Re: Science

[Bulletin Board]

Posted by Dave Sellers on 2011-11-02 11:36:36 in reply to Science posted by Marty Gingras on 2011-11-02 08:33:07


I beg to differ, those are not pertinent. You are not offering anything resembling a cohesive assemblage of science proving a population level effect of striped bass predation on native endangered species. It IS incumbent upon the DFG to formulate at least a reasonable rhetorical argument if the agency is going to initiate a drastic reg change.

The Stevens quote, which is taken out of context, is seemingly the most intriguing bit of rhetoric in your post here but what you don't mention is that the "study area" that Stevens refers to is just down stream from a hatchery fish release area. Also, the Nobriega and Loboschefsky quotes are also at least as damning of the delta infrastructure as they are of striped bass........and to that end, let me ask you Marty, how are you going to get rid of striped bass congregating at the same areas if your policy actually does drastically reduce striped bass numbers by half, or two thirds? You know as well as I do that they'll still be plenty of stripers at the man made "pinch points". But let's fantasize further. Marty snaps his fingers and all black bass and stripers are gone......tomorrow. So now what? Do we leave the infrastructure the same (as DFG and the feds have always done via inaction) so that the native pike minnow can achieve hyper abundance at these same areas and fill the vacuum? I suspect in this fantastic scenario, that would take about two years. So then are you going to initiate a bounty on pike minnow? Seriously, what is your long range thinking on any of this? You are begging for the most nightmarish CEQA process perhaps in the history of any reg change request. Is this really how you want to spend the next several years of your life? Talk about chasing your tail! Or to paraphrase Judge Wanger, Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

Let's face it. The DFG has done little more than document the decline of several species which are now endangered and now it wants to start cannibalizing other valuable fisheries under it's watch with utterly no long range plan or goal and with no science speaking to the benefit of any of it. It's madness.

My suggestion to anyone at the department is to get back to what brought you into this field. Focus on how you manage the habitat to achieve abundance of all valued species (history proves it can be done) in the delta and then do it! Just one example, the Cal Fed record of decision called for "state of the art screens" at the pumping facilities and all the agencies in charge of our fisheries, state (dfg) and federal, let the water interests skate. Is it really wrong for members of the public to expect a better performance from public trust agencies? Granted, I suppose screaming loud enough could cost you your job, but the hell kind of job is it if you more often than not little more than a marionette to monied interests working at cross purposes to the very reason you chose this career. And if just doing the best you can is your career goal, as you count off the days to retirement, then at least DO NO HARM to the hard work and effort put into the abundance goals set by standards laid out in the CVPIA.

O.K., enough. This is giving me a major headache. This nonsense is bad for the soul. It's a gorgeous day and I'm headed out to enjoy it.........


Follow ups:

  • Re: Science - Marty Gingras - 2011-11-02 11:52:54 (3 replies) (528 views)
    • Re: Science - Dave Sellers - 2011-11-02 12:01:56 (2 replies) (546 views)
      • Re: Science - Max Garth - 2011-11-02 12:31:31 (1 replies) (507 views)
        • Re: key facts - Stan P - 2011-11-03 12:17:40 (0 replies) (426 views)

Post a Followup:


Use the space below to compose your message: