California Trout Anglers Speak Up.

[trout trekker]

California Trout Anglers have a stake in what C.D. of F&W is proposing in it's " Inland Trout Angling Regulation Simplification ".
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Trout-Plan/Regulation-Simplification

I would ask that you take the time to read the proposed regulation & seasons in detail.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=165844&inline

If you see something that strikes a chord, please use the online comment form to register your thoughts.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Trout-Plan/Regulation-Simplification/comments

Thank you, Dave

 

[acorad]

Yes. Thank you Dave.

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! Even if it's just a couple sentences.

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...K4EbgsIwKtPREdfqWPmciju4mpmIG7v_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! Even if it's just a couple sentences.

Here is what I'm writing:

I am completely against these proposed regs.

CA is a really big state, and its waters are numerous and extremely complex and diverse.

Decades of conscientious stewardship have lead to the creation of the existing specific protective regulations, and their complexity is a protective benefit to our state's waters, not a drawback to them.

The propsed "simplification" of CA's trout regs will in most cases extend the season, increase bag limits, and reduce gear restrictions on a massive number of our state's trout waters.

That will very quickly allow those waters to become over-fished and thereby ruin the waters.

Please don't enact any of these proposed regs!

Andy Coradeschi

 

[Ard]

You guys need to work every local forum - facebook, whatever to get some people voicing objections because we have a limited local CA. membership here. I can contact but being from AK. I don't believe my opinion will bear much weight That said you know I'll be out hugging a tree and enjoying some loose organic Granola before sunset here!

 

[acorad]

Thanks Ard, I'm on it.

Best,

Andy

 

[kevind62]

Unfortunately, this is becoming the case in many states with all game and fish laws. Due to manpower and budget restraints it's becoming increasingly difficult to manage fisheries and wildlife areas. So many laws are what is known as "open for interpretation". There is no real formal training for officers in this and the courts don't have any real "standards" for rulings. It's up to them with the limited info they're given to decide if a person is in violation or not. They write the citation then it's up to the court to decide whether it's correct or not. Unfortunately for the recipient of the ticket, the decision the majority of the time is in favor of the officer, but not always. This causes issues in the court systems. And costs the states and counties money as the cost of court is not recovered.

Case in point: In my home state of Alabama we now have laws allowing baiting of deer. There are stipulations that come with it. It has to be 100 yards from the hunter, out of the "line of sight", and you can't have a clear view of a major trail leading to it. Simple enough, right? Wrong. We always have our local game officer come to our property since we get a special "no holds barred" permit for hogs each year for the crop and land damage. While he is there we take him to all of our feeders and show him our stand locations to make sure they're acceptable to him in case he were to come check us during the deer season. He either agrees with the locations or tells us whether we need to move them a bit and we comply so we're on the same page. So we're good. Nope. Next year we get a new game warden. Go through the same process. No we have to move either the stands or feeders because they're not in compliance according to the new officer's "interpretation".

This happens with boundaries in fisheries too if they're not clearly marked with signs, which often is the case. Many times boundaries are land mark referenced. This leaves things open for interpretation.

Simplifying the laws is easier for everyone for sure, but it's not always the best solution for everything involved, especially the wildlife. It also opens the door for more riff raff to have a free run of some delicate habitat areas. Hard to find a balance these days and will likely only get harder.

 

[ifitswims]

"The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing a number of changes to trout fishing regulations to make them easier to understand, and to better align regulations with management objectives on each water."

Seems like they have done their homework and made their decision based on sound science and what they feel is best for the resources and the angling community as a whole.

Colorado did the same thing but they do also make more restrictive regulations for many of the more sensitive waters. I read through the changes and their logic and approach seems sound.

Am I missing something? Thank you for the post.

 

[acorad]

Seems like they have done their homework and made their decision based on sound science

I also must have missed something, can you tell us about the sound science? I haven't seen any discussion from the DFW at all about science relating to the proposed regs.

 

[acorad]

What is the sound science behind these proposed changes?

For example, the Kern River Rainbow is losing some protection. The KRR is native, and beloved. It only exists in its purest form in the small tribs to the Kern. The proposed regs turn over all of those tribs to year-round fishing, whereas now they are summer-only.

The infamous Hot Creek will go from barbless flies only to barbless lures. The Golden Trout Wilderness will add three winter months to the open season, you know, when the fish are breeding. And also go from barbless lures only, to no gear restrictions. So, PowerBait, worms, and salmon eggs.

The McCloud from the Dam to Ladybug Creek is losing its protection from barbed hooks.

Etc.

What is the sound science that show these proposed changes will benefit the fisheries?

 

[ifitswims]

I can understand you wanting it to be all fly and barbless and no other method...etc (I also) but the biologists who do the data farming on these waters have used historic data to show that there would be little no significant negative effect by providing regulations that encompass more anglers which will ultimately help with the larger fishery picture. Barbed vs barbless is a perfect example of where science just doesn't support the perceived benefit. I know you are passionate about this and this is good but maybe if we all put the same amount of vim and vigor into educating up and coming anglers we would do far more to benefit our finned friends.

 

[acorad]

Actually, barb/barbless is not at all settled science, though some may wish it to be so for whatever reason. If hooked in the bony jaw, like most fly-caught fish are, probably little difference. If hooked elsewhere, like lures/bait caught fish often are, there is a difference.

The more I look at the DFW's proposals, a pattern is clear.

The proposals in most waters move the fishing season opener to about a month later (from the end of April to around Memorial Day) and close the season about three months later (from Nov 15 to the end of Feb).

Thus, in most waters they would extend fishing through the entire autumn brown trout spawn, and reduce fishing through the spring rainbow and cutthroat spawn by a month.

Why? 'Cuz browns are not native and the DFW wants as many killed as possible.

Additionally, the proposed regs will open up almost the entire Eastern Sierra to year-round fishing.

Why? 'Cuz none of the trout in the Eastern Sierra, regardless of species, are native. And the DFW wants them all killed.

 

[mikew1959]

You guys are freaking out about nothing.
I grew up where you’re talking about fishing.
Commiefornia has so many laws its ridiculous.
That’s why I left the state

I live now where you can fish 24/7 365 days a year
We have no lack of fish here.

Carry on

 

[ifitswims]

and why do they want them killed? TU has the biggest hand in native fish environments and this is a noble cause as well. I feel like the biologists understand your concerns but the science backs them up in a stronger manner. I can feel your passion for this but the reasons you pronounce are making the other group of the angling public very happy while it is aggravating some.

Eradication of non-native species is a HUGE point of contention amongst anglers and CA doesn't have that market cornered. take a look at the endangered fish recovery program in Western Colorado....Watching the CPW shock and throw in a bucket some of the most beautiful wildly raised fish in the world is heartbreaking to many.

 

[acorad]

Heartbreaking is right, tight lines.

 

[tcorfey]

I will have to read through this a few more times but, what I have read so far is not encouraging and does nothing to simplify the regulations for the fisherman. The biggest puzzlement so far is the removal of all gear restrictions from several waters that are currently artificially only or fly only. I guess the idea is that they do not need to patrol the water if it is open year round and subject to no gear restrictions so I guess it simplifies the game wardens job anyway.


Regards,

Tim C.

 

[yikes]

Our local flyfishing club posted this email to its members:
"At the March 28 board meeting, our Board of Directors voted unanimously in opposition of the revisions to the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations. Centered around a proposed simplification to the regulations, which includes moving all such waters in the state, unless specifically designated otherwise, to a year-around season, five-fish daily limit and no specific gear restrictions, the effects would be far reaching and generally still an unknown for the Department.

While the changes to the regulations for each water across the state are too numerous to count, even for the department when such information was requested, we hope to outline a number of the more impactful changes in future updates.

It is the intention of the board to sign on to a full set of comments, and provide our membership with a form to fill in and submit your own, and we appreciate your input as we draft these items. Board members will attend the April 6th public meeting to be held at Bass Pro Shops in Rancho Cucamonga from 12 - 2 p.m., where questions and concerns may be directed at department staff. We encourage you to attend in force and to be respectful, but passionate, in your expression of the need for (1) attention to the protection and restoration of our wild and native fisheries, (2) less reliance (and expenditures) on hatchery stock, and (3) specific research into the potential impacts of these changes on the individual fisheries.

The board favors increased angling opportunities and recruitment, but not at the cost of the long-term health of our prized lakes and streams. Unless or until the department is able to support its proposed revisions with evidence our fisheries can sustain the increased harvest and stress, without increased supplemental hatchery plantings, we will stand firm in our opposition."

 

[fatbillybob]

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Statistics

I unfortunately live in Cali. Fishing is a dying sport. 10% had a fishing license in 1970 3% have one today. There are only 1/2 as many fishermen in the 1970's while state population has doubled!

So if the DFG is shrinking its budget and manpower to meet those stats, deregulation make sense too. Personally, I don't need laws to make me use a barbless hook or release my fish. I embrace more FREEDOM!

Education has always worked better than laws anyway. We make laws when people act dumb. Lets teach fishermen to be smart. Next time you are slaying it out there and cringe at the fish handling of the guy you see down stream, why not introduce yourself. Give him a cripple emerger and show him how to fish it. He will see your kind fish handling skills. We all want to be better fishermen, and that includes good fish handling, help another guy out and help the sport and fishery at the same time.

 

[tcorfey]

Fatbillybob,

When looking at license sales you also need to consider those do not take into consideration the anglers with lifetime licenses. They sell about 4000-5000 of those each year. I do not recall when the lifetime license program started, but before there were also lifetime stamps and report cards, the stamps and report cards sales were greater than the license sales by a considerable amount because the people with lifetime licenses only needed to get cards and stamps each year. I wonder if there is a count of the lifetime licenses sold and if someone dies or moves away if the count gets corrected somehow?

Regards,

Tim C.

 

[acorad]

As far as I can see the DFG (DFW) is not shrinking its budget.

609,000,000 in 2018-2019, 600 in 2017-2018, 464 in 2016-2017, 498 in 2015-2016, 408 in 2014-2015.

Their responsibilities are immensely greater than just checking angler's licenses and hunter's tags, and their budget and funding are in no way related to simply the number of anglers and hunters.

Their new funding source, with CA Parks, is 20% of the marijuana tax.

So, help a fish, smoke more dope.

 

[tcorfey]

Well I reviewed both the original document and the proposed changes. It is a mixed bag and the waters are not listed in the same order for both documents so it makes it difficult to compare but I did my best by looking for the waters I frequent the most. I found that most changes are either removal of gear restrictions to allow bait etc, removal of size limits, a season start and end date change, and sometimes a change that allows for lures and flies when before it was only flies. Many of the waters I fish had no changes that I could tell but maybe that means they get the new season and no gear restrictions unless specified?

If you are interested this is the waters I thought were most impacted that I go to. (A bit long)

American River, North Fork, Middle Fork, South Fork and their tributaries above Folsom Lake (Placer, Eldorado, Amador, and Alpine cos.).
Change to allow fishing Open All year, allow 5 fish bag limit, remove all gear restrictions.

Carson River, East Fork from Hangman’s Bridge downstream to Nevada State Line.
Currently open All year. Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used. 0 trout bag limit.
Change to all year, remove gear restrictions and 5 trout bag limit.

Fall River from its origin at Thousand Springs downstream to the mouth of the Tule River and including Spring Creek and excluding all other tributaries.
Retains artificial only but Change to allow open All year and 0 trout bag limit.

Feather River, Middle Fork (Plumas Co.), from the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge (1/4 mile upstream of County A-23 bridge) to the Mohawk Bridge.
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February

Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse (excluding reservoirs) (Butte and Plumas cos.).
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15. Artificial lures only.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February. No gear restrictions.

Golden Trout Wilderness Area (Tulare Co.), excluding the main stem Kern River (see subsection 7.50(b)(86), and the Tule River drainage (See subsection 7.50(b) (197)).
Change from First Saturday in April through Nov. 15. Artificial lures only.
Change to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February. No gear restrictions.

Hat Creek (Shasta Co.) from Lake Britton upstream to Baum Lake, exclusive of the concrete Hat No. 2 intake canal between Baum Lake and the Hat No. 2 Powerhouse.
Change to Open All year, remove size restrictions, 2 trout bag, artificial lures, remove restrictions on collecting bugs.

Hot Creek (Mono Co.). Hot Creek from the State hatchery property line to the confluence with the Owens River.
Change to All year, 0 fish bag, allow artificial lures with barbless hooks not just artificial flies.

McCloud River from McCloud Dam downstream to confluence of Ladybug Creek downstream to lower boundary of the U.S. Forest Service loop (southern boundary of section 36, T38N, R3W ).
Change the season from Last Saturday in Apr. through Nov. 15. to Saturday preceding Memorial Day through the last day in February.


Stanislaus River, Middle Fork (Tuolumne Co.). From Beardsley Dam downstream to the New Melones Reservoir.
Change to open all year.

Tuolumne River (Stanislaus and Tuolumne cos.) From O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy Reservoir) downstream to Clavey River Falls.
Remove the five section restrictions and make the whole length open all year with a 2 fish bag limit and artificial lures

There are probably some I missed but like I said they are not all in order so some are more difficult than others.

Based on my current observations I will probably complain about the following:
American river, Carson river east fork, Feather River North Fork from Belden Bridge downstream to Cresta Powerhouse, Golden Trout Wilderness Area.

I have mixed emotions about Hat creek, Hot creek and the McCloud river changes.
I could go along with Hat creek if it was 0 bag limit, allowing lures in Hot creek may open the door to bait people, McCloud lower section near Ah-Di-Nah could be dangerous for people traveling in to that remote section of dirt road in the winter.


Regards,

Tim C.

 

[acorad]

Many of the waters I fish had no changes that I could tell but maybe that means they get the new season and no gear restrictions unless specified?
Tim C.

Yes, exactly.

From the proposed DFW rules:

"Waters that are not located in the proposed table of changes, or stated as “move to 7.0 statewide reg”, will have the following regulation: Open year-round, 5 trout bag, 10 trout possession limit, no gear restrictions."