Seal,Originally Posted by seal
I for one, don't really chase stocker trout.
Would I have to buy a stamp if i'm C&Ring natives as well? The last time I kept a trout was 1997.
Cuz, that would suck, and being a fiscal conservative, I don't like my money going to assist other people when it doesn't assist me.
It's kinda like welfare.
Your thoughts?
Bureaucracy at its finest....go figure. I'm not naive enough to believe the state will be held fully accountable, or deliver 100% on their obligations, but I'm still going to push back hard in the hopes that we can get at least some momentum going the other direction, if only on a temporary basis while local business and local government plan a winning strategy for the future of Eastern Sierra fishing. I think there is upside here with us being in charge of our own destiny, but its going to take some work and some time...and very likely a re-imagining of how access works. We can't simply pour all the money into the state piggy bank if we don't see a return on it. Time will tell....
Last edited by Sierra_Smitty; 02-13-2015 at 08:17 PM.
My problem with this question is that the money is there - and you shouldn't have to pay extra.
DS, this is very much a problem for you too, believe me. The DFW is putting the emphasis on put & grow fisheries and self sustaining fisheries to be the future....which sounds nice. But in my area, as with many others, there are only a few of those - E. Walker, BP Res., Owens (and connecting waters Hot Creek etc.) and Crowley. You could maybe include a few more but they don't grow rainbows all that fast and certainly not fast enough to keep up with the demand. Even if you put special regs on those waters, which in all likelihood the regs would actually be relaxed to accommodate more anglers, can you imagine what happens when you take all of the people who usually fish the 25 or so area roadside lakes and the 20 or so stocked streams and condense them into just a handful of places? Good God...Hot Creek is already a crowded affair....the tragedy!!!
To your point though about being fiscally conservative.....I'm in that boat in many respects as well....and I don't trust the government to do their job (I wonder why?!!!). So, I think part of the conversation should be a re imagining of the license system. If the state is going to push the financial burden of stocking on local government and local business, they need to cut the cost of a state license and allow local government and businesses to recoup that money to pay for it. I'm a big fan of user fees. If you use it, you pay for it. The pickle I'm in is that I run a lake...and if the state doesn't stock it, I have to stock it with my own money just to survive, and yet any warm body with a fishing license can take the fish I pay for. Its an interesting part of the conversation.
Not to mention the now silent quagga mussel issue. I haven't been going fresh water fishing because of the 30 day quarantine imposed at cachuma lake. This has caused more damage then anything to me
I also if trout fishing am on the fly and rarely keep any trout. I have a good source for all the free tuna I need and would rather pick up some salmon from the store for my omega's than eat a white meat stocker. It's also not all about striper food for me, you can tell by my concerns about the lack of holdovers at Silverwood, I really enjoy playing with them with the fly's. Mainly though it's about giving the younger generation the chance to go out and enjoy nature and catch fish therefore keeping our sport alive for generations to come. Most of us grew up targeting panfish and trout.
I am more than willing to toss a few extra bucks into the pot to ensure that legislature cuts don't affect the stocking program. Besides just because I'm catching and releasing doesn't mean I'm not utilizing the resource therefore I should pay for it just like anybody else.
The problem with the put to grow fishery concept is the amount of waters that have the unique qualities, natural food sources, seasonal closing and regulations to make that concept work. If those sub-catchable size trout are not protected by seasonal closings and regulations they simply will not have the chance to live long enough to attain the size necessary for a decent fishery. That and most lakes in So Cal. that have trout predation (stripers and lmb's) the idea of a put to grow fishery just doesn't work, lakes like Silverwood being an exception to lakes like Diamond Valley.
My problem with this question is that the money is there - and you shouldn't have to pay extra
This is just a logic question now. If they say they don't have the money, but you say they do who wins????? Answer: they do!!!!! However, if you tell them we have an idea that will create more revenue for them and they implement the idea who wins????? Answer: WE DO!!!!!!!!
Last edited by etucker1959; 02-14-2015 at 08:14 AM.
Look, the money has been collected...it's public record and it's right here.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Statistics
However, they're choosing not to spend it in the manner in which they historically have. So, why in the hell would I trust them with even more revenue? Given the absolute idiocy in which this state is run, how can anyone believe that showering the state with more money is going to help? No thanks.
Hopefully there will be a series of local non-profits that will pop up - folks should give their money to them instead. Here is a good example of where the every day angler should spend their bonus money - http://www.bishopvisitor.com/fishingFishStocking.php
But we should still put the heat on DFW to properly spend the money we've already paid them.
Last edited by Sierra_Smitty; 02-16-2015 at 02:22 PM.
Bring back Adopt a Creek and Alpers! Ok one can dream.
I totally agree with this state not utilizing the money correctly I guess my hope would be that if written correctly a tout stamp concept would secure funds specifically for stocking. But this is probably pie in the sky cause you just can't trust the BASSTARDS!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote