Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Anybody commenting proposed trout regulations for CA?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Rosa
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Tim, thanks for posting that. But I'm not seeing the changes on the NFF as you posted. I read the proposed regs as artificial barbless only, zero bag. Yes, the season dates are different though, which is ridiculous.

    MF American should be 100% C&R, barbless, artificial only. Any river with a "Wild & Scenic" designation should be this way, imho.

    And NO REGS on Pit #3? WTF??? Unreal. Not really sure what they're thinking is on this one. Drifting worms through Pit #3 would be a total annihilation. You'd probably get your limit in 10 minutes. And with no size restrictions, there goes all the breeding fish.

    I don't see any science in these proposals.

    ~Jeff

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,765

    Default

    Bill,
    From someone's blog concerning Crowley;
    The proposed changes would increase the bag limit to 5 during the Cutty spawn in the spring and would keep Crowley open to bait and full limits fishing through September. This would devastate the fishery which has become world class despite proximity to 40 million people because of strict limitations. ======
    Currently, bait season closes on Aug 1; with additional restrictions on size and takes.
    Best,
    Larry S
    San Diego

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Pit 4 & 5 already have no regs. So now no gear restrictions on Pit 3?

    You can't keep just ONE section that is C&R for the fly guys?? We had to go through the higher flow regimen on
    Pit 3 (and 4 & 5) some years back because it was better for the fish. Which i utterly disagreed with but that's
    my opinion.

    I know that was a FERC licensing deal with PG&E but their reasoning was it was healthier for the fishery.
    And now DFG wants to come in and make it no gear restrictions? How about protect one section?

    Who's running the DFG, the Keystone Cops???

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Granite Bay
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kiene semi-retired View Post
    Good one Mogaru........I have the same feelings about Spear Fishing for Stripers in Fresh Water.

    Once all the fish are gone the State can save lots of money and it will be easier to control all the water.
    That's right Bill. Spearfishing was another strategy to get rid of the stripers/fish. I remember when the DGF tried to stop it by not allowing bringing spear guns into the park, the got a phone call from "up above" not to enforce the law. If there is water you will always find the same people.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Coleville, CA
    Posts
    61

    Default

    I don't see any science in these proposals.

    ~Jeff[/QUOTE]

    I think that the idea is to "simplify" the regulations. I guess that "we" aren't smart enough to figure the regs out. But then sometimes they are rather confusing. Too bad fishermen don't write the proposals/regulations instead of folks who spend too much time behind a desk. Just MHO.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Hey Jeff, you are correct I mixed NFF with MFF.

    (68.1) Feather River, Middle Fork (Plumas Co.), from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge (1/4 mile upstream of County A-23 bridge) to the Mohawk Bridge.
    Move to 7.0 statewide reg (Which means year round no restrictions)

    (68.2) Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse (excluding reservoirs) (Butte and Plumas Co.).
    Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February
    0 fish bag, artificial lures with barbless hooks

    Statewide Regulation (section 7.0)
    Fishing districts—section 7.00(a) through (g)—for trout waters only (lakes, reservoirs, and streams that are not accessible to fish migrating from the ocean; “non-anadromous”) will be replaced by a statewide trout angling regulation. Waters that are not located in the proposed table of changes, or stated as “move to 7.0 statewide reg”, will have the following regulation:
    Open year-round, 5 trout bag, 10 trout possession limit, no gear restrictions.


    I wonder what the definition of "No gear restrictions" is? does it mean you can use any means to catch fish (nets, spear, arrows, dynamite?) or does it mean something else like artificial flies, lures or bait is okay? Not sure how to take that. Does anyone know?

    Regards

    Tim C.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    139

    Default

    They are not addressing general fishing regulations where gear descriptions are defined along with such much more confusing elements as fishing hours. There is no proposed change in management reflect response to these changes in regulation. There is no regulation anywhere (existing or proposed) that I know of that defines 10 trout possession or even bag limits. Perfectly simple right?


    We can comment to the guys who are proposing this...Rodger Bloom and district biologist staff, and they will consider comments maybe. They have yet to formalize all the "town Hall" input form last fall so figure what they are going to do this time. They are under the gun to have a proposed draft to give DFG Commission by June. From there to the end of the year when the Commission wants to adopt these "simplifications" as a regulation package there will be another public comment period on a final draft. This should have more weight than this this input window but having been in the middle of the MLPA process I see all the indicators and "I hear the train a coming" and this thing is on wheels.

    This is a "package" of trout regulation change. Last time was when they opened more winter seasons some 12 years ago. Talk about wheels. Packages as I have experienced them are an end run around the tedious path of changing or adopting a current regulation through the Commission which can take years. CDFW staff loves emergencies and mandates since they have an excuse(most times some extra funding) not to what they are supposed to be doing in their job description and responsibilities. This is more about CDFW Trout Management over reacting simplifying their job than simplifying trout regulation in hopes to provide more fishing opportunity and resultant license sales...pretty much a long shot to say the least from this aspect of the "R3"(recruitment, retention, and reactivation) action plan initiative. You can tell MR. Bonham directly what you thing about his plan anytime.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    We should be encouraging more people into the sport in general since fishing and hunting is a dying breed in CA. Simplifying and extending seasons should help encourage that. I'm all for opening up fisheries to no gear restrictions, after all, most of us started fishing with bait. Alienating groups of fishermen is not the way to get people on your side and fighting for a common cause.

    Opening up streams to harvest is not the end of the world either. Fisheries managers have easy ways to estimate populations based on harvest, survival, recruitment, etc. Catch and release is not always the best management action for a fishery. In fact, harvest can sometimes greatly benefit a fishery.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    139

    Default

    There is science. Don't think they want to go down that road and are blowing through with strong indifferent(arrogant?) opinion to avoid justification debate. Bloom did publish in 2013(North American Journal of Fisheries Management ) on a barb vs barbless flies and related catching efficiency.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Granite Bay
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishtopher View Post
    We should be encouraging more people into the sport in general since fishing and hunting is a dying breed in CA. Simplifying and extending seasons should help encourage that. I'm all for opening up fisheries to no gear restrictions, after all, most of us started fishing with bait. Alienating groups of fishermen is not the way to get people on your side and fighting for a common cause.

    Opening up streams to harvest is not the end of the world either. Fisheries managers have easy ways to estimate populations based on harvest, survival, recruitment, etc. Catch and release is not always the best management action for a fishery. In fact, harvest can sometimes greatly benefit a fishery.
    Simplifying regulations and extending seasons won't bring more people to the sport. It will only extend the pressure on depleted fisheries. Catching fish brings people to the sport and increase sales at tackle stores.......and since every year we have less and less fish to catch, becomes more difficult to catch them and interest in licenses becomes more obvious.
    Catch and release helps an already depleted fishery and protect areas of rivers with a decent number of fish. Harvest of a depleted fishery will deplete it even more. There is not one river which is overpopulated which might benefit from harvesting. I think the water lords have a lot to do with these type of policies which will contribute to the final debacle of the fisheries.

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
  •