Interesting......

[WanderingBlues]

SB 1148 is looking like it will pass signing by the Gov. Here's an article in the Mammoth Times.

http://www.mammothtimes.com/content/alpers-senate-bill-could-destroy-fishing-industry

[rayfound]

Alpers said the bill will skimp on hatchery programs while giving more weight to wild trout programs.

Umm, sounds good to me.

[RiverRat]

I've read the bill and the reporting required is going to paralyze the DFG with paperwork.

Well intentioned but.......we''ll see.


shane

[Artin]

This is interesting.

I've read the bill and the reporting required is going to paralyze the DFG with paperwork.

Well intentioned but.......we''ll see.


shane

This is also interesting.
I hope it works well but that dand paperwork.... Anyone have a link to this? I would love to read it.

Artin

[Milt Spawn]

Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard? Did they elect him, or pull his name out of a hat? milt.

[midger]

Mono County Supervisor Hap Hazard? Did they elect him, or pull his name out of a hat? milt.

I noted that also, but figured it was a very appropriate name for a government law maker. I really couldn't figure out exactly what the bill was meant to accomplish, but if Tim Alpers isn't for it, I can assume it's probably not going to be that beneficial to the fish, or at least the stockers, and if they don't fare well, the pressure will increase on the wild stock to make up for stockers that don't go into somebody's frying pan.

[NorcalBob]

I'm suspicious of any article proclaiming that ending hatchery plants "could destroy fishing industry".
Of course, Tim Alpers is against it, since his business is to supply truck trout, DUH!!!!

[RiverRat]

SB 1148 as amended, voted on, and passed.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... ient.xhtml


On Friday, August 31, 2012, AB 2402 passed the Assembly floor and SB 1148 passed the Senate floor, with votes 47 to 27 and 22 to 17, respectively. As a result of opposition, however, the bills were amended as follows:

1.Third party right of action
2.“Strict violation offense” of the Fish and Game Code (which would have made even inadvertent violations indefensible).
3.Retained the Fish and Game Commission’s regulatory authority over recreational take from marine protected areas.
4.Retained the Fish and Game Commission’s regulatory authority over the Marine Life Protection Act.

5.Retained the Fish and Game Commission’s regulatory over the California Endangered Species Act.



shane