Please take a few minutes to read why anyone who has ever cast a line in California should be concerned about what the future will hold for our state.
ISSUES CONCERNING PRIVATE STOCKING AND AQUACULTURE
(Title 14, Section 238.5 of the California Code of Regulations)
- Bio 223 states "There is thus a substantial risk that fish stocking under the private stocking program MAY SUBSTANTIALLY impair populations of these species, affect designated critical habitat for these species." "The risk is POTENTIALLY significant for all species listed above." A logical question is what studies have been conducted over the life of private stocking programs that prove beyond any doubt that the statements made in Bio 223 are based on substantiated fact rather than meaningless POSSIBILITIES?
- Private stocking of ponds under permit and stocking where permits are currently not required have been going on for years. If private stocking has had such an adverse effect on various aquatic invertebrates, amphibians and other species within a particular habitat, the damage has long since been done.
- Bio 236 deals with the POSSIBILITY of introducing pathogens to wild populations of native fish. Since the "Pathogen” problem is a POSSIBILITY, are there any studies of sever adverse affects that have actually occurred? The mitigation for a POSSIBILITY is to require expensive, certified laboratory certifications of disease and parasite free fish inventories, once each year. Aquaculture Facilities are monitoring their own farms, on a daily basis, to eliminate disease and parasites.
- Bio 238 deals with the introduction of invasive species to wild populations of native fish and amphibians through private stocking, Bio 238 makes a significant statement, 'While there is no record of transmitting invasive species from private aquaculture facilities to State waters, the risk would be POTENTIALLY significant." It states, no record of adverse effect exists, yet proposals are made for expensive laboratory and biological testing of Aquaculture Farms. These costs will have a significant financial burden on Aquaculture Facilities that are struggling to exist with the increase in costs of food, labor and a tailing economy.
- Bio 240 deals with the distribution of invasive species by anglers. It states "California Department of Fish and Game 2008, identifies recreational fishing as a primary vector for introduction of aquatic invasive species, noting that initial introduction can occur when bait buckets and live tank contents are clumped, gear used for fishing, boats, nets, floats, anchors, wading boots, tackle, can spread AIS." This is such a narrow sighted view of identifying the PRIMARY cause of the spread of invasive species and totally ignores the major factors beyond anyone's control. For example, Lake Mathews in Southern California is infected with Quagga Mussels, no fishing is allowed in the Lake. No Aquaculture Facility stocks this Lake. Kramer Lake received water from Lake Mathews and had now been identified as having Quagga Mussel. No fishing is allowed in Kramer Lake and the Lake is not stocked with fish, Irvine Lake also receives Mathew's water and is infected. The spread of Quagga Mussel is down the entire Colorado River, with infestations from Lake Mead to Yuma, Arizona. Ten or more San Diego Lakes are infected. The infection of Quagga Mussel started in the Great Lakes and has spread from there, through out the entire United States.THE PROBLEM WITH THE DFG EIR IS THREE FOLD:
- The EIR named every specie of frogs, birds, plants, fish, amphibians & reptiles, most of which are NOT endangered, that could be present at a pond, lake or stream. Because many of these 80 species are wide spread through out the State, it is doubtful any body of water will be free of every single specie.
- The EIR names 35 diseases, that could be at hatcheries, that may have an adverse effect on The frogs, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles and 7 invasive species, such as mussels and aquatic plants. The DFG admits many of these diseases and invasive species are wide spread throughout California and it is doubtful any fish hatchery is free of every single disease and invasive species that could have an effect on the frogs, amphibians, etc.
- When you name a State wide target of 80 species of frogs, birds, plants, fish, amphibians and reptiles, and aim 35 diseases, and 7 invasive species at them, you will undoubtedly hit every pond, lake, stream and hatchery in the State. It is very likely that no hatchery will be able to stock fish. No body of water will be able to get a permit to stock. THIS ENDS FRESH WATER FISHING IN CALIFORNIA!!!