Re: Public Invited to Discuss Proposed Regulation Changes for Striped Bass
Posted by Stan P on 2011-11-01 11:28:18
in reply to Re: Public Invited to Discuss Proposed Regulation Changes for Striped Bass posted by Marty Gingras on 2011-11-01 09:56:47
When you say the agencies do not feel that the decline in listed species is entirely due to stripers I believe you. However the issue of a striped bass management plan or better said a lack of one, for the last few years places striped bass in the category of "guilty until proven innocent". It puts the proponents of striped bass in the hopeless position of having to prove a negative to gain sport fish status and a reasonable management plan for the health of striped bass populations. I have not read a the report however I suspect it cites all of the "potential" negative aspects of stripers as an invasive species-- without--elaborating on the positives. I mention this line of thought to point out that I believe science is the only method that can be used to both define and address this "perceived" problem. For me this is an issue in which an answer has already been crafted and is now looking for a problem that justifies the answer. Habitat destruction for listed species is THE cause of declines. Science has clearly proven this to be the case. I believe that if we are all honest with ourselves we will acknowledge that stripers have become a political foot ball and so have been turned into red herrings. The focus of the meeting should not be about stripers it should be about habitat restoration for endangered species. If I was propose a solution to the problem I would suggest DFG begin managing all of California fisheries to be as fecund as they once were. The income from licenses etc. would then be leveraged to restore habitat and promote healthy listed species fisheries. DFG has a bully pulpit and it should use it to take care of and protect our fisheries from ANYONE inclined to damage them. That is the mandate for DFG. The present and acute issues surrounding the declines in listed species prove DFG has neglected to fulfill its mandate. DFG has clearly failed and is now barking up the wrong tree which does not help prospective funding of a failed agency or our fisheries. It seems simple self preservation for those at the agency should be reason enough for them to begin doing the job they are mandated to perform. Don't get me wrong I support the DFG and their mandate. However DFG has done poor job of removing themselves from politics and the result is the fisheries are suffering. To be fair I know you and most of the individuals at DFG want the fisheries to be restored. To that end just about everyone on this board is willing to help DFG do that, provided DFG starts working on the right problem rather than fill the bait well with red herring.
Post a Followup: