California Fishermen Land Court Ruling

[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.a...cumentID=15295
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.a...cumentID=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/#!...B-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.a...cumentID=15295
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.a...cumentID=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