2009 Sportfishing Regs

[rayfound]

new ones up, and unsurprisingly, I don't see any additional regulations on rivers like Kern and WFSG where stocking has been discontinued.

Bummer. The wild fish are going to get hammered. Guaranteed that the baiters kill more than 5 a day, just from yanking the powerbait/treble out of the "too small to keep" fish, until they find 5 they feel are worth taking home.


http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=10351

[Sasha]

I have one question: Why are they (CDFG) so stupid. You guys need to have some of the regs that we have up here.

[briansII]

I have one question: Why are they (CDFG) so stupid. You guys need to have some of the regs that we have up here.

IMHO, it's because it's a political agency, more than a fish and wildlife protection agency.

Guaranteed that the baiters kill more than 5 a day, just from yanking the powerbait/treble out of the "too small to keep" fish, until they find 5 they feel are worth taking home.

Again, but IMHO, culling is one of the worst offenses a fisherman can do. Not only are they taking more than their limit, they are wantonly wasting fish.

....i'm on a roll today.

briansII

[Sasha]

I have one question: Why are they (CDFG) so stupid. You guys need to have some of the regs that we have up here.

IMHO, it's because it's a political agency, more than a fish and wildlife protection agency.

Guaranteed that the baiters kill more than 5 a day, just from yanking the powerbait/treble out of the "too small to keep" fish, until they find 5 they feel are worth taking home.

Again, but IMHO, culling is one of the worst offenses a fisherman can do. Not only are they taking more than their limit, they are wantonly wasting fish.

....i'm on a roll today.

briansII

Then can you vote the MF'ers out

[Trootfisher]

Just to clarify,
the Fish and Game Commission makes the regulations.

The Department of Fish and Game does not (but is responsible for
enforcing them).

[flybob]

Just to clarify,
the Fish and Game Commission makes the regulations.

The Department of Fish and Game does not (but is responsible for
enforcing them).

And of course, the Commission is made up of "Experts" correct?

[rayfound]

And of course, the Commission is made up of "Experts" correct?

"Many Californians are not fully aware of the identity, function or responsibilities of the California Fish and Game Commission, and consider it synonymous with the California Department of Fish and Game. Actually, the Commission is a separate entity that has been involved in the management and wise use of California's fish and wildlife resources since 1870.

It is composed of up to five members, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioners are not full-time State employees, but individuals involved in private enterprise with expertise in various wildlife-related fields. They have a staff of eight employees, which handle day-to-day administrative activities. The Commission meets at least eleven times each year to publicly discuss various proposed regulations, permits, licenses, management policies and other subjects within its areas of responsibility. It also holds a variety of special meetings to obtain public input on items of a more localized nature, requests for use permits on certain streams or establishment of new ecological reserves.

Between 1870 and 1940, individual Commissioners served at the pleasure of the Governor. In 1940 the people provided for a Fish and Game Commission in the State Constitution (Article 4, Section 20). The Legislature delegated to the Commission a variety of powers, some general in nature and some very specific. A major responsibility is the formulation of general policies for the conduct of the Department, and the Director is responsible for administering the Department's activities in accordance with these policies. This is the only area in which the Commission is directly involved in Department administration. Its policies concern fisheries and wildlife management, introduction of exotics, use of departmentally-administered land and a variety of other subjects.

Probably the best known responsibility of the Commission is its general regulatory powers function, under which it decides seasons, bag limits and methods of take for game animals and sport fish. In adopting hunting (biennially--even-numbers years) and sport fishing regulations (biennially -- odd-numbered years), the Commission, in each case, holds a series of open public meetings (three for hunting and four for sport fishing) located in various parts of the state, so that individual and group input can be received and considered prior to adoption of new or changed regulations.

Some have criticized the Commission's regulatory powers actions as being nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Department's recommendations. A review of the Commission's actions on various Department recommendations indicates that this is not the case. In many instances, the Commission rejects or substantially modifies actions recommended by the Department, but only where it is convinced that such action is in the best interest of the resource and truly reflects the wishes and needs of the people. It is only natural that the Commission often relies heavily on the Department's biological data and recommendations, since the Department has the largest staff of experts for compiling data on California's wildlife.

In the same sense that the Commission often takes independent action on various Department recommendations, it does this also with recommendations from various hunting interests and claims that it is concerned only with consumptive use of our resources. This is another allegation rapidly refuted by reviewing the facts. Actually, the Commission spends more of its time dealing with matters of environmental quality, additional species protection, and rehabilitation of depleted populations and habitat than it does with matters of consumptive use. This by no means implies that the Commission is totally protectionist-orientated. It is fully aware that optimum use of our renewable wildlife resources must provide for a variety of consumptive and nonconsumptive needs. Wildlife, in contrast with inanimate objects, cannot be stored indefinitely for future use. Seasons and bag limits established on species with adequate reproductive potential reflect the best use of a biological surplus. In these cases, there always is prior provision for ample breeding stock and for a continuing population which can be enjoyed by naturalists, photographers and other nonconsumptive users.

The Commission's powers become increasingly broad as the Legislature gives it further regulatory and management authority. It is clear that the Commission, which can rapidly and expertly deal with resource problems, is often a more effective means of meeting the needs of the people and the resource than is the relatively slow process of legislative change. Coupled with this is an increasing awareness by the Legislature and all Californians that sound species management demands complete control over total use, and that one body, such as the Commission, is the most effective vehicle for controlling all forms of consumptive use--both sport and commercial.

There is sometimes a feeling among the Commissioners that they are greatly overloaded with work and responsibility for their $100-daily, not to exceed $500-monthly, maximum compensation. Still, the Commission continues working as a group of totally dedicated and intensely interested individuals, who fully realize their enormous responsibilities. As they rely on the Department for biological data and expertise, they also rely on all other Californians for recommendations, suggestions and constructive criticism of proposed actions.

The Commissioners' ultimate decisions must reflect not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources. This is not an easy course to follow, and frequently it leads to conflicts between various interest groups. However, with the interest, understanding and involvement of everyone who appreciates our magnificent fish and wildlife resources, the California Fish and Game Commission will continue along the path of sound and enlightened resource management."

[Trootfisher]

ah, Rafyound beat me to it. . .

[NorcalBob]

Expert politicians, yes!!!
Expert scientists or resource managers, no!!!

[rayfound]

Expert politicians, yes!!!
Expert scientists or resource managers, no!!!

Bingo. Political appointees. Likely made large campaign contributions.

These Government positions should be held by resource managers, fisheries biologists, etc...

[briansII]

I have one question: Why are they (CDFG) so stupid. You guys need to have some of the regs that we have up here.

IMHO, it's because it's a political agency, more than a fish and wildlife protection agency.

Guaranteed that the baiters kill more than 5 a day, just from yanking the powerbait/treble out of the "too small to keep" fish, until they find 5 they feel are worth taking home.

Again, but IMHO, culling is one of the worst offenses a fisherman can do. Not only are they taking more than their limit, they are wantonly wasting fish.

....i'm on a roll today.

briansII

Then can you vote the MF'ers out

As has been pointed out, no we cannot vote them out......that's not to say that some couldn't have a change of heart, if faced with an endangered mountain lion or sumptin'.

I do think some have backgrounds in resource management and such, but these are handpicked appointees. On paper, they are qualified, but youse gotta wonder....or not, where their loyalties lie......lie?

briansII

[Trootfisher]

You may also be interested in looking at who makes the decisions for other things
that affect you, such as your local city council, planning commission, etc.

[Flyjunkie]

Sooooooooo.... When does the Second American Revolution begin???

We Need to take back this Country and do it Very Soon..

And Blood will spill and Plenty will be usurped.. But it must happen.... and Very Soon... or else...

Apologizes if I've offended anyone with my Views... But being Nice is a waste of time... Hard Core treatment is Required...

[Trootfisher]

new ones up, and unsurprisingly, I don't see any additional regulations on rivers like Kern and WFSG where stocking has been discontinued.

]

also, just wondering-

1.) what regulations did you expect to see for these drainages?

2.) did you expect the FGC to adopt new regulations prior to the EIR being completed?

3.) what sort of effort have you put into seeing the regulation changes you desire?

[rayfound]

new ones up, and unsurprisingly, I don't see any additional regulations on rivers like Kern and WFSG where stocking has been discontinued.

]

also, just wondering-

1.) what regulations did you expect to see for these drainages?

2.) did you expect the FGC to adopt new regulations prior to the EIR being completed?

3.) what sort of effort have you put into seeing the regulation changes you desire?

Well, for one, I would like to address your general attitude that someone cannot have an opinion if they are not an activist, or that opinions are somehow less valid because I haven't called to give DFG or FGC my $.02 on the matter.

And furthermore, the whole premise of the commission is that they DO THEIR JOBS! I'm sorry, but they do need to think about things on their own, and not just react to petitions and emails and phone calls.

Now: To answer your questions...

1.) what regulations did you expect to see for these drainages?

I would expect that when a stocking program is put on hold, so should the bag limits of 5 fish/day be put on hold to reduce the amount of damage done to the wild population. Its common sense: yesterday you were using stocking to enable the take of fish. Today you have no stocking, but the take of fish has not changed. Something's got to give. Either the wild fish population gets hammered, or the stocking has to return. OR.... if the agency was thinking about protecting the fishery - LOWER THE BAG LIMITS!


2.) did you expect the FGC to adopt new regulations prior to the EIR being completed?

Has nothing to do with EIR. Has everything to do with stocking or not stocking. Right now, stocking is on hold. If stocking is on hold, then the harvest needs to be put on hold. These drainages needed the stocking to sustain the harvest, it seems fairly simple to me, that now they need to limit the harvest to sustain the fishery.


3.) what sort of effort have you put into seeing the regulation changes you desire?

* - all. There. I'm honest. But in my defense, I pay the salaries of people whose JOB it is to take care of this sort of thing! Activism is great, I agree, I need to get more involved, but what the heck is the FGC doing with their time if they are not looking at HUGE issues like this. I used the Kern and the Gabe as examples because they are the ones I know, but this is going to be an issue ALL OVER the state on the waters that were formerly stocked, and receive heavy pressure from the Catch & Kill anglers.

When the stocking moratorium began, there should have been an immediate change to bag limits on the effected waters.