Once upon a time in ages gone by, California was a wild, wonderful and natural place.

Rivers flowed freely from their headwaters in the high country all the way to the coast. Salmon and steelhead trout ran so thick in these waters that you could have practically walked across the river on their backs during the peak of the annual migration. Many mountain streams also held healthy, year-round populations of native rainbow, golden and cutthroat trout.

It was an angler’s wildest dream.

In those days, Mother Nature was in charge of culling fish populations. Eagles, osprey, otters, bears and the native American peoples of California kept the fish numbers in check, taking only what they needed to survive.

But everything changed when the “foreign” settlers began migrating to California from the east, the west, and later from the south.

They came by the thousands, and then by the millions. Vast plains and valleys were converted to farmlands, so massive amounts of water were diverted from the streams for irrigation. Gigantic sprawling cities were built, so most of the major rivers were dammed up to provide drinking water for the inhabitants.

What resulted was a widespread loss of habitat for California’s native fish, and populations have plummeted for a number of species.

But for every stretch of salmon and steelhead spawning habitat eliminated by a dam, a whole new world of aquatic habitat was established in the reservoir behind it. And in many cases, this new habitat was ideally suited for different kinds of fish than what lived in the river before.

Programs to stock sportfish have been conducted by the California Department of Fish & Game and its predecessors for nearly 150 years.

At first, these programs were designed for the express purpose of providing recreational opportunities for anglers. Little, if any, discrimination was made between species that were native to California and those imported from other parts of the world.

The goal was to plant fish that were likely to thrive in the various environments available for fishing.

A prime example of this program was the introduction of the largemouth bass. No species of bass is native to any part of California. Yet their populations are now self-sustaining and thriving in many of the state’s reservoirs. And we have Clear Lake, California’s largest natural lake, which hosts one of the finest largemouth bass fisheries in the nation.

Another example is the hundreds of high-mountain lakes in the Sierra Nevada mountains. These natural lakes never had populations of any kind of fish until DFG began bringing in trout, at first on pack mules and later through the use of airplanes.

Over the years, the fish stocking programs have evolved to become more geared towards managing the various fisheries, including consideration for all animal and plant life native to the rivers, streams, and lakes.

The goal now is a balanced approach — to maintain or restore natural habitats while providing recreational opportunities for anglers. Most of the high-mountain lakes are no longer stocked with trout because they were found to be harmful to some of the native amphibians and other species.

But this evolution wasn’t enough for the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity. These two organizations filed a lawsuit in 2006, challenging DFG’s stocking practices and claiming that many native species of amphibians, invertebrates and other fish were being harmed.

Last November, the two sides negotiated a curtailment of trout stocking on a temporary basis while a full Environmental Impact Report was completed by DFG.

DFG has just released a draft of the EIR, and is seeking public comment for a 45-day period through Nov. 16.

Public meetings will be held at several locations throughout the state, including one in Sacramento on Wednesday, Oct. 21 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Elk’s Lodge, Riverside Hall, 6446 Riverside Blvd.

The full report is available on DFG’s Web site at  www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/.

I should warn you, it’s an extremely comprehensive report — the “executive summary” alone goes on for 16 pages!

In the end, the report calls for DFG to continue its stocking program as it had before the lawsuit, but with new protocols in place to determine whether certain protected species could be harmed in each water proposed for stocking.

In effect, a mini EIR would need to be done for each and every lake or stream DFG intends to stock.

There would also be tighter rules on disease control in the hatchery, procedures for prevention of cross-breeding with native trout species in waters stocked, and numerous other items designed to protect all species of wildlife in waters to be stocked.

All these protocols and procedures seem perfectly logical, and should satisfy the issues brought up in the lawsuit.

But to me, they seem like an enormous use of time, energy and money that could better be spent elsewhere.

And in the big picture, what are they really accomplishing?

The trout program is being picked on because it’s something that can be stopped. But there are so many other impacts man has had on the environment that are far more disruptive to the original natural order, it’s really laughable how this tiny drop in the ocean is being attacked.

I believe strongly in protecting the survival of our native creatures. They are a legacy of this part of the world, and it’s our responsibility to allow them the right to survive as they did for thousands of years before our occupation began.

In my eyes, there is nothing more beautiful than the wilderness in all its natural glory, undisturbed by the hand of man.

But I also believe that in the New California — the one with tens of millions of people and the scores of enormous reservoirs that have replaced the natural streams — we have created new and different ecosystems that may not be suitable for some of the native amphibians (and other species).

Take all the trout out of Lake Hennessey if you must, but what’s to stop the bass from gobbling up those tasty little endangered tadpoles? Taking it a step further, how much more and diverse wildlife is there in the lake today than what was in the former creek before Conn Dam was built?

There is a compromise to be found between nature and man. I believe it can be achieved by designating certain areas of the state as wild and natural, while allowing others to be managed for the needs of the people.

A huge step in this direction was taken this week, as the groups battling over the Klamath River agreed to tear down its four hydro-electric dams and let the river flow unobstructed from Upper Klamath Lake all the way to the sea.

Three hundred miles of river are being given back to nature and the native salmon and steelhead who used to call it home. This is a fantastic development, and I hope the first of many!

But let us keep reservoirs like Hennessey, Berryessa and Almanor that we’ve created, and let us stock in them the kind of fish we like to catch.

Guy Carl is a CPA and partner with BDCo Accountants and Advisors in St. Helena (www.bdcocpa.com). Contact Guy at GC.outdoors@sbcglobal.net.