The Department of Fish and Wildlife (
A Vision for the Future (
Strategic Plan Background History 1995-2007 (
A Look at the California Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Game Commission (The Treanor Report) (pdf)
The roots of the Department of Fish and Wildlife stretch back to state legislation passed in the mid-1800s. An 1851 law protected the property rights of people planting oysters, and the next year the first game law was enacted to protect elk, antelope, deer, quail, and some ducks for 12 counties six months out of the year. Salmon runs also received some protection.
Game laws were expanded in 1854 to include the entire state, but the real statewide reach didn’t begin until 1860 when Chinese and Mongolians were prohibited from catching fish in state waters unless they paid a monthly $4 license fee. That regulation was put in place two years after the state passed a law prohibiting Chinese and Mongolian immigration and one year after Chinese were banned from attending San Francisco public schools. Trout was established as a seasonal catch in 1861.
The department’s forerunner, the Board of Fish Commissioners, was created in 1870 and is considered the nation’s first wildlife agency. It oversaw the use of fish ladders at state dams to allow for natural migration. The commission’s authority was extended to game animals eight years later. Although the first two game wardens were hired in 1871 for the San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe area, it wasn’t until 1883 that the Bureau of Patrol and Law Enforcement was added. Two years later, the state’s primary fish and game laws were established.
By 1901, the commission employed 50 men to enforce newly passed fish and game laws and six years later it was collecting money from fines and licenses for its Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The scope of its duties broadened over the years, and the Board of Fish Commissioners was aptly renamed the Fish and Game Commission in 1909.
The commission established an elaborate administrative structure and when it was absorbed into the Department of Natural Resources in 1927 as the Division of Fish and Game it uniquely maintained its own governing body not under the direct control of its parent.
A new Fish and Game Code was enacted by the Legislature in 1933 and in 1940, the code was amended to allow six-year staggered terms for each of the organization’s commissioners, whose appointments were made by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. Around the same time, the commission sought a more efficient way to manage the use of marine shell and anadromous fish, and formed the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission in 1945. It was also given the authority to impose fishing and hunting regulations.
In efforts to raise funds for the newly expanded portion of its responsibilities, the Wildlife Conservation Board was formed in 1947, to establish the capital acquisition and development program for conservation and recreational uses of wildlife resources.
When the Division of Fish and Game became a bona fide department in 1951, the foundational structure of the organization was overhauled to include five western regional offices and the bureaus of Game Conservation, Inland Fisheries, Patrol and Marine Research each became full branches. The department’s first director was Seth Gordon, for whom the national Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies would name its most prestigious award.
The federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in 1958 led to expanded department activities by requiring full consideration of fish and wildlife in joint state and federal projects. As a result, the Water Projects Branch was created the next year to manage the impact water quality and land and water development was having on wildlife resources.
In 1961, the Department of Fish and Game became a component of the new State Resources Agency and became intimately involved in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta when the Davis-Dolwig Act declared that fish and wildlife resources were to be considered as part of the State Water Project’s delivery of its water south.
The California Fish and Wildlife Plan became the first statewide master plan in the U.S. with a focus on fish and wildlife. It laid out a five-year blueprint for the department and its planning efforts, beginning in 1966.
The California Endangered Species Act of 1970 presaged a similar federal law by three years and required the department to inventory the state’s threatened fish and wildlife and develop criteria for rare and endangered species. The California Environmental Quality Act also called on the department to prepare environmental reports on its projects and programs, and the Water Projects Branch was renamed the Environmental Services Branch. It then began overseeing both land and water projects.
The department’s Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response opened in 1991, expanding its maritime responsibilities. Two years later, the 24-hour CAL-Tip hotline debuted.
In recent years, the department had been hamstrung by financial considerations, which became so acute that the Legislature in 2006 formally inserted an admission of inadequacy, Section 710, into the Fish and Game Code:
“The Legislature finds and declares that the department has in the past not been adequately funded to meet its mandates. The principal causes have been the fixed nature of the department's revenues in contrast with the rising costs resulting from inflation, the increased burden on the department to carry out its public trust responsibilities, and additional responsibilities placed on the department by the Legislature. This lack of funding has prevented proper planning and manpower allocation. The lack of funding has required the department to restrict warden enforcement and to defer essential management of lands acquired for wildlife conservation. The lack of funding for fish and wildlife conservation activities other than sport and commercial fishing and hunting activities has resulted in inadequate wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlife protection programs.”
The agency was renamed the Department of Fish and Wildlife as of January 1, 2013.
Department of Fish and Game Celebrates 130 Years of Serving California (pdf)
Origins of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Strategic Plan Background History 1995-2007 (
California Department of Fish and Game (Wikipedia)
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (
As of January 2012, the department owned or operated 745 properties—totaling 1.1 million acres—including 110 wildlife areas, 130 ecological reserves, 11 marine reserves, 276 undesignated lands, 158 public access areas, 20 fish hatcheries and 40 miscellaneous lands.
The department’s recreational pursuits include facilitating hunting, fishing (commercial and sport) and other public uses of natural resources as part of a vast land management program. It issues and enforces regulations for hunting waterfowl, upland game birds and mammals (bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, elk, bear, wild pig, etc) as well as sport fishing in the ocean and freshwater. The department issues alerts and publishes hunting guides and instructions on where to hunt.
The License and Revenue Branch handles hunting and fishing licenses, permits and passes. It also informs the public of various rules and regulations applicable to each sport and its respective hunting season. It is responsible for more than 150 different types of licenses and permits issued through approximately 2,000 retail license agents.
The department’s extensive resource management programs include activities, through its Climate Science and Renewable Energy Branch, to minimize the effect of renewable energy development and climate change on the state’s wildlife, fish and habitats. It helps battle invasive species that threaten the diversity and abundance of existing plants and animals, and administers ecological reserves, wildlife areas and hatcheries. The department participates in environmental reviews and permitting under authority granted through the California Endangered Species Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The Fish and Game Code requires anyone substantially altering a river, stream or lake to contact the department for guidance on preparation of alteration plans. As part of its biodiversity conservation responsibilities, the
The department, through its Office of Spill Prevention and Response, is also the lead agency in prevention and cleanup of oil spills and spills of other hazardous materials on land and water. The state Legislature established the
The department’s enforcement activities actually predate the department itself. The first two game wardens were hired in 1871, 12 years before the department’s forerunner, the Board of Fish Commissioners, was created. The Law Enforcement Division employs around 380 people but deploys fewer than 200 in the field as game wardens. Game wardens are empowered to warn, cite and arrest individuals suspected of violating Fish and Game laws. They may also seize the fish, game or equipment connected with an alleged violation. Wardens collect information on conditions in specific areas, supervise seasonal workers, participate in rescue operations, promote hunter education programs and represent the department at public gatherings.
The Biogeographic Data Branch manages biological and geographic data for the department, its contractors and partner organizations. It analyzes, stores and shares information gathered on vegetation mapping, rare species and plants tracking, and species range mapping.
The department provides news, press releases, updates and announcements to the public, and offers education and outreach for children and schools.
Its Office of Legislative Affairs handles questions and issues surrounding the department’s legal matters and provides information about legislation (pending and existing) and the California Fish and Game Code.
On the department’s organizational chart, both the Wildlife Conservation Board and the Fish and Game Commission report to the director. In actuality, the relationship is complicated and not that direct. The board acts as the property acquisition arm of the department, administering a capital outlay program for wildlife and habitat conservation, public access, open space and watershed protection. Acquired properties are managed by the department. The commission is responsible for formulating certain policies such as season lengths, bag limits and methods of take for game animals and sport fish that the department implements.
Budget Fact Book (
Department of Fish and Game (
Funding for Fish and Wildlife operations comes from approximately 48 different sources, including 27 dedicated accounts within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. About 16% of the department’s money comes from tax dollars in the state General Fund and about 20% comes from hunting and fishing license fees. Other sources include: fees, fines or mitigation; voter-approved bond measures; the federal government; donations; endangered-species tax check-off; and environmental license plate sales.
The department has limited discretion in how it spends its money, with much of its operating revenues (around $400 million) designated for specific programs in the state budget. By law, hunting and fishing revenues must be spent on hunting and sport fishing programs, including fish hatcheries and stocking, habitat restoration, wildlife management and education programs. Other environmental revenues are directed toward conservation planning, environmental review and permitting and water resource management.
In general, about 55% of the department’s expenditures are evenly split between biodiversity conservation efforts and hunting/fishing public use. Most of the rest is spent on enforcement activities (18%), management of public lands (16%), spill prevention and response (8%) and education and outreach (1%).
DFG Budget Information (DFG website)
3-Year Budget (pdf)
The Preservation Fund Comprises a Greater Share of Department Spending Due to Reduction of Other Revenues (State Auditor) (pdf)
Gray Wolf
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has a web page devoted to the gray wolf, which seems odd to some because until December 2011 canis lupus had been absent from California since 1924.
But on December 28, a lone gray wolf was spotted entering the state from Oregon and the department began tracking and publishing its every movement using GPS. OR7, as it was designated, is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. Speculation was that it was scouting the area for possible repatriation, but biologists warned that it could return to Oregon where 24 wolves were believed to live.
“Whether one is for it or against it, the entry of this lone wolf into California is a historic event and result of much work by the wildlife agencies in the West,” said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham. “If the gray wolf does establish a population in California, there will be much more work to do here.”
As Bonham hinted, not everyone is enthusiastic about the possible return of the wolves. Ranchers and hunters led efforts in the 1930s to eradicate the mythic hunters and it wasn’t until federal protection in the ‘80s that any serious efforts to repatriate them began.
“We do not welcome the wolf back in California,” Jack Hanson, a cattle rancher in Lassen County and the treasurer of the California Cattlemen's Association, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “We would like to put a big shield up and keep him out, no doubt. . . . If there were no regulations, our family would shoot them on sight so that they did not multiply.”
The disappearance of the wolves disrupted healthy ecosystems, according to environmentalists, but their return has provided a measure of restoration. For instance, elks vacated lowlands and streams to avoid the wolves, allowing willow, aspen and cottonwood to grow back, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That provided food for beavers, habitat for songbirds and shadier streams for fish. Intimidated coyotes left the area, giving safer haven to small rodents and providing a boon to hungry carnivores that fed upon them.
After the federal government put them on the endangered list, 66 Canadian wolves were released in Yellowstone National Park and parts of Idaho in the mid-‘90s. As of 2010, that population was estimated to have grown to 1,651, shortly before Congress removed the endangered species protection in Montana. The wolf population in the Great Lakes area is estimated to be around 3,000, and they have also been de-listed.
The wolves are controversial in Oregon where pack members killed 20 cows and calves over a two-year period. Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife killed two wolves and were planning to hunt down more until conservationists filed a lawsuit. But scientists say that, Little Red Riding Hood notwithstanding, legends about the threat of wolves to humans are overstated, if not downright wrong. There are only two known incidents of wolf attacks in the past 100 years in the U.S. and Canada.
Other lawsuits challenge the government’s delisting of the wolves from the endangered species list in various parts of the country.
Lone Wolf Crosses into California from Oregon (by Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times)
Wolf's Entry into Calif. Major Environmental Step (by Peter Fimrite, San Francisco Chronicle)
Lone Gray Wolf Crosses into California (by Elizabeth Weise, USA Today)
How the Gray Wolf Lost its Endangered Status—and How Enviros Helped (by Hal Herring, High Country News)
Wolves in California (California Wolf Center)
Hatcheries
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has wrestled over the years with formulating a policy for dealing with public and private fish hatcheries. It produced and stocked over 42 million trout, steelhead, and salmon in lakes and streams at its 21 fish hatchery facilities in 2009.
Sport and commercial fishing interests fear that regulations could curtail their activities.
Environmentalists claim that the impact of stocking these hatcheries has a devastating effect on native fish, amphibians and other wildlife and the department. Scientists at the National Marine Fisheries Service maintain that hatchery stocking was an important factor in the collapse of salmon runs that led to a complete shutdown of commercial salmon fishing in California and Oregon for two years.
Under the pressure of lawsuits, Fish and Game produced an Environmental Impact Report (
“The California Department of Fish and Game has utterly failed to mitigate for the devastating impacts of stocking hatchery fish on native fish and wildlife like chinook salmon, mountain yellow-legged frogs, and long-toed salamanders,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director at the center. He demanded a new
Roland Knapp, a biologist at the University of California’s Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory, said it was a missed opportunity “to develop fish-stocking options that could benefit both native species and anglers. Instead, they’ve produced an impact report that will benefit neither.”
The department proceeded to implement its
It forged ahead and presented a proposal to the Fish and Game Commission in December 2011, where it was promptly shot down. The commission unanimously rejected requirements that hatcheries perform biological assessments before acquiring permits.
Parties on all sides agree on one thing: the issue is far from resolved.
Legal Synopsis of Two Lawsuits (Alston & Bird LLP) (pdf)
Lawsuit Filed to Protect Native Fish and Amphibians from Hatchery Fish Stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game (Center for Biological Diversity)
Commission Rejects DFG Regulation Changes for California Fish Stocking (California Aquaculture Association)
Game Wardens
The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle read: Game Warden Shortage Nearing Critical Stage. And it was. Low pay, tough job and a few extraneous factors and the Department of Fish and Game found itself down to 310 game wardens in the field with 75 unfilled spots. Half the force was expected to retire in two years.
That was in 2001. It got worse. There are less than 200 game wardens in the field to stop polluters, and protect fisheries, wildlife, fauna and citizens. And it’s a big field; the department actively patrols 160,000 square miles hundreds of miles of shoreline. Game wardens are among the most highly trained and lowest paid in law enforcement. Budget cuts are squeezing resources.
The state has the lowest per capita number of game wardens in the country. Florida has about four times as many game wardens. Brazen poaching, marijuana wars and new marine protection areas present constant challenges.
Applications to join the force are, not surprisingly, down.
This has not gone unnoticed.
A National Geographic Channel documentary reality series, “Wild Justice,” about California game wardens tromping through marijuana gardens growing rampant on public lands. The season premiere in November 2010 set a record for premiers at the channel. It gave a sense of scope to the jobs that game wardens do, and perhaps some insight into character. “We are serious cops, not bird-and-bunny cops,” Lt. John Nores explained on the show. “It's like we're doing all these special ops, like they do in Afghanistan. Except we're in the eastern foothills of San Jose.”
But being noticed doesn’t necessarily translate into having your issues addressed. Governor Jerry Brown crafted a proposed 2012-13 budget that cuts the number of wardens by 20%, at a savings of $5 million, if his tax increase measure is not approved in November 2012.
Game Warden Shortage Nearing Critical Stage (by Tom Stienstra, San Francisco Chronicle)
The Warden Crisis (by Bob Orange, California Fish & Game Wardens Association)
Game Warden Shortage Is About to Get Worse (by Tom Stienstra, San Francisco Chronicle)
“Wild Justice” Game Wardens on the Road about Marijuana Grows on Public Wildlands (by Kevin C. Paulson, Hunting Life)
California Game Warden Salary Information (GameWardenSalary)
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
The Department of Fish and Wildlife sits on the 19-member steering committee that guides the Natural Resources Agency as it leads the planning process for the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
The plan is an attempt to solve an old dilemma: how to ensure water for 25 million Californians and their agricultural/commercial/urban needs while protecting the already endangered Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem. It is a joint product of state and federal government agencies and will produce a strategy meant to be implemented in a 50-year time frame. The delta is the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas.
The plan is controversial because of its contradictory goals of pumping more water under, around or through the delta to destinations south while trying to revive the delta’s dying ecosystem. Many believe it is a zero-sum game with clear winners and losers and the choice is between either restoring the delta or shipping more water south to its detriment.
Governor Jerry Brown, in his January 2012 State of the State message endorsed the general idea of the plan, which seemed to indicate his support for a peripheral canal to export the water, though for political reasons, his endorsement was vague.
The peripheral canal is a third rail in California politics, like raising taxes. Feared by voters and deadly to the touch for politicians. The canal proposal has a number of variations but basically aims to divert water from the Sacramento River around the delta to pumps on the delta’s southern edge to facilitate transport south where fresh water is in short supply. It first made the ballot in 1982 and was soundly defeated despite the support of Governor Brown, during his first stint in the office.
Fish and Wildlife plays a key role in the environmental compliance and conservation planning process, so skeptical environmentalists are watching it closely to see if restoration of the delta will truly be a part of the grand scheme.
In the meantime, the department finds itself embroiled in a number of delta issues. In September 2011, a federal judge approved settlement of a lawsuit by farming interests led by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta against Fish and Game that will probably lead to a major expansion of striped bass fishing.
The coalition alleged that the non-native striped bass was preyed on native fish and was responsible for declines in salmon and delta smelt. Environmentalists said this was a canard pushed by big water interests and was meant to divert attention from the real causes of salmon and smelt declines.
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) (
Governor Brown Endorses Bay Delta Conservation Plan (Bob Morris, Independent Voter Network)
The Delta Debate: Resurrecting the Canal (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)
Settlement Will Expand Fishing for Striped Bass (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)
No Need for Reasonable Suspicion
In June 2011, California game wardens got a boost from the state Supreme Court when it ruled that the Fish and Game employees could stop and question a person they reasonably suspected had been hunting or fishing even if they did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the person had committed a crime.
The high court ruled in People v. Maikhio that this “limited” privacy intrusion during an administrative search was outbalanced by the state’s “special needs” beyond criminal law enforcement, in this case preserving wildlife.
A warden had used a spotting telescope to watch the suspect, Bouhn Maikhio, catch either lobster or fish from a pier and put them in a black bag. When the warden pulled the suspect’s vehicle over, Maikhio denied having any fish or lobster in the car. The warden found a lobster in the bag and issued Maikhio a citation. In ensuing litigation, Maikhio’s lawyer sought to suppress the lobster evidence as having been part of an unconstitutional search and seizure.
Maikhio won at trial, lost in the appellate division of the Superior Court, won in the Court of Appeal and then lost in the high court.
San Diego County Deputy Public Defender Matthew Braner, who argued before the Supreme Court, said by the court’s logic, police might be empowered to stop and search motorists who had just left a bar in order to prevent drunk driving. San Diego Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Lapin, who also argued the case, said the U.S. Supreme Court had already addressed that issue and said such detentions outside a bar would be unconstitutional.
California Game Wardens Can Stop Hunters and Anglers, Demand to See Their Catch; Reasonable Suspicion Unnecessary (Ferae Naturae)
State High Court Upholds Game Wardens' Powers (by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle)
People v. Maikhio (Justia)
No Need that Suspicion be Reasonable
The support seemed reasonable when first offered in 2009. The Department of Fish and Game operated a CalTIP program that helped catch poachers, a subject near and dear to the Humane Society, which donated $5,000 for food and care of five rescued dogs trained to assist game wardens. That didn’t sit well with some in the hunting community, long suspicious of the animal welfare organization.
And they were none too pleased when Fish and Game, wanting to offer a reward for the capture of whoever illegally killed a mountain lion in the Santa Monica Mountains, gladly accepted reward money from the Humane Society in September 2011.
That $2,500 donation, to hear some in the hunting community tell it, was just an “insidious” way for an organization opposed to hunting to infiltrate a key hunting regulatory agency. “Imagine the ‘Got Meat’ commercials hiring a vegan for their spokesman; or the fur industry asking for the endorsement of PETA,” complained Bill Karr, a writer for Western Outdoor News.
Fish and Game Communications Director Andrew Hughan denied any partnership with the Humane Society and thought the critics might be missing the point. “This is about catching the scumbags who killed a mountain lion.”
Despite the denials, suspicions continue. The writer Karr asserted that Humane Society influence and grown, and game wardens were now being trained by the pet pacifists: “They are now, believe it or not, actually instructors training line officer
Jordan Traverso, a spokesman for the Fish and Game, said don’t believe it and that no one from the Humane Society was taking classes or teaching at the department’s warden academy.
Karr wasn’t buying any of it. “What the Humane Society of the United States has done here, is buy the Department of Fish and Game, and it's support, for a few thousands dollars.”
For its part, the state Humane Society denied it was anti-hunting. “The HSUS focus is on curbing the most abusive, unsporting, and biologically reckless wildlife abuses and we work to maintain protections where they’ve traditionally existed,” said state Director Jennifer Fearing. “Our major focuses are poaching, captive hunting, and fox/coyote penning—practices that not only animal protection advocates, but also many hunters, find abhorrent.”
Fearing did confirm one allegation made by her hunting critics. She had joined the CAL-Tip board of directors.
Animal Rights Group Has Infiltrated California Department of Fish and Game (by Bill Karr, Western Outdoor News)
Anti-Hunting Humane Society and California Fish and Game Continue War on Poaching (by Ed Zieralski, San Diego Union-Tribune)
Mountain Lion Dispute
Hunting mountain lions for sport has been illegal in California since 1990. But according to a whistle-blower lawsuit in 2011, the practice has not been eradicated.
A former hunting guide at Tejon Ranch in Southern California alleged that he was fired after objecting to the illegal killing of a mountain lion and complaining to ranch managers about poaching on the property. Bron Sanders, who filed a lawsuit in Kern County Superior Court, said managers expressed anger over the state’s ban on lion hunting and blamed the animals for killing game that trophy hunters were willing to pay up to $20,000 to shoot. The ranch’s hunting operation generates up to $2 million a year in revenue.
Sanders said he personally witnessed the killing of 20 mountain lions. Ranch officials called the allegations “ridiculous and untrue.”
The lawsuit was reportedly settled, but the Department of Fish and Game launched an investigation and in January 2012 Tejon Ranch announced that it had agreed to suspend its hunting operations after acknowledging that mountain lions had been killed.
State law allows hunting of mountain lions, but only if they pose a danger to humans or livestock and a permit has been acquired. The animal’s carcass must be turned in within 24 hours of the kill. Violation of the law is a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine up to $10,000 or a year in county jail.
Biological Status of Mountain Lions in California (Mountain Lion Foundation) (pdf)
Both Sides in Controversy over Lion Hunts Take Their Last Shots (by Daniel M. Weintraub, Los Angeles Times)
California’s Mountain Lion Protection Law (Mountain Lion Foundation)
Former Tejon Ranch Hunting Guide Says Mountain Lions Were Killed Illegally at the Ranch (by Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times)
Tejon Ranch Halts Hunting after State Probe of Cougar Killings (by Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times)
Tejon Ranch Confirms Illegal Lion Hunting and Suspends Hunting Program (by Patrick Hedlund, The Mountain Enterprise)
Strategic Vision
The California Legislature passed a law in 2010 requiring the Natural Resources Agency to develop a strategic vision for the Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission by July 2012.
The endeavor is widely seen as an attempt to reduce the scope of the department’s activities as budgetary pressures force a reappraisal of the myriad tasks delegated to it over the years. As one observer of 20 years, David Guy, put it: “It is no secret that the Legislature during the past-century has layered numerous functions on
A 2006 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office found a “structural deficit within the [Fish and Game Preservation Fund] that has built up over many years.” The analyst’s office also found a department that was improperly attempting to restructure itself without input from, or communication to, the Legislature.
The strategic vision is expected to address overlapping roles the department shares with the federal government, long-term funding, exploration of partnerships in both the public and private sectors, a re-evaluation of fish and wildlife resource management, a reordering of priorities and re-thinking of policy positions.
Competing stakeholders will be weighing in on the process, including hunters and fishermen, landowners, non-consumptive recreational users, environmentalists, educators, labor representatives, commercial fishing interests, conservationists, scientists and other government agencies.
A draft interim report was released for public comment in December 2011.
California Fish & Wildlife Strategic Vision (Strategic Vision website)
A Fish and Wildlife Strategic Vision for California (by David Guy, Water Food Environment blog)
Draft Interim Strategic Vision (Strategic Vision website)
AB 2376—Bill to Create Strategic Vision (Legislative Information) (pdf)
Analysis of the 2006-07 Budget Bill (Legislative Analyst’s Office)
Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
The world’s oceans are overfished and polluted. While there have been longstanding efforts in California to protect, preserve and rehabilitate the land, the ocean off its 1,100-mile coast has been largely ignored.
The Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 (MLPA) attempted to address that situation by ordering a reexamination of the marine protected areas that had been designated in a piecemeal fashion over the years, and development of a coherent plan based on scientific guidelines. Two attempts to implement the MLPA failed between 1999 and 2004, followed by a new joint effort by the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Fish and Game and the Resource Legacy Fund Foundation.
That last effort resulted in a plan adopted by the department in 2007 that divided the coast into five regions, each with its own protected areas. The Central Coast plan for the area between Pigeon Point and Point Conception was implemented that year, followed by the North Coast (Alder Creek to Pigeon Point) in 2010.
The South Coast plan for Point Conception to the Mexican border was inaugurated on January 1, 2012, establishing a patchwork of 49 new marine sanctuaries covering 350 square miles along 15% of the Southern California coast.
MPAs provide three levels of protection: State Marine Reserves, in which no fishing is allowed; State Marine Parks, where commercial fishing is prohibited but recreational fishing is allowed; and State Marine Conservation Areas, where limited commercial and recreational fishing is allowed.
Some fishing groups see them as intrusive, confusing and a threat to commercial fishing. Some environmentalists see them as inadequate and a sellout to commercial interests.
Marine Life Protection Act (pdf)
Fish and Game Commission Adopts Visionary Plan for Protecting Marinelife off the Central California Coastline (Ocean Conservancy)
The MPA is a Big Success
Problems off the California coast have intensified in the 10 years since the Marine Life Protection Act was passed, and while supporters of the new marine zones acknowledge that they aren’t perfectly crafted, they see it as an important step in reversing the destructive trend.
The Fish and Game Commission voted 3-2 to implement the plan, which Commissioner Richard B. Rogers called an “elegant balance” between conservation and fishing interests. And Ocean Conservancy Pacific Program Director Kaitlin Gaffney said, “California’s new protected areas are a smart investment in a healthier ocean and a more sustainable coastal economy.”
The Surfrider Foundation, an active participant in development of the marine protected areas, said that “while it’s obvious that not everyone is happy with the outcome, the process was thorough and involved a diverse group of representatives, including commercial and recreational fishermen, conservation groups, surfers, state agency staff, scientists and concerned citizens, etc.” Surfrider had held its own community forums around Southern California to talk about the MLPA.
Although the environmental community was divided on the issue, the final map of Southern California MPAs had the full support of Heal the Bay. “The establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Southern California’s waters will help safeguard our marine life and coastal heritage for future generations,” said Coastal Resources Director Sarah Sikich, a member of the taskforce that drew the MPA boundaries. “In the long term, we all are going to benefit from larger, and more plentiful fish.”
Other supportive environmental groups include Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Orange County Coastkeeper and Santa Monica Baykeeper, all of whom pledge to volunteer assistance in enforcing restrictions in the zones.
A lawsuit challenging the legality of actions to implement the Marine Life Protection Act failed in Superior Court in October 2011 but was appealed.
State Adopts Network of Protected Marine Areas (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)
Ocean Protections Upheld (CalOceans News)
South Coast Region Marine Protected Areas (by Chad Nelsen, Surfrider Foundation)
Marine Protected Areas Approved in SoCal (Heal the Bay)
The Privatization of State Parks & Ocean Management in California—And Why That’s a Good Thing (by Richard Frank, Legal Planet)
The MPA is a Sellout and a Disaster
Opponents of the South Coast MPA labeled it an unscientifically derived corporate sellout that will do little to solve problems in the ocean and may, instead, exacerbate them.
Dan Bacher, who writes extensively on environmental matters for a host of publications, says the Marine Protected Areas were created under the leadership of Big Oil lobbyists who “have reason to celebrate.”
The MLPA blue-ribbon task force that developed the marine plans was chaired by Susan Golding, former San Diego mayor and current CEO of the Golding Group, who sits on the boards of 1st Pacific Bank, Avinir Pharmaceuticals and Titan Industries. Others on the five-member panel include Bill Anderson, president and CEO at the nation’s largest owner and operator of waterfront marinas, and Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, who has repeatedly called for weaker environmental regulations and new oil drilling off the California coast.
Bacher called the new South Coast region “fake marine protected areas” that shield the ocean from fishing but fail to protect it from “oil spills and drilling, pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects.”
The Resource Legacy Fund Foundation, which channeled private funds into the state initiative that created the protected marine areas, received its largest donation, $8.2 million to fund state hearings, from the David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The Packard Foundation has been a supporter of studies in support of the controversial Peripheral Canal that environmentalist fear will wreak havoc in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta if it is ever built.
Environmentalist John Stephens-Lewallen, co-founder of the Ocean Protection Coalition and North Coast Seaweed Rebellion, warned that, “We can’t let these areas, closed by a corrupt private process, keep us from exercising our fundamental rights and duties to have access to sustainable food from the ocean.”
His wife, Barbara, co-owner of the Mendocino Sea Vegetable Company, said, “The MLPA is the beginning of the privatization of our natural resources in California where, in an underhanded and illegal way, the decisions have been taken from the people and put into the hands of the ocean industrialists.”
Even the most optimistic supporters of the MPAs recognize that there isn’t nearly enough law enforcement staff to ensure compliance. Fewer than 30 game wardens from the Department of Fish and Game patrol the Southern California waters in three offshore vessels and 10 smaller shore-based boats. Environmental groups are gearing up to keep an eye on water sanctuaries, and fishermen are gearing up to keep an eye on the environmentalists. Confrontations loom and an already thinly-stretched Department of Fish and Game will be hard-pressed to lend much assistance.
Bechtel and Packard Funded Report Greenwashes the Peripheral Canal (by Dan Bacher, Alternet)
Marine Hearings Buoyed by Nonprofits (by Ted Reckas, Laguna Beach Independent)
The Big Corporate Money Behind the MLPA Initiative (by Dan Bacher, AlterNet)
Halfway Marine Protection Measure Launched in California (by Dan Bacher, Red Green and Blue)
Volunteers to Help Patrol New Marine Sanctuaries (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)
Blue Ribbon Task Force: Member Biographies
The Role of the Fish and Game Commission
The independent Little Hoover Commission, surveying the relationship between the Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission, concluded it was an “antiquated structure . . . that has not proven capable of reacting either quickly, consistently or adequately to the demands of our times.”
That was in 1990, and not much has changed. Theoretically, the 5-member commission formulates policy and the department implements it. In reality, it’s a complicated relationship with overlapping and contradictory functions that sometimes engender conflict.
For instance, in December 2011 the commission rejected the department’s proposed rule changes to require biological assessments by hatcheries and fisheries before the stocking and growing of fish. The rejection was unanimous and not entirely cordial. “My direction is rejection, and I’m not directing them (DFG) to come back,” Commissioner Dan Richards said. At issue were the costs and inconvenience, disputed by both sides, of complying with a new permitting process.
Is there a better way to manage the state’s wildlife resources?
Commission Overview (Fish and Game Commission website) (pdf)
About the Fish and Game Commission (
Yes. The Commission Should be Retooled
The commission is run by part-time panel members who have other, mostly high-powered jobs, and a small staff that relies on the department for analysis and recommendations. It has been accused of bias toward one stakeholder interest or another, bad communication with the Legislature and department, and contentious relations with the public it serves.
A study by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2011 found that the regulatory authority of fish and wildlife commissions in Florida, Texas and Washington is integrated into agency operations, unlike in California. The commissions appoint executive directors, approve land purchases and have oversight over budgetary proposals. Washington’s commission even issues policy statements with specific directions for its wildlife department.
The California commissioners are paid a small stipend and all generally have full-time jobs that make large demands on their time. They are not chosen based on any particular expertise although some seats have traditionally been accorded to specific shareholder interests like “the hunting seat.” This vagueness has, from time to time, resulted in deep suspicions about the commission’s impartial stewardship. It was a common perception during Governor George Deukmejian’s administration in the 1980s that the board favored hunters, farmers and big business.
The Little Hoover Commission, in its 1990 report, suggested that broad representation should include scientists, environmentalists, ranchers, developers and sportsmen. A report in 2009 by former Fish and Game Commission Executive Director Robert Treanor suggested that the board be expanded to accommodate this kind of diversity.
The Treanor Report said there was one universal sentiment expressed by everyone they talked to: “The Commission must have hiring/firing authority over the Director of the Department.” A second popular recommendation among experts interviewed was that the commission have its own budget, rather than a line item in the department’s budget to avoid being in a subservient position. As the report candidly pointed out: “Funding does truly dictate policy.”
Fish and Wildlife Agency Structures and Best Practices: A Study of Florida, Texas, Washington, and New York (Legislative Analyst’s Office)
No. It’s an Evolutionary Process That Works
The relationship between the department and commission has changed over time, a reflection of shifting societal needs, economic realities, scientific advances and ever changing environments. The Legislature has responded by expanding the commission’s regulatory and management authority.
For instance, the commission was originally responsible for the regulation of recreational fishing and hunting; the Legislature had jurisdiction over commercial fishing. Since then, most of the commercial fishing jurisdiction has shifted to the commission. The commission has more than 200 powers and duties delineated in the Fish and Game Code, the most significant being the power to set limits on sport take and possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians and reptiles. It sets the dates for hunting and fishing seasons, bag and size limits and methods and areas of takes.
The commission also provides an appeals process for those unhappy with decisions by the department.
An elaborate reorganization proposal of the executive branch by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 and one by the Brown administration in 2011 did not see any necessity to change the fundamental relationship between the department and commission. Schwarzenegger’s California Performance Review made no mention of either agency, and Brown’s limited proposals to elimination of six department advisory groups.
In 2010, legislation was passed directing the Natural Resources Agency to develop the California Fish and Wildlife Strategic Vision for the commission and department. Among its directives was consideration of “institutional or governance changes, including clarification of the roles of the commission and the department.”
That’s part of an ongoing process of regeneration that eschews a process described by critics as “blowing up the boxes” in favor of tweaking the model and, perhaps, doing a little thinking outside the box.
Report on California’s Fish and Game Commission and Department of Fish and Game (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)
A Look at the California Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Game Commission (The Treanor Report) (pdf)
Commission Rejects DFG Regulation Changes for California Fish Stocking (California Aquaculture Association)
John McCamman, 2009–2011
Donald Koch, 2008–2009
John McCamman, 2007–2008 (interim)
Loris “Ryan” Broddrick, 2004–2007
Sonke Mastrup, 2003 (interim)
Robert C. Hight, 1999–2003
Jacqueline E. Schafer, 1996–1999
Boyd H. Gibbons, 1991–1995
Pete Bontadelli, 1987–1991
Jack C. Parnell, 1984–1987
Don Carper, 1983–1984
E.C. Fullerton, 1975–1983
G. Raymond Arnett, 1969–1975
Walter T. Shannon, 1960–1968
William E. Warne, 1959
Seth Gordon, 1951–1958. Gordon was the first director of the department after its elevation from the status of division.
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
