first trip up the American

[FlyBum]

Well I've got to admit that with my High School Education it took me a while to begin to understand some of what ycflyfisher said in his original response. The whole thing about the POD and the explanation of which species represented makes sense to me.

I could have missed it, but in the midst of all of the discussion about illogical arguments being used by us fly anglers I do not see any logical solutions offered in discussion on what the real issues are. I realize that before real solutions can be discussed the real issues must be identified. So how about sharing some real solutions or is there a reason why its necessary to keep beating the drum about how illogical the arguments are that Fly Anglers have been focusing on before this can be done?

[Darian]

FlyBum,.... With respect, nothings stopping you from offering logical solution(s). Also, unless you've not been reading the newspapers or following the federal and state agencies, and water contractors presentations on it, their solution to problems in the Delta is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). A controversial effort or plan that many of us are attempting to have set aside for any number of reasons.

As ycflyfisher stated above, the POD has been with us for around 60 years and as yet is unsolved. This is an over simplification, of course, but part of that decline has to be attributed to invasive filter feeders and other species that continue to invade the Delta and other state waterways, each year. Now, some changes have been made to where ships must discharge their ballasts to avoid new or re-infestations. Also, a few other measures have been implemented that provide preventive impacts but it's a bit like closing the gate on the corral after the horses have run off....

Even if there was a possibility of removing these invasives, the cost of doing so would be massive/prohibitive. Even tho there's a lot of science out there about the POD, the number of federal and state, local agencies and educational institutions working on it is small when compared to the number of federal, state, local government agencies and educational institutions working on the BDCP. At last count, I found that there were 35 different agencies and colleges that have some authority and responsibility for the outcome of implementing the BDCP. Just an observation but this should give some perspective on the level of import they assign to the POD in relation the the BDCP.

In this and other discussions on the subject, solutions of any type are scarce. Scientists, politicians, governmental bodies, water interests, environmental groups, farmers and fishing groups are lining up on each side of the BDCP issues. Nearly everything else (except high speed rail) takes a back seat. Pick a side and join the discussion.

[Darian]

ycflifisher,….

Interesting discussion. Agreement isn’t required to make it so.

Agreed, Striper guys tend not to discuss much on this subject on-line, especially POD. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t. I know several Striper guys (H&L and Fly) that are professional biologists/scientists, and some commercial/recreational fishermen that are capable of discussing this subject. The current state of affairs is an emotional subject for us. Believe it or not, we're not all a bunch of “clowns” out there, tho.

Regrettably, the “pumps” have become the focal point or symbol to a large number of H&L fishing and environmental groups, and many individual anglers (including Striper fly guys) instead of a broader approach. I understand that feeling as it sometimes looks like diversion is the only issue that we may have a chance at modifying to some reasonable extent. Of course, as you’ve pointed out, that issue will be resolved in the courts or thru advocacy (lobbying).

In my view, counsels pre-presentation to the F&G Comm., opposing the staff proposal was probably an expression of some hidden/political agenda on the part of the director of DFW. DFW is part of the Resources Agency which, also, houses DWR. Resources and DWR, along with the water contractors are primary drivers of the BDCP. So, a hidden agenda is not beyond the realm of possibility. But, who really knows, maybe DFW management polled the fishing community to determine the level of opposition on this and decided not to pursue the proposed change at that time based on the result of that survey.

Also, I agree that DFW staff were demonized in the run-up to the proposal, one individual in particular. It's something that we Striper guys have to learn to avoid in the future if we want credibility. Honestly, I'd like to feel that DFW staff have no real interest in reducing Striper populations but I believe that there is an active interest on the part of DFW policy makers and outside agencies in controlling Striper predation on all listed species (e.g. Salmonids, Delta & Longfin Smelt, etc.) in the Delta and elsewhere. When viewed so as to include all listed species available as forage for Stripers, predation on those species is motivation enough for management/staff to support proposals to change the reg's to reduce those impacts regardless of the existence of the settlement agreement (SA). Why else were several studies undertaken to identify predation as an issue requiring attention many years prior to the SA??? Further, at the recent conference on predation at UCD, two of the fish specifically identified as major predators during presentations were Striped Bass and Pike Minnow. Others were discussed only in passing. In one chapter of the BDCP Striped Bass are singled for population reduction thru use of purse seines at locations where stripers are known to congregate.

BTW, the proposed bag/possession/minimum size change didn't involve just the minor increase in bag/possession and decrease in minimum size mentioned. There was a provision included that increased the bag/possess limit to 10/20 at Clifton Court Forebay. The way the change was written, would have allowed a person to catch/keep a limit at the forebay and another limit outside on the same day. Also, the proposed changes would've applied statewide if adopted.

I recognize the importance of POD in the role of the Delta environment and elsewhere. There're far too many reasons why I assign more importance to the impacts of the BDCP on the Delta than the POD for me to list here. Let's say for now that the proposed capacity for diversion and conveyance (15,000 CFS for each tunnel) would equal more than half the volume of flows in the Sacramento River during normal water periods and could potentially de-water the river below Sacramento in low water years. The operational plan calls for diverting less than full capacity but I have little faith in the prospect in that happening. The plan of operation, also, calls water diverted thru the tunnels to be delivered to an expanded Clifton Court Forebay where it will be co-mingled with water pumped into the forebay direct from the Delta as it is now. So, the potential impact of this “double dip” on all species in the Delta would be substantial. The impacts of changes to hydrology would affect flows above and below the intakes though out the Delta. The construction footprint alone would alter geographical features and habitat forever across the Delta. New and expanded forebays, numerous permanent worksites/materials stockpile areas across the Delta, construction waste, mud and sediment disposal, bridge and road relocation, etc., etc., ad nauseum are planned.

While I agree that POD is of major importance, it seems to me that the BDCP has the potential to do far more damage to the Delta environment/habitat, overall and I believe that those impacts will contribute to accelerated POD. (Is it too much of a coincidence that notice of the decline began around the time that the SWP was constructed and diversion started in the mid 1950’s and has progressed at an increased rate ever since?? Maybe.)

Now, I’m not so foolish as to not to realize that water is needed to irrigate crops and supply municipal water contractors. Nor would I advocate cutting off the current diversion. I do feel that alternative sources of “new” water should be explored before completely re-plumbing the Delta. How about some real efforts at desalinization??? Given a choice, SoCal water districts would choose Delta water before desal as it’s cheaper. Yet, even they have begun to explore the potentials; way ahead of the rest of us. The uses for diverted water mentioned above are not the only purposes where water is used. Water is currently treated as a commodity at great profit these days. It’s also used to “frack” oil and natural gas wells, drilling in hard rock mining, computer chip manufacturing, and to fuel rampant, unplanned development in areas that dry and fire prone to name a few. The problem with all of this is that much of this water is polluted and the run-off/waste returned to waterways, partially or untreated. Instead of cleaning up run-off, ag and industrial users frequently store polluted/toxic run-off in unlined ponds that run-over during heavy rains or percolate into groundwater supplies. We’re still reeling from the affects of municipal sewage discharge. Diversion and conveyance does result in uses that have toxic impacts on water borne life forms. Is this the highest use of water from the Delta??? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t see it as so bad if grey water was used for industrial purposes, then re-treated for re-use.

We’ve hardly begun to mention economic, legal and revenue issues related to the BDCP, yet. Don’t want to get me started on that. Well, I’m being far too long winded here but, IMO, in terms of priorities, economic/water issues arising from the BDCP will have more widespread and greater impacts on life in California than the POD, at least for now.


ps. Sorry for the large font, I wasn't trying to over emphasize anything. Just carried the text over from MS-Word....

[ycflyfisher]

Well I've got to admit that with my High School Education it took me a while to begin to understand some of what ycflyfisher said in his original response. The whole thing about the POD and the explanation of which species represented makes sense to me.

I could have missed it, but in the midst of all of the discussion about illogical arguments being used by us fly anglers I do not see any logical solutions offered in discussion on what the real issues are. I realize that before real solutions can be discussed the real issues must be identified. So how about sharing some real solutions or is there a reason why its necessary to keep beating the drum about how illogical the arguments are that Fly Anglers have been focusing on before this can be done?

I think those are valid points and great questions. I’ll take the time to provide some explanations from my perspective.

I definitely agree with your second statement. Problem is, the striper gurus don’t get it. The discussions that occur on this forum by the striper gurus don’t have anything to do with legit attempts to identify causes (they identify villains), or real attempts at conservation. Their mantra consists of two elements and two elements only:

1- Conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the predation blame from the million plus age 3+ stripers to something else. These usually come in the form of a totally definitive statement that predation by stripers is a non-issue BUT that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects. And of course, the pumps are the real predators….despite the fact there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.

2- Conspiracy theories that attempt to paint stripers and the listed species as being imperiled by what they feel are unreasonable stressors that science is overlooking: The spearfisherman will kill all the bigger fish and the striper population is going to crash in a few short seasons. A few dozen stray pinnapeds in the AR are going to decimate fish populations (despite the fact that if the same pinnapeds were in the bay somewhere they don’t stop eating fish and start eating kelp). The listed salmonids are being decimated by mismanagement and dereliction of duty by the keepers of the Public Trust (most recently). And of course, the pumps are the real predators (the proverbial catch all conspiracy theory that they apply to everything).
Now, you’re asking me why I’m not offering up logical solutions to these real issues, It’s because these conspiracy theories are not remotely close to being real issues and in reality do nothing to help identify real issues. And as you stated, if no one driving the discussions is even capable of acknowledging the real issues how can anyone actually discuss those issues let alone begin to discuss viable solutions? Until the ignorant discussion ends or at least is curtailed, you can’t begin to have intelligent discussion.

There’s two common themes within these discussions from the striper gurus:
1- There’s always a villain(s).
2- There’s NEVER any REAL, applicable scientific references provided that legitimizes the opinion that the alleged villains are actually wreaking the levels of havoc claimed. That’s a two fold issue, because the proponents advancing these arguments don’t seem to read any science because if they did, they’d realize that there is no science to back up their claims and tons of science and decades of history to refute those claims.

To put it bluntly as possible, what passes as conservation discussion on the striper forum is little more than extremely biased propaganda based on nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. There is no cogent discussion.

This causes two problems as I see it:

1- If no one challenges this comedy, a lot of individuals begin to assume that there’s some truth to it, and it gets repeated ad infinitum.

2- A lot of the striper worshippers seem to think these arguments are credible and can gain traction. If you don’t believe that's true (as comical as that may seem to you) go to the FC website and watch the public comments section from Feb 2012 to the proposed reg change Darian is referring to.

You’ll see individuals attempting to advance the following:

“The pumps are the real predators”, ad infinitum.
“Pinnapeds, pike minnow, cormorants, Blue herons, bigfoot, etc are all having more predation impact than are the 1 million+ piscivorous stripers are.”, ad infinitum.
“How many more decades is it going to take until stripers are declared a native species?”, numerous times. Despite the fact that can never happen, and despite the fact that the only group on the planet that could possibly think an apex predator like striped bass is “threatened” when they number into 7 figures are CA striper fisherman.
A myriad of other nonsense, none of which is remotely close to being presented or properly supported in a manner to support a recommended policy decision.

Problem #1 clearly perpetuates #2 as I see it. That IS a major problem because if you’ve got 50+ individuals advancing these ignorant conspiracy theories at FC meetings, guess what? Everyone’s on either a 2 or 3 minute clock depending on how many conspiracy theorists insist they need to be heard by the FC. The FC is not going to sit there until midnight so everyone can have 10 minutes. The FC is composed of individuals that are human. And like the rest of us, after they’ve heard nothing but same comical arguments that aren’t supportable by anything other than ill-formed opinion, over and over they have a tendency to tune things out. So anyone who just shows up but didn’t have time to go through the channels to get on the agenda actually attempting to advance rational, coherent suggestions to the FC have two things working against them:

1- They’ve got a minute and 45 (+/- 60 seconds) after they introduce themselves and state any affiliations they may have to explain and support their rationalizations. Do you think you could do that in less than 200 seconds for any issue as complex as a proposed reg change? Do you think anyone else could do that in the allotted time frame?

2- Their coherent arguments even if they can manage to sell them convincingly on the 2 minute clock, get lost in the midst of a myriad of “the pumps are the real predators”, and “…don’t forget the squawfish”, conspiracy theories.

The reality is that the efforts to “help” of the striper gurus who spout this propaganda constantly only really serves to diminish the efforts of those that may elect educate themselves on the real issues and attempt to formulate rationalizations that can gain traction and would be appropriate for influencing a policy decision. That I have a problem with.

There’s several individuals on this forum that occasionally fight the battles they think they can win. There’s a reason why you’ll rarely if ever see those individuals voicing those concerns on a forum like this one. Attracting an army of supporters that think with their emotion rather than their brains, is never going to help, but it can hurt.

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

I really can't comment on the BDCP. I haven't read much of it and what I did read, I don't remember much of. In short, I don't think my opinion on that strategic level document is educated enough to really matter. The Delta is simply not where my interests lies. The only reason I even chimed in on this thread was because of the attempted claim that science justified the vilification of the spearfisherman. That's nonsense and potentially dangerous considering the two prior threads involved the mental midgetry of advocating violence on the spearfisherman up to and including black rifles.

[Hatch]

������������������������������������������

[Darian]

Yep!!! Things can get a bit emotional on BB's.... Maybe one reason for what is described in part as unsupported is that we're talking to each other, as individuals/groups, using differing terminology or on different levels(?). For example, the statement that Stripers gurus (myself included) have asked how long it takes to consider Stripers as native?? ycflyfisher says that can never happen. Now, from a biological perspective that may be correct but the question is still debatable and the F&G Comm already declared that Stripers were a native species in the meeting where the proposed reg change we've been discussing was considered. In fairness, this last point tends to support the idea that it's difficult to be heard over the din in those meetings and the declaration, itself, had little if any real affect.

In admin/legal terminology, the term native is a description applied to certain species. That description can be altered/expanded at any point by changes to the regs or F&G Code. I can only speak for myself, but I supported the question about whether Stripers should be considered native based on the fact that they're here and have been so for more than a century; lots of generations occurring over that period. I don't need to grant that they weren't here first. All I need to do is Advocate a change to the law/regs governing this subject granting Stripers native status by the State (maybe the Feds). Of course, suggesting that change would bring the up formal discussion for consideration by the powers that be. There would be a declaration by the scientific community about what should be considered native and by those whose interests are better served by expanding that definition. The differences contribute to some of the problems in discussions. The outcome would be decided by individuals at the F&G Comm who are political appointees....

Since science and law are always evolving, nothing in the subject area of what constitutes "native" status is or should be closed from consideration/discussion. IMO, all of the philosophical(?)/pragmatic questions surrounding that word have not been answered, yet.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

..... tons of science and decades of history to refute those claims.

I'd certainly like to see this 'TONS OF SCIENCE'..... smh

[Mike McKenzie]

A typical rant with pretty poor assumptions about what "striper gurus" (unnecessary name calling) think and why.
Going by most of his statements, he demonstrates that he has no clue about what is actually going on and makes that abundantly clear in his last sentence below (underlined). You should ask him to show you any of the data that supports that absurd statement.

Also where has it ever been said that predation by stripers is a "non-issue" ?? (His quote from below) It has been stated by California's best fisheries experts that it does not rise to having a population level effect on ESA listed species and is an issue of "least concern" but that doesn't make it a non-issue. He completely misses the issues around the predation of hatchery smolts which is a problem that has yet to be properly dealt with.

Another misstatement from the quote below "that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects" I've been involved in this for years and have never heard that expressed by anyone but ycflyfisher.
This quote from below is a dead bust for who he speaks for "from the million plus age 3+ stripers" No one but a water contractor could mis-construe striped bass population numbers so badly!

Conspiracy theories that attempt to shift the predation blame from the million plus age 3+ stripers to something else. These usually come in the form of a totally definitive statement that predation by stripers is a non-issue BUT that predation by things like pike minnows (native fish that evolved in basin), Blue Herons, American Shad, and cormorants are a legit concern and could be having population level effects. And of course, the pumps are the real predators….despite the fact there’s decades of entrainment data that says otherwise.

You are wasting your time having a discussion with this guy. He either can not read or fails to understand the language or so steeped in his own belief system that any other thought is incomprehensible to him..

Mike

[ycflyfisher]

Mike,
That response is nothing short of amazing. You want that data. I'll certainly give you that data. Can't do it tonight because I'm on a mobile and I don't actually have that data with me. You want it, I'll be happy to deliver it. And just to set the record straight, and so you have no excuse for ducking my questions and responses like you did in the last two threads, here's my scoop. I'm Willie Ryan (yes the same onethat has called your bluff on too many occasions to count). I'm actually a CE who is employed by a Norcal county and not a water monger as per your false accusation. Don't believe that? Well there's only about 3 dozen or so former members of the ncffb that can confirm that. Not to mention several fisheries professionals on this forum who know exactly who I am and what I'm about. Don't want to take their word for it? Send me an email to ycflyfisher@yahoo.com and I'll photograph a business card and you can call the number on the card.