Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mike415

Proposed Striper Regulation Changes

Rate this topic

55 posts in this topic

This is sickening :(

 

 

 

 

California Department of Fish and Game News Release

November 4, 2011

 

Media Contacts:

Marty Gingras, DFG Region 3, (209) 948-3702

Kirsten Macintyre, DFG Communications, (916) 322-8988

 

Striped Bass Proposal Now Available, Workshop Moved to New Location

 

The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has released a draft of proposed regulations changes related to anadromous striped bass. The draft language, which is now available at https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=39586, would authorize additional harvest of striped bass.

 

Due to extensive interest in the issue, the scheduled public workshop at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 8 has been moved to a larger venue. The new location is the Rio Vista & Isleton Club, 295 South 7th Street, Rio Vista, 94571.

 

The basic proposed changes are as follows:

 

-- Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.

-- Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.

-- Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.

-- Establishing a hot spot for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.

-- Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro, and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.

 

DFG is also recommending an adaptive management plan that will help assess how the new regulations influence the fishery.

 

The proposal and management plan will be presented to the Fish and Game Commission for consideration at its December meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumopescador View Post

 

...they're aiming for outright eradication with this rather than a reduction in average size.

 

Um, that's the point of it.... the plan, the purpose... eradication! Put them back instead, and spread the word for others to do the same. Mock people that keep fish as government insurgents, spies, and Benedict Arnolds... traitors!!! Jab them with your rod butt. Hard, in the chest, face and/or nads. Those fools that harvest 12 inchers are to stripers as rotenone is to Lake Davis. Bring emotions like that out, it works.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


ps- Because they propose to drop the size limit to 12 inches up here (which is just about sexual maturity), you guys fishing O'Neil, San Luis Reservoir, and the rest of the south water delivery systems are done getting eggs and larval fish delivered to you too, which should obviously mean no more adult fish for you either. Voice your opinions and fight these fukwads on this, even if it is a catch-22.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this "workshop" they have planned is just so people can vent but to me it seems like the DFG is done and did what they were asked to do, now its up to the CFAG to make the decision in San Diego if its justified. :mad: They don't want to talk about the "water" issue, that's not their concern right now......they know striped bass feed and since they eat they are on the list. Next on the list will be the Florida strain Largemouth Bass in the delta, then when you eliminate all sport fishing, with declining fish on Salmon, Striper, and Largemouth Bass the farmers will have their way with the water. For the Farmers no fishermen=no problems vs lots of fishermen=lots of problems. Eliminate the sport and you wont have people complaining about our waters or pesticides in the water. I hope I am wrong but it doesn't look good either. :(

 

The proposal is what it is. We want you to know what the proposal is and we want to learn what concerns you have about the proposal, hence the workshop.

 

If you support our proposal, don't support our proposal, or want to make a different proposal, please contact the California Fish and Game Commission.

 

Thanks

 

Marty Gingras

BDR-IEP Program Manager

California Department of Fish and Game

Bay Delta Region

4001 North Wilson Way

Stockton, California 95205

 

Phone (209) 948-3702

Phone (831) 372-2581

FAX (209) 946-6355

email mgingras@dfg.ca.gov

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water we will never win over water but we can win on other situations. Perhaps it should be asked if any study has been done on what will happen to the California sea lion population with this removal of such a valued food source for these protected animals. We as fishermen have seen many stripers being taken by the seals along are coast. They target them more than any other spieces of fish out there.

Stripers are a high value target of the California seal population and they have been so for over a 100 years. They are engrained into the diet of these seals. To remove such a large portion of these food stocks from the seals diet will have a devastating effect on the health of the population of a Federally protected species. What studies have been done on this very subject? Throwing down such a knee jerk over fished limit can have dire effects on species that feed on these fish. Starvation and also predation on salmon and other threaten species will be a seals only options.

There should be some sort of environmental study done on this very important fact. Perhaps we should get the marine mammals people involved. I know they have a much more active lawyer base than we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VERY good point Winch!

 

Write to the CFAG. here is the info I was given. I am going to write them here shortly and I strongly suggest others do also.

Aside from missing out on what your fellow anglers have to say and to make comments to us that we'll relay (in summary form) to the Commission, you won't miss much (if you skip the workshop) if you understand the draft presentation I posted above.

 

Here is the Commission's contact information:

 

Mailing Address: California Fish and Game Commission

P.O. Box 944209

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Physical Address: California Fish and Game Commission

1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone Number: (916) 653-4899

Fax Number: (916) 653-5040

E-Mail: General Comments, Questions, Requests for the Fish and Game Commission (fgc@fgc.ca.gov)

Submit Comments on Proposed Regulations (fgc@fgc.ca.gov)

(Please include the subject of the regulations in the e-mail subject line.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winch View Post

 

...what will happen to the ...???

 

I took some liberty in cutting most of Winch's questions, but this is really it: "What will happen to the [insert any creature here]?" I posted a memorandum below that many of you have probably already seen, but it cannot be understated. It is a memo from what are probably the two most preeminent fisheries biologist in the Bay and delta, and they are both very well respected in fisheries circles around the globe. If you don't want to read it all, the gist of is that these guys are against this proposed change to the regs because so many other organisms will be affected in an unknown way, and they even go so far as to predict that the fish DFG (the plaintiffs in the lawsuit actually, not DFG) is trying to help with these new regs will be negatively affected. I can't believe that DFG and the Commission is even contemplating this "experiment", turning the system on its head again, and again, and again, and... cwm12.gif (sorry, nothing about sea lions in their memo you sea-lion-hugger wink.gif, but those too are valid questions.)

 

 

 

 

Quote:

August 26, 2010

 

To: Mr. Jim Kellogg, President, Fish and Game Commission,

 

From: Peter B. Moyle and William A. Bennett, Center for Watershed Sciences

 

Re: Striped bass predation on listed fishes: can a control program be justified?

 

Recently, the Commission has been requested to remove all regulations from the striped bass fishery, as a way of reducing predation on salmon, delta smelt, and other threatened fishes. Our basic message is that the Commission should exercise extreme caution in making this change; new regulations to control striped bass are more likely to be harmful than helpful to native species of concern.

 

Striped bass are an abundant alien predator on fish and other aquatic organisms in the San Francisco Estuary and its tributaries (Moyle 2002). Salmon, delta smelt, and other native fishes are in decline. Therefore, it is presumed that reducing striped bass numbers can help to increase populations of threatened fishes. Over the past two years, this argument has been the focus of litigation, proposed legislation, and most recently a request by NMFS to the Fish and Game Commission to remove all restrictions on the striped bass fishery. Given the ample evidence that fishing can greatly reduce abundance of target species, it is a reasonable assumption that removing restrictions on striped bass would significantly reduce their numbers,particularly if fishing concentrated on immature fish and large, older females. However, whether or not threatened salmon, steelhead, and smelt populations would rebound is an open question. Here are some of the assumptions, or, untested hypotheses, that would need to be true and work in concert before native fishes might benefit from fewer striped bass.

 

Assumption 1. Predation by striped bass regulates populations of salmon, steelhead, and

 

smelt, with other predators (other fish, birds, marine mammals, etc.) playing a minor role.

 

Assumption 2. Other predators will not exhibit compensatory increases in predation on threatened fish if striped bass are removed.

 

Assumption 3. Other species on which striped bass prey, such as Mississippi silverside, will not increase in abundance, causing harm by competing and preying on threatened species.

 

Assumption 4. Reducing striped bass numbers can measurably compensate for the massive changes to the estuary and watershed caused by water diversions and other factors, which also reduce fish populations.

 

Before any of the above assumptions can be accepted several factors need to be taken into consideration:

 

1. Striped bass are generalist and opportunistic predators that tend to forage on whatever prey are most abundant, from benthic invertebrates to their own young to juvenile salmon and shad (Stevens1966, Moyle 2002, Nobriga and Feyrer 2008).

 

2. Delta smelt were a minor item in striped bass diets when they were highly abundant in the early 1960s (Stevens 1966), as well as in recent years at record low abundance (Nobriga and Feyrer 2008). Striped bass are unlikely to be a major predator of delta smelt because smelt are semitransparent(hard to see in turbid water) and do not school (they aggregate loosely where conditions are favorable), unlike more favored prey such as threadfin shad, juvenile striped bass, and Mississippi silverside.

 

3. Striped bass will feed heavily on juvenile salmon and steelhead in the rivers, as they migrate seaward, which is well documented. However, most salmon eaten are likely to be naïve fish from hatcheries, high predation on them has little bearing on the degree of predation encountered by more wary juveniles from natural spawning. Predation on hatchery-reared juveniles may even buffer wild fish from such predation, given that wild fish are warier and less conspicuous than the more abundant hatchery fish. Lindley and Mohr (2003)present a model that suggests an annual loss of 9% to striped bass predation is sufficient to increase the probability of extinction of winter run Chinook salmon. However it is important to appreciate the considerable uncertainty associated with this modeling result, given the difficulty of estimating juvenile salmon abundance.

 

4. All measurements of predation and mortality are very rough, with high variation around any estimate. Unfortunately, such estimates are often presented as single values which tend to be taken as absolute values (e.g., Hansen 2009). The multiple sources of uncertainty that affect these values include abundance of adult striped bass, prey abundance, rates of prey encounter and consumption(which are now based only on stomach contents), as well as biases inherent in the designs and methods of different studies. Models, such as Lindley and Mohr (2003), can produce estimates of salmon loss to striped bass, but they are only as good as the information used to produce them, which is extremely limited in quality and amount. The Lindley and Mohr (2003) model, while excellent, has results that are merely a demonstration that striped bass could affect winter run Chinook numbers rather than a proof that they actually do.

 

5. There is a tendency to conflate all predation losses of salmon with striped bass and/or to dismiss the effects of other predators as being insignificant (e.g. Hansen 2009). In fact, there are a multitude of other predators on juvenile salmon in the system, from birds (e.g., mergansers, cormorants, terns) to other fish, native and non-native, including juvenile steelhead. The most abundant fish predator in the Delta today is probably largemouth bass, as the result of changes in hydrodynamics related to the ever-increasing export of water (Moyle and Bennett 2008). If a control program for striped bass can be justified, then it is likely one should also be instituted for largemouth bass, as well as for spotted bass, channel catfish, and other non-native predatory fish.

 

6. Applying mortality rates due to predation that were estimated using hatchery-reared salmon juveniles may have little bearing on those of fish from natural spawning. Thus, applying a predation mortality rate of 90% or so to represent what happens to out-migrating juvenile salmon from natural spawning has to done very carefully. Such a high predation rate is based only on observations of hatchery juveniles, which are typically released in large numbers over limited time periods. Because these fish are adapted for life in crowded hatchery troughs, where food comes from above in the form of pellets, they have never experienced the threat of predation. It is astonishing in many respects that as many of these fish survive as do. Wild fish, in contrast, are more wary, spending much of their time in cover with well-developed predator avoidance behavior; they tend to migrate at night and spend the days along the shoreline hiding in whatever cover is available.

 

7. Much of the predation on juvenile salmon (from multiple predator species) seems to take in place in conjunction with artificial structures and poor release practices. These include releases of fish from hatcheries and those trucked to the estuary from the export facilities in the south Delta. Opportunistic predators, such as striped bass, are extremely quick to cue on predictable events, such as regularly timed releases of smolts at a single location. Changing the simple-minded protocols associated with fish releases may be a wiser approach for reducing such predation, rather than using observations of these events to blame striped bass and justify predator control programs. Reducing predation opportunities at various artificial structures may also have large benefits and needs investigation.

 

8. If the striped bass is indeed the dominant predator on other fishes in the Delta and Sacramento River (the reason for a control program), then this predatory effect should be greatest on populations of other species that are more frequently consumed. The 'release’ from predation pressure associated with reducing striped bass numbers is thus highly likely to benefit many other alien fish which are also known predators and competitors on fishes of concern. This assertion is widely supported by ecological theory and numerous investigations in a variety of systems, including estuaries elsewhere. For example, Mississippi silversides are important in the diets of 1-3 year old striped bass, so bass predation could be regulating the silverside population. If true, then relieving silversides from striped bass predation pressure is likely to increase their numbers, which could have negative effects on delta smelt through predation on eggs and larvae (Bennett and Moyle 1996). This strongly suggests that any proposal to initiate a control program for striped bass should carefully consider the likely consequences, as well as involve an intensive study effort on the impact of program to make sure the alleged cure is not worse than the supposed disease. The take home message from all this is that reducing the striped bass population may or may not have a desirable effect.

 

In our opinion, it is most likely to have a negative effect. While the ultimate cause of death of most fish may be predation, the contribution of striped bass to fish declines is not certain. By messing with a dominant predator(if indeed it is), the agencies are inadvertently playing roulette with basic ecosystem processes that can change in unexpected ways in response to reducing striped bass numbers. Overall,the key to restoring populations of desirable species and to diminish populations of undesirable species (Brazilian waterweed, largemouth bass, etc.) is to return the Delta to being a more variable, estuarine environment. This is likely to happen naturally with sea level rise interacting with levee collapses (Lund et al 2007, 2008), but the populations of delta smelt and similar fishes may not be able to last that long. We stress that attempting to reduce striped bass and other predator populations is unlikely to make a difference in saving endangered fishes,and will serve only to distract attention from some of the real problems. However, efforts to reduce predation opportunities (not necessarily predators) in some locations with a focused effort may make a difference in the survival rates of depleted salmon and other species and provide some assistance to their recovery.

 

Citations used..

 

Bennett, W.A., and P. B. Moyle. 1996. Where have all the fishes gone: interactive factors

 

producing fish declines in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Pages 519-542 in J. T.

 

Hollibaugh, ed. San Francisco Bay: the Ecosystem. San Francisco: AAAS, Pacific Division.

 

Hansen, C. H. 2009 Striped bass predation on listed fish within the Bay-Delta Estuary and tributary

 

rivers. Expert Report Coalition for a Sustainable Delta et al. v. Koch, E.D. Cal. Case No.

 

CV 08-397-OWW. 63 pp.

 

Lindley, S.T. and M.S. Mohr. 2003. Modeling the effect of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) on the

 

population viability of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

 

tshawytscha). Fishery Bulletin 101:321-331

 

Lund, J., E. Hanak., W. Fleenor, W., R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. Moyle. 2007. Envisioning futures

 

for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

 

284 pp. (Available at ppic.org)

 

Lund, J., E. Hanak, W. Fleenor, W. Bennett, R. Howitt, J. Mount, and P. B. Moyle. 2010.

 

Comparing futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Berkeley, University of

 

California Press. 230 pp.

 

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and expanded. Berkeley: University of

 

California Press. 502 pp.

 

Moyle, P. B. and W. A. Bennett. 2008. The future of the Delta ecosystem and its fish. Technical

 

Appendix D, Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco:

 

Public Policy Institute of California. 38 pp. (Available at ppic.org)

 

Nobriga, M.L., and F. Feyrer. 2008. Diet composition in San Francisco Estuary striped bass: Does

 

trophic adaptability have its limits? Environmental Biology Fish 83: 495-503.

 

Stevens 1966. Food habits of striped bass (Roccus saxatilis) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

 

Pages 68-96 in J.L. Turner and D.W. Kelley, eds. Ecological studies of the Sacramento-San

 

Joaquin Estuary, part II: fishes of the Delta. CDFG Fish. Bull.136.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal is what it is. We want you to know what the proposal is and we want to learn what concerns you have about the proposal, hence the workshop.

 

If you support our proposal, don't support our proposal, or want to make a different proposal, please contact the California Fish and Game Commission.

 

Thanks

 

Marty Gingras

BDR-IEP Program Manager

California Department of Fish and Game

Bay Delta Region

4001 North Wilson Way

Stockton, California 95205

 

Phone (209) 948-3702

Phone (831) 372-2581

FAX (209) 946-6355

email mgingras@dfg.ca.gov

 

 

Marty

What concerns me and I would suspect, thousands of other sportsmen and women is this. How in the world can people such as yourself and the rest of the DFG who profess an interest in the preservation of Fish and game, suggest any other reason than lack of water and the maceration that occurs at the pumps, for the demise of the Salmon and smelt. You people must have read all the studies that have been done from the 50s on. There is only one fact that stands out like a sore thumb in all those studies. Its the lack of water stupid. And yet each new study adds some new factor as if to disguise the real culprit. Water stolen to be sold to southern interests. The Fish and Game Department is corrupt and or incompetent and that's a fact. Personally I don't know how you people can sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I yaked out into the straights near home tonight, in the middle of this first storm, just to try and get my mind of this sick ****.

 

It's not the greed that upsets me. It's not that a few have funded much of the research, or that the DFG sold its soul. Not much of a shock.

What I can't get my mind around: What kind of man would put this together, for the gains of other men? What kind of man would jump from board to board spreading his 'gentle' and 'kind' wisdom, for the gains of other men? What's it take? Like moocks, I can't figure out how he/they sleep. He/They are writing their history, and it isn't going to be pretty.The Truth isn't far behind: Water, water, water. The name promoting this will be destroyed. How could 'one' not care about thier family name? Where's the pride, dignity or sense of family history, if not human history?

This is killing me, and I saw it coming. Dang.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.