"Stressor” is far from a new word, and when used in biological terms it has a very concise definition. Might wanna look it up. You're literally attempting to redefine the term with your Squawfish conspiracy theory.
You can believe that AB2336 was gutted at the last minute because those politicians were all in awe of a large group of anglers all advancing squawfish conspiracy theories and the like, showed up to voice their obviously biased, "bucket biology" opinions. I chose to believe that it was gutted because those politicians that were advancing the AB for the ag interests were finally clued in by someone that was paying some attention to the fact their own state agency scientists have included the striper as one of the impacted species in the ongoing interagency POD studies and their own science was going to be the nail in their own coffin to their equally ridiculous striper predation argument. Only one of us is right. I'd be willing to bet old Mcdonald's entire farm, from the ranch house to the shithouse, to the E-I-E-I-O that it ain't you. Don't think I'm going out on a limb stating that your going to see a better written and thought out incarnation of the same AB again sometime in the future.
You striper guys can fight this one any way you want to. Fight it smart if you want, fight it aggressively with tons on knee-jerk emotion if you must. Fight it with your hearts and the clear bias that you all have if it makes you feel better. You can all admire your “passion” and your creative conspiracy theories for the fight after it's over and done.
Any even remote thought of fighting it with your head instead??? If so, as stated previously I’d bring yourself AND YOUR GROUP up to speed on the available for peer review science that has been conducted on the mechanism of the POD and the Sacto salmon collapse and stick COMPLETELY to arguments centered around what IS known. As previously stated, the science for the POD was largely on your side last time I looked at it and the science for the salmon collapse still is. Those politicians very own DFG staffers are confident enough that the main contributing factor to the salmon collapse IS deleterious conditions in the gulf of the Farrallons and the abundance breakdown largely isn't happening inland. I agree with the science. The science pertaining to the salmon collapse IMO is sound, and the 'problem' I think has been accurately identified, but the salmon crisis is far from over simply because the problem cannot be controlled and numerous other issues that could adversely affect Sacto fall Chinook abundance are looming in the background. But that's another thread.......
The POD and your stripers and the delta aren't my cup of tea and as stated, and aren't something I know much about. That said, the POD IMO is something of a "perfect storm" type collapse where there's lot's of SIGNIFICANT contributing factors working synergistically together to facilitate the collapse, and lots of other potential contributing factors that may or may not be significant. Predation by mature stripers IS a potential contributing factor (but not a significant one IMO and I think not significant in the opinion of anyone remotely familiar with the actual potential causal issues surrounding the POD).
Should you and yours continue to overlook this fact and continue to cook up insanely laughable, totally out of context, squawfish conspiracy theories and the like and and fail to accept and acknowledge the fact that your beloved linesides will eat not only migrating salmonids and the other 3 pelagics that are on the decline by the tonage, as well as YOY and yearling stripers given the chance, this "passion" of yours is only going to serve to destroy your own groups credibility IMO. The flyfishing subculture is the only one in the world that I'm aware of where the word "passion" can be interchanged without consequence with the word "stupid".
I'm just a fairly well read angler with an interest in fish and their ecosystems, with no preformed bias on this issue and no real interest in stripers or the delta in general. For disclosure, I do voluntarily belong to (not employed by) a group that IS listed as supporting the AB. I do not endorse their support of this AB. As someone who knows you if any bias exists it would be one that's receptive to what you had to say..... until you made the totally ridiculous statement by sticking to your squawfish guns that you're certain that native PM's are measurably impacting the abundance of the salmonids they've coexisted with for eons in the CV and of all things delta smelt that are totally isolated to the X zone of the Sac delta??? I ain't buying that BS at face value or any deeply discounted price. I'm just someone that's read enough about the POD/salmon issues to know that your credibility and obvious bias in regards to the issue at hand just hit the skids with that statement. Right then. Right there. Right now...... and there's nothing you can from that point on to get it back.
How far really do you think that this type of ridiculousness is going to fly when push eventually comes to shove when the well funded political interests you're fighting finally decide their ducks are lined in a row and they're armed with the experts who collectively wrote what I simply took the time to read? All of whom will be put in a position to point out the numerous fallacies to your groups twisted, unsupportable logic even though they don't support this AB (and none of them likely will)
The available science as stated IMO is very much in your favor. IMO it's the ONLY thing that isn't stacked against you and your group.
Fight it however you want to fight it. Fight it smart or fight it with biased, knee-jerk emotion. It's your fight and your time. If it were my fight I'd get familiar with the science and stick what is known about the issues at hand and form my argument around what is known and can be supported.
Bookmarks