Plan being assembled to potentially close all rivers in Sacramento/SanJoaquin Delta (California) to Sport Fishing

Friends,

The California Rivers Restoration Fund (CRRF) has just received
confirmation from NOAA Fisheries (the short version for the National
Marine Fisheries Service), of their intentions to propose changing the
listing of Central Valley Steelhead (CVS) under the Endangered Species
Act from Threatened to Endangered. They also intend to list the
critical habitat for steelhead.

From what we have been told, this proposal will be released to the
public for a 30-day public review period in early April. This is
something that we have heard rumors about for some time now and it
appears NOAA is serious and that this proposal will be released. After
the review period, the rule could become final and the effects would
take place in about 18 months.

If this proposed rule becomes law, it will have serious repercussions
for the sport fishing community, local businesses, farmers, irrigation
districts, California DFG, and other stakeholders. First, all river
habitat that is accessible from the ocean will probably be closed to
fishing indefinitely. These waters will include, but are not limited to
the lower Sacramento, American, Feather, Yuba, Battle Creek, Putah
Creek, Calaveras, Mokelumne, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and
Merced rivers and any of their tributaries from the dams, to the Delta.
This will effect every sport fisherman currently who fish these waters
for not only steelhead, but native trout, salmon, stripers, bass,
catfish, and shad. Basically all angling would on these rivers would
become illegal.

The other concern is that an Endangered species listing would greatly
hamper scientific studies and restoration projects needed to enhance and
protect salmon and steelhead and their habitats. The permits for
scientific studies can take years to obtain if they are granted at all,
and restoration projects would undergo a much greater level of scrutiny
which increases their costs. CRRF has been working to start steelhead
studies and restoration projects in the San Joaquin basin and an
Endangered species listing could halt many of our efforts.

We were surprised by this proposed action, because no studies have
been conducted to determine whether the steelhead populations in the
Central Valley are in jeopardy. In fact, NOAA Fisheries is having a
tough time defending the current listing as Threatened, because of the
lack of evidence. We do know that the number of adult steelhead
returning to spawn has greatly increased throughout the Central Valley
in response to the wet climate during the last 9 years. So they don’t
seem to be on the verge of extinction. In fact, the opposite is true.

CRRF is setting up a legal defense fund on behalf of our members and
the sport anglers of California, that will go directly to fighting the
battle necessary to defeat this proposal. This is a real threat to our
way of life and for many of us, our livelihood. This will effect
guides, flyshops, tackle stores, restaurants, lodges, and many other
business, all over the state as well as all anglers that fish these
waters. It is a real problem and if we don't unite together to fight
this now, our beloved Central Valley rivers will be closed to us for a
very long time. The economic impact alone could also seriously add to
the huge problems our state is facing. We feel confident that with the
right legal pressure applied, this proposal will be defeated.

For more information on joining our fight, or to find out more about
this proposed action, contact CRRF at (209) 532-7146. You can also
e-mail us at or by mail at P.O. Box 236 Soulsbyville Ca.
95372. If you have any statements, questions, comments or e-mails you
would like to have entered into the official record once the proposal is
issued, feel free to send them to CRRF and we will make sure they are
included with ours. Please make sure that you act before mid April
2004, when comments will be due.

You may also direct any questions you may have for NOAA Fisheries to
Madelyn Martinez (The San Joaquin Basin Biologist) at (916) 930-3605 or
by e-mail at .

There are many battles to fight, but this one is worthy of all of our
support.

"Larry" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. com...
SNIP

There are many battles to fight, but this one is worthy of all of our
support.


Well, that rather depends, on whether you want to save the fish, or you want
to save the fishing.

TL
MC

Larry wrote:
Friends,

The California Rivers Restoration Fund (CRRF) has just received
confirmation from NOAA Fisheries (the short version for the National
Marine Fisheries Service), of their intentions to propose changing the
listing of Central Valley Steelhead (CVS) under the Endangered Species
Act from Threatened to Endangered. They also intend to list the
critical habitat for steelhead.
... First, all river
habitat that is accessible from the ocean will probably be closed to
fishing indefinitely. These waters will include, but are not limited to
the lower Sacramento, American, Feather, Yuba, Battle Creek, Putah
Creek, Calaveras, Mokelumne, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and
Merced rivers and any of their tributaries from the dams, to the Delta.
This will effect every sport fisherman currently who fish these waters
for not only steelhead, but native trout, salmon, stripers, bass,
catfish, and shad. Basically all angling would on these rivers would
become illegal.

...

I have never heard of CRRF. However googling shows that it does exist
and souns like a credible organiztation. However there is nothing about
this on their web site http://www.calriversfund.org What do FFF
(Federation of Fly Fishers), CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, CSPA (Calif.
Sportfishing Protection Alliance), all organizations deeply involved in
the preservation of steelhead have to say about this? Nothing that I am
aware of. This posting has a strong smell of a troll.

Mike

Mike McGuire wrote in news:ZLA%b.10144$yZ1.5306
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

This posting has a strong smell of a troll.

Mike


Larry, isn't in the habit of trolling Mike.

Steve

I happen to live within a few miles of one of the mentioned rivers, but I
haven't heard anything about this before reading this thread


Larry L ( A different Larry .... :-)

Stephen Welsh wrote:

Mike McGuire wrote in news:ZLA%b.10144$yZ1.5306
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

This posting has a strong smell of a troll.

Mike



Larry, isn't in the habit of trolling Mike.

Steve

On investigation I found the same message had appeared on a couple of
local fishing boards. Responses make it pretty clear that this was a
pretty hyperventilated posting--see for example
http://www.danblanton.com/bulletin.html for some clearheaded answers.

Mike

mmcgr wrote in news:JhU%b.11288$yZ1.3081
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Responses make it pretty clear that this was a
pretty hyperventilated posting

Thats doesn't make it a troll, Mike.

Quite honestly looking at the post again,
all the replies at the URL ... it didn't
seem all that hyperventialted to me:
YMM(and obviously does)V of course.


Steve

Stephen Welsh wrote:
mmcgr wrote in news:JhU%b.11288$yZ1.3081
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


Responses make it pretty clear that this was a
pretty hyperventilated posting


Thats doesn't make it a troll, Mike.

Quite honestly looking at the post again,
all the replies at the URL ... it didn't
seem all that hyperventialted to me:
YMM(and obviously does)V of course.


Steve

Well consider the following response from Dennis McEwan of the
California Department of Fish and Game

Not only does the message misstate the facts, it seems to completely
disregard that fact that the fish is already listed under the ESA as
threatened. In fact, threatened species can have the same
protections under the ESA as endangered species. So if the feds were
to impose the draconian protections for steelhead stated in the
message, they could have done so when the fish was listed as
threatened in 1997. All of the dire consequences that Walser
predicts had the potential to become reality in 1997, but we know
that they didn't.

With the downgrade to an endangered listing, we will lose some
flexibility that was afforded by the 4d Rule (but, as we've seen, the
4d Rule has not proven to be all that flexible and expedient as we
had hoped). There are mechanisms within the ESA that allow fisheries
to continue in waters inhabited by endangered species and there are
areas where we still have fisheries in such such areas (e.g. upper
Sac; some southern California coastal streams, the ocean).
Researchers and restorationists have had to obtain incidental take
permits since the fish was listed as threatened, so a downgraded
listing will have no additional effect on research, monitoring, or
restoration actions.

Contrary to what Walser states, both our agency and the feds have
investigated the status of Central Valley steelhead thoroughly.
Although there is not a plethora of data or infomation, the information
that is available indicates a very real decline. In fact, the NMFS'
Biological Review Team in their status review in the mid-nineties
found that Central Valley steelhead were indeed 'endangered' and
this was again their finding in their draft status review update.
The reason the fish was listed as 'threatened' was not because the
biological evidence was in dispute, but because there were ongoing
conservation measures in place (specifically, Calfed and the CVPIA),
and the ESA allows this information to be considered when a final
decision is rendered.

This message is reminiscent of the kind of rhetoric that you see coming
from the ESA-hating 'wise use' movement, in which none of the
'the-world-is-ending' predictions have ever come true. Whether you
support the downgraded listing or even the current listing is one of
personal choice, but I think we should all support responsible and
informative discouse on the subject. Walser's message is neither.

Feel free to forward this message.

Dennis


Mike

Mike McGuire wrote in news:ZOd0c.12198$yZ1.2078
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Mike

Yeah, whatever ...


Steve