California Stocking Lawsuit
Do any of you California folks know much about the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity in 2006 over California's fish stocking policies?
The courts recently decided that Fish and Game needed to develop an Environmental Impact Report on their stocking practices and they have done so. They are taking comments until November 16th.
I haven't read the report yet. But I plan to. And I'd be curious to have a discussion about it here.
Hearings on Oct. 21, 26, 28, 29
FYI there will be hearings on this matter in Sacramento, Redding, Bakersfield, and Carson on Oct 21, 26, 28, and 29 respectively. If anyone can make it, I'd love a report.
See here for schedule.
I will have to read through
I will have to read through that report as well. If you look at a lot of our fisheries issues stocking of hatchery fish can be traced back to the source. Look at our native trout populations, all three extinct species are extinct thanks to hatchery stocking. The Silver Trout of New Hampshire went extinct due to introduced brook and lake trout and the Alvord and Yellowfin cutthroat were both lost to hybridization and competition with rainbow trout. Yeah it is nice to hike into an alpine lake and have trout to fish for, but is the disruption to the proper functioning of an ecosystem really worth it? Hatcheries do have their purposes, I have to admit that, but it seems that in most cases fish stocking is more of a problem than part of the solution. I will be curious to hear what others think about this.
Here it goes
In case anyone missed it, the Center for Biological Diversity is now suing California over its fish stocking policy. Essentially, the group claims that stocking fish is harming the native fauna and that the Environmental Impact Report that the state recently released was insufficient. They will likely seek an injunction, though apparently they will not try to block all stocking, only on specific waters.
Here's an article from the SF Chronicle.
And here's an interesting one about the impacts on the Kern River.
This is going to be interesting. . .
Good Post Anders
EIR's from DFG have always been a joke. Coho Salmon in particular comes to mind. Fish planting practices on the Kern River have severely clouded the Kern River Rainbow's future as I have fished several feeder creeks that contain Native KRR and have seen the DFG truck dump hundreds of hatchery fish. If absolutely necessary to stock trout for angling opportunities then wouldn't it make sense to stock with genetically identicle Native Trout found from that drainage? Makes sense right? As always here in CA the excuse is the same, it would simply cost too much money as it is far easier to raise Frankenstein Fish on a whole. To my horror 3 years ago I saw a DFG truck plant hatchery rainbows in a tiny creek I had once caught McCloud Redbands! Glad to hear someone is sick of this and is going to put up a fight.
There are folks on the other side
An interesting perspective can be found at the Kern River fly fishing board. The reaction there was more of excitement about the fact that 800 pounds of hatchery fish had been planted. Apparently, due to the moratorium on planting until the EIR was published, the hatcheries had some fish that had grown quite large after an extra year or so in the raceway eating pellets. I think that, without absolutely clarity as to legality, it was decided that the hatchery could legally stock upon DFG publishing the EIR, how this could be prior to the EIR being certified I personally don't understand, but then again I'm no CEQA expert. Anyways, the local angling and business community down there (at least as reflected by the online forum) was pretty excited about catching some big fish for dinner. It is tough not to be sympathetic to small businesses that have been hurt owing to the reduction of tourists because the fishing has been tough, particularly when folks turn up in their shop because a truck just pumped 800 pounds of fish into the river.
Now, I personally don't favor fish stocking, but I would contend that the vast majority of trout fishing days in California are spent by people who do. People who just want to catch a fish and take it home. I'd further speculate that the vast majority of people that purchase fishing licenses feel the same way, so in a sense DFG is just trying to be reactive to its largest constituent, as they probably should. I just hope that they properly restrict locations and mitigate impacts...