Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Your Show is a broadcast TV show here in Colorado that is based on
questions for a given topic are asked by the viewers. Info is below
my .sig.

Adam Schrager is a great guy and will follow-up with you any questions
you send along. This week's section is about he future of the Cache La
Poudre, a beautiful river in Colorado with something like 50 or more
miles of access from the road that follows it on up.

Willy, thought you'd be interested.

Your pal,

TBone

A man from the west will fight over three things: water, women and
gold, and usually in that order."
--Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater

This week, YOUR SHOW tackles the future of one of Colorado’s most
popular rivers, the Cache la Poudre, in northern Colorado.

Right now, it’s the only river in the state designated as “wild and
scenic,” and is one of the most popular attractions in one of the
country’s fastest growing regions. You can see the conflict. The
population coming to northern Colorado need water to drink and to
irrigate and think some of the Poudre water should be diverted into
reservoirs. Others see its pristine beauty, its majestic
characteristics and fear man-made intrusions on a natural landmark.

We’ll discuss the river’s future with experts on both sides of the
issue. If you want to participate in the conversation, please e-mail
us at: .

YOUR SHOW airs at 10:30 a.m. on My20, Comcast Channel 3 on Sunday
mornings. Each week, it’s your ideas, your comments and your questions
that produce YOUR SHOW.

If you don’t want to receive a note like this in the future, I’m sorry
to have inconvenienced you. Simply respond to this note and I’ll take
you off my list.

Thanks for your participation. Oh, and if you have a great quote about
water you’d love to share, we’d love to show it to our viewers.

Adam

Adam Schrager
9News Political Reporter
YOUR SHOW Producer/Host
www.9News.com/yourshow
303-871-1825 (w)
303-500-2935 (cell)

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

This is the question I posed for the show:

Hi Adam,

I caught my first trout in the Poudre when I was very young, around
1965. My photo from this was in the "Fishing and Hunting News". Since
then I've been a very avid Colorado outdoorsman that loves Colorado
and especially fishing for the jewels that swim in the waters of The
Glory of this state. Recently, you know, the state trout was changed
from the Rainbow trout (an introduced species, from California, no
less) to the more appropriate Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.
This would mean removing the bag limit on Rainbow trout while
protecting the Cutts that would have to be reintroduced (as fry
probably). Would the river sustain a wild population of Cutthroat
trout? Do you think having native fish in the river would increase its
value to the state and define conservation for the area?

Thanks,

---
Halfordian Golfer

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 2, 12:39 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

This show aired and is archived at http://www.9news.com/yourshow/articl...?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 4, 2:15 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 2, 12:39 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:



On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

This show aired and is archived athttp://www.9news.com/yourshow/article.aspx?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

We'll have these hit and miss water projects until we get serious
about The Grid.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


This show aired and is archived at http://www.9news.com/yourshow/articl...?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Although I support reintroductions of Cutts, the question is TOTALLY
irrelevant in this debate. It's you that didn't get it. The issue is
whether to take even more water our of the river. If more water is taken
there won't be ANY fish much less native cutts.

Picture of a common low flow:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Hatchery11152007.jpg

A pic of one of the beautiful Bows that is able to deal with the water
levels:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Untitled-1.jpg

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 18, 7:52 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

This show aired and is archived athttp://www.9news.com/yourshow/article.aspx?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Although I support reintroductions of Cutts, the question is TOTALLY
irrelevant in this debate. It's you that didn't get it. The issue is
whether to take even more water our of the river. If more water is taken
there won't be ANY fish much less native cutts.

Picture of a common low flow:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Hatchery11152007.jpg

A pic of one of the beautiful Bows that is able to deal with the water
levels:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Untitled-1.jpg

Willi

I understand the issue Willi, I don't believe you've thought it
through. I fully understand that the dam will be filled by diverting
more water from below the canyon, the project that will create super
low flows through the city. Water from where you've already shown it
to be ridiculously over allocated.

The question was this, maybe a bit cerebral than you gave it credit
for, One both groups hadn't considered, nor you, apparently.

Should supporting the native species in this watershed be a 'baseline'
of conservation for the project? The "vision" statement, if you will.

Now, all the developers will say is "the fishing in the canyon won't
be changed". Only a fool would believe that. A fool that doesn't
understand Holligan reservoir, a fool that doesn't understand
conservation, a fool that thinks Rainbow trout will not migrate, a
fool that's never understood the holistic ecosystem and does not care
to. Put another way, you can;t get what you want if you don't know
what you want. Now, say we want cutthroat in the river, period. Not
rainbow, or smallmouth bass or brook trout. We want cutts. They have
requirements to survive. We need to meet those requirements. Don't you
get it? This is the tactic that we need to use.

What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.

Each of these little band-aid solutions to this major problem adds up
to a disaster in the making.

"Alone we can only carry buckets but together we can drain rivers",
Mike Brady.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Willi


What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.


I guess I'm busting your chops because it seems that for you, every
fishery issue, comes back to your hatred of C&R and Rainbow Trout.

Introducing native Cutts, although this is something I favor, is not
going to stop the construction of the reservoir. The decision on the
reservoir will be made this Summer.

The proposed reservoir WILL have no effect (well there can always be
unforeseen effects) on the river above the point where the water will be
removed. It's not a damming of the Poudre, it's an off river reservoir
that will rely on a new piping system as well as existing canals to
transport water from the river to the reservoir.

My point is that no more water should be taken out of the river and that
flows should be better managed for the health of the river environment.

Although it is, by far, the most heavily used part of the river by
recreational users, there is no "official" recreational usage "on
record" for the river below the canyon mouth. Because of this, like you
heard in the Water Board's response, their position is that there is
"no" recreational usage of the Poudre below the canyon mouth and
dewatering the river even more will not have any effects on peoples'
usage. I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area. This study will be part of the EIS that will be considered. This
is the first time in Colorado that an Environmental Impact Statement was
part of the approval process for a new water storage reservoir.

There are three possible outcomes (There are more, but for simplicity sake):

1. The reservoir will be built and the Water Board will regulate water
distribution like it currently does.

2. The reservoir will be defeated

3. The reservoir will be built but the Water Board will have to
mitigate for the damages the construction of the reservoir will cause. A
possible mitigation (one that the DOW favors) is to have some other
entity (possibly the DOW) have the right to make water demands for the
good of the river itself. In addition, the Water Board would have to
spread out their discharges to keep a more even flow in the river. Now,
in order to reduce the amount of water loss from infiltration and
evaporation, the Water Board will "push" water down the lower Poudre as
fast as possible. They raise the river level up several feet for a day
or so, then drop it back down the virtually no flow after they've moved
all the water they wanted.

It's not about C&R and Rainbow trout.

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi

What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.

I guess I'm busting your chops because it seems that for you, every
fishery issue, comes back to your hatred of C&R and Rainbow Trout.

Introducing native Cutts, although this is something I favor, is not
going to stop the construction of the reservoir. The decision on the
reservoir will be made this Summer.

The proposed reservoir WILL have no effect (well there can always be
unforeseen effects) on the river above the point where the water will be
removed. It's not a damming of the Poudre, it's an off river reservoir
that will rely on a new piping system as well as existing canals to
transport water from the river to the reservoir.

My point is that no more water should be taken out of the river and that
flows should be better managed for the health of the river environment.

Although it is, by far, the most heavily used part of the river by
recreational users, there is no "official" recreational usage "on
record" for the river below the canyon mouth. Because of this, like you
heard in the Water Board's response, their position is that there is
"no" recreational usage of the Poudre below the canyon mouth and
dewatering the river even more will not have any effects on peoples'
usage. I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area. This study will be part of the EIS that will be considered. This
is the first time in Colorado that an Environmental Impact Statement was
part of the approval process for a new water storage reservoir.

There are three possible outcomes (There are more, but for simplicity sake):

1. The reservoir will be built and the Water Board will regulate water
distribution like it currently does.

2. The reservoir will be defeated

3. The reservoir will be built but the Water Board will have to
mitigate for the damages the construction of the reservoir will cause. A
possible mitigation (one that the DOW favors) is to have some other
entity (possibly the DOW) have the right to make water demands for the
good of the river itself. In addition, the Water Board would have to
spread out their discharges to keep a more even flow in the river. Now,
in order to reduce the amount of water loss from infiltration and
evaporation, the Water Board will "push" water down the lower Poudre as
fast as possible. They raise the river level up several feet for a day
or so, then drop it back down the virtually no flow after they've moved
all the water they wanted.

It's not about C&R and Rainbow trout.

Willi

You're completely missing my point.

1) define the characteristics of the river you want to conserve
2) conserve it

Does the vision, including long term future vision, include trying to
restore the watershed to indiginous species? If yes, than that would
be part of the mitigation. If not than it's a moot point.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

You're completely missing my point.

1) define the characteristics of the river you want to conserve
2) conserve it

Does the vision, including long term future vision, include trying to
restore the watershed to indiginous species? If yes, than that would
be part of the mitigation. If not than it's a moot point.

TBone


The river need water to even be a river. Without water it ceases being a
river. Right now, the river is basically an irrigation canal for the
water companies.


With respect to restoring the native Greenbacks. It's very difficult to
restore a tiny single isolated stream back to native species. In the
Poudre drainage, the DOW tried to restore several small feeders to
native Greenbacks. Here some shots of one of the few that were successful:


http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1763%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1778%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1789%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1792%20(Medium).JPG



Most of the reintroductions were unsuccessful. In one, they either
failed to remove all the Brookies or someone put some in, in another
Rainbows somehow got back in and in a couple the Cutts failed to re
establish themselves. (You fished one of these unsuccessful restorations
with me). Greenbacks don't seem to be able to compete with other trout
or char.


Success is spotty even with very small self contained streams. Restoring
a watershed the size of the Poudre River watershed to native species
would be beyond any DOW's means. Consider the size of the watershed with
probably thousands of miles of streams and river. I don't think the
technology, will, money, support etc exists to accomplish such a massive
program.

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone


We're conducting a specific study designed by the DOW that includes
on-stream
angler counts, interviews and creel/catch statistics. It's being
done in a specific manner so that the data is can be quantified and will be
reliable and valid so that it can be compared to data obtained on other
sections of the Poudre River. It's a fairly rigorous study, not just a
simple
opinion poll, so that it can be included in the Environmental Impact
Statement

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 18, 4:37 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone

We're conducting a specific study designed by the DOW that includes
on-stream
angler counts, interviews and creel/catch statistics. It's being
done in a specific manner so that the data is can be quantified and will be
reliable and valid so that it can be compared to data obtained on other
sections of the Poudre River. It's a fairly rigorous study, not just a
simple
opinion poll, so that it can be included in the Environmental Impact
Statement

Willi

I'm worried about preparing for an EIP when the organizers aren't even
considering the state's indiginous species in the discussion.

Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


I'm worried about preparing for an EIP when the organizers aren't even
considering the state's indiginous species in the discussion.

There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored to the river
corridor that would be affected by the reservoir. This is not Rocky
Mountain National Park. It is a river corridor that runs through the
city of Fort Collins then easterly through farm country. There are
countless numbers of introduced species in the area. There are parks,
gardens, homes, bike paths, farms, ranches, ponds, etc. all along the
corridor.

Actually there is a chub on the endangered list that lives in the lower
river. I believe a study on the chub that was done by one of the members
of our group will be part of the EIS. Greenbacks are no longer on that
list and they no longer exist in that part of the drainage.

Water quality studies will be included that show high levels of
estrogen, nitrates, etc levels in the water.



Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

What is the C word?


Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:07:59 -0600, Willi Loehman
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
[...]

Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

What is the C word?


Willi

Best guess: "conservation"
Next guess: "cutthroat"
Best fit: "crackpot"

/daytripper (hth ;-)

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip]
There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]

Especially when it isn't even Considered.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored

[snip]

Especially when it isn't even Considered.

TBone

BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]

Especially when it isn't even Considered.

TBone

BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.

TBone


The difference is that when they built I70 they were trying to preserve
a wilderness that was still there. However, although the road was an
engineering feat, it is still an expressway going through a beautiful
canyon that would have been much more beautiful without it (it would
also be better without that section of river that's sucked dry).

What you're suggesting is to turn an area that has been developed and
settled for over a hundred and fifty years, back into a native
environment. The area affected by the reservoir is an urban and a
farming environment. You would have to condemn 1000's of peoples'
homes, farms, businesses etc etc. in order to even attempt what you
suggest. That would go over great. If that was part of the "plan" there
is NO WAY that it would get the support needed and the water board would
just get to do whatever they wanted. We not trying to turn Fort
Collins/Greeley into a National Park, just keep some water in the river
in order to preserve what little bit of wildness that's left along the
river corridor.

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 20, 11:52 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]

Especially when it isn't even Considered.

TBone

BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.

TBone

The difference is that when they built I70 they were trying to preserve
a wilderness that was still there. However, although the road was an
engineering feat, it is still an expressway going through a beautiful
canyon that would have been much more beautiful without it (it would
also be better without that section of river that's sucked dry).

What you're suggesting is to turn an area that has been developed and
settled for over a hundred and fifty years, back into a native
environment. The area affected by the reservoir is an urban and a
farming environment. You would have to condemn 1000's of peoples'
homes, farms, businesses etc etc. in order to even attempt what you
suggest. That would go over great. If that was part of the "plan" there
is NO WAY that it would get the support needed and the water board would
just get to do whatever they wanted. We not trying to turn Fort
Collins/Greeley into a National Park, just keep some water in the river
in order to preserve what little bit of wildness that's left along the
river corridor.

Willi

What? Wilderness? Afre you out of your mind? What wilderness has US 6
running through it?

Never knew you thought so poorly of your home town Willy. Not worth
saving eh? I've lived here since 1960 and I'm not ready to turn it in
to Indiana yet, personally.

Scares the crap out of me an EIS regarding a river in Colorado and
nobody on board gives a rip about the native species, let alone an
avid angler like yourself.

Time to write some letters.

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 20, 11:52 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]

Especially when it isn't even Considered.

TBone

BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.

TBone

The difference is that when they built I70 they were trying to preserve
a wilderness that was still there. However, although the road was an
engineering feat, it is still an expressway going through a beautiful
canyon that would have been much more beautiful without it (it would
also be better without that section of river that's sucked dry).

What you're suggesting is to turn an area that has been developed and
settled for over a hundred and fifty years, back into a native
environment. The area affected by the reservoir is an urban and a
farming environment. You would have to condemn 1000's of peoples'
homes, farms, businesses etc etc. in order to even attempt what you
suggest. That would go over great. If that was part of the "plan" there
is NO WAY that it would get the support needed and the water board would
just get to do whatever they wanted. We not trying to turn Fort
Collins/Greeley into a National Park, just keep some water in the river
in order to preserve what little bit of wildness that's left along the
river corridor.

Willi

Why would you have to convert a farm to have cutts in the river?

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 11:52 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]
Especially when it isn't even Considered.
TBone
BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.
TBone
The difference is that when they built I70 they were trying to preserve
a wilderness that was still there. However, although the road was an
engineering feat, it is still an expressway going through a beautiful
canyon that would have been much more beautiful without it (it would
also be better without that section of river that's sucked dry).

What you're suggesting is to turn an area that has been developed and
settled for over a hundred and fifty years, back into a native
environment. The area affected by the reservoir is an urban and a
farming environment. You would have to condemn 1000's of peoples'
homes, farms, businesses etc etc. in order to even attempt what you
suggest. That would go over great. If that was part of the "plan" there
is NO WAY that it would get the support needed and the water board would
just get to do whatever they wanted. We not trying to turn Fort
Collins/Greeley into a National Park, just keep some water in the river
in order to preserve what little bit of wildness that's left along the
river corridor.

Willi

What? Wilderness? Afre you out of your mind? What wilderness has US 6
running through it?


There is no absolute wilderness anymore. It's a matter of degree. There
are "no" homes or other development in Glenwood Canyon. Fort Collins is
a town of 120,000+ people. BIG contrast.




Never knew you thought so poorly of your home town Willy. Not worth
saving eh? I've lived here since 1960 and I'm not ready to turn it in
to Indiana yet, personally.

Scares the crap out of me an EIS regarding a river in Colorado and
nobody on board gives a rip about the native species, let alone an
avid angler like yourself.

Time to write some letters.


I'll try and explain this as plainly as I can. An EIS determines the
impact a project will have on the environment. The reservoir will have
NO impact on the Greenback population because there is no Greenback
population in the effected area. For that reason, it is not a part of
the EIS.

For example, there is now considerable pollution in the Poudre River
running through Fort Collins. The EIS will look at this and try and
determine if building the Reservoir will add to the pollution. If the
reservoir will increase the levels of pollution, it will be included in
the EIS. If it won't then, it won't be included. The builders of the
reservoir aren't be responsible to cleanup pollution they didn't cause.


Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 23, 9:40 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 11:52 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 20, 5:33 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 19, 1:07 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
[snip] There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored
[snip]
Especially when it isn't even Considered.
TBone
BTW Willy, when they put I-70 through Glenwood Canyon they counted
every single plant and there was a significant penalty for removing
even a single one. Research that, it's a pretty amazing
accomplishment.
TBone
The difference is that when they built I70 they were trying to preserve
a wilderness that was still there. However, although the road was an
engineering feat, it is still an expressway going through a beautiful
canyon that would have been much more beautiful without it (it would
also be better without that section of river that's sucked dry).

What you're suggesting is to turn an area that has been developed and
settled for over a hundred and fifty years, back into a native
environment. The area affected by the reservoir is an urban and a
farming environment. You would have to condemn 1000's of peoples'
homes, farms, businesses etc etc. in order to even attempt what you
suggest. That would go over great. If that was part of the "plan" there
is NO WAY that it would get the support needed and the water board would
just get to do whatever they wanted. We not trying to turn Fort
Collins/Greeley into a National Park, just keep some water in the river
in order to preserve what little bit of wildness that's left along the
river corridor.

Willi

What? Wilderness? Afre you out of your mind? What wilderness has US 6
running through it?

There is no absolute wilderness anymore. It's a matter of degree. There
are "no" homes or other development in Glenwood Canyon. Fort Collins is
a town of 120,000+ people. BIG contrast.



Never knew you thought so poorly of your home town Willy. Not worth
saving eh? I've lived here since 1960 and I'm not ready to turn it in
to Indiana yet, personally.

Scares the crap out of me an EIS regarding a river in Colorado and
nobody on board gives a rip about the native species, let alone an
avid angler like yourself.

Time to write some letters.

I'll try and explain this as plainly as I can. An EIS determines the
impact a project will have on the environment. The reservoir will have
NO impact on the Greenback population because there is no Greenback
population in the effected area. For that reason, it is not a part of
the EIS.

For example, there is now considerable pollution in the Poudre River
running through Fort Collins. The EIS will look at this and try and
determine if building the Reservoir will add to the pollution. If the
reservoir will increase the levels of pollution, it will be included in
the EIS. If it won't then, it won't be included. The builders of the
reservoir aren't be responsible to cleanup pollution they didn't cause.

Willi

Willi -

You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down. Yet, in the false
safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

Well Tim, when communicating with you on usenet, it seems you ignore
what other people post. You don't address their points, you just go off
on YOUR agenda. It sure seemed to me that you DIDN'T get it (or you
acted like you didn't). Cutthroats CAN'T be part of of the EIS because
they don't exist in the area being considered. Now it seems that you
just don't like the EIS process. (which is an entirely different thing)


I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down.

I disagree with this, but Fort Collins is far from a wilderness.
However, there has been alot of restoration in Fort Collins with the
addition of lots of open space, ponds, wetlands, parks etc. There are
more "wildish" places now than when I moved here 30 years ago (and a
WHOLE lot more people).

Yet, in the false
safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

An EIS is a tool (just like C&R ) . This is the first water project in
CO that even included an EIS. It's not perfect but it's a step forward
and it's a WHOLE lot better than not having it. It does offer SOME
protection.


I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

As much as I agree with you on this, you know that's not going to happen
except on an incremental basis. Even Rocky Mountain National Park is
having a hard time doing this because of all the opposition, much of it
from anglers. Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't
happen in our lifetime.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 24, 6:03 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

Well Tim, when communicating with you on usenet, it seems you ignore
what other people post. You don't address their points, you just go off
on YOUR agenda. It sure seemed to me that you DIDN'T get it (or you
acted like you didn't). Cutthroats CAN'T be part of of the EIS because
they don't exist in the area being considered. Now it seems that you
just don't like the EIS process. (which is an entirely different thing)



I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down.

I disagree with this, but Fort Collins is far from a wilderness.
However, there has been alot of restoration in Fort Collins with the
addition of lots of open space, ponds, wetlands, parks etc. There are
more "wildish" places now than when I moved here 30 years ago (and a
WHOLE lot more people).

Yet, in the false

safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

An EIS is a tool (just like C&R ) . This is the first water project in
CO that even included an EIS. It's not perfect but it's a step forward
and it's a WHOLE lot better than not having it. It does offer SOME
protection.



I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

As much as I agree with you on this, you know that's not going to happen
except on an incremental basis. Even Rocky Mountain National Park is
having a hard time doing this because of all the opposition, much of it
from anglers. Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't
happen in our lifetime.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

Willi

Willi,

Do you have to attack me with every post?

Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't happen in our lifetime.

That's for damned sure. Especially when we keep sucking it dry and
moving more people in. You're right. Nothing is protecting the Poudre
and I think we agree the EIS has marginal effect.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

No Willy, I'm not retired yet. I do write letters and post information
and, yes, had my question asked on television, thus this post. My
volunteer work, when I have time, has been as a vessel examiner for
the USCGA, that is life-jacket, back-flame and safety inspection on
the boat ramps. When I do retire I want to do more of that.

Here's what I think.

Any project that gets approved for any water conservation has to
include funds that are directed to establishing the national
irrigation grid once and for all.

TBone

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On 25-May-2008, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Willi,

Do you have to attack me with every post?

Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't happen in our
lifetime.

That's for damned sure. Especially when we keep sucking it dry and
moving more people in. You're right. Nothing is protecting the Poudre
and I think we agree the EIS has marginal effect

Please guys -sorry to interfere but lets keep it firendly
IWe do not need a mirror of ROFF
IMO
Ther are too many humans and money talks
Governments will fight wars suck people and rivers dry fior $$
I do not know what the answer is?

I have a lake
Do not ask me how I or any human has a lake but the lake has me or I have it
We are both lucky - It is healthy and beautiful
We let neighbors and friends in that are respectful re babless hooks ,
landing practices and other such thinga
and of course the beauty

I see greedy developers every minute that see comdos and malls
I see the dancing in their greedy klittle fat pig eyes -
Ever look at Cheneys eyes - evil evil eyes


All I can say is that I will protect my property!
What else can you do?


Fred

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On 26-May-2008, Willi Loehman wrote:

So your answer is compassionate, private ownership??

In Colorado, over 1/3 of our land is owned by the public. Protecting
these public lands from development and keeping them in the publics'
hands is a worthwhile thing.

Willi
That is not my answer at all and I never said it was. In my case it just so
happens to be the case. I certainly do not trust private "compasionate "
ownership. Humans are rarely compassionate & only when it suits them.
They can kill maim & torture each other over stupid variations in their
religious beliefs.
In the caseiof the Colorado rivers all that I did was to infer - that when
you have a lot of humans around money changes hands and money certainly
motivates politicians, developers and others regardless of the public
views.
What you do then is entirely up to you!
I am totally l in favor protecting lands from human development.and urban
sprawl
Colorado has certainly seen its lands endangered fom this.
Where does Denver begin and end now? Boulder is almost part of Denver Firt
Collins has at least quintupled in size.
Where, when and how does this end? Everyday more people are being born and
many are moving out West.
The last time I was in Vegas - speaking of a dead ******** - On the trams -
There was a recording saying how next cenrury, at this growth rate there
will be a trillion people there - SICK CITY? i do not believe in politics
as a vaible ottion and I have not for a long time..
However Willi and Tim - I do wish you luck with your envionmental and
political aspirations and endeavors but I offer no other or better options

Fred

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

wrote in message
...
I was in Vegas - speaking of a dead ******** - On the trams -
There was a recording saying how next cenrury, at this growth rate there
will be a trillion people there ......
Fred

where, Fred, in the flow of complimentary adult beverages, did you actually
hear anyone suggest that Vegas, or even the planet, could sustain a
population roughly 200 times the current number of humans on Earth? I
suspect that something got lost in translation.
Tom

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

where, Fred, in the flow of complimentary adult beverages, did you actually
hear anyone suggest that Vegas, or even the planet, could sustain a
population roughly 200 times the current number of humans on Earth? I
suspect that something got lost in translation.
Tom

Amazing but true
I myself could not believe it,
I even commented to other passengers
The announcement was happy about and bragging about the infux of pople
moving to Vegas.

Fred

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote in message
...
I was in Vegas - speaking of a dead ******** - On the trams -
There was a recording saying how next cenrury, at this growth rate there
will be a trillion people there ......
Fred

where, Fred, in the flow of complimentary adult beverages, did you actually
hear anyone suggest that Vegas, or even the planet, could sustain a
population roughly 200 times the current number of humans on Earth? I
suspect that something got lost in translation.
Tom



What's a thousand billion among friends?

Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

"Willi Loehman" wrote in message
p...
What's a thousand billion among friends?

Willi

there must be some math whiz, or plain, old patient soul with research
skills who could figure the surface area/person with a trillion people on
Earth. Now, I can estimate greater Las Vegas as roughly 2500 square miles.
Now that's around 75,000,000,000 square feet. My math gives each of the
trillion inhabitants 1/40 of a square foot of surface space......better
build some very tall buildings.
Tom

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Willi Loehman" wrote in message
p...
What's a thousand billion among friends?

Willi

there must be some math whiz, or plain, old patient soul with research
skills who could figure the surface area/person with a trillion people on
Earth. Now, I can estimate greater Las Vegas as roughly 2500 square miles.
Now that's around 75,000,000,000 square feet. My math gives each of the
trillion inhabitants 1/40 of a square foot of surface space......better
build some very tall buildings.
Tom




I guess I should have said CLOSE friends.


Willi

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On 27-May-2008, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

there must be some math whiz, or plain, old patient soul with research
skills who could figure the surface area/person with a trillion people on
Earth. Now, I can estimate greater Las Vegas as roughly 2500 square miles.
Now that's around 75,000,000,000 square feet. My math gives each of the
trillion inhabitants 1/40 of a square foot of surface space......better
build some very tall buildings.
Tom


Tom
I swear it'
I wasn't drunk
I was working and tired at a stupid convention
I really heard this
Now you have me dioubting my sanity again

*******!


Fred

Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre
 

On May 27, 11:55 pm, wrote:
On 27-May-2008, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

there must be some math whiz, or plain, old patient soul with research
skills who could figure the surface area/person with a trillion people on
Earth. Now, I can estimate greater Las Vegas as roughly 2500 square miles.
Now that's around 75,000,000,000 square feet. My math gives each of the
trillion inhabitants 1/40 of a square foot of surface space......better
build some very tall buildings.
Tom

Tom
I swear it'
I wasn't drunk
I was working and tired at a stupid convention
I really heard this
Now you have me dioubting my sanity again

*******!

Fred

Two words: Georgia Guidestones.

Lots and lots and lots of questions.