fishing lake siskiyou,    News,    stocked trout,    stocking the upper sacramento river,    upper sac,    upper sacramento river

The Upper Sacramento River's Wild Fish Populations Facing a Bad, Bad Year? If Nothing Changes, Yes

By Tom Chandler 6/22/2010

I dislike stocked trout, yet this year, I'm deathly concerned about the lack of them of them in the Upper Sacramento River.

Confused?

Upper Sacramento rainbow trout

California's Department of Fish && Game was forced to suspend stocking activities in 2008 by a 2006 lawsuit alleging stocking was damaging native species populations. F&&G was supposed to have prepared an EIR long ago, but hadn't, and the lawsuit brought the state's stocking activities to an abrupt halt in most of the state.

While the stocking program may have halted, the original fish harvest limits remain in place.

That means no rubber trout are finding their way into the Upper Sacramento River this year, yet the five-fish limit remains in effect from Shasta Retreat to the Sweetbriar bridge.

Once the river drops to a fishable level again, I fear for the wild fish populations in the catch && kill stretch, which will bear the brunt of the fish harvest.

According to a Redding Record Searchlight story, several popular fisheries were recently added to the "OK to stock list," and local fly fishers will recognize some of the names:

Baum Lake, Grace Lake, Lower and Middle Burney Creek, McCloud Reservoir, Middle and Upper Hat Creek, and Whiskeytown Lake in Shasta County; as well as South Fork Battle Creek and Deer creeks in Tehama County

McCumber Lake will probably be OK'd soon, and while all this is happening, Fish && Game's been dumping huge numbers of hatchery trout in Lake Siskiyou (the lake that feeds the "Upper Sacramento River"), and catch rates have skyrocketed.

Time To Fix It
I'd love to see all but a small piece of the Upper Sacramento River managed for sustainable wild trout populations over rubber trout and stringer-filling harvest limits.

Wild fish cost us little or nothing when compared to rubber trout, and reasonable limits or catch && release fishing end the ridiculous - and expensive - put && take games that actually cost us money.

My thinking is this: If we're going to offer up a five fish limit, then we'd better offer up the rubber fish to meet that limit - else our wild fish populations are going to take a hit.

I'd suggest it's time for an "emergency" reduction in harvest limits on the Upper Sacramento - before the river falls and the carnage begins.

See you on the phone, Tom Chandler.
AuthorPicture

Tom Chandler

As the author of the decade leading fly fishing blog Trout Underground, Tom believes that fishing is not about measuring the experience but instead of about having fun. As a staunch environmentalist, he brings to the Yobi Community thought leadership on environmental and access issues facing us today.

17 comments
Write a Comment
I think any bag limit changes to the river are a ways off. But then, I thought getting it opened to year-round angling (C&R when the season ends) was unlikely too, and Chris Raine accomplished that in a matter of months.
Reply
0
0
Tom, I know this article is way old, but is there anything that can change the upper sacramento 5 fish limit to say 2. I would want it at 0 and the stockings stop, but I know that will never happen. I read in a book that before spill in 91 that this river supported 6000 fish per mile, it also said that very few rivers can support that many fish per mile. Do you think we can get back to those numbers?
Reply
0
0
adam granville: what a shame i was looking forward to fishing the upper sac for the first time this year. i will probably skip it since the bait dunkers will likely decimate the population leaving only fish too small to swallow their pb&worm combos, Adam, this was posted in 2010 (check the date). That issue's a couple years behind us...
Reply
0
0
what a shame i was looking forward to fishing the upper sac for the first time this year. i will probably skip it since the bait dunkers will likely decimate the population leaving only fish too small to swallow their pb&worm combos, as has been the case in my home waters (middle and south fork yuba). we used to see trout up to 20" everywhere in the river when i was a kid. urghh! why dont we open ... more up bait fishing for other species e.g. black bear on a shark rod. we could use wild trout as bait for the mindless, who see the river as a drive thru restaurant where the banks are the trash cans. fake signs saying the water is highly polluted are a possible deterrent. some waters should just be cnr only
Reply
0
0
try this ,capture native fish above scarlet way bridge ,hatch the eggs ,& return them to the river ,then you will have native fish back ,and maybe they wont eat that little frog!
Reply
0
0
Simple solution: Open the Upper Sac to harvest-fisherman hunting, limit five with no take above the Scarlett Way bridge. Of course there'll be size restrictions - no taking fisherman below the age of 16. Seems like that'd make the put and take fishing a LOT more exciting too.
Reply
0
0
We're looking for an emergency reg change - preferably by the time the river falls. Don't think it's going to happen.
Reply
0
0
Our group faced a similar situation on Putah Creek near Winters CA. Through a strong campaign, and with the help/cooperation of DFG region staff, we were able to get our regs changed from 5 fish all methods to year around zero limit/C&R/barbless artificials only. It required education of all affected stakeholders (pro or con), attending FGC meetings and making presentations all over the local ... more area to interested parties. The next regular 3 year reg review cycle started in March. If you hope to get change you need to start the effort now for the 2012 review; and even then there are no guarantees. Steve Putah Creek Trout
Reply
0
0
I can't remember now if I talked to Curtis first, but I did have a nice conversation with the DFG biologist (the name escapes me). I expressed my dismay and he kind of shared the sentiment, but indicated it was pretty much out of his hands on the planting and that the bag limit was a really, really difficult nut to crack. I wonder what would exactly need to happen to get that bag limit reduced. Five ... more wild fish... I can't fathom that. Since the fish pretty much fill in the holes, it would mean that fish from below and above (like, my favorite water on earth) would drop down fill the next frying pan. This, of course, makes me grumpy.
Reply
0
0
I think they should do it like Oregon does it and like how steelhead are managed. Hatchery steelhead have their adipose fin clipped, so should hatchery trout. You can then only keep trout that have their adipose fin clipped.
Reply
0
0
Arguably the best trout fishing in the lower 48 is Montana where they outlawed the planting of hatchery fish into rivers ages ago. For a state that is reputed to be on the bleeding edge of everything, California's fisheries management is on par with our education system (rated 48 out of 50). Our put and take fisheries are "managed" by the unions who represent hatchery employees rather than the biological ... more opinions of our scientists.
Reply
0
0
Tom, Sorry I should qualify that a bit. The detrimental impact of stocking non-native trout on top of natives is well documented (browns pretty much everywhere, brookies on top of cutthroats/rainbows in the west and rainbows on top of brookies in the east for e.g.) but the detrimental impact of stocking hatchery reared trout on top of wild trout of the same species is not easy to pin down; the vast ... more majority of studies indicate no impact on native populations. It's wrong, as anglers we know it is wrong but demonstrating what the impact might be is, as I say, elusive. I was assuming that the F&G would be stocking rainbows in your neck of the woods and if the lawsuit people had evidence then they have found something not evident in the biology literature - hence my interest. If, as you say, they are directing the action to protect other native species it suggests to me they haven't nailed an impact on native trout. But thanks for the pointer, I'll have a squizz and see what I can find. Eccles
Reply
0
0
I spoke to Curtis (who has spoken to F&G), and changing the regs is too involved a process to be a short-term fix. We're hopeful that F&G will clear the Upper Sac soon - before the river falls and some real damage is done...
Reply
0
0
The effects of hatchery fish on wild populations have been pretty well documented, though the original lawsuit - and most of the concerns about stocking - is focused on native species like the yellow-legged frog and other amphibians. I know they're looking at the stocking of non-natives like brook trout in alpine lakes and streams too, though in the Upper Sac, neither is an issue. For a *lot* of different ... more perspectives on the stocking issue, just Google (or Bing) a phrase like "california stocking lawsuit" and you'll get an eyeful.
Reply
0
0
Tom, You probably wrote about this at the time and I missed or forgot what the details were. I am intrigued about what the evidence is for impacts on wild fish by stocking. It is a very tricky point to demonstrate even though it would seem to be "bleedin' obvious". Presumably the group taking out the injunction against F&G stocking have some data on which to base the lawsuit. Any idea where I ... more can find something to read about it? cheers Eccles
Reply
0
0
I had heard of this a few weeks back and called DFG to ask about the bag limit. The news then wasn't good... something about that being set through a larger process that wasn't easily amended and the stock or not-to-stock decision up to higher-ups with political considerations. Basically, it sounded like the wild fish of the Upper Sac were in serious limbo with no real solutions on the horizon.
Reply
0
0
In the cherokee in east tn we have a nice balance. The bigger river is stocked and has a nice population of wild fish. The meat heads have fun all summer and they stop fishing in the fall (they call it delayed harvest) and the crowds melt away and you can find the wild fish. In the upper waters its single hook artifical only and not stocked (except for some brookie restoration). Works well the meat ... more fishers and idiots that think a 15" stocker is better than the 6" wild fish because its bigger stay down on the bigger river and the rest of us are left alone to chase wild fish up high........ to not drop the limit down (or go to C & R only as it should be) is just insane when they're not dumping purina fish in the system......hope your fish make it through!!!!
Reply
0
0

Discover Your Own Fishing and Hunting Adventures

With top destinations, guided trips, outfitters and guides, and river reports, you have everything you need.

Help