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