Loch Lomond on trout planting lock-down

The California Department of Fish and Game has been planting trout in the Loch Lomond recreation area for nearly 50 years, but many local anglers noticed on opening day this month the trout were missing in action. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fisher

Shoreham, VT

#1 Mar 22, 2009
Unintended consequences: How long before someone dumps mussels into the lake so that the restrictions will be lifted?
Also, sea run rainbow trout are native to the watershed. The only non-native in the mix is the lake. It's plain to see that too many committees and councils have too much time and resources at their disposal.
capt dan

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Mar 22, 2009
i hope those stanford kids are proud of themselves. millions in revenue lost at a time like this.
Bill

San Jose, CA

#4 Mar 22, 2009
Hopefully nobody will be stupid enough to intentionally put mussels in the lake. Then they will completely close it down to avoid contaminating other lakes.
Fisher wrote:
Unintended consequences: How long before someone dumps mussels into the lake so that the restrictions will be lifted?
Also, sea run rainbow trout are native to the watershed. The only non-native in the mix is the lake. It's plain to see that too many committees and councils have too much time and resources at their disposal.
trout n butter mmmm

Oakland, CA

#5 Mar 22, 2009
Maybe the city just wants to restrict other boats so they can increase revenue by only renting out their boats. Maybe that will help close the budget gap.

since the reservoir was built how many problems have they had like they speak of...none.

and seriously, I cannot take my canoe up there and put it in the water...yeah this is a big deal like when they prohibited damming any spots on the san lorenzo to make swimming holes....
the Real Realist

San Leandro, CA

#6 Mar 22, 2009
Fisher wrote:
Unintended consequences: How long before someone dumps mussels into the lake so that the restrictions will be lifted?
Also, sea run rainbow trout are native to the watershed. The only non-native in the mix is the lake. It's plain to see that too many committees and councils have too much time and resources at their disposal.
What are you babbling about? Bass, bluegill, catfish are non-natives, and the rainbow trout in Loch Lomind havenot beennative stock for over 50 yrs.
Fisher

Shoreham, VT

#7 Mar 22, 2009
the Real Realist wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you babbling about? Bass, bluegill, catfish are non-natives, and the rainbow trout in Loch Lomind havenot beennative stock for over 50 yrs.
The EIP is about introduced trout and native species interactions.
Loch Lomond is an artificial environment and any conclusions / recommendations reached in the report should not carry much significance.
Yep

Brentwood, CA

#8 Mar 22, 2009
"many committees and councils have too much time and resources at their disposal." from Fisher.

Best quote of the day.
news

Santa Cruz, CA

#9 Mar 22, 2009
Isn't this old news? In terms of service...allowing boats mainly benefited people from the Valley...not the ratepayers who pay for water service. My guess is that the people on West Drive are going to be happy that there's less traffic this summer. Good call by the City Council....but DFG is (typically) wrong-headed in their approach at stocking. They screw up a program by not doing CEQA or ESA consultation on it, then overreact when the judge rules against them and pull back on stocking where there are no impacts. This agency is out of control and people and the resources DFG is supposed to protect are paying for it big time.
not really

Santa Cruz, CA

#10 Mar 22, 2009
the Real Realist wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you babbling about? Bass, bluegill, catfish are non-natives, and the rainbow trout in Loch Lomind havenot beennative stock for over 50 yrs.
Check your facts...DFG never plants native fish in any of these lakes.
huh

Santa Cruz, CA

#11 Mar 22, 2009
capt dan wrote:
i hope those stanford kids are proud of themselves. millions in revenue lost at a time like this.
a) What role did Stanford have in this?

b) Millions in revenue? You mean statewide I hope. Pretty sure Loch Lomond always operates at a loss.
Fisher

Shoreham, VT

#12 Mar 22, 2009
huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty sure Loch Lomond always operates at a loss.
Yes, the boat ban is an underhanded, gentle and gradual approach to closing the lake to public access.
went to public school

Oakland, CA

#14 Mar 22, 2009
CBD wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken Loch Lomond is a man made lake. There are no native fish in there. Organizations like the CBD won't be satisfied until there is negative population growth that is restricted to cities only. Stop giving them money. These people are whackos and will continue to change your life until they are stopped.
CBD, well done, stating what we were all missing, it is a man made lake, sometimes we all miss the obvious!
TROUT FISHERMAN

Phoenix, AZ

#15 Mar 22, 2009
I HAVE BEEN A FISHERMAN FOR THREE YAERS. I GO TO THE LOCH EVERY OTHER DAY OR MORE OFTEN. THE DRY DOCK IS A GREAT IDEA. IF THE FISHERMAN WERE TO LEVE THE BOAT AT THE LAKE AND TAKE THERE GEAR HOME FISH AND GAME COULD CHARGE $200 A SEASON FOR THE BOAT TO BE STORED. THIS IS EXTREAMLY FRUSTRATING SINCE THERE IS NOTHING FOR YOUTH TO DO EXCEPT FOR SOMKE POT AND CAUSE TROUBLE IN THE SAN LORENZO VALEY. I THINK A GREAT IDEA IF THIS PROBLEM IS NOT RESOLVED BY NEXT YEAR TO GET A BAG FULL OF FRESH WATER MUSLES AND PUT THEM IN THE LAKE. CALIFORNIA SHURE IS GREAT. TREE HUGGING HIPPIES
Yeah

Santa Cruz, CA

#16 Mar 22, 2009
I'm gonna hold my breath 'til I turn blue!
FISH

Oakland, CA

#17 Mar 22, 2009
What a joke!
Rinse Lather Repeat

Casmalia, CA

#19 Mar 22, 2009
I sincerely hope that any fool who purposefully infects a public water supply gets charged with domestic terrorism and sent to prison for a long time.
Broadway Jim

Alameda, CA

#20 Mar 22, 2009
My wife and I have fished the Lock for six years now. It is our main recreation in the Spring and Summer. I learned to fish for trout at the Lock in my old age. In a good year we with eat trout two times a week from our freezer.

My perspective is that these are the times that try fishermen and fisherwomen's soul. These are the times to cool our jets and just wait for things to work themselves out. Patience is key in fishing and patience now is the key. If you can't be patient now, take up bass fishing.

I trust the trout plant will start in a year or two - probably next year.

The boating situation is toughter. The tag system that many of the lakes are using seems reasonable and should work - at least on paper. If it is shown to be effective (no new infestations), maybe the City Counsel will reconsider. The vote was close. One changed vote would turn the tide. I feel sorry for the canoes and kayaks as they have no rental option. Maybe the ban can be lifted on them first. I am not holding my breath on the boating, but trust something will be worked out in time. Again patience.
Pat Kittle

Santa Cruz, CA

#21 Mar 22, 2009
CBD wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken Loch Lomond is a man made lake. There are no native fish in there. Organizations like the CBD won't be satisfied until there is negative population growth that is restricted to cities only. Stop giving them money. These people are whackos and will continue to change your life until they are stopped.
You have a problem with "negative population growth"?

Ask yourself this -- would our fish/water/invasive species//forest/energy problems be:
1) Bigger
2) Smaller...
with fewer humans?

npg.org
jeffreynewell

Bangor, ME

#22 Mar 22, 2009
that explains it the blue gill, and all other kinds of bass eat the trout's young. I live on what was once a trout pound but the damning of several streams, this prevents alwives from coming in these eat the perch and bass eggs, and the introduction of bass has removed the natural trout from the waters. You need to eradicate all the bass and other pan fish, keep them out and then reintroduce the trout. If the bass are kept out you might be able to get the trout population to rebuild with a little help.
Yep

Brentwood, CA

#23 Mar 22, 2009
news wrote:
Isn't this old news? In terms of service...allowing boats mainly benefited people from the Valley...not the ratepayers who pay for water service.
This is a bit of an idiotic line of thought. The reservoir sits in the Valley. It should be expected that "people from the Valley" might anticipate public enjoyment of the resource.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Felton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New Discussion and a good one that is a current... 55 min Swiss Miss 22
More than 300 jam Santa Cruz job fair 2 hr not agitated or a... 12
Eric Rowland was BOOTED from CFABSC Feb 24 Maria 4
City Council Meeting (Jul '14) Feb 24 ANON councilcomme... 117
Two months after stabbing, victim calls police ... (Jun '10) Feb 24 anomis 66
January named Positive Parenting Month for Sant... Jan '15 Rawwk 2
Isna t it time for a Santa Cruz Christmas carol? Dec '14 Donny B 4
Felton Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Felton People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:57 am PST