- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
HATCHERIES TAGGING FOR CLOSURE -- Jim Matthews column -- ONS -- 14apr04
Budget cuts will slice trout plants by up to 30 percent
After a decade of nearly continuous cuts and reductions in the number of trout planted, the Department of Fish and Game hatchery program is facing yet another round of budget hacking that will reduce statewide trout plants by 20 to 30 percent. The cuts will also force two of the most important hatcheries in the Eastern Sierra and Southern California to close their doors.
Targeted for closure is the Hot Creek Fish Hatchery near Mammoth Lakes, which will cease operations by July 1 this year. The Mojave River Trout Hatchery in Hesperia currently has no operating funds, but the DFG has taken money from the hatchery's equipment and maintenance account to run this facility through July 1 next year, according to Chuck Knutson, the DFG's statewide hatchery coordinator in Sacramento.
Throughout the state, the DFG's $9.3 million hatchery budget is being cut by $2.6 million. This has already caused the closure of the Mad River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (as of April 1), and the Merced River Hatchery is also on the chopping block. The cuts will cause the loss of 44 positions, including 27 permanent workers, or about 20 percent of the hatchery workforce.
DFG analysis shows that the hatchery system needs about $14.1 million per year just to maintain the program as it existed before the last two rounds of budget cuts and to start instituting expenditures on the $15 million backlog in capital outlay projects -- which includes facility maintenance along with equipment repairs and upgrades.
These cuts will perhaps be most heavily felt in Southern California where the Mohave River Hatchery services all of the planted waters in San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial and San Diego County. It is likely that all waters in this region would cease receiving rainbow trout from the DFG. The budget crunch is so severe that even if the Fillmore Hatchery (the region's other hatchery located in northern Los Angeles County) had the trout to make up for Mohave's closure, funding for delivers would make all four counties off limits because of fuel and vehicle costs.
These proposed cuts would lead to the loss of nearly $1 billion in economic output in the state.
That math doesn't make much sense: Save $2.6 million with these cuts and lose nearly $1 billion (of which sales and income taxes on that amount is worth multiple times more than the $2.6 million figure "saved"). It makes even less sense when you know that 92 percent of the money currently spent on trout hatcheries comes from fishing license money. And since there is no real reduction in license sales, why is the hatchery program being cut and where's that money going?
This is all baffling. So baffling that simple solutions are pouring into the DFG and governor's office to fix this made-up problem. Here are some of them:
-- AB 2280 by assembly Dave Cogdill would allocate a portion of fishing license dollars just for the state hatchery program so it isn't cut. This would, however, necessitate cuts to other DFG programs, also funded by hunting and fishing license dollars.
-- There has been a proposal for a new "trout stamp" where the funds are dedicated solely to the state's recreational hatchery program and could not be robbed and used for other purposes.
-- DFG staff have for decades said there should be a "road kill tax" where a portion of state vehicle license fees go to the wildlife agency as mitigation for damages caused by directly by vehicles (more deer are killed on roads than by hunters) and roadway construction.
-- A portion of the state tax on diesel and gasoline should be allocated to the DFG commensurate with the amount of fuel used by anglers and outdoor recreationists who boat, use OHVs, or drive vehicles off-road when hunting or birdwatching.
Any or all of these solutions could and should be implemented, and they would pump needed funds into the entire DFG. But there would be major opposition to most of them.
The most likely scenario is for a new "trout stamp." Yes, it would raise the cost of our fishing license, but hunters learned a long time ago that dedicated stamp funds assure money is spent in a certain area of interest -- upland bird stamp money on upland bird programs, deer tag money on deer tag programs. Nearly 40 percent of the money that comes from hunting licenses, tags, and fees is in dedicated accounts. Only five percent of the money coming from fishing licenses, tags, and fees is reserved for dedicated accounts.
With 1.3 million anglers buying annual fishing licenses and some 800,000 of those considered trout anglers, a $15 trout stamp would fully fund the DFG's hatchery program and allow for enhancements and increased stocking instead of more and more cutbacks.
The DFG has been doing more and more with less and less, and our recreational fishing programs have suffered most. We can whine about the cost of the license and lack of plants, or we can pay more, with big strings attached to the new added money, and have a level of service we haven't seen in a couple of decades.
Your call.
Budget cuts will slice trout plants by up to 30 percent
After a decade of nearly continuous cuts and reductions in the number of trout planted, the Department of Fish and Game hatchery program is facing yet another round of budget hacking that will reduce statewide trout plants by 20 to 30 percent. The cuts will also force two of the most important hatcheries in the Eastern Sierra and Southern California to close their doors.
Targeted for closure is the Hot Creek Fish Hatchery near Mammoth Lakes, which will cease operations by July 1 this year. The Mojave River Trout Hatchery in Hesperia currently has no operating funds, but the DFG has taken money from the hatchery's equipment and maintenance account to run this facility through July 1 next year, according to Chuck Knutson, the DFG's statewide hatchery coordinator in Sacramento.
Throughout the state, the DFG's $9.3 million hatchery budget is being cut by $2.6 million. This has already caused the closure of the Mad River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (as of April 1), and the Merced River Hatchery is also on the chopping block. The cuts will cause the loss of 44 positions, including 27 permanent workers, or about 20 percent of the hatchery workforce.
DFG analysis shows that the hatchery system needs about $14.1 million per year just to maintain the program as it existed before the last two rounds of budget cuts and to start instituting expenditures on the $15 million backlog in capital outlay projects -- which includes facility maintenance along with equipment repairs and upgrades.
These cuts will perhaps be most heavily felt in Southern California where the Mohave River Hatchery services all of the planted waters in San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial and San Diego County. It is likely that all waters in this region would cease receiving rainbow trout from the DFG. The budget crunch is so severe that even if the Fillmore Hatchery (the region's other hatchery located in northern Los Angeles County) had the trout to make up for Mohave's closure, funding for delivers would make all four counties off limits because of fuel and vehicle costs.
These proposed cuts would lead to the loss of nearly $1 billion in economic output in the state.
That math doesn't make much sense: Save $2.6 million with these cuts and lose nearly $1 billion (of which sales and income taxes on that amount is worth multiple times more than the $2.6 million figure "saved"). It makes even less sense when you know that 92 percent of the money currently spent on trout hatcheries comes from fishing license money. And since there is no real reduction in license sales, why is the hatchery program being cut and where's that money going?
This is all baffling. So baffling that simple solutions are pouring into the DFG and governor's office to fix this made-up problem. Here are some of them:
-- AB 2280 by assembly Dave Cogdill would allocate a portion of fishing license dollars just for the state hatchery program so it isn't cut. This would, however, necessitate cuts to other DFG programs, also funded by hunting and fishing license dollars.
-- There has been a proposal for a new "trout stamp" where the funds are dedicated solely to the state's recreational hatchery program and could not be robbed and used for other purposes.
-- DFG staff have for decades said there should be a "road kill tax" where a portion of state vehicle license fees go to the wildlife agency as mitigation for damages caused by directly by vehicles (more deer are killed on roads than by hunters) and roadway construction.
-- A portion of the state tax on diesel and gasoline should be allocated to the DFG commensurate with the amount of fuel used by anglers and outdoor recreationists who boat, use OHVs, or drive vehicles off-road when hunting or birdwatching.
Any or all of these solutions could and should be implemented, and they would pump needed funds into the entire DFG. But there would be major opposition to most of them.
The most likely scenario is for a new "trout stamp." Yes, it would raise the cost of our fishing license, but hunters learned a long time ago that dedicated stamp funds assure money is spent in a certain area of interest -- upland bird stamp money on upland bird programs, deer tag money on deer tag programs. Nearly 40 percent of the money that comes from hunting licenses, tags, and fees is in dedicated accounts. Only five percent of the money coming from fishing licenses, tags, and fees is reserved for dedicated accounts.
With 1.3 million anglers buying annual fishing licenses and some 800,000 of those considered trout anglers, a $15 trout stamp would fully fund the DFG's hatchery program and allow for enhancements and increased stocking instead of more and more cutbacks.
The DFG has been doing more and more with less and less, and our recreational fishing programs have suffered most. We can whine about the cost of the license and lack of plants, or we can pay more, with big strings attached to the new added money, and have a level of service we haven't seen in a couple of decades.
Your call.
