Posted by Capt Jim Cox
on 4/28/2009, 4:01 pm
98.207.145.56
Before describing what happened at the committee hearing on 4/28, I would like to thank all the concerned fisherman from CSBA and numerous other organizations who took a day off from work, or a busy schedule, to come to Sacramento and stand up for striped bass. We filled the hearing room!
Now for the hard and unfortunate facts of the matter. These devoted fisherman, came to oppose a bill that would have deregulated striped bass, instead what we saw presented was a last minute “compromise” that we were totally unprepared to oppose. This compromise, instead of deregulating striped bass, will ask the infamous Cal-Fed scientists to revisit the science of predation by non-native species on endangered species, and then make recommendations or options on what course to take to protect endangered native species.
What may sound like a good idea at first, when looked at more closely, shows itself again to be a back door effort at taking more water out of the delta. Just like the DWR’s supposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan, this is an attempt to disguise a water grab as a fishery conservation plan. To the uninformed this may sound just like that, but once again I thank God that we are informed citizens, through the efforts of clubs like the Calif. Striped Bass Assoc.
One of the scientists that testified for the support of this bill had an interesting misuse of statistics. He claims that from the 1870’s when striped bass was initially introduced into the delta, the non-native species have basically taken over the delta. Today out of the total fish in the delta, 95% are non-native, and the native fish are only 5%. I assume this thinking means that we need to kill 95% of the fish in the delta.
The best science argument that the non-supporters of this bill (our side) was presented by Dr. Ostrach of UC Davis. He pointed out that all the scientific studies, done by accredited non-biased scientists show that the problem for the endangered species in the delta is not predation by native, or non-native species, but the effects of water management, i.e. the pumps!
So just where does this leave us? I once heard a lawyer say that he knows when he has reached a compromise, because nobody is happy. I would say that is the case here. From our point of view we can be happy that a bill to deregulate striped bass has been stopped. We can be partially happy that any attempt at regulation in the future will not be specific to striped bass, but include other predator specie and not just non-native. We should be completely upset with the fact that it will be the Cal-Fed scientists that will be left to judge this situation. It is no coincidence that Ms. Fuller’s amendment picks out the Cal-Fed studies to be used in this assessment. Of all the studies done on this subject the Cal-Fed was the most biased toward the water user’s point of view. As John Banks of the Stockton chapter commented “ They are just going to shop this around until they find a study or scientist that will back up their point of view. They are looking for the best science that their money can buy!”
To see the real focus of this bill one has to merely look at those who support it. The short list of supporters at this committee hearing were all representing farm irrigation districts, or southern California water districts. Not a single environmentalists or conservation group supports this bill, or the amended version.
Many of the committee members who voted yes, said they would not have supported the original AB1253 without the amendment. I must commend Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada of the 8th Assembly district who explained her no vote by saying that she does not trust the science of Cal-Fed! Neither should we!
This has been round 1 of what will be a long drawn out battle. The water grabbers have seen the scope of the opposition we can muster. So when round 2 comes along they will be even better organized, so we must be too!
Capt. Jim Cox
President West Delta Chapter CSBA
Message Thread:
« Back to thread