DFG Trout Stocking Lawsuit - Explained

[swimbait]

Been talking about this a lot but wanted to step back and explain what is going on with DFG trout stocking from as simple as I can. It's pretty confusing but I think this will help.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is an environmental group. Their goal is to protect native species. In 2007 they sued the California Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG). They said that stocking trout in California is bad for native species. They said that stocked trout eat native frogs. They said stocked trout eat insects that native birds could have eaten instead. They said that stocked trout could breed with native trout/steelhead and mess up the gene pool.

They sued under an act called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This act says that any time the state government does a project, they have to take in to account the environment. In 2007, the CBD didn't win outright but they won a lot. They made the DFG go and evaluate trout stocking through a formal process. They also got a judge to rule that certain places where trout are stocked shouldn't be stocked any more while DFG went and did their evaluation. That's why a lot of places haven't gotten stocked with trout for the last few years.

This year DFG finished their evaluation. They put out a new set of rules to determine if a place gets stocked with trout or not. I've reviewed these rules and talked with the important people at DFG about how these rules will work in real life. These are pretty good rules. They're pretty reasonable. They're not perfect, but they're a great start. Most people at the DFG want to stock trout, but they also want to protect native species where it's reasonable.

The CBD looked at these new rules the DFG put out and they said they are bad. They said the rules are too vague. They said the rules don't provide enough protection. They didn't sue again, but they filed something with the judge in the case called a Writ of Mandate. That's a fancy way of telling the judge that the DFG did such a bad job that the judge should give the DFG a big slap on the wrist and send them back to do their evaluation over again and make new rules - rules that the CBD likes.

The judge has to look at this Writ of Mandate and decide what to do. I am working hard to see how we can convince the judge that the DFG has done their job already and shouldn't have to do it again. I don't have all the answers yet, but I'm forming a group to keep the CBD from going too far. A rough draft of what we believe in is below.

There are a lot of reasons why trout stocking is important to us fishermen. I'm worried that without trout, many lakes will close down because not enough people will come to fish. I'm worried kids won't get their start in fishing because they won't have trout to fish for. I'm worried the CBD will go too far to do things that sound good on paper but are bad in real life. I'm worried about letting people who don't really understand fish be in charge of the fish.

I want to get the word out to the fishing community about this topic. That's why I'm posting this. I need help from lawyers especially, so if any of you are lawyers or know lawyers who can help, drop me a line. If you just want to write to talk about the issue, that's great too. swimbait at gmail dot com is my address.

----------------------------------------------
POSITION STATEMENT (This is a rough draft)
----------------------------------------------

In high sierra lakes located 5 or more miles from any other lake where stocked trout are the only predator present and native species have been impacted by those trout, management plans should be put in place to remove stocked trout where feasible.

In high sierra lake basins where many lakes sit in close proximity, management plans should be enacted that promote recreation through fish stocking in some lakes while removing trout from other lakes deemed to have the best native animal habitat.

In lakes and rivers with native California trout species that have been proven to hybridize with stocked rainbow trout, rainbow trout should not be stocked in locations where hybridization is likely to occur post-stocking. Sterile trout should not be stocked because they may out-compete native fish for food. If sufficient barriers exist between native fish and stocking locations as determined by qualified CA DFG Fisheries Biologists, then stocking should be allowed.

In rivers and streams where native steelhead are present, only sterile rainbow trout or sterile hybrid trout like tiger trout should be stocked. Plans should be put in place to increase native steelhead stocks through local "micro hatcheries" that raise and release fish spawned from native steelhead in local water. These fish do not have to be sterile. Only one generation of fish should ever be bred in the hatchery (capture native adults in spawning locations and breed them in hatcheries located on the same river system).

At lakes upstream of rivers and streams that have native steelhead trout stocks stocks should continue. If peer reviewed scientific data is collected to prove that stocked rainbow trout that wash over dams at high water are affecting the gene pool of native steelhead trout, then stocking should only continue at these locations using sterile trout or locally raised and hatched native steelhead trout as outlined in the paragraph above.

If not enough spawning pairs of steelhead are present downstream to provide viable breeding operations, steelhead with the same genetics from nearby rivers should be used. For example, native trout populations located above dams (Calaveras, Jameson, Matilija, Piedras Blancas etc).

At man-made reservoirs where native birds and amphibians may (or may not) be affected by stocked trout stocks should continue. As mitigation, efforts should be made to provide native bird and amphibian habitat that is isolated from predators. For example, shallow ponds and wetlands areas could be constructed with dense cover for frogs. Bird houses could be built. Etc.

[paulisaak]

I hope these jerks who filed this law suite lose. Its only fishing. In a world of drugs, gang bangers, no jobs, stress, people losing thier
homes. business's moving out of Califorina and all the crap that goes on in this state now this what a joke you are Califorina. Now
kids will suffer the dad that works his *** off all week who wants to do a little fishing will suffer, when will be a enough. Its time to take the state back, its to late time move, this hole state is a joke
its been taken over by special interest groups................Jokeaforina. I am gone.

[Gene Buchholz]

Great report I for one was not aware of the details you cleared up.
Thanks
Gene

[Bill Hutcheson]

Rob - Great information.

May I post this on other trout related sites so folks outside the bass community can have these details as well?

Hutch

[swimbait]

Bill - by all means. Need to get the word out so everyone understands what is happening!

[kevkc629]

This group is stacked with educated people including doctors and tons of lawyers, many from Berzerkley. They have great knowledge and obviuosly a lot of time on their hands. It may be a no win situation for the DFG since they are severly limited with anything that they can do. By no means do I support this group at all! Do stocked trout really last long in lakes and streams? I don't think they do, especially in man made resevoirs where they are eatin by other fish, cormorants, and caught by fishermen. I am sure they get judges who know absolutely nothing about the subject which forces them to make their decisions. The biological diversity has done their homework and they know how to work the system. Swimbait, have you posted this on other major websites including ones that have nothing to do with fishing? In this day and age it would be wise to get the word out on say Facebook or other sites.

[JUST]

If anyone can help with this issue in anyway please contact Rob. We need as many people as we can to fight these guys.
Thanks

[MikeD]

I hope these jerks who filed this law suite lose. Its only fishing.

actually that's a pretty uniformed stance. it's more than fishing, the whole issue revolves around the problems of the impact to other species from the non native trout plants. To suggest, as you have, that your fishing needs should override any and all other considerations and impacts simply to placate your desires is selfish at a minimum.

I continue to be regularly amazed at how people tie together random issues - in this case street thugs and gangbangers which have nothing to do with trout impact - to somehow create justification for their point. So is your attempt to make the point that DFG, an agency responsible for fish and game, should stop wasting time with this EIR foolishness and continue to stock trout as well as take on additional responsibilities in their now free time to begin to patrol streets for gang bangers?

This seems to be the formula as best I can tell -- Here is an issue that everyone can agree is a bad bad thing (gangbangers), let's somehow tie the bad thing to my agenda (I really want trout plants) that I'm totally uniformed about but I really, really want because it serves my need for immediate gratification and I'm incapable of considering the bigger picture. The result make me feel like I'm making a solid point because clearly the bad thing (ganbanging) should make you offended, and since my agenda (continuing trout plants) is tied to the bad thing then my agenda is justified. News flash: DFG actions and street thuggery don't go together.

You are one person with needs who sits in a community of others with many disparate viewpoints - why are your needs "righter" than theirs? Are you not willing to consider how your actions impact others? We all need to be able to play nicely in the sandbox.

Perhaps you will consider a different point of view - consider for a moment that clearly defined rules about when/how/where trout plants occur is a good thing for you in the end. Why? Because there is no benefit for anybody when the rules exist in a grey area. Having clearly defined rules allows the lawsuits to stop. If the lawsuits stop then the plants can begin. And while it might not be perfect initially it does allow for some forward movement. If people are unhappy with particular sections of the decision of where/how to plant trout then they can address those sections via the court system without impacting the entire process. Having spent more time in the court system that I've wanted to, I've heard some say that the best result of mediation between 2 parties is when both parties leave the room pissed off.

Swimbaits summarization of the issue in the first post is well done. Having worked directly with the US Forest Service in wilderness management I'm not sure that I would agree with the direction of the position statement as it relates to the high sierra lakes and basins. That is a very, very fragile ecosystem that attempts to maintain a delicate balance, and trout upset that balance quickly. I love high sierra trout fishing and usually go once a week or so during the season but Ive always been of the feeling myself that the trout impact is too great in those higher locations. That said, I think that the intent to craft a statement showing the desire for balance shows. In the end I'd like to see a solution where the sustainability of the ecosystem wins, while allowing trout to be stocked in areas that it makes sense. I'm willing to lose some of my most favorite fishing locations in order to see that goal met.

[swimbait]

MikeD

Your last paragraph tells me that you get what is going on here.

Is the position statement perfect as it sits now? No. This is a complicated issue and to put it all in one page or even ten pages is hard. I'm working with guys who are trained fisheries biologists to refine the position statement and make it a reflection of good science, good protection for native species, and good recreational opportunities.

The important thing is to have a position. Too many people don't go beyond "I'm mad" or "I hate environmentalists". Collectively we need to be smarter than that and more informed than that.

[Oldschool]

Interesting and informative report.
What gets to me is the special interest, like the Matillija dam restoration program and Casitas steelhead fish latter program, who have spent millions of tax payer dollars trying to turn the clock back 75 years and re establish native steelhead stock that vanished over 50 years ago. The high Seirra native trout population restoration is more understandable.
The Matillija dam project will put lake Casitas within the no stocking zone. The Ventura river has not been a free flowing river in my life time, it's a seasonal river. Now the save the native trout zealots will use the extinct local steelhead as leverage and the DFG goes along because they funded the project under different cirsumstances.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Tom

[bassmaster89]

Very informative and interesting read. Cleared up a lot of questions I've had too.

[MikeD]

MikeD
I'm working with guys who are trained fisheries biologists to refine the position statement and make it a reflection of good science, good protection for native species, and good recreational opportunities.

Rob - what are the priorities between good science, good protection, or good recreation you are attempting to strike?

Too many people don't go beyond "I'm mad" or "I hate environmentalists". Collectively we need to be smarter than that and more informed than that.

agree. that broad brush that some seem to paint with has gotta be heavy to carry around