Lakes Improvement Initiative Meeting.

Thanks for the comments and ideas. I'll send an email with a link to this thread out first thing tomorrow with cc to all meeting attendees that I know of.

I don't think we are going to hammer out any issues that I can come back and say this or that is going to happen. it's completely new territory for me. I want to find out how big of an opportunity for advocating for our interests the County interagency lakes management initiative can be. Nobody really knows this at this time. It's an emergent process at best, so far.
If it looks promising, maybe we can figure out how we can help push fishing and angler's interests up on the agenda, at least equally with other recreational activities around the lakes. These folks do have a reputation for being enthusiastic, bound by a lot of budgets, jurisdictions, and all kinds of other limits, of course. I know at least some of them relate to fishing, which is getting rare in leadership everywhere.

The County has the possibility of being a better partner for us than the city alone, or any independent water district alone.

 

The meeting happened as scheduled and went on for a full hour.
There were 4 of us. Director of County Parks and Recreation, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation and
Someone I haven't nailed down a position for but It was Regional Parks and Rec or County Operations.

They basically gave me the Microsoft teams meeting, which is like zoom for those who don't know, and then honest, sometimes painful feedback, which is good to know.

All points in this thread were expressed again.

Most County Supervisors are not engaged much and will be more worried about economic than social impacts. Supervisor Anderson and his staff and these Parks and Recreation folks, pretty much, will or won't make something of this but their restraints are real. Not a slight to the current staff, but there are no Jim Browns or Larry Bottroffs. I explained the value they brought to the public and the fisheries for reference purposes. Other people know a lot more about this than I do, but it seems the impacts they were allowed to have at city lakes were phased out.

Sutherland and Jennings seem to be the focus. I guess the county ran Jennings at some point.
Camping is hoped for around Southerland. The point is that County Parks & Recreation already has a lot of focus on that geographical area.

The county doesn't have the slightest impact on water levels. We probably knew that. So Sutherland Could be just like Morena!

There is a dearth of advocacy for anglers by anglers. Nobody on county staff, or the Board of supervisors hears from us often. Easy to think the San Diego City Council people do rarely as well. There is no single standout fishing/lakes advocacy group in the entire county of San Diego. SD FISH is probably the best thing going but we are certainly not organized for, or embracing the task.

The Survey is still open. I think it is until April 8th.


As stated, this is an emergent process. Not necessarily going to blow the doors off with opportunities at our lakes, but probably will accomplish something.

Lake managers, whether they be the city of San Diego, or independent water districts mostly don't want anyone in their business unless it's to give them money.

Fish and wildlife agencies not rushing to get engaged with the county either.

Nothing is happening to impact Loveland Reservoir positively, or negatively with the lakes initiative.
Where the Sweetwater Authority is concerned the County's priority is to complete a trail all the way around the Sweetwater Reservoir.

The County won't be relieving the Forest Service of their duties at Loveland.
Supervisor Anderson's office is still helping with Loveland to some degree.

 

Thank you, Vinny, I think I like fighting, I mean advocating, as much as fishing. At least this is a good cause to attach those pugnacious tendencies to.

 

This really goes on the Loveland page, but it does introduce the Survey/Lakes initiative.

Reader

 

Thanks, McFish.

We don't have somebody like Jim Brown. We should just get over it. No city worker is allowed the impact on lakes that he was allowed.

The public can fill some of that....maybe if we spoke up more they would get so tired of us that they would give us a lake manager like Jim.

The tournament guys probably feel lucky for any cooperation they get and don't want to upset anyone pushing for help for recreational anglers. I truly doubt they dwell on "owing" us anything. The tackle shops are another story, but even they have to be pleaded with or coerced sometimes as long as the cash register is ringing they are not too bothered about any of this.

I think we might let our antipathy towards politicians get in our way. Understandable, but overplayed. They need to hear from more of us, and more often, and semi-constructively, not just ranting about what losers they are. It's hard to overcome that antipathy and doubt about our local representatives, trust me I know. It has to be done, in numbers, to get our priorities a chance. As hobby anglers, we are actually disenfranchising ourselves.

 

O.k. I am on a soapbox.

It has the least financial burden.

At its core, a lake is a park. We need more parks, right? The county Spends 25 million per regional park. It is a matter of pragmatism that existing parks should be open. The city is getting away with murder by keeping these lakes closed or making it so "pay to play", while exercisers and picnickers, and others have facilities all over the county, with all sorts of associated costs, make a mess for public workers to clean up, and in most cases don't pay a cent. If we are going to pay to play beyond our taxes, at least spread it out over more days.

Parks should be subsidized, most of them are, seven days a week unless you fish. Subsidized does not mean welfare. We are taxpayers too. Even though the demographics have changed a lot over the last 20-30 years. The County isn't as blue-collar in nature as it used to be by ratios. However, due to population increases, there are, overall, there are more taxpayers that want to fish now than there were back then. There are not any more lakes...just less access to the ones we have always had.

 

Make sure as a ranger that you harass everyone using live bait. Hey, where are my nightcrawlers anyway? And, oh yeah, take some damn largemouth bass home!

 

I'm a little riled up, but not that bad. What I am thinking is, that if the lakes were seriously audited for public access entitlements, and enough people wanted to raise hell for a long time, a good number of them could never get away with closing to fishing on weekdays or any days. Putting boats on them every day might not be defensible, but denying shoreline and nonmotorized access is probably wrong in some instances.

 

The County Department of Parks and Rec. w as supposed to get back to the Board of Supervisors on the Lakes initiative by now. I have asked Supervisor Anderson to put it on the agenda for his public speaking event on June 9th at the Lakeside Rodeo. I can't be there to follow up on it due to my son's graduation. Maybe someone else can go?
Just remind him we are waiting for improvements.

Register here:
Lakeside Community Coffee Town Hall Meeting

Anyone interested, let me know if you have any questions.