Your Fishing License Funding is in Danger

[KJE]

OK guys, I'm sorry to veer off but I think this is important. Tomorrow, the state Senate's Budget Subcommittee 2 will move to take at least $1.5 million (maybe as much as $4 million) in fishing license revenues away from fishery programs and use it for Timber Harvest Plan review. This will be the second year that the Senate has tried to do this.

I know that some of you will think that improved timber practices will improve fishing. I don't disagree, but that's not the point. THP review should be funded by timber companies, not anglers. If more money is needed for logging oversight, it's the timber companies that should pay for it.

State fishery programs are already underfunded - the Heritage and Wild Trout Program, for example, doesn't even have the number of staff that are required by law, we have far fewer wardens than we need and our hatcheries are in pretty dire shape. You name the fishery program - striper research, Lahontan restoration, steelhead habitat improvement - and it will be negatively impacted by the loss of this funding.

Please contact the Subcommittee members and let them know that anglers' license money is paid to support our fisheries, not subsidize logging companies.

The hearing is at 2:30 PM today and at this late date, calling their offices is best.

Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the chair, supported this last year and will probably argue in favor of it. His office line is (916) 651-4011

Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), supported it last year but is more likely to be swayed than Simitian. His office line is (916) 651-4027

Sen. Jean Fuller (R-Bakersfield), opposed this last year and will likely do so again. She's on our side and we don't need to convince her. You can thank her for supporting anglers at (916) 651-4018, but it's best to concentrate on the others.

It won't hurt to contact the Dept. of Fish and Game, as they'll be testifying at this hearing. Last year, DFG didn't fight this move. Now former Trout Unlimited head Chuck Bonham is in charge and hopefully he'll stand up for anglers. However, we can't take their support for granted. You can call the Director's office at (916) 653-4633.

I don't know where CalTrout and TU stand on this. If you are a member, please call them and ask that they oppose the plan to take money away from fisheries, as they will definitely have a representative in the room.

Thanks in advance for your help. If anyone wants more information, you can email me at kjeastman at gmail.com.

I'm sorry for the lengthy post, but our fisheries need our support.

[DFrink]

I am not familiar with any of this, but I do know that the method in which timber is harvested can have dramatic effects on the quality of life in a river, stream or other body of water. Poor harvesting methods can lead to increased rates of siltation, which in turn leads to poor conditions for insect life, which in turn... you get the point. Could this be a reason the money is spent this way?

[JasonB]

I think the key point there (which I agree with) is that any additional funds needed for this should come from the timber companies and not anglers.

Regarding the underfunding of DFG, I'm wondering how many folks here have observed illegal fishing practices first hand? I'm kind of surprised just how often I've seen bait fishing for example on several of our streams this winter (when the regs specify barbless artificials only with a zero limit). I've thus far encountered exactly 1 game warden, compared to probably 2 dozen or more incidents of illegal fishing practices.
JB

[amoeba]

DFG did fight this move, and it also endangers Federal funding. This was something Arnold's administration came up with. Probably not legal so I'm not sure what the legislature is going to be talking about. Of course, neither is "medical" marijuana; but those who sell it only commit a felony without breaking state law. But this is California, where the people and legislature think they can vote on anything, regardless of the legality. And we do. Here's some more casual reading:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/forests/pdfs/September_20_2011_Letter_to_Resources_Secretary_Jo hn_Laird.pdf

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I guess this kind of stuff has been going on for decades.....

[KJE]

This isn't over, but round 1 goes to the fish.

The budget subcommittee voted to give DFG more time to find another way to fund the timber reviews, so the fight isn't over. DFG Director Chuck Bonham made it pretty darn clear that he was not fond of using license funding for this purpose.

CalTrout gets a lot of credit for being the only group in the room to stand up for anglers, as they always do. If you're not already a supporter, these guys are the real deal - every one of 'em an angler, too.

The Center for Biological Diversity supported the plan to use our money for non-fishery purposes, just another demonstration that they've never been a friend to anglers.

Thanks to everyone who called or wrote and the TroutUnderground.com for spreading the word.

[GreggW]

KJE - Thank you for letting us know that The Center for Biological Diversity supported this plan. I have given them money in the past, but I have let them know that I will not be doing that in the future after that kind of move.

[jumpshooter]

Guys, normally I won't get into this on a public form, but you all need to be educated on a few things. I am a Registered Professional Forester to state a fact. I don't work for industrial timber owners. I work for small families doing sustainable forestry.

First off, to obtain a Timber Harvest Plan, a RPF must prepare a plan. These plans cost between $20,000 and $60,000 or more depending on the size. This plan is a functional equivalent of an EIR. This process is similar to obtaining a permit to build a dam (small scale not Folsom Lake style), a quarry or other natural resource use permit. This is different than say obtaining a building permit where you pay the county to review your plan and approve your permit. When CEQA was created, it was set up that the various State Agencies would be required to review these documents as part of the process. However just like other permits of this style, the use was determine to be beneficial to the people of the State, if done within the rules of the State.

What???? The people of the State need lumber, rock, concrete, and other natural resources and because of this, it is in the interest of the State to review project without collecting a fee. The fee comes from yield taxes and is distributed back to the State and also to local school districts. This money was supposed to fund review. Last year (in a depressed economy) California harvested 20 million board feet. That sounds like a lot of wood, but it isn't. We imported over 60 million board feet from Oregon, Washing, and British Columbia, which have much less stringent environmental regulations. California has the most stringent forestry rules in the world!!!

No matter what you hear on Axe Men or what ever other BS logging show on TV, trees aren't Green Gold. The lumber market is very depressed. Two years ago, it wasn't even possible to harvest fir and most pine species at a profit. Last year fir prices picked up a bit because China got cut off from Russian timber due to a tariff and our market improved a bit, but not for domestic markets.

Most people would say, well why don't we just use our timber. It's because it is cheaper due to environmental regulations increasing the cost, than it is cheaper to put lumber on a train or a boat and ship it to Ca than it is to harvest it here. This state has the ability to sustainably grow enough timber to sustain itself, but because of the cost, it won't. Not to mention that most every town that used to have a mill has gone belly up. Look at places like Fort Bragg, Branscome, Suzanville, Alturas, Beber, Plumas County, Eldorado County and other places that used to have sawmill. They are all dead. There is a reason that pot is the number one economy in these places, because there isn't anything else.

Why am I telling you all this, I am trying to explain why the DFG needs to fund it's THP review Staff. The DFG is required by the legislature to review THPs. Unless you are going to change the legislative intent of CEQA, you are going to have a tough uphill battle. This isn't just timber, it is everything that the State has declared beneficial to the people of the State, rock, concrete, some food, power, and many other necessary things.

I understand that this is pulling funds from fishing license sales, but DFG doesn't have the same ability as Cal Fire does to generate revenue. Cal Fire is in the same boat and is trying to generate $80 million by charging everyone that is in a State Response Area $150 per structure. That bill will be hitting your door step next month. All of our State Agencies are broke, the State Parks are closing many parks. The State is trying to be creative at finding ways to fund all of it's overgrown budget.

Look at it this way, the forests are were the vast majority of our water comes from and also the place where most all of our salmonids spawn. Protection and proper maintenance of these areas is of utmost importance to their survival. If we don't restore what was done to our forests from the 1850 until the 1970's we won't have a place for fish to do their thing and hopefully one day recover.

I understand that timber harvesting isn't everyone's favorite subject when talking about use and fish, but believe me they aren't mutually exclusive. If managed right, we can bring back the fish and keep this state in lumber for a long time to come.

[jumpshooter]

Just to respond to the Center for Biological Diversity issue, they are behind this to some degree as they are in the process of suing DFG for not doing their job.

[Darian]

Everyone posting has a point in this. Hunting and fishing License fees have an intended purpose. Unfortunately, DFG has been mandated many to cover areas of environmental concern that far exceed their budget to manage. Raising new sources of revenue was the rationale behind establishing the Striped Bass Stamp, The Ocean Enhancement Stamp, etc. Diverting funds, internally, happens at all state agencies and this may be a temporary action until a revenue source is found to pay for the review activity. We haven't seen the end of the debate on this diversion. we don't have to stand around and watch this. We can make written suggestions to our legislators. Such as, asking for assurances that any diversion to be repaid at a later date or suggesting a new source of revenue.

As to the support by the Center for Biological Diversity, I think they do good work and are worthy of financial support. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that the organization was not a friend of fisherman. That organization has a broader mission than just fishing issues. If it were a fishing organization, their name might be the Center for Fish Diversity. If you were supporting them before, you should continue to do so.

On the review process and cost, I agree with Jumpshooter. It's economically and politically unrealistic to force small timber companies to pay for the review. Yet these reviews are mandated to be done. Better it be done than to go back to the "good old days" of slash and burn, erosion, etc., without any planning. May be a bit over the top there but you get the idea..... :neutral:

[Mike O]

I guess this kind of stuff has been going on for decades.....

Yup. A certain portion of all traffic violation fines is supposed to go to fund CA High School Driver Education programs. It was raided in the late '80s to support the General Fund during a debt crisis...and never returned to schools since, even though the Penalty Asessment is still collected...

[OceanSunfish]

Yup. A certain portion of all traffic violation fines is supposed to go to fund CA High School Driver Education programs. It was raided in the late '80s to support the General Fund during a debt crisis...and never returned to schools since, even though the Penalty Asessment is still collected...

Everyone knows that a business that is a chronically losing money spends all its time dealing with cash flow and very little time actually developing solutions to better its business. Most are too busy surviving and don't want to make hard decisions. The State of CA is no different. As Bill states, this has been going on for decades, thus why the State of CA is now in such a fine mess. In the end, we all know what ultimately happens to the business that is chronically in the RED.......