I thought it was an opaleye! (Tasted like one, at least)Originally Posted by carpanglerdude
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.
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.
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", 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.
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 02-12-2015 at 02:46 PM.
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.
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.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]
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 02-12-2015 at 05:22 PM.
If diapers is what you want, you need only troll a line along Soto Street.
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.
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote