first trip up the American

[Scott V]

I really hate these posts that are full of assumptions and generalizations. The only good is that there are a few people that actually have a clue and post accurate information and not info based on assumptions. And to those I say thank you very much.

[Darian]

ARRRRGGGHH!!!!.... I've been trying to post my thoughts on this subject and lost the text each time. I'm getting used to using an IPAD. Pain in the arse!!!! Not sure my patience level is up to using this device. Love my MacBookPro.

[Baja Fly Fisher]

Darian

I hear you... regarding the iPad. My daughter in law has one and I tried finding a cartoon program for my soon to be 3 year old grand daughter. PAPA, it's right here, just do this and this . She can also find things on my iMac and Macbook Pro. I can't imagine what she will know by the time she's 4 years old. She also told a friend of mine the two places where you can find PAPA....
His office or the bathroom

Jay

[Mike O]

Spear fisherman are the now the latest “threat” that’s going to help push Sacto River Stripers to extirpation? Seriously?
......snip....
t it is unrealistic to expect policy makers to buy into anecdotal conspiracy theories when it comes to driving the policy that governs fisheries and ecosystem management.

Didn't want to clutter the thread with the whole quote. I appreciate everything you said. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful response.

Mike

[neck fat]

Why I stop! I fish spot if you flot in better watch out might hook you!

[Darian]

"Darian,

I really don't see how it can be claimed that the waterman somehow flew this under the radar. It was on the email agenda for the reg change meeting and as far as I know they went through the protocols that any other individual or group is subject to in regards to reg change proposals.

Also, the proposed reg change that you seem to be referring to was developed as part of a settlement agreement with the CFASD. This was hardly an independent development of the DFWs fisheries staff. It was something that they were legally obligated to develop in good faith. If they didn't develop it in good faith, the potential to ressurect that legal action was looming in the background.

If the DFW really was trying to reduce striper abundance to gain some predator release of the 4 pelagics of the POD (age 0+ stripers being one of the 4) do you really think the rationalizations of the reg change would have been prefaced by a presentation by the DFW's own legal counsel who revealed under questioning that the driver to the reg change reccomended by staff was a settlement agreement?"



OK,…. I can understand how my comment about the spear fishing proposal could be read as the watermen running their request “….under the radar.” So, let me try to clarify.

I see no conspiracy in any of this on the part of either the spearos or DFW. I do believe that timing of the request for changing the regs to expand/allow spear fishing for Stripers in waters formerly off limits was seen as an opportunity on the part of DFW to accomplish what was proposed and later rejected by the F&GC (referring to the proposal arising from the settlement agreement). The original DFW proposal would have Increased bag/possession and reduce minimum size limits, statewide, and increased bag/possession limits much further at specific locations. IMO, the objective of DFW was to reduce predation by controlling population size and numbers. The obvious result of this would’ve been a smaller sized population of Stripers, overall. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on in this, the rejection of the DFW proposal was fortunate for Stripers and Striper fishermen. The current regs change, enabling removal/targeting of large spawners, may accomplish the same thing over time. I do believe that many spearos and potential spearos will take advantage of this legal opportunity. Their numbers will increase and more large Stripers will be removed from the systems. Does this mean extirpation? Hardly!! Aside from my emotions on this, my major objection is based on the fact that I like to catch/release large Stripers; purely self interest.

To provide some background for my characterization of the change, we first have to agree that whatever staff counsel said under questioning was based on his/her part in representing the DFW, development of the settlement agreement and almost nothing of the history of Stripers beyond the focus of the litigation? As a general rule, they do not read scientific papers but rely on staff to provide them detail/context.

I gave a cursory review to one study done by DFW staff in 1997 for the IEP, “Telemetry Study of Striped Bass.” Summarizing, the study concluded, in part, that Striped Bass emigrated in and out of Clifton Court Forebay instead of taking up residence as previously believed. That meant that removing those fish from the forebay would result in immediate replacement by others and would be cost prohibitive. Population reduction through increased take/decreased size limits would provide some control of predation without attendant cost. I didn’t review other studies as I believe that this one shows that DFW staff already had an idea about how to reduce predation by Stripers in the Delta long before both proposals for reg changes were made. Again, no conspiracy here. Just good staff work.

So, regardless of what staff counsel said, DFW staff already had the basis for the proposed change with minimal staff investment. How the proposal arose out of the settlement agreement could be seen as a matter of convenience; easy way to get out of expensive litigation. In truth, the State was probably never in jeopardy of returning to court after DFW staff handed over their proposal.

I guess I could be seen as a cynic in this but I base the foregoing on a mix of speculation based on personal experience in similar situations while a manager/staff member in state service, history and some facts.

I recognize that H&L Striper guys tend to go crazy about the subject of threats to Stripers, real or imagined, but, hey, that’s not so different than the emotional discussions on the Steelhead Forum. Possibly, the reason we haven’t discussed the science involved in stripers and/or the POD is that there aren’t really as many of us (Delta fly fisherman) as one would think above the bay area; certainly more than Spearos, tho. BTW, I haven’t seen any discussion about POD by them either. Maybe everybody’s out fishing….

Just a word about “the pumps” and the BDCP, here. I do believe that all of the issues we discuss, including the POD, on this BB are all secondary in importance/priority to what’s involved in current water issues/proposals in this state. We’re about 7 years into the current iteration of the water project (BDCP) and it is still nothing more than a conceptual design. If implemented as currently proposed, loaded with problems and few solutions, it has the potential to change almost everything we know in NorCal (e.g. water law, economics, fisheries science, geographical features, etc.) and we’ll be forced to pay for it for a long, long time to come….

Have a nice day….

[Joshua R.]

What is "POD?"

[Darian]

POD is short for pelagic organism decline. I'd try to expand on this a bit but I'm not really that informed on the subject. As ycflyfisher says POD is a major issue/problem for waters in the state. Many/all pelagic organisms are part of the food-chain. You can see that their decline would result in problems for all species using them as food source. There's a lot of scientific information/studies on this subject at the DFW website. Hopefully, ycflyfisher will hop in and expand on this.

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

FWIW I think you’re one of the few striper anglers on this forum, that is capable of meaningful and coherent discussion. I can’t really agree with any of your points however.

FWIW. As I recall, legal counsel basically stated the reg change that you’re referring to was the direct result of the settlement agreement in their “pre-presentation”. And the FC immediately began to ask questions about that.

The issue I think that gets lost under the circumstances, is that DFW staff didn’t necessarily have to agree the reg change was necessary but had to develop it anyways. I think they did come up with a proposed change that would satisfy the CFASD’s consultants who were making the judgement call that they developed the proposed reg change in good faith, but that they could also monitor and place under an adaptive management regime so that it could be altered IF the FC passed the change and that change imperiled the striper fishery. It’s both ironic and unfortunate from where I sit that the DFW staff who were caught between a rock and a hard place ended up being the “villains” here.

If the DFW staff really felt that the stripers were seriously imperiling the two listed species, IMO you wouldn’t see a proposed change that takes the limit from 2 to 6, and decreases the minimum size to 12”, you’d see something like NO limit, NO minimum size requirement and mandatory retention of all stripers for all anglers (much like when the pike got into Davis). And it certainly isn’t going to be prefaced by a legal counsel “pre-presentation” that basically talks the FC out of supporting the reg change before staff got to say word one. If you don’t think that’s the reality, then we should simply agree to disagree on this issue.

Striped bass have no biological value in CA and they never will. They can never be deemed to be part of an ESU and thus could never be listed as threatened or endangered under either ESA. That’s the reality, yet that’s another common baseless conspiracy theory we constantly hear on this forum (stripers are being threatened and endangered). Where stripers do have a measurable value is that they support a multi-million dollar a year recreational fishery. Do you really think DFW staff really wants to willing kill a multi-million dollar a year recreational fishery without justification in this ecconomy? What benefit by your account would they have for doing so? That isn't how science works.

Would also have to strongly disagree that the POD is secondary to water issues in the state both in terms of impact and the plausibility of deeming that to be a “controllable” concern. The fact is the plumbing in the Delta has been severely altered, and it’s managed as a balance between ecosystem conservation on one side and flood control and water conveyance on the flip side. The “battles” for flood control and conveyance are going to be fought at the federal court level, not the grassroots level. Placing blame and picking battles you have no chance to win is not wise. That again is the reality and it’s unrealistic to expect that reality to change. Does diversion and levy systems have an impact? Of course it does. Is it the mechanical Spawn of Satan that the linesides congregation believes it to be? Not really. And let’s not pretend that there aren’t millions of families who benefit from both flood control and conveyance who have nothing to do with the "evil water apologists" typically vilified.

The POD progress reports read like the worst eco-horror novel imaginable IMO. A short list (from memory and nowhere near all encompassing) of some of the impacts driving the POD:

You got invasive weed species that have transformed 1000’s of acres of once pelagic habitat into littoral habitat, while simultaneously decreasing both current flow and turbidity. All of which have detrimental impacts to the survival of the 4 pelagics and the weeds are still expanding. In other words, the Delta is simultaneously losing habitat and the habitat that remains is being rendered less productive.

You’ve got an invasive, benthic filter feeder that exists in densities of 1000’s per square meter that is also better adapted to both low and high levels of mixed salinity, so they don’t die off and have to repopulate like the 2 clam species that it displaced. It’s also something like 10-15 times more efficient then the two species it displaced when it comes to volumetrically stripping the entire water column of plankton. Want to guess what the report says that’s doing to plankton abundance?

You’ve got numerous invasive copepod species that arrived in ejected ballast water that have out competed and replaced the native copepods. They’re are harder for the yearling fish to capture and offer a fraction of the caloric benefit.

In summary, the POD progress reports make it sound like the entire delta ecosystem is falling apart at the seams. And the foodweb in the delta isn’t about to crash, it’s already wrecked with a resounding thud, that seems to have been heard by all…… except the linesides gurus. Hope you can understand why I think all these pike minnow, pinnapeds, American shad, cormorant, spearfisherman and the pumps are the real predators conspiracy theories are both ignorant and comical and reality fail miserably to shed light on the actual “legit” problem. The synergistics effects of the POD are grinding down fish populations far more that the spearfisherman, the cormorants, a few dozen stray pinnapeds, the pumps or anything the striper apologists typically villify all the while claiming a million+ exclusively piscivorous stripers have no effect......

And I’ve not even mentioned the myriad of other drivers (contaminants, secondary effects, the effects of settlement, ALL the top down drivers, etc) to the POD. Does this really sound like a set of issues that are secondary to water concerns? Do you really think the delta will spring back to life like a big bowl of Seamonkeys with the addition of more water and that the drivers to the POD will disappear?

[ycflyfisher]

Joshua,

Over a 60+ year timeline the abundance of all pelagic species that rely on the Delta ecosystem have experienced a fairly continual, gradual decline.

Over the last two decades, the decline began to accelerate and the declines became much more pronounced.

In the last decade the declines became extremely precipitous. As Darian mentioned, Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) is a term used to describe the more recent precipitous declines that have occurred with four of the pelagic species in the Delta ( Delta smelt, threadfin shad, LF smelt and young stripers). I'd start reading here:

http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/pod/synt..._workplans.cfm