PDA

View Full Version : Assembly Bill 7



Digger
02-24-2005, 12:07 PM
I was curious what the various opinions are about this latest attempt to funnel more funds to the hatcheries. I believe this is a 2005 version of last years AB2280 to take 1/3 of all license fees and earmark them for 'hatcheries and related' operations.
Sounds like a lot of money going into a single direction, although a portion of that is 'supposed' to be for wild trout programs to appease the fly fishing interests.

Darian
02-24-2005, 10:12 PM
Hi Digger,..... Pretty early in the process but I gave the bill a cursory reading and it looks straight forward. sets a specific percentage of revenue from regular fishing licenses (excludes lifetime licenses fees) for hatchery funding. I have no idea how much money this represents. :? It's, also, an "urgency" bill; meaning that it will take affect immediately on passage. :? :?

I have an idea that this is a similar bill to one that was not succesfull, last year. That bill was opposed by several conservation organizations and some local governments. Not sure I recall what their objections were.... :roll:

Anyway, it seems to me that this type of bill is bad for program as it takes some of the flexibility to meet budgetary challenges out of the hands of the agency/administration. Also, I would be concerned that anything that looks this simple and is pushed so hard may have unintended/unforseen consequences..... Hope I'm not being too cynical here :roll:

On the other hand, if you're a person who supports having hatcheries supply fish stocks, this may be a very good thing. I suppose it would depend on whether the percentage established represents an increase or maintains the current level of funding :? My personal feelings about hatcheries aside, they do serve a purpose (an important one to some of us :roll: ).

The bill has been sent to committee and an analysis will follow soon. We'll be able to find out more about it then. In the meantime, I think I might try to ask some questions of DFG staff..... I'll keep you posted. 8) 8)

Darian
02-25-2005, 04:11 PM
Digger,..... Re-read the bill this AM. There are a couple of changes in this bill that bother me. The first change is that the bill would make hatchery funding primary over all "....other activities eligible to be funded from revenue generated by sport fishing license fees." This is really a very general statement :!: :!: I'm wondering if it might apply to all sport fishing license fees; as opposed to just the 33 percent :?: :?

The second is that the bill establishes a separate fund in the State Treasury where the money is deposited. The legislature would then appropriate those funds. So, any use of those funds would require the approval of the legislature; not a pleasant prospect considering the nature of our current legislature. :evil:

Looks to me like this bill would make the hatchery program is permanent in CA and assure that all programs is politically beholden to the legislature. What's the Fish & Game Boards purpose, now :?: :?:
This seems like a very big, double whammy, in my mind.

I didn't see anything in there that would suggest that any of these funds would be expended for fly fisherman, specifically. I'm still trying to figure out what the necessity of doing this, at all, is :?: :?: :?

Darian
02-26-2005, 08:32 PM
OK,..... On Thursday, I asked DFG to provide their official position on AB 7. Needed to determine who the actual sponsor of this bill is. No response thus far. To be fair, this may take some time and consultation with management/staff before they answer. 8) 8)

The approximate dollar amount of fees for sports fishing licenses thru November 2004 was 39.6 million. This would amount to approximately 13.19 million in 2004 if this bill was in affect. So, Diggers statement that this seems like a lot of money going in one direction is correct. However, we don't know how much is currently spent on this function, so we have nothing to compare it to.

With the exception of 2004, the number of sports fishing licenses has been declining over the last eight years, yet revenue has been fluctuating due to changed/increased license fees. There just doesn't appear to be any obvious need/reason for this bill..... :? :?

At this point, my opinion is that it isn't necessary. Think I might send off a note to the bills author and my State Assemblyman/Senator 8) 8)

Darian
03-02-2005, 10:39 AM
Digger,..... As you suspected, AB 7 is the 2005 version of AB 2280. The purpose of this bill is to perpetuate the hatchery system in CA as it supports local (spell that rural counties) revenues thru tourism. United Anglers and Local governments, plus many others, were the primary supporters. They said more hatcheries, more fish to catch results in more fisherman, increased fishing license fees and tourism revenues for counties..... All starts with hatcheries. (reports produced by CalTrout, etc., have shown that premise to be incorrect)

Currently, budget resources from license fees are allocated by DFG by established priority over it's programs. These resources have been reduced by the administration steadily over the last decade. the result was reduced funding/closure of some hatcheries. This bill would take the ability of DFG to allocate funds over all of its programs away and make 1/3 available to the hatcheries/planting program.

CalTrout and others were primary opposers of the bill.

Not a big trout fisherman any longer, but my opinion is that this is not good legislation. There're a lot of reasons to support or oppose this bill depending on your point of view.....

Digger
04-22-2005, 11:27 AM
Update-
Bill has now been amended and scheduled to go to committee vote 4/26.

The amendment is:
to create an 'Inland Fisheries Fund' in lieu of the previously proposed 'Hatchery & Fish Planting Facilities fund', where the 1/3 of license revenue will be required to go, making it possible for broader usage of funds other than only for hatcheries and fish planting.

"The bill would provide that moneys in the fund may be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support programs of the Department of Fish and Game related to the management and maintenance of California's inland fisheries"

Darian
04-22-2005, 03:18 PM
Digger,.... Thanks for the info. I wonder why this amendment was necessary :?: :?: It seems to me that the amendment restates what is already in place :? :? The bill should be killed unless the point of this is to give greater control over expenditure (or lack of same) of a portion of the license fees to direct as it sees fit. :? :? This shouldn't be viewed as a good thing; given the "status" of the current legislature.

Once the budget is approved, DFG should be allowed to make expenditures without the intervention of the current legislature 8) 8) who, in my opinion are the last people you wnat in charge of budgeting/expenditures :( :( . This I say in spite of the fact that I'm a liberal, politically 8) 8) . [/quote]

Digger
04-23-2005, 07:50 AM
Agreed...
My unsophisticated speculation is that as previously written, there was enough opposition from groups/individuals perhaps feeling that it was to narrowly focused on hatcheries, and these groups' (Cal-Trout/TU/etc.) agenda were being excluded. The trendy term "Biodiversity" may be having some effect here.

Add to that the bills' sponsor (Cogdill) a republican and the Water, Parks, & Wildlife committee is 14 to 9 democrats/reps. And we know that the enviro-orgs are predominately comprised of.

I am also curious to know what the current mix is of anglers who primarily fish for planted vs. wild fish.

Darian
05-19-2005, 09:29 PM
Anybody read the article in todays Sacto Bee re: hatcheries :?: :?: Covers a lot of ground from the Bay/Delta fisheries to closure/survival of hatcheries due to budget concerns.... 8) 8) 8)

This whole subject area is worth watching for all of us 8) 8)

Digger
06-25-2006, 04:46 PM
By Bruce Ajari
Sierra Sun
June 22, 2006

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) released a plan to fully implement the hatchery enhancements called for in Assembly Bill 7.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Dave Codgill of Modesto, will take effect on July 1. Apparently, Governor Schwarzenegger has made a decision to implement AB 7 fully, showing his commitment to restore California’s hatchery system and wild trout program.

This restoration is important not only to anglers but to the economies and communities that rely on them. This is especially true in an area such as ours that has such a high tourist trade. Fishing is a much bigger part of the equation than many realize.

AB 7 added Section 13007 to the California Fish and Game Code in 2005 and requires DFG to deposit one-third of sport fishing license fees in the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF) beginning July 1.

HIFF funds may be used upon appropriation by the legislature to support DFG programs related to the management, maintenance and capital improvements of California’s fish hatcheries, the Heritage and Wild Trout Program and enforcement activities.

The fund will also support other activities eligible for revenue generated by sport fishing license fees.

Schwarzenegger has proposed full funding in this budget year for implementation of AB 7 and has included additional funding to DFG from the General Fund. In keeping with the Governor’s signing message, this action will ensure that the implementation of AB 7 will not impact other programs, said DFG Director Ryan Broddrick.

Funding
The funding of AB 7 is subject to approval by the Legislature in the annual budget process. The Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees are currently considering approval of the Governor’s request for full implementation.

I was happy to see that the Governor has recommended additional moneys from the General Fund in addition to one-third of the funds from license sales. With license sales apparently declining, less funding would have been available to fund the projects if he had not taken this measure.

As I have commented before, the budgetary model for the DFG needs to be changed. The resources are everyone’s to enjoy, not just hunters and fishermen. It is crazy for the Department to be dependent on just fishing and hunting license sales.

I discussed this model briefly during the warden parity article I recently wrote. Incidentally, this issue of warden parity is another critical one.

Need for change
If you folks have not written your letters to the Governor and your Legislators, please do so. We must keep this issue square within the cross hairs so they will not forget about it during the budgetary process. The future protection of our natural resources in the state depends on this “thin green line.”

Please write those letters now!

California’s trout resources are found in more than 3,000 natural lakes, 625 man-made reservoirs and more than 18,000 miles of cold-water streams. This includes 7,763 miles of salmon and steelhead water.

DFG stocks six species of trout and chars — rainbow, brown, cutthroat, golden, brook and lake trout (Mackinaw) — and three species of salmon.

Kokanee (non-anadromous sockeye salmon) are stocked in 24 reservoirs, Chinook salmon in another 12 reservoirs and a domesticated strain of Coho salmon has been stocked in Lake Oroville.

Wild, native and introduced trout, including 11 identified subspecies of heritage trout, are found in California.

Bruce Ajari is a Truckee resident and regular fishing columnist for the Sierra Sun and other area newspapers.

The key issues AB 7 addresses include:
• Attaining the increase state fish hatchery production goals relating to the release of trout.
• Funding permanent positions, seasonal aids and other activities in the Hatchery and Heritage and Wild Trout Programs.
• Allowing DFG the ability to initiate and manage the restoration of naturally indigenous genetic stocks of trout to their original California source watersheds.
• Authorizing the use of funds in the HIFF to be used for the purpose of obtaining scientifically valid genetic determinations of California native trout stocks.

Darian
06-25-2006, 10:38 PM
I must admit that I have mixed emotions about this stuff. It seems to me that restoring the hatchery system is counter productive to re-establishing wild Trout in California.... Yet we're going to spend money on both.

If purchases of licenses is on the decline, is it because there are fewer Trout to catch :?: :?: Thus, the need for hatcheries :?: :?: :?: Or, more likely, it's the lack of funding for the Warden force. People who would not buy a license unless forced too now have no incentive to do so since the number of wardens is at an all time low.... A recent article in the BEE made the point that DFG had vacant warden positions but was having difficulty filling them. :? :? Apparently, this a resut of low salaries/benefits for wardens. :( :(

Rather than using general fund monies to support hatcheries, I vote for funding an increase in wages/benefits for wardens to attract the type of person required for the job. 8) The problem would appear to be that rather than doing the right thing, the bean counters are doing things right. In other words, form over substance..... :? :?

Digger
07-03-2006, 03:30 PM
I too have mixed emotions, but more about the wardens we have.

May 5, 6, 7, 2006
Hot Creek, Mammoth Ca.
I fished these 3 days and had a good, not a great time. Caught maybe 12-14 fish during the trip, some fairly sizable (12-18 inches) mixture of wild browns and bows. And even a couple of sucker types. Should have been a great time, had it not been for J. Nichols, Warden DFG. All 3 days I was fortunate enough to be confronted twice by Mr Nichols and once by another warden. Believe me I am most always glad to see these folks out and about doing their job. ‘Round up the bad guys’ is my hope. Me, always the good guy… license, regulations in hand, barbs smashed, trash picked up etc, etc.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Nichols (for the 2nd time) came to check my license, my gear. OK fine. My size 20 midge nymph had a trace of a snag when he carefully examined the barb. He proceeded to lecture me on the regs and how I should do more to properly remove all the barb.

He also proceeded to lecture another angler on the opposite side of the creek, by asking if he had seen the “no wading “ (due to NZMS) signs in the parking lot. Then gave us his whole wisdom, and position about how fly fishermen have spread these nasty creatures throughout all the watersheds, etc. etc.

Again, I’m always mindful (as I think most fly guys are) of the environment and the current status of invasive species, etc., and although I did not know the angler across the way, I could tell by the limited conversation we’d exchanged and the capable means by which he hooked, landed, and released his fish – he was a seasoned angler and intelligent individual. If you consider that neither of us had ACTUALLY broken any laws, there was ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for Mr. J. Nichols to go on for 20 + minutes spewing forth his condescending lecture.

So basically, this is just one (extremely over zealous) warden out of the many who are decent and personable, however it is ‘that one’ that you always remember and turns an otherwise great trip into a trip you will always remember for the wrong reason.

steve sullivan
07-03-2006, 04:34 PM
I too have mixed emotions, but more about the wardens we have.



On Sunday morning, Mr. Nichols (for the 2nd time) came to check my license, my gear. OK fine. My size 20 midge nymph had a trace of a snag when he carefully examined the barb. He proceeded to lecture me on the regs and how I should do more to properly remove all the barb.

.

Well, to many wardens you WERE in violation of the law. Of course if you read the dfg code you werent. I know many people who clearly debarbed
their hooks only to be cited because it caught on a piece of cloth. I also know someone cited as a misdemeanor and the warden even commented "well I see you TRIED to debarb the hook..." When he went to court the prosecutors were audibly heard saying "with all these criminals we have to deal with this?" He plead not guilty, the DA ended up offering a $50 fine as a violation instead of a $400 fine and a misdemeanor on his record

You think you have it bad, you are lucky you dont have a criminal record (misdemeanor hook violation)

Rob
07-03-2006, 08:25 PM
My boys and I had a Game warden come up and check our flies to see if theyhad been DE-barbed on the Yuba . This was around 6 years ago when both my boys were small. Jason's was not totally de-barbed but the Warden pulled out his pliers and finished de-barbing them for him. He was real cool . :) He could have chewed me out for not double checking my boys hooks but he did not. :) He also was fishing his way down stream with a spinning rod and a camo Jacket ( under cover) 8)

Mike O
07-05-2006, 09:11 AM
had a warden check me once for abalone. one of my abs just barely clicked on his guage (after he tried mine and got the same). He proceded to harangue me about short abs, until I looked him in the eye and said, "it wasn't short was it?"

He then got a little wild eyed and rose in voice level, so I turned my back on him and walked away. I don't think I have ever seen someone almost have a stroke, like he did when I just turned my back on him. they aren't used to that, they are used to being king of the domain.

That being said...

WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH GAME WARDENS!!! We need to have more people out there, because there are many that will do whatever they can, because they know they are not going to get caught, especially if they are on private land or off the beaten trail. I am sick of scofflaws who believe that if the warden didn't see it, it didn't happen.


*whew"

sorry 'bout that.

MAO

Darian
07-05-2006, 09:40 AM
Good post MAO.... :) :) I've had good and bad experiences with warden's in the past, altho not many overall contacts. Warden are probably a lot like us. They have good and bad days and prejudices, as well. :) :)

I believe that most are just doing their jobs to the best of their abilities under some trying circumstances. Warden training is better now than in the past but anything to do with the DFG has been so politicized that whatever they do, they're seen as ineffective or problematical.... :( :(