Fish, Fisheries and Queryomics
Beel is pretty amused. Here is the text, in its entirely, from a brief report published in the Opinion Shop, San Francisco, California.
“In California’s fight over water that has pitted fish against farmers, this round has gone to the fish. The California Fish and Game Commission unanimously rejected on Feb. 2 a proposal to decrease the striped bass size restrictions and increase bag limits from two fish to six fish. Farmers had sought to change the rules to gain increased water allocations. Fishermen, who packed a Department of Fish and Game hearing in Rio Vista last year to protest the change, said the proposed rules would eradicate the species.”
“The commission concluded that the current rules would meet the terms of a legal settlement reached in a 2008 lawsuit. An entity representing water districts contended that the non-native striped bass were eating the threatened native salmon.”
Two points are worth considering. First, it is nice to see the interests of the fish, and fishers, considered. But the striped bass is an introduced species. Do native species get the same easy consideration? Second, California seems rather less concerned about salmon predation than Oregon (see Beel’s post on the northern pikeminnow bounty). Beel asks, is California more enlightened, or is this further evidence that the pikeminnow bounty is all about shifting attention from dams to fish? Beel says, yes, to both.
Beel used Topsy Analytics to examine activity in the Twitterverse regarding striped bass. Let Beel present these results. There is variable, but modest activity until February 2. The date on which the California Fish and Game Commission announced its ruling. That was the top news tweeted on that date. Good news travels fast.