Fish and Game Commission to consider ban on American R.

[Mike McKenzie]

I’ve gotta’ say that the Bureau of Reclamation, DWR and the Water Contractors have to love this spectacle we are making out of ourselves over action by some folks to do what they thought was the right thing for the American River fishery.

While there may be a legitimate complaint with the unilateral action taken, no one that is in favor of saving our fisheries should find fault with the reasons for taking the action. I have talked Dave Ford and there were/are legitimate concerns for the American River steelhead at the low flows We all know that there are some people out there that would “duel to the death” for the right to kill the last fish on the planet. However I’ll have to let the NCCFFF explain why the unilateral action was taken.

I have also talked to Neil Manji, Chief of the Fisheries Branch Dept. of Fish and Game to see what DFG’s take on the closure might be. They are in the process of doing an evaluation of the situation from the fisheries biology standpoint as well as from an enforcement standpoint. As most of us all know DFG enforcement is almost nonexistent due to the lack of Wardens. The bottom line after a long discussion, while there are admittedly some good reasons (Pro’s) for taking the action; the “Cons” may out weigh them. At this time, the Department is “luke warm”, at the most, to the proposed ban and IMHO will likely not support it at the Feb.7th Fish and Game Commission meeting.

As I watch this whole discussion deteriorate into a diatribe about one way of fishing versus another, it is scary as hell! Lost in the vitriol and B.S. is the fact that the real enemy is our own government! The Bureau of Reclamation, the State Department of Water Resources, The Resources Agency and our Governor are the real reasons our fisheries are going to hell in a hand cart, Period!

You all may remember that several years ago the different angling groups/clubs, etc. got together and formed the “Allied Fishing Groups” for the purpose of saving our fisheries from the onslaught of unmitigated development and the every increasing diversions of water from our rivers and Delta. We rallied around the decline of the delta fisheries and the fact that despite disappearing fisheries, the State was pushing the so called South Delta Improvement Process to increase pumping from the Delta. The Allied Fishing Groups sent thousands of e-mails and letters and we got the plan stopped.

Although the Allied Fishing Groups has deteriorated to a somewhat tenuous and fragile association due to lack of resources, Some of us are working on ways to rebuild it back to an effective organization, which if it were such, would hopefully preclude the present kind of unilateral actions.

Back to what I said at the beginning.. In spite of our differences we must keep our eyes on the true enemy. The reason that there are such low flows in the American River right now and the reason we are in this turmoil is because the Bureau of Reclamation allowed too much water to go to the water contractors last year and our state government, the protectors of our “Public Trust Resources” , failed its job by not forcing the BuRec. to keep enough water held back in Folsom to adequately provide for our fisheries This is where our focus needs to be!! Not on each other!! We need to stand together on our fisheries or we can kiss them good by!

Mike

[Darian]

Hmmm,.... Not sure that that there's any indication that anyone here's not going to support whatever decision of the F&G commission adopts and I understand that you're attempting to keep the focus on government run water/wildlife issues. However, This subject is worth further discussion.

My reading is that we'd like to be able to comment on proposals before we're blind-sided by 'em. The people who made this proposal may've had good intentions but the outcome has been to disrupt cooperation and confirm that fly fishers are elitists. Not a positive outcome, regardless of intentions. Had they attempted to communicate this proposal, earlier (....and they certainly had the opportunity as evidenced by Mr. Ford's letter) maybe all of this could've been avoided. All of this adds up to evidence supporting a permanent alliance of fishing groups that communicates/coordinates effectively.

By the way, I've lived in Sacramento since 1974 during some of the worst drought years and never once ever saw a person using a "pitchfork" to poach Salmon or Steelhead.

Mike, in this instance I have to disagree with your position that the government is the enemy. After all, according to the record so far, the request was made by members of the public and fly fishing clubs (2 in particular). Sooo, I believe as a famous cartoon once stated, "we have met the enemy and he is us".

Hyperbole aside, I believe we're all open for discussion on this, but, I see no valid reason to close the entire lower American River. There's limited spawning below the "H" Street area and below Cal-expo, none. Why not leave portions of the lower river open for striper fishing, etc.

[Ed Wahl]

Mike, if anyone ever finds the magic formula that unites all anglers, we could demand, not request, anything we want. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but if all licensed anglers voted the same way the politicians would be falling all over themselves to get our vote. The various clubs and groups are all well and good but somehow we need to get regular Joe Fisherman. He's the majority of our population. You'll find him everywhere, fishing from banks or from boats. He fishes a couple of times a year, mostly uses bait, and takes the kids now and then to teach them how to fish. Allied Fishing Groups is a great start, however, I've never heard of it. Maybe I'm a little like Joe,I'm not much of a joiner so the clubby stuff is totally lost on me. When I become aware of a threat to my fishing I'll act, but I must be made aware first. You find that magic formula, we'll control our fisheries. Ed

[Mike McKenzie]

Darian,

You said:
"My reading is that we'd like to be able to comment on proposals before we're blind-sided by 'em. The people who made this proposal may've had good intentions but the outcome has been to disrupt cooperation and confirm that fly fishers are elitists. Not a positive outcome, regardless of intentions. Had they attempted to communicate this proposal, earlier (....and they certainly had the opportunity as evidenced by Mr. Ford's letter) maybe all of this could've been avoided. All of this adds up to evidence supporting a permanent alliance of fishing groups that communicates/coordinates effectively."

This is exactly what I meant when I said "Although the Allied Fishing Groups has deteriorated to a somewhat tenuous and fragile association due to lack of resources, Some of us are working on ways to rebuild it back to an effective organization, which if it were such, would hopefully preclude the present kind of unilateral actions."
In other words the idea is to build back a strong alliance of the fishing groups with a good solid and efficient communication network with a representative process making decisions before going public with them. If we can't all get on the same page with the common issues such as water and enforcement with out all the divisiveness demonstrated by this incident, we have lost our fisheries, period!

You also said:

Mike, in this instance I have to disagree with your position that the government is the enemy. After all, according to the record so far, the request was made by members of the public and fly fishing clubs (2 in particular). Sooo, I believe as a famous cartoon once stated, "we have met the enemy and he is us".


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with my assessment of the governments role here, unless you can convince me that the the request for action by the people you mention was not predicated by the governments total failure to do their job, as I iterated in my post, then I maintain that with respect to our fisheries they are the enemy. Had the government held back water for the fish instead of giving it to corporate ag. we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?? As far as the quote from Pogo goes, you are quite right because we are the ones that elect the folks that run the bureaucracies!

I wish we could have a Hi-light feature with quotes, It'd sure make this stuff easier!
Mike

P.S.
Ed,
The Allied Fishing Groups could be exactly what you are talking about, a clearing house for all angler opinions with the caveat that the majority rules on each issue before it is presented to the public. If you have never heard of the group then we weren't doing a very good job communicating in the past...

Mike

[Bryan Morgan]

The snagging takes place up by the Dam, as said in previous posts. It is not a poaching problem, it is a water release regulation that is sending our water south.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Darian, just to clarify, I just joined the conservation committee at GBF this month. I didn't realize that letter had been received until it was e-mailed to me and the rest of the conservation committtee from our webmaster the same day I posted it.

I just thought I would share the correspondence that I had access to for purposes of thsi discussion. I am by no means endorsing it, nor against it. I am too new of a fly-fisher to have that strong of an opinion about the issue.

I will say that discussions like these are very educating, and I am following this closely, so I can try and see all perspectives voiced. As long as they don't get nasty anyway.

I have fallen in love with this sport, and am apalled at the bashing going on in the "gear-head" forums.... Just crazy.

Thank you to all for your participation in this (not that I started it). This is the kind of communication that needed to happen long before this proposal was given to DFG.

[Ed Wahl]

Mike, that was my point exactly. When the bait soakers, lure tossers, bobber flingers, and fly casters can agree on something it will happen. The sheer number of us will guarantee it. Ed

[Darian]

Mike,.... I do tend to go along at times.... I hope you believe and understand that I do support your work in re-establishing the existing "alliance" as I, and I think at least Ed, believe that it is the only real solution to brining Fish & Wildlife issues the attention of powers to be in this state. However, re-establishing this alliance will only work well if it communicates/coordinates actively. Ed's post pointed out the magnitude of the problem. Reaching "....Joe fisherman...." I believe that's why, as you put it on Blanton's BB, "....all hell broke loose...." when the closure request became well circulated.

As all of my previous discussions under other threads demonstrate, I'm a believer that issues involving water, development, conservation, etc., whether driven by governmental, quasi-governmental or private entities are of concern to me.

Your assessment of the contribution of government in this case almost sounds to me like a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" discussion. In this instance, it's apparent that the committee discussed this subject and that two club/committee members agreed to draft and forward the request (doesn't matter whether with or without approval) and the Commission agreed to hear the request. The request wasn't based on any scientific data and, apparently didn't consider potential negatives beyond the "pitchfork" statement in Ford's letter to GBF.

Agreements for flow regime's in the lower American River are based on the needs of several entities and for a number of purposes. Among others, the purposes of the agreements are (1) flood control, (2) deliveries water contracts, (3) slowing salt water intrusion into the Delta.... (some I can't recall). The flood agreement by between BuRec and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) was re-negotiated last year and was the subject of a couple of posts on my part that generated no apparent interest even though that agreement dictates how much water is retained in Folsom Reservoir during periods of high water and takes precedent over water for fish. I think it's safe to say that the SAFCA agreement is viewed as a positive for those who live on the flood plane or along the river. An argument can be made that all of these agreements contributed to the current state of flows in the lower American River but which among all of the contributing circumstances would you blame first??? Channelizing of the rivers (rip-rap banks), levee building, economic or real development, loss of habitat, water deliveries??? Government contributed to some of these issues but everyone, public or private, also had something to do with it. What about last years dry weather????

As an aside, when government does something well, it gets no favorable comment (probably because that doesn't happen often). I guess I just don't believe that every issue that goes wrong can be traced back to government. For every water contract given out by BuRec, a water contractor (even "corporate welfare" agri-businesses) benefited at the other end. For every project that ran over time and budget there's a private company on the other end that contributed to the problem. All of these deals speak of "pork barrel" politics. That's why I said the individuals/clubs are responsible in this case.

I'm very cynical but not that cynical.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

NCCFFF responds:


This was my response to Dan Bacher's criticism of the NCCFFF position on the Lower American. Hopefully, it expands the dialogue. I'm working today to get CalTrout and Trout Unlimited to support our closure request, and will be talking with Region 3 director Sandy Morey to try to get their support.

Mark Rockwell

NCCFFF



I guess I have to "weigh in" on this, since NCCFFF asked for the closure. As it states, this in an emergency request, based upon the current stress on the fishery due to low flows. It is not designed to be the "answer to the problems." Much effort has taken place to establish flow standards on the lower American by SARA, AROG and the Water Forum, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has agreed to these standards, and is working to get water rights approval so it can happen. However, the current court order from Judge Wenger on Delta Smelt has put that on hold, and I don't know if anyone knows exactly what will happen as we go forward. I think taking out the big stick on BOR, in this case, is not appropriate because they have been working for the benefit of the river, and chastising them on this is inappropriate.



That said, this request is only to protect the fishery due to the current low flows. The reality is that today, we do not have, and will not have enough wardens to enforce much, especially snagging. It is much simpler to enforce no-fishing than how someone is fishing.



Because the water level is so low, fish pod up, become more vulnerable, and their redds (nests) become more available to damage due to foot traffic and other impacts. We are in the second year of low salmon and steelhead returns, this year worse than last. If the fishing community can't muster the will to protect the fishery during times of extreme stress, what does that say about our real moral purpose? Are we only about catching fish, or are we more than that? If we ask BOR, FWS, NNFS and DFG to do more to protect a fishery, shouldn't we "step up" when appropriate? This is a time for all of us to shine and do the right thing. We should take pride in our ability to "do the right thing" when it is appropriate. It makes it easier to ask the same of federal and state agencies when necessary.



Mark Rockwell

V.P. Conservation

NCCFFF



P.S. We did not avoid consulting others for any other reason than this is an emergency situation, and there is no time for much dialogue. It seemed like a no-brainer for those trying to protect the meager returns this year. I guess that was an inaccurate assumption. However, most organizations do not consult others in their organizational decisions. Perhaps we need to work on this throughout our network.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a message dated 1/27/2008 2:57:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, c@davidnesmith.com writes:

"Instead of assuring flows for fish on the American River, DFG considers fishing closure. Dan's article correctly assails DFG and the Gov. We are all left with impossible dilemmas when the basic resource of water for the environment is not provided by the agencies with the responsibility to do so. In these situations, the best we can do is stay united against the real miscreants."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Begin forwarded message:




From: Dan Bacher <danielbacher>

Date: January 26, 2008 4:17:17 PM PST

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: Make Your Voice Heard Regarding Proposed American River Closure!



Make Your Voice Heard Regarding Proposed American River Closure!

by Dan Bacher



If you want to make your voice heard on the proposed fishing closure of the American River February and March during low flow periods, you need to contact the California Fish and Game Commission right away.



You must get your letters to the Commission by January 28 to be included in the Commission’s packet for their meeting in San Diego on February 7. The best and quickest way to send a letter is by fax at 916-653-5040 or by e-mail to fgc@dfg.ca.gov.



The announcement of this proposed closure came as a complete surprise to most of the fishing organizations and conservation groups concerned about fishery restoration on the American River. It was only brought to my attention through an article in the Sacramento Bee on Thursday and Friday.



To say I was stunned by the lack of communication between the proponents of the closure, Dave Ford and Wayne Chubb of the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, and fishing and environmental organizations is an understatement.



When I spoke to Ford last night, he told me the closure was proposed “to try to protect the wild fish from snagging when flows go below 1,100 cfs” and to “shine the spotlight on the need to get more wardens on the river to enforce Fish and Game laws.”



“The DFG has low flow closures in place on the Smith, Eel, Van Duzen, Mattole and other coastal rivers to prevent snagging when the flows go below certain flow levels,” said Ford. “Why can’t they do a similar thing with Central Valley rivers to protect steelhead?”


He had no explanation why he and other proponents of the closure hadn’t consulted with the angling community before submitting the proposal to the Commission. But at this point, pardon the pun, that’s water under the bridge.



I don’t support the closure because I think that recreational anglers already have too many regulations and closures imposed upon them by the state and federal governments. We don’t need yet another fishing closure on our public trust rivers – we need enforcement of the existing laws! Snagging is an enforcement problem, but the Governor refuses to hire wardens to enforce the Fish and Game Code on the American.



However, I must emphasize that although I don’t support the closure and am shocked that Ford didn't submit this proposal for review by the angling community with more advance notice, we must now take advantage of the media spotlight to highlight the state and federal mismanagement of the American River fishery.



Our enemies are not Ford and other anglers, but the Bureau of Reclamation and the Governor! Anglers need to unite and work together, although we often disagree, to make the American River a better habitat for steelhead, salmon and other fish!



First, we must make it clear that the Bureau, after agreeing in principle to water flow and water temperature standards for the American River in 2006, still hasn’t adopted them. We must keep pressure on the Bureau to adopt water and flow temperature standards.



Secondly, the low flows we are seeing now on the American are caused by the massive export of water to the Westlands Water District and Southern California. Every spring and summer Folsom is effectively drained so that there is little water in the fall and early winter for steelhead and salmon.



At the same time that the Bureau reduces flows on the American to serve subsidized agribusiness, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger every year slashes the DFG budget so game wardens can’t be hired to patrol the American and other rivers. Snagging of steelhead is an enforcement problem; the problem is addressed by enforcing existing fish and game laws, not by adopting new regulations that won’t be enforced,



Jim Crenshaw, president of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, suggests that the Bureau of Reclamation should, as mitigation for the fisheries it has destroyed over the years, provide funding to the state for DFG Wardens to patrol the river. I think that is a great idea!



Here is a letter from Bill Back (see below), a longtime steelhead angler and ardent conservationist that I have fished with many times on the American, submitted to the Commission today. Back wrote this letter after walking the banks of the river informing anglers about the proposed closure and urging them to write letters while giving them post-its with the Commission’s fax number.



When you write your letter, write from the heart because it will have more impact on the Commission. Also, remember to keep it short and succinct.



Here is Bill Back’s letter to the Commission. I like it because he addresses the key points of (1) the Bureau’s mismanagement of flows for fish, and (2) the lack of DFG wardens on the river. Also, I like the fact that he stays away from bashing proponents of the closure and concentrates on the real issues.



I suggest that you address these points also to make your letter most effective.



Here’s the Commission contact information:

Mr. Richard B. Rogers, President

California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, California 95814

TEL: 916-653-4899

FAX: 916-653-5040

EMAIL: fgc@dfg.ca.gov

Please email copies of your letter to danielbacher@fishsniffer.com, and Jim Martin of RFA, flatland@mcn.org, who will be attending the Commission meeting in San Diego on February 7.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

01/26/08

To: California Fish and Game Commission

From: Bill Back

Re: Proposed American River Closure



Commissioners



On Friday 01/25, I read an article in the Sacramento Bee dealing with the proposed two month closure of the lower American River to all fishing requested by the Northern California Coucil of The Federation Of Fly Fishers. I was extremely alarmed that a proposal of this magnitude could surface without the knowledge of the general fishing public at the eleventh hour. As a concerned citizen and avid angler, I could not sit and let this proposal come in front of you without sending you my comments.



The American River, as I am sure you are aware is a very popular area for thousands of anglers to use every year. I have regularly fished this area since the 70’s and am very aware of the challenges this system brings forth.



The article in the Bee states,” The state Fish and Game Commission is set to consider a two-month fishing ban on the lower American River as a way to ward off poaching and preserve the steelhead trout population.”



As I see it this, is really a two-fold problem that will not be solved by this closure. The first is the amount of water released into the river by the Bureau of Reclamation and the second is the illegal “snagging” that occurs. I would like you to consider my thoughts on both of these issues.



First of all, the flows in the American River have been a problem for some time. It is my belief that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is and has been to blame for this problem. Their management of the watershed above Nimbus Dam is absolutely horrible.



The health of the salmon and steelhead runs on the American River are totally dependent on adequate water flows or simply put “no water, no fish.” Folsom Lake is at extremely low levels due to releases being higher then needed during the spring and summer months and to the exporting of water to other areas. The Bureau needs to be held accountable for their mismanagement.



Secondly, the fly fishing group is saying that unusually low flows make the fish more susceptible to “snagging.” I can tell you that “snagging” has been taking place on this river for a long time and that water levels have very little to do with it. I have seen “snaggers” hooking fish with every gate on Nimbus Dam open. This would be over 20,000 cfs.



The real problem is that the people that practice this type of angling are quite good at what they do because there is not much chance of them being caught. Lack of enforcement is the real problem. The majority of this illegal activity takes place within the view of the region 2 office of the Fish and Game.



Today is the 26th day that this lower section of the river has been open and until today, I have not seen one warden. Not one. Last year, I didn’t see any wardens the entire season. The two wardens I talked to today told me their area stretches all the way to the Bay Area.



I feel that an area like the American River with the amount of people that use it needs a warden dedicated to it for the bulk of their time during peak periods (August - March). In the past, when we would see wardens regularly, poaching was noticeably minimized.



Closing the American River will not solve any of the problems I have mentioned. It would at best be a band-aid. I would ask you to work with the Governor and legislature to hold the Bureau accountable for adequate flows on the American River and to acquire funding for one dedicated warden for this area.



In closing, I would like to ask each of you to deny the proposal for the two-month closure on the American River.



Sincerely

Bill Back

Orangevale, CA

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Here is Dave's reply sent to concerned fly fishers Friday:


Background on the NCCFFF request for a temporary fishing closure on the American River

January 26, 2008



1) At our December meeting, the Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers (NCCFFF) voted to request a temporary closure on the American River (AR) if flows went below 1100 cfs. This happened in mid-January, so the closure request was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission.



2) We sent a clarifying letter, pointing out that what was sought was closures only during February and March, and only when flows are below 1100 cfs. The letter was sent to the Commission this week. Although told this, it did not make it into the front-page article in Friday’s Sacramento Bee.



3) An NCCFFF board member received a call Thursday night about “elitist” fly fishermen pushing this change. Thus, this background information for NCCFF board members is being sent.



4) The bulk of steelhead spawning on the American takes place in the upper half of the 26 mile river between the mouth, where it joins the Sacramento, and Nimbus dam, which blocks further upstream migration. DFG has a fish hatchery, which raises salmon and steelhead, just below the dam.



5) The river is closed at about the halfway point upstream to the dam during the fall. This protects in-stream salmon spawning, the vast bulk of which occurs before the January 1 reopening. It does not protect in-stream steelhead, which spawn primarily in the January through March timeframe, peaking in February.



6) DFG seems to consider the river spawning steelhead to be different from wild fish. The original AR steelhead are believed to have been wiped out, so DFG replaced them with other strains of steelhead. The predominant strain in the river now is an Eel River strain. This somehow leads DFG to conclude AR fish are not “wild”, apparently including those with an adipose fin (hatchery fish are fin clipped). Regulations require release of fish with an adipose fin.



7) With the current (low number of) California game wardens, enforcement is a problem. And snagging enforcement is very difficult. Catching a snagger can take three wardens, including one in plain clothes, in order to verify that the fish was illegally hooked. The American flows through a center of a population exceeding one million people. The American River Parkway, a natural area along the river corridor, complicates enforcement as vegetation and limited road access makes enforcement difficult.



With temporary closures, enforcement should be easier––if someone is fishing, it is a violation. This would aid enforcement efficiency.



9) What the NCCFFF requested was a closure system like that used on north coast steelhead streams - whenever flows drop below a certain amount, anglers are required to call a hotline to check whether fishing is open. No such system is currently in place on the steelhead streams flowing into the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins



10) The American is a political river. In addition to running through the state capitol city, the river is the closest one in the Central Valley supply system to the Delta. Its waters are fed from Folsom Lake, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Sacramento is among the most flood-prone cities in the country. So the amount of water that is allowed to be stored in Folsom Lake is restricted by the time of year. This is further complicated by recent dry years, and the Folsom Lake reservoir currently is less than 1/3 full.



11) AR waters, being closest to the Delta, are used to counter emergency events, like saline intrusion into the Delta, which can knock out municipal water supplies. So water to counter unexpected Delta events is provided by releases to the American. And much of the water stored in Folsom is contracted for farming use.



12) To look out for the interest of the fish, an advisory committee called the American River Operating Group (AROG) was established. Its membership consists of people representing DFG, the Bureau, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Sacramento Water Forum, and other government and NGO organizations, including the NCCFFF. The primary function of this group in recent years has been to allocate water releases to achieve river temperatures that support fall salmon spawning. This involves complicated balancing between flood control, farming and municipal, power generation and fish water needs.



As to the “elitist” comment––my take on that (having lived seven years of my adult life in Europe) is that term originated there. In Europe, most waters are owned, and it was (and still is to some extent) the “landed gentry” that owned the bulk of the streams. If the owner chooses to not allow fishing outside family and friends, there is a pay-to-play charge. Most fly fishing clubs lease streams and exchange fishing rights on those streams with a handful of other clubs. Guards are often hired to patrol the streams to keep the “unwashed” out.

†

In the American River situation, we (supposed) “elitists” are asking to exclude ourselves from the fishing. That hardly makes the title fit, one would think!