REALTIME FLOWS    U. Kern: n/a cfs    L. Kern: 1341 cfs    E.W: 312 cfs    U. Owens: 108 cfs    L. Owens: 496 cfs   09/02/19 1:15 PM PST

They Did Wait Until The Last Second!!!!!

For topics that don't seem to have a home elsewhere.

They Did Wait Until The Last Second!!!!!

Postby NorcalBob » February 10th, 2010, 6:23 pm

For Immediate Release, February 10, 2010
Contact: Noah Greenwald, (503) 484-7495
Dr. Roland Knapp, (760) 647-0034

Lawsuit Filed to Protect Native Fish and Amphibians From Hatchery Fish Stocking by the
California Department of Fish and Game

SACRAMENTO, Calif.— The Center for Biological Diversity today filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Game over the environmental impacts of stocking millions of hatchery fish in streams and water bodies every year, particularly the harmful impacts on native trout, steelhead, salmon, amphibians, and other wildlife. In response to a previous suit brought by the Center, the Department issued an environmental impact report on January 11, 2010 that was supposed to analyze and mitigate the impacts of the hatchery fish-stocking program. Today’s suit asserts that the impact report utterly failed to analyze the full impacts of nonnative fish stocking or adopt adequate measures to reduce the program’s harm.

“The California Department of Fish and Game has utterly failed to mitigate for the devastating impacts of stocking hatchery fish on native fish and wildlife like chinook salmon, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and long-toed salamanders,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at the Center. “Fish and Game needs to redo its impact report and propose measures to reduce the destructive impacts of fish stocking.”

Rather than consider the cumulative impacts of a century of introducing nonnative fish, the report sets the baseline for analysis as the current fish-stocking program, dodging the obvious need to assess declines in native species caused by previous stocking practices. The report also defines the purpose of the stocking program as the maintenance of existing, flawed stocking policies, when the purpose of the program should be providing quality opportunities for recreational fishing and protecting native species. Fish and Game’s limited consideration of alternatives focused on creating fisheries by intensive stocking, rather than simply maintaining wild fisheries in suitable waters. Yet a number of studies suggest that wild fisheries can provide better fishing opportunities than artificially stocked waters.

“Fish and Game has missed the mark with this review and failed to consider alternatives that better meet its mission of providing fishing opportunities and conserving native wildlife,” said Greenwald. “It’s questionable whether the current fish-stocking program effectively provides fish for recreation or commercial purposes.”

Stocking of non native trout has contributed to declines of many native species, particularly amphibians such as the mountain yellow-legged frog, Cascades frog, and long-toed salamander, which need fishless, high mountain lakes for survival. Rather than adopting a policy of ceasing stocking in waters where such sensitive aquatic species occur, Fish and Game has stated that it will “consider” not stocking if it believes stocking will have a significant impact.

“The Department of Fish and Game had a unique opportunity with this environmental analysis to develop fish-stocking options that could benefit both native species and anglers,” said Roland Knapp, a biologist at the University of California’s Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory who has studied the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog for more than a decade. “Instead, they’ve produced an impact report that will benefit neither. That is truly a lost opportunity.”

Scientists with the National Marine Fisheries Service have determined that in addition to widespread habitat degradation, hatchery stocking is an important factor in the recent collapse of salmon runs that led to a complete shutdown of commercial salmon fishing in much of California and Oregon for the past two years. One federal study concluded that the “longstanding and ongoing degradation of freshwater and estuarine habitats and the subsequent heavy reliance on hatchery production were also likely contributors to the collapse” of salmon stocks. The state’s new report does not propose any specific mitigations to address the impacts of hatchery fish on native salmon stocks.

“Because of Fish and Game’s wholesale failure to consider or mitigate the impacts of fish stocking on native species, we have no choice but to file suit to force the Department to reevaluate,” said Greenwald.

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
NorcalBob
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm

Re: They Did Wait Until The Last Second!!!!!

Postby RiverRat » February 10th, 2010, 6:33 pm

I gave you props in this post earlier :rockon:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=3173

The DFG dumped fish by the thousands of pounds into the Kern and other rivers and will continue until stopped by a judge.

My correspondence with the DFG....they will make it public anyways so why not share.

Mr Starr,
Is the new CDB lawsuit going to further the stocking ban? Or can you stock until a judge says no?

Thanks,

Shane Goslin
Southern Sierra Fly Fishers

I do not have a yes or no answer for your question. However, according to our lawyer the plaintiffs have to demonstrate that the implementation of our mitigation measures, while we are in the process of arguing the merits of the EIR/EIS, will cause harm to the environment.

Sorry I do not have a more precise answer.

Jim

James Starr
Program Manager
DFG Hatchery EIR/S
RiverRat
 
Posts: 749
Joined: August 10th, 2008, 9:57 am
Location: Bakersfield

Re: They Did Wait Until The Last Second!!!!!

Postby NorcalBob » February 10th, 2010, 6:46 pm

Thanks Shane.
More predictions from Bob!!!! :gun: :gun: :gun: :gun: :gun: :gun:
DFG will continue to stock until the Court orders them to stop. That could be any where from one day to who knows. It all depends on if CBD wants a TRO applied to stocking activities (their likely course of action). Since CBD doesn't really care about trout fisherman, the DFG may get a small window of opportunity for stocking until the high altitude lakes they covet (to protect endangered froggies) unfreeze. But DFG will indeed be ordered to stop stocking because the EIR they did is a POS. And they gave CBD a whole lot of scientific reasons for a judge to issue a TRO. I can't decide if the DFG is arrogant or incompetent (maybe both) because they sure as heck don't know how to produce a good EIR/EIS!!!!!!! :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
NorcalBob
 
Posts: 1620
Joined: March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 pm


Return to General Fly Fishing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests

cron