Wild Trout Bill Passes California Senate: Good News for Fly Fishers
By Tom Chandler on Sep 5, 2007 in Environment, News
We’ve got great news for Wild Trout from the Underground’s Secret California State Political Contact (we call him “Deep Trout):
The Assembly just passed SB 384 (Senator Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto), which alters the Trout and Steelhead Conservation and Management Planning Act of 1979. The declares that it is the policy of the state to establish and maintain wild trout stocks in suitable waters of the state and establish angling regulations designed to maintain the wild trout fishery in those waters by natural reproduction.
In non-legalese, this bill signals a policy shift from state endorsement of put-and-take fisheries, to placing an emphasis on developing and sustaining wild trout rivers. It also indicates that if hatchery fish are propagated, they could likely be derived from local wild/native fish.
Yoo-hoo! Anyone want odds as to whether Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) is a fly fishermen? Ding! Ding! Turns out he is, and this bill is apparently his baby.
It makes it state policy to focus on wild trout stocks over hatchery fish where natural reproduction takes place. Yes, my friends, the sun is shining all over Tommy Land.
What’s this really mean?
In Brief:
1. Declares the policy of the state to discourage artificial planting of hatchery-raised fish species in wild trout waters.
2. Requires Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to determine for each stream or lake whether it should be managed as a wild trout fishery or should involve planting of native trout.
3. Requires DFG to complete and implement management plans for new waters within three years, and revise existing management plans every five years.
4. Renames ?Catch and Release Waters? as ?Wild Trout Waters.?
5. Requires that if the Fish and Game Commission/DFG remove any Wild Trout waters, they be replaced in the program with at least an equal number of stream miles/lakes elsewhere.
It hardly cures all the ills facing California’s wild trout, but it does force Fish & Game to take a hard look at where it plants trout, and the effect of doing so on wild trout populations.
Hatchery trout have their place in our sport, but wantonly stocking them in streams and rivers capable of supporting wild trout populations is damned expensive, and bad for the existing wild trout populations.
Let’s spend some of that money putting hatchery fish where they’ll help recruit new fishers instead of in sustainable streams.
Thanks to Deep Trout for this one, and more as it happens.
Technorati Tags: fly fishing, fishing, wild trout, hatchery trout, hatcheries, sb 384, cogdill
Smellslikefish | Sep 5, 2007 | Reply
Great. Even further reducing the chance to enjoy fresh Upper Sac trout at a local fine dining establishment. Thanks senator! Guess it’ll be beef for dinner, again.
Tom Chandler | Sep 5, 2007 | Reply
Ah yes, Smellslike is referring to Dunsmuir’s Friendly Local Commercial Poacher. Shame to see him go away…
Chris | Sep 5, 2007 | Reply
I think its awesome, if the hatcheries continue to count the populations of the hatchery and native fish, then the numbers of native fish will eventually dive so low that the river will be in jeprody. This Bill that passed will only help the hatcheries see that they are not really helping the trout streams anymore, I would even go so far as to say that they should shut down there operation and stick to conservation efforts which in time will overshadow the numbers of trout that we have today.
ijsouth | Sep 5, 2007 | Reply
Great news…I have to admit, being relatively new to trout fishing, that the one part I have a hard time embracing is the concept of “put-n-take”, or to put it another way, a farmed product planted for harvesting. Growing up here in Louisiana, there’s nothing like that - all our fish are wild, fresh and salt, and the only time you hear of stocking is to establish a population, like in a farm pond, or when they released Florida largemouths locally. The closest comparison is I guess farmed catfish, and here there’s a big push to insist on “wild caught” catfish…better flavor.
Not trying to sound like a snob…it just strikes me as not really fishing, at least as I understand it. So far, all my trout experiences have been with wild fish, and I really have no desire to fish any stocked streams.
Tom Chandler | Sep 6, 2007 | Reply
I see an important role for hatcheries in some areas, yet it’s important the state look at what hatchery fish do to free, sustainable wild trout populations.
If we didn’t have a hatchery up here, there would be a lot of backcountry lakes without trout (and we sure as hell wouldn’t have brookies, the Official Char of the Trout Underground).
Still, dumping a lot of rainbows (selected for their ability to grow fast in concrete channels) in the Upper Sac definitely has consequences for the wild fish; so why did we actually enlarge the catch & keep section a couple years ago? Stuff like this makes me crazy…
Kentucky Jim | Sep 26, 2007 | Reply
As you may know, the Kern River Hatchery (not realy a hatchery at all) is planning to implement a hatchery program in which wild Kern River Rainbow would be planted as fingerlings in the upper Kern, thus acting on Ralph Cutter’s admonition that unless DFG did something like that, the Kern River Rainbow would become extinct due to hybridization with stocked rainbows. The plan is to stock them above the Fairview dam, thus minimizing the chances of hybridization. Good news, I believe.