facebook twitter you tube



Carefully Disguised Stripers

The simple logic of this is to reduce the number of striped bass available to eat salmon and smelt, therefore leaving more endanged species alive at the end of the day.

Feb 10, 2012


Families Protecting The Valley Newsletter

FEBRUARY 10 2012


» WaterRates
» SB250
Donate to Families Protected the Valley
Visit Our Web Site

Visit Our Web Site

Board of Directors

Denis Prosperi
Chester Andrew
Bob Smittcamp
Russ Waymire
John "Dusty" Giacone
Joe Marchini
Mark Watte
Kole Upton
Piedad Ayala
Tom Barcellos
Jim Walls

Carefully Disguised Stripers

Pat Kittle owns an outdoors sports shop and could have seen an uptick in business with increased limits on striped bass(story below). But, Kittle could see through the ruse of increased limits and figured it was more about water than fish. Here was a fisherman who agreed with the proposal, thought it would be good for him, but changed his mind when he found out who proposed the changes.

Kittle figured out it was more about water than fish! Duh! It was always about the water. There was no deception or disguise. Water is being cut off to farmers because salmon and smelt are endangered species. Striped bass eat salmon and smelt. The Coaliton for a Sustainable Delta sued the Department of Fish and Game to get them to increase their 2-fish limit to 6. The simple logic of this is to reduce the number of striped bass available to eat salmon and smelt, therefore leaving more endanged species alive at the end of the day. This would allow more water to be pumped south. No deception. No disguise.

Kittle went on to say "we all know water is the issue, and when you look back at the Owens Valley and all the tricks that were used then are coming back right before out eyes." The only ones being tricked about all this are the Kittles of the world who have been made to believe by environmental groups that it's all just a big 'Chinatown' movie and any time a farmer fights for his right to water Jack Nicholson must be lurking in the shadows. Environmental groups have made a living by turning everyone against each other.

This effort to increase limits on striped bass wasn't carried out in the backstreets of Los Angeles. It was in a court of law involving a group of concerned citizens against a large government agency. And it was well-covered by major media all over the state in plain sight.


Fishing proposal voted down


North State officials are warning about the dangers of a proposed San Joaquin Delta restoration plan, and a Colusa outdoors shop owner believes an attempt to change striped bass fishing regulations was a carefully disguised attempt to get more water, too.

The state Fish & Game Commission last week voted down a proposal that would have allowed fishermen to catch three time more stripers each outing, and reduced the size of keepers from 18 inches to 12.

Pat Kittle, owner of Kittle's Outdoor & Sports, said had the regulations changed, his business would have benefited.

"In the short term, business would boon," Kittle said. "I would have made money."

However, like most of the sport fishermen who attended the Commission meeting, he opposed the changes because of the negative, long-term impact on the bass population.

But that was the idea.

The proposal was introduced by the stated Department of Fish and Game as part of a settlement agreement resulting from a 2008 lawsuit.

The state agreed, as part of the settlement, to introduce the new regul tions. The outcome was not tied to the settlement, a department spokeswoman said.

In that lawsuit, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, a group of mostly San Joaquin water districts, claimed the non-native striped bass are harming native species, including endangered salmon and Delta smelt.

"There is growing scientific consensus that predation is as a major source of salmon and Delta smelt mortality, but state regulators have repeatedly failed to address the problem of striped bass predation on these species," the Coalition states on its website.

"Striped bass are an invasive species that were planted in California as a sportfish. The Department of Fish and Game has long been protecting the voracious predators at the expense of salmon, Delta and longfin smelt, and other endangered species through the imposition of size (18 inches minimum) and bag (2 per day) limits."

The regulations would have set the daily limit at six fish instead of two, and in some areas, such as the Clifton Court Forebay, 20 per day.

The Commission unanimously voted the proposal down.

Kittle said he attended the meeting because of his concern over the potential impact on striper fishery, but left believing the issue was more about water than fish.

His opinion changed when he realized it was large Central Valley water districts and other San Joaquin users who were behind the proposal.

"We all know water is the issue, and when you look back at the Owens Valley and all the tricks that were used then are coming back right before out eyes," Kittle said.

It is a similar concern Glenn County Supervisor Leigh McDaniel has about the Delta Stewardship Council plan, which he said would drain North State reservoirs and possibly even threaten groundwater supplies.

McDaniel said allowing flows of 75 percent or higher out of the Sacramento Valley, as proposed by the council, would essentially eliminate most water storage in this region, and said the concept of allowing natural flows in the Delta is an "extremely narrow vision."

He convinced the county to send a letter expressing the kind of negative impacts the plan would have on the North State water supply.

McDaniel said comments and concerns expressed by North State counties and water interests seem to have been ignored during the environmental impact process, and that the Stewardship Council seems "hard bent on going forward with the EIR on its (plan)."

The supervisors concluded that the plan does not consider the effect on areas upstream of the Delta and "the role these upstream environments play for a healthy and economically viable California."

The supervisors also said the "aggressive timeline" for implementing the plan by June 20, 2014, and June 2018, can only result in "additional depletion of regional groundwater resources and significantly reduce storage in the Shasta and Oroville reservoirs — in addition to causing negative economic and social impacts to the rural communities of the Northern Sacramento Valley."

Calls to the Stewardship Council were not returned.

If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends. If you're a member of an organization please feel free to send it to everyone on your list. If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here. If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john@familiesprotectingthevalley.com


Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.