Outdoors : ANALYSIS : Report Criticizes Fish, Game Officials : Outdoors: Little Hoover Commission offers guidelines for the ‘90s that include seeking more input from professionals in the field.

California Fish and Game--the commission and the department--took some lumps when the Little Hoover Commission released the findings and recommendations of its 10-month study last week.

The state’s fish and wildlife program came off like a mom-and-pop store. According to the report, Mom, the Fish and Game Commission, lacks the scientific background to set proper policy. And Pop, the Department of Fish and Game professionals who administer the policy set by the commission, lacks the coordination to manage the state’s natural resources into the 21st Century.

The report also lays blame at the feet of Gov. George Deukmejian, who appoints the five commissioners and “has publicly stated . . . that ranchers and sportsmen . . . represent the best possible membership.”

The Little Hoover Commission, which monitors and investigates efficiency of government agencies, says that biologists, environmentalists and developers might be helpful, as well, in planning the future of the resources.

Some department employees couldn’t agree more with the report. They are biologists and game wardens, frustrated not at being underpaid--which they are--but because of a lack of support from their Sacramento headquarters, where, they are convinced, policy is based primarily on politics.

They see pleas for part-time help on special projects go unanswered, conscientious reports shelved. And, the Little Hoover report says, field employees complaining to Sacramento may get in trouble with regional administrators, who make up their own rules.

It was noted that a court threw out a proposed bear hunt last year because the DFG lacked sufficient data to prove that such a hunt was viable, and that “the Legislature distinctly indicated its reluctance to discuss allocation of state resources until such time as the DFG can provide accounting information consistent with professional practice.”

The Legislature must approve the DFG’s budget each year.

Finally, the report addressed public relations, in which, it said, “the DFG has demonstrated less than optimum performance.”

The most recent example: The Hoover report was released last Thursday. Hoover staff member Kathy Johnson said two copies were delivered to the DFG office on Wednesday “because we knew the media was going to call them and ask for a response.”

The Fish and Game Commission office received copies Friday and, Johnson said, also could have had them earlier if requested, “but nobody asked.” The report was straightforward and only 40 pages. It didn’t require a lot of study.

But despite requests for a response starting Thursday, DFG Director Pete Bontadelli didn’t respond until Tuesday, when he issued a one-page, single-spaced statement.

“The Department is always looking for recommendations on how to improve our activities (and) will be striving to implement them,” Bontadelli said.

The commission still hasn’t been heard from.

The Little Hoover Commission report is meant as a guideline for the decade, but some DFG administrators already had a course set. In fairness to Bontadelli, he has been the director only since November of 1987 and has overseen several progressive changes.

Trout fishermen will start the decade with a new statewide limit of five, down from 10 in the Eastern Sierra and northern regions. That proposal, adopted by the commission last month, received remarkably little objection. A conservation-minded public apparently was ready for it.

Still, because of an expanding demands on recreation resources, the state may soon need to buy fish from private hatcheries to supplement its own breeding plants.

“We haven’t just cut the bag level to five,” said Bob Rawstron, chief of the DFG’s Inland Fisheries Division. “We are also increasing the average size of the fish we rear in the hatcheries. Where a catchable trout was four to six to the pound--a seven- to nine-inch fish--we’re now looking at two to the pound, which is in the 11- or 12-inch range . . . (and) we can crowd only so many fish in until we start losing the advantages of growth.”

The DFG wouldn’t need to plant as many if more anglers adopted the catch-and-release ethic, which Rawstron said is catching on.

“You just don’t see people coming off the lakes with big stringers anymore,” he said.

The issues of the ‘90s are more complex for hunting. After losing the bear hunt, the department won approval for a tule elk hunt only by researching a special report. This year the DFG is submitting environmental documentation to support hunts for deer, bear, elk, antelope, mountain lion and bighorn sheep. The deer paper alone is 300 pages.

Terry Mansfield, assistant chief of the Wildlife Management Division, said: “The courts are interpreting laws differently. We’re faced with the challenge of adapting to that. Having a hunting regulation treated as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act is a new twist.

“There is a well-established animal-rights segment of the public that’s to be reckoned with. We have to recognize their point of view and allow their input into the system. I hope we could identify objectivity versus emotional, philosophical attitudes.

“We need to do a better job of educating . . . not the anti-hunting segment (nor) the current hunters, (but) that non-hunting segment in the middle that is a large portion of the California populace. They don’t necessarily oppose hunting. But they’re not always aware of the background behind . . . what the role of sport hunting is in longtime wildlife and habitat protection. (We need to) convey the idea that it’s OK to sport-hunt (because) it doesn’t take away opportunities from the non-hunting segment (to appreciate wildlife).”

Perhaps more than the public, Fish and Game needs to be enlightened, as the Hoover report stressed.

The greatest concern to saltwater sport anglers is gill nets, which may lead to a ballot initiative in November. Critics say the DFG, under strong political pressure, has sold out to commercial interests.

Bontadelli says nobody knows how great an impact gill nets have on sport fisheries, and that may be the problem.

Mark Helvey, coordinator of recreational fisheries for the National Marine Fisheries Service on Terminal Island, said:

“Gill nets look like the destruction of the ocean, but we don’t know if the information we get is accurate. Fish and Game says it’s not as bad as others make it sound. And yet the data shows that they’re a very effective fishing tool. You don’t know whom to believe. What is going on out there?

“I talk to (some) people in Fish and Game who say they’ve seen areas just totally wiped out. I personally think they have a pretty strong impact.”

Even if an initiative posed by Assemblywoman Doris Allen (R-Cypress) is successful, Helvey isn’t sure it will help. The state’s jurisdiction extends only to the three-mile limit. Beyond that are federal and international waters.

“It just shifts the problem from one agency to another,” he said.

Helvey’s organization has a goal that may work better.

“We’re starting a conservation-education program, working with the resource agencies and the fishing industry. It’s going to be directed at recreational fishermen (to) become more conscious of what they’re doing out there . . . take only what they need, teach ‘em proper techniques for catch-and-release and tag-and-release.

“They’ll point the finger at the commercial industry. And yet our recreational data base that monitors recreational fishermen shows that there’s quite a bit of impact from recreational fishermen.

“When I was real young, we used to go surf fishing and leave everything on the beach--sharks and rays--and not think anything of it. I think all of that has had an impact. I’m hoping the ‘90s will get people to learn the facts, rather than trying to gang up in an us-versus-them situation.

“What we have seen the last couple of years is the recreational community becoming more organized . . . and gill nets have been the one rallying issue that has pulled them together. I see that as being a very effective force in getting our agency and Cal Fish and Game to sit up and pay attention.”

It is hoped that the Little Hoover Commission got Fish and Game’s attention.