California fishermen land court ruling
In monumental decision, California 3rd District Court of Appeals rules for fish farmers, stocking
Like a lot of government agencies, the California Fish and Wildlife Department has a tendency to turn crawfish over any lawsuit filed by groups who are intent on stopping fishing and hunting in this state by using the courts.
Either the agency rolls over and gives the anti-hunting and fishing groups anything they want or it overreacts and does more harm than can possibly be imagined. In the case of challenges to its regulations regarding stocking fish and fish-rearing businesses, it did both. It rolled over and did more harm. But this time it didn’t work.
On Tuesday, in a monumental ruling in favor of fishing, the California Third District Court of Appeals has “struck down the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s illegally drafted permitting requirements on recreational freshwater fishing — regulations that threatened to decimate the $2.4 billion industry by driving fishing lakes, private hatcheries, and fish farms out of business,” according to a release from the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF) against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The fishermen in California won thanks to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF).
Finally, the state’s inability to fend off these anti-fishing organizations from imposing unfair, illegal sanctions and regulations led to a court ruling that stopped the state assault on recreational fishing, preserved jobs and most of all, assured Californians and their families that they’ll have opportunities to fish in the future at lakes stocked with fish. Had these ridiculous regulations by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife not been struck down, they potentially would have cost lakes such as Dixon, Poway and Jennings more than $100,000 every one to five years in order to stay current with the needless environmental studies and mandates.
“This was a very good day for freshwater fishing in California,” said Marko Mlikotin, executive director of the CARF, a grass-roots organization of freshwater fishermen and businesses. “We could not be happier. This will have a profound impact on fish farmers and lakes and all the places where fish stocking supplement what the state doesn’t do in terms of stocking warm and coldwater fisheries.”
Said Craig Elliott, president of CARF and a recreational fishing lakes operator and fish farmer: “We could not be more pleased with the Appellate Court’s rejection of the Department’s illegal regulations. This ruling ensures that freshwater fishing will continue to be an affordable and accessible form of recreation for California families and a source of jobs. California anglers owe a debt of gratitude to PLF for championing our cause.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) represented CARF and led the legal charge, challenging the DFW’s radical new mandate on hatcheries and stocking ponds that was influenced by anti-fishing groups that lobbied the Department of Fish and Wildlife and likely have infiltrated the fish and wildlife bureaucracy with anti-hunting and fishing extremists.
PLF argued that the state’s freshwater fish population is “historically healthy,” yet DFW issued a regulation that before anyone could stock or raise fish, DFG would have to determine that there would be no effect on dozens of arbitrarily-selected species — including species that are abundant and thriving in California.
"This process would be so cumbersome and drawn out that it could effectively block many stocking ponds and hatcheries from continuing to operate,” Mlikotin said.
PLF challenged the new regulations, saying they were drafted without public input, which is mandated by the California Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). Essentially, the Court ruled the hatchery and fish farm regulations were “underground regulations” that were set without sufficient public input.
“This court ruling is a powerful victory for everyone who values recreational fishing opportunities, and for everyone who values openness and accountability in government,” said PLF senior staff attorney Joshua Thompson. “The DFW concocted these radical regulations all on its own, without any request from the Legislature and without seeking public review and comment as state law requires. This court victory saves recreational fishing from out-of-control regulators and protects everyone’s rights by reminding bureaucrats they aren’t above the law.”
The new, illegal regulations were rooted in a 2010 Fish and Wildlife Environmental Impact Report that claimed that the stocking of lakes and ponds with hatchery-bred fish puts indigenous fish and habitat in danger. The environmental document also radically changed the the permitting process for stocking private fishing lakes and ponds without any public review or input, and without direction from the State Legislature.
The DFW changed its fish stocking permitting process in the EIR by prohibiting all stocking which would have an adverse effect on "decision species." CARF and PLF studies and research proved that more than half of these so-called "decision species" are not listed under any statute or regulation, but were included by agency whim, Thompson said.
“The EIR also required private hatcheries to engage in continuous and expensive monitoring for invasive species, the results of which must be reported to the Department for use in its investigations and permitting decisions,” he added.
But in the end, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of fishermen and common sense and ruled against a Fish and Wildlife agency that no longer has the best interests of the fishermen and hunters in California as its core mission.
In monumental decision, California 3rd District Court of Appeals rules for fish farmers, stocking
Like a lot of government agencies, the California Fish and Wildlife Department has a tendency to turn crawfish over any lawsuit filed by groups who are intent on stopping fishing and hunting in this state by using the courts.
Either the agency rolls over and gives the anti-hunting and fishing groups anything they want or it overreacts and does more harm than can possibly be imagined. In the case of challenges to its regulations regarding stocking fish and fish-rearing businesses, it did both. It rolled over and did more harm. But this time it didn’t work.
On Tuesday, in a monumental ruling in favor of fishing, the California Third District Court of Appeals has “struck down the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s illegally drafted permitting requirements on recreational freshwater fishing — regulations that threatened to decimate the $2.4 billion industry by driving fishing lakes, private hatcheries, and fish farms out of business,” according to a release from the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF) against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The fishermen in California won thanks to the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) and the California Association for Recreational Fishing (CARF).
Finally, the state’s inability to fend off these anti-fishing organizations from imposing unfair, illegal sanctions and regulations led to a court ruling that stopped the state assault on recreational fishing, preserved jobs and most of all, assured Californians and their families that they’ll have opportunities to fish in the future at lakes stocked with fish. Had these ridiculous regulations by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife not been struck down, they potentially would have cost lakes such as Dixon, Poway and Jennings more than $100,000 every one to five years in order to stay current with the needless environmental studies and mandates.
“This was a very good day for freshwater fishing in California,” said Marko Mlikotin, executive director of the CARF, a grass-roots organization of freshwater fishermen and businesses. “We could not be happier. This will have a profound impact on fish farmers and lakes and all the places where fish stocking supplement what the state doesn’t do in terms of stocking warm and coldwater fisheries.”
Said Craig Elliott, president of CARF and a recreational fishing lakes operator and fish farmer: “We could not be more pleased with the Appellate Court’s rejection of the Department’s illegal regulations. This ruling ensures that freshwater fishing will continue to be an affordable and accessible form of recreation for California families and a source of jobs. California anglers owe a debt of gratitude to PLF for championing our cause.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) represented CARF and led the legal charge, challenging the DFW’s radical new mandate on hatcheries and stocking ponds that was influenced by anti-fishing groups that lobbied the Department of Fish and Wildlife and likely have infiltrated the fish and wildlife bureaucracy with anti-hunting and fishing extremists.
PLF argued that the state’s freshwater fish population is “historically healthy,” yet DFW issued a regulation that before anyone could stock or raise fish, DFG would have to determine that there would be no effect on dozens of arbitrarily-selected species — including species that are abundant and thriving in California.
"This process would be so cumbersome and drawn out that it could effectively block many stocking ponds and hatcheries from continuing to operate,” Mlikotin said.
PLF challenged the new regulations, saying they were drafted without public input, which is mandated by the California Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). Essentially, the Court ruled the hatchery and fish farm regulations were “underground regulations” that were set without sufficient public input.
“This court ruling is a powerful victory for everyone who values recreational fishing opportunities, and for everyone who values openness and accountability in government,” said PLF senior staff attorney Joshua Thompson. “The DFW concocted these radical regulations all on its own, without any request from the Legislature and without seeking public review and comment as state law requires. This court victory saves recreational fishing from out-of-control regulators and protects everyone’s rights by reminding bureaucrats they aren’t above the law.”
The new, illegal regulations were rooted in a 2010 Fish and Wildlife Environmental Impact Report that claimed that the stocking of lakes and ponds with hatchery-bred fish puts indigenous fish and habitat in danger. The environmental document also radically changed the the permitting process for stocking private fishing lakes and ponds without any public review or input, and without direction from the State Legislature.
The DFW changed its fish stocking permitting process in the EIR by prohibiting all stocking which would have an adverse effect on "decision species." CARF and PLF studies and research proved that more than half of these so-called "decision species" are not listed under any statute or regulation, but were included by agency whim, Thompson said.
“The EIR also required private hatcheries to engage in continuous and expensive monitoring for invasive species, the results of which must be reported to the Department for use in its investigations and permitting decisions,” he added.
But in the end, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of fishermen and common sense and ruled against a Fish and Wildlife agency that no longer has the best interests of the fishermen and hunters in California as its core mission.
Let God lead the way!
Give a man a fish he eats for one day, teach him to fish he eats forever!
Give a man a fish he eats for one day, teach him to fish he eats forever!
