Eliminating all non-native fish species?

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

“THE LAST STAND”

ATTN: ALL BLACK BASS, STRIPED BASS AND OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES ANGLERS!!!

MUST ATTEND EVENT JUNE 12th 8:30 am to 4 pm
Commission
Red Lion Hotel Redding
1830 Hilltop Drive
Redding, CA 96002

Last week at the Wildlife Resources Committee Meeting the department of fish and wildlife and Commission decided to push forth thru the committee to REPEAL the STRIPED BASS POLICY from 1996. Second to ADOPT the NEW DELTA MANAGEMENT POLICY which calls for strict protections for salmonids and listed fish only! This is the first step for removal and destruction of our delta bass fisheries and more! If repealed and adopted it will allow the commission to direct the department towards INCREASED bag limits and REDUCED size restrictions! We need your help to attend this meeting and speak your voice to continue the STRIPED BASS POLICY of 1996 and protect this fish and our industry. There will be no more protections for Stripers!

We will be announcing 3-4 locations with PAID TRAVEL BUSES to help get people to the location in Redding! These locations will be Martinez, Rio Vista, Sacramento and Yuba City/Colusa areas. Please reach out and help us with this fight and join today at
NCGASA.org

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST EVERY 2-3 days EVERYWHERE on Social media to make sure EVERYONE understands how important it is to so up! We need to be united and SHOW UP!



Capt. Maury Hatch
First Hatch Guide Service
(916)716-3474
firsthatchguideservice.com
Instagram @firsthatch
Facebook @First Hatch Guide Service
NorCal Costa Pro
Sage Elite Ambassador
RIO Ambassador
Simms Ambassador
Galvan Pro

[tcorfey]

This post inspired me to look at which Gamefish are Native and which are not. As a source I used UC Davis.
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/

They listed 187 species (some are extinct in CA due to habitat loss or due to dams)
Some of our native fish:
Trout:
Various sub-species of Rainbow Trout
Various sub-species of Cutthroat Trout
Various sub-species of Golden Trout
Various sub-species of Steelhead Trout
Bull Trout
Salmon:
Various sub-species of Chinook Salmon
Various sub-species of Coho Salmon
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Sturgeon:
White Sturgeon
Green Sturgeon
Others:
Some species of Perch
Some species of Whitefish

Some non-native fish (eligible for targeting I assume)
Trout:
Lake Trout
Brown Trout
Brook Trout
Some sub-species of Cutthroat trout
Salmon:
Sockeye (Kokanee) Salmon
Others:
All species of Shad
All Striped Bass
All Largemouth Bass
All Smallmouth Bass
All species of Catfish
All species of Bullheads
Yellow Perch
All species of Crappie
All species of Sunfish, Pumpkinseeds, etc.
All species of Carp

So some of my questions would be:

So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?

What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?

Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?

I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?

As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?

Not sure I remember this correctly but back in the late 1990's /Early 2000's I remember that water exports from the Delta were restricted by a judge after water exports had increased steadily and substantially and it was determined that this caused a crash of the fish population in general. That restriction was in place two - three years and during that time water exports were restricted to mid 1990's levels. During the time those restrictions were in place both native and non-native species biomass increased substantially only to fall again when a new judge lifted the restrictions. What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?

Regards,

Tim C.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I am not the expert here because I have a reading handicap but the people who run the water in California and the Commercial Salmon

people all want to eliminate the Striped Bass for starters.

______________________________

I have had the feeling for years that the "Water People" would love to eliminate all fish species so there would be no fishermen to

protest their water usage in California.

_____________________________

The controlling, powerful US Federal environmentalists seem to want to eliminate all non-native fish and game?

_____________________________

Large Mouth Black Bass is the most popular species to fish for, buy tackle for and write articles about in America.

These run away environmentalists might get some serious push back here......$$$$$$$$$$

[rtb215]

I, also believe that the "water people" want to eliminate all fish. It appears that fish and wildlife higher ups are trying to appease their donors. Just saying

RT Bettati

[Fishtopher]

Disclaimer: these are not necessarily my opinions but from a regulatory/law standpoint.




So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?



This one is fairly easy, any species that imperils the long-term survival of any ESA-listed species. This means species like Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass that affect several listed species including Delta Smelt and winter-run Chinook Salmon or trout from high-mountain lakes that affect Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs. It doesn't mean that agencies are specifically targeting or eradicating them (sometimes they do), they just may not manage them for sport fisheries. It would be impossible to eradicate species like Striped Bass or Largemouth Bass but maybe agencies can minimize their effects on the ESA-listed species.




What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?


This doesn't matter to some regulatory agencies. The questions are they affecting the environment (listed species) and are they non-native. The length of time they have been here does not mean anything. Besides 150 years is a blip in evolutionary time.



Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?

See #1. If those non-native species don't really affect listed species then they don't really care for the most part (i.e. kokanee).


I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?

This is probably correct, but notice how its only within the range of native trout species. You'll notice that this isn't the case for places on the east side (Hot Creek, Owens).


As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?

CDFW doesn't do much restoration themselves. There are Prop 1 and 68 funds that are granted by CDFW every year though. Remember DWR and BOR have to mitigate for the dams they've constructed which means a portion goes to restoration work. We are also about to witness the largest dam removal in history on the Klamath in the next few years (some of which will be funded by the state), so work is definitely being done.

In addition, there are also long-term plans for many species within CA (i.e. Central Valley Steelhead Recovery Plan).


What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?

Supposedly the twin tunnels had plans to address this. With it being DOA, I'm not sure of the future of that. This is also where the fishing community needs to come together and become more involved as stakeholders.

[tcorfey]

My opinion is from the aspect of will our actions or inactions affect the environment, humans for years stuck their head in the sand and said I don't care what the impact is we are going to do X. In the year 2019 we should know better and whether a species is non-native or native targeting or eradication will have some effect and it should be studied before barging ahead blindly and assuming all will be okay. After all while the native species evolved over many years the changes to the environment through human intervention has changed many aspects of the ecosystem not just the types of fish that are in the water. According to a study by UC Davis in the next 100 years 81% of our native species will be extinct due to "man-made" climate change. However the same study showed only 19% of non-native species would be affected by these changes. If we eliminate the species we deem best able to survive in our new environment have we done the right thing? I don't know the answer to that question but it should be discussed and studied prior to making a decision.

As an example I also looked in to Lake Tahoe as a fishery using for a reference:
http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Education/Wildlife_Ed/Trout_In_The_Classroom/Lake-Tahoe-Fish-Species.pdf

Native Fish to Lake Tahoe
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
Mountain Whitefish
Tui Chub
Speckled Dace
Paiute Sculpin
Tahoe Sucker
Lahonton Redside

Non-Native Fish currently in Lake Tahoe
Mackinaw (Lake) Trout
Rainbow Trout
Brown Trout
Kokanee Salmon
Largemouth Bass
Catfish
Bluegill

Note that Lahontan Cutthroat Trout no longer reside in Lake Tahoe.

So if all non-native fish were removed from Lake Tahoe you would have:
Mountain Whitefish
Tui Chub
Speckled Dace
Paiute Sculpin
Tahoe Sucker
Lahonton Redside

According to the NDOW report all of the native fish in Tahoe are in decline and if as UC Davis predicts 81% of those native species will be extinct in the next 100 years then what are we left with for our children's, children? We should probably look into that prior to making any widespread decisions. At least that is my opinion.

Regards,

Tim C.

[Bryan Morgan]

Can’t go back in time, but we cannot undo what our forefathers have done, as far as the American goes, enjoy the game fish that we have, because with everything going on in this state it’s hard to say what will be accomplished

[ycflyfisher]

In the same order as Fishtopher's responses:

1- Whether anglers like it or not, predator control is a legit management tool, and it was first formally brought up around 2009ish by NMFS (not commercial ag interests), in regards to listed CV salmon ESUs and the O. Mykiss DPS. For reasons stated in past postings, I'm very skeptical predator control efforts will increase CV salmonid abundance. Commercial water interests sincerely believe it will, much like many members of the "pumps are the real predators" choir on this forum believe curtailing diversion will result in the delta and inland ecosystems springing back to life like a bowl of seamonkeys. Both of these stances IMO are little more than blame placing positions that ignore the vast and nearly endless legit eco flux/ paradigm shift that has been occurring in the delta and upstream riverine habitats.

2- The state and fed ESAs only afford protection to native species in decline. Non-natives can never become native by definition. This is a complex issue and complete/near complete removal of non-natives that impact listed natives is a pipe dream. Curtailing non-native pops may be attainable but would likely cause as many problems as they potentially solve. Interspecies interaction rarely follows "net sum" straight line algebraic relationships.


5-About 40 projects were funded for this year for a total of about 15 million if memory serves from the fisheries grant program also.

The last one- Efforts are never made to restrict diversion. Efforts are made to allocate more water for listed species. This impacts diversion. Might seem like splitting hairs, but there is a distinct difference. Last year the SWRCB drew a pretty hard line and reallocated flows for fish through the south delta.

[ycflyfisher]

In the year 2019 we should know better and whether a species is non-native or native targeting or eradication will have some effect and it should be studied before barging ahead blindly and assuming all will be okay. After all while the native species evolved over many years the changes to the environment through human intervention has changed many aspects of the ecosystem not just the types of fish that are in the water. According to a study by UC Davis in the next 100 years 81% of our native species will be extinct due to "man-made" climate change. However the same study showed only 19% of non-native species would be affected by these changes. If we eliminate the species we deem best able to survive in our new environment have we done the right thing? I don't know the answer to that question but it should be discussed and studied prior to making a decision.



I wouldn't remotely consider this blindly barging ahead. Sadly, we don't know how efforts to curtail non-natives will impact listed natives because those target species also impact non-listed natives and non-natives as well. it's a complex set of issues that involve multiple levels of interaction. I'm skeptical that trying to regulate species like SBs and LMBs will have a positive impact on anadro salmonids but that doesn't mean I think it's impossible.

What we have is the respective ESAs which only afford protection for natives in decline. Cherry picking when you should apply it might make an interesting topic of discussion, but it isn't really a viable course of action. That discussion would have to include things like NN pike minnow are better suited to the elevated summer temp regime in the Eel basin than are the listed Mykiss DPS and Chinook ESUs of the Eel that they are outcompeting, so we should simply do nothing and be happy with a river of cyprinids and not salmonids.

Just my take.

[OceanSunfish]

This post inspired me to look at which Gamefish are Native and which are not. As a source I used UC Davis.
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/

They listed 187 species (some are extinct in CA due to habitat loss or due to dams)
Some of our native fish:
Trout:
Various sub-species of Rainbow Trout
Various sub-species of Cutthroat Trout
Various sub-species of Golden Trout
Various sub-species of Steelhead Trout
Bull Trout
Salmon:
Various sub-species of Chinook Salmon
Various sub-species of Coho Salmon
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Sturgeon:
White Sturgeon
Green Sturgeon
Others:
Some species of Perch
Some species of Whitefish

Some non-native fish (eligible for targeting I assume)
Trout:
Lake Trout
Brown Trout
Brook Trout
Some sub-species of Cutthroat trout
Salmon:
Sockeye (Kokanee) Salmon
Others:
All species of Shad
All Striped Bass
All Largemouth Bass
All Smallmouth Bass
All species of Catfish
All species of Bullheads
Yellow Perch
All species of Crappie
All species of Sunfish, Pumpkinseeds, etc.
All species of Carp

So some of my questions would be:

So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?

What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?

Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?

I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?

As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?

Not sure I remember this correctly but back in the late 1990's /Early 2000's I remember that water exports from the Delta were restricted by a judge after water exports had increased steadily and substantially and it was determined that this caused a crash of the fish population in general. That restriction was in place two - three years and during that time water exports were restricted to mid 1990's levels. During the time those restrictions were in place both native and non-native species biomass increased substantially only to fall again when a new judge lifted the restrictions. What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?

Regards,

Tim C.

Oh good! (j/k)

Maybe this means the eradication of BASS and Bullheads from Davis Lake?! Anything about the aquatic snails that took a beating from the treatment used to eradicate the Pike?

[tcorfey]

Yc with all due respect I think you misunderstood me. Your assertion that I suggested that "we do nothing" is very far from the truth.

Maybe I can rephrase my thought. In my first post I suggested that in order to protect ESA listed species we need to focus our intentions on improving the environment rather than focusing on non-native species eradication. In my second post I listed a study from UC Davis that suggested if the environment continues on it's current path then 81% of our native species will be extinct. Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.

I did suggest that hedging our bet may be prudent in that if we fail to effect a positive change to improve environmental conditions for our native species and climate change continues it's current path and UC Davis is correct that 81% of our native species go extinct due to climate change then at least we will still have some viable gamefish in our waters for future generations.

However my main thought is more inline with the work done by Peter B. Moyle whom is a fish biologist and William A. Bennett whom is a fish ecologist with UC Davis. In their 2011 discussion on predatory non-native species in the Delta environment they concluded that "The key to restoring populations of desirable species is to return the Delta to a more variable, estuarine environment. Reducing striped bass and other predator populations is unlikely to make a difference in saving endangered fishes, and will serve only to distract attention from the real problems. Any program to control striped bass should carefully consider the likely consequences. If initiated, it should involve an intensive study effort on the impacts of the program and an adaptive management plan (missing from all current proposals) to make sure the alleged cure is not worse than the supposed disease."

Regards,

Tim C.

[OceanSunfish]

Yc with all due respect I think you misunderstood me. Your assertion that I suggested that "we do nothing" is very far from the truth.

Maybe I can rephrase my thought. In my first post I suggested that in order to protect ESA listed species we need to focus our intentions on improving the environment rather than focusing on non-native species eradication. In my second post I listed a study from UC Davis that suggested if the environment continues on it's current path then 81% of our native species will be extinct. Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.

I did suggest that hedging our bet may be prudent in that if we fail to effect a positive change to improve environmental conditions for our native species and climate change continues it's current path and UC Davis is correct that 81% of our native species go extinct due to climate change then at least we will still have some viable gamefish in our waters for future generations.

However my main thought is more inline with the work done by Peter B. Moyle whom is a fish biologist and William A. Bennett whom is a fish ecologist with UC Davis. In their 2011 discussion on predatory non-native species in the Delta environment they concluded that "The key to restoring populations of desirable species is to return the Delta to a more variable, estuarine environment. Reducing striped bass and other predator populations is unlikely to make a difference in saving endangered fishes, and will serve only to distract attention from the real problems. Any program to control striped bass should carefully consider the likely consequences. If initiated, it should involve an intensive study effort on the impacts of the program and an adaptive management plan (missing from all current proposals) to make sure the alleged cure is not worse than the supposed disease."

Regards,

Tim C.

Your insight is very logical and obvious............ sadly, not-so much to the elite looking for favorable legislation.......... again.

Indeed, the striped bass and other "non-native" species are the low-hanging fruit. Ironically, they are the exact species that are appear to be more adaptable to the worsening habitat that will lead the 81%native species to extinction.

In summary, the "elite" (water grabbers) will further marginalize and reduce interest in popular fisheries, like striped bass and LM Bass by pushing for deregulation and zero fishery management, AND Salmonids will continue to perish as a result of worsening habitat or lack of improving/restoring same habitat that would be favorable to salmonids. As a result, no fishery and little to no opposition to water grabbers.

The SF Bay Delta is a mere shadow in resemblance to what the waterway/wetland/estuary environment used to look like just 40-50 years ago.

There has been so much more development around the edges of the Delta that it does seem like a foregone conclusion that the waterway is seen as nothing more than a conduit, reservoir, and "toilet bowl" going forward.

[Fishtopher]

Therefore my thought process is still that instead of focusing our efforts on removing non-native fish we should focus our efforts on improving the environment for all fish.



CDFW are not focusing any efforts on removing Striped Bass or Largemouth Bass, they are simply not managing for them. There's a big difference. If CDFW manages for them they will be sued by groups from both ends of the political spectrum like the Center for Biological Diversity and Westlands. There is no debate that Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass prey on listed species. Whether that predation is a significant factor in the decline of listed species is up for debate. CDFW is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one because they cannot promote a non-native species that has an effect on a listed species.

It is also disingenuous to claim that we aren't focusing our efforts on improving the environment. The Center for Watershed Sciences gets a ton of money from various sources in order to look at this. We've seen all kinds of research come out like the salmon growth study on the Yolo Bypass. Any environmental improvement we make will take generations to see the impact. It is not a quick process unfortunately.

OceanSunfish has it right about the delta. The delta no longer functions as the wetlands it used to. We have greatly altered the habitat by diverting flows, building levees, and a host of other issues. It is promising that we are starting to see more flows enter the delta to alter the salinity gradient and allowing more islands to flood.

I'll add it really sucks that this has to happen. I enjoy fishing for stripers and bass but I also understand why CDFW has to do this. Instead of taking it out on CDFW, we should be pressuring DWR, SWRCB, and BOR to restore a more natural flow and temperature regime and to restore habitat to all the rivers that flow into the delta. Until we change that, we will continue to see a decline in both native and non-native species in the delta.