Question about waters affected by planting block. Personal stocking?

[Slims]

I just had a thought. So, the lawsuit is against the DFG correct? So, lets assume that it is only the DFG that cannot stock fish. If lets say for example that the concessions at gull, june, etc are severely crippled financially this year by the block if things dont get straightened out. Could the concessioners personally call in a planting by some other contractor that is not DFG?

Lets say the owners of the gull lake marina call mt lassen or some other private fish hatchery to plant fish from their launch ramp. That would be legal right? I know it wouldnt be financially sound to call in a stocking truck every week unless they raise prices on the boat rentals, but is that an option or would they face a personal lawsuit as well?

Thanks.

[stphnman20]

Good question!!

[dockboy]

Yes, they can. But the people who put this lawsuit together are not dumb. They figured pirvate organizations would do that. So, in waters not approved for stocking, private hatchery fish may be stocked. However, at the start of next year, all lakes not approved by the DFG for stocking and being stocked by private parties fall under the act. After that date (I forget the exact day), those private fish cannot be stocked in the non-approved list.

[retired96]

Last night I went on the site for the center for biological diversity and read some of their briefs regarding the willow flycatcher bird. They must have some top notch researchers and lawyers because the papers were well written with lots of research.

They are a group to be concerned about, their work involves most of the country, rivers, lakes, birds, fish, polar bears, bugs, you name it they want to protect it from man...

[sierraslam]

The ultimate goal is to return the Sierras and other lakes to there "natural ecosystems". That means basically no fish. They will take little steps, but you can count on the "threat of the year" every year from now on. I'm for clean air and water and all that, but this really pisses me off. We are all going to have to get into the fight sooner rather than later to try and stop then from there ultimate goal.

[fishtacomag]

Tim Alpers told me that he CANNOT plant in any of these lakes. He also said all lakes affected had BIG plants of Alpers 2 weeks before the close of the season and very minimal fishing pressure the last two weeks. What really ticks him off..and will be an arguing point by lakes and marinas (and the lawyers THEY have hired) is that the opposition wants to say that the planted fish eat insects that the birdcatcher would thus taking away food from the bird. Well......................most planted fish stay near the bottom looking for pellets or the like as that is how they were raised. It is indeed the NATURAL trout that would be more likely to want to eat insects.
BTW--going to fish Gull with a positive attitude and expect to get at least a 4 pounder like I have 5 of the last 6 years regardless of if DFG did not plant their dinks

[dockboy]

Last night I went on the site for the center for biological diversity and read some of their briefs regarding the willow flycatcher bird. They must have some top notch researchers and lawyers because the papers were well written with lots of research.

They are a group to be concerned about, their work involves most of the country, rivers, lakes, birds, fish, polar bears, bugs, you name it they want to protect it from man...

Yes sir. And they know what to do, because they are suing and not sidelining for publicity like PETA. They know there are no real fishing organizations like the NRA that will counter-sue with enough heft to stop their demands. In fact, they filed a secondary suit on account with the state, saying that the DFG's process of evaluations for stocking has been "corrupted" and inefficient, IE not what they wanted when they sued originally.
Sadly, this all could have been erased years ago. The EIR that is the subject prompting this mess was to be finished by the DFG more than a decade ago. But lack of funding and understaffing likely kept this issue mothballed till the CBD came knockin'.

[JAG107]

The ultimate goal is to return the Sierras and other lakes to there "natural ecosystems". That means basically no fish. They will take little steps, but you can count on the "threat of the year" every year from now on. I'm for clean air and water and all that, but this really pisses me off. We are all going to have to get into the fight sooner rather than later to try and stop then from there ultimate goal.

So, why not go the whole enchilada and sue to eradicate ALL invasive "species" from the lakes---people, cars, roads, homes? If they're so concerned over a few small fish that get caught fairly quickly after they're stocked, wouldn't there potentially be far worse dangers out there right now for these extra special birds?