Protect my fishing hole!

[Natural Lefty]

AsianGuy, and RTG too, thanks for setting some of these dittoheads straight and educating us. I learned something as well.

AsianGuy, it seems that you may be working in the same field as my brother who lives at Tahoe. He works for the State Water Quality Control Board, so he is a water quality specialist. I think he could give us a similar answer to yours.

Regarding people enriching themselves, try taking a look at a list of the richest people in California, etc. I doubt any of them work for the government, and I am sure that absolutely zero of them are union members.

Actually, I do think it will be a bummer if private fishing places also have to make people buy licenses and pay more fees, though. It's just that there are 2 sides to the story, especially if they are using our resources and polluting them.

[TheAsianGuy]

I value hatcheries and private fish farms and the effort they undergo to maintain the fish population throughout the nation. Without them, we wouldn't have the luxury to fish like we are doing now. However, there are always rotten apples that crave for the major green cash flow, and illegally do things without thinking ahead, and got caught. Because of them, state and federal regulations burden the ones that played by the rules. I would be glad to pay the extra fees to fish at the places that do the right things, rather than supporting the ones that do not, even if it's cheaper. Supporting rotten apples will merely encourage them to do more rotten things, which ultimately cost everyone more in the long run. I saw both faces of the coins, and heard way too many stories from both sides. When everyone simply put down their defensive nature, sit back, put on the listening ears and observe closely for the hidden agendas, we will hear and see things with extremely clarity..at that point, it's up to us to say, "Screw the regs..let's enjoy now and let others deal with it!" or "Hm..time to get wise.." My kids love to fish, and I'm teaching them to properly fish, as well as to preserve the environment for their future generations. That's why I work in tandem with the enforcement agencies, as well as avid anglers to come up with the solutions. A military person I know always use the phrase, "Be one with the solution and not the problem." I wholehearted support that. So, look at your tackle boxes. Baits you use are a problem or solution? What about the places you're supporting? Solution or problem? Like I said, give me a few days of your time, and I'll make anyone a believer of the crap we're facing daily without knowing the full hellish scenery in store for us.

[klymons]

You nailed it on the head with the "flowing in and out" part. If any of the fish farm just have a hole in the ground, without any water leaving site (example would be recycling of water usages), then the regulations would not have any teeth. Unfortunately, the fish farms are tapping into the water of the U.S., and discharge the water with or without proper monitoring. So...Dept of Fish and Game got strict on these farms. It's understandable, since what the farms release will harm the downstream waters, ecologically, and health wise. I hate getting hammered with big fees and fines too, but we need to clean our craps up and not leave our craps to be dealt with by others downstream from us, or rather, leave it for the next generations to take care of our messes.

By the way, I'm not a tree huger I'm a scientist that knows more than 95% of the people about water quality and environmental impacts due to urbanization. If you have a few days to spare, I may turn your average thinking to a tree huger's mindset Scary thought isn't it?

It's funny how empirical evidence kicks knee jerk slogans to the curb every time!

[Save Our State]

I dont think its just Jerry Brown. Its also the other brown nose people in office. Calif is in big trouble right now. We spend all this money for a fishing lic and it seams that these lakes dont get stocked any more. Whats up with that. Its B.S.

It could have something to do with article 1, sec. 25 of the constitution, and certain court decisions that have come from that. The courts have held that the waters of the california aqueduct are not intentionally stocked by the state, and thus one more reason why your right to fish there doesn't apply. So it could follow that streams no longer being stocked by the state might also lose their status as right to fish areas if other factors do not support that status