Declaring Clear Lake Hitch Threatened or Endangered

[swimbait]

Reposting here, just trying to help out. My opinions only. Helping you form your own

-----
The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning CA DFG to list the Clear Lake Hitch as threatened or endangered.

Read it:
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/2012/ ... -25-12.pdf

The proposed listing is based on two general factors

1. The hitch in Clear Lake being identified as a separate species from other hitch in CA

2. The hitch in Clear Lake declining in numbers substantially from the past.

There's been several posts on WB and Calbassin about this topic and I sense some confusion from the angling community about what this means.

Here is my take...

1. I think the Commission will list the Clear Lake Hitch as threatened, possibly even endangered. A reasonable person will look at how many hitch there are now compared to the past and know that something is going wrong.

2. The question for fishermen is - what does a threatened or endangered listing mean? After studying this in some detail, most of the outcomes are good. A few are debatable and one or two are potentially bad (and at the same time pointless)

Since most fishermen want to see lots and lots of hitch in Clear Lake, the outcomes that most fishermen would agree are good are things like:

- Eliminating barriers to upstream hitch migration where feasible (hitch apparently are not very good at jumping over things like salmon)

- Improve riparian habitat quality (eg lots of nice trees and bushes and such along the sides of the creeks)

- Enforce streambed permitting to prevent people from building structures that will modify stream flow

- No gravel mining in streambeds

Things that most fishermen (but probably not most farmers) would agree on are:

- Don't conduct April / May groundwater pumping for pear orchard frost protection (this causes hitch spawning streams to dry out faster than normal)

- Remove 'temporary road crossings' (gravel pushed in to creeks to allow cars to drive across)

- Enforcement action against illegal direct pumping from creeks

Things that people [/b]might disagree[/b] on would be:

- Don't spray for knats (food source of hitch, annoyance when driving bass boats at high speed)

- Don't spray weeds or use alternative sprays / methods (clear lake turns in to a giant weed mat on the north end without spraying)

Thing that fishermen will probably disagree with are

- Mitigating actions that include netting or electrofishing largemouth bass and killing them. While these methods aren't explicitly called out in the proposal, it's suggested that "more study" be conducted

It's hard to read between the lines on the 'killing the bass' question but let's have a go... Here's the exact words they use:

"The impact of largemouth bass on hitch populations should be carefully investigated and if bass are determined to be a major source of mortality, an action plan to reduce bass predation should be implemented. Possible measures could be protection zones around the mouths of hitch spawning streams through improved habitat and seasonal trapping and removal of bass."

CBD uses a legal strategy of "layering on" lots of evidence and recommended actions with the foreknowledge that they won't win on all fronts. For example, they might list out 15 things that MUST be done for hitch, knowing that 5 of them won't get done. They also err toward using a lot of ad hominem arguments but that's another topic...

Anyway, it could be that CBD is adding this as one layer in the evidence, knowing that nothing is likely to be done which will make them look like they conceded something.

It could also be that this item is in fact one of their most important mitigating actions and thus they listed it at the very end of the recommendations in an effort to hide it from view.

We won't know which it is and likely won't find out.

The issue is important though because what the CBD plans to push in terms of mitigations affects how bass fishermen should view this proposed listing. Most of what will happen if hitch are listed is great for both sides. But this one issue has a divisive aspect to it that could cause a lot of fighting.

If the CBD is smart, they will realize a few things.

Bass fishing, particularly tournament bass fishing, removes bass from areas where hitch school up year-round at clear lake. If you fished in the 2011 FLW Event last year like I did, and you saw how many boats were sitting on the hitch school mid-lake the first day and you realized how many bass got caught out of that hitch school over a several week period, you know for sure that tournament bass fishermen are helping hitch.

Here is a cool picture I took with my sidescanning sonar of that school
http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/8828-hitch.jpg

Similarly, bass fishermen know that bass congregate around the mouth of the creeks where hitch spawn in the spring and catch thousands of bass using hitch imitating lures. A good portion of those bass, including the largest ones, are moved to other parts of the lake to be weighed in.

All of this fishing activity occurs because bass fishing is GOOD at Clear Lake.

If the CBD convinced FWS, DFG or some agency to net, shock or otherwise kill off bass at Clear Lake, the bass fishing activity would diminish. If DFG implemented regs like at Biwa in Japan to enforce mandatory catch and keep, tournament fishing would likely cease at Clear Lake altogether.

And so the CBD is faced with a choice. A choice between the benefits of putting thousands of bass boats on the lake every year for bass tournaments vs. discouraging that activity and hoping that another method like regulation, or killing off the bass will have a better effect.

If the CBD is smart, they'll drop the bass killing mitigations, convince bass fishermen that the rest of the mitigations are good for everyone and get bass fishermen on their side to have the hitch listed as threatened.

If they don't see the whole picture of how tournament fishing helps hitch, they might make the bass killing issue the focal point of the discussion and fight a pointless fight to no one's benefit.

Interesting, no? The issue will be discussed in front of the Commission Feb 6-7 in Sacramento. The agenda hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/informatio ... ipate.aspx

[Steve Reed]

Very interesting indeed.

As you outlined, it seems several of the proposed actions would improve the overall habitat and perhaps even allow for a more natural ecosystem to return.

In your opinion what could be done to encourage the more favorable actions?

Thanks for taking the time to educate, I appreciate it.

[clearlakeoutdoors]

Funny thing is, I lived here since 2001 & I have seen more hitch (in the lake) in the past two years than I have ever seen before. I would like to know by what scientific means are these studies being conducted. Is there a fisheries biologist doing this population survey, or is it an Indian guy from the tribe standing beside one of the creeks counting them as they go by? It only makes sense that if you conduct this survey during a year when the lake never reaches full pool, then of course less Hitch are going to be able to make it up the creeks. Just some random thoughts, Troy

[FISHIN]

When I was looking to buy a new motor for my boat this spring, I was talking to Jimmy Reese and he hooked me up with Skeet to get me that motor. In the conversation that we had, I remember him telling me that he had seen more Hitch in Clear Lake this year than in many years past. He is not the only person I have heard this from. So what is the deal with the Hitch population having a problem? I believe the rain in recent years have been the biggest positive for Clear Lake and many other lakes that were not doing so well under drought conditions. What does everybody else think?

[RyanThoni]

Hey ya'll, I dont post or visit here much anymore, but I am finding myself particularly interested in this case as its unfolding.

I have fished clearlake since the late 90's, and it has always been amongst my favorite bodies of water to spend time on. My grandfather built a cabin there in the 50's and my dad watched a Neil Armstrong land on the moon at a restaurant around the corner from the redbud launch ramp in the summer of 1969. I love that lake, and I love fishing there. It is truly a unique body of water with a unique biological community, which makes it such a stellar fishery.

The fish native to Clear Lake are really what gives it its flare. Most of them are gone already, but the Hitch is hanging on. But not by much. I know folks have anecdotal evidence that it has had a few good years, but compared to what? Certainly not compared to all the historical literature about its populations. Read David Star Jordan's (an expert fish biologist and outdoorsman from the 19th century) excerpts on the amount of Hitch in the tributaries in the late 1800's. Basically it is declining, and has been reduced to only 2-3 tributaries now, which are blocked with barriers and effected by illegal dumping and water usage activities.

As bass fishermen it should be obvious that we have a stake in the Hitch population. I mean, we've seen countless tournaments won on techniques related to hitch; whether its following the migration of them, working the schools of hitch, or using swimbaits designed specifically to look like hitch. They are Clear Lake's answer to trout: big, spineless energy sources that have not adapted any mechanism against largemouth bass.

If fishermen and biologists work together on this, Hitch populations can increase, bass will get fatter, and for once, we will have worked together instead of in opposition.

The answer is pretty simple and the scientific literature is there to support it. The following things need to be done:

Spawning habitat improvement. The last bastion of spawning grounds for the Hitch is Kelsey and Adobe Creek. Any barriers, water draws and point source pollution sources need to be eliminated. Especially during the spawning season.

Habitat for larval fish needs to be imporved. This means adding more riparian brush, and course woody debris.

Historic spawning streams need to be restored.

Enforce the law against the illegal harvest of them for food and for jerks who just go out and kill them for fun (this definitely happens, I see it all the time with gar out east).

I know some folks are worried that bass will be targeting as the main source, but I think even the scientists know thats not the case. They also have an endless supply of case studies that the removal of a voracious predator from a lake that size is impossible. Further, there are so many other fish that are potentially more damaging than bass. These include: Bluegill, white crappie, black crappie, channel catfish, white catfish, carp and goldfish. If they ever want to get predator removal in the books they can start with ones we all agree on.

The problem is primarily habitat loss and degradation. Restore the spawning grounds, and the refuge habitat for larval fishes and we could see a nice increase in one of the best food sources of Largemouth Bass in Clear Lake.

[clearlakeoutdoors]

Ryan, Its not illegal to take hitch
dfg
2.11. Special Fishing Methods-Lake County.
(a) In Clear Lake and its tributaries, hitch may be taken by hand or hand-held dip net.
(b) No barriers or weirs may be constructed to herd fish.
(c) All hitch are to be utilized and not left as waste.
(d) All fish taken by hand or net other than hitch must be immediately returned live to the water. No other fish may be possessed along with hitch as part of a mixed bag.

I am all for saving the hitch and most are! Long as they dont go after the Bass.Im sure the birds eat more of them then the bass
I think the first step is to put a limit on them .
Then restore the creeks!!
Dave

[RyanThoni]

Dave,

I was not aware of that. And I think you're right, a limit aught to be set. My main focus was on any sort of commercial take, which has been banned. Here is an excerpt from the CBD petition: "Recent commercial fishery permits require release of hitch back into Clear Lake".

[Terry]

Gentlemen,

I see that there are some of you out there understand the issue. This is a well-informed and knowledgeable thread. You need to let the Fish and Game Commission know your feelings on the angler's side of the story. I am optimistic that removal of largemouth bass will not be an issue, as long as focus is kept on habitat issues.

There is a lack of current data on CLH, which may affect the ruling. Time will tell.

Terry Foreman

[CATCHEMCARO]

Thanks for the great thread full of good information. I remember when the Russian River Steelhead were put on the threatened or endangered list several years back. I never heard to much about anyone thinking of removing the smallies from there. I don't think that small mouth or large mouth are native to the Russian river and I bet they eat a lot of the fry. I'm still enjoying getting out there once in awhile and chasing them near Asti. When I too first heard about the Hitch story I instantly thought, oh no, here we go. After reading this post and following this story I'm feeling good that I'll be chasing bass around in my kick boat at Clear Lake for a long time. Thanks for the post Swimbait.

[Marc]

Glad you are paying attention to this, but make no mistake. CBD does not have your interest at heart, and they will work hard to get largemouth bass eradicated from Clear Lake.

I highly suggest studying involvment of the CBD in the many "environmental" issues they have participated in so you know what you are up against. They are not scientists, but instead are radical individuals largely with guilt complexes about being human, and use lots of money to hire lawyers to take every opportunity to shut down your recreational opportunities. They believe all wildlife and the environment is solely theirs to photograph, and anyone that doesn't agree with them is their enemy and they will use their money and attorney's to fight you.

There is no compromise with them. They will push to have bass eradicated and enjoy every minute of it despite what they may tell you. To them, the ends justify the means, so they will deceive you into thinking they care about the environment and their efforts will improve the hitch population, hence improve the bass population. Don't believe it for a second; they want fishermen off the lake, and boats off the lake, so they can kayak and take photos without any of us around.

You need to stay in touch with their efforts, and realize they are pushing Fish & Wildlife staff hard to do things their way, and they will also push for legislation that suits them. They are using loons in Washington to get lead eliminated from use in fishing tackle, and they have petitioned the EPA to outlaw lead fishing tackle and bullets.

They convince the unknowing that they use science, but they only use what they want, and it is usually out of context, and they ignore science when it doesn't suit their purpose.

If you want to fish, you need to do a better job of convincing Fish & Wildlife and your legislators better than CBD, or you are done. Just my opinion, but developed from personal experience.

[Champion Jon]

This post is made without doing a lot of research on this topic. This is more opinion then fact. Though I looked at some of the available literature.

You all make some very good points and clearly have the background in the subject matter to know what you are talking about.

I have seen A LOT of hitch of from 6" up to around 14" in the past 2 years. I would say that It was more then in the two years prior to that. Could just be dumb luck that I happened to be around them, or maybe there are actually more?

I would be curious WHERE this group is getting their "low" numbers from if this is in fact the basis of declaring the hitch threatened or endangered?

I have looked at the Chi Council website and while there is some great info on there, the data collection seems to be very inconsistent. I think they use the GUY standing on a bridge at whatever time(s) he feels like it technique. Not the most scientific, but what do I know? Everyone who targets the hitch eating bass at clear lake in the spring(which as far as i have seen is the only time they count hitch) knows that these creeks can and do get very stained which would make the counting of hitch very difficult if not impossible on many days during the spring. Adobe, Kelsey and Rodman flow large amounts of water and with it comes stained water with poor visibility.


As Rob pointed out this group is quoted saying "The impact of largemouth bass on hitch populations should be carefully investigated and if bass are determined to be a major source of mortality, an action plan to reduce bass predation should be implemented. Possible measures could be protection zones around the mouths of hitch spawning streams through improved habitat and seasonal trapping and removal of bass."

If that does not make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, read it again. They are not talking about Crappie, Catfish, Carp, Bluegill, etc. They are talking about Largemouth Bass.

Problem is this sounds like a well funded group that wants to spend their money. They are using this hitch project as way to justify their existence as an organization. I sincerely doubt they give a rats *** about the hitch or the frogs or any of that stuff. They look for a "problem", they formulate a "solution", and that is how they make a buck.

I am all for protecting the Hitch and Clear Lake in general. This is my favorite place to fish, and I know darn well the hitch are the secret ingredient to the large size of the LMB. If there was a day that called for volunteers to help create habitat or clear debris blocking the creeks I would be there! Problem is this group is not asking for our help
Will I drive 2.5 hours to go to a meeting? Honestly no. I don't think my presence would have much if any impact on their agenda. I will be watching this to see what comes of it.


Thats my two cents.

Jon Squaglia

[Rippin Lips]

why not create a hatchery like they with the trout everywhere else...
and introduce them in to the tributaries as they do the trout..?
may sound dumb but a good thought...

[Marc]

Read my post again...they clearly have no interest in the hitch; they are only interested in getting us off the water, so why would they build a hatchery or do anything else that will improve fishing and boating activity?

[jimmy87]

why not create a hatchery like they with the trout everywhere else...
and introduce them in to the tributaries as they do the trout..?
may sound dumb but a good thought...

these same people have put a stop to trout planting in many streams and lakes in Ca.