Short summary:

It's likely that DFG will never stock trout again at many of your favorite fishing locations around the state.

Longer explanation:

As many of you know, the DFG was forced to stop stocking trout at many locations throughout the state because of a lawsuit by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity. After over two years with no trout stocks at many locations, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the DFG was forced to perform was completed on January 11, 2010. The DFG was also required to review the hatchery Bill AB7 which required that 1/3 of fishing license revenue go toward stocking trout. The full EIR can be reviewed here:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/

The most relavent portion is the Alternatives section where DFG and the US Fish and Wildlife Service identify their preferred alternative. This is it:

"This alternative would adjust the current Program by implementing pre-stocking evaluation protocols (PSEPs), hatchery genetic management plans (HGMPs), and recommendations for alterations in issuing private stocking permits.

DFG and USFWS are identifying Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. This means that Fish and Game intends to continue to operate its hatchery and stocking into the future based on the guidelines and mitigation measures presented in Alternative 2. The USFWS would continue to fund associated eligible activities."

Assuming this is the alternative selected, figuring out what it would mean in concrete terms is still difficult. Will they stock trout at Coyote or not? What about Santa Margarita, Los Banos or Sandy Wool?

As best I understand it, the new ground rules for stocking trout would be based primarily on this Pre-stocking Evaluation Protocol (PSEP). The protocol is defined here:

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=16303

Translated in to English this says that if stocking trout is going to affect any one of a long list of native species, they are not likely to stock. The long list (84 species total) of what they call "decision species" can be found on page 11 of this doc. Calling an animal a decision species is a truly masterful butchering of the English language. Kudos to whoever made that up.

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=15295

Why green sturgeon and bald eagles are included on this list, I don't know. Maybe DFG will have to evaluate what will happen to bald eagles who have gotten fat eating stocked trout when all those trout are gone?

In any case, if this alternative is selected, this new process will be used to perform a lake-by-lake and creek-by-creek assessment. The final decision on whether to stock or not will then be based on vagaries like whether there is a, "substantial impact on a decision species". Who defines substantial and how they define it is not clear. Maybe a biologist who likes fishing will say that stocked trout won't have a substantial impact to a certain frog species. But maybe the biologist who hates fishermen and will say that there will be a substantial impact.

Maybe at Coyote Lake they'll take the time to catch a few hundred stocked trout, check their stomach contents and discover that there are no frogs or tadpoles there. Or maybe biologists will just infer that if trout and frogs live in the same place that the trout must eat the frogs at some point. For all we know the biologist might put a trout and a tadpole in the same tank and wait until the trout eats the tadpole, then assume the same will occur in nature.

Perhaps the biologists will take a holistic view and realize that if stocked trout are not present in a lake that hungry cormorants, ospreys, bass, catfish, and herons will turn on the frogs and eat them instead. Will the biologists shoot ospreys with tranq darts to suction their stomach and find out if there are frogs in there? Will they electrofish bass before trout plants are stopped and check stomach contents, then electrofish them again after the plants are stopped and search for frogs?

Wait, the plants have already been stopped. So there is no opportunity to rewind the clock and understand the environment before it was altered by the cessation of the trout plants. Great job Center for Biological Diversity! Insert sarcasm.

All of this just highlights the fact that when you do not publish the methods used to determine if "decision species" are affected by stocked trout, you leave the entire decision open ended. When the decision is open ended, it will be interpreted by individuals who have bias.

I'm an optimist by nature but when I read these documents my gut feels fear. It's the fear that people with agendas will use complexities that they invent to make changes to the environment that are not in the best interest of anyone - themselves included. It's a fear that people who have spent a lifetime behind a desk will succeed in modifying the environment in ways they THINK is a good thing, but in reality is not. Let's hope the DFG biologists out there see the forest for the trees.

Rob, here is the email I recieved in response to the one I sent to DFG director regarding this issue on Friday of last week.
"
The Director has asked that I assist you with your question about our stocking program.

The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has completed the Environmental Impact Report as a requirement of the lawsuit brought against the Department. This EIR/EIS can be viewed at the following Internet address: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/ . Of particular interest will be Appendix K Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol as it is the guiding force behind our stocking activities over the next few months. The Department has begun implementing the conditions in the EIR/EIS and one of those conditions is the implementation of the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol. The purpose of this protocol is to allow the Department to stock a given water body if the conditions outlined in the protocol are met. Department staff are moving forward with the review process of all of our proposed stocking location to determine if it is appropriate to continue stocking these sites. The implementation of this process is to be handled by our Regional Offices and they would be the ones to tell you when they anticipate reviewing any particular water body. Lake Casitas evaluation will be handled by our Southern Coast Region and they can be reached at the following phone number <(858) 467-4201>. You will need to talk with the Senior Fishery Biologist conducting the evaluations, unfortunately I do not know who has been assigned that task.

If you have any other questions please feel free to contact me directly at the following email address.
"
So in other words they are evaluating each lake on a case by case basis. I have noticed that the inner city lakes and parks are still getting trout.

I called the number and was directed to Dwayne Maxwell who is our regional fisheries biologist, where we had the conversation in regards to our lakes down here.

Rob, BTW, everytime I show up to go fishing at the lagoon, I think of you just rolling in here and sticking that 15.2! Nice job! Been fishing here a year now and haven't had a look at one that big. Caught a good number of DD's for my first year fishing, but that's awesome you got one like that here. Without trout, it won't be long before those big ones are gone. Maybe 3 years. You've seen how many fish are in this place. But I think without the trout, they will eventually eat all the bait, then it's game over.

Your post about the sterile trout got me to thinking last night about some out of the box ways to find compromises that allow for stocked fish and still protect rare species. First, some background, since this topic can be complicated:

1. Steelhead have been categorized in to 6 separate Distinctive Population Segments (DPS) which include:

Steelhead (Klamath Mountains Province DPS)
Steelhead (northern California DPS)
Steelhead (Central Valley DPS)
Steelhead (central California coast DPS)
Steelhead (south/central California coast DPS)
Steelhead (southern California DPS)

2. Fundamentally the Center for Biological Diversity (the group behind the trout stocking lawsuit and the closure of the back ponds at Shadwo Cliffs) says two things:

A. The genetic differences between these steelhead population segements are valuable and in need of protection.
B. Stocked fish eat or impact rare species, which is bad.

OK great. Now let's think about ways to reconcile these two agendas against the idea that it's nice to stock trout and other fish for people to catch while they enjoy the outdoors. But first some more background...

Topic 1: Stocked trout - effects through interbreeding with native steelhead, and does it even happen:

Chapter 4 of the DFG's Environmental Impact Report on trout stocking suggests that they have an idea of how often stocked trout spawn with wild steelhead. They say, "The degree of interbreeding between wild and hatchery fish can sometimes be quantified, a topic discussed in more detail in Appendix F."

I headed over to Appendix F and the best they could come up with is, "While the number of hatchery fish that actually interbreed may be low, the sheer number of hatchery fish present may be very large and may have asignificant ecological effect (Kostow 2003, 2004; Kostow and Zhou 2006). The concern is that hatchery fish may compete effectively at the juvenile stage but have inferior reproductive success.

The problem here is apparent. It's hard to quantify the interbreeding that occurs. To do that you'd have to find locations where stocked trout encounter wild steelhead. For example, below Bradbury dam during high water years. Then you'd have to find the redds (spawning beds) where trout are spawning. Then you'd have to shock the spawning pairs and identify either visually or through genetic tests whether any of the spawning pairs were comprised of stocked and wild partners. It's an unappetizing experiment since shocking spawning fish isn't very polite.

I tried to find out if anyone has done this. There are a few studies on this topic. . They're studying hatchery steelhead vs. hatchery rainbow trout, and they repeatedly bring up the subject of interbreeding but I can't find any place where they give a percentage of spawning pairs observed where a hatchery fish was spawning with a wild fish. They seem to just make an automatic assumption that it happens. This study is a pretty good read, in spite of the author's habit of throwing in big phrases like, "deleterious alleles."

Common sense says that stocked fish and wild fish will spawn together. But putting a percentage of occurrence on this is very hard. I sense that the answer to whether stocked trout spawn with native steelhead is "very probably". And as to how often it occurs, the answer is "unknown".

Topic 2: Stocked trout - effect on other species:

Let's use an example here. One of the reasons no trout are being stocked in Coyote lake right now is because of a fear that stocked trout will have a bad impact on rare species like red-legged frogs. In other words, they'll eat their tadpoles (a full grown red-legged frog is too big for a trout to eat). Here's some more info on . It's the one that fills up Coyote and Anderson Lakes. OK, trout eating frogs - good concern. Now let's peel back the onion, starting some time back in the past. Let's start 500 years ago.

500 years ago Coyote Creek didn't have a dam or probably all that many people living around it. There were red-legged frogs and steelhead and king salmon and a lot of other critters living in the creek. During wet years the creek got more steelhead (steelhead are like that). With more steelhead around more red-legged frog tadpoles got eaten. In dry years there were less steelhead and likely less frog tadpoles got eaten. King Salmon don't feed when they go up to spawn, but they do get grumpy about things that get in their face so they might have killed a few frogs or tadpoles. Fundamentally, there was balance. That's what nature does when you leave it alone, it reaches balance points.

74 years ago Coyote Dam got built. 14 years later, Anderson Dam was built. Now the balance was gone. For sure less steelhead made it up the creek. What did this do to the frogs? Was it a happy day in frog land with the steelhead gone? Did the frog population explode with the two large lakes to live in and their many fresh miles of shoreline? Or did the frogs fare badly downstream of Anderson Dam because less water was available to live in? Did stocked trout in Coyote Lake spell doom for the frogs, however many happened to live there? Did anyone study any of this? Unlikely.

Point is, a new balance was reached and groups like the Center for Biological Diversity say this balance is wrong. They are saying that they know better what the balance should be and they have plans to enforce their view of the balance. Taking down the dams isn't an attainable goal so they are going after other things like stocked fish which have an effect on the balance. You can read what they have to say about stocked fish .

Now back to the topic at hand - ideas for balancing recreation with the agenda of the Center for Biological Diversity. Some thoughts that come to mind in addition to the sterile trout idea:

1. Stock lakes and streams with local fish. If the Southern Steelhead is a genetically distinct population, why not stock lake lakes with local fish? Costs increase but the genetics issue is addressed.

2. Micro-hatheries If you're going to stock with local fish, why not raise them locally? Now you've removed the invasive species problem. Sure there are costs here, but the Center for Biological Diversity clearly has ample cash to fire off lawsuits. Why not spend that on things like this instead? What a great opportunity for that group to win some friends in the fishing world.

3. Give up on some stream flow issues People need water and the dams in this state aren't coming down. Creek flows will never be what they once were because the total amount of water in the creek is not the same after people take a big chunk of it. If you can't stand that the creeks don't run like they used to, go fight for population control or move to a country like China where you can only have 1 child. Ahem.

4. Give up on some introduced fish species issues In some confined locations it may be worth it to kill off introduced fish in order to protect native fish species. That's already being done in some places. where they are shocking up bass, catfish and bluegill and killing them. You know something, I don't have a problem with that. But in places where you'll never be able to get rid of introduced fish without wholesale poisining, give up. We don't need to go the route that Japan has gone with mandatory catch and kill on bass, and we don't need an unrestricted limit on striped bass at the delta. Those aren't solutions, they're just feel good deals for environmentalists.

What will be very interesting with this trout stocking deal is finding out if the Center for Biological Diversity is willing to accept any sort of compromises like this, or if this is all just a guise to end fishing and hunting. I don't know yet but I've read a lot of their online literature and yesterday I ordered a book about their group called . If you give a damn about fishing and hunting, you should think about getting this book too.

In the end, there's one thing for sure. Humans love to play God and try to be lords of the animal kingdom, picking and choosing their favorite species and doing things to promote what they want. Let's hear your ideas for playing God, I've jotted down a few of mine.

For some fun reading check this out: www.casitaswater.org/fishpassagefacility/Robles%20BO.pdf

This is the biological opinion on the necessity to install the robles fish passage. This is now installed in the ventura river, and is part of the lake casitas water diversion.

At this time, they still have to move the fish from puddle to puddle, because they get stuck, and the birds eat them!

All this after spending the money on this thing.

From 1987-1992, the river never reached the ocean! That fact right there could have extincted the fish that spawned there?

I would like to challenge the authenticity of the fish population numbers they came up with. They base this whole thing on 1946 studies and flat out say they don't really have any data that in my opinion justifies this fish passage or the need to spend $11,000,000 to install this thing.

Can someone help us with determining the basis for which a species is determined to be endangered, and to what extent the government can infringe upon our recreational rights or wants to try and reestablish this species.

At what time did this species take residence in these streams? Perhaps they were an invasive species from the ocean which destroyed the fish that lived there first?

How do we know these fish are native? How do we know the autenthicity of the fish stocking in these rivers?

Has anyone ever challenged these groups? Maybe its time they get a taste of their own medicine.

Who checks the authenticity of their biological opinions?

Is there some sort of check and balance loop holes in which we can ask of this?

Sorry I am just rambling off the ideas in my head right now.

Today when I was out fishing, this was all I was thinking about. This and the fact that it was raining and cold as hell!

I hate to think of this as Eco-Freaks! I would like to work with groups to help preserve our fisheries. I would like to see our kids enjoy the same types of recreational opportunities I have. But at this rate, there will be nothing left. There has to be a balance struck. Our fisheries should not be jeopardized! To me, that is a greater injustice upon our environment.

Does anyone think, the loss of these things could form some type of litigation against these groups?

Just curious,
Brian

>
>This will be a location-by-location issue and I can guarantee
>if fishermen sit back and do nothing there will be no trout to
>fish for and no swimbait bass to fish for either.

Bingo!! All politics is local but we are on a path of generally degraded fishing on all fronts...bass, stripers, steelhead, salmon, wild trout, truck trout, everything!!

>Can someone help us with determining the basis for which a
>species is determined to be endangered, and to what extent the
>government can infringe upon our recreational rights or wants
>to try and reestablish this species.

I do believe the criteria are listed in the Federal Endangered Species Act. You can also go to the Federal Register, and search for some fish that has been listed as endangered (heres a recent one, the Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic Salmon) recently, and you will get a major rundown including review of listing criteria.

>
>Who checks the authenticity of their biological opinions?

Its a multi-tiered internal review process. But keep in mind its a public document, so its there for anybody and everybody to see, and challenge if they want. Thats why we have watchgroups who scour places these things are released publicly. Yes, many BO's have been challenged, and many agencies have been brought to court concerning BO's and resulting actions.

DFG
http://dfg.ca.gov/regions/

Region 1 - Northern Region - (530) 225-2300

Region 2 - North Central Region - (916) 358-2900

Region 3 - Bay Delta Region - (707) 944-5500

Region 4 - Central Region - (559) 243-4005

Region 5 - South Coast Region - (858) 467-4201

Region 6 - Inland Deserts Region - (909) 484-0167

Center for Biological Diversity (they initiated the lawsuit that caused this)
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
center@biologicaldiversity.org
(520) 623.5252

Pacific Rivers Council (they were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the DFG)
http://pacificrivers.org/

Stanford Environmental Law Clinic (they worked for free to sue the DFG for the Center for Biological Diversity / Pacific Rivers Council)
http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/105/
Director: Deborah A. Sivas
dsivas@stanford.edu
650 723.0325

Thank You Rob.

Email Contacts:

John McCamman (Director of DFG)
Director@dfg.ca.go

Dwayne Maxwell (South Coast Region Senior Biologist Supervisor)
dmaxwell@dfg.ca.gov

Margaret Paul (Central Region Senior Biologist Specialist)
mpaul@dfg.ca.gov

Bob Coey (Delta Bay Region Senior Fishery Biologist Supervisor)
bcoey@dfg.ca.gov

Gary Flosi (Northern Region Senior Biologist Supervisor)
gflosi@dfg.ca.gov

If you would like to know who will be conducting and/or be in charge of the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol for your local waters, these individuals maybe worth contacting.

For more email contacts, go here: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/Administration/Grants/FRGP/RegionalSupport.asp

Fumio

Hi gang, had a chance to talk with some people in R3 (this is the Bay Area region). Here's what I learned...

1. DFG is pretty understaffed in this region.

2. Trout stocks are all on hold right now.

3. They've divided up the stocking waters in to categories. Category 1 is places that there's confidence no threatened species will be impacted. They're hoping to get those places cleared for stocking soon, as in a few weeks.

Category 2 waters are places like San Pablo, Loch Lomond, Stevens Creek, and Coyote. Those are places where threatened species are likely present and will need big evaluations. Whether they will ever stock again there is unknown. It will depend on whether an acceptable biological diversity mitigation plan can be put in place. What that would look like, I do not know at this time. These evaluations may take months or years.

4. As far as I can tell, groups like the Center for Biological diversity will not be allowed to conduct the pre-stocking assessments. However, regional parks and lake management groups like counties will provide data to the DFG. So, Santa Clara County will likely provide data for Coyote and Stevens Creek, and EBPARKS will provide data for their lakes, etc.

5. If trout stocking is put on hold for too long, or not enough waters are available, current hatchery fish will have to be killed because the fish will grow too large and be unsustainable in the hatcheries. This is a real concern, and there is a real concern with how these new stocking rules will contradict Hatchery Bill AB7's mandates of more trout. If 1/3 of license revenues are spent on hatcheries and they wind up having to kill the fish, that's a big issue.

There are a couple of avenues that could be used to fight on these issues. I am researching and formulating some plans. Please always remember in this that DFG is caught in the middle and NOT the ones who initiated this.

Hi all,

First, apologies for the long message. I got in touch with Dr. Dwayne Maxwell, SR. Biologist of the S. Ca. region. Here are some answers to questions suggested by Rob in a previous post.

1. Who will be in charge of the Pre-Stocking Evaluations?
“The fisheries function of each Region has been working on the waters within the regional boundaries. In the South Coast Region, the Pre-Stocking Evaluations have been given the highest priority for the fisheries staff.”

2. Is there a timeline for these evaluations?
“No. We are working on the evaluations full time. They will be completed as quickly and as accurately as we can manage. We have tried to triage our waters to get the easy ones finished first. This will allow our hatcheries to start planting fish and get some stock out of the hatcheries. Some waters, such as rim dams, are going to be more difficult and time consuming.”

3. Will the evaluations be entirely funded by DFG? “Yes.”

4. Will the evaluation process be open to public opinion?
“The evaluations will not be opened for public review before approval. We discussed this option and if we have to offer a public review of each evaluation, any decisions will be months in the making. The evaluations may be made available on our website within some reasonable time but not before regional and Fisheries Branch approval.”

5. What are some of the main criteria that will be used for these evaluations?
“The evaluations consider the list of decision species contained in the EIR/EIS and the need as identified in the document for mitigation. As we go through the flow charts of Appendix K, the presence of the species is considered along with historical ranges, critical habitat designations, recovery plan conflicts, and listing status. There are a few listed species, southwest arroyo toad for example, that are listed but the impact of stocking rainbow trout in these waters is considered to be less than significant. Before these waters are cleared, we still need to consult with the federal agencies responsible for the species to be certain we have considered all the ramifications of stocking trout in these waters.”

Of important note to us S. Ca. anglers. Lakes Cachuma, Piru, Casitas, and Castaic, apparently, will be the most difficult bodies of water to evaluate (unfortunately). This is due to the potential effects of stockings on anadromous species (meaning steelhead). Stockings in these waters will be resumed if and only when clear mitigation measures can be defined and put in place. They (DFG) have already met and held long discussions on what this mitigation might be. However, the process of defining this mitigation is just starting. Combined with the fact that they want to evaluate the "easy ones first", restocking in these waters (if it ever happens) could take a long time.

As posted already, reminder that the DFG (which is very understaffed) is caught in the middle of all this mess, and are trying to get stockings resumed if possible.

Keep yourselves informed and share info with us. As Rob stated in another forum: "It is all about balancing habitat, species, and human use. This doesn't have to be an us-vs-them scenario." Also, as someone with the handle "jigginpig" stated, I too am sympathetic to the dilemma. Ranting about the government and how eco groups are tyring to eliminate fishermen will not help win over the DFG's sympathy for anglers.

Today, I hope to get in touch with Curtis Milliron of DFG, another biologist in the south region. Will post any pertinent information from our coversation later.

Send well written emails to DFG biologist on how fishing is important to you and how you want future generations to have the fishing opportunities we have. I've found that many DFG biologists are very generous with their time and detailed in their explanations.

Fumio