Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing  RUNCL   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Proposed Trout Regulations in California

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hamberders and Covfefe
    Posts
    11,994

    Default New Proposed Trout Regulations in California

    Guys,

    From a fellow fly angler from another board:

    Hi All,

    For those who aren't aware, the Cal Dept of Fish and Wildlife is proposing a sweeping new raft of "simplified" fishing regulations that will affect EVERY body of trout water in the entire state.

    CA is a big state, and I only am familiar with some of it's waters, but the proposed regs almost uniformly extend the season, increase bag limits, and reduce or remove gear restrictions altogether on these waters.

    After so many decades of working with the angling community with the goal of protecting our trout fisheries, the DFW now wants to "simplify" things which in almost every case will likely result in hurting the fisheries.

    This is really a big deal.

    My local fly fishing club studied the proposed regs and intended to comment on all of them, but there are so many ways the proposed regs hurt all of our fisheries, and we have so many fisheries in CA, that the club's official position is now that it simply opposes all of the proposed regs.

    I really have no idea why the DFW want to do this; making the regs simpler certainly won't stop some people from continuing to ignore them, if that's what they're inclined to do.

    The DFW has finished its public meetings on this topic, however the window is still open for a short time only to write to the DFW to provide them feedback.

    Please, take a few moments to write your comments to the DFW!

    You can download and read the proposed regs, and how they will affect the fisheries you are familiar with, and also comment on them to the DFW here:

    https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/fishing/..._y1zLQlZvKYeAY

    Also, Roger Bloom is the DFW's point person on this proposal, pleased also write to him in person at:

    Roger.Bloom@wildlife.ca.gov

    Every email counts!
    So many anglers who love native/wild trout fishing in our state on this site, and I would love to know your thoughts.

    And of course, we have our resident DFW biologists who may be able to have some input on why these new regulations have been proposed, and why the ultimate end game is for them to be enacted.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    riverside,Ca
    Posts
    246

    Default

    If you want to read a couple of articles on what was talked about at the meetings and how the resort owners and the communities in the Sierra feel about the proposals go to The Sheet Mammoth http://thesheetnews.com/2019/04/07/c...while-you-can/

    If you want to continue enjoying fishing the Sierra, make your opinion known on the CA DFW website before its too late.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bstolton View Post
    If you want to read a couple of articles on what was talked about at the meetings and how the resort owners and the communities in the Sierra feel about the proposals go to The Sheet Mammoth http://thesheetnews.com/2019/04/07/c...while-you-can/

    If you want to continue enjoying fishing the Sierra, make your opinion known on the CA DFW website before its too late.
    Thanks bstolton, the other "The Sheet Mammoth" article on the proposals written is here: http://thesheetnews.com/2019/03/22/smoke-on-the-water/

    Andy

    PS: fwiw, I'm the guy that wrote the original post on another board so please direct any flames at me, not DS. DS kindly asked my permission to re-post it here and I agreed, having forgotten that I had signed up on FNN almost a decade ago...
    Last edited by acorad; 04-16-2019 at 12:56 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    san clemente
    Posts
    386

    Default

    I read though the proposed regs, they appear very similar to the current regs with select bodies of water added to the special regs list or removed. The biggest difference I see is that Inyo county waters would be open all year as opposed to seasonal. Would love to hear specific changes and the impact they would have instead of this mass hysteria over minor details of the special regs. Maybe I’m missing something but doesn’t seem like major changes. Definitely not the end of all the catch and release with barbless hooks rules as we know them.

    EDIT: I feel some of the proposed changes would have a greater effect on fishermen than the fish, DFW shouldn’t screw us to save time and money, again. Some of the changes are good IMO though so maybe we can convince them to drop some of the bad ideas and keep the good ones. If you want that to be the case please be very specific in your correspondence to them.
    Last edited by twin22s; 04-16-2019 at 11:11 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Ya, the proposed changes are pretty sweeping. I'm not surprised so few anglers choose to dig through all the proposed regs and compare them against the existing regs, as there are so many changes and so many bodies of water, and you need fairly specific knowledge about each body of water to understand the changes and their effects on our trout populations.

    Digging through the proposed regs and the existing regs and trying to compare them back and forth is hard work, and most of us probably won't take the time to do it.

    I'd love to know the actual reason why the DFW got a wild hair and decided to do this. The existing regs were built over decades by cooperation between the DFW and fisherman concerned with ensuring our trout waters are sustainable.

    So today, when the original anglers and DFW personnel who put these protections into place are long gone, the DFW feels like it should simply disregard much of that hard work? Because there is no one who is still around to say "Hey, I was part of getting this protection into the regs. It's in there because of this reason: ____. Don't change it."

    The existing regs aren't perfect, but what is?

    The DFW say this is a simplification of the regs, and that is true to a certain extent. However, in practical terms, the proposed regs are still pretty complex. From my experience there really aren't many anglers who can't figure out the existing regs, if they really care to.

    imo, those that didn't really care to figure out the existing regs before, probably won't be interested much in figuring out the proposed regs either. So I doubt there would be a significant drop in legitimately confused anglers, although I do think there would be many, many more trout killed than before.

    For the most part I can only speak about the waters I'm familiar with.

    The Kern River Rainbow, for example, is a native fish. It only exists in its purest form in the small tributaries to the Kern. The proposed regs would remove protections of those fish by turning over all of those tribs to year-round fishing.

    The infamous Hot Creek will lose protection by going from barbless flies only, to barbless lures.

    Golden Trout Wilderness will lose protection by adding three winter months to the open season, when the fish are often breeding, and in many areas go to year-round fishing. And also go from barbless lures to no gear restrictions. And in many areas a drastic change from from 0 limit, to proposed 5/day & 10 in possession.

    Generally, the DFW wants to move the opener to about a month later in the spring, from Fishmas to around Memorial Day, which would seem to protect the late spring spawning trout (some rainbows, mostly cutties). And they want to move the close of the season to three months later, from November 15 to the end of February, which would remove protection of the fall spawning trout (brown trout).

    The reasoning, I guess, since the DFW really doesn't explain, is that brown trout are non-native so the DFW doesn't care if their numbers are reduced. Or maybe the DFW wants them reduced?

    That reasoning would explain why the DFW wants to remove protection of the trout in the Eastern Sierra, all of which would become year-round fishing with the new regs. None of the trout in the E Sierra are native, regardless of species, so the DFW apparently wants them gone.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acorad View Post
    Ya, the proposed changes are pretty sweeping. I'm not surprised so few anglers choose to dig through all the proposed regs and compare them against the existing regs, as there are so many changes and so many bodies of water, and you need fairly specific knowledge about each body of water to understand the changes and their effects on our trout populations.

    Digging through the proposed regs and the existing regs and trying to compare them back and forth is hard work, and most of us probably won't take the time to do it.

    I'd love to know the actual reason why the DFW got a wild hair and decided to do this. The existing regs were built over decades by cooperation between the DFW and fisherman concerned with ensuring our trout waters are sustainable.

    So today, when the original anglers and DFW personnel who put these protections into place are long gone, the DFW feels like it should simply disregard much of that hard work? Because there is no one who is still around to say "Hey, I was part of getting this protection into the regs. It's in there because of this reason: ____. Don't change it."

    The existing regs aren't perfect, but what is?

    The DFW say this is a simplification of the regs, and that is true to a certain extent. However, in practical terms, the proposed regs are still pretty complex. From my experience there really aren't many anglers who can't figure out the existing regs, if they really care to.

    imo, those that didn't really care to figure out the existing regs before, probably won't be interested much in figuring out the proposed regs either. So I doubt there would be a significant drop in legitimately confused anglers, although I do think there would be many, many more trout killed than before.

    For the most part I can only speak about the waters I'm familiar with.

    The Kern River Rainbow, for example, is a native fish. It only exists in its purest form in the small tributaries to the Kern. The proposed regs would remove protections of those fish by turning over all of those tribs to year-round fishing.

    The infamous Hot Creek will lose protection by going from barbless flies only, to barbless lures.

    Golden Trout Wilderness will lose protection by adding three winter months to the open season, when the fish are often breeding, and in many areas go to year-round fishing. And also go from barbless lures to no gear restrictions. And in many areas a drastic change from from 0 limit, to proposed 5/day & 10 in possession.

    Generally, the DFW wants to move the opener to about a month later in the spring, from Fishmas to around Memorial Day, which would seem to protect the late spring spawning trout (some rainbows, mostly cutties). And they want to move the close of the season to three months later, from November 15 to the end of February, which would remove protection of the fall spawning trout (brown trout).

    The reasoning, I guess, since the DFW really doesn't explain, is that brown trout are non-native so the DFW doesn't care if their numbers are reduced. Or maybe the DFW wants them reduced?

    That reasoning would explain why the DFW wants to remove protection of the trout in the Eastern Sierra, all of which would become year-round fishing with the new regs. None of the trout in the E Sierra are native, regardless of species, so the DFW apparently wants them gone.

    I believe it is quite likely that certain powers-that-be in the DFW want to see all non-native trout removed from the state, likely influenced by radical groups like center for Biological Div. Remember how multiple local streams were wiped out of trout, how stocking went to totally sterile fish that can't reproduce, and eventually ceased in most local watersheds? They'd probably like to see the only trout in the Sierras as the cutthroat natives and goldens. Goodbye, plentiful fishing for wild brows and bows in numerous watersheds.

  7. #7

    Default

    carpdude, I am starting to think you are right on the money.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carpanglerdude View Post
    I believe it is quite likely that certain powers-that-be in the DFW want to see all non-native trout removed from the state, likely influenced by radical groups like center for Biological Div. Remember how multiple local streams were wiped out of trout, how stocking went to totally sterile fish that can't reproduce, and eventually ceased in most local watersheds? They'd probably like to see the only trout in the Sierras as the cutthroat natives and goldens. Goodbye, plentiful fishing for wild brows and bows in numerous watersheds.
    I would agree with this except they are removing some valuable restrictions from backcountry golden trout fisheries as well. As someone said above, long lived protected golden trout lakes that were barbless with no take now will be changed. I for one am not very happy about the proposed changes to many of these backcountry lakes. Increase the bag limit on brookies if you want but leave some of these native fisheries with the restrictions in place to protect them.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Hamberders and Covfefe
    Posts
    11,994

    Default

    California Trout will be generally advocating for:

    • A science-based approach that errs on the side of precaution in the absence of adequate monitoring and enforcement data
    • Clear management objectives for different types of fisheries that can be met with specific regulations from the proposed menu (e.g. urban stocked waters vs. self-sustaining wild trout waters)
    • Balance in opening up more generous seasons and harvest in select waters that can sustain it (e.g., those with heavy stocking) with regulations that adequately protect wild, self-sustaining fisheries that cannot (e.g., waters in Wilderness areas)
    • Conservative regulations to reduce impacts of fishing on native inland trout species in their native range



    Get Involved


    • Regionally-supported regulations that have buy-in from local communities of fishers, guides, lodges, and other associated businesses
    • NO regulation changes to existing fly-fishing-only waters
    • NO regulation changes to formally designated Wild & Heritage Trout Waters or those on the candidate list for consideration
    • NO harvest, barbless flies only for targeting trout species of special concern or those that are threatened
    • Bag limits of 2 fish/day with 4 fish in possession limits for the Statewide Regulation
    • Size slot limits to protect both small and very large mature fish to balance biological needs with harvest and opportunities to target trophy trout for the Statewide Regulation

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •