Anybody commenting proposed trout regulations for CA?

[tcorfey]

Anybody commenting on the new proposed trout regulations for CA?

Statewide Regulation (section 7.0)
Fishing districts—section 7.00(a) through (g)—for trout waters only (lakes, reservoirs, and streams that are not accessible to fish migrating from the ocean; “non-anadromous”) will be replaced by a statewide trout angling regulation. Waters that are not located in the proposed table of changes, or stated as “move to 7.pr0 statewide reg”, will have the following regulation:
Open year-round, 5 trout bag, 10 trout possession limit, no gear restrictions.

More info at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=165844&inline

In a nutshell many changes regarding fewer gear restrictions, fewer size limits, additional rivers going year round, a change in the fishing season start and end date (Late May to Feb instead of Late April to Nov), etc...

Regards,

Tim C.

[Larry S]

Tim,
Some of the proposed changes for Crowley don't seem to make much sense
at all; except maybe to the marina.
Best,
Larry S
Sun Diego

[ricards]

Here's the link for online public comment.

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Trout-Plan/Regulation-Simplification/comments

[Darian]

"....no gear restrictions."

This change appears to eliminate fly only restrictions on those waters included in proposal. Is that how this is being read???

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

A friend of my in the accounting department for the State of CA told me, 30 years ago, we were bankrupt?

Most times these changes are to save money from a over spent budget.

See if someone can find out the last time they took all the CA DF&W licensing money and put it all in the General Fund?

.

[Rossflyguy]

This is probably due to the declining trend in fishing licenses purchased.

[mogaru]

Regulations made to put more pressure on the fish............once the fish are gone, whatever times it takes somebody else will take all the water.........little by little, working hard like ants they will reach their goal.

[tcorfey]

The waters I go to that I thought were most impacted are [I may have missed some]:

American River, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork and their tributaries above Folsom Lake (Placer, Eldorado, Amador, and Alpine cos.).
Change to allow fishing Open All year, allow 5 fish bag limit, remove all gear restrictions.

Carson River, East Fork from Hangman’s Bridge downstream to Nevada State Line.
Currently open All year. Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used. 0 trout bag limit.
Change to all year, remove gear restrictions and 5 trout bag limit.

Fall River from its origin at Thousand Springs downstream to the mouth of the Tule River and including Spring Creek and excluding all other tributaries.
Retains artificial only but Change to allow open All year and 0 trout bag limit.

Feather River, Middle Fork (Plumas Co.), from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge (1/4 mile upstream of County A-23 bridge) to the Mohawk Bridge.
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February

Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse (excluding reservoirs) (Butte and Plumas cos.).
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15. Artificial lures only.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February. No gear restrictions.

Golden Trout Wilderness Area (Tulare Co.), excluding the main stem Kern River (see subsection 7.50(b)(86), and the Tule River drainage (See subsection 7.50(b) (197)).
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15. Artificial lures only.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February. No gear restrictions.

Hat Creek (Shasta Co.) from Lake Britton upstream to Baum Lake, exclusive of the concrete Hat No. 2 intake canal between Baum Lake and the Hat No. 2 Powerhouse.
Change to Open All year, remove size restrictions, 2 trout bag, artificial lures, remove restrictions on collecting bugs.

Hot Creek (Mono Co.). Hot Creek from the State hatchery property line to the confluence with the Owens River.
Change to All year, 0 fish bag, allow artificial lures with barbless hooks not just artificial flies.

McCloud River from McCloud Dam downstream to confluence of Ladybug Creek downstream to lower boundary of the U.S. Forest Service loop (southern boundary of section 36, T38N, R3W ).
Change the season from Last Saturday in Apr. through Nov. 15. to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February.


Stanislaus River, Middle Fork (Tuolumne Co.). From Beardsley Dam downstream to the New Melones Reservoir.
Change to open all year.

Tuolumne River (Stanislaus and Tuolumne cos.) From O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy Reservoir) downstream to Clavey River Falls.
Remove the five section restrictions and make the whole length open all year with a 2 fish bag limit and artificial lures

There are probably some I missed but they are not all in order so some are more difficult than others.

Based on my current observations I will probably complain about the following:
American river, Carson river east fork, Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse, Golden Trout Wilderness Area.

I have mixed emotions about Hat creek, Hot creek and the McCloud river changes.
I could go along with Hat creek if it was 0 bag limit, allowing lures in Hot creek may open the door to bait people, McCloud lower section near Ah-Di-Nah could be dangerous for people traveling in to that remote section of dirt road in the winter.

Also some that are not listed in the changes will go to all year no restrictions.

Regards,

Tim C.

[Fly Guy Dave]

Thanks for passing along the link. I spent some time typing and letting them know what I think about these new regs. We'll see if they actually do change things as a result of public input. Time will tell...

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Regulations made to put more pressure on the fish............once the fish are gone, whatever times it takes somebody else will take all the water.........little by little, working hard like ants they will reach their goal.

Good one Mogaru........I have the same feelings about Spear Fishing for Stripers in Fresh Water.

Once all the fish are gone the State can save lots of money and it will be easier to control all the water.

[Jeff F]

Tim, thanks for posting that. But I'm not seeing the changes on the NFF as you posted. I read the proposed regs as artificial barbless only, zero bag. Yes, the season dates are different though, which is ridiculous.

MF American should be 100% C&R, barbless, artificial only. Any river with a "Wild & Scenic" designation should be this way, imho.

And NO REGS on Pit #3? WTF??? Unreal. Not really sure what they're thinking is on this one. Drifting worms through Pit #3 would be a total annihilation. You'd probably get your limit in 10 minutes. And with no size restrictions, there goes all the breeding fish.

I don't see any science in these proposals.

~Jeff

[Larry S]

Bill,
From someone's blog concerning Crowley;
The proposed changes would increase the bag limit to 5 during the Cutty spawn in the spring and would keep Crowley open to bait and full limits fishing through September. This would devastate the fishery which has become world class despite proximity to 40 million people because of strict limitations. ======
Currently, bait season closes on Aug 1; with additional restrictions on size and takes.
Best,
Larry S
San Diego

[EricO]

Pit 4 & 5 already have no regs. So now no gear restrictions on Pit 3?

You can't keep just ONE section that is C&R for the fly guys?? We had to go through the higher flow regimen on
Pit 3 (and 4 & 5) some years back because it was better for the fish. Which i utterly disagreed with but that's
my opinion.

I know that was a FERC licensing deal with PG&E but their reasoning was it was healthier for the fishery.
And now DFG wants to come in and make it no gear restrictions? How about protect one section?

Who's running the DFG, the Keystone Cops???

[mogaru]

Good one Mogaru........I have the same feelings about Spear Fishing for Stripers in Fresh Water.

Once all the fish are gone the State can save lots of money and it will be easier to control all the water.

That's right Bill. Spearfishing was another strategy to get rid of the stripers/fish. I remember when the DGF tried to stop it by not allowing bringing spear guns into the park, the got a phone call from "up above" not to enforce the law. If there is water you will always find the same people.

[Dick]

I don't see any science in these proposals.

~Jeff[/QUOTE]

I think that the idea is to "simplify" the regulations. I guess that "we" aren't smart enough to figure the regs out. But then sometimes they are rather confusing. Too bad fishermen don't write the proposals/regulations instead of folks who spend too much time behind a desk. Just MHO.

[tcorfey]

Hey Jeff, you are correct I mixed NFF with MFF.

(68.1) Feather River, Middle Fork (Plumas Co.), from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge (1/4 mile upstream of County A-23 bridge) to the Mohawk Bridge.
Move to 7.0 statewide reg (Which means year round no restrictions)

(68.2) Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse (excluding reservoirs) (Butte and Plumas Co.).
Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February
0 fish bag, artificial lures with barbless hooks

Statewide Regulation (section 7.0)
Fishing districts—section 7.00(a) through (g)—for trout waters only (lakes, reservoirs, and streams that are not accessible to fish migrating from the ocean; “non-anadromous”) will be replaced by a statewide trout angling regulation. Waters that are not located in the proposed table of changes, or stated as “move to 7.0 statewide reg”, will have the following regulation:
Open year-round, 5 trout bag, 10 trout possession limit, no gear restrictions.


I wonder what the definition of "No gear restrictions" is? does it mean you can use any means to catch fish (nets, spear, arrows, dynamite?) or does it mean something else like artificial flies, lures or bait is okay? Not sure how to take that. Does anyone know?

Regards

Tim C.

[Lew Riffle]

They are not addressing general fishing regulations where gear descriptions are defined along with such much more confusing elements as fishing hours. There is no proposed change in management reflect response to these changes in regulation. There is no regulation anywhere (existing or proposed) that I know of that defines 10 trout possession or even bag limits. Perfectly simple right?


We can comment to the guys who are proposing this...Rodger Bloom and district biologist staff, and they will consider comments maybe. They have yet to formalize all the "town Hall" input form last fall so figure what they are going to do this time. They are under the gun to have a proposed draft to give DFG Commission by June. From there to the end of the year when the Commission wants to adopt these "simplifications" as a regulation package there will be another public comment period on a final draft. This should have more weight than this this input window but having been in the middle of the MLPA process I see all the indicators and "I hear the train a coming" and this thing is on wheels.

This is a "package" of trout regulation change. Last time was when they opened more winter seasons some 12 years ago. Talk about wheels. Packages as I have experienced them are an end run around the tedious path of changing or adopting a current regulation through the Commission which can take years. CDFW staff loves emergencies and mandates since they have an excuse(most times some extra funding) not to what they are supposed to be doing in their job description and responsibilities. This is more about CDFW Trout Management over reacting simplifying their job than simplifying trout regulation in hopes to provide more fishing opportunity and resultant license sales...pretty much a long shot to say the least from this aspect of the "R3"(recruitment, retention, and reactivation) action plan initiative. You can tell MR. Bonham directly what you thing about his plan anytime.

[Fishtopher]

We should be encouraging more people into the sport in general since fishing and hunting is a dying breed in CA. Simplifying and extending seasons should help encourage that. I'm all for opening up fisheries to no gear restrictions, after all, most of us started fishing with bait. Alienating groups of fishermen is not the way to get people on your side and fighting for a common cause.

Opening up streams to harvest is not the end of the world either. Fisheries managers have easy ways to estimate populations based on harvest, survival, recruitment, etc. Catch and release is not always the best management action for a fishery. In fact, harvest can sometimes greatly benefit a fishery.

[Lew Riffle]

There is science. Don't think they want to go down that road and are blowing through with strong indifferent(arrogant?) opinion to avoid justification debate. Bloom did publish in 2013(North American Journal of Fisheries Management ) on a barb vs barbless flies and related catching efficiency.

[mogaru]

We should be encouraging more people into the sport in general since fishing and hunting is a dying breed in CA. Simplifying and extending seasons should help encourage that. I'm all for opening up fisheries to no gear restrictions, after all, most of us started fishing with bait. Alienating groups of fishermen is not the way to get people on your side and fighting for a common cause.

Opening up streams to harvest is not the end of the world either. Fisheries managers have easy ways to estimate populations based on harvest, survival, recruitment, etc. Catch and release is not always the best management action for a fishery. In fact, harvest can sometimes greatly benefit a fishery.

Simplifying regulations and extending seasons won't bring more people to the sport. It will only extend the pressure on depleted fisheries. Catching fish brings people to the sport and increase sales at tackle stores.......and since every year we have less and less fish to catch, becomes more difficult to catch them and interest in licenses becomes more obvious.
Catch and release helps an already depleted fishery and protect areas of rivers with a decent number of fish. Harvest of a depleted fishery will deplete it even more. There is not one river which is overpopulated which might benefit from harvesting. I think the water lords have a lot to do with these type of policies which will contribute to the final debacle of the fisheries.

[mogaru]

When fish populations on the rivers were good and it was fairly easy to catch fish and entertain yourself, there were plenty of fishing licenses being sold as well as sell of tackle. The major reason for the decline in selling licenses and subsequent tackle sales is the decline of the fisheries.
Opening for harvest streams like the pit 3 will only deplete the few remaining areas with quality fishing populations...... and the water lords know that. Right now there are plenty of places and rivers where you can harvest your limits. These new regulations are just the final dagger to our declining fishing populations. Increasing the pressure on the fish by extending the season and places were you can harvest will not help the declining fish populations, quite the opposite, it will deplete it even further..........which I think is the goal of these regulations. What a shame !!!!!!

[EricO]

There is one particular place on the list that is a currently a 2 fish limit with beautiful wild rainbow and browns.
And now they want to bump it up to 5 fish? That's ridiculous. Multiply that times number of days
it gets fished and it will be devoid of fish in a couple years. And then people will fish it and get skunked
and say, "gee, it used to be so good here, I wonder what happened?" The DFG happened.

I'm ok with places being harvestable, but if some of the gems aren't protected they'll be a passing memory.

[Jeff F]

We should be encouraging more people into the sport in general since fishing and hunting is a dying breed in CA. Simplifying and extending seasons should help encourage that. I'm all for opening up fisheries to no gear restrictions, after all, most of us started fishing with bait. Alienating groups of fishermen is not the way to get people on your side and fighting for a common cause.

Opening up streams to harvest is not the end of the world either. Fisheries managers have easy ways to estimate populations based on harvest, survival, recruitment, etc. Catch and release is not always the best management action for a fishery. In fact, harvest can sometimes greatly benefit a fishery.

I tend to disagree with this assumption. Yes, most people started fishing with hardware/bait, which is totally fine. I know I did. However, these people are not fishing the Pit or the NFF, or the McCloud, etc. Those are places people graduate to over time as they learn more about fishing, and maybe get into flyfishing. No one is taking their kids with Snoopy poles to the Pit. Most newbies are going to places where there are a plethora of pellet-eaters because they want to go home with a full stringer of fish. They don't care if the fish are tail-less zombies. Most people want no hiking, no wading, easy fishing and easy limits. They do not want to fish places with C&R and gear restrictions. But if you open up more places to restriction-free fishing and 5-fish bags, there is no question they will come and the fisheries will be depleted quickly. There is not a trout on this planet that will refuse a crawler if he sees it. The NFF is a perfect example. It's basically a roadside fishery. You can pull out anywhere and fish it. That river does not have the numbers of trout to support any bag limit. If bait were allowed there, it would be wiped out. Same with the MFA and countless others. What's next? Lifting regs on steelhead? Some places and their fish just need to be protected. Period.

If it were up to me, I'd have zero limits on every stream that isn't planted, with the exception of mountain lakes. However, we (EO and myself) personally witnessed the complete destruction of a great fishery, which happened to be a mountain lake. If you must know, it was Upper Rock Lake in the Grouse Ridge area. That place used to be freaking epic. But we watched it get destroyed in a single year by greed and people who don't care about fisheries. What EO said above is true. "Man, this place used to be really good". Then they go find somewhere else to f#ck up.

[Jeff F]

I wholeheartedly agree with Fishtopher that indeed there are fisheries that would definitely benefit from some whacking. However these are mostly backcountry brookie lakes. Of all the great CA trout streams, its probably rare that anyone would say there's too many wild fish in this river.

Anyway, hey Jeff! Can we get some freaking shad reports? ��

[Fishtopher]

Catch and release helps an already depleted fishery and protect areas of rivers with a decent number of fish. Harvest of a depleted fishery will deplete it even more. There is not one river which is overpopulated which might benefit from harvesting. I think the water lords have a lot to do with these type of policies which will contribute to the final debacle of the fisheries.

What fisheries are 'depleted' according to you? Depleted has a specific meaning in fisheries management and I would not consider most of the trout rivers in northern CA anything close to 'depleted'. Harvest is an effective management tool even in 'depleted' fisheries. Trout populations are mostly stable in northern CA except for a few rivers, and those aren't caused by fishing mortality. Pit 3 has so many damn fish in it, it would take a ton of people to make even a dent in the population there. We've had harvest on Pit 4 and 5 for a decade now and the fish numbers are just as good as ever. Again, there are simple models that are run to determine how fishing regulations will affect a population. This is fishery management 101 in any college course.

[JasonB]

I am all for kids, young and old, being able to fish with bait or lures on whatever brand of tackle they might scrounge up! I’m fine with them keeping a couple trout for dinner too. In no way does that make it appropriate, or acceptable on all waters! Nor should anyone be keeping limits of 5 trout for a meal either....

I have issues with several of the proposed changes, most having been already addressed. I live very close to several sections of the upper American basin that would be impacted negatively by these changes. The MFA has been mentioned already, but I’m even more concerned about the south fork (much more easy access). Of course the current regulations haven’t exactly been very protective of those streams either; people have been fishing with bait year round already on those streams due to zero enforcement ��

I agree that the risk of seeing some good fisheries collapse due to carelessness and greed is real. At one time people thought there was no way we could ever run out of salmon or steelhead, no matter how many were kept or how much habitat was destroyed... they were mistaken.
JB

[Jeff F]

What fisheries are 'depleted' according to you? Depleted has a specific meaning in fisheries management and I would not consider most of the trout rivers in northern CA anything close to 'depleted'. Harvest is an effective management tool even in 'depleted' fisheries. Trout populations are mostly stable in northern CA except for a few rivers, and those aren't caused by fishing mortality. Pit 3 has so many damn fish in it, it would take a ton of people to make even a dent in the population there. We've had harvest on Pit 4 and 5 for a decade now and the fish numbers are just as good as ever. Again, there are simple models that are run to determine how fishing regulations will affect a population. This is fishery management 101 in any college course.

"What fisheries ate depleted?"4 Look at a map of CA. With the excepton of the Lower Sac trout fishery and few special "never tell" places that we all have, id say most of CA's prime trout streams are not what they could and should be with a direct connection to regs or a lack there of.

You ever have an epic day on the Pit and wish you caught fewer fish?

[mogaru]

What fisheries are 'depleted' according to you? Depleted has a specific meaning in fisheries management and I would not consider most of the trout rivers in northern CA anything close to 'depleted'. Harvest is an effective management tool even in 'depleted' fisheries. Trout populations are mostly stable in northern CA except for a few rivers, and those aren't caused by fishing mortality. Pit 3 has so many damn fish in it, it would take a ton of people to make even a dent in the population there. We've had harvest on Pit 4 and 5 for a decade now and the fish numbers are just as good as ever. Again, there are simple models that are run to determine how fishing regulations will affect a population. This is fishery management 101 in any college course.

Which fisheries? With very few honorable rivers, all are depleted. Are you telling us that fish populations are the same like 20,30 or 40 years ago?. I've been fishing for over 50 years and every year is getting worst and worst. I don't need any fishery management to tell me what all of us have been experiencing. I recommend you to watch "Rivers of the lost coast" and that would give you an idea of what it was vs what it is. Extending the fishing season, increasing fish bags and opening certain healthy rivers to bait certainly won't help our fisheries nor will increase the number of licenses being sold.

[tcorfey]

I think I can agree with Lew Riffle, this will probably go down the same way the MLPA process went down. They allow public comment, hold public meetings, gather scientific data and then through it all out and just do what they want. Must have to do with who holds the purse strings because it certainly is not pointed towards how can we best improve/manage the fisheries. I can see some logic in allowing year round access as many people hang up there rods when the weather turns cold but then again this opens the door for less experienced fisher persons to trample redds for all trout types. I do not see the logic in dropping gear restrictions and in some cases raising bag limits those do not sit well with me. I think Fall River will be fine as a year round fishery as there is not anybody wading and there is a zero bag limit. On Hat Creek they want to go year round I think that wading is an issue for that piece of water and I also do not understand having a 2 trout bag limit on that piece of water it should be zero just like the Fall River and Putah Creek.

[Fishtopher]

Which fisheries? With very few honorable rivers, all are depleted. Are you telling us that fish populations are the same like 20,30 or 40 years ago?. I've been fishing for over 50 years and every year is getting worst and worst. I don't need any fishery management to tell me what all of us have been experiencing. I recommend you to watch "Rivers of the lost coast" and that would give you an idea of what it was vs what it is. Extending the fishing season, increasing fish bags and opening certain healthy rivers to bait certainly won't help our fisheries nor will increase the number of licenses being sold.

Our resident trout populations aren't depleted, that is such a ridiculous statement. They certainly aren't depleted due to overfishing either. We have plenty of healthy fisheries in California. I know the Pit is better now than ever. The upper Sac is largely recovered after the spill. The McCloud is still what it has been. Fishing isn't getting worse and worse, its cyclical. Some streams are definitely aren't what they were 10 or 20 years ago, some are better now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. There's tons of factors that affect a fishery and fishing mortality is way down the list.

Rivers of a Lost Coast is a good example of what happens to salmon and steelhead when you log the crap out of an area and build dams and roads at will. Harvest was the least of the issues facing those fish. Salmon and steelhead are managed fundamentally different than trout populations.

You should try listening to fishery scientists, they know what they're talking about. They use actual statistics and science rather than feelings.

[Fishtopher]

"What fisheries ate depleted?"4 Look at a map of CA. With the excepton of the Lower Sac trout fishery and few special "never tell" places that we all have, id say most of CA's prime trout streams are not what they could and should be with a direct connection to regs or a lack there of.

You ever have an epic day on the Pit and wish you caught fewer fish?

Scientists are able to model all of that. I had a program in college where I could adjust things like harvest, slot limits, etc. and model how the population is affected. I can guarantee you CDFW does the same thing.

This stuff is accepted science. Just because you feel differently doesn't make it correct.

[Norcal_Flyfisherman]

I don’t see these changes having much impact on the North Fork of the Feather. Up until around 10 years ago, there were no special regulations on the NFF. The Plumas county line was the boundary; upstream closed with the mountain district and downstream was open with general regulations (Valley District). Fishing was great in both sections.

As a kid, I remember the fish limit dropping to 10 and hearing complaints from old timers that were used to 20 or even higher fish limits. There weren’t as many people fly fishing then, and most people used bait or spinners and kept fish for dinner. We’ve probably all seen the old photos and heard stories about how amazing the fishing was. I believe that there were more people fishing back then, and I think the decrease in fishing license sales reflect that. I don’t remember many special regulations back then.

It seems like the easy answer is to restrict fishing limits and access more, but the regs have gotten stricter over time with fewer people fishing, and the fishing has not improved. I’ve always felt that the approach to managing hunting and fishing in California was based on managing the hunters and fisherman, not the wildlife.

[OceanSunfish]

Which fisheries? With very few honorable rivers, all are depleted. Are you telling us that fish populations are the same like 20,30 or 40 years ago?. I've been fishing for over 50 years and every year is getting worst and worst. I don't need any fishery management to tell me what all of us have been experiencing. I recommend you to watch "Rivers of the lost coast" and that would give you an idea of what it was vs what it is. Extending the fishing season, increasing fish bags and opening certain healthy rivers to bait certainly won't help our fisheries nor will increase the number of licenses being sold.

40 million in CA and a scant care about fishing..................... It's not CA culture..... anymore.

mogaru wrote:
"Regulations made to put more pressure on the fish............once the fish are gone, whatever times it takes somebody else will take all the water.........little by little, working hard like ants they will reach their goal."

This is the bottom line. There isn't a single state agency that is freed up to manage the Fish and Game of California with the sportsman and culture a top priority. There are 20, 30, 40 50, 75, and even 100 year plans for this state.............. I bet not one has anything written in it that includes wild Chinook Salmon, a steelhead or a any part of the ecosystem or the food chain.

As far as the "science" of CDFW or DWR or BuRec............ Bullsh*t. It's all manipulated BS. Toss in the Center for Biological Diversity and you really got a three ring circus. Sorry, too cynical at this point. 99% of the fisheries I counted on being around at this stage of my life are abysmal. And, I'm not talking about the 2 out of every 10 year uptick when the "stars, moon, and sun" align and spite all the efforts to "ant-work" eradication.

[OceanSunfish]

When fish populations on the rivers were good and it was fairly easy to catch fish and entertain yourself, there were plenty of fishing licenses being sold as well as sell of tackle. The major reason for the decline in selling licenses and subsequent tackle sales is the decline of the fisheries.
Opening for harvest streams like the pit 3 will only deplete the few remaining areas with quality fishing populations...... and the water lords know that. Right now there are plenty of places and rivers where you can harvest your limits. These new regulations are just the final dagger to our declining fishing populations. Increasing the pressure on the fish by extending the season and places were you can harvest will not help the declining fish populations, quite the opposite, it will deplete it even further..........which I think is the goal of these regulations. What a shame !!!!!!

It is that simple................ it truly is. Ask anyone that has operated a fishing tackle business.

Yes. This only favors the "OPPORTUNIST" and those behind the "ant-work".

[OceanSunfish]

With all said.............. I am a big fan for fisheries that encourage family fishing participation. CA DFW and 3rd party agencies have programs that stock lakes in the summer time for recreation fishing. These areas can be in or around campgrounds, etc. Makes for a great experience for kids and parents. I think the continued support of seasonal "tourist" type fisheries do more good then easing regs on pressure sensitive waterways.

[mogaru]

Our resident trout populations aren't depleted, that is such a ridiculous statement. They certainly aren't depleted due to overfishing either. We have plenty of healthy fisheries in California. I know the Pit is better now than ever. The upper Sac is largely recovered after the spill. The McCloud is still what it has been. Fishing isn't getting worse and worse, its cyclical. Some streams are definitely aren't what they were 10 or 20 years ago, some are better now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. There's tons of factors that affect a fishery and fishing mortality is way down the list.

Rivers of a Lost Coast is a good example of what happens to salmon and steelhead when you log the crap out of an area and build dams and roads at will. Harvest was the least of the issues facing those fish. Salmon and steelhead are managed fundamentally different than trout populations.

You should try listening to fishery scientists, they know what they're talking about. They use actual statistics and science rather than feelings.

Young man, with your conclusions, I just hope and pray you are not one of the fishery scientist who is trying to fix our broken and depleted fisheries. Listen to all the warnings that scientist have been making about "overfishing" our oceans and rivers. quote " fishing is not getting worst and worst, it's cyclical" hahahahahaha, that's what I call a heavy dose of "pure science".
Let me give you a good advice, stop listening to bean counters and fake statistics and do some actual fishing, you will learn a lot more about the fisheries and their critical situations. I did for the last 50 years. No feelings over here, just cold hard facts from being on the river fishing and sadly watching their actual situation.

[Fishtopher]

Young man, with your conclusions, I just hope and pray you are not one of the fishery scientist who is trying to fix our broken and depleted fisheries. Listen to all the warnings that scientist have been making about "overfishing" our oceans and rivers. quote " fishing is not getting worst and worst, it's cyclical" hahahahahaha, that's what I call a heavy dose of "pure science".
Let me give you a good advice, stop listening to bean counters and fake statistics and do some actual fishing, you will learn a lot more about the fisheries and their critical situations. I did for the last 50 years. No feelings over here, just cold hard facts from being on the river fishing and sadly watching their actual situation.

I am an environmental scientist (don't work for CDFW) and realize fishing regulations have almost nothing to do with the current state of our fisheries. Things like habitat loss, water policy, diversions, invasive species, and climate change are by far the largest threats to our fisheries. CDFW has little control over these things. I realize addressing those problems will do infinitely more than keeping a few trout. You have yet to cite any examples of these super prevalent 'depleted' trout fisheries.

And let me give you good advice, there's a big difference between anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed science. Your 'cold-hard facts' aren't facts at all. Statistics and science are. I think I'll trust the professionals working on this stuff than some random person reminiscing about the good old days.

[Lew Riffle]

Fishtoper The truth is often more complex than what we believe to be true. Some times it's just time to shut up and listen for the truth in the din of your beliefs. To me you express unconscious incompetence. Don't you realize that "professionals working on this stuff" in the CDFW are more motivated in saving their jobs than the environment? It's a delusion to think that there is data other than what a model has generated with little or old data in the first place. This is the smoke and mirrors of the half science half political homogenized world of environmental science. Sorry environmental science is not real science only applied science. Most of the time it suppresses science for the sake of it's other half... politics.
The trout fisheries we have today exist because of the forging and hard work on making regulation to protect from over fishing. Most of this has come about from the persistence of, not staff, but volunteers who do not have to risk their jobs and can represent the passion to save fish and advocate for them. Most of the time this is silently expressing the views of a DFG biologist who could not for the sake of a career. I have learned to listen to the silence from one who knows the answer to my question; but is afraid to answer it. If you can follow my abstraction I hope you can find some truth somewhere else than trusting a "professional".

[Fishtopher]

Fishtoper The truth is often more complex than what we believe to be true. Some times it's just time to shut up and listen for the truth in the din of your beliefs. To me you express unconscious incompetence. Don't you realize that "professionals working on this stuff" in the CDFW are more motivated in saving their jobs than the environment? It's a delusion to think that there is data other than what a model has generated with little or old data in the first place. This is the smoke and mirrors of the half science half political homogenized world of environmental science. Sorry environmental science is not real science only applied science. Most of the time it suppresses science for the sake of it's other half... politics.
The trout fisheries we have today exist because of the forging and hard work on making regulation to protect from over fishing. Most of this has come about from the persistence of, not staff, but volunteers who do not have to risk their jobs and can represent the passion to save fish and advocate for them. Most of the time this is silently expressing the views of a DFG biologist who could not for the sake of a career. I have learned to listen to the silence from one who knows the answer to my question; but is afraid to answer it. If you can follow my abstraction I hope you can find some truth somewhere else than trusting a "professional".

Lew,
I don't need you to tell me what to do or how to think. To me you reek of conspiracy theorist. This thread is filled with armchair experts who think they know better than the people that dedicate their entire careers to. I work with these people and I can tell you the scientists that study this kind of stuff do it because they care about the resource. Politics does hijack management but all management is based on science.

I agree our trout fisheries are what they are because of regulation but regulations need to be reevaluated from time to time. These regulations aren't opening everything up to mass slaughter. It's a bunch of pretentious fly fishermen who want to exclude other user groups. This is why everyone hates fly fishermen.

[JasonB]

Kind of wondered if this thread would go off the rails....

To bad, as there are some important things to consider and discuss here.
Tight lines everyone
JB

[Fishtopher]

Since I derailed this thread with a dissenting opinion I will add my comment to CDFW:

I applaud CDFW's efforts to increase fishing opportunities for all user groups with these new regulations. I believe having more fishing opportunities will greatly benefit all citizens of California. I trust CDFW's professional judgment to determine fishing seasons, gear types, and amount of harvest based on available science in order to protect the long-term viability of our fisheries.

I also applaud CDFW for reevaluating regulations. I was very supportive with lengthening trout season before and am fully supportive of this effort as well. Adaptive management is crucial in fisheries management and this is one of the critical steps within the adaptive management loop. I fully support CDFW revisiting many of our fishing regulations in order to determine their effectiveness and improve as needed. Status quo is rarely the best option when it comes to fishery management.

[mogaru]

Don't feed the "water boys" ciber soldiers, moles, gophers etc. Their only goal is to kill the fish. Hey Bill, put the trap out to catch the varmint !

[OceanSunfish]

Lew,
I don't need you to tell me what to do or how to think. To me you reek of conspiracy theorist. This thread is filled with armchair experts who think they know better than the people that dedicate their entire careers to. I work with these people and I can tell you the scientists that study this kind of stuff do it because they care about the resource. Politics does hijack management but all management is based on science.

I agree our trout fisheries are what they are because of regulation but regulations need to be reevaluated from time to time. These regulations aren't opening everything up to mass slaughter. It's a bunch of pretentious fly fishermen who want to exclude other user groups. This is why everyone hates fly fishermen.

I don't see myself as an elitist "Flyfisherman" and I do not like the "fly fishing" only waterways either............ And, I detest those that say, "oh, I fly fish" to me, as I am holding my casting rod and reel. IMO, the angling method of fly fishing is a convenient methodology/regulation that still allows angling by a perceived organized user group that is closer to practicing conservation vs other user groups, otherwise, the waterway would be even more restricted or closed altogether.

Same socio-economic elements applies to sportfishing as with most things in this state that are being trampled over by 40 million people.

It's all about culture. IF fishing were the culture it was 40-60 years ago, different story. Instead, we now have a culture that is happy that they can purchase a tray of small fish (bait) to eat at the market (tray bait to some) in lieu of purchasing a dime bright fresh Chinook off a back of a commercial boat in HMB. Do you think the culture and citizens of Texas would tolerate their State Agencies to mismanage Lake Fork or Toledo Bend the same way California mismanaged the treatment of Davis Lake or allow the marginalization of the Chinook fishery?

Sorry that I have contributed to the derailment of this thread. But I'm tired of arguments at a level that is so far down the river from the root cause.

[Fishtopher]

IMO, the angling method of fly fishing is a convenient methodology/regulation that still allows angling by a perceived organized user group that is closer to practicing conservation vs other user groups, otherwise, the waterway would be even more restricted or closed altogether.


It doesn't matter that one user group is more in tune with conservation than other user groups. The state holds the fish populations in public trust meaning it should be equally available to all user groups. If fishing mortality is of significant concern, the fishing regulations should reflect that. What I see in this thread is blind adherence to catch and release and fly-only waters as the solution to everything (it isn't) which inevitably leaves out a significant portion of the user base.


It's all about culture. IF fishing were the culture it was 40-60 years ago, different story. Instead, we now have a culture that is happy that they can purchase a tray of small fish (bait) to eat at the market (tray bait to some) in lieu of purchasing a dime bright fresh Chinook off a back of a commercial boat in HMB. Do you think the culture and citizens of Texas would tolerate their State Agencies to mismanage Lake Fork or Toledo Bend the same way California mismanaged the treatment of Davis Lake or allow the marginalization of the Chinook fishery?

I agree, culture has changed. We've greatly altered the environment in California, of course our fish populations have suffered. Don't blame the agencies for mismanagement when society has decided fish populations aren't all that important. To me CDFW is handcuffed. They can't fix the fish populations because it is impossible with current conditions. They are doing their best with the resources they have. The Chinook population isn't crap because of mismanagement by CDFW. In fact I'd argue the Chinook population would likely be extinct, or close to it, in the Valley if not for CDFW and federal hatcheries. CDFW has not allowed the marginalization of the Chinook fishery, society has. I've been avoiding the salmon issue because its an apples and oranges comparison to the resident trout fisheries.

I believe our resident trout fisheries are relatively healthy and the fact that CDFW has proposed to liberalize the fishing regulations is evidence of this. There is no way they could institute these changes without at least modelling the effects of these changes. Like I said before, its relatively straightforward if you have some baseline data (which they do). These conspiracy theories that CDFW wants to kill all the fish are absolutely ridiculous and need to stop.

[mogaru]

The CDFW new proposed regulations are evidence that have been influenced by the "water boys". Extending fishing seasons, increasing fish limits and opening decent fisheries to bait fishing will have a terrible impact in our depleted rivers. The CDFW fishing regulations are critical for our fisheries to survive. Unfortunately, they are just being used by the "water boys" and corrupt politicians who are using them to pass new regulations to harm the remaining fisheries. Their new tactics consist of extending fishing seasons to increase pressure on fish, increasing daily bags, and opening to bait fisheries to deplete them of fish. What a shame !!!!!!

[mogaru]

I don't see myself as an elitist "Flyfisherman" and I do not like the "fly fishing" only waterways either............ And, I detest those that say, "oh, I fly fish" to me, as I am holding my casting rod and reel. IMO, the angling method of fly fishing is a convenient methodology/regulation that still allows angling by a perceived organized user group that is closer to practicing conservation vs other user groups, otherwise, the waterway would be even more restricted or closed altogether.

Same socio-economic elements applies to sportfishing as with most things in this state that are being trampled over by 40 million people.

It's all about culture. IF fishing were the culture it was 40-60 years ago, different story. Instead, we now have a culture that is happy that they can purchase a tray of small fish (bait) to eat at the market (tray bait to some) in lieu of purchasing a dime bright fresh Chinook off a back of a commercial boat in HMB. Do you think the culture and citizens of Texas would tolerate their State Agencies to mismanage Lake Fork or Toledo Bend the same way California mismanaged the treatment of Davis Lake or allow the marginalization of the Chinook fishery?

Sorry that I have contributed to the derailment of this thread. But I'm tired of arguments at a level that is so far down the river from the root cause.

Correction, there are no "fly fishing only" in california. There are artificials with barbless hooks.....so you can fish with your spinning outfit too. FYI this is a fly fishing blog.........

[WLREDBAND]

Correction, there are no "fly fishing only" in california. There are artificials with barbless hooks.....so you can fish with your spinning outfit too. FYI this is a fly fishing blog.........

You are not correct. There are two fly fishing only waters in CA, Hot Creek, and the Trinity River above Lewiston Bridge.

[mogaru]

You are not correct. There are two fly fishing only waters in CA, Hot Creek, and the Trinity River above Lewiston Bridge.

The point was all are open to fishing with a spinning outfit if you don't want to fly fish as long as you doing artificial (lures or flies) and barbless and fishing regulations do not discriminate.

[Lew Riffle]

Sigh...................

[tcorfey]

Mogaru is correct you do not need a fly rod to fish flies. tight line nymphing, nymphing with an indicator and bobber, casting heavily weighted streamers, trolling streamers, casting drys and emergers with a bubble are all viable methods of fishing flies without a fly rod. It may not be considered "Fly Fishing" in its truest sense but it is fishing with flies none the less. Flies can appear to represent bait such as worms, eggs, insects, baitfish but it does take someone that is willing to invest more time to be knowledgable on the subject. So if a piece of water is designated artificial flies only it is not the same as being designated "Fly Fishing only". Everyone with a fishing rod being it spinning, casting, tenkara, fly rod whatever is invited to participate. It is not an exclusive restriction however, it may seem that way to people with less knowledge.

Regards,

Tim C.

[tcorfey]

Back to the subject at hand: (and a few more opinions)

As for changing the season open dates some waters that do not have conditions suitable for natural reproduction should be open year round no one should worry about that. It may require the DFW to plant more fish but it will not affect the natural order of the fishery.

However, in places where there is natural reproduction the months that fish naturally reproduce and where wading is the primary access, then the redds should be protected by having a closed season until after the majority of the fry have left the nest examples might be McCloud River, Hot Creek, Hat Creek, Putah Creek. I did not include the Fall River because the majority of fishing is done from a boat and there is a 0 take limit. I did not include Pit 3 because the difficulty to get in to that water does keep many people away from it.

It seems that the DFW wants to reduce the use of slot limits in order to reduce confusion, slot limits are useful to manage fisheries but I can understand where some people find it confusing or frustrating. When using slot limits the size restrictions need to be closely monitored and adjusted or they no longer serve their purpose. This also requires more effort on the part of the DFW wardens which we know are under staffed already.

Bag limits are a useful tool but unnecessary to go below 4 or 5 where the majority of the fish are stocked. In waters where there is natural reproduction reducing or eliminating bag limits is a useful tool for fisheries and it should be maintained in my opinion.

I guess one bone of contention is can year round fishing pressure, the use of bait or artificial lures actually decimate a fishery or does environment play a larger role. Again if the fishery is naturally reproducing it certainly will have an effect. If the the fishery is all or mostly stocked fish than in my humble opinion it does not matter, it just means increased stocking may be necessary.

As an example: Fishtopher asked for an example of a stream in CA where fish availability is in decline. Obviously in the case of Hot creek near Mammoth the fishery was decimated from it’s former glory and for the first time in many years stocking took place last year. That piece of water is open year round and it does have a restriction of artificial fly only (soon to be changed to artificial lure or fly).

Was it fishing pressure from year round access, excessive vegetation, drought, or year round access with the potential for redd destruction to blame? Perhaps it was the NZ mud snails that reduced the available microorganisms which in turn reduced the insect population or the use of insecticides at the golf course or within the town of Mammoth that caused reduced insect populations thereby reducing food and reducing fish. I have not seen a complete study on that piece of water that was conclusive on the cause of the reduced fish per mile. Regardless the DFW decided to stock it in order to maintain it as a viable fishery. This was the press release from CDFG: “For unknown reasons, the Hot Creek fishery appears to have declined substantially in recent years, with markedly lower catch rates and few trophy (>18”) fish coming to the creel. Drought-related impacts are the suspected cause, including low flows, lack of flushing flows in late spring/early summer to mobilize fine sediments and expose spawning gravels, potential changes in water quality/chemistry and increased aquatic vegetation.”

Changing the regs to allow artificial lures will probably not be a factor that would add to the Hot Creek waters decline and it is quite narrow so it is not necessary to wade it although some do. Of course having a reduced season and a no wading restriction might have stopped the mud snail and reduced the chance of a redd being trampled it might even have allowed enough fry to survive the drought and additional stocking would not have been necessary. It may be year round because I believe that the Hot Creek Ranch lobbied for that in order to maintain their business during the winter months. They also lobbied for the increased stocking for the same reason I believe.

Regards,

Tim C.

[John Sv]

I roll with several dfw biologists including from wild trout program. According to them slot limits are becoming ineffective because of the commitment from a large bloc of fishermen to c and r. In addition c and r of non native fish in places is impacting native fish populations. In a wierd way, c and r, in some places, is causing dfw to lose their ability to manage the fishery. Inking some brookies and some rainbows in cutthroat water is helpful. I didn’t see the increased brookie limit north of 80 like they were proposing. Did I miss it?
I have pretty strong opinions like everyone here does. My opinions see to be a little portion of a bunch of peoples posting here. I appreciate the diversity of posts!

[tcorfey]

John,

I agree differing opinions is what this is all about. Interesting info regarding C&R and how it is impacting native populations.

From the general regs
(9) SPECIAL BROOK TROUT BONUS BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT

(A) IN SIERRA DISTRICT WATERS OF SISKIYOU, SHASTA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT
PER DAY LESS THAN 8 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE
OTHER DAILY BAG AND POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT.

(B) IN THE SIERRA DISTRICT SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT PER DAY LESS THAN 10
INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DAILY BAG AND
POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT. THIS ALLOWANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE RED
LAKE IN ALPINE COUNTY OR KIRMAN, LANE OR ROOSEVELT LAKES IN MONO COUNTY.

Regards,

Tim C.

[Lew Riffle]

I get the inclination from CDFW staff that Hot Creek may not see reg changes from a fly only water. The argument can be made as one of opportunity....this one for the opportunity to fish this water as should by as many as it should like the regulations that are in place there have created over the years. Yes this is a review process and pointing out that this is ground covered many years ago when a vision for a quality fly fishing venue could be had. There is no lost opportunity by anyone using any legal gear short of bait having the regs the way they are now.
Maybe this argument can be made for other similar situations up to the north as well.
Please comment on something. You don't have to make a complete argument to tell them that you are being effected in your fishing expectations.

[Jeff F]

"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive.
When i lived in East Sac for 20 years, every spare moment i had i was down at Paradise Beach/H Street drifting mini crawlers. Caught way more fish than the fly guys and that's a fact. When i was very young and stupid and didn't know what regs were, i actually fished the Lower Yuba with worms one day. Lol. You would not believe the numbers of fish i caught that day. I must say probably 40 or so. Thought i died and went to heaven. A fly guy across the river "informed" me that bait wasnt allowed there. As i said before, no trout will refuse a crawler. If you allow that on wild trout streams, with a 5 fish bag, kiss it goodbye. I could have 50 perfect drifts through a prime run and not get a bump with a fly. But if i put on a live worm you better believe I'd get bit.

[Jeff F]

And just one more thing to say before im done with this thread. Ponder this for me please.....
Picture in your mind walking down to your favorite go-to spot and you see 3 people coming up the trail with 5 fish each on stringers. And you end up with a slow frustrating day. Id really be interested in knowing your thoughts when you're driving home from the river.

[stefanoflo]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the proposed changes that might or might not happen. Bottom line is if we have no fish to catch to enjoy whether we like to c&r or take home to eat. There will be a lot of jobs being lost. Becasue no one will fish again . If we loose all the fish and regardless if they give us a 12 month license, that won`t save our fisheries and if your strictly a trout fisherman . I don`t believe we can afford to loose the fish we have either , bad enough as when i was a kid . All the rivers had natural spawning fish . And that is not coming back . So really ,can the state afford to loose all those jobs and revenue? From those associated with trout fishing???? Lets hope not.it effects everyone.not just the fish.

[Fishtopher]

tcorfey,

Thank you for finally listing an example of a declining fishery. I'm still waiting on all these 'depleted' fisheries I keep on hearing about.

You hit the nail on the head on your Hot Creek example. It's difficult to address a fisheries decline solely on fishing regulations. In order to manage populations all you really need to measure is age composition, growth, recruitment, and mortality (both fishing and natural). If any one of those things changes, your population will as well. CDFW only has a direct say in fishing mortality.



"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive.
When i lived in East Sac for 20 years, every spare moment i had i was down at Paradise Beach/H Street drifting mini crawlers. Caught way more fish than the fly guys and that's a fact. When i was very young and stupid and didn't know what regs were, i actually fished the Lower Yuba with worms one day. Lol. You would not believe the numbers of fish i caught that day. I must say probably 40 or so. Thought i died and went to heaven. A fly guy across the river "informed" me that bait wasnt allowed there. As i said before, no trout will refuse a crawler. If you allow that on wild trout streams, with a 5 fish bag, kiss it goodbye. I could have 50 perfect drifts through a prime run and not get a bump with a fly. But if i put on a live worm you better believe I'd get bit.

Jeff, I fly fish almost exclusively and I know that fly fishermen are a pain in the ass to work with because many believe catch and release is the only way to manage a fishery. This thread is case and point. Most anglers are not fly fishermen and a significant portion of those want to harvest fish. They have as much of a right to the resource as fly fishermen do. I'm all for opening up fisheries to as many user groups as the fishery can support. I realize not all rivers can support all user groups but I also know that harvest can be an effective way to manage a fishery. CDFW agrees as their proposal still includes many waters where catch and release remains. For example, I don't think that a 2 fish limit on Pit 3 will affect the long term viability of the fishery. There are literally thousands of fish per mile in an extremely difficult to access river that is extremely productive. These characteristics alone would make it extremely difficult to become 'overfished'. It is just as naive to think that opening up a fishery to bait means the end of a fishery. It doesn't matter that bait is effective, that is exactly why regulations exist. I do not think these changes will be the end of our wild trout fisheries like you and several others are portraying.


And just one more thing to say before im done with this thread. Ponder this for me please.....
Picture in your mind walking down to your favorite go-to spot and you see 3 people coming up the trail with 5 fish each on stringers. And you end up with a slow frustrating day. Id really be interested in knowing your thoughts when you're driving home from the river.

You know what I would say to that? Good for them. I've caught plenty of fish in my life. I'm happy to share the resource with them. It may suck that I may not have the fishing success that I had hoped for, but I wouldn't let their legal retention of fish bring me down. If the fishery is well managed, that spot may be even better next time.

[WLREDBAND]

<<<"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive. >>>

WOW, glad to see this thread devolving into personal attacks and name calling, just because someone disagrees with someone else.

[Lew Riffle]

Maybe we should focus not on fisheries that are depleted to fisheries that are not because of regulations in place presently.

[mogaru]

The gopher/mole is back again trying to "derail the thread". Please ignore the "trol". Now that the topic had some reasonable and sensible opinions.......

[WLREDBAND]

The gopher/mole is back again trying to "derail the thread". Please ignore the "trol". Now that the topic had some reasonable and sensible opinions.......
<<<"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive. >>>

WOW, glad to see this thread devolving into personal attacks and name calling, just because someone disagrees with someone else. I guess I have to add another quote in MOGGIE.

[mogaru]

<<<"Everone hates flyfishermen". I think that quote alone tells us all we need to know about Fishstopper.
And if you believe allowing bait in certain rivers won't affect a wild trout stream, you are extremely naive. >>>

WOW, glad to see this thread devolving into personal attacks and name calling, just because someone disagrees with someone else. I guess I have to add another quote in MOGGIE.

hahahaha, I can live with that quote........fortunately I can smell a "ciber troll" from a country mile.

[WLREDBAND]

hahahaha, I can live with that quote........fortunately I can smell a "ciber troll" from a country mile.

Too bad you're dead wrong. Kinda ironic though, the water barons hate him also because he tries to get more water for anadromous fish in his day job by providing biological data for law suits.

[Fishtopher]

Maybe we should focus not on fisheries that are depleted to fisheries that are not because of regulations in place presently.

So you mean fisheries where the population is healthy and stable and additional take might be possible?

This is the exact point of revisiting and evaluating whether current regulations are overly protective or exploitative. Liberalizing bag limits and gear type indicates to me that CDFW considers many fisheries under exploited. Good thing there's ways to estimate how additional take affects populations...

[mogaru]

[QUOTE=WLREDBAND;189204]Too bad you're dead wrong. Kinda ironic though, the water barons hate him also because he tries to get more water for anadromous fish in his day job by providing biological data for law suits.[/QUOT

You mean dead wrong like when you claimed there were "fly fishing only" waters in California. Glad you two know each other that well.

[WLREDBAND]

[QUOTE=WLREDBAND;189204]Too bad you're dead wrong. Kinda ironic though, the water barons hate him also because he tries to get more water for anadromous fish in his day job by providing biological data for law suits.[/QUOT

You mean dead wrong like when you claimed there were "fly fishing only" waters in California. Glad you two know each other that well.
Read the regs. To save you some time here they are for Hot Creek for 2019:
(78) Hot Creek (Mono Co.). Hot Creek from the State hatchery property line to the confluence with the Owens River.Season: All year� Only artificial flies with barbless hooks may be used� 0 trout

[mogaru]

[QUOTE=mogaru;189206]
Read the regs. To save you some time here they are for Hot Creek for 2019:
(78) Hot Creek (Mono Co.). Hot Creek from the State hatchery property line to the confluence with the Owens River.Season: All year� Only artificial flies with barbless hooks may be used� 0 trout

I think I already explain it to you. Exactly "Flies only" not "fly fishing only", which means that if you wish you can fish you can fish with a spinning outfit and a fly. There a no "fly fishing only waters" in CA. I believe some other states have some "fly fishing only water" rules, and clearly define what constitutes fly fishing which sometimes bans tenkara. Hope you understand it now!

[ycflyfisher]

Hey Jeff, you are correct I mixed NFF with MFF.

(68.1) Feather River, Middle Fork (Plumas Co.), from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge (1/4 mile upstream of County A-23 bridge) to the Mohawk Bridge.
Move to 7.0 statewide reg (Which means year round no restrictions)

(68.2) Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse (excluding reservoirs) (Butte and Plumas Co.).
Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February
0 fish bag, artificial lures with barbless hooks

Statewide Regulation (section 7.0)
Fishing districts—section 7.00(a) through (g)—for trout waters only (lakes, reservoirs, and streams that are not accessible to fish migrating from the ocean; “non-anadromous”) will be replaced by a statewide trout angling regulation. Waters that are not located in the proposed table of changes, or stated as “move to 7.0 statewide reg”, will have the following regulation:
Open year-round, 5 trout bag, 10 trout possession limit, no gear restrictions.


I wonder what the definition of "No gear restrictions" is? does it mean you can use any means to catch fish (nets, spear, arrows, dynamite?) or does it mean something else like artificial flies, lures or bait is okay? Not sure how to take that. Does anyone know?

Regards

Tim C.

Tim,

I got clarification on this but a week or so ago but then life got in the way. "No gear restrictions" should be interpreted as follows:

Barbed hooks, doubles and trebles are OK, lures and flies with multiple hooks are OK and bait is allowed.

[tcorfey]

Jeff, thanks for checking on that.

I hope everyone let the DFW know about your concerns it only takes a few minutes.

Regards,

Tim C.

[Sierra D]

198A is an terrible idea, and I told the State so. This part of the Tuolumne has always been open year round, but most of it it used to be only 2 fish UNDER 12" could be killed, only in summer. What people don't understand is that a 20" fish (and there are a bunch of them here, shhhh) weighs 8 times as much as a 10" fish and, therefore, removing it has 8 times as much impact on the biomass of fish. 8 times as much fish mass removal over 2 times as much season means we are potentially increasing the take by 16 times! On unplanted water, it will be ruined, at least near the easier access.

There will be another chance to comment. "The next opportunity for public review of a revised package will be available through the California Fish and Game Commission. This will begin in August and end December, 2019. " Please put it on your calendar. If you fish, it's your duty to advocate.