California’s anglers are not the only ones upset about the court-ordered ban on stocking trout in more than 170 of the state’s lakes and streams.

For decades, and in some cases up to 100 years, trout have been stocked throughout California to provide recreational opportunities for anglers.

Using funds from the sale of fishing licenses, the Department of Fish & Game has done an outstanding job in creating some fantastic trout fisheries.

But not all of the fish planted are caught by human anglers. If you’ve ever watched an osprey dive at full speed from 50 feet in the air straight into the water and come up with a nice-sized trout, you understand how much they enjoy these gifts from the DFG.

Fresh-stocked trout are also a favorite dish of other predator birds such as eagles, herons and cormorants.

River otters will enjoy a nice trout feast too, and the slower-swimming hatchery fish make easy targets for them.

The arrival of the trout truck rings the dinner bell for hungry largemouth bass as well.

Bass fishermen are well aware of this fact, as evidenced by the racks in the sporting goods stores filled with six- to 10-inch long bass lures designed to imitate rainbow trout.

And in the higher-elevation reservoirs, big brown and lake trout eagerly feast on new arrivals from the hatchery in much the same way.

The fact is, the regular stockings over the many years have really become part of the food chain in these waterways. Many wild species have come to depend on this food source, and these species will now suffer because of the ban on stocking.

Over the next year, the DFG will be developing the environmental impact report on its stocking programs to learn how they affect certain native species of endangered amphibians and fish. I will be eager to see the other side of the coin on how the stocks have actually benefited many other species at the same time.

It is unfair to pull the rug out from under the predator species (not to mention the license fee-paying anglers) in such a drastic manner.

In my opinion, the court made a huge mistake in ordering a flat-out ban on stocking in any of the waters.

Perhaps a reduced allocation would have been better while the studies are taking place.

Now, as unpopular as this might seem, I will come out and say that I support the idea of the environmental impact studies. I believe it’s very important for us to understand how our civilization affects the environment and the other animals that inhabit it.

In fact, I would say it’s our duty. It’s also important for everyone on both sides of this issue to understand that California’s environment can never be the way it once was.

As our civilization arrived and developed, we fundamentally changed the landscape, the waterways — and even the ocean.

We built dams and levees, fences and walls. We divert water flows all over the state. We’ve cultivated vast areas, and taken pains to keep wildlife out of our crops. We built huge freeways that interfere with wildlife migrations, and laid pavement over millions of acres of habitat.

We have claimed these lands as our own, and as the self-appointed custodians it is our duty to manage them responsibly. And to our credit, in recent years we have taken major steps in restoring wetlands and other natural habitats throughout the state.

There is a balance to be found in the co-existence of humans and wildlife.

But, due to our influence, the environment is a very different one now than it once was.

We may have to accept that not all of the species that are native to the original California will be able to survive in the new one we’ve created.

Guy Carl is a CPA and partner with BDCo Accountants and Advisors in St. Helena (www.bdco

cpa.com). Contact Guy at GC.outdoors@sbcglobal.net.