danbacher The Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) praised 11 Members of Congress for sending a letter to the US Department of the Interior condemning the Bay Delta Conservation Plan’s (BDCP) recent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between state and federal agencies and selected water export contractors who receive a portion of their water supply from the Bay-Delta. The BDCP is a state-federal plan to build the peripheral canal to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California.
Contact: Victor Gonella, Golden Gate Salmon Association, 707-217-6666
Zeke Grader, GGSA, PCFFA, 415-561-5080, ex 224
Salmon Advocates Praise Members of Congress for Delta Water Stand
Salmon fishery and salmon jobs depend on balanced approach
San Francisco — Salmon advocates expressed their thanks today to 11 Members of Congress from throughout California and Oregon for their call for a fair planning process for California’s delta water supplies. Without a fair process, California’s salmon runs will likely decline with a great loss of jobs, a key food source, and a key part of California’s natural heritage.
The members of Congress sent a letter to the US Department of the Interior condemning the Bay Delta Conservation Plan’s (BDCP) recent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between state and federal agencies and selected water export contractors who receive a portion of their water supply from the Bay-Delta. The Congressional members call for a rescinding of the MOA and development of a fair process that incorporates state and federal obligations to rebuild salmon runs.
The BDCP planning process seeks a 50 year federal permit to take or kill federally protected wildlife, including commercially valuable salmon, as part of operating a peripheral canal or tunnel. The MOA hands control over key parts of the planning process to water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and other points south that have historically ignored the needs of salmon.
“Salmon advocates strongly support the work of these members of Congress on this issue,” said Victor Gonella, president of the Golden Gate Salmon Association. “ If the water users control the planning process, salmon have little chance of long term survival in California since they’re unlikely to be spared the water they need to survive. If we lose salmon, we’ll lose billions of dollars in associated economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs. “
“We believe water can be shared in such a way that we can have healthy, sustainable, abundant salmon runs and water to meet the needs of our farms and cities but it won’t happen unless there’s a level playing field that considers the value of the salmon fishery in California,” said GGSA director Zeke Grader.
The Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) is made up of fishermen and environmentalists working together on behalf of the Central Valley salmon to protect its habitat, aid in its revival and recovery, and provide for its long-term sustainability as a recreational, commercial and cultural resource. Our partners are elected officials, regulatory agencies, as well as legal, educational, and outreach organizations.
Golden Gate Salmon Association understands and respects the vital role that salmon plays in our environment and in our communities. Salmon recovery is our passion.
For more information, got to: http://goldengatesalmonassociation.com.
danbacher This decision came after Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Director Charlton H. Bonham requested the change in order to allow interested members of the public residing near the Delta the opportunity to voice their opinions to the Commission.
Photo: Jay Sorenson, founder of the California Striped Bass Association and long-time defender of the California Delta, speaks passionately in opposition to the striped bass eradication proposal at the DFG public meeting in Rio Vista on November 8. Photo by Dan Bacher.
by Dan Bacher
Under intense pressure from northern California anglers and Delta advocates, the California Fish and Game Commission decided on November 16 to postpone consideration of a controversial proposed striped bass regulation change proposal to their February 1-2, 2012 meeting in Sacramento.
Consideration of the proposed regulations – a proposal that many anglers say amounts to a striped bass “eradication plan” – was originally scheduled to take place at the Commission meeting in San Diego in December.
This decision came after Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Director Charlton H. Bonham requested the change in order to allow interested members of the public residing near the Delta the opportunity to voice their opinions to the Commission.
“After the DFG public meeting in the Delta last week, we learned there are many passionate anglers who would like the opportunity to share their views on the draft proposal,” Bonham said. “I think it’s important to hear these views. The discussion is welcome. Moving the public discussion to Sacramento from San Diego will allow these constituents to attend the meeting. It’s the right thing to do.”
Dick Pool, administrator of Water for Fish and Secretary Treasurer of the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA), applauded Bonham’s decision to postpone discussion of the striped bass proposal to the Commission meeting in February.
“Postponing the hearing is the only fair thing to do,” said. “There are thousands of striped bass fishermen and others that are deeply concerned about this issue. They need to have a chance to have their voices heard.”
More than 350 anglers and members of the public who showed up at a DFG “public workshop” in Rio Vista Tuesday, November 8 voiced unanimous opposition to the new regulations to dramatically increase size and bag limits for anadromous striped bass (http://www.fishsniffer.com/content/1500-public-voices-100-percent-opposition-striped-bass-reduction-plan.html).
Bob Boucke, owner of Johnson’s Bait and Tackle in Yuba City, echoed the feelings of hundreds in the room when he urged the DFG, rather than trying to eradicate stripers, to instead focus on the real problem – curbing the massive Delta water exports that have spurred the collapse of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and striped bass themselves.
“The stripers have been here 130 years and they have gotten along with the Delta smelt and the salmon all of that time until they started pumping all this water down there,” said Boucke. “That’s when the whole problem started. And yet Fish and Game doesn’t want to do anything about the water problem, but they want to ruin our striper fishing. There is nothing wrong with the stripers the way they are.”
The proposal is the result of a court settlement of a lawsuit between the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness “Astroturf” group representing San Joaquin Valley corporate growers, and the DFG. This group is housed in Stewart Resnick’s headquarters for Paramount Farms in Kern County. Resnick, a politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire and the largest tree fruit grower in the world, has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit and is a big advocate of state and federal plans to export more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
We need a huge turnout of anglers at the meeting to stop the striped bass eradication plan from being approved by the Commission! The meeting is scheduled for February 1-2, 2012, Wednesday-Thursday, at the Resources Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA. The agenda is not available yet; for more information, go to:http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2012/index.aspx
Please also write a letter to the Commission opposing the proposal. You can copy and paste a sample letter from: http://water4fish.org/write-letters-to-legislators/index.php/id/.224/ and mail it to: Jim Kellogg, President, California Fish and Game Commission, P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2980. Submit comments on the proposal via email to: fgc [at] fgc.ca.gov.
The water4fish.org website will soon feature an easy to use on-line letter writing campaign to oppose the striper proposal soon. I will send out an action alert when the on-line campaign is ready to go.
I also strongly encourage you to watch this video by Cal Kellogg, Fish Sniffer Magazine Editor, covering the DFG workshop in Rio Vista: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcwfUHHtr0A&feature=sharewww.youtube.com. Please join two organizations, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (http://www.calsport.org) and California Striped Bass Asssociation (http://www.striper-csba.com), listed at the end.
The striped bass proposal has been developed at a time when the state and federal governments are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral canal. Delta residents, fishermen, Indian Tribes, family farmers, business owners, conservationists and environmental justice advocates are opposing the peripheral canal’s construction because it would lead to the extinction of Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations.
DFG Striped Bass Proposal
The basic proposed changes to the striper regulations are as follows:
Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.
Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.
Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.
Establishing a “hot spot” for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.
DFG is also recommending an adaptive management plan that will help assess how the new regulations influence the fishery.
The Commissioners will decide whether to pursue the proposed regulations at their February meeting in Sacramento. If they choose to pursue the proposal it begins a process that includes at least three public hearings and the completion of an environmental document. A final decision is not expected until later in 2012.
The draft language is now available at: https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=39586.
danbacher According to the Food & Water Watch report, the red snapper catch share program has also failed to meet its stated ecological goals. A government analysis of 66 red snapper fishing trips in 2009 found that more than half of the total fish caught were discarded. In 2010, the rates decreased slightly, with 40 percent of the catch discarded. This discard rate was still far higher than in 2007 or 2008 at catch shares program’s inception.
Photo of Dr. Jane Lubchenco of NOAA defending her position on the catch shares program at a meeting with fishermen, environmentalists and tribal members at the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers in Ukiah in December 2010. Photo by Dan Bacher.
640_img_1142.jpg
by Dan Bacher
The BP Horizon oil spill of 2010 is apparently not the only environmental and economic disaster that the Obama administration has presided over in the Gulf of Mexico.
On Wednesday, the national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch released a report on the dramatic effects of the “catch shares” program, a federal plan to privatize public trust fisheries, on Gulf of Mexico fisheries. You can read the report at: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/catch-shares-gulf-of-mexico/.
“Analyzing brand new federal government data, the report, entitled A Closer Look at Catch Shares in the United States: The Gulf of Mexico, reveals that Gulf fisheries managed under one controversial program have seen significant industry consolidation and job losses and that certain catch shares programs have failed to meet ecological goals,” according to a November 16 news release from Food & Water Watch.
The report comes a day after congressional sponsors of a bill to continue a recently enacted ban on new catch share programs along the east coast and Gulf of Mexico confirmed that Congress had reached an agreement to kill the vote.
The report also was released a time when the Occupy movement is spreading throughout the nation and world in an unprecedented grassroots effort by the 99 percent to stop the 1 percent from plundering and privatizing the public trust, including the oceans.
“Under catch share programs, fishermen are assigned a certain amount of fish, or ’shares,” stated Food & Water Watch. “This allotment is typically based on how much they have caught in the past. Fishermen who fish the fastest and hardest often receive more shares, with smaller fishermen receiving less or none at all. Like shares in the stock market, these shares can be bought or sold for profit by corporations and banks.”
Once fish are turned into commodities under catch shares, the added costs of buying shares can push fishermen out of the fishery, either into bankruptcy or into other fisheries that aren’t under such a program.
In 2007, red snapper was the first fish to fall under a catch share program in the Gulf. According to Food & Water Watch’s report, this fishery has seen up to a 44 percent decrease in the number of participants due to its catch share program, resulting in a loss of as many as 1,017 and 1,695 jobs.
“Sadly, the traditional ‘ma and pop’ fishing operations that were once the backbone of Gulf Coast communities are a dying breed. The new costs of doing business under catch shares represent an increasing and untenable burden on small to mid-sized fishing operations,” said Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food & Water Watch.
Revenue for fishermen under the Gulf catch shares program at one time was predicted to increase as much as 48 percent. In reality, prices for selling fish, at their highest, increased by approximately 3 percent by 2008 while prices for purchasing shares have increased steadily every year, according to the report. This means that smaller-scale fishermen with the least shares were harmed the most.
Catch shares are bad for the environment
The catch shares programs are not only bad for fishermen and fishing communities, but bad for fish and the environment. According to the report, the red snapper catch share program has also failed to meet its stated ecological goals.
A government analysis of 66 red snapper fishing trips in 2009 found that more than half of the total fish caught were discarded. In 2010, the rates decreased slightly, with 40 percent of the catch discarded. This discard rate was still far higher than in 2007 or 2008 at catch shares program’s inception.
“Catch share systems are rigid and wasteful. Whereas before a fisherman could catch a red snapper and sell it to consumers, now that fisherman may be required to throw it back, dead or dying, because he doesn’t have enough shares,” Hauter said.
The Food & Water Watch report also exposed the organizations that are financially backing catch shares in the Gulf. The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder’s Alliance (the Alliance), a group composed primarily of the remaining, larger fishing operations that have benefitted from catch shares, is a major proponent.
The Alliance received a significant portion of its funding in grants from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a group that advocates internationally for catch shares as a “market-based” solution to fisheries management, according to the report. EDF has estimated that the total project expenses of its work in the Gulf are over $1.6 million.
In addition, the Alliance received a $200,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a non-profit created by Congress and funded by corporate partners, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell and foundations including the Walton Family Foundation, the charitable foundation of Walmart.
“It looks like big business may have a financial incentive in the success of catch shares,” Hauter said. “While they are not actually buying up all the fish in our oceans, it appears as if that’s the direction we’re going in with catch shares, which increase our reliance on corporate food production and make the smaller-scale family fishermen a relic of the past.”
The report concludes, “There is no question that our nation’s fisheries require responsible management systems to ensure their long-term health and profitability. Catch share systems, as implemented throughout the Gulf of Mexico and the world, have typically resulted in an unfair giveaway of public resources to private entities. The gains in economic efficiency hailed by supporters of catch shares have come at the expense of the livelihoods of thousands of smaller-scale, traditional fishermen and their communities, and the claims of increased fishery sustainability and safety are often overblown.”
Backroom deal prevents vote on renewal of catch shares ban
Last April, amid national concern over wasteful government spending, Congress voted to defund catch shares for fiscal year 2011. This week, Congress was expected to vote on extending this measure. Yesterday, the amendment’s sponsors confirmed to Food & Water Watch that the amendment is dead after a deal was reached on Monday excluding it for fiscal year 2012 and denying it a vote.
“It’s shameful that Congress ignored the voices of thousands of fishermen and their allies by cutting a smoky backroom deal to deny a vote that would have continued to ban wasteful government spending on new catch shares programs in 2012,” Hauter said.
Food & Water Watch is calling on members of Congress to add their names to the growing list of cosponsors of two new bills, introduced by New Jersey Representative Jon Runyan and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte. The bills create a safety valve for catch share programs, terminating them if they reduce local employment by 15 percent or more.
MLPA Initiative: another privatized “conservation” process
On the West Coast, fishermen are not only challenging the catch shares program but California’s privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative initiated by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the worst Governor for fish and the environment in California history, in 2004. The “marine protected areas” created under the MLPA Initiative, in a disgusting example of corporate greenwashing, fail to protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wave and wind projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.
The MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversee the designation of “marine protected areas” are overseen by an oil industry lobbyist, marina developer, real estate executive and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interests. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, as well as “serving” on the North Coast and North Central Coast panels.
Reheis Boyd is a strong supporter of oil drilling off the California coast and tar sands extraction in Canada – a strange kind of marine “guardian” indeed. While MLPA Initiative advocates constantly gush that the initiative is an “open, transparent and inclusive” process, the process is anything but, especially when you consider the alarming presence of big business interests on the MLPA task forces.
Just like the catch shares program is funded by private corporations including the Walton Family Foundation, the charitable foundation of Walmart, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation funds the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative process in a highly controversial state-private “partnership.” For more information about the MLPA’s private funding, go to: http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/21/tracing-the-big-money-behind-calis-questionable-marine-protection-program/
The privatization of ocean “conservation,” whether it occurs in the creation of questionable “marine protected areas” or the Obama administration’s catch shares fiasco, must be challenged by all of those who care about environmental justice, the public trust and the future of the oceans. I applaud Food & Water Watch for releasing their latest report – and standing up for fish, fishing communities, the environment and the public trust.
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
For more information: Lauren Wright, lwright [at] fwwatch.org, 202 683-4929
danbacher by Dan Bacher
Another seven people are scheduled to have their charges dismissed Friday. Another nine, including anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, will have charges dropped early next week.
In all, charges are expected to be dismissed or not filed against 40 individuals, the City has indicated to Occupy Sacramento lawyers. The Sacramento Police have made 84 arrests at the park since October 6.
The dismissal took place as police departments have cracked down on Occupy encampments in New York City, Oakland, Portland and other cities throughout the nation, apparently as part of a coordinated effort by federal agencies under the Obama administration to squash dissent.
“After evaluating the facts of each case and criminal history of each defendant, the City Attorney’s office has determined that the arrest and jail time that each dismissed defendant served achieved the People of the State of California’s demand for substantial justice,” City Attorney Eileen Teichert said in a statement.
The office said it would move forward with prosecuting those protesters with multiple arrests for “violating” the park hours ordinance. The city is proceeding with charges against nine defendants.
Vindication for the Constitution
“This is a step in the right direction,” said Josh Kaizuka, one of 36 volunteer lawyers assisting on the case, in reacting to the dismissals.
“This is vindication for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” said Cres Vellucci, the vice-chair of the ACLU Board of Directors in Sacramento, who was arrested October 6 for being at Cesar Chavez Park beyond a curfew.
“There is no doubt that Defendant was participating in an organized meeting intended to vocalize a community’s disapproval of our nation’s distribution of wealth,” Kaizuka said in the filing. “This dissent was a political statement, and was, by all accounts, conducted in a peaceful manner…defendant was vocalizing his dissent at precisely the place where we, as a community, would expect: the town square.”
Kaizukasaid, in the “Demurrer,” that by arresting Vellucci and 83 others since Oct. 6 at Cesar Chavez Park, city officials and police “impermissibly interfered with constitutionally protected speech, at a place that for over 150 years has been the platform to protest for the right of speech and assembly. Cesar Chavez Plaza, in fact, is built on the location of the original California State Capitol Building site.”
Kaizuka called the charges “vague,” and asked the court to throw out the case.
Karen Bernal, chair of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party (whose certification is currently in limbo) is one of the 9 defendants whose case was dismissed today. Bernal was arrested on October 16, along with Cindy Sheehan and other protesters.
“I’m happy that the case was dismissed, but I’m thinking about all of the money that the city spent on arrests and prosecution of protesters when there are so many other real problems that the city has to deal with,” said Bernal after her case was dismissed.
The protesters were originally arrested for “unlawful assembly.” However, District Attorney Jan Scully, stating that “no crime had been committed,” refused to prosecute the protesters for exercising their First Amendment rights.
In an Orwellian move condemned by civil rights lawyers, the City of Sacramento then decided to prosecute the protesters on new charges – remaining in the park after curfew and loitering.
Arrests coordinated with Homeland Security and other federal officials?
As the police crackdowns continue, an investigative news piece in the examiner.com on November 15 revealed that the repression of the Occupy movement was apparently aided by officials from Homeland Security and other federal law enforcement agencies (http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies).
“Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict ‘Occupy’ protesters from city parks and other public spaces,” wrote Rick Ellis, Minneapolis Top News Examiner. “As was the case in last night’s move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.”
“The official, who spoke on background to me late Monday evening, said that while local police agencies had received tactical and planning advice from national agencies, the ultimate decision on how each jurisdiction handles the Occupy protests ultimately rests with local law enforcement,” according to Ellis.
“According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present,” said Ellis.
Vellucci said the revelations by Ellis appeared to confirm what he witnessed at the Occupy Sacramento encampment since the city cracked down on the peaceful, legal protest.
“From the first day in Sacramento, it was obvious the police were waiting for media to leave, as if they were trained to do so,” said Vellucci. “Now there’s evidence that waiting for press to leave, coming out in overwhelming numbers (and using ‘curfew’ laws was all part of advice Sacramento and other cities received from the federal government, including the FBI and Homeland Security.”
For example, Vellucci said that although the curfew begins at 11 pm, the police didn’t begin arresting people until 12:15 am on the first night of the arrests. “They didn’t start arresting people until the media was out of the park,” said Vellucci.
He also noted the overwhelming show of force by the police during the arrests. “Sacramento had as many as 44 vehicles and 80 officers for 4 arrests,” emphasized Vellucci. “There were an average of over 20 police vehicles and 40 officers clad in riot gear each night of the arrests.”
“Now it all makes sense that somebody from the federal government was advising the city on their crackdown,” said Vellucci.
Vellucci noted that Occupy Sacramento lawyers have made a State Public Records Act request of the city to release all of the communications between the police, city staff, City Council and Mayor and the costs incurred regarding the repression of Occupy Sacramento. The city has delayed releasing the documents by two weeks.
For more information, contact: Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170, http://www.occupysac.org.
The full court brief can be found at:
http://occupysac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Occupy_Demurrer_11-11-11.pdf
danbacher 
by Dan Bacher
As the Occupy movement spreads throughout the nation and world, sustainable fishing communities, consumer groups and grassroots environmentalists have mobilized to stop the 1 percent from stealing ocean public trust resources from the 99 percent.
This week the U.S. Congress is expected to vote on a critical bill that would continue a recently instituted ban on a wasteful government program that gives large corporations control of the nation’s fishery resources, in effect privatizing the ocean’s public trust resources.
The Obama regime is promoting a “catch shares” program for fisheries that, like the Wall Street bailouts, will concentrate money and natural resources in fewer hands. Corporate environmental NGOs promoting the catch shares fiasco are heavily funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WalMart) and other foundations that represent the 1 percent (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/19/wal-marting-the-oceans).
The ban has broad bi-partisan support. On November 3, nineteen Members of Congress from seven Eastern Seaboard states signed a letter urging Congress to not fund the Obama administration’s catch shares program.
Drafted by Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Appopriations Committee and the Commerce subcommittee, the letter asks that “language be included in the final FY 2012 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill to restrict the use of funds for development or approval of new ‘catch share’ programs for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the New England, Mid Atlantic or South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils.” (http://www.savingseafood.org/washington/19-members-of-congress-ask-appropriations-and-authorizing-committees-not-to-fund-new-catch-share-pro-3.html)
“The last thing the American government should be doing in these economic times is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to expand programs that will put even more Americans out of work,” the letter stated. “But that’s exactly what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is attempting to do by requesting $54 million in its FY 12 Budget to accelerate implementation of new fisheries catch share programs across the U.S.”
Food & Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy organization, is one of the organizations leading the charge to ban catch shares. “In recent years the government has been ramping up spending of taxpayer dollars on catch share programs,” according to Zach Corrigan, Fish Program Director of Food & Water Watch. “These programs divide up our nation’s fishery resources for exclusive use by the biggest and fastest fishing operations and then allow corporations and banks to buy and sell these ’shares’ for profit.”
“Catch shares turn the opportunity to go fishing into a commodity, requiring commercial fishermen to buy shares before being able to go fishing. As has happened with family farms on land, the added costs push smaller-scale fishermen out of business and consolidate the industry, paving the way for industrial fishing methods that can destroy sensitive ocean habitats,” Corrigan noted.
Make your voice heard now!
Last year, Congress passed a one-year measure to stop new catch share programs on the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, but industry proponents are attempting to end this ban this week, noted Corrigan.
“Congress needs to hear that you oppose making small-scale fishermen a relic of the past and increasing our reliance on corporate-controlled food production. Can you ask your member of Congress to keep this ban on “catch share” programs?” urged Corrigan.
If you don’t want what’s happened to our housing, banking, health care and other industries to happen to our ocean, send a letter today!
Send your message by going to: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8702
On a similar note, the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (http://namanet.org) is circulating a graphic entitled, “Occupy the Ocean?” warning of the increasing consolidation of fisheries in the hands of a few.
“In 2010, 20% of vessels accounted for about 80% of the gross nominal revenues from groundfish sales in New England,” the alliance states. “Diversity matters when it comes to who catches our fish, grows our food, banks our cars or keeps us healthy.”
Privatization of the public trust and conservation is bad for fish, communities
The increasing corporate control of public resources that has occurred wherever “catch shares” have been introduced has devastated fish populations and fishing communities.
“The current focus of U.S. policy for managing our fisheries, called catch shares, is destroying the way of life of our nation’s fishermen and coastal communities,” according to a groundbreaking Food & Water Watch event released in August. (http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/Fish-Inc.pdf). “This time-honored trade is being replaced by a privatized system that often leaves the future of our nation’s fish, one of our most precious natural resources, in the hands of a small number of larger operations, whose primary goal is often immediate profit rather than sustainable use and long-term conservation.”
In California, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a private corporation, has funded the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. The MLPA Initiative, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests, creates so-called “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts other than fishing and gathering.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that oversaw the development of these questionable “marine protected areas” on the Southern California coast. She also served on the panels for the North Central and North Coast. Reheis-Boyd has lobbied for new oil rigs off the California coast and tar sands drilling in Canada – and is no friend of the environment.
Yet MLPA advocates refused to question or oppose the appointment by Schwarzenegger of a big oil lobbyist – and falsely claimed that the rigged process was “open, transparent and inclusive,” while it was anything but. For more information, go to: http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/01/13/why-is-a-big-oil-lobbyist-in-charge-of-californias-marine-protection-program.
Occupy movement message spreads to the California Delta
Meanwhile, the same Obama administration that is promoting the catch shares program and the same Brown administration that has continued Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal to export more water from the California Delta to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California water agencies. Delta residents, family farmers, Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, conservationists and environmental justice advocates are opposing the enormously expensive government boondoggle because it would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and green sturgeon populations.
In a public meeting held by the Department of Fish and Game on November 8 regarding the Department’s striped bass eradication proposal, Dawn Gulick, owner of Eddo’s Harbor, echoed the theme of the Occupy Wall Street protests taking place throughout the country. Gulick said the water contractors, including Stewart Resnick, the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit, are waging “class war” against the people of the Delta.
“This is a class war and they’re winning,” she stated, followed by a person next to her shouting, “Occupy the Delta!” Others joined in shouting, “Occupy the Delta.”
“It’s our Delta. Big Money has big influence over our government and it’s time to take our government back!” she continued as people in the crowd applauded.
After reading my article on the meeting, an editor of the San Francisco Chronicle decided to interview Gulick (http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2011/11/11/occupys-message-heard-in-the-delta) regarding the water contractors’ war on the Delta.
“It’s the 1 percent coming after our water, our fish and our farms,” Gullick told the Chronicle. The real elephant in the room is pumping, not bass predation, she said. “The pelagic organisms decline the more water they pump from the delta.”
Caleen Sisk-Franco, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe and one of the most outspoken opponents of the peripheral canal and state and federal plans to export even more water out of the Delta, urged support for the Occupy movement as the police were raiding the Occupy Oakland encampment Monday.
“All California people need to keep up with what is happening to the 99%! That is US, we are the 99%!” she emphasized.
Her Tribe is pushing for an innovative plan to restore native winter run chinook salmon to the McCloud River above Lake Shasta with eggs provided by the Maori and New Zealand governments. Although extinct in their native habitat on the McCloud, the salmon are now thriving in the Rakaira and other rivers in New Zealand.
I believe it is time to “occupy the oceans,” “occupy the Delta,” and stand up for local communities and our oceans against the privatization of conservation and public trust resources. The 99 percent must rise up against the 1 percent that only care about their profits as they greenwash their privatization plans.
danbacher If you don’t want what’s happened to our housing, banking, health care and other industries to happen to our ocean, send a letter today!
380138_10150357316403388_…
by Dan Bacher
As the Occupy movement spreads throughout the nation and world, sustainable fishing communities, consumer groups and grassroots environmentalists have mobilized to stop the 1 percent from stealing ocean public trust resources from the 99 percent.
This week the U.S. Congress is expected to vote on a critical bill that would continue a recently instituted ban on a wasteful government program that gives large corporations control of the nation’s fishery resources, in effect privatizing the ocean’s public trust resources.
The Obama regime is promoting a “catch shares” program for fisheries that, like the Wall Street bailouts, will concentrate money and natural resources in fewer hands. Corporate environmental NGOs promoting the catch shares fiasco are heavily funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WalMart) and other foundations that represent the 1 percent (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/19/wal-marting-the-oceans).
“In recent years the government has been ramping up spending of taxpayer dollars on ‘catch share’ programs,” according to Zach Corrigan, Fish Program Director, Food & Water Watch. “These programs divide up our nation’s fishery resources for exclusive use by the biggest and fastest fishing operations and then allow corporations and banks to buy and sell these ’shares’ for profit.”
“Catch shares turn the opportunity to go fishing into a commodity, requiring commercial fishermen to buy shares before being able to go fishing. As has happened with family farms on land, the added costs push smaller-scale fishermen out of business and consolidate the industry, paving the way for industrial fishing methods that can destroy sensitive ocean habitats,” Corrigan noted.
Make your voice heard now!
Last year, Congress passed a one-year measure to stop new catch share programs on the east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, industry proponents are attempting to end this ban this week, noted Corrigan.
“Congress needs to hear that you oppose making small-scale fishermen a relic of the past and increasing our reliance on corporate-controlled food production. Can you ask your member of Congress to keep this ban on “catch share” programs?” asked Corrigan.
If you don’t want what’s happened to our housing, banking, health care and other industries to happen to our ocean, send a letter today!
Send your message by going to: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8702
On a similar note, the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (http://namanet.org) is circulating a graphic entitled, “Occupy the Ocean?” warning of the increasing consolidation of fisheries in the hands of a few.
“In 2010, 20% of vessels accounted for about 80% of the gross nominal revenues from groundfish sales in New England,” the alliance states. “Diversity matters when it comes to who catches our fish, grows our food, banks our cars or keeps us healthy.”
Privatization of the public trust and conservation is bad for fish, communities
The increasing corporate control of public resources that has occurred wherever “catch shares” have been introduced has devastated fish populations and fishing communities.
“The current focus of U.S. policy for managing our fisheries, called catch shares, is destroying the way of life of our nation’s fishermen and coastal communities,” according to a groundbreaking Food & Water Watch event released in August. (http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/Fish-Inc.pdf). “This time-honored trade is being replaced by a privatized system that often leaves the future of our nation’s fish, one of our most precious natural resources, in the hands of a small number of larger operations, whose primary goal is often immediate profit rather than sustainable use and long-term conservation.”
In California, the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a private corporation, has funded the controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. The MLPA Initiative, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development and other corporate interests, creates so-called “marine protected areas” that fail to protect the ocean from oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts other than fishing and gathering.
Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), was chair of the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that oversaw the development of these questionable “marine protected areas” on the Southern California coast. She also served on the panels for the North Central and North Coast. Reheis-Boyd has lobbied for new oil rigs off the California coast and tar sands drilling in Canada – and is no friend of the environment.
Yet MLPA advocates refused to question or oppose the appointment by Schwarzenegger of a big oil lobbyist – and falsely claimed that the rigged process was “open, transparent and inclusive,” while it was anything but. For more information, go to: http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/01/13/why-is-a-big-oil-lobbyist-in-charge-of-californias-marine-protection-program.
Occupy movement message spreads to the California Delta
Meanwhile, the same Obama administration that is promoting the catch shares program and the same Brown administration that has continued Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s MLPA Initiative are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral canal to export more water from the California Delta to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California water agencies. Delta residents, family farmers, Indian Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, conservationists and environmental justice advocates are opposing the enormously expensive government boondoggle because it would likely lead to the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail and green sturgeon populations.
In a public meeting held by the Department of Fish and Game on November 8 regarding the Department’s striped bass eradication proposal, Dawn Gulick, owner of Eddo’s Harbor, echoed the theme of the Occupy Wall Street protests taking place throughout the country. Gulick said the water contractors, including Stewart Resnick, the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit, are waging “class war” against the people of the Delta.
“This is a class war and they’re winning,” she stated, followed by a person next to her shouting, “Occupy the Delta!” Others joined in shouting, “Occupy the Delta.”
“It’s our Delta. Big Money has big influence over our government and it’s time to take our government back!” she continued as people in the crowd applauded.
After reading my article on the meeting, an editor of the San Francisco Chronicle decided to interview Gulick (http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2011/11/11/occupys-message-heard-in-the-delta) regarding the water contractors’ war on the Delta.
“It’s the 1 percent coming after our water, our fish and our farms,” Gullick told the Chronicle. The real elephant in the room is pumping, not bass predation, she said. “The pelagic organisms decline the more water they pump from the delta.”
I believe it is time to “occupy the oceans,” “occupy the Delta,” and stand up for local communities and our oceans against the privatization of conservation and public trust resources. The 99 percent must rise up against the 1 percent that only care about their profits as they greenwash their privatization plans.
danbacher Photo of Tracy Fish Collection Facility on the California Delta courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
aerial-view-of-tfcf.jpg
by Dan Bacher
You can watch the video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yadLXULXVIA&hd=1 or Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/31740676.
“The fate of wild salmon in California is destined to be determined by the political posturing that takes place deep in the weeds,” said Tokars. “It’s easy to get lost in the weeds because every issue related to salmon is complex. Most people have little time in their busy life to keep up with the details of who is pushing what and how a particular piece of legislation or court challenge will impact them.
danbacher Photo: Jerry Pedersen, speaking at the Occupy Sacramento press conference on Veterans Day, was a member of the honor guard that served at the surrender of the Japanese army aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945.
by Dan Bacher
Sacramento area veterans, including many appearing in uniform or military garb with ribbons and medals, spoke out against wars that they said only benefit the 1 percent during a news conference held by Occupy Sacramento at Cesar Chavez Park on Veterans Day, 2011.
Jerry Pedersen, a Lutheran minister, was only 17 when he was drafted to serve in the US. Army in the Pacific during World War II. He was a member of the honor guard that served at the surrender of the Japanese army aboard USS Missouri on September 2, 1945.
“I was standing only 30 feet away from where the table where General Douglas MacArthur and officials of the allies and Japanese government met,” said Pederson. “McCarthur said to the crowd, ‘We preserve in peace what we won in war.’”
“Out of my experience that day, I made my committment to work for peace – and decided that the best way to do that was as a pastor,” he said. “As a member of Veterans for Peace, I am working for our veterans to be treated honorably when they come home from war – and for the government to make a real committment to slow down the war and violence business.”
He emphasized that the Occupy Wall Street movement has arisen because most Americans sense that the problems of American life result from inequality and disparities in income. “War doesn’t solve this problem – it at best postpones dealing with it,” he stated. “I am convinced that war is no way to peace. Gandhi, Cesar Chavez and Jesus were all right that the ends does not justify the means.”
Cres Vellucci, Vietnam veteran and spokesman for Occupy Sacramento, emphasized that the first two people arrested at Occupy Sacramento were veterans – one from the Iraq War and the other from Vietnam.
Vellucci noted that the continuing arrests – now 84 – at Cesar Chavez Park for petty curfew violations is an affront to every American, especially those who have risked their lives to defend the same rights.
“What we’re seeing now is wars by the U.S. government for the 1 percent,” said Vellucci, “not for the 99 percent. At the same time, City has really declared war on the people in Occupy Sacramento, including veterans.”
Vellucci said that the protesters were originally arrested for “unlawful assembly.” However, District Attorney Jan Scully, stating that “no crime had been committed,” refused to prosecute the protesters for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Then, in an Orwellian move condemned by civil rights lawyers, the City of Sacramento decided to prosecute the protesters on new charges – remaining in the park after curfew and loitering.
“We believe the First Amendment does not end at 11 pm or midnight, but continues all day long,” said Vellucci.
Meanwhile, the people of Sacramento, in a time of severe economic crisis, are paying the price of the City’s repression of protesters’ First Amendment rights. Vellucci estimated that the City has spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to date to arrest and prosecute protesters.
John Reiger, US Army veteran, offered the services of the Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Chapter, to mediate between Occupy Sacramento and the City to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to both parties to allow the protest to continue without the regular arrests.
The veterans also addressed the attacks on veteran Scott Olson in Oakland and other veterans across the state at Occupy demonstrations throughout the country.
In addition to holding the press conference, Occupy Sacramento marched with Veterans for Peace at the official Sacramento Veterans Day Parade that morning. At 1:30 p.m. veterans joined Occupy Sacramento at the park for a reception. After the reception, the veterans and Occupy held an anti-war protest.
For more information about upcoming events or other information at Occupy Sacramento’s peaceful rallies, visit http://www.occupysacto.org.
danbacher Photo of the Sacramento River below Freeport by Dan Bacher. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers wants to “clear cut” California levees.
640_img_2561.jpg
In a move applauded by conservationists, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) on November 9 began the process to join federal litigation by three environmental groups challenging the controversial removal of vegetation on levees by the federal government.
The case, Friends of the River, et. al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et. al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. “It challenges the Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) adoption of a national policy that requires removing virtually all trees and shrubs on federal levees,” according to a DFG news release.
“DFG, along with many other local, state and federal agencies, has been in discussion with the Corps about this policy for several years,” said DFG Director Charlton H. Bonham. “It’s unfortunate that the discussions haven’t led to a more agreeable outcome, but if adhered to, the policy will do incredible damage to California’s remaining riparian and adjacent riverine ecosystem, especially in the Central Valley.”
Bonham said “roundtable discussions” on the vegetation removal policy have included the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Central Valley Flood Protection Board, National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. DWR and DFG have repeatedly expressed concerns about the policy in letters to the Corps. Farmers and other water users have also questioned the policy.
DFG seeks to join Friends of the River, Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity in their case against the Corps’ “clear cutting” of levees along the Sacramento, San Joaquin and other Central Valley rivers.
“I’m very happy that the DFG, the state agency responsible for preserving habitat and vegetation essential to fish and wildlife, is seeking to join our lawsuit,” said Bob Wright, senior counsel at Friends of the River. “As a Californian, I’m very proud that the state of California has joined our effort to protect the scenic beauty and fish and wildlife habitat of our state.”
Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity explained the reason for the lawsuit. “The Corps adopted a new standard requiring removal of all vegetation from levees without environmental review, consideration of regional differences or scientific support,” Miller stated. “Not only is there little proof trees or well-managed vegetation threaten levees in California, the Corps’ own research shows trees stabilize and strengthen levees. The Corps must incorporate ongoing scientific research before proceeding.
My late father, Alfred, who worked for decades as a civil engineer for CalTrans, used to complain to me about the stupidity of past efforts by the US Army Corps of Engineers to remove trees from levees along the Sacramento River and Delta waterways.
Not only was this unsightly and bad for fish and wildlife, but he told me, as we were driving around the California Delta to fish for catfish and stripers, how removing the trees actually weakened the levees! He passed away in 2005, but if he was still alive, he would be very happy to hear that the state of California had joined a lawsuit to stop yet another hare-brained scheme by the Corps to remove trees from levees.
The Central Valley is home to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Flood Management System that includes approximately 1,600 miles of federal project levees along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and tributaries. This policy would require removing most of the remaining five percent of riparian forest there, according to the DFG.
Riparian habitat is essential for several endangered species including Sacramento River winter and spring run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, riparian brush rabbit, Western yellow-billed cuckoo and Swainson’s hawk. The riparian habitat also provides scenic beauty and recreational enjoyment for fishermen, birders, kayakers, recreational boaters, runners, cyclists, hikers and others.
“The policy adopted by the Corps fails to comply with either the National Environmental Policy Act or the federal Endangered Species Act,” the DFG stated.
“Historically, the Corps has allowed and even encouraged the planting of trees and other vegetation on California levees. They have even collaborated with state and federal agencies in developing levee design approaches intended to benefit federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered species. The new policy directly conflicts with their past actions,” the DFG noted.
The Corps couldn’t be pushing the policy at a worse time for Central Valley salmon populations. The Sacramento fall river chinook salmon population is just this year recovering from the unprecedented collapse of 2008 and 2009, while the ESA-listed winter and spring run salmon populations continue to decline. All three runs need riparian habitat to thrive in before migrating down to the ocean.
Not only is the policy environmentally destructive, but it is enormously expensive at a time when the state is in its biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. DFG and DWR estimate that complying with the Corps’ policy could cost up to $7.5 billion and divert funds away from more significant levee deficiencies like seepage and erosion.
The DFG’s joining with environmental groups to protect fish and wildlife on levees is admirable. While this is a promising move by the Department, I hope that the DFG leadership will develop the back bone to oppose the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (Plan) to build the peripheral canal and to speak up against the horrific slaughter of Sacramento splittail, striped bass, Central Valley salmon and dozens of other fish species in the state and federal pumps. This year saw an unprecedented 9,000,000 Sacramento splittail “salvaged” in the Delta pumps – and the highest level of export pumping ever recorded.
I also urge the DFG to join the lawsuit that fishing and conservation groups filed on November 9 to make the federal government do its job of protecting California’s water supply and fish populations. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Friends of the River and the Crab Boat Owners Association filed suit in federal court under the Clean Water Act to stop the continuing unlawful discharges of agricultural wastewater into the San Joaquin River and San Francisco Bay-Delta.
danbacher Photo of Bill Jennings, executive director/chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), speaking before a crowd of over 350 people as DFG biologists Stafford Lehr (middle) and Marty Gingras (right) listen.
by Dan Bacher
It is rare that a group of anglers find consensus on any issue. It can be said that if you have 10 anglers in a room, you will find 20 opinions.
However, over 350 anglers and members of the public who showed up at the Department of Fish and Game “public workshop” in Rio Vista on the night of Tuesday, November 8 made it very clear – they unanimously oppose the new regulations to dramatically increase size and bag limits for striped bass in California.
The proposal would raise the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish, raise the possession limit from two to 12 fish, lower the minimum size from 18 to 12 inches and establish a striper “hot spot” in the South Delta where anglers can possess up to 40 fish.
The proposal is the result of a court settlement of a lawsuit between the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, an agribusiness “Astroturf” group representing San Joaquin Valley corporate growers. This group is housed in Stewart Resnick’s headquarters for Paramount Farms in Kern County. Resnick is the politically connected Beverly Hills billionaire and largest tree fruit grower in the world who has made tens of millions of dollars annually from buying and reselling water back to the state for a big profit.
Stafford Lehr, chief of the DFG Fisheries Branch, and Marty Gingras, supervising fisheries biologist, gave a power point presentation explaining the proposed regulations, their rationale and the time table for their proposed adoption, including a series of public meetings. “This is part of a settlement that mandates us to create a proposal for striped bass regulations,” said Lehr.
He said that the Fish And Game Commission in 1996 adopted a policy goal of increasing the striper population in the Bay-Delta estuary to 3 million adults. As a result of ESA concerns and the settlement, the agency has to now balance striped bass management with the need to preserve listed species. “The data indicates that the existing striped bass population won’t collapse with these regulations,” he noted.
While the charts displayed in the presentation showed what striped bass ate back in 1967, the DFG disclosed no new data documenting alleged striped bass “predation” of Delta smelt and ESA listed salmon.
“The reason why we don’t find Delta smelt in the guts of the striped bass that we examine is because the smelt are so rare now,” said Gingras. “There are an estimated 600,000 striped bass in the system and miniscule numbers of smelt. Plus the striped bass digest their food fast.”
Anglers urge DFG to focus on curbing water exports
After the biologists made their presentation, Bob Boucke, owner of Johnson’s Bait and Tackle in Yuba City, was the first one to speak in opposition to the proposal. He urged the DFG, rather than trying to eradicate stripers, to instead focus on the real problem – stopping the massive carnage of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and striped bass themselves that takes place in the Delta export pumping facilities.
“The stripers have been here 130 years and they have gotten along with the Delta smelt and the salmon all of that time until they started pumping all this water down there,” said Boucke. “That’s when the whole problem started. And yet Fish and Game doesn’t want to do anything about the water problem, but they want to ruin our striper fishing. There is nothing wrong with the stripers the way they are.”
“If you do this, you will run every bait and tackle store out of business from Chico to san Francisco,” explained Boucke.
One speaker after another echoed Boucke’s message that the state and federal pumps that have exported record amounts of Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California are the key factor behind the declines of salmon, smelt and other fish – not striped bass “predation.
I asked Lehr and Gingras for their reaction to the statement by renowned fishery scientists Dr. Peter B. Moyle and Dr. William A. Bennett, Center for Watershed Sciences, that decreasing the population of striped bass could possibly have a negative impact upon salmon and smelt by changing “basic ecosystem processes.”
According to a letter by Moyle and Bennett to the Fish and Game Commission on August 26, 2010, “Reducing the striped bass population may or may not have a desirable effect (http://calsport.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Moyle-and-Bennett-to-CFGC-20100826.pdf). In our opinion, it is most likely to have a negative effect. While the ultimate cause of death of most fish may be predation, the contribution of striped bass to fish declines is not certain. By messing with a dominant predator(if indeed it is), the agencies are inadvertently playing roulette with basic ecosystem processes that can change in unexpected ways in response to reducing striped bass numbers.”
Lehr responded to me, “That’s a good question.” He admitted that the impact of reducing striped bass’s impact was uncertain – and that basic ecosystem principles dictate that something will fill the niche of a fish like the striped bass in the food chain as their numbers decline.
No evidence for stripers causing salmon and Delta smelt decline
Jay Sorenson, founder of the California Striped Bass Association, exposed the absurdity of blaming stripers for salmon and smelt declines when the massive Delta pumps, not striped bass predation, are the key reason for the collapse of listed fish species.
“In 67 years of fishing, I’ve caught and released thousands of stripers and I’ve also kept many stripers to eat,” said Sorenson. “However, I’ve only found one salmon in the stomach cavity of a striper among all of the fish that I’ve cleaned.”
“I hope that we will see the stripers around for future generations so that young people will enjoy what I have experienced on the Delta,” he concluded.
Roger Mammon, Restore the Delta Board Member, said, “If you’re so concerned about the Delta smelt and salmon, why doesn’t the state quit exporting so much water out of the Delta?”
Lehr responded, “There is no way I can answer that question here, but I will bring it to the attention of Charles Bonhan, DFG Director, tomorrow.”
It’s time to take our government back from the water contractors
Dawn Gulick, owner of Eddo’s Harbor, echoing the theme of the Occupy Wall Street protests taking place throughout the country, said Stewart Resnick and the big water contractors were waging “class war” against the people of the Delta.
“This is a class war and they’re winning,” she stated, followed by a person next to her shouting, “Occupy the Delta!” Others joined in shouting, “Occupy the Delta.”
“It’s our Delta. Big Money has big influence over our government and it’s time to take our government back!” she continued as people in the crowd applauded.
The proposal was released at a time when the Obama and Brown administrations, in spite of massive opposition, are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build a peripheral canal or tunnel to export more Delta water to corporate agribusiness and southern California. The peripheral canal, a controversial plan to divert water from the Sacramento River in the North Delta rather from the existing pumps in the South Delta, came up during the workshop when Gingras responded to a question why state-of-the art fish screens hadn’t been installed at the Delta pumps, as mandated under the CalFed Record of Decision.
Neither Gingras or Lehr were able to answer this question. However, Gingras, appearing to endorse the concept of the peripheral canal, claimed, “If we take water out of the Sacramento River, we won’t have to continue the trap and truck system of salvaging fish and we won’t have the same problems with the fish screens we have now.”
“I don’t want to deal with the peripheral canal at this workshop,” Lehr noted.
Delta pumps create ‘dining halls’
Bill Jennings, executive director/chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), explained how CSPA, the Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers (NCCFFF) and the California Striped Bass Association (CSBA), as well as Delta water agencies, intervened in the lawsuit in support of DFG, but DFG caved and cut a deal. CSPA, NCCFFF, CSBA and the Delta agencies opposed and refused to sign the settlement agreement
“CSPA was looking forward to trial because the evidence in the record did not support the conclusion that striped bass predation caused population level effects on salmon and smelt,” said Jennings. “We felt that the predation that does occur would be pinned on the state and federal project facilities on the Delta.”
“These pumps create dining halls that invite the fish in,” said Jennings. “Now the state wants to execute the fish for entering the dining halls they created!”
Jennings emphasized that if the Fish and Game Commission refuses to adopt the striped bass proposal, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta must drop the lawsuit.
Sep Hendrickson, host of the California Sportsman Radio Show, urged everybody in the room to deluge the Fish and Game Commission with letters opposing the striped bass proposal. “If you don’t all stand up now against this proposal, the water contractors will roll over us!”
Cal Kellogg, Fish Sniffer Magazine Editor, shot this video covering the DFG meeting. Please watch this video and join the two organizations, the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (http://www.calsport.org) and California Striped Bass Asssociation (http://www.striper-csba.com), listed at the end!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcwfUHHtr0A&feature=sharewww.youtube.com
Urgent Action Alert!
Send letters opposing the DFG’s striped bass proposal to:
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Phone: (916) 653-4899
Fax Number: (916) 653-5040
E-Mail to Submit Comments on Proposed Regulations: fgc [at] fgc.ca.gov.
For more information about upcoming Fish and Game Commission meetings, go to: http://www.fgc.ca.gov.
DFG Striped Bass Proposal
The basic proposed changes are as follows:
Raising the daily bag limit for striped bass from two to six fish.
Raising the possession limit for striped bass from two to 12 fish.
Lowering the minimum size for striped bass from 18 to 12 inches.
Establishing a “hot spot” for striped bass fishing at Clifton Court Forebay and specified adjacent waterways at which the daily bag limit will be 20 fish, the possession limit will be 40 fish and there will be no size limit. Anglers fishing at the hot spot would be required to fill out a report card and deposit it in an iron ranger or similar receptacle.
Changes to the sport fishing regulations for the Carmel, Pajaro and Salinas Rivers to allow harvest of striped bass when the fishery would otherwise be closed.
DFG is also recommending an adaptive management plan that will help assess how the new regulations influence the fishery.
The proposal and management plan will be presented to the Fish and Game Commission for consideration at its December meeting.
For more information about the DFG’s draft striped bass proposal and upcoming workshops and meeting, go to: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news.
