first trip up the American

[Joshua R.]

Wednesday of last week I confirmed with Sacramento Regional Parks director Jeff Leatherman, and the CDFW warden in charge of the American River Parkway that spears and spearfishing are allowed on the river just not in the parkway which is the land on both sides of the river from the Hazel street bridge to the Sacramento River. Met with a couple buddies Friday morning in Vacaville at 6 and by 7am we were suited up and ready to launch on the Sacramento River. We paddled up the Sacramento to the American and about 3.5 miles more to the business 80 overpass. The purpose of this mission for me was to scout and to lay some rumors to rest about how easy it will be to spear in the river and that you don't even need a wet suit so with temperatures supposed to be in the 100's I decided to bring a gun but to focus on video and go without a wetsuit. I'm just going to say there's no chance of anyone spearing a striper without a wet suit. There's no way someone is going to be able to be still and hunt for any length of time. It's fine if you're just going to jump in to cool off but not for what we do.

Our first stop was under the bridge for highway 160. This is where we saw the most fish, Greg spotted 3 on his third or fourth dive all in the 12-18 inch range. None that were obviously over 18 so he didn't shoot. A little while later he saw another one about 15 inches or so. I spent most of my time with my sidescan sonar looking for structure and fish while they dove and I would call them over to investigate if I found anything with potential but those would be the only fish close to legal that we would see today. Greg did see another school of babies up near the business 80 bridge but they were nowhere near legal, just cute. MIke got to work on some skills, stalking and hunting. How to use the dead spots to rest up for diving in the current, etc. Greg's skills are considerably further along than Mike's. I believe that Mikes noisy style may have scared the fish away which proves that these fish are not going to be easy and not everyone is going to be able to spear them.

The fish seemed to be floating above structure when idle or swimming across the current when spooked so the most success they had was finding structure at about 20 feet on the edge of the current behind or next to the pilons of the bridges, diving up current and drifting on the bottom with the current. Structure is the key. Another rumor was how easy it was going to be to shoot stripers from the kayak, or that they would just swim right up to you. We covered allot of river that day and I was looking intently the whole time and I never saw anything from the kayak that made me even wonder if it was a striper. The fish that Greg saw while diving spooked after one encounter of only a few seconds.

I was impressed that both Mike and Greg asked what size they should target knowing that I'm trying to promote an attitude of conservation in the spearo community and that some are worried about the big hens being targeted. I told them 24 inches should be fine with a little wiggle room either way but I wouldn't target anything over 30". We had discussions about the mercury and compared experience with the meat of larger fish vs. smaller fish. I don't have much experience with striped bass but Greg said he preffers the 10-15 pounders anyway. Next trip I'll be trying to get my first and I'll also be trying to get video of some big ones to see how they'll behave next to divers.

I realize that this is an anlging website and some are going to be incensed by this but I'm trying to start a discussion on how we can all promote an attitude of conservation by anglers and divers and be in this fight together.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

I was impressed that both Mike and Greg asked what size they should target knowing that I'm trying to promote an attitude of conservation in the spearo community and that some are worried about the big hens being targeted. I told them 24 inches should be fine with a little wiggle room either way but I wouldn't target anything over 30". We had discussions about the mercury and compared experience with the meat of larger fish vs. smaller fish. I don't have much experience with striped bass but Greg said he preffers the 10-15 pounders anyway. Next trip I'll be trying to get my first and I'll also be trying to get video of some big ones to see how they'll behave next to divers.

I realize that this is an anlging website and some are going to be incensed by this but I'm trying to start a discussion on how we can all promote an attitude of conservation by anglers and divers and be in this fight together.

I have to say, you must have some guts to post something this sensitive to anglers [on this forum, anyway]. I will admit my stomach churned when I first read your post. My husband and I practice C&R about 98% of the time. Our own personal preference is to only keep 1-3 fish in the 3-4 lb range per year, if at all.

I do like that you mentioned a 30" preferential limit, however, the 10-15# preference of your friend will almost ALWAYS be over that 30", and would likely be a female. I would seriously caution anyone who would want to take these from our local rivers/delta, as they are the core of the striped bass's preservation [IMHO].

I will also recommend to others reading this post to read it more than once before responding in rage to keep the discussion open-minded, as desired by the author.

[Darian]

Joshua,.... I appreciate that you're trying to reach out to others by providing your experiences while diving on the American River. Your description mirrors my thoughts on why I object to the practice of spearing Stripers in the river. It's the opposite side of the two edged sword.

Regardless of how Spearos were able to accomplish the reg change without public notice/hearings, it is clear that spearo's played right into the hands of DFW who really wanted to reduce or eliminate Striped Bass but was unable to accomplish that through normal procedures without major opposition from groups with influence and more numerous member numbers. That's water under the bridge, now.

Since the access issue has been settled, at least for now, there remains a public safety issue that's not been addressed. What happens when a diver enters the water upstream of fly or traditional fisherman, boat or bankies, and drift down into an area where casting/retrieving/trolling of lures is occurring at the same depths?? The river gets very crowded at times and Stripers will occupy the same waters as Salmonids at certain times of the year. Those on the surface may not be aware of a divers presence. If a flag is going top be employed to let people know that a diver is at work, is it expected that the divers activities take priority over boaters/surface fishers?? Who decides what?? I know, for myself, that if a diver drifts into an area that I'm fishing, I'll stop fishing and go somewhere else. I won't be overly happy about it but I wouldn't risk snagging a diver.

you've described only wanting to spear fish within certain length/weight limits. Others, including some traditional fisherman have no qualms about taking/killing larger Stripers for photo-op purposes (witness those on fisherman/Spearo Internet sites). The major difference being that the majority of fish taken by traditional or fly methods might be released, alive. No fish, small or large, that's speared will live even if they slip off the spear point. Since Stripers are already stressed and population numbers are at historical lows, killing one or more large fish or a limit is really not acceptable.

I do believe that you're trying to do the right thing here. But, as Robin has already said, it's just a very sensitive and controversial subject. :(

[Joshua R.]

Thank you very much for your reply. It brings up the question for me, how big is a 10-15 lb striper? I'm basing my target size on conversations that said fish over 25 lbs are usually female and that's what you'd consider a breeding hen so how big is a 25 lb striper? So you know, I probably wouldn't take more than 1 or 2 fish per year total. The freshwater season is May 1st to September 15th and with the exception of July that coincides directly with abalone season. The fun for me is in the diving and I'd be actually more satisfied to get multiple videos of fish swimming next to me and comfortable with my presence than actually shooting them. If the goal of a "big fish" picture is to show your skill than a video of a fish considering you non threatening is worth a dozen "big fish" pics.

I realize that this is a sensitive issue but not talking about it isn't going to bring us together.

[Joshua R.]

H.L. - This is the best way I know to have discussions that will bring us together. I wouldn't get in the water close to anyone fishing hook and line or diving because it would disturb the fish and my ability to focus so hopefully that will solve part of the problem. Also, I'm freediving (no tanks) so you'll see me on the surface most of the time. The flag is just to let you know if you don't see me I'm underneath. I'd consider it a great favor if you'd wait till I come up to figure out where I am but the reality is as soon as I hear your motor I'm going to come up because I don't want a boat to get too close before I need air. I do plan on taking a tank someday so I can see if my theory is correct that the bubbles would scare them off rendering scuba a useless form of pursuit.

[Fish Guru]

Joshua, thanks for reporting some of what you guys saw while diving on the river. It sounds like you guys only saw smaller fish, in my experience it's generally the larger fish that are not very fearful of a diver when underwater. It's nice to see that you and the guys you dive with aren't after the big hens, but sadly myself and many others feel that you guys are the minority in the spearfishing community. The same issue is a problem with hook and line anglers, as many on this board practice catch and release, the majority of anglers overall will kill every big fish that they come across. This is why it's going to be pretty tough for many of us anglers to ever endorse yet another way to harvest the largest fish from an already declining population of fish. In one of my trips over to spearboard, the general consensus of most of the posters there was that they wanted to target the biggest ones they could find. One guy even mentioned a 45 that his buddy shot that probably didn't taste good but made for a heckuva picture. Once conserving the resource was brought up, the old invasive species card was played, which many seemed to think justified cleaning out the river of breeder fish. The conversations that transpired on that site make it pretty hard to join forces with the spearfisherman as a group, for myself and many other hook and line anglers. Obviously, you do not share the attitude of many of the spearos that I have conversed with, but in my experience I have encountered a much larger contingent that could care less about the resource than those that do.
As for your size questions, a 10-15 lb striper will be between 28-36" depending on girth, and anything 25 lbs and up will usually be 40" or larger.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Thank you very much for your reply. It brings up the question for me, how big is a 10-15 lb striper? I'm basing my target size on conversations that said fish over 25 lbs are usually female and that's what you'd consider a breeding hen so how big is a 25 lb striper? So you know, I probably wouldn't take more than 1 or 2 fish per year total. The freshwater season is May 1st to September 15th and with the exception of July that coincides directly with abalone season. The fun for me is in the diving and I'd be actually more satisfied to get multiple videos of fish swimming next to me and comfortable with my presence than actually shooting them. If the goal of a "big fish" picture is to show your skill than a video of a fish considering you non threatening is worth a dozen "big fish" pics.

I realize that this is a sensitive issue but not talking about it isn't going to bring us together.

Joshua - Others may correct me if I'm wrong, but in my experience, 18-21" is about 1 pound, and they gain approximately a pound for every inch after that. I caught a few 8#'ers that were 28-28.5 inches long. This seemed to coincide with that that theory. THAT said, a 30" fish should be about 9-12 lbs, depending on the time of year. My conservation experience taught me that breeding hens can be 12# and up. Males can be up to about 15#, but are usually <12#. Following this same theory, a 25# striper would be in the 33-36" range.


Since the access issue has been settled, at least for now, there remains a public safety issue that's not been addressed. What happens when a diver enters the water upstream of fly or traditional fisherman, boat or bankies, and drift down into an area where casting/retrieving/trolling of lures is occurring at the same depths?? The river gets very crowded at times and Stripers will occupy the same waters as Salmonids at certain times of the year. Those on the surface may not be aware of a divers presence. If a flag is going top be employed to let people know that a diver is at work, is it expected that the divers activities take priority over boaters/surface fishers?? Who decides what?? I know, for myself, that if a diver drifts into an area that I'm fishing, I'll stop fishing and go somewhere else. I won't be overly happy about it but I wouldn't risk snagging a diver.

As Darian stated above, I would be equally concerned about the safety of wading fisherman and spearos in the same vicinity...

[mar]

I’m confused. Is spearfishing now allowed in the AR?
I thought this issue was settled. Oceansunfish posted a link to a memo from Jeffrey Leatherman dated June 4, 2013.

Here are some verbiage from the memo:
Definition of the American River Parkway boundaries (bottom of page3):

“The American River Parkway Plan is defined to include the American River and adjacent floodplain, from the confluence with the Sacramento River up to Folsom Dam. The County of Sacramento, however, has day-to-day management responsibility for the portion of the Parkway from the Sacramento River confluence to Hazel Avenue (exclusive of the fish hatchery facilities).”

Final determination (last page):

“Determination
The revised Fish and Game Regulation authorize spearfishing within Sacramento County, including on the American River, for specific species and locations. The Plan and County Code prohibit ballistic devices which includes spear guns within County Parks. The Department has determined that continued enforcement of Sacramento County Code section 9.36.060 is the most appropriate policy for the American River Parkway. Allowing exceptions for weapons with the potential to transport them in multiple areas of the Parkway is inconsistent with the Parkway Plan and County Code and therefore an exception will not be issued by the Director of Regional Parks.”

Unless I missed something, this memo clearly states that spearfishing is not allowed in the AR Parkway, which includes the American River.

This does not agree with the information that Joshua received from Mr. Leatherman. Is this in writing writing somewhere? Did I miss the latest memo?

[Joshua R.]

Ok, so my size estimates coincide with yours, if we target 24-30" we should be ok even if we go over by an inch or two.

I wouldn't worry about the vicinity thing. Spears are teathered to the gun and can only go about 10 feet before reaching the end of their line. Unless you're practically standing on top of someone there shouldn't be a problem.

Guru- we should have these conversations on spearboard and NorCal Underwater Hunters too. Spearos are new to this fishery and unaware of what has happened up until now. I know the difference between a non-native and an invasive species, but many don't. Westgate has done an excellent job of spreading their propoganda haven't they?

[Joshua R.]

Jeff Leatherman
(916)875-6961

[Joshua R.]

On targeting the big ones-

someone said the lakes are fair game if someone wanted to go after big ones. That the deeper water would make it hard enough for the diver and easy enough for the fish to get away. I've also heard that there are lakes that don't feed into the rivers or the breeidng population so those would be fine if someone wanted to target bigger fish. Is this a viable option for those that would target big fish?

[Mike O]

A I stated in a previous thread...the state doesn't own the river.

Also, a thought just occurred to me...there are plenty of large stripers in the Sac. I know a lot of people who fish them and catch big ones around Knights Landing, above the AR. They will likely never be targeted by spearfishers, due to the nature of the water. Therefore there will always be a reservoir of breeding fish.

[Fish Guru]

Ok, so my size estimates coincide with yours, if we target 24-30" we should be ok even if we go over by an inch or two.

I wouldn't worry about the vicinity thing. Spears are teathered to the gun and can only go about 10 feet before reaching the end of their line. Unless you're practically standing on top of someone there shouldn't be a problem.

Guru- we should have these conversations on spearboard and NorCal Underwater Hunters too. Spearos are new to this fishery and unaware of what has happened up until now. I know the difference between a non-native and an invasive species, but many don't. Westgate has done an excellent job of spreading their propoganda haven't they?
I tried having civil discussions over on spearboard, for the most part it didn't go so well. If everyone over there was as reasonable and knowledgable as you Joshua then I think common ground could be found. Man I could've used some help on the non native versus invasive thing, glad you see it as it really is and not some misinformed propaganda. Look forward to continuing discussions with ya over here Joshua!

[Fish Guru]

On targeting the big ones-

someone said the lakes are fair game if someone wanted to go after big ones. That the deeper water would make it hard enough for the diver and easy enough for the fish to get away. I've also heard that there are lakes that don't feed into the rivers or the breeidng population so those would be fine if someone wanted to target bigger fish. Is this a viable option for those that would target big fish?

Definitely a viable option, problem is the only close lake with stripers( new hogan) doesn't have much in the way of big fish. Miller ton in cen cal does, as does San Antonio I think, as well as San Luis but not sure if you can spear there.

[Fish Guru]

Mike, there is also a resident population of large females in the American, that can be decimated if large fish are what is predominantly targeted. Many catch and release anglers, myself included, are already seeing way too many large spawners killed without the addition of another avenue to take them. This applies to the American and knights landing. With the numbers of stripers overall in fairly significant decline, we need as many large breeders as possible to keep what's left of the fishery going. Larger fish produce larger eggs that hatch into larger fry, which is definitely something that needs to be maximized as the overall numbers continue to plummet.

[Mike O]

[QUOTE=Fish Guru;135842]Larger fish produce larger eggs that hatch into larger fry,[\QUOTE]

I know that they produce MORE eggs with larger females. But LARGER? All I can find are average sizes, for both eggs and Fry. Can you point me in the direction of something that substantiates larger females pruduce LARGER fry?

[Fish Guru]

[QUOTE=Fish Guru;135842]Larger fish produce larger eggs that hatch into larger fry,[\QUOTE]

I know that they produce MORE eggs with larger females. But LARGER? All I can find are average sizes, for both eggs and Fry. Can you point me in the direction of something that substantiates larger females pruduce LARGER fry?

Here ya go Mike:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SBpopulations.pdf

[Joshua R.]

I tried having civil discussions over on spearboard, for the most part it didn't go so well. If everyone over there was as reasonable and knowledgable as you Joshua then I think common ground could be found. Man I could've used some help on the non native versus invasive thing, glad you see it as it really is and not some misinformed propaganda. Look forward to continuing discussions with ya over here Joshua!
I'm an administrator on NCUH. I can introduce you as someone I've invited to share your knowledge with us. If we don't have these discussions how can we say we're promoting conservation? I can't guarantee people won't be passionate but I can guarantee they will be respectful.

[Mike O]

[QUOTE=Mike O;135844]

Here ya go Mike:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/state_federal/SBpopulations.pdf

Interesting...thank you

[Darian]

Mike,.... I sure the access issue was resolved some time ago in favor of Spearfishing being allowed in the American as long as entry is not thru the parkway. It was even covered in reporting by the SacBee.

With respect, I have to disagree with your reasoning in the following statement:

"...there are plenty of large stripers in the Sac. I know a lot of people who fish them and catch big ones around Knights Landing, above the AR. They will likely never be targeted by spearfishers, due to the nature of the water. Therefore there will always be a reservoir of breeding fish." (emphasis added)

I'm fairly sure the idea that the Sacramento River will always provide a reservoir of breeding fish isn't realistic. If it were, there wouldn't be declining populations of Stripers across their range as Sacramento River spawners would always make up for the losses. In terms of overall population, the number of breeders removed from any tributary will contribute to overall decline Stripers but spearfishing in tributaries will surely accelerate that result. There are a lot of reasons why this (overall population decline) is so, not all related to fishing. Population declines seem to be the case for all anadromous/pelagic species in the Delta and it's tributaries.

The life span of a large, spawner is lengthy when compared to those of other fish. There are always more smaller, immature fish than adults. Replacing a spawner takes many years of growth and survival. So, removal of numbers of spawners from a limited area may interrupt spawning for lengthy periods or altogether.

[Fish Guru]

I'm an administrator on NCUH. I can introduce you as someone I've invited to share your knowledge with us. If we don't have these discussions how can we say we're promoting conservation? I can't guarantee people won't be passionate but I can guarantee they will be respectful.
I have noticed the guys on NCUH are much more respectful, maybe this weekend ill jump in the mix over there. Ill shoot ya a pm

[STEELIES/26c3]

Westgate has done an excellent job of spreading their propoganda haven't they?

It's Westlands Water and sadly, Yes they have...

[Frank Alessio]

If all of this is on the level you would be Legal with your Deer Rifle in a Boat on the American river....I do not think it is on the level...

[Mike O]

Above the water, one is subject tot he laws of the municipality or county, in the water one is subject to state law. Pretty sure guns are illegal for open carry in Sac...if it was in the boat, outa sight? Who knows. I can carry one unloaded in my car...

This stream access law is the same one that allows one to float through the private stretch of the Truckee, etc...

And DFG rules DO allow open or Concealed carry while fishing... Don't think that would work on the A though. :)

[ssy]

This is really getting to me. I know that if I am working an area with fly/conventional gear and 1 or 2 other boats start their drift above me at a safe distance away from me, we can work the same water without spooking the fish. But if the same amount of boats are in the area and a spearo shows up, the fish will be spooked and leave the area or not bite at all for a while. Kinda like running your boat over a hole where all the fish are stacked and just plan shutting down the bite.

Steve

[Mike O]

This is really getting to me. I know that if I am working an area with fly/conventional gear and 1 or 2 other boats start their drift above me at a safe distance away from me, we can work the same water without spooking the fish. But if the same amount of boats are in the area and a spearo shows up, the fish will be spooked and leave the area or not bite at all for a while. Kinda like running your boat over a hole where all the fish are stacked and just plan shutting down the bite.

Steve

Which happens ALL the time with drift boats (guides or no) to bank fishermen on the A, Trinity, Yuba, LSac, etc, etc.

[ssy]

Exactly, but those are FISHERMEN, not SPEAROS, who are not on the same playing field as a fishermen. If your head is above the waterline, your on the fishes playing field. But if you are able to hold you breath or use tanks to stick your head under water and see your prey, its different. I'm a retired ab diver, who went from rock picking to actually sticking my head in the water to see the abs I want to harvest and its a different playing field altogether. I would rather have a boat go over my spot than have someone underwater scaring all my fish I intend to target

[Mike O]

Oh...you made the comparison, i just was agreeing. Personally, I would rather have a boat go over than a flock of mergansers or river otters go through...then the fishing is OVER

[ycflyfisher]

Spear fisherman are the now the latest “threat” that’s going to help push Sacto River Stripers to extirpation? Seriously?

That’s even more bizarre than the various Pike Minnow, Blue Heron, American Shad, and Cormorants conspiracy theories that have been advanced on this forum in the past, wherein said culprits all are having a much greater effect on the abundance of anadromous salmoninds than are the 1 million plus age 3+ piscivorous stripers are.

Or the equally delusional “ American River pinnaped” theory (naturally we all know that said pinnapeds eat exponentially less fish for each mile lower in the system they’re located… seriously??).

Or the king of all kings of the conspiracy theories advanced by your cohorts, the proverbial “The pumps are the REAL PREDATORS”, conspiracy theory. Despite the fact that there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.

I think everyone understands your fecundity argument, and I don’t think anyone would argue that more mature, bigger fish are going to have greater fecundity and as a result, could potentially fuel more recruitment. The blind leap that IMO you seem to be making here (the elevated fecundity of the “Moes” is necessary to build and or maintain population abundance and that initial recruitment is the issue driving abundance) seems to be an assumption on your part and not science fact as you imply. The truth is striped bass can build abundance very rapidly and the larger fish are not in reality, anywhere near as important to the population as a whole as you make them out to be when it comes to building or maintaining abundancein most cases. Might want to read up on the Chesapeake Bay Big Moe strategy that failed and how the numerous moratoria on killing smaller fish restored abundance there. Or consider the initial introduction to the bay of ~130 immature fish in 1879, and a supplemental plant of about the same number a few years later created enough striped bass abundance to support a 50,000+ pound a year commercial fishery within about 8-9 years after the first initial plant was mature enough to spawn. Stripers managed to continue to increase abundance despite the pressure of the commercial fishery which eventually grew to a 1M+ pound a year venture without any “big Moes” in the first decades. To put it as bluntly as possible, there is no legit, rationale reason nor peer reviewed science that seems to support any of your totally speculative conclusions that you offer up in this thread pertaining to the striped bass population crashing without abundant “Big Moes”. Are they more important on a “per fish basis”? I’d definitely agree. Are they necessary to maintain or even build abundance for the population as a whole? I’m failing to see where you’ve successfully supported that position.

Spear fisherman are a tiny niche community within the larger angling community and there simply aren’t many of these individuals. If memory serves, the estimate for age 3+ stripers in the S-SJ system is around a million fish. Assume some conservative percentage (say 2-5%, 3-10% whatever) fall into the 30+ inch category. Assume a sane number of spear fisherman fish an average of X number of days over the 130 day spear season. Assume a realistic CPUE for the total days of angler effort on big Moes. Assume a realistic annual recruitment of fish to the big Moe size range and I think you’ll find that what you seem to be implying is going to happen within a few seasons, not only isn’t likely to happen in your lifetime, but isn’t likely to happen within your grandchildren’s childrens lifetimes either. The likelihood that the spear fisherman will kill more Big Moes than the much more numerous H&L anglers who for decades have been killing their limit is simply not remotely on par with what you seem to be stating it to be.

Policy makers are not subject matter experts, but they’re by no means ignorant of the science surrounding the Delta ecosystems either. The chance that they put stock into these comical blame shifting and imperilment conspiracy theories that the flyrod striper community offers up, which in the best cases are based on small sample sizes of purely anecdotal data or in most cases, on one blind leap assumption after another with no data is effectively zero. They’re never going to buy what you guys are collectively attempting to sell. It’s pretty obvious to me that fly anglers that envision themselves to be the megaphones of striped bass conservation are never going to abandon the purely emotional refutations that are never going to gain traction with the policy makers but instead will continue to look for villains (the pumps, the spearfisherman, the pike minnow, the squawfish, the pinnapeds, or simply people like myself advocating that the peer reviewed science and the individuals who produce said science are your best allies) and play the blame game with said villains.

The POD is and has for years been the hotbutton environmental/ecosystem issue on the west coast. Everyone seems to be aware of that except hook and line striper anglers. There’s 61 pages of threads on this forum and the POD has been discussed one time here. That’s sad to say the very least. The stripers are one of the 4 pelagic species being hammered by the drivers synergistically causing the POD, and the reality is that those environmental drivers and invasive stressors are what is limiting the abundance of the said 4 pelagics. Yet, you guys are collectively placing blame on the spearfisherman, pinnapeds and the pumps. Advocating viable solutions requires an understanding of the problem, not the creation of wild conspiracy theories. The hook and line striper community seems to me to be heavily entrenched on the conspiracy theory front, but completely unaware on the understanding and effective advocacy side of the equation.

All that said, I think the addition of spearfisherman to the Sac River angling community is a good thing. They could follow in the footsteps of the hook and line anglers and play it with the “either you’re with us or against us” knee jerk levels of pure emotion. Or some could emerge as advocates that are smart enough to realize that you cannot define the “problem” without making the effort to understand the real issues at hand with the Delta ecosystem and the POD, and that it is unrealistic to expect policy makers to buy into anecdotal conspiracy theories when it comes to driving the policy that governs fisheries and ecosystem management.

[ycflyfisher]

Regardless of how Spearos were able to accomplish the reg change without public notice/hearings, it is clear that spearo's played right into the hands of DFW who really wanted to reduce or eliminate Striped Bass but was unable to accomplish that through normal procedures without major opposition from groups with influence and more numerous member numbers. That's water under the bridge, now.
:(

Darian,

I really don't see how it can be claimed that the waterman somehow flew this under the radar. It was on the email agenda for the reg change meeting and as far as I know they went through the protocols that any other individual or group is subject to in regards to reg change proposals.

Also, the proposed reg change that you seem to be referring to was developed as part of a settlement agreement with the CFASD. This was hardly an independent development of the DFWs fisheries staff. It was something that they were legally obligated to develop in good faith. If they didn't develop it in good faith, the potential to ressurect that legal action was looming in the background.

If the DFW really was trying to reduce striper abundance to gain some predator release of the 4 pelagics of the POD (age 0+ stripers being one of the 4) do you really think the rationalizations of the reg change would have been prefaced by a presentation by the DFW's own legal counsel who revealed under questioning that the driver to the reg change reccomended by staff was a settlement agreement?

[Scott V]

I really hate these posts that are full of assumptions and generalizations. The only good is that there are a few people that actually have a clue and post accurate information and not info based on assumptions. And to those I say thank you very much.

[Darian]

ARRRRGGGHH!!!!.... I've been trying to post my thoughts on this subject and lost the text each time. I'm getting used to using an IPAD. Pain in the arse!!!! Not sure my patience level is up to using this device. Love my MacBookPro.

[Baja Fly Fisher]

Darian

I hear you... regarding the iPad. My daughter in law has one and I tried finding a cartoon program for my soon to be 3 year old grand daughter. PAPA, it's right here, just do this and this :-(. She can also find things on my iMac and Macbook Pro. I can't imagine what she will know by the time she's 4 years old. She also told a friend of mine the two places where you can find PAPA....
His office or the bathroom :-)

Jay

[Mike O]

Spear fisherman are the now the latest “threat” that’s going to help push Sacto River Stripers to extirpation? Seriously?
......snip....
t it is unrealistic to expect policy makers to buy into anecdotal conspiracy theories when it comes to driving the policy that governs fisheries and ecosystem management.
Didn't want to clutter the thread with the whole quote. I appreciate everything you said. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful response.

Mike

[neck fat]

Why I stop! I fish spot if you flot in better watch out might hook you!

[Darian]

"Darian,

I really don't see how it can be claimed that the waterman somehow flew this under the radar. It was on the email agenda for the reg change meeting and as far as I know they went through the protocols that any other individual or group is subject to in regards to reg change proposals.

Also, the proposed reg change that you seem to be referring to was developed as part of a settlement agreement with the CFASD. This was hardly an independent development of the DFWs fisheries staff. It was something that they were legally obligated to develop in good faith. If they didn't develop it in good faith, the potential to ressurect that legal action was looming in the background.

If the DFW really was trying to reduce striper abundance to gain some predator release of the 4 pelagics of the POD (age 0+ stripers being one of the 4) do you really think the rationalizations of the reg change would have been prefaced by a presentation by the DFW's own legal counsel who revealed under questioning that the driver to the reg change reccomended by staff was a settlement agreement?"



OK,…. I can understand how my comment about the spear fishing proposal could be read as the watermen running their request “….under the radar.” So, let me try to clarify.

I see no conspiracy in any of this on the part of either the spearos or DFW. I do believe that timing of the request for changing the regs to expand/allow spear fishing for Stripers in waters formerly off limits was seen as an opportunity on the part of DFW to accomplish what was proposed and later rejected by the F&GC (referring to the proposal arising from the settlement agreement). The original DFW proposal would have Increased bag/possession and reduce minimum size limits, statewide, and increased bag/possession limits much further at specific locations. IMO, the objective of DFW was to reduce predation by controlling population size and numbers. The obvious result of this would’ve been a smaller sized population of Stripers, overall. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on in this, the rejection of the DFW proposal was fortunate for Stripers and Striper fishermen. The current regs change, enabling removal/targeting of large spawners, may accomplish the same thing over time. I do believe that many spearos and potential spearos will take advantage of this legal opportunity. Their numbers will increase and more large Stripers will be removed from the systems. Does this mean extirpation? Hardly!! Aside from my emotions on this, my major objection is based on the fact that I like to catch/release large Stripers; purely self interest.

To provide some background for my characterization of the change, we first have to agree that whatever staff counsel said under questioning was based on his/her part in representing the DFW, development of the settlement agreement and almost nothing of the history of Stripers beyond the focus of the litigation? As a general rule, they do not read scientific papers but rely on staff to provide them detail/context.

I gave a cursory review to one study done by DFW staff in 1997 for the IEP, “Telemetry Study of Striped Bass.” Summarizing, the study concluded, in part, that Striped Bass emigrated in and out of Clifton Court Forebay instead of taking up residence as previously believed. That meant that removing those fish from the forebay would result in immediate replacement by others and would be cost prohibitive. Population reduction through increased take/decreased size limits would provide some control of predation without attendant cost. I didn’t review other studies as I believe that this one shows that DFW staff already had an idea about how to reduce predation by Stripers in the Delta long before both proposals for reg changes were made. Again, no conspiracy here. Just good staff work.

So, regardless of what staff counsel said, DFW staff already had the basis for the proposed change with minimal staff investment. How the proposal arose out of the settlement agreement could be seen as a matter of convenience; easy way to get out of expensive litigation. In truth, the State was probably never in jeopardy of returning to court after DFW staff handed over their proposal.

I guess I could be seen as a cynic in this but I base the foregoing on a mix of speculation based on personal experience in similar situations while a manager/staff member in state service, history and some facts.

I recognize that H&L Striper guys tend to go crazy about the subject of threats to Stripers, real or imagined, but, hey, that’s not so different than the emotional discussions on the Steelhead Forum. Possibly, the reason we haven’t discussed the science involved in stripers and/or the POD is that there aren’t really as many of us (Delta fly fisherman) as one would think above the bay area; certainly more than Spearos, tho. BTW, I haven’t seen any discussion about POD by them either. Maybe everybody’s out fishing…. ;)

Just a word about “the pumps” and the BDCP, here. I do believe that all of the issues we discuss, including the POD, on this BB are all secondary in importance/priority to what’s involved in current water issues/proposals in this state. We’re about 7 years into the current iteration of the water project (BDCP) and it is still nothing more than a conceptual design. If implemented as currently proposed, loaded with problems and few solutions, it has the potential to change almost everything we know in NorCal (e.g. water law, economics, fisheries science, geographical features, etc.) and we’ll be forced to pay for it for a long, long time to come….

Have a nice day…. :cool:

[Joshua R.]

What is "POD?"

[Darian]

POD is short for pelagic organism decline. I'd try to expand on this a bit but I'm not really that informed on the subject. As ycflyfisher says POD is a major issue/problem for waters in the state. Many/all pelagic organisms are part of the food-chain. You can see that their decline would result in problems for all species using them as food source. There's a lot of scientific information/studies on this subject at the DFW website. Hopefully, ycflyfisher will hop in and expand on this. :cool:

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

FWIW I think you’re one of the few striper anglers on this forum, that is capable of meaningful and coherent discussion. I can’t really agree with any of your points however.

FWIW. As I recall, legal counsel basically stated the reg change that you’re referring to was the direct result of the settlement agreement in their “pre-presentation”. And the FC immediately began to ask questions about that.

The issue I think that gets lost under the circumstances, is that DFW staff didn’t necessarily have to agree the reg change was necessary but had to develop it anyways. I think they did come up with a proposed change that would satisfy the CFASD’s consultants who were making the judgement call that they developed the proposed reg change in good faith, but that they could also monitor and place under an adaptive management regime so that it could be altered IF the FC passed the change and that change imperiled the striper fishery. It’s both ironic and unfortunate from where I sit that the DFW staff who were caught between a rock and a hard place ended up being the “villains” here.

If the DFW staff really felt that the stripers were seriously imperiling the two listed species, IMO you wouldn’t see a proposed change that takes the limit from 2 to 6, and decreases the minimum size to 12”, you’d see something like NO limit, NO minimum size requirement and mandatory retention of all stripers for all anglers (much like when the pike got into Davis). And it certainly isn’t going to be prefaced by a legal counsel “pre-presentation” that basically talks the FC out of supporting the reg change before staff got to say word one. If you don’t think that’s the reality, then we should simply agree to disagree on this issue.

Striped bass have no biological value in CA and they never will. They can never be deemed to be part of an ESU and thus could never be listed as threatened or endangered under either ESA. That’s the reality, yet that’s another common baseless conspiracy theory we constantly hear on this forum (stripers are being threatened and endangered). Where stripers do have a measurable value is that they support a multi-million dollar a year recreational fishery. Do you really think DFW staff really wants to willing kill a multi-million dollar a year recreational fishery without justification in this ecconomy? What benefit by your account would they have for doing so? That isn't how science works.

Would also have to strongly disagree that the POD is secondary to water issues in the state both in terms of impact and the plausibility of deeming that to be a “controllable” concern. The fact is the plumbing in the Delta has been severely altered, and it’s managed as a balance between ecosystem conservation on one side and flood control and water conveyance on the flip side. The “battles” for flood control and conveyance are going to be fought at the federal court level, not the grassroots level. Placing blame and picking battles you have no chance to win is not wise. That again is the reality and it’s unrealistic to expect that reality to change. Does diversion and levy systems have an impact? Of course it does. Is it the mechanical Spawn of Satan that the linesides congregation believes it to be? Not really. And let’s not pretend that there aren’t millions of families who benefit from both flood control and conveyance who have nothing to do with the "evil water apologists" typically vilified.

The POD progress reports read like the worst eco-horror novel imaginable IMO. A short list (from memory and nowhere near all encompassing) of some of the impacts driving the POD:

You got invasive weed species that have transformed 1000’s of acres of once pelagic habitat into littoral habitat, while simultaneously decreasing both current flow and turbidity. All of which have detrimental impacts to the survival of the 4 pelagics and the weeds are still expanding. In other words, the Delta is simultaneously losing habitat and the habitat that remains is being rendered less productive.

You’ve got an invasive, benthic filter feeder that exists in densities of 1000’s per square meter that is also better adapted to both low and high levels of mixed salinity, so they don’t die off and have to repopulate like the 2 clam species that it displaced. It’s also something like 10-15 times more efficient then the two species it displaced when it comes to volumetrically stripping the entire water column of plankton. Want to guess what the report says that’s doing to plankton abundance?

You’ve got numerous invasive copepod species that arrived in ejected ballast water that have out competed and replaced the native copepods. They’re are harder for the yearling fish to capture and offer a fraction of the caloric benefit.

In summary, the POD progress reports make it sound like the entire delta ecosystem is falling apart at the seams. And the foodweb in the delta isn’t about to crash, it’s already wrecked with a resounding thud, that seems to have been heard by all…… except the linesides gurus. Hope you can understand why I think all these pike minnow, pinnapeds, American shad, cormorant, spearfisherman and the pumps are the real predators conspiracy theories are both ignorant and comical and reality fail miserably to shed light on the actual “legit” problem. The synergistics effects of the POD are grinding down fish populations far more that the spearfisherman, the cormorants, a few dozen stray pinnapeds, the pumps or anything the striper apologists typically villify all the while claiming a million+ exclusively piscivorous stripers have no effect......

And I’ve not even mentioned the myriad of other drivers (contaminants, secondary effects, the effects of settlement, ALL the top down drivers, etc) to the POD. Does this really sound like a set of issues that are secondary to water concerns? Do you really think the delta will spring back to life like a big bowl of Seamonkeys with the addition of more water and that the drivers to the POD will disappear?

[ycflyfisher]

Joshua,

Over a 60+ year timeline the abundance of all pelagic species that rely on the Delta ecosystem have experienced a fairly continual, gradual decline.

Over the last two decades, the decline began to accelerate and the declines became much more pronounced.

In the last decade the declines became extremely precipitous. As Darian mentioned, Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) is a term used to describe the more recent precipitous declines that have occurred with four of the pelagic species in the Delta ( Delta smelt, threadfin shad, LF smelt and young stripers). I'd start reading here:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/synt..._workplans.cfm

[FlyBum]

Well I've got to admit that with my High School Education it took me a while to begin to understand some of what ycflyfisher said in his original response. The whole thing about the POD and the explanation of which species represented makes sense to me.

I could have missed it, but in the midst of all of the discussion about illogical arguments being used by us fly anglers I do not see any logical solutions offered in discussion on what the real issues are. I realize that before real solutions can be discussed the real issues must be identified. So how about sharing some real solutions or is there a reason why its necessary to keep beating the drum about how illogical the arguments are that Fly Anglers have been focusing on before this can be done?

[Darian]

FlyBum,.... With respect, nothings stopping you from offering logical solution(s). Also, unless you've not been reading the newspapers or following the federal and state agencies, and water contractors presentations on it, their solution to problems in the Delta is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). A controversial effort or plan that many of us are attempting to have set aside for any number of reasons.

As ycflyfisher stated above, the POD has been with us for around 60 years and as yet is unsolved. This is an over simplification, of course, but part of that decline has to be attributed to invasive filter feeders and other species that continue to invade the Delta and other state waterways, each year. Now, some changes have been made to where ships must discharge their ballasts to avoid new or re-infestations. Also, a few other measures have been implemented that provide preventive impacts but it's a bit like closing the gate on the corral after the horses have run off....

Even if there was a possibility of removing these invasives, the cost of doing so would be massive/prohibitive. Even tho there's a lot of science out there about the POD, the number of federal and state, local agencies and educational institutions working on it is small when compared to the number of federal, state, local government agencies and educational institutions working on the BDCP. At last count, I found that there were 35 different agencies and colleges that have some authority and responsibility for the outcome of implementing the BDCP. Just an observation but this should give some perspective on the level of import they assign to the POD in relation the the BDCP.

In this and other discussions on the subject, solutions of any type are scarce. Scientists, politicians, governmental bodies, water interests, environmental groups, farmers and fishing groups are lining up on each side of the BDCP issues. Nearly everything else (except high speed rail) takes a back seat. Pick a side and join the discussion. :cool:

[Darian]

ycflifisher,….

Interesting discussion. Agreement isn’t required to make it so.

Agreed, Striper guys tend not to discuss much on this subject on-line, especially POD. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t. I know several Striper guys (H&L and Fly) that are professional biologists/scientists, and some commercial/recreational fishermen that are capable of discussing this subject. The current state of affairs is an emotional subject for us. Believe it or not, we're not all a bunch of “clowns” out there, tho. ;)

Regrettably, the “pumps” have become the focal point or symbol to a large number of H&L fishing and environmental groups, and many individual anglers (including Striper fly guys) instead of a broader approach. I understand that feeling as it sometimes looks like diversion is the only issue that we may have a chance at modifying to some reasonable extent. Of course, as you’ve pointed out, that issue will be resolved in the courts or thru advocacy (lobbying).

In my view, counsels pre-presentation to the F&G Comm., opposing the staff proposal was probably an expression of some hidden/political agenda on the part of the director of DFW. DFW is part of the Resources Agency which, also, houses DWR. Resources and DWR, along with the water contractors are primary drivers of the BDCP. So, a hidden agenda is not beyond the realm of possibility. But, who really knows, maybe DFW management polled the fishing community to determine the level of opposition on this and decided not to pursue the proposed change at that time based on the result of that survey.

Also, I agree that DFW staff were demonized in the run-up to the proposal, one individual in particular. It's something that we Striper guys have to learn to avoid in the future if we want credibility. Honestly, I'd like to feel that DFW staff have no real interest in reducing Striper populations but I believe that there is an active interest on the part of DFW policy makers and outside agencies in controlling Striper predation on all listed species (e.g. Salmonids, Delta & Longfin Smelt, etc.) in the Delta and elsewhere. When viewed so as to include all listed species available as forage for Stripers, predation on those species is motivation enough for management/staff to support proposals to change the reg's to reduce those impacts regardless of the existence of the settlement agreement (SA). Why else were several studies undertaken to identify predation as an issue requiring attention many years prior to the SA??? Further, at the recent conference on predation at UCD, two of the fish specifically identified as major predators during presentations were Striped Bass and Pike Minnow. Others were discussed only in passing. In one chapter of the BDCP Striped Bass are singled for population reduction thru use of purse seines at locations where stripers are known to congregate.

BTW, the proposed bag/possession/minimum size change didn't involve just the minor increase in bag/possession and decrease in minimum size mentioned. There was a provision included that increased the bag/possess limit to 10/20 at Clifton Court Forebay. The way the change was written, would have allowed a person to catch/keep a limit at the forebay and another limit outside on the same day. Also, the proposed changes would've applied statewide if adopted.

I recognize the importance of POD in the role of the Delta environment and elsewhere. There're far too many reasons why I assign more importance to the impacts of the BDCP on the Delta than the POD for me to list here. Let's say for now that the proposed capacity for diversion and conveyance (15,000 CFS for each tunnel) would equal more than half the volume of flows in the Sacramento River during normal water periods and could potentially de-water the river below Sacramento in low water years. The operational plan calls for diverting less than full capacity but I have little faith in the prospect in that happening. The plan of operation, also, calls water diverted thru the tunnels to be delivered to an expanded Clifton Court Forebay where it will be co-mingled with water pumped into the forebay direct from the Delta as it is now. So, the potential impact of this “double dip” on all species in the Delta would be substantial. The impacts of changes to hydrology would affect flows above and below the intakes though out the Delta. The construction footprint alone would alter geographical features and habitat forever across the Delta. New and expanded forebays, numerous permanent worksites/materials stockpile areas across the Delta, construction waste, mud and sediment disposal, bridge and road relocation, etc., etc., ad nauseum are planned.

While I agree that POD is of major importance, it seems to me that the BDCP has the potential to do far more damage to the Delta environment/habitat, overall and I believe that those impacts will contribute to accelerated POD. (Is it too much of a coincidence that notice of the decline began around the time that the SWP was constructed and diversion started in the mid 1950’s and has progressed at an increased rate ever since?? Maybe.)

Now, I’m not so foolish as to not to realize that water is needed to irrigate crops and supply municipal water contractors. Nor would I advocate cutting off the current diversion. I do feel that alternative sources of “new” water should be explored before completely re-plumbing the Delta. How about some real efforts at desalinization??? Given a choice, SoCal water districts would choose Delta water before desal as it’s cheaper. Yet, even they have begun to explore the potentials; way ahead of the rest of us. The uses for diverted water mentioned above are not the only purposes where water is used. Water is currently treated as a commodity at great profit these days. It’s also used to “frack” oil and natural gas wells, drilling in hard rock mining, computer chip manufacturing, and to fuel rampant, unplanned development in areas that dry and fire prone to name a few. The problem with all of this is that much of this water is polluted and the run-off/waste returned to waterways, partially or untreated. Instead of cleaning up run-off, ag and industrial users frequently store polluted/toxic run-off in unlined ponds that run-over during heavy rains or percolate into groundwater supplies. We’re still reeling from the affects of municipal sewage discharge. Diversion and conveyance does result in uses that have toxic impacts on water borne life forms. Is this the highest use of water from the Delta??? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t see it as so bad if grey water was used for industrial purposes, then re-treated for re-use.

We’ve hardly begun to mention economic, legal and revenue issues related to the BDCP, yet. Don’t want to get me started on that. Well, I’m being far too long winded here but, IMO, in terms of priorities, economic/water issues arising from the BDCP will have more widespread and greater impacts on life in California than the POD, at least for now.


ps. Sorry for the large font, I wasn't trying to over emphasize anything. Just carried the text over from MS-Word....

[ycflyfisher]

Well I've got to admit that with my High School Education it took me a while to begin to understand some of what ycflyfisher said in his original response. The whole thing about the POD and the explanation of which species represented makes sense to me.

I could have missed it, but in the midst of all of the discussion about illogical arguments being used by us fly anglers I do not see any logical solutions offered in discussion on what the real issues are. I realize that before real solutions can be discussed the real issues must be identified. So how about sharing some real solutions or is there a reason why its necessary to keep beating the drum about how illogical the arguments are that Fly Anglers have been focusing on before this can be done?

I think those are valid points and great questions. I’ll take the time to provide some explanations from my perspective.

I definitely agree with your second statement. Problem is, the striper gurus don’t get it. The discussions that occur on this forum by the striper gurus don’t have anything to do with legit attempts to identify causes (they identify villains), or real attempts at conservation. Their mantra consists of two elements and two elements only:

1- Conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the predation blame from the million plus age 3+ stripers to something else. These usually come in the form of a totally definitive statement that predation by stripers is a non-issue BUT that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects. And of course, the pumps are the real predators….despite the fact there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.

2- Conspiracy theories that attempt to paint stripers and the listed species as being imperiled by what they feel are unreasonable stressors that science is overlooking: The spearfisherman will kill all the bigger fish and the striper population is going to crash in a few short seasons. A few dozen stray pinnapeds in the AR are going to decimate fish populations (despite the fact that if the same pinnapeds were in the bay somewhere they don’t stop eating fish and start eating kelp). The listed salmonids are being decimated by mismanagement and dereliction of duty by the keepers of the Public Trust (most recently). And of course, the pumps are the real predators (the proverbial catch all conspiracy theory that they apply to everything).
Now, you’re asking me why I’m not offering up logical solutions to these real issues, It’s because these conspiracy theories are not remotely close to being real issues and in reality do nothing to help identify real issues. And as you stated, if no one driving the discussions is even capable of acknowledging the real issues how can anyone actually discuss those issues let alone begin to discuss viable solutions? Until the ignorant discussion ends or at least is curtailed, you can’t begin to have intelligent discussion.

There’s two common themes within these discussions from the striper gurus:
1- There’s always a villain(s).
2- There’s NEVER any REAL, applicable scientific references provided that legitimizes the opinion that the alleged villains are actually wreaking the levels of havoc claimed. That’s a two fold issue, because the proponents advancing these arguments don’t seem to read any science because if they did, they’d realize that there is no science to back up their claims and tons of science and decades of history to refute those claims.

To put it bluntly as possible, what passes as conservation discussion on the striper forum is little more than extremely biased propaganda based on nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. There is no cogent discussion.

This causes two problems as I see it:

1- If no one challenges this comedy, a lot of individuals begin to assume that there’s some truth to it, and it gets repeated ad infinitum.

2- A lot of the striper worshippers seem to think these arguments are credible and can gain traction. If you don’t believe that's true (as comical as that may seem to you) go to the FC website and watch the public comments section from Feb 2012 to the proposed reg change Darian is referring to.

You’ll see individuals attempting to advance the following:

“The pumps are the real predators”, ad infinitum.
“Pinnapeds, pike minnow, cormorants, Blue herons, bigfoot, etc are all having more predation impact than are the 1 million+ piscivorous stripers are.”, ad infinitum.
“How many more decades is it going to take until stripers are declared a native species?”, numerous times. Despite the fact that can never happen, and despite the fact that the only group on the planet that could possibly think an apex predator like striped bass is “threatened” when they number into 7 figures are CA striper fisherman.
A myriad of other nonsense, none of which is remotely close to being presented or properly supported in a manner to support a recommended policy decision.

Problem #1 clearly perpetuates #2 as I see it. That IS a major problem because if you’ve got 50+ individuals advancing these ignorant conspiracy theories at FC meetings, guess what? Everyone’s on either a 2 or 3 minute clock depending on how many conspiracy theorists insist they need to be heard by the FC. The FC is not going to sit there until midnight so everyone can have 10 minutes. The FC is composed of individuals that are human. And like the rest of us, after they’ve heard nothing but same comical arguments that aren’t supportable by anything other than ill-formed opinion, over and over they have a tendency to tune things out. So anyone who just shows up but didn’t have time to go through the channels to get on the agenda actually attempting to advance rational, coherent suggestions to the FC have two things working against them:

1- They’ve got a minute and 45 (+/- 60 seconds) after they introduce themselves and state any affiliations they may have to explain and support their rationalizations. Do you think you could do that in less than 200 seconds for any issue as complex as a proposed reg change? Do you think anyone else could do that in the allotted time frame?

2- Their coherent arguments even if they can manage to sell them convincingly on the 2 minute clock, get lost in the midst of a myriad of “the pumps are the real predators”, and “…don’t forget the squawfish”, conspiracy theories.

The reality is that the efforts to “help” of the striper gurus who spout this propaganda constantly only really serves to diminish the efforts of those that may elect educate themselves on the real issues and attempt to formulate rationalizations that can gain traction and would be appropriate for influencing a policy decision. That I have a problem with.

There’s several individuals on this forum that occasionally fight the battles they think they can win. There’s a reason why you’ll rarely if ever see those individuals voicing those concerns on a forum like this one. Attracting an army of supporters that think with their emotion rather than their brains, is never going to help, but it can hurt.

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

I really can't comment on the BDCP. I haven't read much of it and what I did read, I don't remember much of. In short, I don't think my opinion on that strategic level document is educated enough to really matter. The Delta is simply not where my interests lies. The only reason I even chimed in on this thread was because of the attempted claim that science justified the vilification of the spearfisherman. That's nonsense and potentially dangerous considering the two prior threads involved the mental midgetry of advocating violence on the spearfisherman up to and including black rifles.

[Hatch]

������������������������������������������

[Darian]

Yep!!! Things can get a bit emotional on BB's.... Maybe one reason for what is described in part as unsupported is that we're talking to each other, as individuals/groups, using differing terminology or on different levels(?). For example, the statement that Stripers gurus (myself included) have asked how long it takes to consider Stripers as native?? ycflyfisher says that can never happen. Now, from a biological perspective that may be correct but the question is still debatable and the F&G Comm already declared that Stripers were a native species in the meeting where the proposed reg change we've been discussing was considered. In fairness, this last point tends to support the idea that it's difficult to be heard over the din in those meetings and the declaration, itself, had little if any real affect.

In admin/legal terminology, the term native is a description applied to certain species. That description can be altered/expanded at any point by changes to the regs or F&G Code. I can only speak for myself, but I supported the question about whether Stripers should be considered native based on the fact that they're here and have been so for more than a century; lots of generations occurring over that period. I don't need to grant that they weren't here first. All I need to do is Advocate a change to the law/regs governing this subject granting Stripers native status by the State (maybe the Feds). Of course, suggesting that change would bring the up formal discussion for consideration by the powers that be. There would be a declaration by the scientific community about what should be considered native and by those whose interests are better served by expanding that definition. The differences contribute to some of the problems in discussions. The outcome would be decided by individuals at the F&G Comm who are political appointees....

Since science and law are always evolving, nothing in the subject area of what constitutes "native" status is or should be closed from consideration/discussion. IMO, all of the philosophical(?)/pragmatic questions surrounding that word have not been answered, yet.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

..... tons of science and decades of history to refute those claims.

I'd certainly like to see this 'TONS OF SCIENCE'..... smh

[Mike McKenzie]

A typical rant with pretty poor assumptions about what "striper gurus" (unnecessary name calling) think and why.
Going by most of his statements, he demonstrates that he has no clue about what is actually going on and makes that abundantly clear in his last sentence below (underlined). You should ask him to show you any of the data that supports that absurd statement.

Also where has it ever been said that predation by stripers is a "non-issue" ?? (His quote from below) It has been stated by California's best fisheries experts that it does not rise to having a population level effect on ESA listed species and is an issue of "least concern" but that doesn't make it a non-issue. He completely misses the issues around the predation of hatchery smolts which is a problem that has yet to be properly dealt with.

Another misstatement from the quote below "that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects" I've been involved in this for years and have never heard that expressed by anyone but ycflyfisher.
This quote from below is a dead bust for who he speaks for "from the million plus age 3+ stripers" No one but a water contractor could mis-construe striped bass population numbers so badly!




Conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the predation blame from the million plus age 3+ stripers to something else. These usually come in the form of a totally definitive statement that predation by stripers is a non-issue BUT that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects. And of course, the pumps are the real predators….despite the fact there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.


You are wasting your time having a discussion with this guy. He either can not read or fails to understand the language or so steeped in his own belief system that any other thought is incomprehensible to him..

Mike

[ycflyfisher]

Mike,
That response is nothing short of amazing. You want that data. I'll certainly give you that data. Can't do it tonight because I'm on a mobile and I don't actually have that data with me. You want it, I'll be happy to deliver it. And just to set the record straight, and so you have no excuse for ducking my questions and responses like you did in the last two threads, here's my scoop. I'm Willie Ryan (yes the same onethat has called your bluff on too many occasions to count). I'm actually a CE who is employed by a Norcal county and not a water monger as per your false accusation. Don't believe that? Well there's only about 3 dozen or so former members of the ncffb that can confirm that. Not to mention several fisheries professionals on this forum who know exactly who I am and what I'm about. Don't want to take their word for it? Send me an email to ycflyfisher@yahoo.com and I'll photograph a business card and you can call the number on the card.

[Darian]

Robin,.... If I recall the subject of that post, it was about a reference to entrainment of Stripers at "da pumps" (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong....). I found that if I go to the DFW website and enter "entrainment of striped bass at the SWP" it led me to an index of a number of articles, studies and reports about entrainment of a number of species, including Stripers. Haven't had much of a chance to read them, yet, but I'm working on it ASAP. Anyway, it's a good starting point.... :cool:

Mike,.... Much like discussions/exchanges between you and myself, ycflyfisher (Mr. Ryan) and I have had a history of very interesting discussion/exchanges with each other and I've always learned something from them even tho we don't always agree on the outcomes. It's always a good mental exercise and informative. Hopefully, he feels the same way about our discussions.

I can't really speak for Mr. Ryan but I think he's frustrated by the type of discussion that comes up on this and some other BB's about Stripers when it turns out to be more judgmental/anecdotal/pragmatic than scientific. Maybe the change allowing Spearfishing for Stripers was the tipping point(???). Thus, his rant. Actually, all he's asking is that we support our claims about the problems we've identified with some background/historic or scientific info.... :cool:

The same thing appears more often in the Salmon/Steelhead Forum, with folks lining up on all sides of an issue. However, it seems that many posters over there are more likely to include links to info in support of whatever side they're on. Not something I like to do in my posts but, I will sometimes post a link. Just a matter of style. Like you, when it comes to discussion in a formal setting, I'll be listening carefully and always try to have my ducks in a row. :D

[BenFishin]

Mike,
That response is nothing short of amazing. You want that data. I'll certainly give you that data. Can't do it tonight because I'm on a mobile and I don't actually have that data with me. You want it, I'll be happy to deliver it. And just to set the record straight, and so you have no excuse for ducking my questions and responses like you did in the last two threads, here's my scoop. I'm Willie Ryan (yes the same onethat has called your bluff on too many occasions to count). I'm actually a CE who is employed by a Norcal county and not a water monger as per your false accusation. Don't believe that? Well there's only about 3 dozen or so former members of the ncffb that can confirm that. Not to mention several fisheries professionals on this forum who know exactly who I am and what I'm about. Don't want to take their word for it? Send me an email to ycflyfisher@yahoo.com and I'll photograph a business card and you can call the number on the card.

I can vouch for Willie's identity....

[Mike McKenzie]

I've pulled the post for a rewrite, sometimes circular arguments are more trouble than they're worth.

Hey Willy, Please post your data (or reference links) on entrainment as well as any data that supports your assertions about striped bass population levels..

Mike

[ycflyfisher]

Mike,

Apology accepted. I think it’s good that your finally willing to have a discussion. I can’t really “show you” most of the discussions we’ve had in the past because the archives of the forum where those discussions occurred no longer exists. All water under the bridge as far as I’m concerned. For starters, you’ve objected when I referred to you and your cohorts as “striper aficionados” in a prior thread. You’re objecting to being referred to as “striper gurus” in this one. You’ve even objected on a different forum to the term “striper proponents”. What is a politically correct term that you and your cohorts won’t find offensive? Tell me what it is, and that’s what I’ll use going forward.

Also, the 1M+, age 3+ stripers comes straight out of the appendix documentation that accompanies the POD progress reports. Your numbers are different, because they’re more recent and the population declined. Looking back, the abundance numbers for striped bass lags the release date of the progress reports by several years. That I did not notice. Thanks for providing more recent data.





You are wasting your time having a discussion with this guy. He either cannot read or fails to understand the language or so steeped in his own belief system that any other thought is incomprehensible to him..


Not trying to trainwreck this discussion since we’re now actually are having a discussion. But I definitely feel compelled to respond to this other accusation. I hope you can understand why. Particularly when you follow up with: “What I do know is you make a lot of statements that don't ring true as I pointed out in my previous "amazing" post.” Respectfully Mike, you hit me with that accusation, and follow up with reaffirmation. I’d agree from your perspective nothing I said “rings true”. Let’s look at why that is though.




Another misstatement from the quote below "that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects" I've been involved in this for years and have never heard that expressed by anyone but ycflyfisher.


Pretty far removed from the actual original context.

Here’s what I actually said from post #44 (this very thread):

"I definitely agree with your second statement. Problem is, the striper gurus don’t get it. The discussions that occur on this forum by the striper gurus don’t have anything to do with legit attempts to identify causes (they identify villains), or real attempts at conservation. Their mantra consists of two elements and two elements only:

1- Conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the predation blame from the million plus age 3+ stripers to something else. These usually come in the form of a totally definitive statement that predation by stripers is a non-issue BUT that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects. And of course, the pumps are the real predators….despite the fact there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.

And if you really think I’m supporting those conspiracy theories you also missed post #29 where I said:

That’s even more bizarre than the various Pike Minnow, Blue Heron, American Shad, and Cormorant conspiracy theories that have been advanced on this forum in the past, wherein said culprits all are having a much greater effect on the abundance of anadromous salmonids than are the 1 million plus age 3+ piscivorous stripers.

And

It’s pretty obvious to me that fly anglers that envision themselves to be the megaphones of striped bass conservation are never going to abandon the purely emotional refutations that are never going to gain traction with the policy makers but instead will continue to look for villains (the pumps, the spearfisherman, the pike minnow, the squawfish, the pinnapeds, or simply people like myself advocating that the peer reviewed science and the individuals who produce said science are your best allies) and play the blame game with said villains."

Now I hope you can realize that your implication that I was supporting these theories simply isn’t true. Now I’m not sure on what basis you’re assuming I’m attributing all those conspiracy theories to you. Rereading what I’ve said in this thread, I’m not seeing where you’re getting that notion from. That seems an assumption to me on your part.

You did in a prior thread literally state in one paragraph that predation by stripers was not having a terminal effect on population abundance of salmonids ( in a thread where I had already stated the same). Then in the very next paragraph, you mentioned that we should be concerned about cormorants. You might actually recall, that I actually thanked you for elevating the discussion from the American Shad drama. And among other things, I asked you to talk us through the rationalization of how you transition from dismissing the population level effect of predation of striped bass one moment, but that we should consider cormorants a serious threat. You elected not to explain that rationalization nor answer any of my other questions and you literally blew that thread up. If my tone seems “over the top” and terse to you it’s because statements like this that you and your cohorts seem to make in abundance, seem driven by pure emotion and seem completely comical to me. And they all do seem like predation blame shifting to me. Now if there’s a coherent, logical way to connect those dots (predation by striped bass isn’t a terminal concern but cormorants are), talk us through it please. I’m just not seeing that as being possible. Same goes for the various PM, Blue heron, spearfisherman et. al, discussions that have been advanced by your cohorts.



Also where has it ever been said that predation by stripers is a "non-issue" ?? (His quote from below) It has been stated by California's best fisheries experts that it does not rise to having a population level effect on ESA listed species and is an issue of "least concern" but that doesn't make it a non-issue. He completely misses the issues around the predation of hatchery smolts which is a problem that has yet to be properly dealt with.



Scroll up and reread what I actually stated from post #44. Again, context. Respectfully Mike, nothing I’ve said “rings true” to you, but the reason for that is you’ve taken everything I’ve stated completely out of context. I’m seeing your underlined statement being perfectly applicable for this discussion, but from my perspective it doesn’t apply to me. I don’t have a particular problem with this issue (no harm, no foul), but since you brought it up, I’m taking the time to set the record straight.

PS- Darian, you’re always good in my book.

[ycflyfisher]

Since you’ve got current data on striper abundance for 2009, let’s look at the entrainment data for 2009. Follow this link:

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=R3-FishSalvageMonitoring

Download the report entitled: “2009 Fish Salvage at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility”
Download the report entitled: “Fish Salvage at the SWP and CVP Fish Facilities during 2009”.

First let’s discuss some generalities and trends. Notice first that you’ve got the entrainment data going all the way back to 1982. Hence my comment that there are decades worth of empirical data. Notice that the numbers are completely time weighted to account literally for every minute the pumps are running in the TFCF report. Also notice that entrainment was much higher in the first 5 years of entrainment monitoring for Chinooks, but it dropped off quite sharply after that. Seems the powers that be made it a priority to improve efficiency. Also notice that the pumps tended to entrain more streamborn fish, than hatchery fish. For the sake of simplicity, we're just going to look at this in terms of abundance.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard any concern from you or your cohorts over things like carp, bluegill or catfish, so let’s stick with the species that you and your cohorts are always attempting to shift the predation impact of stripers to something else: Chinook salmon. Take note of how loss and salvage are defined for Chinook in the Tracy report. All that said, let’s see if the actual data supports “The pumps are the real predators” mantra.


Let’s attempt to establish some facts and make some assumptions.

The caveat with the entrainment data is that larval fish under 20mm in FL are not reliably entrained and actual losses for anything <20mm FL is likely understated. Chinooks that are mature enough to undergo the smoltification process and are down migrating through the Delta are all definitely going to be in excess of 50mm in FL. In other words, Chinooks are plenty big enough to be entrained, and thus there’s no good reason to think the numbers for Chinook are understated.

Let’s assume that salvage survival is 0.0%. In other words, we’re assuming that every Chinook that is processed dies. If it becomes entrained, it’s gone. This assumption is extremely biased in favor of the pumps being the real predators.

Let’s also assume that there is NO predation of Chinook, by any striped bass that are less mature than age3+. Age 3+ stripers are defined in the abundance modeling as being >460mm FL. So all those Chinook that got eaten by stripers 459mm FL or less in 2009, don’t count. Call it a big mulligan. This assumption is extremely biased in downplaying the predation effect of stripers.

Let’s also assume that 2009 was a funky year in terms of abundance sampling for striped bass. And the actual abundance falls in the lower range of the 95% confidence levels of the Petersen model. I’m assuming the number you quoted was the median here, so we’re going to purposely reduce the number you provided to 800,000 age 3+ stripers. Again, this assumption is also extremely biased in downplaying the predation effect of stripers.

Here’s the actual numbers:

Chinook numbers from Skinner ran 2463 and 10620 respectively for salvage and loss.
Chinook numbers from Tracy ran 4666 and 3682 respectively for salvage and loss

Here’s what you end up with: 2463+10620+4666+3682= 21,431 Chinooks killed by the pumps. Again we’re assuming no salvage survival. They’re all dead and removed from the equation. That number still seems pretty insignificant though doesn’t it? What percentage of the total abundance does that number really represent? Hatcheries in the system typically produce~26-30 million or so Chinook each year if memory serves. Let’s assume 2009 was a horrid year for hatchery production and they only produced 20M Chinooks (I forgot to lookup the actual hatchery production for 2009, but even in a year where the SFRC collapse was in effect, I don’t recall any issues with hatcheries hitting their production quotas for 2009, so I’m fairly certain 20M understates actual production for 2009). To five sig figs, that comes to 0.00107 or 0.107%. In other words, the pumps killed~ one tenth of one percent of the hatchery production for 2009. Add in the natural Chinook production, that number becomes even more insignificant.

This is the point where I actually picked up the phone and made a call because I “knew” there was something I had to be overlooking or not understanding. I definitely didn’t expect the data to support the “pumps are the real predators” mantra, but I did expect to see data that indicated the pumps were pulling in something like 500k to 1 million Chinooks a year on average. That’s not what’s happening Mike. Those are the real numbers, and I was told that there’s no other way to validly interpret those numbers, and that they are indeed time weighted to the minute, as the equation indicates.

How does that stack up to predation by stripers? It falls well short as you might imagine. For predation by the stripers to equal the “bodycount” entrained by the pumps, if only 3 (and I’m rounding up here from 2.7 to 3) out of every 100 age 3+ stripers ate one single, solitary Chinook smolt during 2009, predation by stripers equals the effect of the pumps. If 6 out of every 100 stripers ate 1 Chinook, they’ve doubled the predation effectiveness of the pumps. If 30 out of every 100 age 3+ stripers at 1 Chinook, they’ve magnified the predation effect of the pumps 10 fold. And remember, we’ve made assumptions that purposely understate the number of stripers capable of preying on Chinooks, and assumptions that inflate the number of Chinooks removed by the pumps.

Now I’m not arguing that predation by stripers is having a population level effect on Chinooks, but the potential for Chinooks to become entrained by the pumps ends once the fish make it downstream of the pumps. Predation by stripers doesn’t stop even long after the Chinooks hit the salt. That as I see it, is the reality.

But there has to be some other systemic effect that’s magnifying the effect of the pumps but it’s not showing up in the data, right? Let’s allow for that and build in a safety factor. It’s not actually the pumps but things like the configuration of the conveyance system causing more ideal predation hot spots (things like CCFB, and RBDD), a river that in its lower reaches runs levee to levee with no feathered edges, etc. In other words, the Chinooks are getting eaten by stripers and other predators, but we’re placing that predation blame on man-made structures that create unnatural predation opportunities. What do you think is fair? 10 percent? 50 percent? One hundred%? Well at 100% we move that number from 21k to 42k. Still seems pretty insignificant doesn’t it? Let’s just toss objectivity aside and totally cook the books and see how much you have to purposely skew those numbers for them to become significant. Let’s build in a safety factor of 4000%, critics be damned that there’s no remotely justifiable reason for doing so because we’re going to do whatever it takes to make those numbers seem significant. That gets us to 878,671. That has to be significant right? We’re approaching a million dead Chinooks. But is it significant?

If every age 3+ striper (keep in mind we’ve already done a lot of cooking by purposely reducing the number of stripers large enough to prey on Chinooks) eat only an average of 1 chinook for the entire 365 day period, the pumps and the stripers are running pretty close to even. And it doesn’t matter whether those Chinooks are being eaten upstream of the delta, in the bay, or in the salt off the Farallones. Do you really think age 3+ stripers are actually only eating one Chinook a year on average?

Maybe 2009 was just a really low year for entrainment. Truth is, it was. Run another year where the entrainment numbers are higher. Run another species of concern (steelhead, or D Smelt). Keep in mind those as you go back in time, striper abundance begins to also rise and other factors come into play, and you need to take those factors into account.

So I’m asking, do you think the data supports the “pumps are the real predators” mantra?

[Mike McKenzie]

Since you’ve got current data on striper abundance for 2009, let’s look at the entrainment data for 2009. Follow this link:

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=R3-FishSalvageMonitoring

Download the report entitled: “2009 Fish Salvage at the Tracy Fish Collection Facility”
Download the report entitled: “Fish Salvage at the SWP and CVP Fish Facilities during 2009”.

First let’s discuss some generalities and trends. Notice first that you’ve got the entrainment data going all the way back to 1982. Hence my comment that there are decades worth of empirical data. Notice that the numbers are completely time weighted to account literally for every minute the pumps are running in the TFCF report. Also notice that entrainment was much higher in the first 5 years of entrainment monitoring for Chinooks, but it dropped off quite sharply after that. Seems the powers that be made it a priority to improve efficiency. Also notice that the pumps tended to entrain more streamborn fish, than hatchery fish. For the sake of simplicity, we're just going to look at this in terms of abundance.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard any concern from you or your cohorts over things like carp, bluegill or catfish, so let’s stick with the species that you and your cohorts are always attempting to shift the predation impact of stripers to something else: Chinook salmon. Take note of how loss and salvage are defined for Chinook in the Tracy report. All that said, let’s see if the actual data supports “The pumps are the real predators” mantra.


Let’s attempt to establish some facts and make some assumptions.

The caveat with the entrainment data is that larval fish under 20mm in FL are not reliably entrained and actual losses for anything <20mm FL is likely understated. Chinooks that are mature enough to undergo the smoltification process and are down migrating through the Delta are all definitely going to be in excess of 50mm in FL. In other words, Chinooks are plenty big enough to be entrained, and thus there’s no good reason to think the numbers for Chinook are understated.

Let’s assume that salvage survival is 0.0%. In other words, we’re assuming that every Chinook that is processed dies. If it becomes entrained, it’s gone. This assumption is extremely biased in favor of the pumps being the real predators.

Let’s also assume that there is NO predation of Chinook, by any striped bass that are less mature than age3+. Age 3+ stripers are defined in the abundance modeling as being >460mm FL. So all those Chinook that got eaten by stripers 459mm FL or less in 2009, don’t count. Call it a big mulligan. This assumption is extremely biased in downplaying the predation effect of stripers.

Let’s also assume that 2009 was a funky year in terms of abundance sampling for striped bass. And the actual abundance falls in the lower range of the 95% confidence levels of the Petersen model. I’m assuming the number you quoted was the median here, so we’re going to purposely reduce the number you provided to 800,000 age 3+ stripers. Again, this assumption is also extremely biased in downplaying the predation effect of stripers.

Here’s the actual numbers:

Chinook numbers from Skinner ran 2463 and 10620 respectively for salvage and loss.
Chinook numbers from Tracy ran 4666 and 3682 respectively for salvage and loss

Here’s what you end up with: 2463+10620+4666+3682= 21,431 Chinooks killed by the pumps. Again we’re assuming no salvage survival. They’re all dead and removed from the equation. That number still seems pretty insignificant though doesn’t it? What percentage of the total abundance does that number really represent? Hatcheries in the system typically produce~26-30 million or so Chinook each year if memory serves. Let’s assume 2009 was a horrid year for hatchery production and they only produced 20M Chinooks (I forgot to lookup the actual hatchery production for 2009, but even in a year where the SFRC collapse was in effect, I don’t recall any issues with hatcheries hitting their production quotas for 2009, so I’m fairly certain 20M understates actual production for 2009). To five sig figs, that comes to 0.00107 or 0.107%. In other words, the pumps killed~ one tenth of one percent of the hatchery production for 2009. Add in the natural Chinook production, that number becomes even more insignificant.

This is the point where I actually picked up the phone and made a call because I “knew” there was something I had to be overlooking or not understanding. I definitely didn’t expect the data to support the “pumps are the real predators” mantra, but I did expect to see data that indicated the pumps were pulling in something like 500k to 1 million Chinooks a year on average. That’s not what’s happening Mike. Those are the real numbers, and I was told that there’s no other way to validly interpret those numbers, and that they are indeed time weighted to the minute, as the equation indicates.

How does that stack up to predation by stripers? It falls well short as you might imagine. For predation by the stripers to equal the “bodycount” entrained by the pumps, if only 3 (and I’m rounding up here from 2.7 to 3) out of every 100 age 3+ stripers ate one single, solitary Chinook smolt during 2009, predation by stripers equals the effect of the pumps. If 6 out of every 100 stripers ate 1 Chinook, they’ve doubled the predation effectiveness of the pumps. If 30 out of every 100 age 3+ stripers at 1 Chinook, they’ve magnified the predation effect of the pumps 10 fold. And remember, we’ve made assumptions that purposely understate the number of stripers capable of preying on Chinooks, and assumptions that inflate the number of Chinooks removed by the pumps.

Now I’m not arguing that predation by stripers is having a population level effect on Chinooks, but the potential for Chinooks to become entrained by the pumps ends once the fish make it downstream of the pumps. Predation by stripers doesn’t stop even long after the Chinooks hit the salt. That as I see it, is the reality.

But there has to be some other systemic effect that’s magnifying the effect of the pumps but it’s not showing up in the data, right? Let’s allow for that and build in a safety factor. It’s not actually the pumps but things like the configuration of the conveyance system causing more ideal predation hot spots (things like CCFB, and RBDD), a river that in its lower reaches runs levee to levee with no feathered edges, etc. In other words, the Chinooks are getting eaten by stripers and other predators, but we’re placing that predation blame on man-made structures that create unnatural predation opportunities. What do you think is fair? 10 percent? 50 percent? One hundred%? Well at 100% we move that number from 21k to 42k. Still seems pretty insignificant doesn’t it? Let’s just toss objectivity aside and totally cook the books and see how much you have to purposely skew those numbers for them to become significant. Let’s build in a safety factor of 4000%, critics be damned that there’s no remotely justifiable reason for doing so because we’re going to do whatever it takes to make those numbers seem significant. That gets us to 878,671. That has to be significant right? We’re approaching a million dead Chinooks. But is it significant?

If every age 3+ striper (keep in mind we’ve already done a lot of cooking by purposely reducing the number of stripers large enough to prey on Chinooks) eat only an average of 1 chinook for the entire 365 day period, the pumps and the stripers are running pretty close to even. And it doesn’t matter whether those Chinooks are being eaten upstream of the delta, in the bay, or in the salt off the Farallones. Do you really think age 3+ stripers are actually only eating one Chinook a year on average?

Maybe 2009 was just a really low year for entrainment. Truth is, it was. Run another year where the entrainment numbers are higher. Run another species of concern (steelhead, or D Smelt). Keep in mind those as you go back in time, striper abundance begins to also rise and other factors come into play, and you need to take those factors into account.

So I’m asking, do you think the data supports the “pumps are the real predators” mantra?


In a word, No.. I don't have time to digest either of your posts right now... In the meantime.....
Here's some reading for you...
http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/get-document/1584
http://www.kierassociates.net/Kier%20Assoc_OIA%20TO%203062_Incidental%20take%20a t%20the%20Delta%20pumps_final.pdf
http://www.bay.org/assets/Collateral%20Damage_4_2.pdf

Mike

[Darian]

Gotts do some more reading. One of the things I find annoying/distracting in using DFW documents on-line is that whoever enters the reports frequently leaves off a portion of those documents. For example, the newsletter, Bay-Delta IEP Fish Salvage Monitoring Documents. When I opened this 5 page document, I was only able to display 2 of the pages. Maybe the unrelated subject in the newsletter are stored under another subject area.... :confused:

At any rate, I was really amazed to see that the predator that was the most numerous in Clifton Court Forebay during one study was the White Catfish; Stripers were second. Also, I found a diagram of the Skinner Fish Protection Facility that I found interesting. Wheeeeuh!!! lotsa stuff to read from Mike & ycflyfisher. :cool:

[Marty Gingras]

From what I've seen, "The pumps are the predators" is marketing. It's a simple and catchy rallying cry. People like Mike --- and certainly all the agencies --- know that entrainment into the diversion facilities is a 'direct effect' that's relatively easy to document, but that water operations leading to diversion result in myriad 'indirect effects' that are harder to document (e.g., don't result in 'dead bodies'). Indirect effects include changes in the quality of delta smelt habitat when water operations --- via interaction between diversions and release of water from dams --- result in large upstream-downstream shifts in the location of the low-salinity zone. Reverse (negative) flow in Old River and Middle River is another feature that is thought to have negative indirect effects. Marketing (e.g. a rallying cry) has impact and anglers have good marketing regarding entrainment. Why no marketing about indirect effects?

[Darian]

Hi Marty,.... Good observations. The pumps have become a symbol for some (myself included) that include everything going wrong in the Delta. As you've said it's an easy, catchy rallying cry; more marketing and all inclusive. It doesn't gain much traction among policy makers or professionals if viewed as the single demonic problem. It does tend to focus effort, tho. As I'm sure you're aware, getting a diverse group of people to agree on anything is kinda like herding cats....

As you've pointed out, the pumps do cause some identifiable problems by themselves and after the discussion (maybe over year ago on this subject), I began to realize how complex these issues/situation are; thanks to you for providing the links to that info. However, if I took the time to to list them all, my audience would likely leave or tune out before I was able to finish. ;) So, probably not going to be any rallying cry for indirect impacts.

Realizing this I jumped on the train, too, but my interest/issue is the BDCP and, along with a few others, I've been trying to keep up on the developments while digesting the description of the project. By itself, this project will have so many direct/indirect, positive/negative impacts inside/outside of the delta that most of them haven't even been imagined, yet. Plus, it's still in the design phase (a plan to plan???). Those impacts include the indirect impacts (hydrology issues) for fish that you've mentioned.

At this point, the potential overall risk involved is massive. I understand the need to move quickly on projects to keep momentum going but this project, apparently, doesn't anticipate/consider potential alternatives in any real scenario first. Worse, it doesn't address pollution of water used by all sources but allows all to run-off into our waterways, untreated. At least municipal users are required to treat/re-use their water to some extent before releasing it. The BDCP doesn't address groundwater issues at all. ....Sorry guys, gotta get off my soap box for now. :rolleyes:

Anyway, thanks for your observations, Marty. Hope you'll keep up with us on this stuff. :cool:

[Marty Gingras]

...my interest/issue is the BDCP and, along with a few others, I've been trying to keep up on the developments while digesting the description of the project.

Your interest in BDCP is excellent and a wise focus!


...probably not going to be any rallying cry for indirect impacts.

Please don't give up. I was in high school when the PC and 'negative flows' were first in the news. The notion of rivers flowing backwards has stuck with me for pushing 40 years...

[Mike McKenzie]

I've pulled the post for a rewrite, sometimes circular arguments are more trouble than they're worth.

Hey Willy, Please post your data (or reference links) on entrainment as well as any data that supports your assertions about striped bass population levels..

Mike

Well I'm back and I won't respond to the two previous posts by Willy for the reason stated above in that "I said, you said" or "you said, I said" arguments are probably the most useless waste of time there is. Those kinds of conversations are about as circular as any can get and never seem to end unless one decides not to play anymore. Willy, what I said and what you said is documented by the Board and context really doesn't matter for the most part because the original words are there in each of our posts.

However, I will respond to what I consider constructive criticism of the "striped bass community" and its "striped bass anglers". (which is what we are, as most of us don't consider ourselves "gurus" and we are a "community of striped bass anglers")

In consideration of Willy's constructive criticism with regard to the striped bass anglers hammering on striped bass predation issues and direct effects of the pumping while seemingly ignoring the myriad incidental effects such as POD, invasive benthic organisms etc. etc.

Here is a little history that should explain the fixation on predation. It starts in Jan.2008 when the "Coalition for a Sustainable Delta" basically a group of Corporate Ag folks in the southern San Joaquin Valley desert and the Water Contractors that serve them filed a lawsuit challenged the California Department of Fish and Game’s (“CDFG”) enforcement of state sportfishing regulations that protect striped bass populations within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

This now quoted from the Court Documents...
"Plaintiffs, a coalition of water users led by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta (“Coalition”), complain that CDFG’s enforcement of these regulations violates the EndangeredSpecies Act (“ESA”), because striped bass prey upon at least four species listed under the ESA, including the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and delta smelt (the “Listed Species”). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the following discrete issues, the resolution of which they assert “will narrow the issues in the case and provide the parties with guidance as to how to proceed”:

"(1) [T]hat those portions of the Central Valley Improvement Act (“CVPIA”), Pub. L. 102-575, 106
Stat. 4600, Title 34, 106 Stat 4706-31 (1992), pertaining to anadromous fish, do not exempt
CDFG’s enforcement of striped bass sport-fishing regulations from the take prohibitions under
Section 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (a)(1)(B);

(2) [T]hat it is a violation of the ESA to “take” a single endangered Sacramento-River
winter-run [C]hinook salmon, threatened Central Valley spring-run [C]hinook salmon, threatened
Central Valley steelhead, or threatened delta smelt without prior take authorization from the
appropriate federal Wildlife Agency;

(3) [T]hat it is a violation of the ESA for a government or government agency or entity to
“take” a federally listed species through the exercise of its regulatory authority without
first receiving take authorization from the appropriate federal Wildlife Agency."

The above is what set the stage for the "predation argument" that has been a forefront discussion ever since because they alleged that "one striper" eating one individual that is a listed species is a take.

We all know how that turned out..They lost the lawsuit in a big way with the dismissal of the above Motion for Summary Judgement as well as the second one they filed which meant that we would be going to trial with out any win at all for the Plaintiffs. However, an overriding fear of losing an appeal after trial (where that came from no one will cop to) CDFG negotiated a "Settlement Agreement" in which they agreed to proposed striped bass reg. changes and the CDFG lost that battle at the F& G Commission meeting on Feb.02 2012.

Even though the CSD lost, the water contractors are still beating the drum blaming all the problems with the Delta and the water export system on striped bass predation while completely ignoring the damage caused by the record amounts of export pumping since the early 2000's (which, BTW nicely coincides with the POD!) As example they sponsored Assembly Bill 1253 (2009 Fuller, Bakersfield) an attempted end run around their puny lawsuit by going to the State Legislature in 2009 and another attempt with A.B. 2336 (again, Fuller in 2010) Both of the Bills were killed (or amended out of existence) in the Legislature with the help of the striped bass community!

Above is a thumb nail sketch of why the striper community has predation on its mind, it's because we are being constantly attacked by the water thieves over it. In reality it is all nothing more than a diversionary "red-herring" but we react and respond because the threat is real and constant. They think that as long as the can play the evil striped bass as the culprit, people will forget the huge damage being done by removing an unsustainable amount of water from the system. (Not working very well)

For anyone that has stuck with me this far Here is a nice historical accounting of our Delta and its problems and the hard work by folks that care. (in spite of some of us gettin' on their case sometimes!) This is a much better read than anything I could write!!

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/docs/Herrgesell_IEP_Report_FINAL.pdf

Believe me when I say that in the trenches we fight for the whole Bay-Delta Eco-system not just striped bass!

Mike

[Randy Lee]

Mike,
The light has dawned. Thanks for clearing the fog! Great post.
Randy

[OceanSunfish]

As always Mike, Well said. Thanks for the great post.

[Kevin Goding]

Well I'm back and I won't respond to the two previous posts by Willy for the reason stated above in that "I said, you said" or "you said, I said" arguments are probably the most useless waste of time there is. Those kinds of conversations are about as circular as any can get and never seem to end unless one decides not to play anymore. Willy, what I said and what you said is documented by the Board and context really doesn't matter for the most part because the original words are there in each of our posts.

However, I will respond to what I consider constructive criticism of the "striped bass community" and its "striped bass anglers". (which is what we are, as most of us don't consider ourselves "gurus" and we are a "community of striped bass anglers")

In consideration of Willy's constructive criticism with regard to the striped bass anglers hammering on striped bass predation issues and direct effects of the pumping while seemingly ignoring the myriad incidental effects such as POD, invasive benthic organisms etc. etc.

Here is a little history that should explain the fixation on predation. It starts in Jan.2008 when the "Coalition for a Sustainable Delta" basically a group of Corporate Ag folks in the southern San Joaquin Valley desert and the Water Contractors that serve them filed a lawsuit challenged the California Department of Fish and Game’s (“CDFG”) enforcement of state sportfishing regulations that protect striped bass populations within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

This now quoted from the Court Documents...
"Plaintiffs, a coalition of water users led by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta (“Coalition”), complain that CDFG’s enforcement of these regulations violates the EndangeredSpecies Act (“ESA”), because striped bass prey upon at least four species listed under the ESA, including the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and delta smelt (the “Listed Species”). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the following discrete issues, the resolution of which they assert “will narrow the issues in the case and provide the parties with guidance as to how to proceed”:

"(1) [T]hat those portions of the Central Valley Improvement Act (“CVPIA”), Pub. L. 102-575, 106
Stat. 4600, Title 34, 106 Stat 4706-31 (1992), pertaining to anadromous fish, do not exempt
CDFG’s enforcement of striped bass sport-fishing regulations from the take prohibitions under
Section 9 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (a)(1)(B);

(2) [T]hat it is a violation of the ESA to “take” a single endangered Sacramento-River
winter-run [C]hinook salmon, threatened Central Valley spring-run [C]hinook salmon, threatened
Central Valley steelhead, or threatened delta smelt without prior take authorization from the
appropriate federal Wildlife Agency;

(3) [T]hat it is a violation of the ESA for a government or government agency or entity to
“take” a federally listed species through the exercise of its regulatory authority without
first receiving take authorization from the appropriate federal Wildlife Agency."

The above is what set the stage for the "predation argument" that has been a forefront discussion ever since because they alleged that "one striper" eating one individual that is a listed species is a take.

We all know how that turned out..They lost the lawsuit in a big way with the dismissal of the above Motion for Summary Judgement as well as the second one they filed which meant that we would be going to trial with out any win at all for the Plaintiffs. However, an overriding fear of losing an appeal after trial (where that came from no one will cop to) CDFG negotiated a "Settlement Agreement" in which they agreed to proposed striped bass reg. changes and the CDFG lost that battle at the F& G Commission meeting on Feb.02 2012.

Even though the CSD lost, the water contractors are still beating the drum blaming all the problems with the Delta and the water export system on striped bass predation while completely ignoring the damage caused by the record amounts of export pumping since the early 2000's (which, BTW nicely coincides with the POD!) As example they sponsored Assembly Bill 1253 (2009 Fuller, Bakersfield) an attempted end run around their puny lawsuit by going to the State Legislature in 2009 and another attempt with A.B. 2336 (again, Fuller in 2010) Both of the Bills were killed (or amended out of existence) in the Legislature with the help of the striped bass community!

Above is a thumb nail sketch of why the striper community has predation on its mind, it's because we are being constantly attacked by the water thieves over it. In reality it is all nothing more than a diversionary "red-herring" but we react and respond because the threat is real and constant. They think that as long as the can play the evil striped bass as the culprit, people will forget the huge damage being done by removing an unsustainable amount of water from the system. (Not working very well)

For anyone that has stuck with me this far Here is a nice historical accounting of our Delta and its problems and the hard work by folks that care. (in spite of some of us gettin' on their case sometimes!) This is a much better read than anything I could write!!

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/docs/Herrgesell_IEP_Report_FINAL.pdf

Believe me when I say that in the trenches we fight for the whole Bay-Delta Eco-system not just striped bass!

Mike

I used to help with some of the POD sampling. Just hanging out with the boat operator explaining the history and the changes of the delta was eye opening itself. The best example is the C&H sugar processing plant that was built a long time ago. They specifically picked that location for the "endless" supply of freshwater available. That is no longer the case and they use city water now, due to saltwater incursion that far up the system from all the diversion. I'm not saying the pumps are the main culprit, just our native species have a lot of stressors, a big one being this alien environment we've plumbed for them.