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

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...0705jul05,0,36
8197.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
.........................................

Anglers, small town businesses fight Big Apple over trout waters

By MICHAEL GORMLEY
Associated Press Writer

July 5, 2004, 12:44 PM EDT


Fishing was good in the early spring where an elbow of the upper Delaware
River in the Catskills jabs Pennsylvania. Seventeen to 20-inch wild brown
trout were pulled out of the winding, chilly waters, twice the size of a
good catch in most streams.

But those who know well that stretch of prime trout water knew it would be
short-lived.

Local business operators and anglers in and around Hancock, in Delaware
County, N.Y., blame a three-year experimental state program started in May.

The program reduced the flow of the river's West Branch, one of the best
trout fisheries in North America and a key drinking source for 9 million New
York City residents. The lower flow _ accomplished by releasing less water
from dams upstream _ means higher temperatures, which the sensitive trout
hate. The water could warm to more than 73 degrees before the state would
trigger a reserve flow from a reservoir to cool the branch, New York City
officials said.

"We had a wonderful spring," said Al Caucci, a flyfishing outfitter in
Starlight, Pa. "Now they've practically dried it up and we've been living
like that for 20 years ... the potential for this river is three times the
amount of bugs and fish and we'll never reach that because we have these
mini fish kills each year because of what they do."

After more than 20 years of pleading at public hearings, the locals are
taking on Congress, the states of Pennsylvania and New York, and New York
City. Letters outlining their counterproposal to increase cold water flow in
the West Branch will be mailed this week to members of Congress and the
states' legislatures. The letter includes a strongly worded explanation of
the jobs, economic benefit and by extension, votes that hang in the balance.

"Yeah, we're a thorn in everybody's side and that's what we want to be,"
said Caucci, one of the volunteers in Friends of the Upper Delaware River
taking on the battle. "We want to make this fishery the best it can be. It
could be in the top three or four in the whole country, in your back yard.
Isn't that something? I don't understand it."

The main concern of state and city officials is the 9 million New York City
residents, especially in times of drought.

New York City would get plenty of water because the flow of the East Branch
and Neversink River would be increased by dams into the Delaware River. That
would even the flow through all three branches, assuring the water supply to
New York City.

Further complicating the issue, however, is the needs of industry. The
Pennsylvania Power and Light Corp. based in Allentown, Pa., plans to release
large volumes of water to generate electricity _ but from a dam downstream
from the West Branch.

New York City could use that flow to meet a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court order
mandating adequate flows for drinking supplies to Trenton, N.J., and
Philadelphia without having to release more water from its reservoir that
normally provides greater flow of cool water to the West Branch.

"From a big-picture standpoint, this plan will make things a lot better
during a drought," said PPL spokesman Paul Wirth.

"New York City likes to beef a lot," Caucci said. "But they have the whole
Hudson River running right in front of them and they don't use it, so they
like to come up to the Catskills and rape all the rivers."

The government plan and action were the result of an extensive New York
state environmental study done in the 1980s, said Michael Principe, New York
City's deputy commissioner of the Bureau of Water Supply. It sought to
balance drinking water needs and fishing interests.

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. That's because under the previous
system, an especially dry summer common every three or four years could wipe
out gains in fish population. The pilot program that takes more control of
flows avoids the frequent damage by droughts, said the department's
spokeswoman, Maureen Wren.

"We tried to be as flexible as possible," Principe said. "There really isn't
enough water available to set up an optimal condition for trout fishing ...
the goal is not to have optimum conditions. Otherwise there wouldn't be
enough water."

___

On the Net:

Friends of the Upper Delaware River http://www.fudr.org

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

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...trout0705jul05
,0,36 8197.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire
........................................

Anglers, small town businesses fight Big Apple over trout waters

snip
Local business operators and anglers in and around Hancock, in Delaware
County, N.Y., blame a three-year experimental state program started in
May.


http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nw...d=730&site_no=
01426500

Check it out. The water temperature at Hale Eddy TODAY is about 2.5
degrees Celcius lower than it was on this day in July 2002, which was
cooler than it was in July 2003. Flow today is about 200cfs higher than it
was a year ago. In fact, the flow today is above the 20th percentile for
90 years of data.

You can blame the recent poor fishing on the new water management policies,
but that would be just wrong. Conditions seem no worse than they have for
the past two years, and maybe they're a hair better.

I don't mind you guys making your case, but try not to ignore facts,
please.

Scott

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

Greg Pavlov wrote in
:

On 7 Jul 2004 12:41:34 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Check it out. The water temperature at Hale Eddy TODAY is about 2.5
degrees Celcius lower than it was on this day in July 2002, which was
cooler than it was in July 2003. ...

Wasn't there a drought in progress then ?



2002 or 2003? I think last summer was pretty dry.

Scott

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

Scott Seidman wrote in message:
2002 or 2003? I think last summer was **pretty dry**.

Scott
...............
Wow...you're a TU local officer?

Wake up call Scotty.

Last summer - 2003 - was very wet in the Catskills. We're talking June,
August (8 inches of rain) and September. On top of a very wet spring.

You fish up here right?

You can look it up...

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

Scott Seidman wrote in message:
2002 or 2003? I think last summer was **pretty dry**.

Scott
...............
Wow...you're a TU local officer?

Wake up call Scotty.

Last summer - 2003 - was very wet in the Catskills. We're talking June,
August (8 inches of rain) and September. On top of a very wet spring.

You fish up here right?

You can look it up...

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

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :


Scott Seidman wrote in message:
2002 or 2003? I think last summer was **pretty dry**.

Scott
..............
Wow...you're a TU local officer?

Wake up call Scotty.

Last summer - 2003 - was very wet in the Catskills. We're talking June,
August (8 inches of rain) and September. On top of a very wet spring.

You fish up here right?

You can look it up...




Oops, then it was the year before that was dry, or maybe even the year
before that. Still, the article that you posted said the blame for bad
fishing this season was on the new policies. My point is that I see no
evidence that the new policy was making things worse. Do you have such
evidence, or will you just continue to whine that if you manage the entire
four-state Delaware watershed for the sole purpose of improving fishing on
the West Branch, you can have good fishing 365 days a year?

Keep posting this stuff. When you post one side of this story, I'll post
the other side. In fact, I'll take the opportunity now to point out how
much money is at stake for the guides and club owners on the West Branch.
Not that there's anything wrong with that--if flow policies can be changed
effectively in a way that can enhance fishing tourism in the area, and
those policies wouldn't adversely impact any other of the major concerns of
the DRBC, and the changes are approvable by the DRBC, then modification is
fine.

Scott

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

Scott Seidman" wrote in message:


Oops, then it was the year before that was dry, or maybe even the year
before that. Still, the article that you posted said the blame for bad
fishing this season was on the new policies. My point is that I see no
evidence that the new policy was making things worse. Do you have such
evidence, or will you just continue to whine that if you manage the entire
four-state Delaware watershed for the sole purpose of improving fishing on
the West Branch, you can have good fishing 365 days a year?

Hell, Scott, I'm not whining...I merely posting an Associated Press article
about the Upper Delaware River.

Read the friggin article and see where the **quotes** are coming from.
............


Keep posting this stuff. When you post one side of this story, I'll post
the other side.

Name a few URL's Scott...oh, and not from DRF's website or TU but from the
press.

TIA
..............

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

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Scott Seidman" wrote in message:


Oops, then it was the year before that was dry, or maybe even the
year before that. Still, the article that you posted said the blame
for bad fishing this season was on the new policies. My point is
that I see no evidence that the new policy was making things worse.
Do you have such evidence, or will you just continue to whine that if
you manage the entire four-state Delaware watershed for the sole
purpose of improving fishing on the West Branch, you can have good
fishing 365 days a year?

Hell, Scott, I'm not whining...I merely posting an Associated Press
article about the Upper Delaware River.

Yeah, FUDR seems to have a pretty good press agent. Your dot sig in your
original posting seems to infer that you're part of this FUDR. You
aren't some man off the street posting an article.


Read the friggin article and see where the **quotes** are coming from.
...........


Yeah, most of the quotes come from Al Caucci. He's a nice guy, a real
prince of a fellow, met him and liked him, and still do, but he owns the
Delaware River Club, and his business success is quite related to how
good fishing is on the West Branch. He's also VP and media director of
FUDR. The article is only slightly more than an FUDR press release.


Keep posting this stuff. When you post one side of this story, I'll
post the other side.

Name a few URL's Scott...oh, and not from DRF's website or TU but from
the press.

TIA
.............


OK, now you're being a tad thick. URL's are not the same as data. I
presented data. The press published this stuff, probably because FUDR
contacts them about this stuff. The article suggested that the temporary
water flow policies are hurting the fishing, as opposed to helping. I
showed the flows at Hale Eddy-- that's data, raw data, and not a press
interpretation, and I showed that flows and temperatures are no worse,
and maybe a hair better than they were before the new policies went into
place.

Indeed, the article you posted was at least good enough to get the DEC
statement, that says the fishing will improve in the long run, even under
the current DRBC flow policies. Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

To tell you the truth, I haven't even looked at the FUDR plan in that
much detail. 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. 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, instead of
recognizing that the new policy is a step in the right direction that
will better protect the fishery during drought, that USGS scientists and
environmentalists are actively collecting data to judge the efficacy of
this flow policy and its impact on the riparian ecosystem, and that this
data is being used to make recommendations for the next policy revision
that the DRBC will put in place in three years. Caucci doesn't seem to
be mentioning that in his quotes. He also doesn't discuss the fact that
there has to be agreement from all four states involved in the Delaware
River system before the DRBC will change flow policies, and that this is
a hard consensus to reach.

I also know that I don't like anonymous stooges posting stuff and trying
to pass themselves off as impartial observers. How about giving us a
real name, InfoAge, and your relationship to FUDR? We call that
"disclosure", and we use that information to assess how we weight
information coming from a given source.

Scott

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

"InfoAge" pickyouup@8 wrote in :

Scott Seidman" wrote in message:


Oops, then it was the year before that was dry, or maybe even the
year before that. Still, the article that you posted said the blame
for bad fishing this season was on the new policies. My point is
that I see no evidence that the new policy was making things worse.
Do you have such evidence, or will you just continue to whine that if
you manage the entire four-state Delaware watershed for the sole
purpose of improving fishing on the West Branch, you can have good
fishing 365 days a year?

Hell, Scott, I'm not whining...I merely posting an Associated Press
article about the Upper Delaware River.

Yeah, FUDR seems to have a pretty good press agent. Your dot sig in your
original posting seems to infer that you're part of this FUDR. You
aren't some man off the street posting an article.


Read the friggin article and see where the **quotes** are coming from.
...........


Yeah, most of the quotes come from Al Caucci. He's a nice guy, a real
prince of a fellow, met him and liked him, and still do, but he owns the
Delaware River Club, and his business success is quite related to how
good fishing is on the West Branch. He's also VP and media director of
FUDR. The article is only slightly more than an FUDR press release.


Keep posting this stuff. When you post one side of this story, I'll
post the other side.

Name a few URL's Scott...oh, and not from DRF's website or TU but from
the press.

TIA
.............


OK, now you're being a tad thick. URL's are not the same as data. I
presented data. The press published this stuff, probably because FUDR
contacts them about this stuff. The article suggested that the temporary
water flow policies are hurting the fishing, as opposed to helping. I
showed the flows at Hale Eddy-- that's data, raw data, and not a press
interpretation, and I showed that flows and temperatures are no worse,
and maybe a hair better than they were before the new policies went into
place.

Indeed, the article you posted was at least good enough to get the DEC
statement, that says the fishing will improve in the long run, even under
the current DRBC flow policies. Why is the DEC statement any less
important or reliable than the Caucci opinion?

To tell you the truth, I haven't even looked at the FUDR plan in that
much detail. 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. 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, instead of
recognizing that the new policy is a step in the right direction that
will better protect the fishery during drought, that USGS scientists and
environmentalists are actively collecting data to judge the efficacy of
this flow policy and its impact on the riparian ecosystem, and that this
data is being used to make recommendations for the next policy revision
that the DRBC will put in place in three years. Caucci doesn't seem to
be mentioning that in his quotes. He also doesn't discuss the fact that
there has to be agreement from all four states involved in the Delaware
River system before the DRBC will change flow policies, and that this is
a hard consensus to reach.

I also know that I don't like anonymous stooges posting stuff and trying
to pass themselves off as impartial observers. How about giving us a
real name, InfoAge, and your relationship to FUDR? We call that
"disclosure", and we use that information to assess how we weight
information coming from a given source.

Scott

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?
 

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 :

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 12:04:12 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?
 

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?
 

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?
 

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:

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?

See my last response, but I won't support the 600cfs flow because I think
its a politically untenable plan that the DRBC will never approve, and
arguing for it will damage credibility with the DRBC.


Scott

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

Scott,

The DRBC is in the business of making money. The DEC purchases water
from the DRBC. The DEC does not suggest to the DRBC, "Hey, maybe now
is a good time to release water." They say, "We need water, it's time
for a release." This has nothing to do with the fishery, this has
everything to do with the people who depend on the water from the
river. This leads me to another thing, the DEC doesn't even want the
releases out of Cannonsville. The water from Pepactong is supposedly
much better drinking water. The only problem is that Pepactong is 30
miles from Junction Pool. You would need quite a bit of water
released from Pepactong to cool down any of the Mainstem.

Another thing that dictates the water release is the flow at Montague.
It's not supposed to drop under 1750cfs. So, one day they may release
220cfs then the next day to meet that Montague target, they may
release 1400cfs. The bottom line is that the FUDR is not looking for
anything that hasn't already been given. They're looking to do away
with the Yo-Yo releases that have been consistently coming out of the
dam. They are also looking for less water (on average) that has been
released from the damn (historical average).

I think a MINIMUM RELEASE of 450CFS from Cannonsville will cool the
river possibly down to Stockport. Of course, I'm just guestimating
and may be way off. The current plan is NOT a 250CFS MINIMUM RELEASE!
It's a 250CFS minimum FLOW past Hale's Eddy! This is why it's not
such a great idea. The 250 flow could be 250CFS of 73+- degree water
which of course warms up as it flows downstream. Water temps in
this environment typically heat up 1 degree per mile.

I see you mention something about a 12 month fishery. Nobody is
looking for a 12 month fishery (so to say). What we have now is Part
of April through part of June (approx. 2 months). This is a variable
as I'm sure you know. Then the fishing starts back up in September
and lasts until Oct (another 2 months). If the releases were
consistant (no Yo/Yo releases), we would have a fishing season from
Part of April through October. Considering the variable, this would
extend the fishing season from 3-4 months to 5-6 months.

Beating down the DRBC's throat? Well, I don't know if this will work,
but IMHO, it's better to try something rather than to sit back and do
nothing.

Finally, I don't think it's fair right now to say that the new plan
has been either helpful or non-helpful. I personally think the new
plan of a minimum 225 FLOW, NOT RELEASE, is very harmfull to the
Delaware River System. I think instead of shooting for a 225 flow, we
could have set our standards a bit higher (as a former DRF member) and
shot for a minimum release of 400CFS.

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

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

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:


Scott,

The DRBC is in the business of making money. The DEC purchases water
from the DRBC. The DEC does not suggest to the DRBC, "Hey, maybe now
is a good time to release water." They say, "We need water, it's time
for a release." This has nothing to do with the fishery, this has
everything to do with the people who depend on the water from the
river. This leads me to another thing, the DEC doesn't even want the
releases out of Cannonsville. The water from Pepactong is supposedly
much better drinking water. The only problem is that Pepactong is 30
miles from Junction Pool. You would need quite a bit of water
released from Pepactong to cool down any of the Mainstem.

Another thing that dictates the water release is the flow at Montague.
It's not supposed to drop under 1750cfs. So, one day they may release
220cfs then the next day to meet that Montague target, they may
release 1400cfs. The bottom line is that the FUDR is not looking for
anything that hasn't already been given. They're looking to do away
with the Yo-Yo releases that have been consistently coming out of the
dam. They are also looking for less water (on average) that has been
released from the damn (historical average).

I think a MINIMUM RELEASE of 450CFS from Cannonsville will cool the
river possibly down to Stockport. Of course, I'm just guestimating
and may be way off. The current plan is NOT a 250CFS MINIMUM RELEASE!
It's a 250CFS minimum FLOW past Hale's Eddy! This is why it's not
such a great idea. The 250 flow could be 250CFS of 73+- degree water
which of course warms up as it flows downstream. Water temps in
this environment typically heat up 1 degree per mile.

I see you mention something about a 12 month fishery. Nobody is
looking for a 12 month fishery (so to say). What we have now is Part
of April through part of June (approx. 2 months). This is a variable
as I'm sure you know. Then the fishing starts back up in September
and lasts until Oct (another 2 months). If the releases were
consistant (no Yo/Yo releases), we would have a fishing season from
Part of April through October. Considering the variable, this would
extend the fishing season from 3-4 months to 5-6 months.

Beating down the DRBC's throat? Well, I don't know if this will work,
but IMHO, it's better to try something rather than to sit back and do
nothing.

Finally, I don't think it's fair right now to say that the new plan
has been either helpful or non-helpful. I personally think the new
plan of a minimum 225 FLOW, NOT RELEASE, is very harmfull to the
Delaware River System. I think instead of shooting for a 225 flow, we
could have set our standards a bit higher (as a former DRF member) and
shot for a minimum release of 400CFS.

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


Some, perhaps even most, of the ideas you put forth are fine. For
example, what should DRBC care about whether a release comes from the top
or bottom of the dam? Also, there are ways that they can prevent yo-yo
releases. I have no problem with those parts of the proposal.

Also, I think you're confusing the DEC with the DEP. The DEP is the
city department that deals with the NYC water supply. The DEC is the
state commission that deals with the fishery.

A warm river doesn't necessarily equal a fish kill. Fish find cool
water. They may be harder to find and catch, but they live. Look at the
new regs designed to provide thermal refuge in the Beamoc area, for
example. There are ways to protect fish, even when you can't regulate
flows.

You need to evaluate the new plan with respect to the old plan. Are
conditions, better, worse, or the same. If they're no worse, how can you
call the new policies more harmful than the old?

Last, if you think a 400CFS release will meet all your goals, why are you
asking for a 600CFS release?

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

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:


Scott,

The DRBC is in the business of making money. The DEC purchases water
from the DRBC. The DEC does not suggest to the DRBC, "Hey, maybe now
is a good time to release water." They say, "We need water, it's time
for a release." This has nothing to do with the fishery, this has
everything to do with the people who depend on the water from the
river. This leads me to another thing, the DEC doesn't even want the
releases out of Cannonsville. The water from Pepactong is supposedly
much better drinking water. The only problem is that Pepactong is 30
miles from Junction Pool. You would need quite a bit of water
released from Pepactong to cool down any of the Mainstem.

Another thing that dictates the water release is the flow at Montague.
It's not supposed to drop under 1750cfs. So, one day they may release
220cfs then the next day to meet that Montague target, they may
release 1400cfs. The bottom line is that the FUDR is not looking for
anything that hasn't already been given. They're looking to do away
with the Yo-Yo releases that have been consistently coming out of the
dam. They are also looking for less water (on average) that has been
released from the damn (historical average).

I think a MINIMUM RELEASE of 450CFS from Cannonsville will cool the
river possibly down to Stockport. Of course, I'm just guestimating
and may be way off. The current plan is NOT a 250CFS MINIMUM RELEASE!
It's a 250CFS minimum FLOW past Hale's Eddy! This is why it's not
such a great idea. The 250 flow could be 250CFS of 73+- degree water
which of course warms up as it flows downstream. Water temps in
this environment typically heat up 1 degree per mile.

I see you mention something about a 12 month fishery. Nobody is
looking for a 12 month fishery (so to say). What we have now is Part
of April through part of June (approx. 2 months). This is a variable
as I'm sure you know. Then the fishing starts back up in September
and lasts until Oct (another 2 months). If the releases were
consistant (no Yo/Yo releases), we would have a fishing season from
Part of April through October. Considering the variable, this would
extend the fishing season from 3-4 months to 5-6 months.

Beating down the DRBC's throat? Well, I don't know if this will work,
but IMHO, it's better to try something rather than to sit back and do
nothing.

Finally, I don't think it's fair right now to say that the new plan
has been either helpful or non-helpful. I personally think the new
plan of a minimum 225 FLOW, NOT RELEASE, is very harmfull to the
Delaware River System. I think instead of shooting for a 225 flow, we
could have set our standards a bit higher (as a former DRF member) and
shot for a minimum release of 400CFS.

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


Some, perhaps even most, of the ideas you put forth are fine. For
example, what should DRBC care about whether a release comes from the top
or bottom of the dam? Also, there are ways that they can prevent yo-yo
releases. I have no problem with those parts of the proposal.

Also, I think you're confusing the DEC with the DEP. The DEP is the
city department that deals with the NYC water supply. The DEC is the
state commission that deals with the fishery.

A warm river doesn't necessarily equal a fish kill. Fish find cool
water. They may be harder to find and catch, but they live. Look at the
new regs designed to provide thermal refuge in the Beamoc area, for
example. There are ways to protect fish, even when you can't regulate
flows.

You need to evaluate the new plan with respect to the old plan. Are
conditions, better, worse, or the same. If they're no worse, how can you
call the new policies more harmful than the old?

Last, if you think a 400CFS release will meet all your goals, why are you
asking for a 600CFS release?

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

On 9 Jul 2004 16:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:


Scott,

The DRBC is in the business of making money. The DEC purchases water
from the DRBC. The DEC does not suggest to the DRBC, "Hey, maybe now
is a good time to release water." They say, "We need water, it's time
for a release." This has nothing to do with the fishery, this has
everything to do with the people who depend on the water from the
river. This leads me to another thing, the DEC doesn't even want the
releases out of Cannonsville. The water from Pepactong is supposedly
much better drinking water. The only problem is that Pepactong is 30
miles from Junction Pool. You would need quite a bit of water
released from Pepactong to cool down any of the Mainstem.

Another thing that dictates the water release is the flow at Montague.
It's not supposed to drop under 1750cfs. So, one day they may release
220cfs then the next day to meet that Montague target, they may
release 1400cfs. The bottom line is that the FUDR is not looking for
anything that hasn't already been given. They're looking to do away
with the Yo-Yo releases that have been consistently coming out of the
dam. They are also looking for less water (on average) that has been
released from the damn (historical average).

I think a MINIMUM RELEASE of 450CFS from Cannonsville will cool the
river possibly down to Stockport. Of course, I'm just guestimating
and may be way off. The current plan is NOT a 250CFS MINIMUM RELEASE!
It's a 250CFS minimum FLOW past Hale's Eddy! This is why it's not
such a great idea. The 250 flow could be 250CFS of 73+- degree water
which of course warms up as it flows downstream. Water temps in
this environment typically heat up 1 degree per mile.

I see you mention something about a 12 month fishery. Nobody is
looking for a 12 month fishery (so to say). What we have now is Part
of April through part of June (approx. 2 months). This is a variable
as I'm sure you know. Then the fishing starts back up in September
and lasts until Oct (another 2 months). If the releases were
consistant (no Yo/Yo releases), we would have a fishing season from
Part of April through October. Considering the variable, this would
extend the fishing season from 3-4 months to 5-6 months.

Beating down the DRBC's throat? Well, I don't know if this will work,
but IMHO, it's better to try something rather than to sit back and do
nothing.

Finally, I don't think it's fair right now to say that the new plan
has been either helpful or non-helpful. I personally think the new
plan of a minimum 225 FLOW, NOT RELEASE, is very harmfull to the
Delaware River System. I think instead of shooting for a 225 flow, we
could have set our standards a bit higher (as a former DRF member) and
shot for a minimum release of 400CFS.

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


Some, perhaps even most, of the ideas you put forth are fine. For
example, what should DRBC care about whether a release comes from the top
or bottom of the dam? Also, there are ways that they can prevent yo-yo
releases. I have no problem with those parts of the proposal.

Also, I think you're confusing the DEC with the DEP. The DEP is the
city department that deals with the NYC water supply. The DEC is the
state commission that deals with the fishery.

A warm river doesn't necessarily equal a fish kill. Fish find cool
water. They may be harder to find and catch, but they live. Look at the
new regs designed to provide thermal refuge in the Beamoc area, for
example. There are ways to protect fish, even when you can't regulate
flows.

You need to evaluate the new plan with respect to the old plan. Are
conditions, better, worse, or the same. If they're no worse, how can you
call the new policies more harmful than the old?

Last, if you think a 400CFS release will meet all your goals, why are you
asking for a 600CFS release?

Yes, you are right... DEP, not DEC. Got caught up in the moment.

I didn't say that 400cfs will meet my goals. I simply stated that
shooting for a 400cfs RELEASE would have been a much better/nicer
number to shoot for as a minimun rather than a 225CFS FLOW which are
two totally different monsters. Remember, Flow / Release are two
totatally different monsters. I can have a 73+ degree, 225 flow with
Zero cold water release! I'd really like to see a release of 1000cfs
into the river. Can you imagine what the fishing would be like then!
Ok, it will never happen, but it sure would be sweet!

I think the Beamoc plan is terrific, but the Beamoc is a stocked
fishery where as the WB/Main is not. The East is stocked and yes, I
can't argue that there are no stocked fish in either the WB or the
Main... These fish get around, but for the most part of it, the
Delaware fishery as a whole is wild. By the way, I don't think that
Beamoc plan has been approved this year, I think it will be approved
next year.

Ok, New Plan VS old Plan... There was no 'Old' plan. The new plan
calls for 225CFS FLOW past Hale's Eddy. Historically, the flow past
Hale's Eddy has been 640CFS I believe. This 640cfs however, was based
on Yo-Yo releases. The new plan attempts to eliminate the Yo-Yo
releases which sounds good, but now would actually be getting less
water to work with. Then again, you never know what the DRBC is going
to release.

A new idea: Someone recommended that the releases should be based
upon the percentage of water presently in the reservoir. I too think
this is the best way to do things. If there's less water, you get the
percentage based upon less water. Simple as that. When the reservoir
gets to a certain percentange, no water can be released to the
fishery. People first, then then the fish. It's a win/win situation.
-=Paraleptropy=-
http://www.neflyfishing.net
0 Limit,Catch -n- Release

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

On 9 Jul 2004 16:06:57 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

paraleptropy paraleptropy wrote in
:


Scott,

The DRBC is in the business of making money. The DEC purchases water
from the DRBC. The DEC does not suggest to the DRBC, "Hey, maybe now
is a good time to release water." They say, "We need water, it's time
for a release." This has nothing to do with the fishery, this has
everything to do with the people who depend on the water from the
river. This leads me to another thing, the DEC doesn't even want the
releases out of Cannonsville. The water from Pepactong is supposedly
much better drinking water. The only problem is that Pepactong is 30
miles from Junction Pool. You would need quite a bit of water
released from Pepactong to cool down any of the Mainstem.

Another thing that dictates the water release is the flow at Montague.
It's not supposed to drop under 1750cfs. So, one day they may release
220cfs then the next day to meet that Montague target, they may
release 1400cfs. The bottom line is that the FUDR is not looking for
anything that hasn't already been given. They're looking to do away
with the Yo-Yo releases that have been consistently coming out of the
dam. They are also looking for less water (on average) that has been
released from the damn (historical average).

I think a MINIMUM RELEASE of 450CFS from Cannonsville will cool the
river possibly down to Stockport. Of course, I'm just guestimating
and may be way off. The current plan is NOT a 250CFS MINIMUM RELEASE!
It's a 250CFS minimum FLOW past Hale's Eddy! This is why it's not
such a great idea. The 250 flow could be 250CFS of 73+- degree water
which of course warms up as it flows downstream. Water temps in
this environment typically heat up 1 degree per mile.

I see you mention something about a 12 month fishery. Nobody is
looking for a 12 month fishery (so to say). What we have now is Part
of April through part of June (approx. 2 months). This is a variable
as I'm sure you know. Then the fishing starts back up in September
and lasts until Oct (another 2 months). If the releases were
consistant (no Yo/Yo releases), we would have a fishing season from
Part of April through October. Considering the variable, this would
extend the fishing season from 3-4 months to 5-6 months.

Beating down the DRBC's throat? Well, I don't know if this will work,
but IMHO, it's better to try something rather than to sit back and do
nothing.

Finally, I don't think it's fair right now to say that the new plan
has been either helpful or non-helpful. I personally think the new
plan of a minimum 225 FLOW, NOT RELEASE, is very harmfull to the
Delaware River System. I think instead of shooting for a 225 flow, we
could have set our standards a bit higher (as a former DRF member) and
shot for a minimum release of 400CFS.

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


Some, perhaps even most, of the ideas you put forth are fine. For
example, what should DRBC care about whether a release comes from the top
or bottom of the dam? Also, there are ways that they can prevent yo-yo
releases. I have no problem with those parts of the proposal.

Also, I think you're confusing the DEC with the DEP. The DEP is the
city department that deals with the NYC water supply. The DEC is the
state commission that deals with the fishery.

A warm river doesn't necessarily equal a fish kill. Fish find cool
water. They may be harder to find and catch, but they live. Look at the
new regs designed to provide thermal refuge in the Beamoc area, for
example. There are ways to protect fish, even when you can't regulate
flows.

You need to evaluate the new plan with respect to the old plan. Are
conditions, better, worse, or the same. If they're no worse, how can you
call the new policies more harmful than the old?

Last, if you think a 400CFS release will meet all your goals, why are you
asking for a 600CFS release?

Yes, you are right... DEP, not DEC. Got caught up in the moment.

I didn't say that 400cfs will meet my goals. I simply stated that
shooting for a 400cfs RELEASE would have been a much better/nicer
number to shoot for as a minimun rather than a 225CFS FLOW which are
two totally different monsters. Remember, Flow / Release are two
totatally different monsters. I can have a 73+ degree, 225 flow with
Zero cold water release! I'd really like to see a release of 1000cfs
into the river. Can you imagine what the fishing would be like then!
Ok, it will never happen, but it sure would be sweet!

I think the Beamoc plan is terrific, but the Beamoc is a stocked
fishery where as the WB/Main is not. The East is stocked and yes, I
can't argue that there are no stocked fish in either the WB or the
Main... These fish get around, but for the most part of it, the
Delaware fishery as a whole is wild. By the way, I don't think that
Beamoc plan has been approved this year, I think it will be approved
next year.

Ok, New Plan VS old Plan... There was no 'Old' plan. The new plan
calls for 225CFS FLOW past Hale's Eddy. Historically, the flow past
Hale's Eddy has been 640CFS I believe. This 640cfs however, was based
on Yo-Yo releases. The new plan attempts to eliminate the Yo-Yo
releases which sounds good, but now would actually be getting less
water to work with. Then again, you never know what the DRBC is going
to release.

A new idea: Someone recommended that the releases should be based
upon the percentage of water presently in the reservoir. I too think
this is the best way to do things. If there's less water, you get the
percentage based upon less water. Simple as that. When the reservoir
gets to a certain percentange, no water can be released to the
fishery. People first, then then the fish. It's a win/win situation.
-=Paraleptropy=-
http://www.neflyfishing.net
0 Limit,Catch -n- Release