Squawfish as Stressors

[ycflyfisher]

ycflyfisher,
I know not your background but you sound well schooled and it sounds as if you may have a prominent desk nailed to the floor somewhere dealing with these problems. A desk that is bought and paid for by ag interests and developement interests. IMO those type people should have the nails driven through their feet also before driving them through the desk. It might just keep them at their desk and out of the field where often their "book learning" and lack of common sense application do more harm to our envirions than listening to some of the "bucket biology" gleaned from old, grey, rotund individuals that have had their feet out there IN the envirioment.
........lee s.

Guess you got me all figured out huh? Hate to break the news to you, but you know quite a bit about my background. Not only have we exchanged emails a few times, met a few times, we’ve actually made a couple of casts together before numerous years ago. Seem to recall you having a pet peeve about waterloading the line on the backcast to get any distance…….. Sound like something you’d say? It should, because I can remember you saying it to several people numerous times…..

As stated above since you missed it, I’m just an angler who has a voluntary membership in one of the groups that’s listed as supporting the AB. Also since you missed it, I don’t agree with or support the AB. Can’t say my employment is in either ag or development. Don’t actually have a desk at work and don’t exactly fit the “evil desk jockey profile” that you and the religious faithful here seems to require of anyone voicing a dissenting opinion to what’s generally a bad idea supported by the forum concensus, but hell man, if it makes you feel like you’ve got everything figured out feel free to break out the brushes, rollers and rattle cans and paint me the bad guy and nail my feet to the floor.

What in the hell is it that I said that makes you think that I work for or have an ag interest and am somehow attempting to derail the attempt to fight this bill? You striper fanatics can stick to the squawfishlike guide and angler observation/emotional based arguments if you elect to, but they're never going to gain any traction. Do you guys ever stop for a second and THINK about how naive these arguments are? The native Sacto PM's that evolved in basin, are eating the native salmonids and the 2 native pelagics that they've coexisted with for eons and the 2 introduced pelagics that they've coexisted with for decades into oblivion? C'mon man, who's really going to buy that?

Truth be told, the only reason I've been following the progress of this AB is that as far as I'm aware, there IS NO existing science that indicates that predation by stripers is having a terminal impact the abundance of salmonids or the other pelagics in the Sacto basin and I'm curious as to what the other side is going to come up with. You and Tony and the rest of the conspiracy theorists likely believe that all the other side has to do is wave a political magic wand, throw a handful of cash in the air, say the magic word in legal doublespeak, and that science will magically appear. Fortunately it's a bit more complicated than that. Stripers eat fish. They've been eating fish since their introduction to the delta. They have yet to eat anything into extinction.

They (the big money ag interests that you seem convinced that I'm a part of and their reps) are going to have to produce SOMETHING, some peer reviewed science that is indicative that there's some measurable, terminal predation impact on the declining species. I've got no clue as to what that position is going to be built on. I have doubts it's going to be derived from the Sacramento basin. I don't know enough about stripers to know if they've ever driven anything to extirpation via predation in their native range or any other watersheds they may have been introduced to, but if they have, I'm guessing that will be the foundation of their evidence

Don't have anything on the POD or the salmon collapse on this comp, but when I get back to work (providing I can of get a coworker to pry the nails out of my feet....) I'll dig up what I've got and post it here.

[Bob Laskodi]

I usually try and stay out of "train wreck" threads like this one, but here is some current info.
<<<as far as I'm aware, there IS NO existing science that indicates that predation by stripers is having a terminal impact the abundance of salmonids or the other pelagics in the Sacto basin>>>
The above is a true statement that is currently being addressed via numerous predation studies that are currently underway. A particularly interesting one involves catching striped bass and examining their stomach contents using DNA analysis to accurately determine stomach/digestive system contents and quantify the amounts. It will be a while until this study is complete, but initial results are showing significant predation on salmon smolts by striped bass. DFG's latest estimate is that 15-30% of the downstream salmon smolt run are lost to predation. It looks like that estimate is pretty close based on initial survey results.

[Darian]

Bob,.... Who's conducting the study you refer to Have you heard when the target completion date is

As an aside, there's an article in todays SacBee on rapid ocean acidification. "A national research council" says that the ocean absorbs 1 million tons of CO2 an hour. Also, that the amount absorbed is "increasing at an unprecedented rate." According to the group, the oceans absorb 30 percent of the total CO2 emissions.... Scary stuff.

The affects of this acidification may be more pronounced off the west coast brought up by upwellings. Apparently these upwellings are more acidic, already, and when they are brought up the surface, they become more saturated with CO2.... The outcome of all of this is likely to be major changes in marine life growth and survival rates....

Of course, there's always another side and scientists who oppose this idea are lining up to testify....

[Bob Laskodi]

Darian, most every private ecological consulting firms, water agencies, and public resource agencies in CA are looking at the striper predation issue. Not a study, but many many studies. I personally know (and fish with) biologists/scientists from all three areas that are actively in the field collecting data. All of the studies are long term with no immediate completion dates. And no, I'm not naming names of people I know (or their agencies/companies) because I will never jeopardize their jobs. And because they all know I won't compromise their jobs they are willing to talk freely with me about their findings. Amazing what info you can get from people if you take them out fishing!!!! And the much discussed response by fishing proponents that bring out old outdated studies that stripers don't eat significant numbers of salmon smolts are going to get blown out of the water when these studies are completed. I'm a striper fly flinger (and have been for a long time) and IMNSHO, I better think about selling my striper boat because I see the handwriting on the wall.

[Darian]

Actually, Bob, I wasn't seeking any individuals name. naming the organizations was enough. I'm curious, tho, how the outcome of a "....long term...." study is already known. Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind....

[Bob Laskodi]

Darian, your response is typical and ignorant on how scientific studies actually work. I am done discussing this issue. Feel free to go on believing what ever it is you want to believe.

[huntindog]

Actually, Bob, I wasn't seeking any individuals name. naming the organizations was enough. I'm curious, tho, how the outcome of a "....long term...." study is already known. Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind....

they don't have an outcome in mind. they are discussing the results they are seeing. As for people in public resource agencies all having an interest in seeing higher water exports....are you out of your fricking mind..I know many biologists in the field working publicly and privately and i have never met one that wants to see increased water exports. That has to be the most ignorant statement in this whole thread.

[Darian]

Bob,.... unlike what you seem to think you are, I'm not a scientist and I'll probably continue to think for myself.... Sorry you got your shorts in a bunch but the questions I asked were to find answers to some questions that have been nagging me. Lighten up.... (not that I'm gonna care much if you don't).

huntindog,.... If you had bothered to read the last few sentences in Bob's second post about the results of these long term studies you might be forgiven about arriving at the same conclusion (or not). According to Bob (who seems to have an inside track on all of this), the results will, "....get blown out of the water when these studies are completed." BTW, these studies are long term and with no target date to complete them. Preliminary results aside, why don't we wait to see the actual results Naw!!!! It's always more fun to leap to a conclusion.... H..l!!! It's the American way....

Furthermore, should you take time to re-read what I said in relation to the organizations involved. Never did I mention individuals of any discipline. Biologists or any other. If you choose to believe that all biological opinions and/or studies are never overridden by the entities who employ Biologists, then you have very little knowledge of the history of the dealing in water or fisheries issues of federal, state and private organizations. Many of which support increased water exports from the Delta. Of course, there's always the possibility that you have a limited knowledge of those agencies.... Check out the list of supporters of AB 2336. You'll find a list of the who's who of entities wanting to increase water exports (many of which are water agencies and who employ biologists).

Maybe you should ask a couple of questions before being so quick to condemn. Of course, you could always choose to keep your head in the sand or up your....

[Dustin Revel]

Does it bother you that these studies by water agencies, private consultants and public resource agencies (all of which have an interest in seeing water exports restored to higher levels) already have an outcome in mind....

exactly what makes you think they all have an interest in seeing higher water exports? Maybe i'm getting lost in all the emoticons but i can't fish out any logical reasoning..??

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,

Have to agree with Bob that the agency scientists are much more interested in the science and aren't looking to forward any hidden agendas. If they have any bias at all it leans toward the fish IMO. I don't know any biologists that aren't also anglers. Most of 'em fish, and most of 'em probably spend more time fishing than the majority of other anglers.

Aware of the predation studies that Bob mentions, but don't think it is really appropriate to discuss stuff that's still pretty far from the draft stage let alone being released for peer review.

Can't say I agree with his conclusion that these studies are going to likely be as damning as he seems to think they are, they'll just be confirming what we already knew, that stripers eat fish.