Assembly Bill 7

[Digger]

I was curious what the various opinions are about this latest attempt to funnel more funds to the hatcheries. I believe this is a 2005 version of last years AB2280 to take 1/3 of all license fees and earmark them for 'hatcheries and related' operations.
Sounds like a lot of money going into a single direction, although a portion of that is 'supposed' to be for wild trout programs to appease the fly fishing interests.

[Darian]

Hi Digger,..... Pretty early in the process but I gave the bill a cursory reading and it looks straight forward. sets a specific percentage of revenue from regular fishing licenses (excludes lifetime licenses fees) for hatchery funding. I have no idea how much money this represents. It's, also, an "urgency" bill; meaning that it will take affect immediately on passage.

I have an idea that this is a similar bill to one that was not succesfull, last year. That bill was opposed by several conservation organizations and some local governments. Not sure I recall what their objections were....

Anyway, it seems to me that this type of bill is bad for program as it takes some of the flexibility to meet budgetary challenges out of the hands of the agency/administration. Also, I would be concerned that anything that looks this simple and is pushed so hard may have unintended/unforseen consequences..... Hope I'm not being too cynical here

On the other hand, if you're a person who supports having hatcheries supply fish stocks, this may be a very good thing. I suppose it would depend on whether the percentage established represents an increase or maintains the current level of funding My personal feelings about hatcheries aside, they do serve a purpose (an important one to some of us ).

The bill has been sent to committee and an analysis will follow soon. We'll be able to find out more about it then. In the meantime, I think I might try to ask some questions of DFG staff..... I'll keep you posted.

[Darian]

Digger,..... Re-read the bill this AM. There are a couple of changes in this bill that bother me. The first change is that the bill would make hatchery funding primary over all "....other activities eligible to be funded from revenue generated by sport fishing license fees." This is really a very general statement I'm wondering if it might apply to all sport fishing license fees; as opposed to just the 33 percent

The second is that the bill establishes a separate fund in the State Treasury where the money is deposited. The legislature would then appropriate those funds. So, any use of those funds would require the approval of the legislature; not a pleasant prospect considering the nature of our current legislature.

Looks to me like this bill would make the hatchery program is permanent in CA and assure that all programs is politically beholden to the legislature. What's the Fish & Game Boards purpose, now
This seems like a very big, double whammy, in my mind.

I didn't see anything in there that would suggest that any of these funds would be expended for fly fisherman, specifically. I'm still trying to figure out what the necessity of doing this, at all, is

[Darian]

OK,..... On Thursday, I asked DFG to provide their official position on AB 7. Needed to determine who the actual sponsor of this bill is. No response thus far. To be fair, this may take some time and consultation with management/staff before they answer.

The approximate dollar amount of fees for sports fishing licenses thru November 2004 was 39.6 million. This would amount to approximately 13.19 million in 2004 if this bill was in affect. So, Diggers statement that this seems like a lot of money going in one direction is correct. However, we don't know how much is currently spent on this function, so we have nothing to compare it to.

With the exception of 2004, the number of sports fishing licenses has been declining over the last eight years, yet revenue has been fluctuating due to changed/increased license fees. There just doesn't appear to be any obvious need/reason for this bill.....

At this point, my opinion is that it isn't necessary. Think I might send off a note to the bills author and my State Assemblyman/Senator

[Darian]

Digger,..... As you suspected, AB 7 is the 2005 version of AB 2280. The purpose of this bill is to perpetuate the hatchery system in CA as it supports local (spell that rural counties) revenues thru tourism. United Anglers and Local governments, plus many others, were the primary supporters. They said more hatcheries, more fish to catch results in more fisherman, increased fishing license fees and tourism revenues for counties..... All starts with hatcheries. (reports produced by CalTrout, etc., have shown that premise to be incorrect)

Currently, budget resources from license fees are allocated by DFG by established priority over it's programs. These resources have been reduced by the administration steadily over the last decade. the result was reduced funding/closure of some hatcheries. This bill would take the ability of DFG to allocate funds over all of its programs away and make 1/3 available to the hatcheries/planting program.

CalTrout and others were primary opposers of the bill.

Not a big trout fisherman any longer, but my opinion is that this is not good legislation. There're a lot of reasons to support or oppose this bill depending on your point of view.....

[Digger]

Update-
Bill has now been amended and scheduled to go to committee vote 4/26.

The amendment is:
to create an 'Inland Fisheries Fund' in lieu of the previously proposed 'Hatchery & Fish Planting Facilities fund', where the 1/3 of license revenue will be required to go, making it possible for broader usage of funds other than only for hatcheries and fish planting.

"The bill would provide that moneys in the fund may be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to support programs of the Department of Fish and Game related to the management and maintenance of California's inland fisheries"

[Darian]

Digger,.... Thanks for the info. I wonder why this amendment was necessary It seems to me that the amendment restates what is already in place The bill should be killed unless the point of this is to give greater control over expenditure (or lack of same) of a portion of the license fees to direct as it sees fit. This shouldn't be viewed as a good thing; given the "status" of the current legislature.

Once the budget is approved, DFG should be allowed to make expenditures without the intervention of the current legislature who, in my opinion are the last people you wnat in charge of budgeting/expenditures . This I say in spite of the fact that I'm a liberal, politically . [/quote]

[Digger]

Agreed...
My unsophisticated speculation is that as previously written, there was enough opposition from groups/individuals perhaps feeling that it was to narrowly focused on hatcheries, and these groups' (Cal-Trout/TU/etc.) agenda were being excluded. The trendy term "Biodiversity" may be having some effect here.

Add to that the bills' sponsor (Cogdill) a republican and the Water, Parks, & Wildlife committee is 14 to 9 democrats/reps. And we know that the enviro-orgs are predominately comprised of.

I am also curious to know what the current mix is of anglers who primarily fish for planted vs. wild fish.

[Darian]

Anybody read the article in todays Sacto Bee re: hatcheries Covers a lot of ground from the Bay/Delta fisheries to closure/survival of hatcheries due to budget concerns....

This whole subject area is worth watching for all of us

[Digger]

By Bruce Ajari
Sierra Sun
June 22, 2006

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) released a plan to fully implement the hatchery enhancements called for in Assembly Bill 7.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Dave Codgill of Modesto, will take effect on July 1. Apparently, Governor Schwarzenegger has made a decision to implement AB 7 fully, showing his commitment to restore California’s hatchery system and wild trout program.

This restoration is important not only to anglers but to the economies and communities that rely on them. This is especially true in an area such as ours that has such a high tourist trade. Fishing is a much bigger part of the equation than many realize.

AB 7 added Section 13007 to the California Fish and Game Code in 2005 and requires DFG to deposit one-third of sport fishing license fees in the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF) beginning July 1.

HIFF funds may be used upon appropriation by the legislature to support DFG programs related to the management, maintenance and capital improvements of California’s fish hatcheries, the Heritage and Wild Trout Program and enforcement activities.

The fund will also support other activities eligible for revenue generated by sport fishing license fees.

Schwarzenegger has proposed full funding in this budget year for implementation of AB 7 and has included additional funding to DFG from the General Fund. In keeping with the Governor’s signing message, this action will ensure that the implementation of AB 7 will not impact other programs, said DFG Director Ryan Broddrick.

Funding
The funding of AB 7 is subject to approval by the Legislature in the annual budget process. The Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees are currently considering approval of the Governor’s request for full implementation.

I was happy to see that the Governor has recommended additional moneys from the General Fund in addition to one-third of the funds from license sales. With license sales apparently declining, less funding would have been available to fund the projects if he had not taken this measure.

As I have commented before, the budgetary model for the DFG needs to be changed. The resources are everyone’s to enjoy, not just hunters and fishermen. It is crazy for the Department to be dependent on just fishing and hunting license sales.

I discussed this model briefly during the warden parity article I recently wrote. Incidentally, this issue of warden parity is another critical one.

Need for change
If you folks have not written your letters to the Governor and your Legislators, please do so. We must keep this issue square within the cross hairs so they will not forget about it during the budgetary process. The future protection of our natural resources in the state depends on this “thin green line.”

Please write those letters now!

California’s trout resources are found in more than 3,000 natural lakes, 625 man-made reservoirs and more than 18,000 miles of cold-water streams. This includes 7,763 miles of salmon and steelhead water.

DFG stocks six species of trout and chars — rainbow, brown, cutthroat, golden, brook and lake trout (Mackinaw) — and three species of salmon.

Kokanee (non-anadromous sockeye salmon) are stocked in 24 reservoirs, Chinook salmon in another 12 reservoirs and a domesticated strain of Coho salmon has been stocked in Lake Oroville.

Wild, native and introduced trout, including 11 identified subspecies of heritage trout, are found in California.

Bruce Ajari is a Truckee resident and regular fishing columnist for the Sierra Sun and other area newspapers.

The key issues AB 7 addresses include:
• Attaining the increase state fish hatchery production goals relating to the release of trout.
• Funding permanent positions, seasonal aids and other activities in the Hatchery and Heritage and Wild Trout Programs.
• Allowing DFG the ability to initiate and manage the restoration of naturally indigenous genetic stocks of trout to their original California source watersheds.
• Authorizing the use of funds in the HIFF to be used for the purpose of obtaining scientifically valid genetic determinations of California native trout stocks.