Hi,

Just thought that I would get the ball rolling on the new hatchery bill, AB 7. It is basically the same bill as last years bill, AB 2280.


Here is a newspaper article about the bill:

Bill would fund fish hatcheries

Published: December 24, 2004



By DHYANA LEVEY


Assemblyman Dave Cogdill has reintroduced a bill to divert more fishing license revenue to trout hatcheries — a bill hailed by some anglers and opposed by many environmentalists.

Assembly Bill 7 would send about one-third of revenues from fish license fees into a fund supporting hatcheries and fish planting.

As a result, less money would go to environmental and biodiversity programs set to improve the fish habitat, environmentalists say.

"The programs that this money has been going to are worthwhile," said Cogdill, who represents Tuolumne, Calaveras, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties and part of Stanislaus County. "But the reality is ... people buy licenses so they can have something to catch when they fish."

California trout hatcheries are running into trouble because of state budget funding cuts, he said. Some, like Hot Creek Trout Hatchery in Mono County, are in danger of closing in a couple of years, he added.

Diverting license fees could fix the problem, he said.

The Department of Fish and Game brings in about $45 million from sport fishing licenses a year. Roughly $15 million funds hatcheries, although, with the budget cuts, the amount has been more like $11 million, the assemblyman said.

Many environmentalists support hatcheries and agree the budget cuts have been a problem. But they question if 33 percent is a necessary amount.

"More money for trout hatcheries and higher levels of fish production aren't necessarily beneficial to fishermen because they aren't getting quality fish," said John Buckley, executive director of the Twain Harte-based Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center. "Native fish from streams are in better shape."

Increased funding should go into improving fishes' habitat instead of planting artificially raised fish, he said.

"We have to have hatcheries to keep the fish around," said Melanie Lewis, an avid angler and manager of Glory Hole Sports near Angels Camp. "The money people spend on licenses should go to fish-planting programs. The funds aren't going to the right place right now."

Tom Grove, director of Moccasin Creek Fish Hatchery, said the Fish and Game Department directed hatchery employees not to comment on this issue.

Paul Stein, chief deputy director of the department, ran Kemoo Trout Hatchery in Calaveras County until it ceased operations in 2002.

He said he supports Cogdill's bill, introduced earlier this month. But he is not sure if 33 percent of license fees need to go to the hatcheries.

"Other groups want that money," said Stein, a former Calaveras County supervisor. "Is 33 percent the number we need to run the hatcheries? Some people at hatcheries don't think so."

However, Stein said he testified in favor of AB 2280 — a bill similar to AB 7 — introduced by Cogdill in the spring. It did not receive enough votes to move out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

"There was enough vocal opposition and it was defeated in the summer," said David Finkel, conservation manager of the San Francisco based nonprofit group Cal Trout. "Hatcheries should still get money, but less than 33 percent."

The bill does not give equal support to planted fish, native fish and their habitat, he said.

"Fishermen should get value out the license fees." Finkel said. "The question is how they get value."


Contact Dhyana Levey at dlevey @uniondemocrat.com.


We are hoping to have a new website available soon. Until then, if anyone needs a support letter for this important legislation, they can email me for a copy. Or I have attached to this posting....

Thank you,



James "Brad" Willis
SEIU Local 1000 Bargaining Unit 11 Negotiating Council
Mojave River Hatchery
Victorville,CA
mojavekroc@msn.com or
jwillis@dfg.ca.gov

Attachment #1, (.txt file)