Bass Pro Shops   Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   The Fishing Syndicate  Carver Covers  Tight Lines Guide Service  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Summer Pudd 2022

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    22

    Default Summer Pudd 2022

    Hey, haven't posted here in awhile but wanted to give a report on Puddingstone from shore.

    7/10
    Fished from 7 AM till 10 AM but no luck. Threw a buzz bait for top water, texas rig, and drop shots. Fished sailboat cove, lifeguard house, and east shore near the piers.

    7/16
    Fished from 7 AM to 10 AM again and no luck. Saw a bunch of decent size bass near the lifeguard house but had no luck on them biting. Went towards the dam and no luck. Finished the morning at sailboat cove with no bites. My buddy on a kayak was later able to catch one near the opening of sailboat cove.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Pasadena Ca.
    Posts
    205

    Default

    I'm surprised they have any fish at all, I have seen illegal net fishing there on many occasions. They swim in the water and net off a cove or inlet and walk the fish into the net, of course I called it in, but you know how that goes.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Whittier
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Yup not the same lake it used to be,sad.

    Cya Tuna Vic

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Theos View Post
    Of course I called it in, but you know how that goes.
    Too many biologists, and not enough enforcement?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Pomona (Ganesha Hills)
    Posts
    37

    Default

    The collapse of fishing in Puddingstone is not a problem of lack of law enforcement or an excess of fishery biologists. Nor is the problem due to anecdotes of gill netting (although the indifferent response is a park management problem). The primary reason Puddingstone fishing is a shadow of its former self is because of systematic neglect and indifference over the last 40 years.

    I live across the street from Bonelli Park/Puddingstone and have been researching the lake for a couple of years as a prelude to proposing a new management plan for the lake. The LA County Park Department paid for a preliminary study of the lake last fall. I have obtained copies of those computerized maps and have compared them to one of those classic 1980's large, plasticized "Fishin' Map Co." maps of the Puddingstone topography when fishing was very good.

    When the lake was drained for dam repair in 1985, the bottom was scraped flat as a billiard table and the importation of siltation from the stream entry point in the northeast corner gradually decreased the depth throughout most of the lake by 10'. Fish habitat structures previously placed by the citizen led Bonelli Park Foundation were removed. The 2021 vegetation study showed that lake vegetation only sparingly exists along the fringes of lake shoreline. Otherwise, the lake bottom is a lifeless, featureless desertscape.

    The lead contractor on the 2021 study proposed a very ambitious expensive project which LA County did not believe was worth the investment. Not surprisingly as the local park management is also very unsupportive of fishing at the lake because their responsibilities only increase with the popularity of the park. Fewer people mean less trash, fewer issues with crowd control and fewer potential headaches for park management.. As a result, the fishing at Puddingstone has deteriorated to its present sad state as a conscious decision by park management.

    I have repeatedly approached park management, but they remain unresponsive in their office "bunker." I have decided to bypass them and have written up a draft proposal and am having knowledgeable people review my proposal before I submit it to the County later this summer. I will forward it to anyone interested in the lake for comment and input. The main points are:

    1. Reduce the speed limit on the lake to 5 mph and phase out the 35mph speed limit except on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays for Memorial Day to Labor Day between 11:00am - 4:00pm. The goal is to eventually limit watercraft to those powered by electric motors, human energy or sails. Bass boats could only use their electric motors except while pulling the boat onto the trailer. The 35-mph speed circle in the middle of the lake keeps anglers out of the middle of the lake, creates uncomfortable wakes for smaller boats and kayaks and is dangerous in such a relatively small area.

    2. Place multiple man-made structures throughout the lake to create fish habitat. Some of these habitat structure kits can be purchased commercially - even on Amazon - but very effective structures can be built by Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Clubs, school and church groups. The more people who invest time and energy in the lake, the greater its constituency and the less likely it will slide back to its current unacceptable condition. Longer term, remove excess siltation to deepen water areas and install water pumps to aerate deeper water and reduce algae blooms. There is already a healthy population of shad that will grow larger with the increase in habitat to sustain the sport fish.

    3. Establish catch-photograph-and release fishing regulations on all species until the fish population can respond to the habitat improvements. Since there is currently a health advisory recommending that women and children avoid eating fish from Puddingstone, the restriction on taking fish is consistent with good health. The model for Puddingstone is an urban version of Lake Barrett in eastern San Diego County where anglers compete on Ticketron for a fishing pass.

    4. To expedite the process, I would do the legal work to resuscitate the non-profit Friends of Bonelli Park 501(c)3 foundation so we could solicit tax-deductible donations from individuals, companies and grant foundations to supplement government funding.

    Given the almost hostile approach of the current park management to fishing, it is remarkable that ANY fish survive in the lake. The only difference between the "old" Puddingstone and a new, potential Puddingstone is a one-time investment in habitat restoration and periodic fine-tuning by a lake management team.

    This is not intended as a one-step panacea and there can never be 100% enforcement, but to do nothing and waste such a valuable resource is not a plan at all. What Puddingstone once was; it can be again. If you are interested in being part of a solution rather than giving uninformed knee-jerk reactions, you can contact me at McAttorney@aol.com.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Pasadena Ca.
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Not enough of either apparently.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Whittier
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Nice info,sure explains a lot, thanks!

    Cya Tuna Vic

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Hooker View Post
    The collapse of fishing in Puddingstone is not a problem of lack of law enforcement or an excess of fishery biologists. Nor is the problem due to anecdotes of gill netting (although the indifferent response is a park management problem). The primary reason Puddingstone fishing is a shadow of its former self is because of systematic neglect and indifference over the last 40 years.

    I live across the street from Bonelli Park/Puddingstone and have been researching the lake for a couple of years as a prelude to proposing a new management plan for the lake. The LA County Park Department paid for a preliminary study of the lake last fall. I have obtained copies of those computerized maps and have compared them to one of those classic 1980's large, plasticized "Fishin' Map Co." maps of the Puddingstone topography when fishing was very good.

    When the lake was drained for dam repair in 1985, the bottom was scraped flat as a billiard table and the importation of siltation from the stream entry point in the northeast corner gradually decreased the depth throughout most of the lake by 10'. Fish habitat structures previously placed by the citizen led Bonelli Park Foundation were removed. The 2021 vegetation study showed that lake vegetation only sparingly exists along the fringes of lake shoreline. Otherwise, the lake bottom is a lifeless, featureless desertscape.

    The lead contractor on the 2021 study proposed a very ambitious expensive project which LA County did not believe was worth the investment. Not surprisingly as the local park management is also very unsupportive of fishing at the lake because their responsibilities only increase with the popularity of the park. Fewer people mean less trash, fewer issues with crowd control and fewer potential headaches for park management.. As a result, the fishing at Puddingstone has deteriorated to its present sad state as a conscious decision by park management.

    I have repeatedly approached park management, but they remain unresponsive in their office "bunker." I have decided to bypass them and have written up a draft proposal and am having knowledgeable people review my proposal before I submit it to the County later this summer. I will forward it to anyone interested in the lake for comment and input. The main points are:

    1. Reduce the speed limit on the lake to 5 mph and phase out the 35mph speed limit except on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays for Memorial Day to Labor Day between 11:00am - 4:00pm. The goal is to eventually limit watercraft to those powered by electric motors, human energy or sails. Bass boats could only use their electric motors except while pulling the boat onto the trailer. The 35-mph speed circle in the middle of the lake keeps anglers out of the middle of the lake, creates uncomfortable wakes for smaller boats and kayaks and is dangerous in such a relatively small area.

    2. Place multiple man-made structures throughout the lake to create fish habitat. Some of these habitat structure kits can be purchased commercially - even on Amazon - but very effective structures can be built by Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Clubs, school and church groups. The more people who invest time and energy in the lake, the greater its constituency and the less likely it will slide back to its current unacceptable condition. Longer term, remove excess siltation to deepen water areas and install water pumps to aerate deeper water and reduce algae blooms. There is already a healthy population of shad that will grow larger with the increase in habitat to sustain the sport fish.

    3. Establish catch-photograph-and release fishing regulations on all species until the fish population can respond to the habitat improvements. Since there is currently a health advisory recommending that women and children avoid eating fish from Puddingstone, the restriction on taking fish is consistent with good health. The model for Puddingstone is an urban version of Lake Barrett in eastern San Diego County where anglers compete on Ticketron for a fishing pass.

    4. To expedite the process, I would do the legal work to resuscitate the non-profit Friends of Bonelli Park 501(c)3 foundation so we could solicit tax-deductible donations from individuals, companies and grant foundations to supplement government funding.

    Given the almost hostile approach of the current park management to fishing, it is remarkable that ANY fish survive in the lake. The only difference between the "old" Puddingstone and a new, potential Puddingstone is a one-time investment in habitat restoration and periodic fine-tuning by a lake management team.

    This is not intended as a one-step panacea and there can never be 100% enforcement, but to do nothing and waste such a valuable resource is not a plan at all. What Puddingstone once was; it can be again. If you are interested in being part of a solution rather than giving uninformed knee-jerk reactions, you can contact me at McAttorney@aol.com.
    Probably the best thought out post here in a while. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on the situation and I agree with your assessment.

    I'm glad we both agree that enforcement is a critical component here, as your points 1 and 3 deal with enforcing a suggested change in policy. And your comments on management's indifference to the poaching problem further shines the light on how important enforcement is. (And I can attest, those gill netting stories are not anecdotal in our region. One of the best Diamond Valley threads was a guy catching, not a fish, but a guy in his titey whiteys gill netting in the back of a cove there. fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?38526-Alert!!-Neters-at-DVL!!

    So to say that lack of enforcement is not a component of the problem, but then 2 of your talking points deal with enforcement of new regulations is a bit contradictory.

    But to expand on your items.

    1. Creating a Castaic Lagoon, south? Don't think that the lake lice will appreciate that change in policy. The "us" versus "them" mentality of lake lice and fisherman is in full show here, not realizing that both entities are battling a bigger one; lake management, as you have explained. As a fisherman, I like the idea. But as a person who takes other peoples' situations into affect, you are ostracizing an entire group, to benefit another.

    2. When the lake was drained in 1985, I'm assuming EIRs weren't mandated, and you could pretty much deforest your entire backyard without fear that you were killing an endangered bark beetle. Where was DFG at this time when this draining occurred? Did they have any input? (That's a rhetorical question, as we know DFG/DFW is handcuffed, as our lakes are more water supplies, than recreational.) Did they raise a hand and lend suggestions as what should happen to the lake's bottom and habitat, or did they sit this one out?

    I'm sure to dump habitat in a lake, requires a long list of permits and paperwork, and I'm sure someone has to enforce that the proper steps are taken.

    3. Lake Barrett North, eh? I like the idea. Only problem is, will the C&R policy be enforced? Because if it is not enforced, then what is the point of special regulations.

    And, might as well go the full 9 and add a barbless requirement as well!

    This is a very lofty goal, and I would love to know what requirements a lake needs to have in order to become fully Catch and Release only. For example, how did Lake Barrett get the distinction of being California's only C&R fishery?

    4. You will find that the concern for Puddingstone is inversely proportional to your distance from it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga-Etiwanda
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Limiting public use is not the solution for this lake. I am a bass boater, and have my personal feelings about recreational watercraft but public lands were made for all users.

    It will never be a Barrett - which has several times more linear feet of shoreline, and diversity of topography - not to mention a seasonal closure from October to April and a healthy strain of higher percentage northern lmb hybrids. Barrett also fluctuates more frequently in water level which results in more underwater structure as trees grow during low water years. C&R may result in higher fish counts, but does not result in a healthier fishery.

    The reality is that the the population of the LA Basin and IE has boomed 3-4x since the hey day of Puddingstone. These fish see a hook every single day whether it be from a boater, yaker or shore angler. Fish respond to pressure. It's unfortunate but that's the reality. Your proposal limits the 10 year old kid who wants to be dropped off for an evening of walking the shoreline, hucking a bait. The best part of your proposal is habitat management. This lake still fishes fairly well for those who have learned seasonal patterns. Just take a look at these fellas: https://www.youtube.com/c/GteamOutdoors

    FYI pretty sure a new management plan would trigger CEQA.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkShadow View Post
    Probably the best thought out post here in a while. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on the situation and I agree with your assessment.

    I'm glad we both agree that enforcement is a critical component here, as your points 1 and 3 deal with enforcing a suggested change in policy. And your comments on management's indifference to the poaching problem further shines the light on how important enforcement is. (And I can attest, those gill netting stories are not anecdotal in our region. One of the best Diamond Valley threads was a guy catching, not a fish, but a guy in his titey whiteys gill netting in the back of a cove there. fishingnetwork.net/forum4/showthread.php?38526-Alert!!-Neters-at-DVL!!

    So to say that lack of enforcement is not a component of the problem, but then 2 of your talking points deal with enforcement of new regulations is a bit contradictory.

    But to expand on your items.

    1. Creating a Castaic Lagoon, south? Don't think that the lake lice will appreciate that change in policy. The "us" versus "them" mentality of lake lice and fisherman is in full show here, not realizing that both entities are battling a bigger one; lake management, as you have explained. As a fisherman, I like the idea. But as a person who takes other peoples' situations into affect, you are ostracizing an entire group, to benefit another.

    2. When the lake was drained in 1985, I'm assuming EIRs weren't mandated, and you could pretty much deforest your entire backyard without fear that you were killing an endangered bark beetle. Where was DFG at this time when this draining occurred? Did they have any input? (That's a rhetorical question, as we know DFG/DFW is handcuffed, as our lakes are more water supplies, than recreational.) Did they raise a hand and lend suggestions as what should happen to the lake's bottom and habitat, or did they sit this one out?

    I'm sure to dump habitat in a lake, requires a long list of permits and paperwork, and I'm sure someone has to enforce that the proper steps are taken.

    3. Lake Barrett North, eh? I like the idea. Only problem is, will the C&R policy be enforced? Because if it is not enforced, then what is the point of special regulations.

    And, might as well go the full 9 and add a barbless requirement as well!

    This is a very lofty goal, and I would love to know what requirements a lake needs to have in order to become fully Catch and Release only. For example, how did Lake Barrett get the distinction of being California's only C&R fishery?

    4. You will find that the concern for Puddingstone is inversely proportional to your distance from it.
    Man, am I really that smart??????????? Lol It seems, every time I read or hear something, "I've got something to say about the subject" that others seems to be uninformed about! I take it you never heard about Ralph B. Park in Buena Park???? It's a tiny Regional Park that's had Catch and Release only on LMB for over 30 years! It's work out just fine, without any serious enforcement efforts at all! (for many different reasons)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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