DFG Seeking to Eradicate Delta Striper

DanO · Post by **DanO** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:42 am

Better get out there and let your voice be heard.

Black bass are next, better show up in force.

I'm traveling through Alabama and Texas the next two weeks, or I'd be there. But, this is real, and quite damaging for the Delta.

http://www.thefishingwire.com/story/248047

DanO

GregD · Post by **GregD** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:35 am

Unless I missed it, the article doesn't state how they are changing the regulations. Are they reducing the size limit on a keeper? Are they increasing the number of keepers that can be taken in a day?

sTony · Post by **sTony** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:44 am

Interesting reading, they don't really know what impact striper predation has on other species, but it COULD be substantial. So, once again, these folks would make changes on what they readily admit they don't even really know anything about.

Would love to see anyone from DFG come in here and explain. Sure seems like they're just another tool being used to shut down fishing so water can be moved more freely.

I was at the last several rounds of the striper ordeal with California government, sure do hope others step up to fight the good fight.

sTony

swimbait · Post by **swimbait** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:50 am

The proposed reg change is not showing on the Commission site under 2011 new and proposed regs: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2011/ so maybe it's not on the board yet.

Don't underestimate the power of public comment in these decisions! I fought, as an individual citizen, to get the Shadow Cliffs back ponds reopened and get some of our lakes stocked with trout again. The back ponds are open and several Bay Area lakes are closer to getting DFG trout again as a result.

If you go to give comment, wear a suit and tie and be prepared to state what you want. Ranting does nothing. State what you want and what your rationale is.

Which brings us to the question: What would your message be to the Commission? How do you guys think striper should be managed in the delta?

Should CA DFG stock striper in the Delta?

What should the size and bag limit be?

It's probably pretty easy to prove that striper are detrimental to threatened and endangered species in the Delta. So it would not surprise me if the Commission is forced in to changing the way striper are managed at the Delta at some point. The environmental groups are going to aim for no stocking and no bag limit. What are fishing groups going to counter with?

If DFG stops stocking striper and declares open season, can fishermen get a longer, or guaranteed salmon season as a tradeoff? The vast majority of salmon in the delta are hatchery fish anyway, making the notion of protecting them a bit abstract and absurd.

If they go open season on striper, can funds for striper management be directed to habitat restoration or water quality improvements? Striper will never go extinct in the Delta, so does it make sense to manage the ecosystem for overall quality and not focus on striper stocking and bag limits? Maybe all fish would benefit from an environment management approach vs. a regulation change approach.

Think about it. Think about why the Delta is the way it is. I think we get way too focused on the details of fisheries management and forget that the real problems at places like the Delta come from dams, water diversion, and channelization.

Hell, maybe I should go to this meeting. I'm sick of misguided lawyers managing our fish.

tthomasy · Post by **tthomasy** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:07 am

For the record I fish for neither salmon or stripers, just the greens for the most part. A couple of weeks ago I attended a water agency meeting up here in Redding. One of the guest speakers was a fisheries biologist who focused his presentation on this subject. He talked about the stripers and black bass being non native to the delta and their impact on the salmon population. Throughout the delta their are " scour" holes where these predators "hole" up. These holes supposedly were created by the pumping or moving of water from its natural flow. He said they attached transmitters to juvenile salmon so they could monitor them from freshwater to the sea and vice versa. Subsequently they found several of these transmitters in one single location (scour hole). His powerpoint presentation was very interesting. It also showed how the juveniles moved back and forth with tide thus giving these predators more shots at them. Again I don't fish for salmon so I am by no means an expert on this but thought it was interesting.

Ceaser · Post by **Ceaser** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:52 pm

I wonder why they wouldnt hold something like this on a saturday where it was readily accessable to more people. Talking to the older Delta fisherman i have met the delta used to support enormous populations of both salmon and stripers. The striped bass from the delta are california history with the Rio Vista Bass Derby winner being presented to the govener as a tradition. To try to bring the Delta back to its original state?! Are we gonna knock the levies down too!? This is absolutly disgusting what $ is doing to the enviornement here. Everyone from the government up to the president is aware of whats happening... but the $ is proving stronger. I am working nites starting at 7 of course that day but any other chances from now on Im driving around the island and picking up a car load and goin!

sorry for yelling lol

Urban · Post by **Urban** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:22 pm

[quote="sTony"]Interesting reading, they don't really know what impact striper predation has on other species, but it COULD be substantial. So, once again, these folks would make changes on what they readily admit they don't even really know anything about.

Would love to see anyone from DFG come in here and explain. Sure seems like they're just another tool being used to shut down fishing so water can be moved more freely.

I was at the last several rounds of the striper ordeal with California government, sure do hope others step up to fight the good fight.

sTony[/quote]

Actually, they do know what the impacts are to listed species. Theres been plenty of diet studies on striped bass and all have showed they prey very little on listed species (diet studies have shown largemouth prey more heavily, although still very little, on listed species than stripers). This is a political thing; the water use industry is trying to shift the blame for declines and they are using the striper as a scapegoat. We will never make a dent, through recreational harvest, in the striper population. Every biologist knows that. I do believe there are certain "predator funnels" where removing them would likely help listed species. But Delta wide, no way. Yeah, changing regs to address striper impacts to listed species makes certain entities very happy, but it accomplishes no tangible results.

mark poulson · Post by **mark poulson** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:31 am

Over the last 5 years I've attended the DFG jamboree in SoCal, and met with some of the SFG people.
All of them are fisheries biologists. Most of them fish for bass. All of them are interested in managing the fisheries for the benefit of the fisheries.
My point is they are, for the most part, anglers themselves, and do care about bass fishing.
The peripheral canal is a water grab for the San Juaquin Valley farmers. It's driven by politicians who go with the money flow, not the DFG.

Ceaser · Post by **Ceaser** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:06 am

Anyone in the DFG, especially if they are fisheries biologist should be ashamed if they are not fighting these things tooth and nail. You dont have to fish the delta or even fish to be appauled by what is going on here in the delta. Socal water companys recieved record amounts of water to fill their surlplus.. enough for 1.5 yrs of water use for all of california.. yet they are selling water for wholesell prices. Mismanagment, $, and turning a blind eye to enviornmental clues killed Salton Sea and turned it to a ghost town. That was from pesticide and chemical run off from farms in the middle of a desert. The deltas next on the list i guess. COOL!

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:32 am

Ceaser wrote:Anyone in the DFG, especially if they are fisheries biologist should be ashamed if they are not fighting these things tooth and nail.

Fisheries Biologists and Envirnonmental Scientists don't fight rulings or policy. Their role is to perform the gruntwork for studies, distill the data into findings and offer their scientific opinion and recommendations--whether their recommendations are followed or not is up to division heads and the governing Commission, which in this case is the CA Fish & Game Commission (an altogether separate entity from Dept. of Fish & Game). DFG only serves to implement policy level decisions set by the Commission.

Commissioners and Boards serve at the pleasure of those who appoint them.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:34 am

A good read that cites Peter Moyle: http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/01/

Ceaser · Post by **Ceaser** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:01 pm

I cant argue that their job is not to fight for such matters but as persons working directly with the problem i would have to say i would be disappointed in them on a personal level. I work in the eco field. My job is to stay within to regulatory setpoints for water and air pollution. But things could be done to seem within law and still pollute. Now its not my job to report bad practices to an active agency when the numbers are within setpoints... but what kind of person would i be to just stand around and let the enviornment be wrecked and not stand up and do something to right the wrong. A fisheries biologist actively opposing shakey data presented by water companys will hold alot more weight than a coupla bass fishermen who dont want their fish killed.

fish_food · Post by **fish_food** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:39 pm

Sure, the biologists and ES staff all know what's up and they do voice their opinions. But since they're not policy staff, they're far removed from higher level decision making.

swimbait · Post by **swimbait** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:07 pm

Brilliant piece. That sums it all up perfectly. Thanks for the link.

fish_food wrote:A good read that cites Peter Moyle: http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/01/

swimbait · Post by **swimbait** » Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:55 pm

Link to the proposed regs: http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2011/11/0 ... -location/

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.