Based on flawed population estimates, California has passed "emergency"
regulations reducing the sturgeon slot limit to 10 inches: 46" to 56":

========
The Associated Press
Published 4:15 pm PST Thursday, March 2, 2006

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) - California wildlife regulators on Thursday
approved emergency restrictions on sturgeon fishing in an effort to
bolster depleted populations of the giant fish.

The state Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to reduce the
maximum size of white sturgeon that can be caught or possessed from 72
inches to 56 inches. The commissioners, meeting in Riverside, also
voted to bar fishermen from taking less frequently fished green
sturgeon.

The new regulations are aimed at increasing the number of mature female
sturgeon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system and expand the
state's sturgeon populations, according to the state Department of Fish
and Game.

The emergency regulations, which would be in place for 120 days, were
expected to take effect within the next two weeks pending approval by
the state Office of Administrative Law, said DFG spokesman Steve
Martarano.

After peaking at about 144,000 in 1998, the number of legal-sized white
sturgeon has fallen to a 50-year low of about 10,000, according to the
latest estimates. State biologists attribute the decline to poor
spawning success, migratory obstacles, poaching and overfishing.
=============

Likely to follow the 120 day "emergency" regs, a continued reduced slot
will remain along with bag limits and "sturgeon tags". This will likely
include additional "fees".

Meanwhile, nothing was done about the real problems of poaching and
reduced water flow. Those items were not even addressed. But by God,
the DFG *did something*!! They know that the lawful fishermen is easily
bullied as they refuse to enforce current regs on poachers. Just last
year DFG stated flatly that the lawful fisherman was not at all the
problem; poaching is the problem:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews...arket2004.html . Also, they
would not consider the fact that their count is flawed in spite of the
fact that fishermen are generally experiencing an "as usual" season.

Next in the sights of environmental do-gooders: Salmon fishing!

And no, my grandkids will likely never get to fish for such grand
species. The do-gooders agenda is much the same as PETA: The best
regulation is NO FISHING. And, unfortunately, regulation by regulation,
closure upon closure, they are winning.

Dale
www.fishwisher.com

FishWisher wrote:

If their data is flawed point out the "acutal" facts.
Merely doing nothing because, in the desires of fishermen, to continue
to fish for a great fish, at the risk of decimating the species is not a
good ideq.

Hey Barney, I thought you died a few days ago. Welcome back.

I am shocked that you would be inclined to take the side of those who
will jump at every opportunity to reduce fishing. Shocked! This may not
apply to you, but there are those who don't actually get their hands
dirty in the outdoors but are the first to reduce its bounty to those
that do. I know the count of the sturgeon is not known. DFG recognizes
that fact, too. I admit that I don't know the count. But DFG pretends
to and then passes new regulations because that is easier to do than
enforcing the regs already on the books.

So now the law abiding fishermen cannot take a fish larger than 56
inches. Many of the larger fish are now reserved for the poacher,
courtesy of the State of California. They will not enforce the regs, so
only the law abiding fishermen will observe the new slot limit. Nothing
new there. The next step is they'll make the reduced slot permanent,
introduce sturgeon tags and punch cards and then add taxes to the mix
and define them as "fees". Same old bureaucratic response.

And then all the do-gooders will go home and proudly proclaim "We saved
the white sturgeon today!" And the poachers will have more fish than
ever while more and more law abiding fishermen get fed up and find
something else to do. And it all plays into the hands of PETA and other
environmental whackos. God bless America.

Dale
www. FishWisher.com

FishWisher wrote:

Hey Barney, I thought you died a few days ago. Welcome back.

He is gone. I really liked his character. I understand he was a great
guy off camera too.
I'm just using the handle for a while. I'm not going to use my real id
anytime on here. The last time I had a lot of spam and junk even though
I have all the bells and whistles.

I salute you Don Knotts!
You provided us with a lot of good clean entertainment. God Speed

Barney Fife wrote:
FishWisher wrote:

Hey Barney, I thought you died a few days ago. Welcome back.


He is gone. I really liked his character. I understand he was a great
guy off camera too.
I'm just using the handle for a while. I'm not going to use my real id
anytime on here. The last time I had a lot of spam and junk even though
I have all the bells and whistles.

I salute you Don Knotts!
You provided us with a lot of good clean entertainment. God Speed


At his best on 'Three's Company'?

FishWisher wrote:

So now the law abiding fishermen cannot take a fish larger than 56
inches.

Only people who would complain are MEATHOGS who want to keep fish
between 56 inches and the old limit.

Many of the larger fish are now reserved for the poacher,
courtesy of the State of California. They will not enforce the regs, so
only the law abiding fishermen will observe the new slot limit. Nothing

I agree not nearly enough is done to pursue and convict poachers.
Isn't there a number where you can give tips on the poachers: their
vehicles, boat IDs, etc?

It's disgusting when poachers are given tiny slaps on the wrist on the
rare occasions they're caught. Poachers should have ALL their assets
confiscated: boats, vehicles, houses (won't need a house if they're put
in jail where they belong!), retirement accounts, etc.

new there. The next step is they'll make the reduced slot permanent,
introduce sturgeon tags and punch cards and then add taxes to the mix
and define them as "fees". Same old bureaucratic response.

The worst is if they factor in the cost of sturgeon and salmon into
regular fishing license fees. I don't like it when states punish the
people who fish for temperate freshwater fish by charging them for the
keeping of salmonids and sal****er species. It would be better to have
a sturgeon tag. Why should the people who only fish for Bass in the
San Diego lakes have to subsidize the rich people who can afford to
live in the Bay Area who anchor their expensive boats in areas that are
Sturgeon? Same with salmonoids; make the trout and salmon anglers pay
for their fish.

[snip red-herring straw man arguments by the apparent MEATHOG,
including a dead-wrong PETA reference - PETA is AGAINST
catch-and-release fishing, wanting to force all anglers to kill every
fish they catch, therefore PETA is opposed to the new regulation
because PETA is anti-C&R].

Anyone who does business with any store that sells caviar is part of
the problem. If you don't like sturgeon poaching, don't enable the
poachers. Boycott caviar. Don't go to any restaurant that serves it.
Don't shop at any grocery that sells it. Am proud to say I don't
consume caviar. Who but a snob would eat that crap anyway? If you
keep a sturgeon and it's a female with eggs, it would be a waste not to
eat the eggs, but responsible anglers would release the fish unharmed
immediately.

I'm east of the Rockies, where it's usually illegal to keep Lake or
Pallid Sturgeon. Poachers murder large numbers of Sturgeon and
Paddlefish, often not getting caught. Would guess the poachers discard
all the male fish and all portions of the female fish other than the
eggs.

The only people I don't mind keeping Sturgeon are the Indians, who use
every portion of the fish, not letting any go to waste, and who don't
overharvest.

I would also think anglers should use the heaviest tackle they can get
away with so the fight can end ASAP, giving the fish the highest chance
of survival when released. A good idea for just about every species.

Regarding the water shortage issue, hasn't California gotten a good
amount of rain in recent months? Is any of it helping water flows in
the rivers (which would obviously help the fish), or is all the water
being stolen by irrigation and refilling reservoirs that are still way
below their proper levels? I know paleface farmers and ranchers steal
nearly 100% of the water from the Klamath and other streams.

Thank you, meathead, for being the perfect example of an environmental
whacko. Anyone who takes of the outdoor bounty is a meathog, according
to you, except for injuns 'cause they're the right skin-color. I was
born here and therefore I, too, am a native-American. I take from the
natural bounty of the land. And I do it legally. You don't like it? Who
cares!?

Paleface ranchers and farmers make use of the water to grow things
'cause people smarter than you have built dams. Our water no longer
runs to the ocean, creating annual floods and wiping out injun
settlements. Lucky you. And now there is more water for everybody -
even the fish!

You clearly hate the wealthy and the paleface and anyone who disagrees
with you. Hate. Hate. Hate. It must be miserable being you.

You need to get off your ass and actually do something outdoors! You
need some fresh air! By reviewing your posting habits, it is clear that
you do nothing but bang the keyboard! Get a life!

Environmental whackos! Gotta fine 'em entertaining, at least!

Dale

"Terry Lomax" wrote in message

Regarding the water shortage issue, hasn't California gotten a good
amount of rain in recent months? Is any of it helping water flows in
the rivers (which would obviously help the fish), or is all the water
being stolen by irrigation and refilling reservoirs that are still way
below their proper levels? I know paleface farmers and ranchers steal
nearly 100% of the water from the Klamath and other streams.


Water shortages in the west are a very complex issue. "Stolen by farmers"
is really not a valid comment. The farmers in the southwest produce a huge
percentage of the food consumed by the entire country in the winter months.
Is there another way? Well I have been in north central Ohio too where they
have hundred and hundreds of acres under glass for winter crops. Simpley
put, its much more economical to raise crops in the desert.

As to actual water usage. I don't know how much of that really goes to
farmers (by percentage) , but in my area the farmers have been using less
and less water to grow the same amount and in many cases more crops. There
has been such a dramatic improvement in irrigation techniques that
controlled flows on the river have been very noticeably reduced in the last
several years. This is release on demand flows based on irrigation demands
downriver.

All that being said, I wonder how the people would survive in a drought like
we have had for the last several years if there was no water storage and no
flow control. Historically desert peoples have been wiped out by drought in
the past.

Hmmm.... I wonder how the fish would have survived with the Colorado River
just barely trickling around the pebbles in the bottom of the channel?

You might argue that without our controlled surpus systems we wouldn't have
so many people living here in the first place. That is a valid arguement,
but the people are here now. They aren't going to leave. From Los Angelos
to Phoenix and all points in between the farms and the populations are
dependent on stored water. Blow up the dams and you would have to relocate
50 (apx) million people. That is just in the west. If you are going to get
rid of the dams in the west then you have to get rid of the dams in the rest
of the world too. And as long as you are at it all the leviys too. Now
think about all the displaced people you would have to accomodate. It would
make the refugees from Katrina look like normal vacation season travel. .

The preceeding post is just to make you think about the larger implications.
An arguement, that "I don't care about all those people, just what affects
what I want," won't work either. It doesn't work because the displacement
of that many people would have worldwide negative impact on everything and
everybody.

--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com

FishWisher wrote:

environmental whackos.

I suppose you also consider the people who want to take down the dams
in the Columbia River system "environmental whackos". What would be
better for White Sturgeon than removal of dams?

Note how the meathogs are anti-environment, no surprise because if they
were pro-environment, they wouldn't be meathogs in the first place.

Yes. I consider people who want to take down dams to be environmental
whackos. I consider you to be a whacko.

Meathog? oooooh. I'm hurt.