Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Eliminating all non-native fish species?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sebastian, FL, USA, Earth
    Posts
    23,837

    Default Eliminating all non-native fish species?

    “THE LAST STAND”

    ATTN: ALL BLACK BASS, STRIPED BASS AND OTHER NON-NATIVE SPECIES ANGLERS!!!

    MUST ATTEND EVENT JUNE 12th 8:30 am to 4 pm
    Commission
    Red Lion Hotel Redding
    1830 Hilltop Drive
    Redding, CA 96002

    Last week at the Wildlife Resources Committee Meeting the department of fish and wildlife and Commission decided to push forth thru the committee to REPEAL the STRIPED BASS POLICY from 1996. Second to ADOPT the NEW DELTA MANAGEMENT POLICY which calls for strict protections for salmonids and listed fish only! This is the first step for removal and destruction of our delta bass fisheries and more! If repealed and adopted it will allow the commission to direct the department towards INCREASED bag limits and REDUCED size restrictions! We need your help to attend this meeting and speak your voice to continue the STRIPED BASS POLICY of 1996 and protect this fish and our industry. There will be no more protections for Stripers!

    We will be announcing 3-4 locations with PAID TRAVEL BUSES to help get people to the location in Redding! These locations will be Martinez, Rio Vista, Sacramento and Yuba City/Colusa areas. Please reach out and help us with this fight and join today at
    NCGASA.org

    PLEASE SHARE THIS POST EVERY 2-3 days EVERYWHERE on Social media to make sure EVERYONE understands how important it is to so up! We need to be united and SHOW UP!



    Capt. Maury Hatch
    First Hatch Guide Service
    (916)716-3474
    firsthatchguideservice.com
    Instagram @firsthatch
    Facebook @First Hatch Guide Service
    NorCal Costa Pro
    Sage Elite Ambassador
    RIO Ambassador
    Simms Ambassador
    Galvan Pro
    Bill Kiene (Boca Grande)

    567 Barber Street
    Sebastian, Florida 32958

    Fly Fishing Travel Consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor

    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    alameda
    Posts
    448

    Default

    This post inspired me to look at which Gamefish are Native and which are not. As a source I used UC Davis.
    http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/

    They listed 187 species (some are extinct in CA due to habitat loss or due to dams)
    Some of our native fish:
    Trout:
    Various sub-species of Rainbow Trout
    Various sub-species of Cutthroat Trout
    Various sub-species of Golden Trout
    Various sub-species of Steelhead Trout
    Bull Trout
    Salmon:
    Various sub-species of Chinook Salmon
    Various sub-species of Coho Salmon
    Pink Salmon
    Chum Salmon
    Sturgeon:
    White Sturgeon
    Green Sturgeon
    Others:
    Some species of Perch
    Some species of Whitefish

    Some non-native fish (eligible for targeting I assume)
    Trout:
    Lake Trout
    Brown Trout
    Brook Trout
    Some sub-species of Cutthroat trout
    Salmon:
    Sockeye (Kokanee) Salmon
    Others:
    All species of Shad
    All Striped Bass
    All Largemouth Bass
    All Smallmouth Bass
    All species of Catfish
    All species of Bullheads
    Yellow Perch
    All species of Crappie
    All species of Sunfish, Pumpkinseeds, etc.
    All species of Carp

    So some of my questions would be:

    So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?

    What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?

    Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?

    I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?

    As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?

    Not sure I remember this correctly but back in the late 1990's /Early 2000's I remember that water exports from the Delta were restricted by a judge after water exports had increased steadily and substantially and it was determined that this caused a crash of the fish population in general. That restriction was in place two - three years and during that time water exports were restricted to mid 1990's levels. During the time those restrictions were in place both native and non-native species biomass increased substantially only to fall again when a new judge lifted the restrictions. What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?

    Regards,

    Tim C.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sebastian, FL, USA, Earth
    Posts
    23,837

    Default

    I am not the expert here because I have a reading handicap but the people who run the water in California and the Commercial Salmon

    people all want to eliminate the Striped Bass for starters.

    ______________________________

    I have had the feeling for years that the "Water People" would love to eliminate all fish species so there would be no fishermen to

    protest their water usage in California.

    _____________________________

    The controlling, powerful US Federal environmentalists seem to want to eliminate all non-native fish and game?

    _____________________________

    Large Mouth Black Bass is the most popular species to fish for, buy tackle for and write articles about in America.

    These run away environmentalists might get some serious push back here......$$$$$$$$$$
    Bill Kiene (Boca Grande)

    567 Barber Street
    Sebastian, Florida 32958

    Fly Fishing Travel Consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor

    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    fair oaks, ca
    Posts
    46

    Default

    I, also believe that the "water people" want to eliminate all fish. It appears that fish and wildlife higher ups are trying to appease their donors. Just saying

    RT Bettati

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Disclaimer: these are not necessarily my opinions but from a regulatory/law standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post

    So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?
    This one is fairly easy, any species that imperils the long-term survival of any ESA-listed species. This means species like Striped Bass and Largemouth Bass that affect several listed species including Delta Smelt and winter-run Chinook Salmon or trout from high-mountain lakes that affect Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs. It doesn't mean that agencies are specifically targeting or eradicating them (sometimes they do), they just may not manage them for sport fisheries. It would be impossible to eradicate species like Striped Bass or Largemouth Bass but maybe agencies can minimize their effects on the ESA-listed species.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post

    What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?
    This doesn't matter to some regulatory agencies. The questions are they affecting the environment (listed species) and are they non-native. The length of time they have been here does not mean anything. Besides 150 years is a blip in evolutionary time.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?
    See #1. If those non-native species don't really affect listed species then they don't really care for the most part (i.e. kokanee).

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?
    This is probably correct, but notice how its only within the range of native trout species. You'll notice that this isn't the case for places on the east side (Hot Creek, Owens).

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?
    CDFW doesn't do much restoration themselves. There are Prop 1 and 68 funds that are granted by CDFW every year though. Remember DWR and BOR have to mitigate for the dams they've constructed which means a portion goes to restoration work. We are also about to witness the largest dam removal in history on the Klamath in the next few years (some of which will be funded by the state), so work is definitely being done.

    In addition, there are also long-term plans for many species within CA (i.e. Central Valley Steelhead Recovery Plan).

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?
    Supposedly the twin tunnels had plans to address this. With it being DOA, I'm not sure of the future of that. This is also where the fishing community needs to come together and become more involved as stakeholders.

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

    Default

    My opinion is from the aspect of will our actions or inactions affect the environment, humans for years stuck their head in the sand and said I don't care what the impact is we are going to do X. In the year 2019 we should know better and whether a species is non-native or native targeting or eradication will have some effect and it should be studied before barging ahead blindly and assuming all will be okay. After all while the native species evolved over many years the changes to the environment through human intervention has changed many aspects of the ecosystem not just the types of fish that are in the water. According to a study by UC Davis in the next 100 years 81% of our native species will be extinct due to "man-made" climate change. However the same study showed only 19% of non-native species would be affected by these changes. If we eliminate the species we deem best able to survive in our new environment have we done the right thing? I don't know the answer to that question but it should be discussed and studied prior to making a decision.

    As an example I also looked in to Lake Tahoe as a fishery using for a reference:
    http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/nd...sh-Species.pdf

    Native Fish to Lake Tahoe
    Lahontan Cutthroat Trout
    Mountain Whitefish
    Tui Chub
    Speckled Dace
    Paiute Sculpin
    Tahoe Sucker
    Lahonton Redside

    Non-Native Fish currently in Lake Tahoe
    Mackinaw (Lake) Trout
    Rainbow Trout
    Brown Trout
    Kokanee Salmon
    Largemouth Bass
    Catfish
    Bluegill

    Note that Lahontan Cutthroat Trout no longer reside in Lake Tahoe.

    So if all non-native fish were removed from Lake Tahoe you would have:
    Mountain Whitefish
    Tui Chub
    Speckled Dace
    Paiute Sculpin
    Tahoe Sucker
    Lahonton Redside

    According to the NDOW report all of the native fish in Tahoe are in decline and if as UC Davis predicts 81% of those native species will be extinct in the next 100 years then what are we left with for our children's, children? We should probably look into that prior to making any widespread decisions. At least that is my opinion.

    Regards,

    Tim C.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Can’t go back in time, but we cannot undo what our forefathers have done, as far as the American goes, enjoy the game fish that we have, because with everything going on in this state it’s hard to say what will be accomplished
    "God grant me the serenity to accept the size of fish that I catch, the courage not to fib about it, and the wisdom to know that no one would believe me any way".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    In the same order as Fishtopher's responses:

    1- Whether anglers like it or not, predator control is a legit management tool, and it was first formally brought up around 2009ish by NMFS (not commercial ag interests), in regards to listed CV salmon ESUs and the O. Mykiss DPS. For reasons stated in past postings, I'm very skeptical predator control efforts will increase CV salmonid abundance. Commercial water interests sincerely believe it will, much like many members of the "pumps are the real predators" choir on this forum believe curtailing diversion will result in the delta and inland ecosystems springing back to life like a bowl of seamonkeys. Both of these stances IMO are little more than blame placing positions that ignore the vast and nearly endless legit eco flux/ paradigm shift that has been occurring in the delta and upstream riverine habitats.

    2- The state and fed ESAs only afford protection to native species in decline. Non-natives can never become native by definition. This is a complex issue and complete/near complete removal of non-natives that impact listed natives is a pipe dream. Curtailing non-native pops may be attainable but would likely cause as many problems as they potentially solve. Interspecies interaction rarely follows "net sum" straight line algebraic relationships.


    5-About 40 projects were funded for this year for a total of about 15 million if memory serves from the fisheries grant program also.

    The last one- Efforts are never made to restrict diversion. Efforts are made to allocate more water for listed species. This impacts diversion. Might seem like splitting hairs, but there is a distinct difference. Last year the SWRCB drew a pretty hard line and reallocated flows for fish through the south delta.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sutter Co and the KMP
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    In the year 2019 we should know better and whether a species is non-native or native targeting or eradication will have some effect and it should be studied before barging ahead blindly and assuming all will be okay. After all while the native species evolved over many years the changes to the environment through human intervention has changed many aspects of the ecosystem not just the types of fish that are in the water. According to a study by UC Davis in the next 100 years 81% of our native species will be extinct due to "man-made" climate change. However the same study showed only 19% of non-native species would be affected by these changes. If we eliminate the species we deem best able to survive in our new environment have we done the right thing? I don't know the answer to that question but it should be discussed and studied prior to making a decision.
    I wouldn't remotely consider this blindly barging ahead. Sadly, we don't know how efforts to curtail non-natives will impact listed natives because those target species also impact non-listed natives and non-natives as well. it's a complex set of issues that involve multiple levels of interaction. I'm skeptical that trying to regulate species like SBs and LMBs will have a positive impact on anadro salmonids but that doesn't mean I think it's impossible.

    What we have is the respective ESAs which only afford protection for natives in decline. Cherry picking when you should apply it might make an interesting topic of discussion, but it isn't really a viable course of action. That discussion would have to include things like NN pike minnow are better suited to the elevated summer temp regime in the Eel basin than are the listed Mykiss DPS and Chinook ESUs of the Eel that they are outcompeting, so we should simply do nothing and be happy with a river of cyprinids and not salmonids.

    Just my take.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcorfey View Post
    This post inspired me to look at which Gamefish are Native and which are not. As a source I used UC Davis.
    http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/

    They listed 187 species (some are extinct in CA due to habitat loss or due to dams)
    Some of our native fish:
    Trout:
    Various sub-species of Rainbow Trout
    Various sub-species of Cutthroat Trout
    Various sub-species of Golden Trout
    Various sub-species of Steelhead Trout
    Bull Trout
    Salmon:
    Various sub-species of Chinook Salmon
    Various sub-species of Coho Salmon
    Pink Salmon
    Chum Salmon
    Sturgeon:
    White Sturgeon
    Green Sturgeon
    Others:
    Some species of Perch
    Some species of Whitefish

    Some non-native fish (eligible for targeting I assume)
    Trout:
    Lake Trout
    Brown Trout
    Brook Trout
    Some sub-species of Cutthroat trout
    Salmon:
    Sockeye (Kokanee) Salmon
    Others:
    All species of Shad
    All Striped Bass
    All Largemouth Bass
    All Smallmouth Bass
    All species of Catfish
    All species of Bullheads
    Yellow Perch
    All species of Crappie
    All species of Sunfish, Pumpkinseeds, etc.
    All species of Carp

    So some of my questions would be:

    So how do they decide which non-native species to target or to eradicate?

    What is the expected environmental impact of species removal now that these fish species have been in our environment for over a hundred years in many cases?

    Whom determines what species stay at current levels and which species are targeted?

    I have noticed that the new proposed fishing season favors Rainbow trout spawning (a native species) and extends the season through the Brown trout spawn (a non-native species) is this also a targeted ruling against non-native species?

    As part of an overall plan what are they doing to increase or restore habitat for the native species including dam removal, fish ladders etc.?

    Not sure I remember this correctly but back in the late 1990's /Early 2000's I remember that water exports from the Delta were restricted by a judge after water exports had increased steadily and substantially and it was determined that this caused a crash of the fish population in general. That restriction was in place two - three years and during that time water exports were restricted to mid 1990's levels. During the time those restrictions were in place both native and non-native species biomass increased substantially only to fall again when a new judge lifted the restrictions. What efforts are being made to institute new restrictions on water exports in order to allow native and non-native species to thrive again?

    Regards,

    Tim C.
    Oh good! (j/k)

    Maybe this means the eradication of BASS and Bullheads from Davis Lake?! Anything about the aquatic snails that took a beating from the treatment used to eradicate the Pike?

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
  •