Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Here are DFG's proposed Striped Bass reg changes

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Highlands, CA
    Posts
    709

    Thumbs up Occupy DFG!

    Quote Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3 View Post
    Occupy the fish and game commission proposal
    OMG - I love it!
    - Robin

    "Yes, size does matter..."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Question Dfg & hsus

    WOW!!!! Steelie,.... I'm really impressed with that conspiracy theory. Of course, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

    But something I once saw on a poster seems to fit here, "Just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Reading the link to the Fish Sniffer discussion it looks like this one is a done deal in terms of what's going to the commission. That doesn't mean it has to be permanent.

    I see this one turning into a mess with a mob of angry, overly emotional anglers all voicing the same rather ignorant opinion that some how the water projects and not predation by stripers is what led to the collapse in abundance of SRFC. I haven't really kept up on either the POD or stripers because it isn't where my interest lies. The SRFC collapse is however well defined. Those studies were conducted years ago, have stood up to intensive peer review and the cause was rather definitively determined to have occurred no where near the delta or anywhere inland. There's a massive body of evidence that other species along with SRFC that are dependent on the upwelling cycle in the GOF to maintain population abundance also crashed where the breakdown happened. There's no doubt that both abundance loss to the water projects and predation by stripers has an affect on the abundance of smolting SRFC that actually hit the salt, but I'm not aware of any actual science that shows or even suggests that either are having a terminal effect on population abundance of SRFC. I think that both the available science and decades of history are on the side of those that are opposed to the reg change.

    I'd advocate that anyone that's going to take the time to voice your opinion on this one, do your own due diligence and familiarize yourself with the science on this issue. I am however not seeing a huge mob of angry, emotional anglers all taking the time to voice variations of the same opinion "the water projects and not the stripers led to the salmon collapse" conveying the message that I'd like to see conveyed if I felt I had a horse in this race. Repetition doesn't count for anything. Particularly when the rationalization being repeated is based on nothing more than pure ignorance and angler rhetoric. That argument is rather comical and flies in the face of the available science surrounding the collapse. I'd also find out if any of the predation studies that were being conducted are completed and are available for review.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Highlands, CA
    Posts
    709

    Default Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post
    I haven't really kept up on either the POD or stripers because it isn't where my interest lies.
    If this species is not your cup of tea, then why weigh in on the discussion? Science does not support the Coalition's claims that striped bass predation has been the primary cause of the decline of salmon . Had this lawsuit gone to trial, the Coalition would have lost. And, being a part of the group of intervenors in this lawsuit, I can tell you that predation studies have not been completed - that's the whole stink of this mess!

    Quote Originally Posted by ycflyfisher View Post
    Particularly when the rationalization being repeated is based on nothing more than pure ignorance and angler rhetoric. That argument is rather comical and flies in the face of the available science surrounding the collapse. I'd also find out if any of the predation studies that were being conducted are completed and are available for review.
    The lack of water having a signifcant impact on the salmon's survival is not a mere ignorant opinion . That fact is actually backed up by studies that were done for the Blue Ribbon Task Force by UC Davis biologists.

    No striped bass fisherman I know denies the fact that stripers do, in fact, predate on salmon smolt. They are opportunistic feeders that eat whatever they can find, same as any other predator. Although, there are studies which have been released finding that their preferred meal is actually a crustacean and not smolts.

    The argument here is that they are not the primary reason for the salmon decline, which can easily be evidenced by the fact that the striped bass populations have declined just as fast and in the same time period as the salmon populations .

    This all comes down to politics, and as a result, one of California's biggest recreational fishing industries is suffering . The ag interests that make up the 'Coalition for a Sustainable Delta' knew that if they could pinpoint a cause for the salmon decline was due to anything other than water shortage, they would have a better shot at getting the water they want for their crops - much of which is not always used and ends up being sold later to other agencies. It is simply MADDENING!
    - Robin

    "Yes, size does matter..."

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    no. cal
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steelie View Post
    Mr. SSY, how did you know that.



    PLACERVILLE — In a plot as insidious as anything you've ever seen, the California Department of Fish and Game has gone into partnership with the largest anti-hunting group in the nation, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

    The DFG has been infiltrated by the world's largest anti-hunting group, HSUS, which is dedicated to outlawing hunting of all types, and is even now focusing on outlawing the raising and hunting of game birds, using dogs for hunting, and even having farm animals and household pets. They are now helping to fund the DFG, are being trained at the DFG warden training school, and are even teaching classes to DFG wardens.

    In began simply enough with a $5,000 donation to the DFG Game Wardens to help with feeding their canine program about 2 years ago. That in itself was enough to raise the ire of California sportsmen and women and outdoor groups. But that was also enough for HSUS to buy their way into the DFG's graces, and head Law Enforcement officer of the DFG, Nancy Foley, has now gone far beyond that in her association with HSUS.

    HSUS "Law Enforcement Officers" are now being trained in the California DFG training Center in Paradise, Ca., and working under the auspices and authority of the California DFG. They are now, believe it or not, actually instructors training line officer DFG wardens!

    If that's not enough, Jennifer Fearing, the California Senior State Director of HSUS was elected to the CalTIP Foundation Board of Directors at their last meeting on Oct. 6, 2011. The HSUS already has a Secret Witness Program for poaching with a standard reward of $2,500. Is the DFG pleased? Apparently so: "This is the kind of support that we have needed for 30 years. Please be happy for the Wildlife Resource and the CalTIP Foundation….I am," said Charlie Moss, Chair of the CalTIP Foundation.

    Imagine the "Got Meat" commercials hiring a vegan for their spokesman; or the fur industry asking for the endorsement of PETA. That's exactly the same thing as the California Department of Fish and Game accepting the nations largest anti-hunting organizations, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), as a partner.

    What is the Humane Society of the United States, exactly? First and foremost, they are not an animal "welfare" group, which is concerned about the health and well-being of animals. They are an extreme animal "rights" group, which believes that animals have equal rights to human beings.

    HSUS spends millions of dollars annually to economically cripple meat and dairy producers, eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs, phase out pet breeding and to eliminate zoos and circus animal acts. They are against anyone having pets, even fish in aquariums. They demonize hunters as crazed lunatics, and are against any hunting in any form, despite its acceptance by the vast majority of people in the United States who are just fine with it, as long as it's done legally and with a sound scientific and biological base.

    According to HSUS President, Wayne Pacelle, "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts, and we're phasing out animals used in research. If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." Pacelle carefully uses the word "sport" in all his diatribes, intending to convince people that hunters are only out for "sport," and that it has nothing to do with enjoyment, to help curb animal populations, and for the ultimate goal of putting meat on the table.

    According to ACTIVISTCASH.com, the budget for HSUS in 2008 was $97 million. Of that, $27.5 million was spent on fundraising, $28.0 million on Campaigns, Litigation and Investigation, and $38 million on salaries. The remainder of their budget that year, about $5 million, was spent on travel. Zero dollars were spent on anything pertaining to the health and welfare of animals. In fact, their budget would be enough to fund every single animal shelter in the United States, and yet they don't own or operate a single one!

    This is the organization that the California Department of Fish and Game has teamed up with, and Foley thinks it's just fine. In her own words, Foley said "We are again very grateful to the Humane Society of the United States for their support of the wardens' efforts to combat the increase in poaching. We look forward to continued collaboration on this issue." And now, HSUS has actual law enforcement officers here in California, trained at the DFG Training Center at Butte College in Paradise, and some of those officers are actual instructors, teaching DFG wardens!

    How can someone who is hired by an animal-rights group, and believes animals have the same rights as humans, be teaching a Fish and Game enforcement officer? According to one attendee in one of the classes, the instructor showed a photo of hounds chasing a wild boar and said it was "animal cruelty." Until some in the class reminded the instructor that it was legal.

    What the Humane Society of the United States has done here, is buy the Department of Fish and Game, and it's support, for a few thousands dollars. The DFG recently issued a news release that was headed "Department of Fish and Game and the Humane Society offer Reward for Mountain Lion poachers." That in itself is very troubling, that the DFG is lending its name and credibility to an animal-rights, anti-hunting group. What's worse, is that HSUS is given a form of credibility by that, when they are not at all a credible organization, at least not in the eyes of sportsmen and women.

    Sportsmen should be afraid that there are actually HSUS law enforcement officers now in California, acting as "special investigators" under penal code section 830, and apparently under the auspices of the DFG.

    The California Department of Fish and Game is a state agency responsible for the fish and wildlife of California, and is funded in great part by the sale of fishing and hunting licenses to sportsmen and women in California. They, and all Californians who believe that fish and wildlife should be managed by sound scientific and biological principles, should be infuriated that such an element as the Humane Society of the United States, who do not believe in such principles, should be associated with a state agency such as the DFG.

    The partnership should end, and it should end now.
    Steelie,

    I read it from Western Outdoor News.

    Very disturbing!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Arrow Proposed Changes....

    I didn't get the same thing out of the post by YCflyfisher. While it's true that his interest is not in the area of this issue, he's just making an observation. Nothing wrong with that.

    It seems to me that his point was based on the inescapable fact that virtually every post on Blantons BB and others I've read tries to place blame for the entire issue on water exports. Judging from the tone of those posts, I agree with his assessment that the upcoming meeting will most likely degenerate into an very loud, angry, emotional exchange not based on any science... I haven't seen or heard anyone saying they will present anything other than the water issue (just one of many contributing factors) and trying to demonize the coalition and/or DFG. I've committed to attend to provide number support but will not speak. I'm picking up copies of the proposed change and the "adaptive management plan" if there is one. As I've said earlier, this type of workshop is not my cup of tea.

    Agree that changes are not likely to come out of this meeting as the proposal is based on requirements of the settlement. However, as I've said in a prior post, there're still some chances to be heard on this....

    IMO not so sure the coalition would have lost if this issue had gone to trial. Especially if this is, as Robin says, about politics/money. Judge Wanger made as many rulings in favor of agri-business as he did in favor of their opponents and he's considered to be an expert in water law. Altho he's now retired, his replacement may be much more conservative and less well informed about water issues making the outcome less predictable. Seems to me that there must've been some incentive to enter into this settlement agreement (other than the usual "DFG sold us out theory") for the state to participate or it wouldn't have done so.

    Now, having said all of that, I recognize this is a very emotional issue for all of us and some of these posts on Blanton's BB, in particular, are/were made by those who really know better. Some of these same people would undoubtedly make a more informed (less emotional) presentation when given a chance. I hope they and Robin get a chance to speak their piece at the meeting....
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Philbrook Lake
    Posts
    388

    Default

    gonna go get me some fish and chips...wooohooo

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Highlands, CA
    Posts
    709

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Darian View Post
    I didn't get the same thing out of the post by YCflyfisher. While it's true that his interest is not in the area of this issue, he's just making an observation. Nothing wrong with that.

    It seems to me that his point was based on the inescapable fact that virtually every post on Blantons BB and others I've read tries to place blame for the entire issue on water exports. Judging from the tone of those posts, I agree with his assessment that the upcoming meeting will most likely degenerate into an very loud, angry, emotional exchange not based on any science... I haven't seen or heard anyone saying they will present anything other than the water issue (just one of many contributing factors) and trying to demonize the coalition and/or DFG. I've committed to attend to provide number support but will not speak. I'm picking up copies of the proposed change and the "adaptive management plan" if there is one. As I've said earlier, this type of workshop is not my cup of tea.

    Agree that changes are not likely to come out of this meeting as the proposal is based on requirements of the settlement. However, as I've said in a prior post, there're still some chances to be heard on this....

    IMO not so sure the coalition would have lost if this issue had gone to trial. Especially if this is, as Robin says, about politics/money. Judge Wanger made as many rulings in favor of agri-business as he did in favor of their opponents and he's considered to be an expert in water law. Altho he's now retired, his replacement may be much more conservative and less well informed about water issues making the outcome less predictable. Seems to me that there must've been some incentive to enter into this settlement agreement (other than the usual "DFG sold us out theory") for the state to participate or it wouldn't have done so.

    Now, having said all of that, I recognize this is a very emotional issue for all of us and some of these posts on Blanton's BB, in particular, are/were made by those who really know better. Some of these same people would undoubtedly make a more informed (less emotional) presentation when given a chance. I hope they and Robin get a chance to speak their piece at the meeting....
    Fair enough, and thanks Darian - I get a little 'over-emotional' about these fish sometimes

    Paul and I do plan to be at the meeting tomorrow evening...
    - Robin

    "Yes, size does matter..."

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calveras County
    Posts
    493

    Default

    For them that want, go to the meeting tomorrow night and "bitch 'em out" and get it out of your system! THEN when the necessary info comes out (as soon as we get it fully prepared) expend all the energy you have left writing a cogent, factual letter to the F&G Commission explaining why the proposed reg. changes are wrong. We need to expend every effort we can to get the message across to them and we'll need a lot more help from the fishing community than we've ever had in the past. The Commission needs to understand that it is no more business as usual in California with regard to our public trust resources.
    The meeting will be December 14th & 15th in San Diego. Those than can go and make your voices heard, do so! The rest of you, write letters. We can beat this at that meeting if we are articulate enough to get our message across, period! If we are successful and the Commission rejects the proposal, it's game over and the Plaintiff's have to file for dismissal of the suit with prejudice!

    Guidelines and talking points will be forth coming over the next week or so. Be patient and do not speculate!

    Thank You
    Mike

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    392

    Default Form Letter

    Having a little experience with getting regulation changes through the FGC we prepared a form letter to allow everyone to voice their opinion. Seeing the proposed regulations you might as well kiss striped bass fishing goodbye. Is there any way NCCFFF can prepare an editable form letter for everyone to voice their opinion?? Reducing the size limit to 12 inches that is ridiculous. If everyone sends in a letter the FGC has to take a better look at the reg changes. Trying to sit through one of their meetings especially in San Diego is crazy.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •