Striped bass...

[Darian]

Marty,.... As I recall, the Division Chief that attended the meeting in Rio Vista mentioned completion of a report as part of the process in adoption of the proposed changes to the regs. Would that report (if any) be an EIR

[Marty Gingras]

Marty,.... As I recall, the Division Chief that attended the meeting in Rio Vista mentioned completion of a report as part of the process in adoption of the proposed changes to the regs. Would that report (if any) be an EIR

That was Stafford Lehr, Chief of Fisheries Branch. If the Commission directs us (and Commission staff) to start a formal public process that could lead to a regulation change, then some decision-maker will decide what document would be appropriate for satisfaction of CEQA. What that document would be (e.g., Neg Dec, EIR) would depend on what regulation is being considered.

[Larry S]

Marty:
I admire your willingness, patience, and maybe even courage, in expressing
your points here at Kiene and, also, over at the Blanton board. Would be nice
to see more of this from our state agencies.
Best,
Larry S

[Marty Gingras]

Thanks Larry S. The forums are a great way for biologist-types to share resource management 'process' information and fisheries information that is ordinarily housed somewhere relatively obscure, and for anglers to tell biologist-types what's up. I think it was Mike McKenzie (maybe Red B.) who turned me onto them back around 2005. I can't imagine trying to do my work with sturgeon and striped bass w/o them.

I know many biologist-types who would love to post, but it's an acquired skill (e.g., staying constructive while getting blasted!) and getting it wrong is messy. I've been banned from two, been contacted by higher-ups who received a complaint for my use of a word I considered benign, and have been threatened for not(!?) posting on another. Forums have personalities and several are really good (e.g., this one).

[cyama]

What is the proposed time frame for this reg change? Since the reg change could not be listed in the 2012 regs. Is this to start in 2013? if approved.... Is the DFG considering this an emergency reg change?

[Marty Gingras]

What is the proposed time frame for this reg change? Since the reg change could not be listed in the 2012 regs. Is this to start in 2013? if approved.... Is the DFG considering this an emergency reg change?

DFG has not recommended that the regulations we've proposed be implemented on an emergency basis.

Given the process, there is basically no chance that regulations along the lines of what we propose could be implemented during 2012.

Happy Thanksgiving

[malbers]

Marty,

This is all very hypothetical, but given that the angling population is unable to pursued the regulations changes from being pushed through, has there ever been discussion on creating a slot size limit for Striped Bass? Taking more little ones, and have everyone be forced to put the larger breeding males and females back to propagate the species.

Thank you,

[Marty Gingras]

...has there ever been discussion on creating a slot size limit for Striped Bass?

Back in 2006, Doug Lovell sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission, and made a presentation to the Commission, proposing a slot limit of 17 to 30 inches. The proposed maximum size limit was a legitimate striped bass conservation measure and the proposed minimum size limit was a potential conservation measure for native fishes. I haven't heard of formal proposals for a slot limit since 2006.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Back in 2006, Doug Lovell sent a letter to the California Fish and Game Commission, and made a presentation to the Commission, proposing a slot limit of 17 to 30 inches. The proposed maximum size limit was a legitimate striped bass conservation measure and the proposed minimum size limit was a potential conservation measure for native fishes. I haven't heard of formal proposals for a slot limit since 2006.

I would think that there would be a major concern for human consumption of the larger fish in regards to the levels of mercury in their systems. Increasing the take of these fish will inevitably increase the public's consumption of this toxic chemical. This consequence, however unintended it may be, is still a consequence.

I would think a slot limit of 16 " to 28" would suffice. This lets the little guys get big enough to be meal worthy (who in the world would really eat a 12" striped bass? ), but leaves the big toxic fish in the water. Isn't it really the 'schoolies' (1 - 10 lbs or so) that are more likely to be feeding on minnows [smolt] anyway? I would think the bigger fish eat the younger striped bass... Bigger meal = less energy spent?

Have any dietary studies been done based on the size of the specimen being collected? Or have they simply been done based on the species as a whole?

[Darian]

I, too, have been wondering about the health warnings for consumption of Stripers over certain sizes and at specified intervals but for a different reason. Adoption of the proposed changes is supposed to encourage keeping Stripers of any size in the hot spots, many or all of which will be consumed. Yet, the health warnings in the F&G Regs seems to discourage consumption of larger Stripers and only at specified intervals.

Further, there are log established regulations against waste of fish/game. The proposed regs would appear to encourage waste since very few individuals or their families could eat 26 Stripers per day. All of this seems to be sending a conflicting message....

Sooo,.... The question is, was any of this taken into consideration in developing the proposed changes and if the goal is to reduce the Striper population, wouldn't it work better if all conflicting sections were amended as well