Fishing - Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Oh, mama...can this really be the end? (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=8465)

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

Scott Seidman wrote in message:

Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

NYS DEC?

I don't recall them in the article.

NYC DEP. Yes.

And, NYC DEP realiable?

Get real Scott.
..............

To tell you the truth, I haven't even looked at the FUDR plan in that
much detail.

www.fudr.org

Please spend a few minutes getting to know the plan since you *are* a local
TU officer.

Right?
.........

There are probably parts of the plan that are fine, except
for the 600cfs demand. All I know is that I've watched the FUDR goings
on and interactions with other sportsmen and environmentalist in the
state, and I know that I don't like how FUDR treated them.

Nope.

Try how NYS Council treated FUDR.

Reread their quarterly report.

It's in print. I believe there might be a retraction in the next issue.
...............

I know that
every article you post seems to exaggerate flow problems on the Delaware
and blame the new release policy for the flow problems...[snipped for the
sake of sanity]

NY Times
NJ Star-Ledger
Newsday

Try:
google / news / upper delaware river

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

NYS DEC?

I don't recall them in the article.

NYC DEP. Yes.

And, NYC DEP realiable?

Get real Scott.

Now you're thick and can't read.

"New York state Department of Environmental Conservation officials contend
that fishing will _ over the long haul _ improve even in the West Branch
under the three-year pilot program."

Department of Environmental Conservation==DEC!!

Scott

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Please spend a few minutes getting to know the plan since you *are* a
local TU officer.

From the FUDR plan
"Toward that end, our positions are clear and concise: To protect both the
wild trout and the cold water ecosystem, we seek a guaranteed 600 cfs
release, from the Cannonsville Reservoir, from May 15 to September 15th.
Here we would also point out that this rate of release not only protects
the fishery, it readily accommodates both wade and drift boat fishermen and
in so doing protects local fishing related economies."

This is the big sticking point between FUDR and other regional sportsmen
and environmentalist. This ain't gonna happen. It's an impractical dream.
It's not necessary to protect the fish habitat, but to accomodate drift
boats on the West Branch. The DRBC is unlikely to approve such a plan,
regardless of how annoying FUDR makes themselves. Environmental groups are
unlikely to invest the political capital to fight for flow increases that
serve fishermen more than the fish.

Scott

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

On 9 Jul 2004 12:04:12 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

NYS DEC?

I don't recall them in the article.

NYC DEP. Yes.

And, NYC DEP realiable?

Get real Scott.

Now you're thick and can't read.

"New York state Department of Environmental Conservation officials contend
that fishing will _ over the long haul _ improve even in the West Branch
under the three-year pilot program."

Department of Environmental Conservation==DEC!!

Scott

Scott, I understand some of your points and playing devils advocate is
also good for discussion, but the DEC? The DEC wants nothing to do
with the fishery. They couldn't care less. Anything positive that
has been happening as far as releases this season IMHO is just some
good luck..

Tony Ritter, a Catskill area guide, keeps some really great Delaware
River logs on his website. By the way, I've never met Tony in person
and have never even spoken with him. That said, the following link is
not spam. It's something I use quite often to see what the fishing
has been like. http://www.gonefishingguideservice.com/river1.php
There are no annoying advertisments with that link. Notice he's been
doing quite a bit of bass fishing on the lower D.

As far as guides wanting higher water levels for floating... If it
creates AMERICAN jobs that cannot be outsourced, I'm all for it! I'm
not a guide but I would prefer to see 800 - 1200 from release's,
running through the Gamelands area and I do wade the river more than
float it. Of course this makes fishing a place like Hale's Eddy a
little tougher, but who cares, the WB is a nice sized river.

I am an FUDR supporter. I may not always agree with everything they
have to say or the way it's said, but I think the overall goal of the
FUDR is more beneficial to the river and the trout and to me, than
anything else that has been presented by the DRBC/DRF.

- Regards

-=Paraleptropy=-
http://www.neflyfishing.net
0 Limit,Catch -n- Release

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

On 9 Jul 2004 12:19:25 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Please spend a few minutes getting to know the plan since you *are* a
local TU officer.

From the FUDR plan
"Toward that end, our positions are clear and concise: To protect both the
wild trout and the cold water ecosystem, we seek a guaranteed 600 cfs
release, from the Cannonsville Reservoir, from May 15 to September 15th.
Here we would also point out that this rate of release not only protects
the fishery, it readily accommodates both wade and drift boat fishermen and
in so doing protects local fishing related economies."

This is the big sticking point between FUDR and other regional sportsmen
and environmentalist. This ain't gonna happen. It's an impractical dream.
It's not necessary to protect the fish habitat, but to accomodate drift
boats on the West Branch. The DRBC is unlikely to approve such a plan,
regardless of how annoying FUDR makes themselves. Environmental groups are
unlikely to invest the political capital to fight for flow increases that
serve fishermen more than the fish.

Scott

Of course their plan is to protect the trout, without the trout,
there's no money to be made. Although I'm not on the money making
bandwagon, the FUDR plan is still in favor of a pristine Wild Trout
fishery and I'd like to add, extending it an extra 2-3 months! What
more could you ask for? Why not support this plan?

Many people have looked at it as a way for the Delaware River
outfitters to make money. So let them make money, this is how they
put food on their tables. While they're making their money, I'm
enjoying the river. Fishing is not my business, it's my sport, my
hobby, and aside of my family, it's my life.

I used to be a DRF supporter, because Jim Serio was very convincing
(and a gentleman), but I honestly cannot see how a flow (Not Release)
of 225 past Hale's Eddy, is going to benefit anyone or any fish in the
river from Hale's Eddy down through the Mainstem. Basically, this
means that if 400cfs of boiling water is flowing off the top of the
damn, they don't have to release anything! All fish die.
-=Paraleptropy=-
http://www.neflyfishing.net
0 Limit,Catch -n- Release

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:

On 9 Jul 2004 12:04:12 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

NYS DEC?

I don't recall them in the article.

NYC DEP. Yes.

And, NYC DEP realiable?

Get real Scott.

Now you're thick and can't read.

"New York state Department of Environmental Conservation officials
contend that fishing will _ over the long haul _ improve even in the
West Branch under the three-year pilot program."

Department of Environmental Conservation==DEC!!

Scott

Scott, I understand some of your points and playing devils advocate is
also good for discussion, but the DEC? The DEC wants nothing to do
with the fishery. They couldn't care less. Anything positive that
has been happening as far as releases this season IMHO is just some
good luck..

This goes against much of what my experience with the fisheries division
is. They know that the better the fishing is, the more licenses they
sell, the longer they can maintain staffing at current levels, the more
fish they can stock. They do their level best with the resources that
they have. The DEC has nothing to do with releases, though, aside from
possibly making recommendations to the DRBC and whatever permitting
process is required.

Tony Ritter, a Catskill area guide, keeps some really great Delaware
River logs on his website. By the way, I've never met Tony in person
and have never even spoken with him. That said, the following link is
not spam. It's something I use quite often to see what the fishing
has been like. http://www.gonefishingguideservice.com/river1.php
There are no annoying advertisments with that link. Notice he's been
doing quite a bit of bass fishing on the lower D.

That's what sportsmen all over NY do when the water gets too warm to fish
for trout. That's what we do in Western NY. Hearts don't bleed when you
guys complain that you can't fish for trout twelve months a year.

As far as guides wanting higher water levels for floating... If it
creates AMERICAN jobs that cannot be outsourced, I'm all for it! I'm
not a guide but I would prefer to see 800 - 1200 from release's,
running through the Gamelands area and I do wade the river more than
float it. Of course this makes fishing a place like Hale's Eddy a
little tougher, but who cares, the WB is a nice sized river.

I am an FUDR supporter. I may not always agree with everything they
have to say or the way it's said, but I think the overall goal of the
FUDR is more beneficial to the river and the trout and to me, than
anything else that has been presented by the DRBC/DRF.

- Regards

-=Paraleptropy=-

We all agree-- we'd like to see the best fishing possible in the entire
Delaware River watershed. This goal is for the good of the sport, and
the economic health of the Catskills area.

The differences come in the methods use to attain this goal. Politically,
the DRBC is very unlikely to approve a minimum 600cfs release. Screaming
about it isn't going to help anything, and repeating this naiive demand
over and over might just destroy credibility to the DRBC, and really
isn't the way to get things done.

Let's take this to the next level of discussion. Let's try to define a
minimum release that will maintain a healthy fish population, and for the
sake of this discussion, let's call it "A". Next, let's try to define a
minimum release that will provide good fishing, wading, and floating, for
12 months a year, and let's call that "B". Rule one for getting all the
environmental and sports groups acting together is to not ask for "B" and
make believe we're asking for "A"--it hurts our credibility. This isn't
to say that "B" is not a tremendously important goal, but to me and many
environmentalists, it's not nearly as important as maintaining a healthy
riparian ecosystem. Also, let's not make believe that the fishing
industry in the area is being killed by the new release policy. Tons of
money in fishing tourism flows into the area, and water flows are better,
not worse, than before this interim policy. Sure, the fishing could be
made better by future policy changes, but the fishing is FAR from
disastrous right now. Sure, we'd all love 600cfs, but if we hold our
breath, stamp our feet, and keep saying that 600cfs is necessary for fish
health, we won't be taken very seriously. Don't mix riparian health and
good fishing. In this case, they really are two different goals. Are
the current release rates sufficient for fish health? Investigations are
ongoing, and these results will certainly frame the next management plan.
This is what the interim plan is all about.

By being frank about our aims and establishing a meaningful partnership
with DRBC, we think we'll be able to negotiate a better outcome than with
an unconditional demand for 600cfs.

Keep in ming that this recent reevaluation of releases is the first in
many years, and a clear sign that the DRBC, with four member states, and
no court mandate to change flows, is willing to work with the sportsmen,
environmentalists, and local governments in NY to improve fish and
fishing. This is a wonderful development. To not acknowledge that this
interim three year plan is a step in the right direction, and goes a long
way to, at the very least, bring these options to the table, is somewhat
of an insult to the DRBC, and to the many groups who have worked very
hard to try to get this plan established. Remember, if the DRBC doesn't
like what's going on, they can tell us all to take a walk. Having the
DRBC close discussion is a real possibility that FUDR has to keep in
mind.

So, if the FUDR presented the facts that some policy changes could
improve fishing and help economic conditions in the area, instead of
making believe current conditions are just a disaster, I'd have more
respect for their position.

Last, thanks for some honest and open discussion of these points.
Frankly, discussants like InfoAge don't make you guys look good.

Scott

Oh, mama...can this really be the end?