Jump to content

West Coast Striper Info

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That was very informative. Lots of info in there. Especially the part about how the striped bass were introduced into the west coast. Huh, it just made me wonder, why doesn't the DFG do it again. Surely it would help our depleted stock. Anyway, like I said, I was just wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they eat baby salmon which are in far worse shape than the stripers. Since the salmon are native, it is a legal requirement to help them recover. Until the salmon recover, there will be no efforts to help the stripers recover. In fact, one of the large agricultural water districts is suing to have water pumping restrictions overturned, saying that the DFG has not fully addressed salmon recovery because they are not attempting to eliminate the non-native species (specifically naming stripers) that eat baby salmon and delta smelt and compete with them. If they win, it could mean that the DFG will be forced to eliminate stripers. Kinda strange considering that water diversions and unscreened agricultural pumping are the primary reasons for the decline of the salmon to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't repeat the BS you hear about all the salmon being eaten by the stripers.


If they want to get rid of non native fish they should start here


white catfish



black bullhead



yellow bullhead



blue catfish



channel catfish



flathead catfish



brown trout



brook trout



lake trout



green sunfish









redear sunfish



smallmouth bass



spotted bass



largemouth bass



white crappie



black crappie



yellow perch



and while the are at it, get rid of the Squawfish.



It is well-documented that winter-run chinook fry and smolts, which pass under the gates and into the turbulent waters below the Red Bluff Diversion dam, are heavily preyed upon by squawfish.



Large concentrations of squawfish accumulate immediately below the dam, when juvenile winter-run chinook begin to migrate downstream during the late summer and early fall months. During this period, conditions for squawfish predation are optimal at RBDD, with low turbidity, low river flows and high river temperatures.


Salmon are in trouble this is just one of the reasons.


Fishery professionals of the state Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have worked together over the years to try to protect and improve fish resources. Their efforts have been seriously limited, however, by legal, political, economic, and social constraints.


Two events during the 1950s demonstrate the kinds of problems they encountered. The first was a federal court case, Rank v. Krug . In 1951, when farmers, duck hunters, and fishermen were suing the federal government to increase flows in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, California Attorney General Edmund G. ("Pat") Brown, at variance with a related finding of his immediate predecessor, declared that "the United States is not required by State law to allow sufficient water to pass Friant Dam to preserve fish life below the dam." The federal government was exempt from "state interference."


The second, closely related, event was also a blow to fishery interests. It involved the June 2, 1959, decision (D 935) of the California Water Rights Board, which declared that salmon protection on the San Joaquin River was "not in the public interest." This 1959 decision merits closer examination because it further reveals the collaborative nature of state and federal political mechanisms involved in both cases. In the 1930s and early 1940s, when Friant Dam was planned and constructed, the Bureau of Reclamation had not acquired water rights related to that project. During the late 1950s, when the bureau initiated the process of establishing those rights, state Fish and Game staff decided to reopen the legal question involving water for salmon in the San Joaquin River. The department, through Jack Fraser, its chief of the Water Projects Branch, filed protests with the Water Rights Board to justify its claim. That move stirred the water development community to action at every level.


First, the attorney general declined to represent the Department of Fish and Game, claiming that his office foresaw conflict of interest problems if it were asked to represent both the Department of Fish and Game and later, if there were appeals, the Water Rights Board. After much wrangling and foot-dragging, the attorney general authorized the department to employ outside counsel to represent it at the hearings but then balked at providing adequate funding for the purpose. Fraser searched intensively and finally settled on Wilmer W. Morse, a former deputy in the attorney general's office at Sacramento and recognized expert in judicial review of administrative procedures. Realizing that all adverse decision by the Water Rights Board could be expected, Morse and Fraser concluded that their efforts should focus on laying the groundwork for a successful appeal.


During this period, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought vigorously to enter the case in support of state Fish and Game. The Department of Interior denied the service's request on the grounds that "it would not be in the best interest of the United States for an agency of this Department to support the position of the Department of Fish and Game."


In January 1959, Pat Brown became governor. He appointed veteran Bureau of Reclamation waterman William E. ("Bill") Warne as his director of the Department of Fish and Game. The June 1959 decision, as expected, was adverse. At that point, Morse and Fraser, with approval of Director Warne, devoted themselves to preparing an appeal (petition for judicial review), required to be filed within a thirty-day period. It would include an allegation that Brown and former Water Rights Board Chairman Henry Holsinger had acted to circumvent fish protection laws in 1951 when Brown as attorney general, with Holsinger's participation, had issued the "no state interference" opinion in favor of the bureau. Plans for the court action became known outside the department, and a delegation representing concerned Friant water users, the bureau, and the State Department of Water Resources insisted that Brown prohibit the Department of Fish and Game from filing the court action.


Just hours before the deadline, while mimeographed copies of the voluminous document were being stapled together, Governor Brown's secretary informed Morse that the governor had decided the case should not be filed. Morse insisted upon talking face-to-face with Governor Brown. The governor saw him at once, listened attentively, but declined to change his position. At the Department of Fish and Game, Jack Fraser, "furious as well as heartbroken," sought help from Director Warne, only to learn that "the door had been slammed shut, . . . William Warne was firm-the Governor's office had issued the edict, and that was it!"


Many more can be found here. http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?do...2&brand=eschol

Two things in life I love. Fishing, and looking at the wives pictures on the milk Carton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...