Asking For Your Help

[briansII]

As a confirmed striped bass addict, I humbly ask for your help. As you may, or may not know, Ca. DFG is proposing a regulation change on striped bass. The proposal will go in front of Ca. Fish & Game Commission in Dec of this year, so our time is limited. If you would like to see one of North America's premier game fish prosper(or just hold it's own), and not go the way of the buffalo, please donate a few minutes of your time. We need letters sent to the F&G President. It's not hard. Just a cut & paste into Word, or other programs will get it done.

You might say "why bother", I don't fish for striped bass. IMHO, if this regulation change is allowed to go through, it will set a very dangerous precedent in what direction the CDFG can and will go.

If anyone has any question, you can post them here, or PM me. I will admit my knowledge is very limited, but I will try and answer them, or try point you in the right direction.

Here's the letter provided by some hard working individuals. Please read it. Just cut & paste it, print it out, sign it, and send it to the list address.

http://www.danblanton.com/viewmessage.php?id=162179

Mr. Jim Kellogg, President
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, California 94244-2090

RE: Department of Fish and Game’s Proposed Striped Bass Regulation Changes

Dear President Kellogg and Commission members:

I am a California angler who has benefited from the Endangered Species Act as it pertains to better water management for our endangered fish species, and indeed all fisheries in our California Delta. As such, I am writing to express my deep concern over proposed striped bass regulation changes.

I have become aware of the fact that several of our State’s preeminent fisheries biologist have cautioned against these regulation changes as they may yield the opposite of the intended effect and could lead or contribute to the extinction of delta smelt and our endangered salmon species.

As you know, the Endangered Species Act encourages that all effort is brought to bear in assisting the recovery of listed species. However, it is also true that the Act discourages any action that is of dubious benefit and, indeed may do harm to the recovery efforts of listed species. Our State’s preeminent inland fisheries experts, Dr. Peter Moyle and Dr. William Bennett (Letter to Commission of Aug. 26th 2010) have stated specifically and convincingly that reducing the effects of striped bass predation on non native cohorts and predators of listed species could directly result in unintended harmful consequences for listed species. Their concerns are backed up by respected fisheries biologist Dr David Ostrach (Letter to the Commission July 19th 2010). These concerns are sufficient to suggest that the Commission’s first obligation is to “do no harm” to listed species, therefore, I urge the Commission for an outright rejection of this regulation proposal.

Directly related to the E.S.A., I have also become aware of this additional fact:

• The Department of Fish & Game (DFG) and other defendant interveners in the litigation that brought about the Settlement Agreement leading to the striped bass regulation change proposal prevailed in the summary judgments rendered by the federal court. The court found no merit in the legal arguments the plaintiffs (Coalition For a Sustainable Delta) regarding alleged population level impacts caused by striped bass to E.S.A listed fish species in the Bay-Delta estuary. The court ruled decisively in support of the position of the DFG and defendant interveners that the decline of estuary’s listed fisheries was not attributable to predation by striped bass. Specifically, Judge Wanger agreed that the best science available has not shown any population level effect on listed species and one of DFG’s own Biologists, Marty Gingras, has stated that there is no science that shows any population level effect on listed species due to striped bass predation. There are also numerous peer reviewed predation studies done in the estuary and its tributaries that conclude population level effects of predation (if any) is at the current time, “unknowable”.


In addition to my concerns regarding the E.S.A., I have learned the following:





• This settlement agreement does not supersede the provisions of the federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and it's legal mandate to double the population of all anadromous fish species of the estuary, including striped bass, from their mid-nineteen nineties population levels. In short, the proposed regulations work at cross purposes to the CVPIA federal mandate, thus conflicting with the intent of the federal law and setting up the potential for another round of litigation regarding the striped bass fishery. The Commission could find itself in the untenable position of passing regulations that could result in violating federal law and having to defend itself in federal court.

• The proposed regulation change with the attendant increased bag and possession limits would encourage over-consumption of striped bass far beyond the limits recommended California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. In short, it is my view the possession limit in this proposal encourages consumption more than health warnings discourage the consumption of striped bass. The Commission should take into full consideration the well documented science on the health risks associated with anything beyond modest consumption of striped bass. Women and children, in particular, are most vulnerable to these health risks and should not eat any striped bass at all. It would not be good public policy for the Commission to advance regulations that would not safeguard the public from the health hazards associated with the consumption of striped bass.

• As you may recall, Sec. 1700 of the Fish and Game Code requires, among many important conservation provisions, the management, on a basis of adequate scientific information promptly promulgated for public scrutiny, of the fisheries under the state's jurisdiction with the objective of maximizing the sustained harvest. This and other relevant code sections require the public’s fishery resources to be managed in the long term, on a sustainable basis. The regulations that the department proposed would not comply with this legal mandate.

• The proposal does not exempt San Luis Reservoir and the O’neil Forebay, one of our Nation’s premiere trophy striped bass fisheries. These two bodies of water are not connected to the Delta biologically and are not home to any listed species. This adds to my perception that, beyond risks to listed species, the thoughts guiding development of this proposal were lacking in a comprehensive understanding of our state’s striped bass fisheries and the sensitivities of California striped bass anglers.


I am confident the Commission will carefully consider my concerns about the negative effect this proposal might have on listed species and my additional concerns regarding health, anadromous fish recovery and fish and game code directives. I am also confident that the Commission has the power to creatively direct responsible development of effective listed species recovery efforts. To that end, I would like to respectfully offer a possible alternative process. First, reject this proposal outright. Second, I would suggest directing the DFG to develop a priority list of stressors on our listed species in order of direct biological importance. Third, develop a specific list of suggestions to address each stressor and four, formulate policy suggestions solely on the merit of direct benefit to the listed species recovery efforts. Finally I would stress the DFG strive to avoid listed species recovery priorities that are perceived to be the most politically or legally expeditious. It is, of course, reasonable to expect our DFG, which is in part a scientific body, to behave in a thoughtful manner without regard to extraneous issues that ultimately may result in extraordinary risks to our listed species.


Sincerely,

[lucfish]

Done, and and I sent it along to a bunch of people that are not on this website.

[hpskiff]

Alright I have a question and as it is probably a stupid one so I apologize in advance, but here goes: Striped bass are an introduced species and are not native anywhere on the west coast of the United States, on top of that they are an aggressive predator and a prolific breeder, further they are adaptable to a wide range of water conditions, are my asumptions correct so far? With any other animal, insect, etc, this would be a recipe for an ecological disaster. So how are striped bass any different and why shouldn't DFG take steps to reduce their populations?

I am not trying to step on any toes here and I appreciate being "educated" by your responses. And yes I know most of our trout are introduced as well.

[Artin]

Alright I have a question and as it is probably a stupid one so I apologize in advance, but here goes: Striped bass are an introduced species and are not native anywhere on the west coast of the United States, on top of that they are an aggressive predator and a prolific breeder, further they are adaptable to a wide range of water conditions, are my asumptions correct so far? With any other animal, insect, etc, this would be a recipe for an ecological disaster. So how are striped bass any different and why shouldn't DFG take steps to reduce their populations?

I am not trying to step on any toes here and I appreciate being "educated" by your responses. And yes I know most of our trout are introduced as well.

Well,
They pull hard as $#!^, for one thing, theyve been here since the late 1800's I think... I may be wrong but since they are here let 'em stay. Besides, things that damage native speciess they are "concerned" about are dams and more dams and reserviors and dams and more dams and then some more reserviors.
I could be wrong again, but the stripers haven't erradicated any native fish so far.... It's a bunch of bull. Did I mention that we are the only state in the nation that has 2 bodies for one office.... yup there is the dfg commission and the dfg. Or is it called something else. But it has 2 bodies. One makes recommendations to the other to enforce. Cali is sooooooo messed up man, sooooo messed up.

I'm on board guys!

Artin

[NorcalBob]

<<<Did I mention that we are the only state in the nation that has 2 bodies for one office.... yup there is the dfg commission and the dfg. Or is it called something else. But it has 2 bodies. One makes recommendations to the other to enforce>>>
Many states have the same F&G structure, including AK. The stated reason is: DFG is "supposed" to be composed of scientists and professionals who make recommendations based on science and logical data. They are "supposed" to be free from political influence when it comes to managing the states public fish and game resources. That way, for example, the commercial fishing interests don't dictate sportfishing regulations so they benefit the commercial fishing sector. The F&G Commission is made up of political appointee's who are supposed to be political in making decisions. And that's why they are actually the power that actually controls the states public fish and game resources. To summarize, one group is supposed to be free from political influence, and the other is supposed to be driven by political influence. Of course, that's just the theory, and YMMV!

[briansII]

Alright I have a question and as it is probably a stupid one so I apologize in advance, but here goes: Striped bass are an introduced species and are not native anywhere on the west coast of the United States, on top of that they are an aggressive predator and a prolific breeder, further they are adaptable to a wide range of water conditions, are my asumptions correct so far? With any other animal, insect, etc, this would be a recipe for an ecological disaster. So how are striped bass any different and why shouldn't DFG take steps to reduce their populations?

I am not trying to step on any toes here and I appreciate being "educated" by your responses. And yes I know most of our trout are introduced as well.

Your questions are not stupid, and have been asked many times over. Much of what you asked is what the DFG is basing their proposal on. I could sit here and try and research every post that counters the DFG, but it would take me hours, if not days. I just don't have that time right now....gotta get my daughter ready for bed. I can say, many(fishermen, Delta farmers, conservationist, etc, etc...) feel that the striped bass have coexsisted since 1879, and to blame them for the collapse of ESA listed fish, is just a diversionary tactic. The real culprit is record water diversions. Even the DFG has said the outcome of this proposed regulation change is "unknowable". When I get more time, I'll see if I can post a historical graph of striper and salmon populations, and water exports. Both sides have their own studies.

Here's just one bit of reading you can do. There are many more long threads at this forum, and and others. Note, Marty Gingras is with the DFG, and the man with his feet on fire.

http://www.danblanton.com/viewarchive.p ... 201110.php

Here's just a little background on how we are here now. If DFG stood their ground, we _might_ not be looking at a regulation change now.
http://calsport.org/news/dfg-caves-yet- ... rotection/

I know I didn't directly answer your question, but I gotta get the kid to bed....

briansII

[briansII]

One more.

http://calsport.org/news/wp-content/upl ... AB1253.pdf

.......did I say one?

http://calsport.org/news/wp-content/upl ... 100826.pdf

briansII

[silverlaker]

Do you have an email to send the letter? Seems like DFG would have a general public comment email...

[briansII]

Do you have an email to send the letter? Seems like DFG would have a general public comment email...

They are asking us to send a hard letter to the President of the Fish and Game Commission. Sending it to DFG is not going to help in this particular battle.

Here is the revised, and "preferred" letter.

http://www.danblanton.com/viewmessage.php?id=162217

Here is a revised copy of the letter earlier posted, written by Dave Sellers and Mike McKenzie. We prefer you use this version as a "Model" for your own personal letter. If you've already sent your letter based on the first draft that is OK.

Please, get these letters off to the Commission ASAP!

Dan



Mr. Jim Kellogg, President
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, California 94244-2090

RE: My opposition to DFG’s proposed striped bass regs.

Dear President Kellogg and Commission members:

I am a California angler and I am writing to express my absolute opposition to proposed striped bass regulation changes. Following my review of DFG’s proposed Regulation changes, I have become aware of these additional facts:

• The Department of Fish & Game (DFG) and other defendant interveners in the litigation that brought about the Settlement Agreement leading to the striped bass regulation change proposal prevailed in the summary judgments rendered by the federal court. The court found no merit in the legal arguments the plaintiffs (Coalition For a Sustainable Delta) regarding alleged population level impacts caused by striped bass to E.S.A listed fish species in the Bay-Delta estuary. The court ruled decisively in support of the position of the DFG and defendant interveners that the decline of estuary’s listed fisheries was not attributable to predation by striped bass. Specifically, Judge Wanger agreed that the best science available has not shown any population level effect on listed species and one of DFG’s own Biologists, Marty Gingras, has stated that there is no science that shows any population level effect on listed species due to striped bass predation. There are also numerous peer reviewed predation studies done in the estuary and its tributaries that have come to the same conclusion.

• This settlement agreement does not supersede the provisions of the federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and it's legal mandate to double the population of all anadromous fish species of the estuary, including striped bass, from their mid-nineteen nineties population levels. In short, the proposed regulations work at cross purposes to the CVPIA federal mandate, thus conflicting with the intent of the federal law and setting up the potential for another round of litigation regarding the striped bass fishery. The Commission could find itself in the untenable position of passing regulations that could result in violating federal law and having to defend itself in federal court.

• The proposed regulation change with the attendant increased bag and possession limits would encourage over-consumption of striped bass far beyond the limits recommended by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. In short, it is my view the possession limit in this proposal encourages consumption more than health warnings discourage the consumption of striped bass. The Commission should take into full consideration the well documented science on the health risks associated with anything beyond modest consumption of striped bass. Women and children, in particular, are most vulnerable to these health risks and should not eat any striped bass at all. It would not be good public policy for the Commission to abdicate promulgating regulations that would not safeguard the public from the health hazards associated with the consumption of striped bass.

• As you may recall, Sec. 1700 of the Fish and Game Code requires, among many important conservation provisions, the management, on a basis of adequate scientific information promptly promulgated for public scrutiny, of the fisheries under the state's jurisdiction with the objective of maximizing the sustained harvest. This and other relevant code sections require the public’s fishery resources to be managed in the long term, on a sustainable basis. The regulations that the department proposed would not comply with this legal mandate.

• The proposal does not exempt San Luis Reservoir and the O’neil Forebay, one of our Nation’s premiere trophy striped bass fisheries. These two bodies of water are not connected to the Delta biologically and are not home to any listed species. This adds to my perception that, beyond my other concerns, I feel that the thoughts guiding development of this proposal were lacking in a comprehensive understanding of our state’s striped bass fisheries and the sensitivities of California striped bass anglers.

• While the Endangered Species Act encourages that all effort is brought to bear in assisting the recovery of listed species, it also discourages any action that is of dubious benefit and, indeed may do harm to the recovery efforts of listed species. Our State’s preeminent inland fisheries experts, Dr. Peter Moyle and Dr. William Bennett (Letter to Commission of Aug. 26th 2010) have reviewed the studies conducted in the estuary and concluded there is no peer reviewed science that shows ANY evidence of population level effects. Further, they point out that the removal of striped bass may have unintended consequences due to other predators that would normally be kept in check by their presence as a top predator. Their scientific opinion is backed up by respected fisheries biologist Dr. David Ostrach (Letter to the Commission July 19th 2010).

The last point is perhaps the most important as it demonstrates that this proposal offers little more than questionable benefit and even suggests potential harm to listed species. This, in addition to the other risks associated with the poor planning and policy behind this effort, leads me to strongly urge an outright rejection of this striped bass regulation proposal.

Sincerely,

[tenandtwo]

Alright I have a question and as it is probably a stupid one so I apologize in advance, but here goes: Striped bass are an introduced species and are not native anywhere on the west coast of the United States, on top of that they are an aggressive predator and a prolific breeder, further they are adaptable to a wide range of water conditions, are my asumptions correct so far? With any other animal, insect, etc, this would be a recipe for an ecological disaster. So how are striped bass any different and why shouldn't DFG take steps to reduce their populations?

I am not trying to step on any toes here and I appreciate being "educated" by your responses. And yes I know most of our trout are introduced as well.

Yes stripers are introduced, but so are brown trout, brook trout, largemouth bass etc. IMHO That kind of thinking is a slippery slope that could potentially do major harm to all kinds of fishing. I agree with others about man made dams and water diversions being the main problem and the fish are a bit of a scapegoat. I am on board, this is an interesting topic.

[Artin]

One more.

http://calsport.org/news/wp-content/upl ... AB1253.pdf

.......did I say one?

http://calsport.org/news/wp-content/upl ... 100826.pdf

briansII

Ok, So I read both these articles. Very interesting read I may add. I suggest all who have viewed this topic to read them. I learned a lot. Thanks. No my question is, since they have these findings, why are they still ignoring fact. Are they stupid? I am amazed. I don't really know the driving force behind it because I am not in that inner circle, but I think water and farming has something to do with it. I think that they are using stripers as scapegoats as well. This sets a dangerous precedent which could potentially harm browns and bows and any other sport fish not native to this area. That's my opinion. With findings like these this type of thing shouldn't even be brought up, let alone go for a vote. What the * are we buying licences and stamps for if things are not going to be in the sportsman's favor given the facts.
I also know that Stipers damaged already some other bodies of water. ie Diamond valley lake. Silverwood lake were both supposed to be trophy trout lakes I think. Since stripers went into those lakes the trout pops. diminished and they are both mainly striper fishing lakes. (I may be wrong on that by the way) But that's what I've been told.
But I am more concerned about all non native fish like trout, which I love to fish for. Crowley lake, Owens etc. didn't have native pops. of trout. They may go after those as well. Bad idea.
I may be harsh about it but I think these people either are idiots or on someone elses agenda. Either way it's getting really annoying.

I will send the letter. (the revised one) I will also try to have others to do so as well.
Thanks for the good read as well


Artin

[briansII]

No my question is, since they have these findings, why are they still ignoring fact. Are they stupid? I am amazed. I don't really know the driving force behind it because I am not in that inner circle, but I think water and farming has something to do with it. I think that they are using stripers as scapegoats as well.

This should help explain why were are seeing the new regulation proposal. It's part of a settlement agreement. Read the whole thing, but pay special attention to paragraph 3 for the reason DFG is doing this.

http://calsport.org/news/dfg-caves-yet- ... rotection/

briansII

[Artin]

"The settlement provides that DFG will work with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to prepare new striper regulations (acceptable to the Coalition) to take to the Fish and Game Commission (Commission). DFG is also required to spend a million dollars on predator studies (which won’t be completed prior to the Commission hearing on the issue and will lack independent peer review)"

Acceptable to the Coalition???? and the study whih wont be ready in time anyway and cost tax payers $1 mil won't be criticised by other biologists? What a bunch of crock!

Well you can't expect much from this state as is.... So it doesn't surprise me that things like this keep popping up on radar. It's a good thing that we have a good radar too. We can call them out on it.

Artin

[briansII]

Today was the Fish & Game Commission meeting. I am happy to report, the DF&G proposal was voted down, 4-0! I cannot confirm the early report is correct, but if it is.........

It's my understanding, that once the proposal is voted down, it cannot be brought back to the F&GC for consideration. That does not mean the fight is over, but this battle was won.

Thank you to those who sent letters. My addiction the Mr Lineside can continue with a much clearer mind and heart.

briansII

[lucfish]

Good to hear.