Help with Putah Creek closure

[Rossflyguy]

So we all know that Putah Creek is a special place and it's a very sensitive subject this time of year. But now there is physical evidence of a couple of people hand catching spawning trout. The redd was trampled on and there are very few fish at the redd now. I'm not sure if these fish were kept if these idiots where able to catch any at all. We all need to bond together on this one and try to push for a creek closure. Any help would be great. From what I understand it's a long process and the more people who pitch in the quicker it'll get noticed by the CADFW. This fishery has the potential to be a trophy trout fishery but will never reach it's full potential if we sit back and do nothing.

[Bob Loblaw]

Count me in.

[Mike O]

Wondering why the people so gung-ho for closure of the creek to general fishing in the first place didn't do this back then???

[Fly Guy Dave]

I'm in as well.

[Darian]

I hope you guys realize that regardless of how many jump in, only a few will do the lions share of the work. Just the way things like this happen. Get ready. If you expect to get a leg up on this early, some suggestions:

1. Locate and talk the CADFW warden over there to see what he/she thinks about the idea. You may've already done this....

2. Contact the local/statewide fly fishing clubs/organizations for their support (e.g. CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, Davis Fly fishers, CFFU, etc.)

3. Contact local/state government to see how they feel about it. (e.g. Winters(?), Solano, Yolo Counties, CADFW).

4. Identify any objections/obstacles early in the process.

5. We have a state legislator from that area who has supported environmental issues in the past (e.g. Senator, Lois Wolk). Contact her staff to determine of there's any interest in this issue.

The first four items might be met at the upcoming ISE Sportsman Show as they'll undoubtedly have booths there. I suggest you contact all of these entities as soon as possible to determine what's required. This way you'll be able to get an idea of how much support you'll have and what you have to overcome, if anything.

good luck.... :cool:

[Rossflyguy]

Mike O-
I never thought it was a big issue until I seen ask these healthy spawners being targeted. Since putah is making a slow comeback and more fish are spawning it seems words gotten out and fisherman are just abusing the chance to catch a large fish without doing any real work. It's just sad to see it take a step forward then two steps back.

[mikel]

You are pontificating to the group that got the regs changed there in short order when the stocking ban happened. Who else accomplished something like that? They are also the group that protect their stream every day, educating, looking for poachers and DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. They have work parties, with the approvals necessary, cleaning out spawning beds, putting up signage and improving this little water. I think they can manage without your 2 cents.


I hope you guys realize that regardless of how many jump in, only a few will do the lions share of the work. Just the way things like this happen. Get ready. If you expect to get a leg up on this early, some suggestions:

1. Locate and talk the CADFW warden over there to see what he/she thinks about the idea. You may've already done this....

2. Contact the local/statewide fly fishing clubs/organizations for their support (e.g. CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, Davis Fly fishers, CFFU, etc.)

3. Contact local/state government to see how they feel about it. (e.g. Winters(?), Solano, Yolo Counties, CADFW).

4. Identify any objections/obstacles early in the process.

5. We have a state legislator from that area who has supported environmental issues in the past (e.g. Senator, Lois Wolk). Contact her staff to determine of there's any interest in this issue.

The first four items might be met at the upcoming ISE Sportsman Show as they'll undoubtedly have booths there. I suggest you contact all of these entities as soon as possible to determine what's required. This way you'll be able to get an idea of how much support you'll have and what you have to overcome, if anything.

good luck.... :cool:

[Darian]

Hey Mikel,.... Got up on the wrong side of the bed again, did we???? Don't get your shorts in a bunch. They're just suggestions.... :cool:

[OceanSunfish]

Mike O-
I never thought it was a big issue until I seen ask these healthy spawners being targeted. Since putah is making a slow comeback and more fish are spawning it seems words gotten out and fisherman are just abusing the chance to catch a large fish without doing any real work. It's just sad to see it take a step forward then two steps back.

You can say the same for just about all sport fish in CA.

I'm incredulous that the creek is not closed during spawning season already. It is such a short stretch of waterway to begin with....

Sad that this State's F&G cannot make the right call and close the creek immediately as a form of "management".... After all, they are supposed to be rather hands-on and properly manage our fisheries.... Another topic, obviously.

[trouterfan1]

I believe you have to contact the Biologist for that region and address the concerns throught their proper channel (CDFW). They wil then conduct an impact report $$$$ to include fishing the creek during spawn season and if the fishery is being impacted from the idiots that fish the Redds and roped off areas. I agree that a closure regulation should be put back in place to alleviate the immoral and improper angling and to allow the spawning fish to reproduce productively. Sustaining a healthy fishery should be first and foremost on everyones list.

[ycflyfisher]

I’m not seeing this as the long drawn out, complicated process that everyone else seems to think it would be. It shouldn’t require studies or funding nor any kind of group effort. This could and IMO should be done on a much simpler proposal for a change in regulations from an individual or already existing interest group. Dozens if not hundreds of anglers write proposals for regs changes each season. The process itself is pretty simple. Check the regs for the section entitled “involving yourself in the regulatory process” or words to that effect.

That said, the vast majority of individuals who propose changes to the regs fail in their attempts because their proposals are ill conceived, poorly written/thought out, supported only by comical angler rhetoric or combinations of all the above. Simply put, most are either indefensible in terms of justification or redundant to existing regulations. I’d read through past proposals that were shot down and the rationalizations for why the FC rejected those proposals. It’s pretty easy to see from their past history what the FC is going to view as something that immediately gets rejected or is worthy of further discussion.

I think there’s several questions that you need to ask yourself before you proceed any further, namely:
1- What rationalizations would be your basis for bearing in proposing a seasonal closure?
2- Are your rationalizations for such a closure based on substantial, citable, and supportable legit reasons or based on unsupportable, emotionally based angler rhetoric?
3- How certain are you the potential benefits of a seasonal closure outweigh the significant loss of angler opportunity by a large group of responsible anglers that spend a ton of days fishing Putah Creek?
4- What “evidence” can you produce in regards to number 3 that the FC will find compelling?

*For number 2, I’m seeing “unsupportable angler rhetoric” being the thought process: “I see tons of anglers targeting spawners in Putah Creek” and that HAS to have a measurable and negative terminal effect on population abundance.” If that’s all you’ve got, I’d say you’re setting yourself up to fail. The reality is that a percentage of anglers who visit Putah Creek purposely target spawners and have been doing so for decades. If they were having a measurable terminal effect on population abundance, there wouldn’t be enough fish left to support a viable fishery, let alone one where individuals who elect to do so, have an abundant amount of 20 inch+ spawners to rip off the redds each season. The fact that Putah is a small, extremely short watercourse with a lot of big spawners with high fecundity and potentially high recruitment. Probably only a very small percentage of the spawners need to be successful to provide the recruitment necessary to maintain and /or potentially increase population abundance.

I don’t follow what goes on in Putah Creek very closely, but I seem to recall the DFG was monitoring this stream extensively since the NZMS were discovered and I’m guessing that there’s nothing in the science they collected in the last several years that would be on your side in regards to the above. If that was the case and they did have anything to indicate the notion that anglers targeting spawners were having a measurable impact, staff would likely have already proposed a seasonal closure and that proposal more than likely would have accepted and in effect.

I would also not discount the amount of opposition a proposed closure of this nature would generate. I’d expect heavy opposition with CalTrout more than likely leading that opposition. A seasonal closure of Putah would impact a large number of anglers, the vast majority of which probably do not have “questionable angler ethics”.

I personally don’t harass actively spawning fish and have I no respect for anyone that elects to do so. Snagging fish is illegal, but pounding fish on redds unfortunately is not. If there’s some actual legit justification for such a closure, I’d definitely be in support and the FC IMO would certainly consider a closure and slate your proposal for staff review instead of rejection. There’s definitely a lot of cases where precedence of such a closure has been established in CA.

If this is a case of imposing your own angler ethics on others whom you deem to “need some work”, I’m in agreement that they may indeed need some work in the ethics department, but I think that’s a pretty flimsy reason to propose a change in the regs that is going to impact a lot of anglers.


I’d suggest that if you think your reasons for proposing a closure are justifiable, your first steps should be finding out if a closure of this nature has been proposed and rejected in the past and why it was rejected. I’d then find out if the staffers that have been involved in the electroshocking/ monitoring on Putah would be in support of such a closure.