Do you like catching big bass? read this

[swimbait]

Because of the lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, DFG has been forced to assess every place in the state where they stock trout to decide if they are going to continue.

Do you like throwing swimbaits for bass and catching the big fat bass that CA is known for? Yeah I'm talking about those 7lb spots at Shasta, those giants at Don Pedro, and the world record class fish in San Diego. Well wake up guys because these decisions will determine if that kind fishing continues to be available in this state.

The "rule book" for deciding if they will stock or not is here:
http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=16303

The gist is that if any one of a long list of rare species is found at a place where DFG stocks, and they decide that that species could be impacted, then they will never stock trout again. Ever.

DFG biologists will be out in the field conducting these assessments soon. If this seems like something that you might care about here are some potential contacts. Now is not the time for a bunch of posts complaining and spouting off about the government. Now is the time to pick up the phone and dial.

DFG
http://dfg.ca.gov/regions/

Region 1 - Northern Region - (530) 225-2300

Region 2 - North Central Region - (916) 358-2900

Region 3 - Bay Delta Region - (707) 944-5500

Region 4 - Central Region - (559) 243-4005

Region 5 - South Coast Region - (858) 467-4201

Region 6 - Inland Deserts Region - (909) 484-0167

Center for Biological Diversity (they initiated the lawsuit that caused this)
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
center@biologicaldiversity.org
(520) 623.5252

Pacific Rivers Council (they were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the DFG)
http://pacificrivers.org/

Stanford Environmental Law Clinic (they worked for free to sue the DFG for the Center for Biological Diversity / Pacific Rivers Council)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/105/
Director: Deborah A. Sivas
dsivas@stanford.edu
650 723.0325

[swimbait]

Hi gang, had a chance to talk with some people in R3 (this is the Bay Area region). Here's what I learned...

1. DFG is pretty understaffed in this region.

2. Trout stocks are all on hold right now.

3. They've divided up the stocking waters in to categories. Category 1 is places that there's confidence no threatened species will be impacted. They're hoping to get those places cleared for stocking soon, as in a few weeks.

Category 2 waters are places like San Pablo, Loch Lomond, Stevens Creek, and Coyote. Those are places where threatened species are likely present and will need big evaluations. Whether they will ever stock again there is unknown. It will depend on whether an acceptable biological diversity mitigation plan can be put in place. What that would look like, I do not know at this time. These evaluations may take months or years.

4. As far as I can tell, groups like the Center for Biological diversity will not be allowed to conduct the pre-stocking assessments. However, regional parks and lake management groups like counties will provide data to the DFG. So, Santa Clara County will likely provide data for Coyote and Stevens Creek, and EBPARKS will provide data for their lakes, etc.

5. If trout stocking is put on hold for too long, or not enough waters are available, current hatchery fish will have to be killed because the fish will grow too large and be unsustainable in the hatcheries. This is a real concern, and there is a real concern with how these new stocking rules will contradict Hatchery Bill AB7's mandates of more trout. If 1/3 of license revenues are spent on hatcheries and they wind up having to kill the fish, that's a big issue.

There are a couple of avenues that could be used to fight on these issues. I am researching and formulating some plans. Please always remember in this that DFG is caught in the middle and NOT the ones who initiated this.

I haven't heard one peep from anyone on this site on this topic which astounds me. I don't know what kind of thing I have to say to wake you guys up. All I do know is that I will fight alone if I have to. Catching skinny 2lbers just doesn't do it for me.

[phishenphool]

Thanks Rob for the input. I have been following your info on your site as well. Please keep us updated.
Wes

[durobi]

These same A-holes stopped the stocking of the Kern River which flows into Lake Isabella. A lot of businesses which depend on the river trout fishing are really hurting. This situation is going into it's second year.
Make no mistake, the goal of the Center for Biological Diversity is to stop all fishing, hunting, and off roading. They do not care about the economic or recreational impact .
Like most other liberals they are out to destroy America as we know it and use the environment to achieve their goals.
The only solution I can think of is to join the Tea Party and take a look at the platform of Chuck DeVore who is running against Barbara Boxer.

[jimmy87]

These same A-holes stopped the stocking of the Kern River which flows into Lake Isabella. A lot of businesses which depend on the river trout fishing are really hurting. This situation is going into it's second year.
Make no mistake, the goal of the Center for Biological Diversity is to stop all fishing, hunting, and off roading. They do not care about the economic or recreational impact .
Like most other liberals they are out to destroy America as we know it and use the environment to achieve their goals.
The only solution I can think of is to join the Tea Party and take a look at the platform of Chuck DeVore who is running against Barbara Boxer.

you are right on the money. There will be things happening soon. These A-holes are pushing the limits. Sooner or later enough will be enough and they will pay.
We will stand up to them and they will be defeated. Blood shall be shed.

Call me crazy say what you will.
I am here to tell you these people want us off the water, out of the forest, and wish to close all public lands. They think the average person dose not have the sense to be in the outdoors.
Instead they think we should "view" and not step on the land.
They want guided tours of places such as Sierra streams and meadows. They do not want us in Places like Yosemite Valley or on the Kern River.
They would much rather you and I only stand and stare at the kern from a vista point or viewing station with a little plaque. Maybe an audio station in witch you push a button and a recording is played.
They are wanting to close down the Klamath, Smith River, Mattole, the Eel and many others.
Their attacks are on our lakes, rivers, streams, forests, hiking trails, OHV trails, state and federal parks alike.
If they get their way our children will not have the freedoms you and I share today.
if you think I am kidding or you think I am foolish, you must open your eyes and look around. There are many special interest groups forming and destroying our country.
Some are created by the government and others are started by a wealth individual. Often they are called "task forces"
I for one will not go down without a fight.

[jigginpig]

I wish to first state that I am sypathetic to the dilema. I understand the importance of trout as bass forage.

It is worth noting that the Dupras fish (Hodges, 20lb. 4oz.), as well as BOTH world records were from non trout plant lakes, and would tend to indicate the growth potential of bass is dependant on numerous factors. Yes, it would suck for Cali swimbaiters, but cancer sucks as well. It is all a matter of perspective.

For example, you could live in Colorado, where there are abundant, never ending plants, but no growing season.

I would invite you to consider the fact that our fish of choice is itself an invasive, allbeit a self-sustaining invasive. It is not dependant on stocking. It could well become the focus of elimination programs in it's introduced range, as in Japan. In my view, the idea that all invasives must be "controlled" is inevitable. It is happening in my state, with the pike and smallmouth shocking on the Yampa river to (hopefully) encourage the rebound of native suckers and minnows. The Yampa is a very productive waterway, and a top notch pike and smallmouth fishery, with five and up smallies pretty common. But the natives are in great perill, and there are those who think, rightly or wrongly, that the removal of the predators from the system will help the natives recover...

I am sympathetic to both perspectives. I do not wish to see the biodiversity of the planet impacted adversely, but I also wish to catch bass! In the end it is an argument of opinion, and the fact remains that opinions are in fact subjective.

The best possible outcome would be the one that allows the continuation of natural systems AND the use of the areas in question for recreational fishing of all types, from playdough dunking for slimers to swimbaiting for bass. A fact that seems to be overlooked in most assessments of these habitats is the fact that the impoundments themselves may be more to blame for the trouble with the natives. The Yampa is itself mostly free running, and is therefore great habitat. If human thirst and agriculture where out of the picture, natives would be in vastly better shape, even with the invasives! But to propose that we should rip out all the dams and revert to a natural flow in all our rivers would be met with...forceful opposition.

As anglers, our perspective is of little consequence to the policy makers. If anyone doubts this, please demonstrate how I am in error.

[durobi]

Jimmy 87,
Hopefully people are starting to Wakeup. Our problem starts at the top. I don't imagine our fearless leader BHO has ever held a rifle or fishing rod or for that matter even a real job!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jigginpig]

Jimmy 87,
Hopefully people are starting to Wakeup. Our problem starts at the top. I don't imagine our fearless leader BHO has ever held a rifle or fishing rod or for that matter even a real job!!!!!!!!!!!!

this has the potential to be a usefull and informative topic...it would be kinda weak to see it get bumped to the political area...

[mark poulson]

When they stopped the plants at Pyramid for a few years, all it did was hurt the striper population. The largemouth and smallies did fine.
I don't think that would be a bad thing at the Aqueduct lakes. Stripers are ravenous, and out compete everything else in the lakes.
But, since the Aqueduct lakes are man-made, I doubt "native fish" would even be an issue.
This is a big deal for trout fishermen who fish the reservoirs, but I don't think it's that big a deal for bass fishermen.
Having enough water in our lakes, and the Delta, is a much bigger concern in terms of the health of the bass fisheries.

[durobi]

When they stopped the plants at Pyramid for a few years, all it did was hurt the striper population. The largemouth and smallies did fine.
I don't think that would be a bad thing at the Aqueduct lakes. Stripers are ravenous, and out compete everything else in the lakes.
But, since the Aqueduct lakes are man-made, I doubt "native fish" would even be an issue.
This is a big deal for trout fishermen who fish the reservoirs, but I don't think it's that big a deal for bass fishermen.
Having enough water in our lakes, and the Delta, is a much bigger concern in terms of the health of the bass fisheries.

They will get around to Bass fisherman . The large mouth or any black bass is not native to California and it feeds on native species. The Environmentalist Whackos will use this and any other distorted fact to shut down all fishing. The Delta is particularly sensitive and I believe that will be their next target.
For example, Why do we need all those polluting bass boats running around on our precious drinking water? Remember they do not care about any effect their movement has on the economy or recreation.
These people are out to destroy our country. They voted for "CHANGE" and by God their going to get it at any cost.
Just look at what has happened to the ocean fishing with the MLPA regulations.
We are Next. It's time to wake up and fight!!!!!!!!!

[elfish16]

this topic I will talk about all day long. I have been fishing Lake Casitas since I was able to walk...I am now 26 years old. Sure I missed the boom in the giants of the 80's with Easly and the Jim Mason and Jay Carter fish...constant 15 pluses. When those were the good old days.

But since those days the trout have been a main stay at Casitas and led to consistent giants. Casitas was in the LA Times, Ventura Star and WON. But you never hear about it any longer. Its been a good 3-4 years since there's been a consistent trout plant system and there haven't been giants caught. Sure 10-12lbers are big bass but nothing this lake is capable of.

Casitas has NO other predator fish in it to cause a drop in the size such as a Castaic or others with Stripers. So if you look at it... I got a 14.25# bass last February and its been the biggest bass caught and recorded at Casitas in over 2.5 years. Thats SAD!

Sure crawdads will keep fish fat and happy and account for a LOT of giants but just in my experiences at a lake with nothing other than LMB... no more trout spells DOOM on the giants! Shoot...minimal trout plants spell doom!

Fish Casitas now and you can't even get a consistent swimbait bite...and when you do they are small 3-6lbers. I can get those all day on a jig or crank.

This is a very serious issue and scary to us all who chase the giants on a daily basis. My old man and I have been pursuing these guys for over a year in attempts to get things straightened out for 1 lake(and we've made no headway)... this is the entire state people!

Scary stuff!

[lunker punker]

What do we do and where do we start? Its insane that they will do this to all the prdators who eat trout to save a frog. I dont think the frogs need to worry about the trout. With no trout the bass will eat the frogs like popcorn. Ther is no quick fix here. I say fock the frog and keep dumpin trout.

[durobi]

What do we do and where do we start? Its insane that they will do this to all the prdators who eat trout to save a frog. I dont think the frogs need to worry about the trout. With no trout the bass will eat the frogs like popcorn. Ther is no quick fix here. I say fock the frog and keep dumpin trout.

In the case of the Kern River ,the Center for Biological Diversity gave up on trying to prove the trout eat the three toed frog . Now it's their contintion that the trout are eating the hardhead minnow.This also has been proven false since one of the hatchery people has an aquarium with both species and they are coexisting fine.
The CBD does not really have to prove any of their theories, all they do is find a judge to put out a court order to stop stocking or fishing or hunting or end access to any area until a " Study" can be done to prove an activity is not harmful to a supposedly threatend or endanged species.
This eats up state and federal money and stops the activity they want to end.
By keeping it tied up in court , They win!

[swimbait]

jigginpig, is that you Tag?

Your post is spot on. It is all about balancing habitat, species, and human use. This doesn't have to be an us-vs-them scenario.

In some places in CA it was wrong to ever stock trout, and if that can be undone (like in high sierra lakes) I can't imagine compelling reasons why it shouldn't be undone.

But in other places like lowland, warm water, man made lakes, the notion that there is opportunity there to restore some sort of natural state is really foolish.

Nature is not a computer where you can push an undo button. These fisheries issues do not correlate to the issues that the Center for Biological Diversity initially set out fighting (things like the spotted owl in New Mexico). This isn't simply a matter of restoring habitat, or kicking ATVs out of the desert. Fisheries and the ecosystems around them are much more complex.

This is where as an angler I am setting up for a fight on specific issues because when I look at the direct results of this lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity it is apparent that they did not understand what the outcome would be. Some rare species will benefit from ending trout stocks, but many will not.

The ecosystems at our lakes with stocked trout have evolved around those trout. An abnormally large predator base has evolved with animals like ospreys, herons, bass, and cormorants. These folks may think it's great if the bass are starving (they are) but they are not thinking clearly about how the starving bass are now roaming the lakes looking to devour ANYTHING that fit in their mouths.

That means endangered frogs, salamanders, baby birds, etc.

So maybe they are thinking the next step is to eliminate the bass. But without the small bass, the cormorants are even hungrier. And it will never be PC for them to go around shooting cormorants. It's also true that eliminating bass entirely is not a viable option. Because the process of doing so requires rotenone, which is a poision that gills most fish with gills. If you kill all the fish with gills in the lakes and streams, you kill the native fish that you were setting out to protect.

In these cases where there is no way to bring back nature to what it once was, a more thoughtful management plan for wildlife needs to be implemented. This is where the Center for Biological Diversity has gone so wrong. In their rush to do good, they have instead done damage. This damage will be followed by more, because their stated strategy is to layer lawsuits one on top of the other to overwhelm government agencies until those agencies do what they want.

This first suit against the DFG will be followed by more suits. If the outcomes are not favorable to the Center they will file even more. This is their strategy. You can read about it in the book Eco Barons - The Dreamers, Schemers, and Millionaires Who are Saving Our Planet.

[durobi]

SwimBait,
I agree with your post, but I don't really think the CBD gives a Damn about the species. What they hate is the activity and they are using the species as a tool to put an end to fishing and hunting.

[Delaney]

I didn't read all of the comments here, and this may be changing the subject. Recently it was reported in newspapers that because DFG stopped stocking some lakes with trout, that they had an excess of trout and were tripling the amount that they were putting in some of the lakes in the Fresno area namely, Eastman, Hensley, and Bass lakes in Madera County. I know that trout stocking is a good thing for bass fishing, but wonder if too much might be have the opposite effect. I've noticed at Eastman this year that there was an absence of bait-fish, and at Hensley the bass fishing was non existent. I don't think I've ever seen a lake go through a year long period with no active bass bites. I have to wonder if these things may be due to the excess trout stocking.

[fish_food]

I would invite you to consider the fact that our fish of choice is itself an invasive, allbeit a self-sustaining invasive. It is not dependant on stocking. It could well become the focus of elimination programs in it's introduced range, as in Japan. In my view, the idea that all invasives must be "controlled" is inevitable.

I keep reading people's references to bass in CA as an "invasive" species. Where is that language formally used--have bass in fact been declared "invasive" in formal studies, academic papers or by governmental bodies in this state?

Yes, it's true that bass aren't native to CA. They're purposely INTRODUCED species that are now firmly established and naturalized. The term "invasive" implies they were somehow unintentionally introduced and are now causing ecologic and economic harm. These bass were purposely introduced under the auspices of the Dept. of Fish & Game for benefit of the citizens of CA.

If the descriptor "invasive" isn't actually applied to our bass species in formal studies and if they're not thought of as an invasive species by those in the fisheries field, please don't use it. It's a politicized term used to give weight to the other sides' arguments--don't give them additional ammo. Just use the term "introduced" if you must since that's what they really are.

[Oldschool]

Where does anyone draw the line and define a native fish species in CA?
The Cotton Wood lakes Golden trout in the high Sierra mountains are native to CA. The McCloud river rainbow trout are native. I believe that is the only native trout, all others have been planted at some time period. All fresh water bass are non native species in CA. We only have a few minnows, suckers, etc., that make up native species.
Need to read and learn what is going on.
The state is in bankruptcy and spending tax money punishing the tax paying people who rely on recreational fishing, that in turns supports the recreational busunesses who pay more tax money.
The only way to get anything done is threaten the politicians who rely on your vote.
Tom

[CN]

Where does anyone draw the line and define a native fish species in CA?
The Cotton Wood lakes Golden trout in the high Sierra mountains are native to CA. The McCloud river rainbow trout are native. I believe that is the only native trout, all others have been planted at some time period. All fresh water bass are non native species in CA. We only have a few minnows, suckers, etc., that make up native species.
Need to read and learn what is going on.
The state is in bankruptcy and spending tax money punishing the tax paying people who rely on recreational fishing, that in turns supports the recreational busunesses who pay more tax money.
The only way to get anything done is threaten the politicians who rely on your vote.
Tom

I believe some strains of Cutthroat,Steelhead and Pacific Salmon also are native to California. Heck even Carp are non native.

[bassenvy]

Lots of politrics and smoke and mirrors involved here... It seems as if the environmentalists are back peddling trying to preserve and save face on something they over looked MANY years ago.

On the flip side maybe they can focus on rehabilitating the once self sustaining warm water species population that "used" to be in our small reservoirs while the years of testing goes on. Without the trout (and catfish I assume) the lakes will have a new carrying capacity.

Also seems like now would be a good time to petition for various slot limits to protect the trophy largemouth.

Rob I respect your efforts, keep up the good work.

[jigginpig]

I would invite you to consider the fact that our fish of choice is itself an invasive, allbeit a self-sustaining invasive. It is not dependant on stocking. It could well become the focus of elimination programs in it's introduced range, as in Japan. In my view, the idea that all invasives must be "controlled" is inevitable.

I keep reading people's references to bass in CA as an "invasive" species. Where is that language formally used--have bass in fact been declared "invasive" in formal studies, academic papers or by governmental bodies in this state?

Yes, it's true that bass aren't native to CA. They're purposely INTRODUCED species that are now firmly established and naturalized. The term "invasive" implies they were somehow unintentionally introduced and are now causing ecologic and economic harm. These bass were purposely introduced under the auspices of the Dept. of Fish & Game for benefit of the citizens of CA.

If the descriptor "invasive" isn't actually applied to our bass species in formal studies and if they're not thought of as an invasive species by those in the fisheries field, please don't use it. It's a politicized term used to give weight to the other sides' arguments--don't give them additional ammo. Just use the term "introduced" if you must since that's what they really are.

Kudzu in the south was deliberatly introduced. Fire ants were not. Both species are now doing quite well, and are in fact "naturalized" in the areas they have come to inhabit.

Both are invasive, a fact that has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of humans for or against their existance outside the organisim's native range.

Our attitudes toward an animal or plant species has no bearing on its status as an alien in a novel environment. I will confess I prefer to think of LMB with a more kindly disposition than I reserve for fire ants, (as I am sure anyone who has wound up on the wrong end of a fire ant stinger would likewise do) but the simple fact remains that they are invasive. AS IS CORN! But it would be quite a task to set one's self to argue against the planting of corn, due to the fact that we all like food, and the fact that agribuisness is so well intrenched with the governing bodies of our nation.

I may have an opinion on a topic, but it would be well for me to carefully evaluate the facts from all sides before I pronounce myself, lest I give assistance to those who oppose my perspective!

I very much agree that bass are neat critters, and I love to catch them. (how the bass feel about my affection is a matter that has yet to be resolved) But it would be an act of oversight to suppose that all or even most share my perspective on this, and it would be worth the effort to try and understand the other's perspectives, EVEN IF I DONT HOLD THEM MYSELF, so that I may better formulate my own ideas and arguments.

Swimbait, my name is Shaun. Thanks for the kind words, it would seem we are in some accord on this topic. I feel very strongly that the battles for the environment should be picked by looking for systems that are less impacted, and making resolute efforts to preserve those areas. In this way we can accomodate the expanding human population and at the same time preserve diversity in the natural world. We are making halting progress in this area, as would seem logical. For example, rivers have not been bursting in to flames for a while, which I feel we can all agree is a good thing. We can set an example for other nations to follow. And we can look for ways of making this happen that serve the public needs and wants, without resorting to knee jerk tactics, or falling in line with eco idiots like PETA.

There is a middle way.

Shaun

[Oldschool]

100 years ago it was 1910 and our forefathers were busy transplanting brook trout from the atlantic coast, brown trout from Germany, lake trout from Alaska and moving rainbow trout to any the free flowing rivers throughout the western states. The early transplanters were also busy importing bass; largemeouth, smallmouth, spotted bass, bluegill, sunfish, crappie and even the striped bass from the northeast and southeast.
50 years ago we imported the Florida LMB. All the pacific salmon we have today are mixed native/hatchery fish and a few strains of the rainbow trout, plus the golden trout are native. Outside of the Cotton Wood lakes, every waterway in CA has non native or hatchery raised fish, which should mean the DFG could stock hatchery rainbow trout into evey lake, stream or river below 9,000 feet.
The idea bass can't grow to giant size without planted trout is false. Bass can't grow to maximum size without a abundant prey supply or if over harvested. I don't believe the delta bass are growing big on planted trout, for example.
environmentalist that don't agree with the recreational fishing industry and not idiots, they can be well oranized and funded zealots trying to make the environment fit their view ideology.

[fish_food]

I would invite you to consider the fact that our fish of choice is itself an invasive, allbeit a self-sustaining invasive. It is not dependant on stocking. It could well become the focus of elimination programs in it's introduced range, as in Japan. In my view, the idea that all invasives must be "controlled" is inevitable.

I keep reading people's references to bass in CA as an "invasive" species. Where is that language formally used--have bass in fact been declared "invasive" in formal studies, academic papers or by governmental bodies in this state?

Yes, it's true that bass aren't native to CA. They're purposely INTRODUCED species that are now firmly established and naturalized. The term "invasive" implies they were somehow unintentionally introduced and are now causing ecologic and economic harm. These bass were purposely introduced under the auspices of the Dept. of Fish & Game for benefit of the citizens of CA.

If the descriptor "invasive" isn't actually applied to our bass species in formal studies and if they're not thought of as an invasive species by those in the fisheries field, please don't use it. It's a politicized term used to give weight to the other sides' arguments--don't give them additional ammo. Just use the term "introduced" if you must since that's what they really are.

Kudzu in the south was deliberatly introduced. Fire ants were not. Both species are now doing quite well, and are in fact "naturalized" in the areas they have come to inhabit.

"Invasive" carries negative connotations and is usually applied when the introduced species causes more harm than good. Harm is relative of course, and it depends on who is calling a species' presence "harmful." The term is mainly used to vilify something.

Bass on the other hand, do provide a highly measurable recreational and economic benefit and said benefits of their intentional stocking here are accepted by the majority of citizens.

[jigginpig]

I will concede the point that the intent of the one who speaks about an organisim may be in part demonstrated by the choice of words used to describe that species.

It is possible as well that it would be better from a tactical standpoint for us both to refer to bass as introduced rather than invasive though I consider it a largely subjective issue, and one that has more to do with opinion than we may care to admit.

or not!

I would like to make the point that I VERY much concur with most of you on this issue. I would also like to give my perspective as a more (or less) sane and rational tree hugging eco hippie environmentalist. OK, OK, I am not really a hippie, I just threw that in for effect. But honestly, there are those who are able to see the fact that man has an impact on the planet as a problem that needs to be examined with great scrutiny, as there does after all seem to be a shortage of options for relocation at the moment.

There are smart and reasonable people on both sides of most issues. We should all attempt to assimilate that information. We are pretty good at finding problems, but it seems we are much less adept at finding solutions!

The morons on the fringe of any issue (sorry to any fringe morons reading this) are not an asset in our efforts.

[durobi]

I will concede the point that the intent of the one who speaks about an organisim may be in part demonstrated by the choice of words used to describe that species.

It is possible as well that it would be better from a tactical standpoint for us both to refer to bass as introduced rather than invasive though I consider it a largely subjective issue, and one that has more to do with opinion than we may care to admit.

or not!

I would like to make the point that I VERY much concur with most of you on this issue. I would also like to give my perspective as a more (or less) sane and rational tree hugging eco hippie environmentalist. OK, OK, I am not really a hippie, I just threw that in for effect. But honestly, there are those who are able to see the fact that man has an impact on the planet as a problem that needs to be examined with great scrutiny, as there does after all seem to be a shortage of options for relocation at the moment.

There are smart and reasonable people on both sides of most issues. We should all attempt to assimilate that information. We are pretty good at finding problems, but it seems we are much less adept at finding solutions!

The morons on the fringe of any issue (sorry to any fringe morons reading this) are not an asset in our efforts.

The solution to the problem has nothing to do with with invasive or introduced species or anything else in the environment. We are dealing with a group of liberal progressives who want a fundamental change in the American way of life. They use the environment as a tool to destroy our economic and recreation oppotunities.
They will continue to file one suit after the other until they achieve their goal .Unless we ready to recognize this fact and fight them on every front we will lose.
This country will no longer exist in it's present form when we are not willing to fight for our freedoms and liberties. You cannot compromise with these people,they will continue to destroy our nation until there is no longer a reason to sacrifice for it's preservation. Then they will have achieved their version of world peace and BIG GOVRNMENT can take care of us all.

[mark poulson]

They're just a bunch of people who want things to be like they were "in the good old days", without really knowing what that means.
If we're going to roll back the clock, let's kick everyone out of the U.S. except the American Indians, and even they came from Asia.
These extremists need a little common sens, but common sense is the most uncommon thing, unfortunately.
People need to find a happy medium that lets us all cooexist, because we're not going anywhere.

[jigginpig]

durobi, am I correct to assume that you yourself desire fundamental changes in America?

The country we inhabit on this day is slightly different than the one we lived in yesterday, and the country we live in tomorrow will likewise differ. There are 303,000,000 seperate individuals in America, and each one has a unique perspective, though some would perhaps prefer not to admit it.

The "American Way Of Life" is something that can not be pinned down, unless we all agree to dispense with our individuality. As America has long held individualisim in high esteem, it seems antithetical to the very existance of our nation to attempt to install a particular idea of what is meant by that phrase. So the idea of "us and them" is in this way a very un-American notion.

Please understand this is simply a way to look at things, and is in no way a reflection of any judgement on my part. I want nothing but the best for me, you, "us," and "them."

Shaun

[jimmy87]

Please understand this is simply a way to look at things, and is in no way a reflection of any judgement on my part. I want nothing but the best for me, you, "us," and "them."

Shaun

Problem is you do not know whats good for you let alone me us and them. Seems you are book smart and very good with writing. Other than that I see little sense.
When you change a river in to a huge body of water called a resivour the enviroment is changed. It is changed so mankind can have water and power. The frogs and other creatures that NO ONE gives a ratts *** about might not like this body of water.
Alot of people including the elderly and children enjoy this body of water by sitting on the bank catching PLANTED trout.
This is a GREAT AMERICAN pass time.
So some small cretures suffer for man to have electicity and drinking water. Along with that is great recreation and PLANTED trout to keep people interesting in fishing.

All of this about stupid little frogs and such is so ridiculous
is it not clear there is another hidden agenda here?

maybe we need to remove all dams, be rid of all vechicles including boats, planes and trains. Remove all the roads. Knock down all the homes and buildings in the country.
Then all the cute little creatures of the land will not have to worry about being killed by man.
we can go back to living in caves and maybe in time we be forgiven for all our horrible sins.

[Marc]

Anyone who doesn't see this particular lawsuit as being important to them has their head stuck in the sand. Make no mistake about it, the plaintiffs in this suit are extremely well-organized and well-funded.

Peruse the website of the Center for Biological Diversity, and look at the backgrounds and education of the staff. It reads like an alumni collection of UC Berkley Law School. This organization has created a lucrative industry in filing environmental lawsuits. While the members of the organization may be altruistic in their desire to protect the earth, their financial support has funded a huge legal team that has found job security in environmental law.

How they affect the lifestyles of others is immaterial to their real goals. Is the staff of this organization (like many other environmental political action organizations) more about getting rich off the apathetic public through legal action than they are about being public servants?

Do they go home to their expensive homes (maybe with the best ocean views they want for themselves, and by their very existence have impacted the environment) and laugh over how stupid the public is and how smart they are in being able to make a living off of us?

Who are the real predators that need controlling? Although laws like the Endangered Species Act have a valuable purpose, do some pervert their valuable purpose by using our judicial system as a way to profit rather than serve the collective good?

The plaintiffs are clearly organized with one function in mind, to bring environmental lawsuits against the public and government. Guess who has to pay the costs of defending the government?

Again, this isn't about stocked trout, this is about job security for attorneys who figured out how to pit the judicial branch of government against the legislative branch. Hatchery trout are today, and everything else is tomorrow. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to claim any action has an impact on endangered species, so there is no end to this madness until the public wakes up and changes the laws.

Nobody wants to live in a polluted world. Every species has value in one way or another, and we should try to conserve all. But the public needs to wake up and take control over who is really working to make the world a better place to live, and who is just trying to profit from it.

ciao,
Marc

[Riplip]

For that matter...the White man is a non-native to California, an intoduced species that brought pollution, destruction of habitat, creation of dams and rerouting of waterways, as well as the introduction of other species such as striped bass and largemouth bass.

All that has been done cannot be undone.

Man has always manipulated his environment to his advantage unlike most every other species, which adapt or die.

[swimbait]

durobi - the CBD absolutely cares about the species. Fervently. Their founders are extremely concerned about what they call the sixth wave of extinction. I do not believe that recreational use of land is their primary objective, but they will be against it in cases where it impacts rare species.

Oldschool - there are many native trout in CA. Please visit this link for a listing:
http://www.caltrout.org/pages/conservat ... on_101.asp
I know you've been around a long time man and seen a lot, but it's important to put out accurate info online. Stating that there are only a handful of native fish in CA is not true. Read the 1,000 Mile Summer by Colin Fletcher for a great account of fishing for one of CA's rarest native fish, the Paiute Trout.

Shaun - nice to meet you. Sorry I was confused about who you were. There is another guy with a similar screen name on my site. I can tell you're doing some deep thinking on this topic and that is the kind of thinking that is needed. This is not a simple issue with simple solutions.

Marc - thanks for "getting it". This is a BIG ISSUE guys. BIG BIG BIG. This is the first salvo from the CBD on fishing and more will follow. They're behind this issue, the Alameda Creek Closure, and some of the delta smelt issues. It will continue from there. This is a group with a 55+ person staff and a multi-million dollar budget. Anglers who believe in compromise solutions where recreation is balanced with great habitat and opportunities for native species to survive and prosper need to organize and be a part of this new battle.

My wheels are turning on this and I hope everyone else's are too.

[jigginpig]

"Problem is you do not know whats good for you let alone me us and them. Seems you are book smart and very good with writing. Other than that I see little sense... "

thanks for the kind words, not bad for an eight grade drop out? yes, I do tend to consider things from a range of perspectives. the only time we should put people in boxes is when they are DEAD.

"Nobody wants to live in a polluted world. Every species has value in one way or another, and we should try to conserve all. But the public needs to wake up and take control over who is really working to make the world a better place to live, and who is just trying to profit from it."

hey look folks! an idea! do not be affraid, it cant harm you, it's just an idea.

Rob, nice to meet you as well. I admire you for your efforts on a range of matters, not the least of which are the fish you catch! I am Swimbait on the Colorado Fisherman site, I have considered changing that in light of the fact that you had the tag first.

Shaun

[durobi]

JigNpig, and Swimbat , Wow ,this is a lively discussion , some how I think it would be a hell of a lot more fun if it could be done while jigin for hawgs.
I do know one thing for sure, we all need to stick together and protect our fishing and hunting rights or they will be gone. Let's not let petty differences blind us to the big picture.
So , I think I'm goin to Lake Isabella and try to improve on my personal best of 9-14 . I told myself I would not get a replica mount until I got over 10 and I want that mount.
Good Luck Guys, now go catch some Big'uns' .

[swimbait]

Amen brother. Always best to chat while fishing. I suspect that if everyone on this post could meet in person and chat we'd all get on just great. Life is like that.

Feb is prime time for momma bass to be chewing. Good luck.

[jigginpig]

durobi, well said.

I have always felt that face to face conversations are much more productive as a rule, but I bet some of my draw partners would beg to differ.

I am looking at a foot or so of ice on my water, so no chance to fish for me. sorry, just not gonna drill.

keep us posted on the PB status Durobi.

Jig

[Oldschool]

durobi - the CBD absolutely cares about the species. Fervently. Their founders are extremely concerned about what they call the sixth wave of extinction. I do not believe that recreational use of land is their primary objective, but they will be against it in cases where it impacts rare species.

Oldschool - there are many native trout in CA. Please visit this link for a listing:
http://www.caltrout.org/pages/conservat ... on_101.asp
I know you've been around a long time man and seen a lot, but it's important to put out accurate info online. Stating that there are only a handful of native fish in CA is not true. Read the 1,000 Mile Summer by Colin Fletcher for a great account of fishing for one of CA's rarest native fish, the Paiute Trout.

Shaun - nice to meet you. Sorry I was confused about who you were. There is another guy with a similar screen name on my site. I can tell you're doing some deep thinking on this topic and that is the kind of thinking that is needed. This is not a simple issue with simple solutions.

Marc - thanks for "getting it". This is a BIG ISSUE guys. BIG BIG BIG. This is the first salvo from the CBD on fishing and more will follow. They're behind this issue, the Alameda Creek Closure, and some of the delta smelt issues. It will continue from there. This is a group with a 55+ person staff and a multi-million dollar budget. Anglers who believe in compromise solutions where recreation is balanced with great habitat and opportunities for native species to survive and prosper need to organize and be a part of this new battle.

My wheels are turning on this and I hope everyone else's are too.

OK, CA has several isolted native specie of trout, none in man made reservoirs, with the possible exceptions; lake Shasta where the McCloud river and Pitt river enters the lake and lake Islabella where the Kern and Little Kern enters the lake. Stop planting hatchery rainbows in 2 reserviors; Shasta and Isabella and the warm water fishery population of anglers would be happy. The few free flowing rivers and streams with native trout populations should be easy to manage without stopping trout plants throughout the state, in reserviors.
Tom

[npangler]

This is just another prime example of what is wrong with this state.
and unfortunatly no one person or organization is going to do anything to stop it.its seems to be the course this state has chosen the way things are going that commercial during the superbowl were the guy gets busted by the plastic bag police will be a reality I have no dought about that.

[jigginpig]

The few free flowing rivers and streams with native trout populations should be easy to manage without stopping trout plants throughout the state, in reserviors.
Tom

sounds reasonable!

to my way of thinking, reservoirs are a sort of separate issue. the very fact that they exist indicates a change in habitat, and they should be regulated in ways that reflect as much, special circumstances notwithstanding.