Not sure where you read my mention of any "hydrological connectivity" requirement (which in the current regulations can be found in CA DFG code 7145.b.1) or a lack thereof, yet still it turns out backyard ponds commonly are not completely isolated and are connected to state water through fluvial input/output (permanent or ephemeral), groundwater (one of the most important sources of "state water" and unless you have an engineered geotechnical barrier in your pond, your pond contributes to groundwater which contributes to state streams, lakes, reservoirs, etc.), etc. and thus, with this NEW piece of legislation (not in the DFG code yet) that for the first time will require fishing licenses on privately owned lakes and ponds, who knows where that line will be drawn.
But appears that the defining line already has been drawn and there is NO hydrological connectivity requirement in this new piece of brilliance which is written to include ALL "waters of the state". What does "waters of the state" mean? Well let's look at the DFG code! As per DFG code
89.1 a water of the state is defined as "'waters of this state,' and 'state waters' have the same meaning as 'waters of the state' as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13050 of the Water Code." which defines "waters of the state" as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." (Water Code
13050). Zero hydrological connectivity requirement.
But in reality, there are probably very few people on this forum that actually own a pond and thus my description of the process was a bit facetious and was done to point out that this is an entirely invasive and very poorly defined pursuit performed by a very corrupt group in the CFBD that has already costed you, me and every other tax payer thousands of dollars. Fishermen and a state already on the brink of financial collapse cannot afford to entertain the desires of a sue-happy organization like the CFBD. Let them win and think they will stop there?? How about their rampant attempts to put every species they can name on an endangered species list...
Wildlife at Risk Face Long Line at U.S. Agency
...seems that "native" fish would fit very nicely on that list! I can see it already..."Streams closed to fishing as DFG faces lawsuit from CFBD over newly protected species of fish." It has a certain ring to it...
Whether or not you like fishing at the pay lakes is entirely your call, but if you are fishing freshwater in southern California, your experience is greatly improved by a century old fish stocking program that has yet to a documented negative impact on surrounding ecosystems. The fishing at BBL, DVL, Perris, Skinner, etc etc are as great of places as they are because they ALL plant fish, both the DFG as well as private hatcheries. This goes through and you will see a fundamental shift for the worse in the quality of fishing at those places just as you will see at the private pay lakes. Still don't care? How about a major blow to fishing as a big contributor to our economy in a state in constant budget crisis?? Still don't care??? Ok, go fishing. Because that's what I'm about to do...
Originally Posted by RTG
Reply With Quote
A mad scientist..yes..lunatic..may getting there sooner or later. However, RTG pointed out correctly that there are group, we called them NGOs (non-governmental organizations) caused problem for everyone by performing frivolous lawsuits that don't go anywhere, and lined their pockets with blood money and bribes. I'll support Inland Coastkeeper, as well as the main HQ Coastkeepers. Okay, toss in the NRDC too. But that's pretty much it. Everyone else seem to be bullcraps to me.