pierfishing.com :: FAQ :: search :: memberlist :: album
  Sign-up as new user :: log in



Sign-up as new user | I forgot my password

PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
>> DFG adds more clarity to the stocking issue ó [topic: previous/next]
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:29 am
Ken Jones


Posts: 9447
Location: California

DFG adds more clarity to the stocking issue, 80% of previous waters will still be stocked: Many private stocking programs to continue.

December 13, 2008 -- Despite the lawsuit, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) plans to stock at least 771 bodies of water with more than seven million fish this next year! According to Staff Fisheries Biologist Jim Starr, the current suspension in the stocking of hatchery-reared fish in other waters is a court ordered interim measure that will result in DFG not stocking approximately 20 percent (roughly 180 bodies of water) of the waters normally scheduled for stocking in 2009. At DFG, we are aware of the effect this will have on the communities that have come to depend on our fish stocking programs and we don't want to minimize that effect. DFG is working to identify waters that are currently on the non-stocking list that may qualify to be stocked after further evaluation and consultation with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

An important point to remember is that just because DFG will not be stocking hatchery-reared fish in a given body of water (which in most cases is someone's favorite fishing hole), there will still be fish in those waters waiting to latch onto an angler's lure or fly. Local governments, concessionaires and water body managers that have or may have had a Private Stocking Permit since 2005 to stock these lakes can continue to do so, it's just that DFG is court ordered not to plant any of our hatchery reared fish in that same body of water, if it is deemed a non-stock water. And, as always, the time shared with family and friends enjoying the outdoors will still be there Ö not to mention all of the tall tales that will be told about the big one that got away!

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:31 am
Ken Jones


Posts: 9447
Location: California

The Truth about the "Stocking" law suit and what you can do: A Q&A Information Guide from CSPA

By Chris Shutes, CSPA FERC Projects Director
December 3, 2008

In October 2006, Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biological Diversity sued DFG over fish stocking programs it has engaged in claiming that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had ever been completed for the programs. The result of the case was a November 2nd court order requiring DFG to complete an EIR and a temporary halt to stocking in some California lakes and streams. DFG is now engaged in the EIR process, scheduled to be completed in January 2010.

Following a number of news articles and posts on various fishing bulletin boards containing inaccurate information, CSPA has put together this Q&A as an angler's guide.

Q: How many reservoirs, lakes and streams are affected by the temporary ban on fish stocking?

A: About 175.

Q: Does this mean that these waters will never be stocked again?

A: No. After the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is completed, alternatives will be evaluated and management decisions will be made. It is irresponsible to say that any given location where stocking has been halted temporarily will never see fish stocking in the future.

Q: Will fish stocking in other waters be stopped as a result of the management decisions that are informed by the EIR?

A: Maybe, when the EIR is completed. It is also very possible that many of the waters where stocking is temporarily halted will see stocking resume.

Q: Is an Environmental Impact Report a bad thing, or an unnecessary one?

A: Understanding the environmental consequences of resource management is important. Just because the people who filed a lawsuit to require an EIR donít particularly care about fishermen, that doesnít mean they havenít raised a point that has validity. DFG has never said that producing an EIR was uncalled for. If CSPA has a gripe with DFG on this issue, itís that DFG didnít decide to do an EIR before, and that DFG has taken too long to get it done once it was compelled to.

Q: Do CSPA and other angler organizations file suit to require EIRís or to require changes to EIRís, or otherwise use EIRís to protect fish?

A: We do this all the time. Take away the right of the Center For Biological Diversity to file suit to require an EIR, and youíve taken away one of the major legal hammers CSPA and other fishing organizations have to file suit to protect fish and fisheries.

Q: How do we keep other ďenvironmentalĒ organizations from using legal processes against fishermen?

A: By supporting CSPA with your memberships, so that we can be parties in lawsuits to represent angler interests. Only the parties to lawsuits have standing to affect the outcome in court. If youíre outside, you are essentially powerless. If we have standing, DFG and other entities canít cut deals that donít defend our interests. Thatís why CSPA intervened in the Striper lawsuit filed by Kern County water agencies against DFG: we canít afford to have DFG sit down in a settlement conference with Kern County water users to decide the fate of striped bass. We need to be at the table.

Q: Why didnít CSPA intervene in the fish stocking lawsuit?

A: First, because lawsuits are expensive. Lack of funding limits the number of legal actions on which we can be engaged. Second, the remedy in this suit was to produce the EIR. CSPA can respond to the EIR, and address the issues of substance, when the draft EIR is published. We had no way of predicting that completion of the EIR would be delayed.

Q: Is there anything anglers can do now to make DFG stock waters in 2009 if DFG is enjoined from stocking those waters?

A: Not a damn thing. Thatís how the courts work.

Q: How about in the longer term?

A: There you go. When the Draft Environmental Impact Report is issued, the public has a fixed time period to comment on it. Those comments have to be considered by the lead agency, in this case DFG. CSPA will post a link to the draft EIR on our website as soon as the document is available. If the lead agency does not adequately address comments, that gives parties who comment standing to file suit once the final EIR is issued.

Q: Tom Stienstra says that we shouldnít stop stocking fish because that wonít protect frogs. Other things are killing the frogs anyway.

A: Be careful what you wish for. The same kind of argument is used against fish all the time. Since there are always ďotherĒ things that kill off the fish, water managers tell us that their piece of the problem is not important, and they should get a free pass.

The EIR needs to do its job and analyze the impacts of fish stocking on all aspects of the environment, including frogs. Anglers will need to ask for careful definition of the criteria used to reach conclusions, and for analysis of effects on a basis that is as site-specific as is reasonable.

Q; Tom Stienstra also says that ďa lawsuit could shut down virtually any fishing or hunting program.Ē Are lawsuits the problem?

A: Lawsuits filed by groups like CSPA have been one of the most effective tools in keeping the degradation of Californiaís fisheries from becoming even worse than it has.

Q: So are environmentalists to blame?

A: CSPA has long worked to build bridges between anglers and environmental groups. In some measure, we consider ourselves to be both an angler organization and an environmental one. Anglers have, for far too long, been far too prone to engage in circular firing squads, bickering among themselves and driving away natural allies. On the other hand, CSPA has also found that many self-described allies act against our interests in critical moments. There are no formulas to address dealing with organizational partners. One thing we do consistently is to try to define and follow our own agenda.

Q: So what should anglers do until the draft EIR is published?

A: CSPA suggests that anglers take the opportunity to discover new places to fish if their usual fishing holes are affected by the injunction. Watch the CSPA website and weekly e-mails for news about the status of the fish stocking EIR, and be prepared to respond when the document is issued. Educate yourself about the issues facing Californiaís fisheries. Support CSPA and its efforts to improve fisheries and fishing opportunities. It does not improve the situation to give practical support to former Senator Phil Grammís statement that Americans are a, "bunch of whiners."

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 am
Ken Jones


Posts: 9447
Location: California

A "Neutral" scientific view: Limited restrictions on stocking are needed to conserve California's native fish and amphibians

by Roland A. Knapp

Roland Knapp is a research biologist at the University of California Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory in Mammoth Lakes and has conducted research on Californiaís mountain lakes for more than a decade. His opinions are based on solid scientific research rather than emotions or political agendas.

December 17, 2008 -- Californiaís angling community has voiced numerous concerns about an agreement recently reached by the California Department of Fish and Game, Pacific Rivers Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity that will limit stocking of nonnative trout in some State waters in 2009 while the Department prepares an environmental impact report (EIR) (See, for example, Tom Stienstra, Trout plants halted: itís a load of bullfrogs, Chronicle November 30, 2008).

The purpose of the agreement is not to rob the public of opportunities to fish, but rather to ensure that undue harm is not done to Californiaís native fish and amphibians while the Department prepares an EIR (due in January 2010). The agreement specifically allows a majority of stocking to continue, including stocking in all large reservoirs, stocking by private businesses, and stocking in areas where the Department knows there are no sensitive native species present. This is a reasonable compromise that balances the interests of anglers with the need to reduce impacts to native species.

Although stocking will continue in many waters across the State, there will be some lakes, reservoirs, and rivers that will not be stocked in 2009 due to the presence of sensitive native species or a lack of recent survey information. It is not true, however, that these waters will never be stocked again. That will depend on the results of the Departmentís EIR and whether they determine that these waters can be stocked without contributing to the extinction of native species.

Results from decades of research clearly indicate that stocking of trout can have dramatic impacts on native fish and amphibians. For example, the California golden trout, our State fish, is at severe risk of extinction because of predation by introduced brown trout and hybridization with introduced rainbow trout. Likewise, species like the mountain yellow-legged frog, Cascades frog, and long-toed salamander rarely survive in water bodies where nonnative trout have been stocked.

Stocking of nonnative trout is also a potential vector of diseases like the amphibian chytrid fungus that is having devastating consequences for many native amphibians. In addition, trout stocking can result in the inadvertent introduction of harmful invasive species like the New Zealand mud snail, a species found recently at the Departmentís Hot Creek Hatchery.

The fact that stocking has been ongoing for more than 100 years in no way means that it is benign. Indeed, in recent years the Department itself has worked to reduce the impacts of stocking in the High Sierra, where they have surveyed for sensitive species and modified stocking practices to avoid habitats that contain these native species. As a result of this proactive approach, these areas are exempt from the interim stocking restrictions.

The EIR will provide the public with their first opportunity to take a careful look at all aspects of the Departmentís stocking program. The paradigm that more fish stocking makes for better fishing underlies much of the stocking program and deserves particular scrutiny. Recent research conducted in the High Sierra shows that most stocked lakes actually harbor self-sustaining trout populations and that ongoing stocking (conducted at considerable expense) therefore has no effect on trout densities. So, in these hundreds of lakes stocking is just a waste of angler dollars. Similarly, studies in Montana conducted in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that stocking of catchable trout into rivers and streams actually caused decreases in overall trout densities. Based on the results of these studies, in 1974 Montana stopped all stocking of flowing waters (to large protests from anglers) and the result was dramatic increases in trout populations.

Clearly, a long, hard look at California's fish stocking program is long overdue.

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
Page 1 of 1  
Display posts from previous:   
Jump to: