California Fishermen Land Court Ruling

[fishinglakes.com]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/10/outdoors-stocking-lawsuit-fisheries/

California fishermen land court ruling

In monumental decision, California 3rd District Court of Appeals rules for fish farmers, stocking

By Ed Zieralski4:28 p.m.Feb. 10, 2015

Like a lot of government agencies, the California Fish and Wildlife Department has a tendency to turn crawfish over any lawsuit filed by groups who are intent on stopping fishing and hunting in this state.

Either the agency rolls over and gives the anti-hunting and fishing groups anything it wants or it overreacts and does more harm than can possibly be imagined. In the case of challenges to its regulations regarding stocking fish and fish-farming businesses, it did both. It rolled over and did more harm.

But now the California Third District Court of Appeals has “struck down the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s illegally drafted permitting requirements on recreational freshwater fishing — regulations that threatened to decimate the $2.4 billion industry by driving fishing lakes, private hatcheries, and fish farms out of business,” according to a release from the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF) against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The fishermen in California won thanks to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF).

Finally, the state’s inability to fend off these anti-fishing organizations from passing unfair, illegal sanctions and regulations led to a court ruling that stopped the state assault on recreational fishing, preserved jobs and most of all, assured Californians and their families that they’ll have opportunities to fish in the future at lakes stocked with fish. Had these poorly drawn-up regulations by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife not been struck down, they potentially would have cost lakes such as Dixon, Poway and Jennings more than $100,000 every one to five years in order to stay current with the ridiculous environmental studies and mandates.

“This was a very good day for freshwater fishing in California,” said Marko Mlikotin, executive director of the CARF, a grass-roots organization of freshwater fishermen and businesses. “We could not be happier. This will have a profound impact on fish farmers and lakes and all the places where fish stocking supplement what the state doesn’t do in terms of stocking warm and coldwater fisheries.”

Said Craig Elliott, president of CARF and a recreational fishing lakes operator and fish farmer: “We could not be more pleased with the Appellate Court’s rejection of the Department’s illegal regulations. This ruling ensures that freshwater fishing will continue to be an affordable and accessible form of recreation for California families and a source of jobs. California anglers owe a debt of gratitude to PLF for championing our cause.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) represented CARF and led the legal charge, challenging the DFW’s radical new mandate on hatcheries and stocking ponds that was influenced by anti-fishing groups that lobby and have infiltrated the DFW.

PLF argued that the state’s freshwater fish population is “historically healthy,” yet DFW issued a regulation that before anyone could stock or raise fish, DFG would have to determine that 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,” Mlikotin said.

PLF challenged the new regulations, saying they were drafted without public input, which is mandated by the California Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). Essentially, the Court ruled the hatchery and fish farm regulations were “underground regulations” that were set without sufficient public input.

“This court ruling is a powerful victory for everyone who values recreational fishing opportunities, and for everyone who values openness and accountability in government,” said PLF senior staff attorney Joshua Thompson. “The DFW concocted these radical regulations all on its own, without any request from the Legislature and without seeking public review and comment as state law requires. This court victory saves recreational fishing from out-of-control regulators and protects everyone’s rights by reminding bureaucrats they aren’t above the law.”

The new regulations were rooted in a 2010 Fish and Wildlife Environmental Impact Report that claimed that the stocking of lakes and ponds with hatchery-bred fish puts indigenous fish and habitat in danger. The environmental document also radically changed the the permitting process for stocking private fishing lakes and ponds without any public review or input, and without direction from the State Legislature.

The state agency changed its fish stocking permitting process in the EIR by prohibiting all stocking which would have an adverse effect on "decision species." CARF and PLF studies and research showed that more than half of these so-called "decision species" are not listed under any statute or regulation, but were included by agency whim, Thompson said.

“The EIR also required private hatcheries to engage in continuous and expensive monitoring for invasive species, the results of which must be reported to the Department for use in its investigations and permitting decisions,” he added.

Marko Mlikotin
O: 916-936-1777

www.SportfishingConservation.org

[Marley]

Congratulations Craig, and thank you for your efforts to preserve our outdoor heritage.

[Stray Cat]

Excellent news .

[seal]

Well that's one! Only statement I'd disagree is this one "Finally, the state’s inability to fend off these anti-fishing organizations from passing unfair", inability is not the problem with the state they simply agree with the radicals and didn't challenge it because they are as much a source of the problem as the DFG is, they are one and the same.

Thanks to all for their efforts!!!!

[DEVOREFLYER]

^^^^^^^^this...........

[HawgZWylde]

Well that's one! Only statement I'd disagree is this one "Finally, the state’s inability to fend off these anti-fishing organizations from passing unfair", inability is not the problem with the state they simply agree with the radicals and didn't challenge it because they are as much a source of the problem as the DFG is, they are one and the same.

Thanks to all for their efforts!!!!

Nailed it bro! One battle won in the war against "progressive" tyranny. It's far from over and in fact will get much worse...

[fishinglakes.com]

Nailed it bro! One battle won in the war against "progressive" tyranny. It's far from over and in fact will get much worse...

So true...

[HawgZWylde]

So true...

Thank you for standing up against it. Keep it up my friend...

[TUNAVIC]

Fantastic, we'll done!

Cya Tuna Vic

[etucker1959]

Nailed it bro! One battle won in the war against "progressive" tyranny. It's far from over and in fact will get much worse...
Progressive tyranny!!!!! How about a different definition, such as young people aren't exposed enough to the Great Outdoor experience. I have no children of my own, but that didn't stop me from having several apprentices that fishing became their number 1. hobby!!!!!! One of them Michael made fishing his Career choice. I bring him up, because the very first fishing trip he ever went on, was right here at the Santa Ana River lakes. (It didn't hurt that we had easy limits that day)

[DarkShadow]

So will the West Fork San Gabriel be stocked again soon?

Can anybody give me a good summary of the court ruling?

[fishinglakes.com]

http://traffic.libsyn.com/pacificlegal/2-11-15_CARF.mp3

Above is a summary podcast about the decision.

[seal]

So will the West Fork San Gabriel be stocked again soon?

Can anybody give me a good summary of the court ruling?

DS this pertains to the attempt that was made by the DFG to implement onerous and expensive annual or semi-annual study's and approval processes that would have definitely impacted the stocking of many lakes and also put many private fishing enterprises and hatcheries out of business because of costs involved.

Many in the DFG at the management level are no longer on the side of the sportsmen of this state they are in bed with the extremists within the environmental movement!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/10/outdoors-stocking-lawsuit-fisheries/

[seal]

There has been other moves by the feds. to cut down on stocking trout and shutting down hatcheries (Lake Mead and Willow Beach) so I think that this state and the feds. are working towards a common goal if you connect the dots.

[DarkShadow]

DS this pertains to the attempt that was made by the DFG to implement onerous and expensive annual or semi-annual study's and approval processes that would have definitely impacted the stocking of many lakes and also put many private fishing enterprises and hatcheries out of business because of costs involved.

Many in the DFG at the management level are no longer on the side of the sportsmen of this state they are in bed with the extremists within the environmental movement!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/10/outdoors-stocking-lawsuit-fisheries/

Soooo...

It had nothing to do with revisiting the stocking programs in areas the DFG were no longer allowed to do so because the stocker trout might mistake a frog for green Powerbait™?

[seal]

Soooo...

It had nothing to do with revisiting the stocking programs in areas the DFG were no longer allowed to do so because the stocker trout might mistake a frog for green Powerbait™?

Nope but in a way it is kind of related. Hawgz is right though, this is just one of many salvo's that are being lobbed and will continue to be lobbed.

[exfactor]

The Packard Foundation wants all of us to go to The Monterey aquarium, and just look, but don't touch. I for one will not go there again knowing their alterior motives.

[Stray Cat]

The look but don't touch agenda is going strong in fresh and salt . Down in San Diego they're trying to turn once great fishing ponds into wetlands. The area once known as childrens pool is infested with harbor seals and sea lions . The whole area smells like someone took a crap on a five day old pile of sardines. Now the hippie bird watching restaurants are complaing . Be carfull what you wish for. Die yuppie scum!

[HawgZWylde]

DS this pertains to the attempt that was made by the DFG to implement onerous and expensive annual or semi-annual study's and approval processes that would have definitely impacted the stocking of many lakes and also put many private fishing enterprises and hatcheries out of business because of costs involved.

Many in the DFG at the management level are no longer on the side of the sportsmen of this state they are in bed with the extremists within the environmental movement!

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/10/outdoors-stocking-lawsuit-fisheries/


Many in the DFG at the management level are no longer on the side of the sportsmen of this state they are in bed with the extremists within the environmental movement!

Hence why they are now called the "department of fish and wildlife" and not department of fish and game...

[DarkShadow]

I for one will not go there again knowing their alterior motives.

And eff their expensive ink cartridges too.









_________________________________
Sent from my HP™

[Lady Quagga]

The 3rd District Court of Appeal was right in overturning the decision of the lower court. The Department of Fish and Wildlife failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act "by imposing the qualification requirements and the monitoring and reporting obligations on private fish vendors without complying with the APA’s notice and hearing procedures."

However, both the Fishing in the City and private stocking permit programs are subject to review and regulation under the California Environmental Quality Act. Where the DFW failed was in it's implementation of the Environmental Impact Report's mitigation measures (BIO-226 and BIO-229 for the Fishing in the City program, and BIO-233b for the private stocking permit program), in accordance with the APA. It should be noted that only BIO-226 and BIO-233b address "decision species" impact at stocking sites; BIO-229 addresses invasive species at the private aquaculture facilities themselves.

Now let me be clear - I fully support the Appellate Court's decision. But what I find particularly disingenuous about the arguments being made by the California Association of Recreational Fishing regarding the issue of "decision species". The CARF would have you believe that list of species outlined in the EIR is somehow frivolous or unwarranted. But of the 85 species listed in the EIR report, 34 of them are considered Endangered or Threatened by Federal and/or state regulations, and an additional 36 are classified as Federal and/or State proposed, candidates, or species of concern. Only 15 have no status of any kind.

Also bear in mind that the Fishing in the City program is not a mandated program - and while it would be ill-advised, the DFW could simply decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater and end the program altogether to address any environmental concerns brought about by the program.

Finally - in it's decision, the Appellate Court addressed two additional cases brought against the DFW regarding the EIR. The Court ruled in favor of the DFW in both those cases. I will not go into the details of those two other cases because, even though they are related, as they have no bearing on the subject at hand. I mention them only because this wasn't some "slam-dunk" ruling against the DFW. It was a well-considered decision made by a group of judges who displayed a lot more intellectual honesty when rendering that decision to the public, than the litigants did.

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C072486.PDF
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Hatcheries/EIR/
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15295
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15307

[seal]

The DFG (screw the DFW) also could decide to cut back the fish stocking program by 50% in 2015 when they have been mandated by legislature (AB7) to plant 2.75 lbs. of trout per licensed angler. Instead those money's are being used for their chosen programs that don't enhance our fishing and hunting opportunities.

Obviously the DFG thinks they can do anything it wants no matter what the circumstances. Cancelling a fishing program? Wouldn't surprise me in the least cause then that money can be devoted to one of their many "environmental" priorities instead.

It's a war! They are going to chisel away until our voices are minimized to the point of us becoming neutered, at least that's the plan.

[seal]

Ok I don't have time to dig into every link you posted Quagga but I will highlight this re: the "decision species". If I am incorrect let me know but these are a few that have not been designated as endangered by the State or the Feds. yet are being identified as "decision species".

Common Garter Snake
Mountain Garter Snake
Sierra (Western Aquatic) Garter
Northwestern Salamander
Long-toed salamander
California Giant Salamander

Garter snakes? Well gee how many areas that plant trout have garter snakes as residents? Why include any species that are not endangered Federally or by the State as decision species? No matter whether they included only a small percentage of non endangered species the question is why include any? I'm sure the answer is somehow explained in all that DFG B.S. if you know what that explanation is please post it Quagga, for me to go thru it all will only raise my blood pressure and I'd have to double up on my pills for the day.

But wait there's more. Also listed are the Bald Eagle and Osprey. They are on some kind of a state list of endangered species but really does this make any freaking sense? If they are endangered and we are taking away a prime food source potentially how does that help them? I know they are probably claiming pollution/heavy metals or something that might cause the birds harm although trout are one of the species that are normally fairly low in Mercury and pcb's.

[Lady Quagga]

Ok I don't have time to dig into every link you posted Quagga but I will highlight this re: the "decision species". If I am incorrect let me know but these are a few that have not been designated as endangered by the State or the Feds. yet are being identified as "decision species".

Common Garter Snake
Mountain Garter Snake
Sierra (Western Aquatic) Garter
Northwestern Salamander
Long-toed salamander
California Giant Salamander

Garter snakes? Well gee how many areas that plant trout have garter snakes as residents? Why include any species that are not endangered Federally or by the State as decision species? No matter whether they included only a small percentage of non endangered species the question is why include any? I'm sure the answer is somehow explained in all that DFG B.S. if you know what that explanation is please post it Quagga, for me to go thru it all will only raise my blood pressure and I'd have to double up on my pills for the day.

The six species you listed have no status of any kind. (Please note that I updated the figures in my last post to accurately reflect the EIR list. As those figures indicate, of the 85 species listed in the EIR report, 34 of them are considered Endangered or Threatened by Federal and/or state regulations, and an additional 36 are classified as Federal and/or State proposed/candidate species, or species of concern. Only 15 have no status of any kind.)

The following briefly outlines how the DFW chose to include the various species to the list:


The selection of special-status species for detailed treatment in this EIR/EIS was based on the extensive comments received during the scoping process. Those comments led to initial consideration of a list including all special-status animal species known to occur in California. Through 2008, during public scoping meetings and subject to input from USFWS and DFG staff familiar with the history and operation of hatchery and stocking programs or the biology of special-status species, various species on the initial list were determined to either require evaluation or not require evaluation in this EIR/EIS. Generally, a species was regarded as requiring evaluation if it was:

- known to occur in riparian, wetland, or aquatic habitat adjoining or within a few miles downstream of a fish hatchery evaluated in the EIR/EIS;

- known to occur in riparian, wetland, or aquatic habitat at sites where fish stocking is performed under one or more of the stocking programs described in this EIR/EIS; or

- known to be vulnerable to ecosystem-level impacts such as alteration of food webs by stocked fish, alteration of riparian and aquatic systems by the activities of anglers, or various other indirect mechanisms that have been reported in published studies of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

Similarly, if a species did not meet any of these criteria, it was removed from consideration for detailed evaluation within this EIR/EIS.

[...]

Several species that are not special‐status species were added to the review list because of DFG concerns that they might be affected by stocking programs. Since the final list of species addressed in this chapter includes some species that have no special‐status designation, they are cumulatively referred to as “decision species.”

Now, I won't argue the logic of adding this species or that species. But I do not agree with the opinion that the inclusion of certain species was frivolous or arbitrary. Be that as it may, the implementation of the mitigation measures should have been subject to review in accordance with the APA, which is why I agree with the Appellate Court's decision in this matter.

As I pointed out in my last post, the programs in question are subject to review and regulation under the CEQA. It is only a matter of time before some sort of these EIR mitigation measures are implemented as regulations. A proper publically-open review of these measures may very well remove some of the species from that list. I have no problem with this. But private aquaculture facilities will eventually be required to comply with some sort of monitoring and reporting protocol as required by the CEQA.


But wait there's more. Also listed are the Bald Eagle and Osprey. They are on some kind of a state list of endangered species but really does this make any freaking sense? If they are endangered and we are taking away a prime food source potentially how does that help them? I know they are probably claiming pollution/heavy metals or something that might cause the birds harm although trout are one of the species that are normally fairly low in Mercury and pcb's.

The goal here is not to take away a potential food source from certain listed species by preventing stocking. The reporting required by the mitigation-measures is not solely focused on the food-supply of species such as the Bald Eagle or Osprey; there are other non-dietary considerations. But once again, a public-review (as required by the APA) could go a long way in determining which species should remain listed and which should be removed.

[seal]

Thanks for the response Quagga.

[Lady Quagga]

The DFG (screw the DFW) also could decide to cut back the fish stocking program by 50% in 2015 when they have been mandated by legislature (AB7) to plant 2.75 lbs. of trout per licensed angler. Instead those money's are being used for their chosen programs that don't enhance our fishing and hunting opportunities.

Obviously the DFG thinks they can do anything it wants no matter what the circumstances. Cancelling a fishing program? Wouldn't surprise me in the least cause then that money can be devoted to one of their many "environmental" priorities instead.

It's a war! They are going to chisel away until our voices are minimized to the point of us becoming neutered, at least that's the plan.

I am curious - what is the basis for your "50% in 2015" claim? I am not trying to get into an argument here - I am simply curious where you got this figure?

And the fact that the DFW elected to keep the Fishing in the City program (even though it is not mandated that they do so) would seem to contradict the suggestion that they simply want to eliminate fishing opportunities. It would have been much easier for them to do away with it altogether rather than deal with the litigation (and litigation costs - this was a "loser pays" case).

[fish hunt]

so much of california has been ruined by its government its crazy they only listen to knuckleheads that have no clue how things were in california 250 years ago the streams that run through LA were full of steelhead trout cousin of the rainbow and I'am shure these species that they are crying about did just fine .
these are the kind of people and are in the position to ok a huge development with out thinking about the impact because thier pockets get filled and they dont care about the people who want to enjoy the things this state has to offer .
no matter what your outdoor activity this state is against it the anti recreation scum will allways use some bent beak bug humper to try to get their agenda through and the facts dont matter it's just about control .
I allways here about sustainable fishing what the hell is more sustainable than than planting fish raised at a fish farm and by duing so we are just replacing what was lost to overfishing in the past . what we all should due as a whole is to find out what the anti fisherman like to due and try to ban it give them a taste

[seal]

I do not believe everybody in the DFG has bad intentions when it comes to our hunting and fishing opportunities. I'd bet there is quite a bit of infighting occurring, but they are not very transparent and we can only make our opinions up based on actions, my opinion is they have been infiltrated at the management level by some that are definitely not pro sportsmen.

The 50% number has been widely publicized based on a document that was found on the DFG's website. The document was not widely circulated like many of their documents so that leads many of us to believe their intent was to not get the publicity it deserved.

Many articles out there on it but here's Jim Mathew's story as an example.

http://www.outdoornewsservice.com/#!Trout-plant-cuts-in-2015-are-really-up-to-state-legislature/c18sh/3B6A8840-EB2D-4A17-923B-604682A12BB8

[DarkShadow]

The 3rd District Court of Appeal was right in overturning the decision of the lower court. The Department of Fish and Wildlife failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act "by imposing the qualification requirements and the monitoring and reporting obligations on private fish vendors without complying with the APA’s notice and hearing procedures."

However, both the Fishing in the City and private stocking permit programs are subject to review and regulation under the California Environmental Quality Act. Where the DFW failed was in it's implementation of the Environmental Impact Report's mitigation measures (BIO-226 and BIO-229 for the Fishing in the City program, and BIO-233b for the private stocking permit program), in accordance with the APA. It should be noted that only BIO-226 and BIO-233b address "decision species" impact at stocking sites; BIO-229 addresses invasive species at the private aquaculture facilities themselves.

Now let me be clear - I fully support the Appellate Court's decision. But what I find particularly disingenuous about the arguments being made by the California Association of Recreational Fishing regarding the issue of "decision species". The CARF would have you believe that list of species outlined in the EIR is somehow frivolous or unwarranted. But of the 85 species listed in the EIR report, 34 of them are considered Endangered or Threatened by Federal and/or state regulations, and an additional 36 are classified as Federal and/or State proposed, candidates, or species of concern. Only 15 have no status of any kind.

Also bear in mind that the Fishing in the City program is not a mandated program - and while it would be ill-advised, the DFW could simply decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater and end the program altogether to address any environmental concerns brought about by the program.

Finally - in it's decision, the Appellate Court addressed two additional cases brought against the DFW regarding the EIR. The Court ruled in favor of the DFW in both those cases. I will not go into the details of those two other cases because, even though they are related, as they have no bearing on the subject at hand. I mention them only because this wasn't some "slam-dunk" ruling against the DFW. It was a well-considered decision made by a group of judges who displayed a lot more intellectual honesty when rendering that decision to the public, than the litigants did.

For your viewing pleasure:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C072486.PDF
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Hatcheries/EIR/
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15295
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15307

Soooo.....am I gonna be able to catch diapers and stocker trout from the West Fork this year or what?

My counselor that I usually have on retainer is AWOL, so I will need for you to figure this one out for me.

(And Skyler Faggoti, Esquire, where are you?! I've gotten myself into a Garibaldi incident and I need your advice (and need for you to appear at the Long Beach Courthouse, on Tuesday, March 3rd, at 9 am.))

[carpanglerdude]

Poaching those garibaldi again, tsk tsk

[DarkShadow]

Poaching those garibaldi again, tsk tsk

I thought it was an opaleye! (Tasted like one, at least)

I'm an innocent bystander, they sayin' I poached a Garibaldi, but I cannot see, I'm legally color blind. That's my story, I'm sticking to it. I'm innocent.

[Lady Quagga]

I do not believe everybody in the DFG has bad intentions when it comes to our hunting and fishing opportunities. I'd bet there is quite a bit of infighting occurring, but they are not very transparent and we can only make our opinions up based on actions, my opinion is they have been infiltrated at the management level by some that are definitely not pro sportsmen.

The 50% number has been widely publicized based on a document that was found on the DFG's website. The document was not widely circulated like many of their documents so that leads many of us to believe their intent was to not get the publicity it deserved.

Many articles out there on it but here's Jim Mathew's story as an example.

http://www.outdoornewsservice.com/#!Trout-plant-cuts-in-2015-are-really-up-to-state-legislature/c18sh/3B6A8840-EB2D-4A17-923B-604682A12BB8

Seal,

I made an exhaustive search of all publications released by the DFW for November 2014. I found only one, "DFW's Inland Fish Planting for 2015 (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=91004)", which details why the DFW is planting fewer and smaller fish in 2015. This publication, released 11/7/2014, was and is still listed under the Alerts section of the DFW's main fishing page. Suggestions that this information was not widely circulated are without merit.

I have also contacted Mr. Stafford Lehr's office at the DFW to get some clarification on the quotes attributed to him. The article you link is the only source for these quotes that I've been able to find - they do not appear in any publication released by the DFW. Furthermore, Lehr's name is initially misspelled in the article - while this may seem like a minor issue, it nevertheless compelled me to look for other possible inaccuracies. When I hear back from Mr. Lehr or his office, I will let you know.

What is not in dispute is the fact that these reductions can be attributed to the state legislature withholding critical funding for the stocking program. If that is the case, the DFW should not be made the scapegoat for the failure of the state legislature.

[seal]

Is it that the state legislature held back money SPECIFICALLY for funding of the stocking program or is it that the funding of the DFW in general is being held back? I did another search and the same story appears in multiple publications, but all those story's have Jim's name as author. Now I know I've seen other story's on this but I'm only going to spend so much time trying to dig this up for you.

My concern remains if the DFG made the determination based on what they believe are priorities that the stocking program be cut by 1/2 then I don't believe their priorities are necessarily what they should be. My opinion only and also my opinion that this information was not circulated to the extent it should have been. I keep a close watch on them via Facebook and I do not recall this coming up yet every other story that makes them look good does appear. Now if I missed it my bad.

What about AB7? This mandate has never even come close to being met.

I suppose I should be happy because Silverwood is getting loaded with trout stockings but I have questions about why that lake in particular is getting so many fish. I won't spread rumors based on what I've heard and what I think might be causing it but I sure am curious as hell.

[Lady Quagga]

Is it that the state legislature held back money SPECIFICALLY for funding of the stocking program or is it that the funding of the DFW in general is being held back?

According to both the article and DFG publication, it is the former.


I did another search and the same story appears in multiple publications, but all those story's have Jim's name as author. Now I know I've seen other story's on this but I'm only going to spend so much time trying to dig this up for you.

I am not looking for an entire list of articles. I am looking for the original source of the quotes attributed to Mr. Lehr. (Barring the source, I must verify the quotes with Mr. Lehr's office directly.) The facts regarding the reduction in the stocking are not in question.


My concern remains if the DFG made the determination based on what they believe are priorities that the stocking program be cut by 1/2 then I don't believe their priorities are necessarily what they should be. My opinion only and also my opinion that this information was not circulated to the extent it should have been. I keep a close watch on them via Facebook and I do not recall this coming up yet every other story that makes them look good does appear. Now if I missed it my bad.

As I pointed out, this publication was released on 11/7/2014 and continues to be at the top of the Alerts section on the DFW's main Fishing page. Anyone visiting that page would see it displayed prominently. On the other hand, I don't consider Facebook to be a reliable source of information for anything, let alone DFG notifications.

Be that as it may, this is not a question of "priorities"; the DFG by law is mandated to stock a certain amount of trout, based on the number of licenses sold. The problem is that its limited ($19 million) hatchery budget is unable to cover the increasing costs of the program, and with the state legislature failing to extend the additional $2.5 million per year (under "the guise of budget cutting", according to the article), this has become yet another state-legislated under-funded mandate.


What about AB7? This mandate has never even come close to being met.

Actually, the DFW has been able to come close to it's mandated goals in the past:


By July 2009, the statute required the Department to attain a goal of stocking 2.75 pounds of trout for each sport fishing license sold. (Stats. 2008, ch. 350, § 1, p. 2735.) In 2007, more than two million fish licenses were sold, translating into a goal of stocking more than five million pounds of trout. By comparison, in 2008, the Department actually stocked 4.3 million pounds of trout. [Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C072486.PDF]

Of course, the DFG has been falling far short of it's mandated goals recently, and the reason for this - the lack of funding by the state legislature - should now be clear. And it's the reason why that additional $2.5 million is so critical, especially now.

[Lady Quagga]

Soooo.....am I gonna be able to catch diapers and stocker trout from the West Fork this year or what?

My counselor that I usually have on retainer is AWOL, so I will need for you to figure this one out for me.

If diapers is what you want, you need only troll a line along Soto Street. :Dancing Banana:

[JS_]

Thank you very much for all your work in defending our basic civil liberties, the right to fish. Hopefully we can see trout being planted in Lake Casitas and Lake Piru again.....This ideology and socialist polarization tactics they are trying to do is to systematically change our way of life....

The costs to local businesses have been significant and maybe now we can start to enjoy our local lakes again, like we have done for years....Thank you, Marko......JS

[Lady Quagga]

Thank you very much for all your work in defending our basic civil liberties, the right to fish. Hopefully we can see trout being planted in Lake Casitas and Lake Piru again.....This ideology and socialist polarization tactics they are trying to do is to systematically change our way of life....

The costs to local businesses have been significant and maybe now we can start to enjoy our local lakes again, like we have done for years....Thank you, Marko......JS

This has nothing to do with "basic civil liberties" or "socialist polarization tactics". Get a clue.

One more for the meat grinder. I can see you're going to fit right in.

[seal]

According to both the article and DFG publication, it is the former.



I am not looking for an entire list of articles. I am looking for the original source of the quotes attributed to Mr. Lehr. (Barring the source, I must verify the quotes with Mr. Lehr's office directly.) The facts regarding the reduction in the stocking are not in question.



As I pointed out, this publication was released on 11/7/2014 and continues to be at the top of the Alerts section on the DFW's main Fishing page. Anyone visiting that page would see it displayed prominently. On the other hand, I don't consider Facebook to be a reliable source of information for anything, let alone DFG notifications.

Be that as it may, this is not a question of "priorities"; the DFG by law is mandated to stock a certain amount of trout, based on the number of licenses sold. The problem is that its limited ($19 million) hatchery budget is unable to cover the increasing costs of the program, and with the state legislature failing to extend the additional $2.5 million per year (under "the guise of budget cutting", according to the article), this has become yet another state-legislated under-funded mandate.



Actually, the DFW has been able to come close to it's mandated goals in the past:



Of course, the DFG has been falling far short of it's mandated goals recently, and the reason for this - the lack of funding by the state legislature - should now be clear. And it's the reason why that additional $2.5 million is so critical, especially now.

I give in counselor. You have done nothing to change my opinion that some within the DFG do not have our best interests when it comes to the stocking and other fish and game programs but at the same time I will continue to have the backs of the wardens and others that do. Because I sense a direction within this state, both within the DFG and the legislature, that is not entirely pro sportsmen does not mean I don't appreciate the large body of positive work that the DFG does.

I will keep an eye on the alert section, not something I was following prior to this and thank you for bringing it to my attention, I will follow it closely. I hope many others do so also.

[Lady Quagga]

I give in counselor. You have done nothing to change my opinion that some within the DFG do not have our best interests when it comes to the stocking and other fish and game programs but at the same time I will continue to have the backs of the wardens and others that do. Because I sense a direction within this state, both within the DFG and the legislature, that is not entirely pro sportsmen does not mean I don't appreciate the large body of positive work that the DFG does.

I will keep an eye on the alert section, not something I was following prior to this and thank you for bringing it to my attention, I will follow it closely. I hope many others do so also.

I think you and I are in agreement - there are those out there who clearly have an anti-fishing and anti-hunting agenda, and will try to influence DFW policy to reflect that. It is right and good that anglers and hunters remain ever-vigilant when it comes to protecting our rights and privileges. But it is also critical that we be well-informed and know all the facts before repeating the claims and half-truths made by others.

[JS_]

OK..I stand corrected in the "civil liberties", since it wouldn't be classified a Bill of Rights verbiage...I was in the bottom of the third inning with Johnny Walker, so wasn't particularly clear when sending...yikes....Otherwise, all is accurate....We are being tested on the "Calif State Constitution, Art.I, Sec 25", etc. and will need to continue all legal means. My $'s will be going to this cause.
Do you actively fish or work for the DFW? :Neutral:

[Lady Quagga]

OK..I stand corrected in the "civil liberties", since it wouldn't be classified a Bill of Rights verbiage...I was in the bottom of the third inning with Johnny Walker, so wasn't particularly clear when sending...yikes....Otherwise, all is accurate....We are being tested on the "Calif State Constitution, Art.I, Sec 25", etc. and will need to continue all legal means. My $'s will be going to this cause.

My initial reply to you stands. This is not an Article 1, Section 25 issue. And I've made quite clear my support of the Appellate Court's decision in this case.


Do you actively fish or work for the DFW? :Neutral:

Yes and no.

[fly addict]

You got to love how the commies on this site try to defend the DFG and their wacko environmental agenda…

[Lady Quagga]

You got to love how the commies on this site try to defend the DFG and their wacko environmental agenda…

http://s13.postimg.org/8pdrlec87/joe.jpg

[RTG]

Hence why they are now called the "department of fish and wildlife" and not department of fish and game...

Right, except you fail to mention that the name change was opposed by the Department. It was a lawmaker who sided with Jennifer Fearing, who heads the state's HSUS chapter, and is personal friends with Moonbeam. That is where the name change occurred. You make it sound like the DFW did this on their own to reflect some new anti hunter/ Fisher agenda. Public enemy number 1 is Jennifer Fearing and her group. Not DFW. Stop buying into the hype that these newsgroups and reporters exaggerate about. They're trying to get readers, so they write these extreme fluff pieces. Do you really think the DFW wants to stop most fishing and hunting and cut their own throats? Geez people. Think for a change! Many of these things the DFW has to act on are from lawsuits from public enemy 2a, the Center for Biological Diversity. They're the ones who sued to end trout stocking. And guess what. The DFW fought them in court and won! So, please, enough with the nonsense already.

[RTG]

See below. Sorry. I screwed up...

[RTG]

Ok I don't have time to dig into every link you posted Quagga but I will highlight this re: the "decision species". If I am incorrect let me know but these are a few that have not been designated as endangered by the State or the Feds. yet are being identified as "decision species".

Common Garter Snake
Mountain Garter Snake
Sierra (Western Aquatic) Garter
Northwestern Salamander
Long-toed salamander
California Giant Salamander

Garter snakes? Well gee how many areas that plant trout have garter snakes as residents? Why include any species that are not endangered Federally or by the State as decision species? No matter whether they included only a small percentage of non endangered species the question is why include any? I'm sure the answer is somehow explained in all that DFG B.S. if you know what that explanation is please post it Quagga, for me to go thru it all will only raise my blood pressure and I'd have to double up on my pills for the day.

But wait there's more. Also listed are the Bald Eagle and Osprey. They are on some kind of a state list of endangered species but really does this make any freaking sense? If they are endangered and we are taking away a prime food source potentially how does that help them? I know they are probably claiming pollution/heavy metals or something that might cause the birds harm although trout are one of the species that are normally fairly low in Mercury and pcb's.

There are garter snakes at Silverwood. I've seen them. FYI.

[seal]

So RTG you see know infiltration of the DFG from environmentalist movement focused type individuals? That has no validity? There's no chance that at the upper levels of the department that appointees are focused mainly on other priorities and are trying to change the "face" of the DFG?

I agree that the majority of worker b's at the DFG still have a focus on enhancing and protecting hunting and fishing opportunities but how long will that last? Moonbeam and other of California's elected officials I'm sure would like nothing better than to change the focus and purpose of the DFG and if you don't believe that well then you are going to be in for a rude awakening I think.

[seal]

There are garter snakes at Silverwood. I've seen them. FYI.

Wait did I say they weren't there? Of course they are there they are freaking everywhere!

[RTG]

So RTG you see know infiltration of the DFG from environmentalist movement focused type individuals? That has no validity? There's no chance that at the upper levels of the department that appointees are focused mainly on other priorities and are trying to change the "face" of the DFG?

I agree that the majority of worker b's at the DFG still have a focus on enhancing and protecting hunting and fishing opportunities but how long will that last? Moonbeam and other of California's elected officials I'm sure would like nothing better than to change the focus and purpose of the DFG and if you don't believe that well then you are going to be in for a rude awakening I think.

I respect your opinion, but I think I have a pretty good knowledge of what goes on at the DFW. And Jennifer Fearing is not part of the DFW. She works for HSUS. She hasn't infiltrated the Department. Maybe the governed though. She walks his dogs.

[RTG]

Wait did I say they weren't there? Of course they are there they are freaking everywhere!

You asked in your post what trout stock areas had garter snakes. I just named one. That's all.