What do you guys think of the new DF&G director?

He has a strong overall background in the department and wants to redirect department resources back to sport fish and game animal management.

Does he flyfish?
Is he pro hatchery?
Will he undermine overall resource protection in an effort to build new boat ramps and duckblinds?
Is his vision directed by the Bible?

Just wondering because I personally don't have a clue (what else is new?)

Ralph Cutter

Wait and see I guess. Press release is at www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news04/04007.html. Tom Stienstra's column also had some background, http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 4D2P41.DTL Seems to be a good habitat guy, good enforcement background, wants to redirect the Dept. back to hunting/fishing issues (the license money part of the budget at least). I have no read on his hatchery orientation-that's probably a part to watch. I'd also like to see what happens when his Dept becomes engaged re: Martis Valley General (development) Plan, among others. Also, he's a Democrat (I'm not). That orientation might be a good thing in this particular position however, and I REALLY like the idea that the governor is willing to cross party lines to get the person he thinks is the right person for the job.

Hi All:
I found the questions about the new director of the DFG interesting. Frankly I don't think it matters a lot if he fly-fishes or not. what does matter is that he be on the side of using the opintions of the scientists and biologists who work on fishing and hunting issues instead of listening to the feel-good types and the anti-angling and anti-hunting crowd. I'd be satisfied with that.
Is he "pro hatchery"? He damn well better be. I know it has become fashionable for fly anglers to want to do away with the hatchery system. Think about this: Not all the anglers (and license holders) in this state fly fish. Tens of thousands of good people fish with spinning gear or bait-casting tackle. To them, catching a trout and eating it is as valid an outdoor experience as catching one wth a fly and releasing it.
Not only that, there are hundreds of places in this state that can offer trout fishing that don't allow for natural reproduction of trout. Wishing away the hatchery program would eliminate these, and quite possibly eliminate a lot of anglers. Loss of people who like to fish would not strengthen the political position of anglers, it would weaken it. It also would weaken the base from which we create new fly anglers.
If you want to debate where trout should or should not be stocked, by all means, do so. But don't try to destroy the hatchery system. It will backfire on you. Do you really want all those spin fishers either invading your wters or mad at you for harming their fishing? Be careful what you wish for-- you might get it.
Finally, the question of whether the new director has an afinity for the bible is out of bounds. I haven't been in a church except to tie flies in the basement for somehting like 50 years, yet I found the question offensive. If the new director were to answer that, we wouldn't learn much. but asking the question tells more about the questioner than we really want to know.

Richard Bean

This or any Director can only be as good as his support from the administration and legislature allows. Write your elected officials and demand adequate funding for Environmental Protection and Fish and Game!!

As far as the hatchery vs. no hatchery debate; I am of the opinion, as a scientist with a PhD in biology, that the only reason that hatchery's are needed is: Dam Damns, Poor Water Quality, Overfishing, and water diversions. The overfishing occured near the turn of the past century and is not so much a modern problem. Damns have had an irreperabe affect on anadramous fish stocks. But, I think the biggest issues aes water quality, and water diversions for agricultural and urban use.

Free-range grazing, decades of agricultural run-off, the mercury left behind by gold miners, clear cutting, development, etc., etc., etc., have all conspired to reduce water quality to the point that its rather amazing how many waters still actually support wild fish populations. Urban run-off of automobile fluids, fertilizers, pet waste, etc. is becoming a huge problem (and have you seen how many thousands of homes have recently been authorized in Truckee's Martis Valley, directly upstream of California's first flyfishing only water?)

Recently, the City of Mammoth Mountain started diverting more water from Mammoth Creek, which feeds Hot Creek. As a result, the water in Hot Creek is starting to warm, and there is considerable worry that the creek will warm to the point that it will no longer be able to support significant Rainbow populations.

I would like to point out that all waters that are so-called 'fly fishing' only, are actually artificial lure only. So, spin fishers can feel free to join in with fly fishers, so long as spinners are equipped with single, barbless hooks. As far as keeping fish for the BBQ, I am all for it, within reason. Tthere are many waters in the back country that show where impacts to water quality are minimized and water flows are sufficient, naturally reproducing fish populations are so large that it is actually good management to take a few home now and then (which is why Fish and Game encourages anglers to keep more brook trout from many waters).

Every angler should start getting more concerned with water availability and quality before its too late. The human population of this State is literally exploding, which will only result in more and more competition for water. I live in the Sacramento region, which a decade ago had maybe 10 golf courses. Today, there are almost a hundred. Golf Courses use more water per capita than agricultural operations, but here we are living in a desert and building golf courses at break-kneck speed. What is wrong with that picture (dont get the impression I am biased against golf courses; I am a golfer)?

As evidence of the water battles to come, an assembly member from San Diego recently put forth a bill that will require homes in all urban areas of Northern California to go on water metering, and all indications are that the bill will pass and become law. Ask yourself, why is a Southern Cal lawmaker worried about water usage in Northern Cal? Could it be so that there will be more water for Southern Cal to pump South?

Good post, searun. I'd like to add that the greatest threat facing our fisheries is angler apathy. If we don't get involved, we'll surely lose what we have.