San Diego & SoCal Fishing Forums

That's amazing! Great work. If you need support, please reach out, I'm semi-retired, so I can usually break free.

TommyP wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:20 am The fight continues.....I guess this is what retirement is all about. I requested a 1 on 1 with the Mayor and yesterday received an email that the request was granted.....just waiting for the date and time from his office. Stay tuned.

TommyP

Thanks Tommy. I hope you get the meeting and that they listen to what you have to say. We need to stand up for ourselves.

Appreciate you.

Thanks for all your efforts on this. I wish I had seen it sooner.

Thank you for all you do Tommy!

Maybe there should be an online petition to be made? If I knew how I’d do it in a heartbeat!

Anyone here know how or have someone who’s well versed in making this happen?

I’m not sure if there’s an actual big draw for online signatures as Barrett is not that well known and I base my opinion when talking to others from local tackle shoppers in talking about Barrett and what a cool and neat fishing lake, they all say “never heard of it” or it’s too pricey (when compared to El Cap or SV and the other lakes.

Maybe put up flyers in the tackle shops?

A need to inform our fellow fishermen who may not fish Barrett but at least lend their support by signing a petition and presenting that to the City and other officials that we have a voice and concern of the increased fees.

Will all this big increase in Barrett fees help to fund better boats, better motors, better dirt road conditions etc or is this going to fund the other lake’s interests or other funds going to outside any city lake’s needs?

While we all know fee increases are everywhere and inevitable and life goes on.

But the hugh markup is excessive!

I’m thinking the city will put up this big bump and see what sticks?

It’s not set in stone and maybe a negotiating point, set the amount and or increase up high knowing there’s room to come down and everyone smells like winner.

I propose rather than a single one-time increases is to offer a gradual yearly increase of 2.5% across the board.

The 2.5% annual increase is in effect for 3 years. After the expiration year, it’s up for talks again but not this crazy big chunk.

Don’t forget to add in whatever TM fees are going to add to this cost.

Again it’s all a negotiable starting point with 4-5% maximum.

Start low and go a bit higher.

With the city raising the fees so high so fast, they’re going to see a larger decrease in the hotter summer season and guess who loses?

Not us, but the decline in the city’s revenue from Barrett.

falafeluver wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2025 2:19 pm
Will all this big increase in Barrett fees help to fund better boats, better motors, better dirt road conditions etc or is this going to fund the other lake’s interests or other funds going to outside any city lake’s needs?

Not a cent will go to any San Diego lake in a way that benefits anglers.

Just like home insurance. Barrett bump plus the next 30% increase after palisades fire, I’m just going to start making casts in the back yard…

With all these “legal” protests that happen all over the nation, I ponder what it would be like to show up with a 1000 fisherman and protest Barrett with rod in hand.

The increases, according to the Staff Report, 1/25/2025, Public Utilities FY 2026 User Fees, are for what they call 0 cost recovery. That simply means what it costs to run the lake 1 year with no profits. Keep in mind they just increased the fees in 2023, example they took the daily permits from $20 to $30 and the boat reservation from $80 to $100, plus the Ticketmaster fees! And now another fee increase? I have 7 different ways they can increase revenue, example seasonal passes, cancel the 1 day closure/month, extend the season, etc. If someone can spearhead the petition that would be great. Maybe also explain how I can post pictures to this forum and I will share the documents that I have. The more info I have for my meeting with the Mayor the better. I am also emailing Joel Anderson, he is one of our best friends.
TommyP

camobass wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 7:19 am Just like home insurance. Barrett bump plus the next 30% increase after palisades fire, I’m just going to start making casts in the back yard…

With all these “legal” protests that happen all over the nation, I ponder what it would be like to show up with a 1000 fisherman and protest Barrett with rod in hand.

If we gathered 1,000 online signatures and presented in writing, could have some affect too.

Any word on what the proposed fees are for tubers? Plus any added lake permit fees?

The city is limited by law from charging more than cost for user fees, they can't gouge users to pay for other projects. With a $250M dollar budget shortfall, it will be a nonstarter to ask the city to cover costs at Barrett.

But some good questions are:
1. Why is Ticketmaster being used? There are services out there that charge as little as $.99 per ticket. https://eventify.io/blog/ticketmaster-c ... ternatives . The difference could be used to reduce the ticket cost increase.
2. Why are Barrett costs so much higher than other lakes?
3. Why is Barrett closed 1 Wednesday a month? Keeping it open would add a bit more revenue. Maybe even have it open Tuesday and Wednesday.
4. Demand pricing should be looked at, charge more for May, June and September than for July and August which are under subscribed. Increasing ticket prices could have the effect of bringing in less revenue in July and August.
5. As mentioned in an earlier post, why are fishermen charged at other lakes but not other users? Does a shore fisherman, tuber or kayaker really cost the city that much more than a walker, roller blader, bird watcher or bicyclist?
6. Parking lots and car washes have long dispensed with attendants for cost reasons. Why can't Barrett have a toll gate where a user inputs a 10 digit code from his ticket to get in?
7. One reason Barrett fishing is so good is that it is barbless catch and release. Why not make another lake barbless catch and release to relieve the demand for Barrett? Even a small amount of keep (even temporarily in a live well for a tournament) or use of non barbless hooks cause enough mortality to result in natural selection that favors cautious fish.

There must be some guys that are IT or computer savvy unlike me, that could start up an online petition to make a site for a less costly alternative than the ones the city suggesting to enact soon.

Some of the ideas have been mentioned here can be put into the petition.

One where those wanting to sign on as an easy read and quick click link to sign it.

The online petition is a great idea....there has to be a Junkie out there who can start this going? Remember this is Barrett they are trying to F..K with!

TommyP

Ps I have invited all the City Council members for a personal visit to Barrett, stay tuned.

Thank you Tommy.

Play-to-play for basic fishing isn't how it should be at any of these lakes. Barrett, though some anglers like to protect it with high costs, is the epitome of a ripoff on F&G codes and the CA constitution for fishing access.

Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly. If I look at the total number of days they are open and make some assumptions that are probably within 20%, I'd guess this increase would result in something around 50-70K total, which it probably won't. If I look at fiscal year 2025 report the budget is 2.08 billion. That seems like something that this additional revenue would get lost in. Even if there is a 250 million shortfall to the overall budget, the added 60 thousand would amount to something like 0.02%. If I look at the general fund ( which I think, but don't know, supports parks ) it's at $281.7 million which means we are still a fractional percentage. Instead of us looking for methods to help them save this loss, maybe there's a bigger culprit to point them at in terms of lost revenue. I'm worried we just don't have the numbers of people to keep them from targeting us.

For 2025, with the proposed city’s new fee structure, we’re looking at a possible boat reservation of over $200!

$150.00 ticket fee, $25 TM fee (assuming as 2024 was $22), add the $45 lake permit fee = $220.00

Early release wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 10:09 am Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly. If I look at the total number of days they are open and make some assumptions that are probably within 20%, I'd guess this increase would result in something around 50-70K total, which it probably won't. If I look at fiscal year 2025 report the budget is 2.08 billion. That seems like something that this additional revenue would get lost in. Even if there is a 250 million shortfall to the overall budget, the added 60 thousand would amount to something like 0.02%. If I look at the general fund ( which I think, but don't know, supports parks ) it's at $281.7 million which means we are still a fractional percentage. Instead of us looking for methods to help them save this loss, maybe there's a bigger culprit to point them at in terms of lost revenue. I'm worried we just don't have the numbers of people to keep them from targeting us.

You are over the target Dave. This drop in the bucket has been contrived as they assume there will be minimal outcry. Even if we all banded together to protest, I doubt it will hold enough weight to stop this fiscal bullying. Not in CA and sadly now in SD anyway.

JWall wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 12:45 pm

Early release wrote: Wed Feb 19, 2025 10:09 am Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly. If I look at the total number of days they are open and make some assumptions that are probably within 20%, I'd guess this increase would result in something around 50-70K total, which it probably won't. If I look at fiscal year 2025 report the budget is 2.08 billion. That seems like something that this additional revenue would get lost in. Even if there is a 250 million shortfall to the overall budget, the added 60 thousand would amount to something like 0.02%. If I look at the general fund ( which I think, but don't know, supports parks ) it's at $281.7 million which means we are still a fractional percentage. Instead of us looking for methods to help them save this loss, maybe there's a bigger culprit to point them at in terms of lost revenue. I'm worried we just don't have the numbers of people to keep them from targeting us.

You are over the target Dave. This drop in the bucket has been contrived as they assume there will be minimal outcry. Even if we all banded together to protest, I doubt it will hold enough weight to stop this fiscal bullying. Not in CA and sadly now in SD anyway.

Hi John, that's pretty much what I am saying, but you may have said it more clearly. Our numbers are small enough that we are easily bullied.

Am meeting with the Mayors office on Thursday,2/28 @ 1 pm. Any petition input would be appreciated.

TommyP