Trout stocking after july 2015 ?

[flybynight]

Heard that after July 2015 due to lack of funding the DFG will only stock 1/2 as many trout as they did in 2014, but the licence fee will remain the same, sounds Coo Coo to me !

[seal]

There was another thread that discussed it also.

http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?82476-where-are-the-trout-plants

[Joshua]

Years ago I read that the license fees were not going into the State general fund but into a specific fund that would prevent the state's financial problems from affecting the hatcheries and their ability to stock local waters. But I don't trust politicians.

[HawgZWylde]

There was another thread that discussed it also.

http://fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?82476-where-are-the-trout-plants

And like all threads here concerning losing our rights to outdoor recreate, they are soundly ignored by most on this board. Sierra Smitty has sounded the alarms, I have posted threads regarding this and so have a couple of others yet very few here want to discuss it let alone admit to what the core of the problem is, and that is who is elected to run this effed up state.

You get what you vote for...

[etucker1959]

And like all threads here concerning losing our rights to outdoor recreate, they are soundly ignored by most on this board. Sierra Smitty has sounded the alarms, I have posted threads regarding this and so have a couple of others yet very few here want to discuss it let alone admit to what the core of the problem is, and that is who is elected to run this effed up state.

You get what you vote for...
HawgzW I've got a challenge for you. (In the background Clint Eastwoods sound track of the Good the Bad and the Ugly is playing) Why don't we both give our suggestions on how to fix the stocking issues the DFG is having here in CA. (You're always quick with your comments about the States handling of things) I'll even let you pick, if you want to go first or second in making a comment!!!!!!

[HawgZWylde]

HawgzW I've got a challenge for you. (In the background Clint Eastwoods sound track of the Good the Bad and the Ugly is playing) Why don't we both give our suggestions on how to fix the stocking issues the DFG is having here in CA. (You're always quick with your comments about the States handling of things) I'll even let you pick, if you want to go first or second in making a comment!!!!!!

It's really simple tucker, fire the liberal/eco-nut big spending politicians and put some fiscally responsible people in office. Simple as that...

[Tom]

DoXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[HawgZWylde]

Guess how much the taxpayers of California have to pay when the state starts issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens on January 2nd? $130,000,000.00. How many fish do you think that would put into our fisheries? Illegals already cost the state taxpayers over $10,000,000,000.00 in social services alone. And forget the fact that California has 1/3 of the entire nations welfare recipients. How many fish do you think $10,000,000,000.00 would put into our fisheries?

[Bucket]

Guess how much the taxpayers of California have to pay when the state starts issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens on January 2nd? $130,000,000.00. How many fish do you think that would put into our fisheries? Illegals already cost the state taxpayers over $10,000,000,000.00 in social services alone. And forget the fact that California has 1/3 of the entire nations welfare recipients. How many fish do you think $10,000,000,000.00 would put into our fisheries?

To be fair etucker agreed to support my idea on the use of bear traps to limit illegals crossing the border. I don't think he likes them like you do. They said I should run for president. Lol.
On the other hand I wonder how much Californians have to pay for illegals to have in state tuition, fee waivers, and financial aide to go to college. Lets not forget the ones who have no id and go to the emergency room without paying for the services. They should have the medical care but they should be paying it back legally working in Mexico. You also have the ones without auto insurance. See the list goes on.

If you guys want to see the figures Ill get them but all I ask is that you do the same. It takes a long a@@ time for me to find the info from "Credible" sources and I expect the same from a person who dares to "DEFY" me right lady quagga lol. In all seriousness I don't think its right when someone spouts something out without facts and expects people to believe it. Not pointing any fingers just saying

[Bucket]

HawgzW I've got a challenge for you. (In the background Clint Eastwoods sound track of the Good the Bad and the Ugly is playing) Why don't we both give our suggestions on how to fix the stocking issues the DFG is having here in CA. (You're always quick with your comments about the States handling of things) I'll even let you pick, if you want to go first or second in making a comment!!!!!!

Lets get ready to rumble!!! Lol

[HawgZWylde]

Ok, 25 billion a year;

Illegal Immigration Costs California Taxpayers More Than $25 Billion a Year, Finds FAIR



Washington, D.C., June 19, 2014: A new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that providing education, health care, law enforcement, and social and government services to illegal aliens and their dependents costs Californians $25.3 billion per year according to FAIR's report The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on California Taxpayers. The state's 3 million illegal aliens and their 1.1 million U.S.–born children cost the average California household — headed by a U.S. citizen — $2,370 annually.

Among the report's key findings:

Funding the K-12 education for children who are themselves illegal aliens and for the citizen children of illegal aliens accounted for the largest share of the cost to taxpayers at $14.4 billion. These services included standard public school educations and supplemental English language instruction. Despite federal funding, the average per pupil expenditure is $10,450 each year.
Justice and law enforcement costs — policing, court and incarceration — associated with illegal aliens soared to more than $4.4 billion.
Medical services cost taxpayers approximately $4 billion, including $388 million associated with 68,000 births to illegal alien mothers.
Public assistance — low-cost meal programs, free immunizations, etc. — are available to residents regardless of legal status. The $792 million price tag for these services is borne by California taxpayers.

The report finds that taxes collected from illegal aliens amounts to about $3.5 billion annually.

"Twenty-five billion dollars a year in costs associated with illegal immigration represents a fiscal crisis that affects California's ability to meet its basic obligations to citizens and legal residents," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "While clearly the Federal government bears responsibility for its failure, or refusal, to enforce our immigration laws, in California's case many of the burdens of illegal immigration are self-induced.

"Despite overwhelming evidence that illegal immigration represents an unsustainable fiscal burden to the state, the California Legislature and local governments across the state continue to provide new benefits, new services, and new privileges to illegal aliens, even as the state neglects the needs and concerns of other Californians. The costs will continue to grow so long as the state continues to reward illegal immigration and impedes immigration enforcement. California taxpayers will continue to be the losers in this unhappy scenario," concluded Stein.

http://www.fairus.org/news/illegal-immigration-costs-california-taxpayers-more-than-25-billion-a-year-finds-fair

Think even a fraction of that would help the DFW?

[HawgZWylde]

CDL's for illegals will cost Cali taxpayers between 140-220 million $$$

California Prepares to Issue Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens; Opens Illegal-Alien Only Facilities

California is preparing to open several new Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) facilities exclusively for illegal aliens. The facilities are being set up in preparation for the anticipated influx of applications by California's estimated 2-3 million illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses under the State's new illegal alien driver's license law, AB 60. (The Daily Caller, Mar. 27, 2014)

Governor Brown signed AB 60 into law last fall, and it takes effect beginning in 2015. To obtain the license, AB 60 only requires an alien to: (1) sign an affidavit that he or she is not eligible for a Social Security Number; and (2) attest that he/she lacks proof of authorization to reside in the United States, provide proof of California residency, and provide proof of identity using such documents as a consular ID, foreign passport, foreign birth certificate, marriage or divorce certificate, school transcript, or foreign voter registration card. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Sept. 18, 2013) The card will read "DP" for "Driving Privilege," rather than "DL" for "Driver License" (as indicated on standard California licenses). (See DMV Press Release, Oct. 3, 2013; see also Southern California Public Radio, Jan. 9, 2014)

The State DMV is setting up five facilities throughout California to help with the processing of new applicants. The facilities will be opened in the areas of San Jose, the South Central Coast, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, DMV spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez told reporters. (The Daily Caller, Mar. 27, 2014) California is expected to process 1.4 million driver's license applications for illegal aliens over the next three years, at a cost of $140 to $220 million to taxpayers. This includes the cost of the new facilities as well as the price tag for hiring and training new DMV personnel to handle the additional workload. (The Examiner, Mar. 27, 2014; see also FAIR Legislative Update, Jan. 29, 2014)

California was one of eight states that adopted laws permitting illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2013, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Vermont. (See FAIR Legislative Update, Jan. 29, 2014) These states now join New Mexico, Washington, and Utah, which granted such eligibility in previous legislative sessions. (Id.)

http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/legislative-update-4-2-2014#4

So how many Trout do you think that would fund?

[etucker1959]

It's really simple tucker, fire the liberal/eco-nut big spending politicians and put some fiscally responsible people in office. Simple as that...
We know that we never happen!!!! I'm talking if you were to walk into the DFG offices in Sacramento and say, "Hey" we got a problem with the fish stocking programs let's try to fix this!!!

[HawgZWylde]

We know that we never happen!!!! I'm talking if you were to walk into the DFG offices in Sacramento and say, "Hey" we got a problem with the fish stocking programs let's try to fix this!!!

Doesn't work like that, they answer to and take orders from Sacramento and Washington D.C...

[DEVOREFLYER]

I'm guessing that one of the profishing organizations is drafting a lawsuit as we sit here. They have broken state law that proscribes what the formula is for stocking and how our license fees fit in the formula. I would hope that one of the organizations start using the same litigation tactics that the eco-nazi use. Sue them to stop or correct the wrongful actions and collect legal fees. While it's possible to sue immediately for an injunction to stop it the best course may be to wait for standing (loss) and add damages and even possible punitive and exemplary damages to set an example so it does not happen again. Then again this may well be wishful thinking and any damages would be paid for with taxpayer dollars, hardly a win in any case.

[HawgZWylde]

I'm guessing that one of the profishing organizations is drafting a lawsuit as we sit here. They have broken state law that proscribes what the formula is for stocking and how our license fees fit in the formula. I would hope that one of the organizations start using the same litigation tactics that the eco-nazi use. Sue them to stop or correct the wrongful actions and collect legal fees. While it's possible to sue immediately for an injunction to stop it the best course may be to wait for standing (loss) and add damages and even possible punitive and exemplary damages to set an example so it does not happen again. Then again this may well be wishful thinking and any damages would be paid for with taxpayer dollars, hardly a win in any case.

Yup. The best way to solve this problem is to vote out those who caused it in the first place. Once out, then the damage can be reversed through legislation...

[DrePSP]

I dont support Illegals, but a lot of these guys just want work. If we cut all the social service to them as well as the white/black trash. I would be willing to bet ALOT of the illegals would go back to mexico. Then state would be fine as well as the rest of the country if they cut all the social service to people that are milking it.. The system is broken, and once you get these social services up. It is hard to take them out.

[HawgZWylde]

I dont support Illegals, but a lot of these guys just want work. If we cut all the social service to them as well as the white/black trash. I would be willing to bet ALOT of the illegals would go back to mexico. Then state would be fine as well as the rest of the country if they cut all the social service to people that are milking it.. The system is broken, and once you get these social services up. It is hard to take them out.

Yes, that's true but those services are bankrupting the state along with other social programs like pensions. If you want a retirement, save for it, don't expect the taxpayer to fund it. Don't let Sacramento's use of "fuzzy numbers and cooked books fool you. Once it collapses, then it's too late and things will get real ugly. As for those who illegally crossed, they knew full well the risks they took. Sure, feel sorry for them but we cannot allow them to bring down our system or take away the services for our citizens. They must seek change in their own countries, not bring the other countries problems here. And as for our citizens who use ss's, take the reigns off private enterprise and watch how fast jobs will start appearing. Meaningful jobs, not just low skill low pay and part time jobs. Then give them a specific amount of time to get a job, then cut them off...

[DrePSP]

I hate social services when people who don't pay into the system are mainly the ones getting it. Its great when people who pay into get it.
They are great In theory. But we are too PC and liberal now days.
I would love to get help when my chips are down. But it won't happen. I either make too much money or I'm wrong color . Middle class white male is F***ed!
I wish it was set up like this, the more you pay into the system the more you will get in return. Retirement, medical etc... You don't work and pay into it, you get nothin.
Ok. Enough of that.
How is fishing?

[etucker1959]

I'm guessing that one of the profishing organizations is drafting a lawsuit as we sit here. They have broken state law that proscribes what the formula is for stocking and how our license fees fit in the formula. I would hope that one of the organizations start using the same litigation tactics that the eco-nazi use. Sue them to stop or correct the wrongful actions and collect legal fees. While it's possible to sue immediately for an injunction to stop it the best course may be to wait for standing (loss) and add damages and even possible punitive and exemplary damages to set an example so it does not happen again. Then again this may well be wishful thinking and any damages would be paid for with taxpayer dollars, hardly a win in any case.
You mean those exact same FOOLS who fought against the MLPA'S in court and LOST BIG TIME!!!!!!! I'm sure you mean those same fools!!!! Speaking of tactics, those fools you're talking about, don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. You're right you can learn from your enemy's. Let me tell you how I would have fought against the MLPA'S and actually might have won. Any body remember Prop 117. (Forever making Mountain Lions protected in the state of CA) That's the route they should have fought against the MLPA'S. The Proposition route!!!!!! Let the people vote on it and if the fishermen couldn't get united on a vote. Well they would have deserved what they got!!!!

[DEVOREFLYER]

Except for the FACT that they are violating a state law, and that would be an easy lawsuit to win. Gathering the signatures to put it on the ballot, paying for advertising to promote a yes vote while hoping the anti's with deeper pockets don't outspend you to get a no vote. Ya that route makes a lot of sense. :EyePop:

[etucker1959]

Except for the FACT that they are violating a state law, and that would be an easy lawsuit to win. Gathering the signatures to put it on the ballot, paying for advertising to promote a yes vote while hoping the anti's with deeper pockets don't outspend you to get a no vote. Ya that route makes a lot of sense. :EyePop:
You missed my point completely!!!!!! I'm trying to show that you the people you trust to protect your fishing interest are a bunch of complete morons!!!!!! They can't do anything right!!!!!! Not that they should go the proposition route on this one. A law suit should be filed, but by who????? United Anglers would be a good organization to do it. Oh yea, I remember they went bankrupt fighting the MLPA!!!!!!! (A task they were ill suited to do) Who's left and is willing to foot the bill???????? No one I can of!!!!!! So I guess the DFG is probably going to win!!!!!!

[DEVOREFLYER]

First you have to have a Plaintiff with standing and someone (individual, group or organization) able to pay the legal fees/cost. Big difference between the MLPA suit and what this would be. This is a clear violation of an existing law and the MLPA was a regulation/law supported by the eco-nazi's with very deep pockets. I would not be surprised to see legislation passed to change/rewrite the existing law to support the DFG's position and eliminate any potential lawsuit. If anyone thinks they will ever get anything favorable to our interest (fishing/hunting) through the legislative or voting process you need some serious horizontal leather couch time.

[etucker1959]

First you have to have a Plaintiff with standing and someone (individual, group or organization) able to pay the legal fees/cost. Big difference between the MLPA suit and what this would be. This is a clear violation of an existing law and the MLPA was a regulation/law supported by the eco-nazi's with very deep pockets. I would not be surprised to see legislation passed to change/rewrite the existing law to support the DFG's position and eliminate any potential lawsuit. If anyone thinks they will ever get anything favorable to our interest (fishing/hunting) through the legislative or voting process you need some serious horizontal leather couch time.
I disagree on fishing with the voters!!!!!! Why?????? Because the anti's are talking about someones Father, Brother, Uncle or other family members. That's pretty hard to sell, most family's have some fishermen in them. So to talk about them in some negative light. THAT'S TOO HARD OF A SELL, I don't care how much money you have!!!!!

[HawgZWylde]

DFW says;

In early November, the Department of Fish and Wildlife posted a document on its web site explaining why it would be cutting the poundage of trout stocked by about 50 percent in 2015, and it has caused an uproar within the fishing community. Stafford Lair, chief of the fisheries branch for the DFW, explained that for the past four years, the DFW had approximately an additional $2 1/2 million per year for the trout hatchery program. That money was granted in the budget process, allowing the DFW to “spend down” a hatchery improvement account that is allocated money each year. For the funds to be spent, the legislature must approve the DFW’s request to use this money. Under the guise of budget cutting, the legislature has not granted the DFW use of these funds for a number of years, allowing the fund to grow and accrue interest. While the money was stockpiling, the DFW hatchery program was suffering. Fewer and fewer fish were being planted because costs were skyrocketing. Finally, four years ago, the legislature allowed the DFW to spend money in that account. “For the first time, we showed dramatic increases in the number of fish we were able to plant, closer to the 2.75 pounds per license sold that was mandated [by the legislature]. We’ve been living on that increased authority the last few years,” said Lehr. But the additional money allocation from the hatchery fund ends with this fiscal year (which ends June 20, 2015), meaning the DFW is losing the additional $2 1/2 million it had been authorized to spend the past four years. While the DFW is planning to go back to the legislature and ask them to allow the agency to use this money annually into the future, it could not “plan” on that funding. A new stocking regime had to be crafted that would allow the state to operate on its regular hatchery budget allocation without the additional that money. The net result would be a 50 percent reduction in the poundage of fish that could be raised. Lehr said the hatchery program has faced unprecedented additional costs it has never had to incur before. While the increasing cost of fish food is a major one, he said that water and energy costs have also skyrocketed. He used the state’s well-known Fillmore Hatchery as just one example. There water costs there have increased 600 percent. To comply with new state and federal regulations, there is comprehensive water quality monitoring that was never done before. The DFW also has to monitor and treat for invasive species. And to meet the requirements of a hatchery lawsuit settlement, they now only raise triploid (or sterile) rainbow trout for the catchable program, at a greater cost. The hatchery program has also been plagued with a fleet of older hatchery trucks that were forced to comply with state air quality regulations. The older vehicles weren’t designed for these retrofits, and stocking runs that only took five hours in the past now take 10 hours because the vehicles have to be stopped and allowed to cool down so major damage doesn’t occur. That means twice as many trips and overtime on the longer runs. All of these things have hammered the DFW hatcheries, and the additional $2 1/2 million in annual funding really was a shot in the arm to the near-$19 million hatchery budget. So in the 2015-16 budget year, the DFW is planning to rear 1.6 million pounds of trout as opposed to the 3 million plus is has going through the system this fiscal year. Lehr said he and the staff have looked hard at how and where to cut the stocking program. They decided to plant about the same number (or even more) fish overall, but they would average much smaller. In many waters, the DFW would plant vastly more, smaller trout where the state could let the natural forage within a lake or river grow the trout to catchable and bigger sizes. (An example would be Lake Crowley. This water receives the vast majority of its plants in the fall as fingerlings -- two to three-inch fish -- or subcatchable -- four to six-inch fish. By trout opener, most of these trout are 10 to 12 inches, and by the end of the fishing season, they are 14 to 18 inches. Those that survive into another season in the lake provide a true trophy fishery in Crowley with 22 to 25-inch trout -- fish that weigh four pounds or more.) Lehr said that waters like urban Southern California fisheries would continue to receive about the same number of the larger-sized catchables they have come to expect from the agency the last few years. While Lehr said the DFW hasn’t completed a master management plan that will explain which waters will get fingerlings or subscatchable versus one-pound catchable trout, he thinks that in the long haul the fishing quality will be comparable. “I’m focusing on the bigger picture,” said Lehr. “We’re planning for more put-grow-and-take fisheries while others will get the same size catchables. We should have the same number of trout going out, but they will just average smaller.” This, of course, will not come close to the 2.75 pounds of trout per licensed angler the legislature set as a goal for the agency. The goal was being met (or nearly so) by the DFW the last few years when the legislature was giving the agency annual access to the special hatchery fund. So the cuts are not a done deal. While the DFW has to start planning for less money (the trout are produced on about a 1 1/2-year pipeline), Lehr said the DFW was also planning to go back to the legislature early in 2015 and ask for access to the special hatchery account every year. This would make the funding more predictable and the DFW would be better able to meet the legislature’s own mandates and recommendations on trout plants.

So what are we gonna do about it?

[DEVOREFLYER]

If you think that the public or the legislators care I suggest you look at the numbers (fishing licenses). Licenses have been going down and the total number issued relative to the California population sucks.

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/FishingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf

[HawgZWylde]

Lol, I'm under no illusions Dev. I think it's loud and clear just by the responses, or lack there of, right here on a freaking fishing forum. Any posts regarding losing our rights to fish are pretty much met with crickets. One only needs to look at how many DON'T show up at the local lakes anymore as well, except the bucket brigades that go to pay lakes where a license isn't needed...

[DEVOREFLYER]

Oh and here are the hunting numbers. Could not be any worse.

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory20042013.pdf

[Bucket]

Hawg and dev thanks for bringing this up. The reason why we hear crickets is because the masses have been silenced with threats. Why do you think people are afraid to defend themselves or help others these days. Its a sue happy country and there are alot of stupid laws that goes with it. It looks like its better to be selffish these days.lets not forget greed. This forum is an example i got banned for saying one of their sponsors was a ripoff. Maybe i get banned for this. Oh well at least i got balls.

About the dfg and California government misusing our fubds.the best way is to boycott them and stick to saltwater fishing.if you really have a need to freshwater fish fish areas where we dont have to pay any extra fees. The aqueduct, la river,mountain streams, colorado river,and etc. We should boycott the pay lakes too the more they jack up prices the more the dfg does. Its feasible to buy a license at 50 bucks when pay lakes are 28 bucks per person.i have a friend who owns ponds to fish and he charges people 5 bucks per visit. If pay lakes did the same and we boycott the dfg then maybe they listen

[chye]

Fishing in the city is already bad enough as it is!! There is absolutely no more fish! No more Bass @ our local ponds, no more Catfish stocking for the past 2 years.. and the Trout stocking is already slowed big time! WHAT'S GOING ON!? And the stupid birds (Cormorant & Fresh Water Pelicans overpopulating) are eating up all the Bluegill, baby Bass, and baitfish!!

[seal]

The reason why there is little response is twofold. As long as they keep tossing genetically altered mutant fish into the pay to fish lakes the current generation cares more about catching a 10lbs genetically altered fish than they do about enjoying nature and chasing pansized and occasionally 2lb broodstock's. When I was talking about Lake Gregory being turned into a pay to fish lake very few got the point because what they wanted was another SARL, Irvine etc... but what I saw was just another nail in the coffin. The other reason is there appears to be no hope! This state is so royally screwed up and the eco-nazi's are taking over. The state would like to turn this into a Disneyland experience so they can shut off the wilderness areas to fishing and hunting. California is in cahoots with the feds. on this and it's only going to get worse, at least in this state, because the mindless drones keep electing the same freaking idiots from the same party. The lack of balance in this state is the problem and those that want what the dems. are providing are blinded and brainwashed.

Lack of concern, lack of motivation, lack of understanding and lack of hope.

[Bucket]

The reason why there is little response is twofold. As long as they keep tossing genetically altered mutant fish into the pay to fish lakes the current generation cares more about catching a 10lbs genetically altered fish than they do about enjoying nature and chasing pansized and occasionally 2lb broodstock's. When I was talking about Lake Gregory being turned into a pay to fish lake very few got the point because what they wanted was another SARL, Irvine etc... but what I saw was just another nail in the coffin. The other reason is there appears to be no hope! This state is so royally screwed up and the eco-nazi's are taking over. The state would like to turn this into a Disneyland experience so they can shut off the wilderness areas to fishing and hunting. California is in cahoots with the feds. on this and it's only going to get worse, at least in this state, because the mindless drones keep electing the same freaking idiots from the same party. The lack of balance in this state is the problem and those that want what the dems. are providing are blinded and brainwashed.

Lack of concern, lack of motivation, lack of understanding and lack of hope.
Would you agree if they stocked city lakes with genetically altered fish. Everybody wants to catch the biggest fish just look at your picture. If genetically altered fish enhances fishing at man made lake then i dont think its a problem. If it damage the wilderness areas such s stocking those trout in streans then its not ethically correct. About pay lakes they might stock a few lunkers and then the rest sre stocker sized. You are right about the birds but as long as eco terrorists are here we cant get rid of them without getting in trouble.

I agree its a political problem but i believe its motr of a social problem. Everybody these days just point the finger at a political party and blame them for our problems. Politicians tells you what you want to hear and as long as people dont give a damn nothing will change


i do realize if you are going to fix a problem you got to do it yourself.therefore if people are fed up they better do something about it. Ive already mentiomed a few ideas Seriously if i had a hatchery i would stock for free in selected areas to run them out of business until they change.

[seal]

Would you agree if they stocked city lakes with genetically altered fish. Everybody wants to catch the biggest fish just look at your picture. If genetically altered fish enhances fishing at man made lake then i dont think its a problem. If it damage the wilderness areas such s stocking those trout in streans then its not ethically correct. About pay lakes they might stock a few lunkers and then the rest sre stocker sized. You are right about the birds but as long as eco terrorists are here we cant get rid of them without getting in trouble.

I agree its a political problem but i believe its motr of a social problem. Everybody these days just point the finger at a political party and blame them for our problems. Politicians tells you what you want to hear and as long as people dont give a damn nothing will change


i do realize if you are going to fix a problem you got to do it yourself.therefore if people are fed up they better do something about it. Ive already mentiomed a few ideas Seriously if i had a hatchery i would stock for free in selected areas to run them out of business until they change.

The fish caught in my picture is one of a thousand casts and not from a lake chocked full of genetic mutants, it is not a trout so your logic does not apply and makes no sense. I have caught many 10lb mutant fish when I get the urge to visit a pay to fish lake, I take no pride in it and although some stocked now are more healthy most of the truly big fish have no fight whatsoever that's why the boys can catch um on 2lbs. test. What's happening is the triploid fish being caught at the pay to fish has this fishing generation spoiled and if they catch a 12" stocker they aren't satisfied. Many that get into fishing these days are brought up on this type of fishing and that's what they know and that I think is an issue, they get what they want from pay to fish lakes and just occasionally venture out into a dfg stocked lake with mostly pansized fish. Look at the complaints about "slow" fishing at pay to fish lakes. If you don't get your limit or don't have a 10 pounder on the string it's not a successful day, spoiled is a word I'd use to describe it. I can't tell you the amount of skunks I go thru to score one fish swimbaiting, skunks SHOULD teach people something, if they are targeting shad well duh mimic a shad!

You would stock? Do you know the regulations necessary to be able to stock anymore? Do you think those regulations were needed although this state has been stocked with rainbows since the 1800's?

I blame those that can't see the forest thru the trees and elect the democrats the most. I've lived in this state since I was born and loved it growing up, simple nirvana living in OC surfing, skiing and fishing everyday of my young life. But if life goes right I will bail on this freaking place!

Many might read this like I'm blaming the democrats for everything, from a fishing perspective I suppose I am. But I think we'd be just as screwed up but in a different way if the republican party was in complete control. The problem as I stated is a lack of balance. The democratic party is funded by a lot of radical far left agenda money and it shows and is what's driving many of the changes in this state. There are no check's and balances, this state is sick because of the lack of political balance period!

[Bucket]

About fish I agree with you but if a person thinks that is a trophy let them. That's what I am saying we are entitled to our opinions. Yes I would stock if I had the money. You are 65% right on the democrat part because this state is predominantly democrat.I blame the voters . I also blame people who ***** but do nothing. Im sure our license fees were used to buy votes and on that bullet train. If you limit out at SARL everytime you go there I wouldn't believe you until I see pictures

[seal]

I also blame people who ***** but do nothing.

So easy to say this one. To break thru the bureaucratic BS and have the money for the legal war is much of the problem. Petitions, emails and calls have very little impact when the powers that be know that they will be re-elected by the drones of this state.

I want to have hope, I want to be a part of a solution but I simply do not have the funds nor the time to do anything on my own, I think most fall into this bucket. If some group does something to get involved and if I agreed with their agenda I'd jump on board in a heartbeat because I do have more time than years gone by. It has been done before just look at the Silverwood lake victory years ago, the mandate for fish stocking after the dam project was a big victory, unfortunately the man behind it has passed away, that's the type of leader we need to get something done.

[Bucket]

Hey I just remembered SARL banned the use of using shad as bait. I wonder why. I don't know anything about Silverwood but it doesn't mean you cant do anything. Like I mentioned before fish in places where they don't charge you for an entrance fee, bring your kids or people under 16 to fish, or just focus on saltwater. I am sure most people in here have caught their fair share of fish and boycotting them is going to bleed them dry.

[DEVOREFLYER]

The sad truth is our sport is diminishing. Fewer people fish today and fewer people hunt. The younger generation has been raised on instant gratification and participation trophies neither of which you can get hunting or fishing. It takes work and time to become a proficient fisherman or hunter few want to pay the price to become successful. Hats off to those members here that take their children fishing and mentor them.

[Bucket]

The sad truth is our sport is diminishing. Fewer people fish today and fewer people hunt. The younger generation has been raised on instant gratification and participation trophies neither of which you can get hunting or fishing. It takes work and time to become a proficient fisherman or hunter few want to pay the price to become successful. Hats off to those members here that take their children fishing and mentor them.

True, hey look in the bright side at least theres more fish to catch and animals to hunt lol. Being a young gun I have to say its the culture that affects hunting and fishing. I was born and raised in CA moved to the Midwest when I was in middle school and then back here just recently. I have to say living in a small town its a lot easier to hunt and fish compared to over here. Almost all of my friends over there hunt or fish. The friends I have here I am the only one who fishes or hunt. Of all of my kid cousins here whom I take fishing only one actually enjoy it. The others are too impatient like you said but at least they like their guns(bb guns) lol. Its not very convenient when you live in the city and I guess that's not city life but if its your passion or hobby that wouldn't matter. I would say the baby boomers are part of the cultural problem their parenting skills involved babying their kids and being their friends and it got worse since then

[seal]

The sad truth is our sport is diminishing. Fewer people fish today and fewer people hunt. The younger generation has been raised on instant gratification and participation trophies neither of which you can get hunting or fishing. It takes work and time to become a proficient fisherman or hunter few want to pay the price to become successful. Hats off to those members here that take their children fishing and mentor them.

Yes so true. I can point to my friends dad who taught me and also my own dad.

I have nothing against pay to fish lakes and enjoy them on occasion and it's not their fault, they are catering to the new generations needs but I'm afraid that the reliance on this type of fishery is causing some to be less interested in the impacts of the loss of trout stocking and other programs by the DFG.

[etucker1959]

The sad part is a Liberal solution is needed to solve the problem. I call it sad because the biggest beneficiary are Conservative minded people who don't like that kind of solutions. The Catfish stockings have been eliminated and now the Trout stockings are cut in half all because of a lack of money. So what's my Liberal solution?????? Let's go raise some additional revenue and restore BOTH stocking programs to their former levels!!!!!!!!

[Bucket]

etucker its obvious the government has been double dipping into our funds. Now how do you purpose to generated more revenue? I can think one way which is fair is to raise sales tax by 1%.

Another thing is that if we have to pay more they better guarantee we get our moneys worth or else they will pay a penalty. I would say $500 dollars per angler if they fail to meet their stocking quota

[etucker1959]

etucker its obvious the government has been double dipping into our funds. Now how do you purpose to generated more revenue? I can think one way which is fair is to raise sales tax by 1%.

Another thing is that if we have to pay more they better guarantee we get our moneys worth or else they will pay a penalty. I would say $500 dollars per angler if they fail to meet their stocking quota
That's a good question!!!!! The problem is some of the people who would benefit the most, are the ones when it comes to raising additional revenue feel, "IT'S AGAINST THEIR RELIGION TO DO SO"!!!!!! Right Dev????????? The DFG budget comes from many sources, License and tag fees and with taxing certain goods. To be fair and to hopefully sell it to certain people, I would propose raising the revenue in two different ways. I would increase the tax's of one or more of those DFG marked goods for taxation. Secondly, I would bring back an old license idea. Have a voluntary Trout & Catfish stamp available to all license holders. (It has to be voluntary to keep all the tight wads quiet) With all the money earmarked to the stocking programs!!!!!!

[Bucket]

That's a good question!!!!! The problem is some of the people who would benefit the most, are the ones when it comes to raising additional revenue feel, "IT'S AGAINST THEIR RELIGION TO DO SO"!!!!!! Right Dev????????? The DFG budget comes from many sources, License and tag fees and with taxing certain goods. To be fair and to hopefully sell it to certain people, I would propose raising the revenue in two different ways. I would increase the tax's of one or more of those DFG marked goods for taxation. Secondly, I would bring back an old license idea. Have a voluntary Trout & Catfish stamp available to all license holders. (It has to be voluntary to keep all the tight wads quiet) With all the money earmarked to the stocking programs!!!!!!

I don't think its mainly a revenue part its more of a spending part. If you have 5 dollars and did nothing with it you will still have 5 dollars. If you have 5 dollars spent it all and owe another 5 then you have a deficit. I haven't been able to look at the the dfg budget but I will later on you should too. As for the stamps you can forget about it. When I lived in CO we didn't have to pay for the stupid habit stamp. At that time the fish they stocked were big and plentiful. When they enacted the stamp I figured they had budget issues and the stocking and quality of fishing declined. The best way is they have to be transparent, if they were they wouldn't be misusing our money. Im gonna talk to my hatchery friend to see how much it really cost. I know you don't agree with Devs politics but whethere you like it or not we are all in the same boat.

[DarkShadow]

If you have 5 dollars and did nothing with it you will still have 5 dollars.

Are you factoring in inflation, and other factors, or are you just saying?

[Bucket]

Are you factoring in inflation, and other factors, or are you just saying?

Yes I am .

[HawgZWylde]

You know, it just amazes me how what Dev said, what seal said and what I said just goes right over certain heads around here. Screw it, I only fish for Trout up in Bridgeport for two weeks out of the year anyway. If ya'll like your Trout, you can keep your Trout. But don't say we didn't warn ya...

[HawgZWylde]

The sad truth is our sport is diminishing. Fewer people fish today and fewer people hunt. The younger generation has been raised on instant gratification and participation trophies neither of which you can get hunting or fishing. It takes work and time to become a proficient fisherman or hunter few want to pay the price to become successful. Hats off to those members here that take their children fishing and mentor them.

This is true, but I have to wonder how many of those actually left for better waters thoroughly disgusted with this state's high taxes, fees, overbearing mandates and regulations...

[Bucket]

This is true, but I have to wonder how many of those actually left for better waters thoroughly disgusted with this state's high taxes, fees, overbearing mandates and regulations...

The only thing cali has these days are hot chicks and nice weather. Probably the only reason why Im staying for now

[Tom]

Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

[Tom]

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[DockRat]

Pacific Legal Foundation challenges fishing mandates

posted: 12/31/2014
Read Comments (0)

Print Page



By: Parimal M. Rohit

SACRAMENTO — Accusing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) of illegally drafting regulations that could force fishing lakes, private hatcheries and fish farms out of business, Pacific Legal Foundation urged federal judges to protect recreational anglers and the aquaculture industry from falling victim to “burdensome” and “underground” regulations.
Attorneys on behalf of the state and the California Association for Recreational Fishing presented oral arguments to the Third Appellate District Court Nov. 21; a ruling has not yet been issued.

The appeal filed by attorneys at Pacific Legal Foundation and on behalf of the recreational fishing and aquaculture industries specifically states the DFW’s fish stocking mitigation measures would make it more difficult for recreational anglers and commercial interests to engage in fishing activities.

“The California Department of Fish and Wildlife … violated the law by imposing burdensome regulations without complying with the procedures mandated by the California Administrative Procedure Act. These ‘underground regulations’ significantly injure the aquaculture industry and the public’s opportunity to engage in recreational fishing,” Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Joshua P. Thompson said in the appellate brief.

Specifically, the lawsuit and appeal allege DFW does not have any authority to enforce mitigation measures and protocols recommended by the agency’s own environmental assessment.

DFW was required to prepare an environmental assessment by a state court after the agency was successfully sued by the Pacific Rivers Council and Center for Biodiversity. The final assessment, issued in 2010, recommended an alternative for recreational fish stocking where certain native species would be protected.

State officials said some protected species would still be threatened even with formal protections in place.

Representing the state in the appellate case is Russell Hildreth, an environmental attorney with the Attorney General’s office in Sacramento.

An opposition brief filed on behalf of the state by Hildreth said the DFW was operating under already existing authority.

“The California Department of Fish and Game … adopted a fish hatchery and stocking environmental impact report (EIR) … [which] included various mitigation measures for the potential impacts for fish stocking activities. The mitigation measures are not regulations, but describe the department’s internal management processes and authority under already existing statutes and regulations,” Hildreth said.

In a statement issued just ahead of oral arguments in November, Pacific Legal Foundation alleged the DFW was devising “a radical new mandate on hatcheries and stocking ponds.”

“Before they could stock or raise any fish, DFW would have to determine there would be no effect on dozens of arbitrarily selected species — including species that are abundant and thriving in California. This process would be so cumbersome and drawn out that it could effectively block many stocking ponds and hatcheries from continuing to operate,” Thompson said.

Pacific Legal Foundation also alleged DFW was engaging in illegal and “underground” regulations by pursuing its policy without public input.

In 2012, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly sided with DFW, ruling the agency was not obliged to comply with California’s rulemaking procedures in order for its regulations to be valid.

“The department, as the principal agency with responsibility for managing and conserving California’s diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources, has attended to [its] public policy objectives in approving the Hatchery and Stocking Program, which seeks to address the impacts of stocking department-reared fish and issuing private stocking permits on native, sensitive and legally protected species while continuing the rearing and stocking of fish for recreational use,” Connelly said in his ruling.

Hildreth cited Connelly’s logic in his opposition brief.

“The trial court agreed that long-standing public policy objectives in California include the maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic organisms and the department is the principal agency with responsibility for managing and conserving California’s diverse fish … resources,” Hildreth said.

Filing its appeal in December 2012, Pacific Legal Foundation said Connelly’s ruling missed the point.

“This case does not concern the department’s authority to protect California’s waters, wildlife or endangered species. Rather, his case only concerns whether the Department followed the proper procedures for exercising that legislatively delegated authority. It has not,” Thompson said in the appellate brief.

In a separate statement, Thompson said the DFW unilaterally moved forward with its mandate.

“The legislature did not request any change at all, let alone radical new mandates that threaten the future of recreational fishing in California. The DFW cooked up these mandates on its own, without seeking public review and comment as the law requires,” Thompson said. “We’re fighting to save recreational fishing in California, from regulators who are out of control.”

Doug Elliott, owner of Santa Ana River Lakes in Anaheim and a member of California Association for Recreational Fishing, said DFW mandates, if allowed to be in effect, would be “devastating … for any place that stocks fish.”

- See more at: http://www.thelog.com/Newsletter/Article/Pacific-Legal-Foundation-challenges-fishing-mandates#sthash.6ZNuRpZp.dpuf