (with a lot of emotion, I might add). :|

So, with that in mind, can we agree that what we have to deal with now is how to craft a reasonable opposition to DFG's proposal :?: Not sure I want to know if the current proposal could've had more impact as this one is scary enough.... :nod: Lets keep our focus on developing info that will support our opposition to the proposal.... :|

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Interesting.... The historical perspective is important but it's just history and all of it was discussed at length on Dan's BB (with a lot of emotion, I might add). :|

So, with that in mind, can we agree that what we have to deal with now is how to craft a reasonable opposition to DFG's proposal :?: Not sure I want to know if the current proposal could've had more impact than this one as this one is scary enough.... :nod: Lets keep our focus on developing info that will support our opposition to the proposal.... :|

=D>

Here, here! :D

[Darian]

Marty,.... In a prior post, you mention that two of the intervenors were invited to a meeting to discuss the proposal. I would like to find out the names of the two organizations as they might have some info that would be useful. Could you give me the name/e-mail of someone in your General Counsels Office for contact :?:

[Dave Sellers]

Darian and Robin,

We're working on it. In fact that is all Mike McKenzie and I are doing with most of our spare time. We've developed a work flow process and, at the current moment, are waiting for the staff report from DFG so that we know exactly what science is being used and how it's organized in support the proposal. Our cards are close to the vest for the obvious reasons but a procedure has been initiated and we have help.

My comments here were not meant to send the process backwards by focusing on days gone by, but rather, to inform those on Kiene's board of the history of the suit, from our perspective. I don't know if everyone following this thread visits other sites.

Enough said, from me for now, I'm sure!

Dave

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,.... In a prior post, you mention that two of the intervenors were invited to a meeting to discuss the proposal. I would like to find out the names of the two organizations as they might have some info that would be useful. Could you give me the name/e-mail of someone in your General Counsels Office for contact :?:

Office of General Counsel is at (916) 654-3821. Steve Ingram has been the lead.

[Marty Gingras]

So, without our input, it seems you are saying that it could have been worse.

If that is your opinion, then I think people should know it, and I appreciate your offering it. Do you care to elaborate on what the proposal might have been had our concerns not been part of the process?

I'm not going to hypothesize about what the proposal might have been.

It's worth reminding folks of these facts: In (as I recall) 2010, NOAA Fisheries --- by letter and in person --- asked the Commission to (more or less) remove all limits on the recreational harvest of striped bass. Reducing predation through revisions to sportfishing regulations is a prominent feature of NOAA Fisheries' Public Draft Central Valley Recovery Plan for the listed Central Valley salmonids.


BTW, apologies for questioning your "personal" integrity.

Accepted w/o reservation.

[Justin]

Marty,

With the proposal in mind, Is there some contingency plan if that fails? I don't mean not passing, but being implemented and the results not being satisfactory. If striper numbers are reduced and we still don't see a rebound in the listed species, what could we expect next from the department? Would it be another review of predatory species in the Delta, or perhaps a look at other factors such as managing resources(water)?

Thanks,

Justin

[Marty Gingras]

With the proposal in mind, Is there some contingency plan if that fails? I don't mean not passing, but being implemented and the results not being satisfactory.

We are using the term 'adaptive management' the way you are using the term 'contingency plan'.

The Staff Report has a simple adaptive management plan that will give you a sense of how we see things.

I just posted a thread here with a link to the Staff Report:

http://www.kiene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=108722#post108722

I would imagine that the adaptive management plan will get fleshed out if the Commission does not reject the proposal outright.

[Darian]

Justin,.... We must've been channeling each others thoughts.... I have an additional question (or two):

I've been reading about hatcheries and find that there are two types. 1) a production hatchery and 2) a conservation hatchery. Has the Department considered using the conservation hatchery for maintaining a breeding population of Delta listed species other than for Salmon/Steelhead :?: It was reported in our local newspaper that UC Davis was considering collecting specimens for a potential breeding program.... To your knowledge, has UC Davis, implemented/collected any of those species for breeding/preservation :?:

[Marty Gingras]

Has the Department considered using the conservation hatchery for maintaining a breeding population of Delta listed species other than for Salmon/Steelhead

Longfin smelt are listed only under CESA while delta smelt are listed under both FESA and CESA.

UC Davis is working on rearing techniques for longfin smelt in anticipation of maintaining them at a conservation facility.

USFWS and UC Davis (at one point facilitated by DFG and SWRCB) have for several years been maintaining delta smelt at a conservation facility.

[ycflyfisher]

The POD investigations are still going on. Here is the web site:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/

Here is a link to the latest synthesis of findings:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/synthesis_results_workplans.cfm

Marty,

Thanks for taking the time to provide the links to the latest POD progress reports. The last one I read, I think was from 2008. The POD progress reports paint a pretty bleak picture of the relative health of the Delta and makes it pretty clear that the POD is a result of a “perfect storm” type of event where there’s a myriad of potential contributors working synergistically to facilitate the collapse. With some being very obvious and significant contributors, to some factors whose contributions are hard/impossible to define or gage and a ton of contributors that probably have a lot less magnitude in terms of contributing to the collapse of the 4 pelagics in the POD.



I think it’s rather sad that most anglers only seem to want to discuss the “top down” effects of predation and entrainment and that most anglers seem to conclude that if the vehicle driving entrainment were removed from the picture that all the issues within the Delta would simply correct themselves. I personally think that notion is fairly comical. It seems to me that most that seem to feel compelled to crucify you on these forums seem completely oblivious to the “bottom up” issues that seem to be indicative of a shift from a somewhat balanced pelagic environs to an unnatural, mixed pelagic- littoral environs throughout the Delta and also a shift in the lower Delta where plankton consumption was somewhat balanced to one that is a largely benthic killzone for the introduced filter feeders. Despite that most striper anglers seem to think that mothballing the pumps solves all the Delta’s issues, the POD progress reports seem to reveal major problems that make it a huge issue for any real chance of a rebound to sustainable “normal” abundance for the 4 POD pelagics and also potentially declines in relative abundance for all species including those not listed that are dependent on plankton consumption for portions of their respective LHs. The massive shift in native copepods, mysids and the other critters that could be considered “prey items” to the smelt and other listed species to dominance by less metabolically beneficial “food” doesn’t exactly paint the proverbial positive picture either.

I feel for you guys and gals that are monitoring the Delta and are charged with “fixing” these potential issues. I haven’t read much about the Delta other than the POD progress reports and the work conducted by someone whom I personally know that is part of the team that produces the progress reports, but the more I read, the more I’m inclined to think that the Delta is an ecosystem that is in unmitigable flux and whose biomass of flora and fauna is bound to shift with it.


I don’t normally read Blanton’s board, but I’ve perused some of the threads there since a discussion here referenced one. I’ve certainly seen some resource staff attempt to turn witchhunts into discussions before by attempting to do everything they could to keep the discussion moving forward without making it personal. I have however, never seen anything like what you subjected yourself to over there, taking to time to provide references at all hours of the day and night for months and continuing to answer questions not just while being confronted with adversity, but rather juvenile, romper room-like abject hatred. For whatever it may be worth, I think you’ve got the patience of a saint.