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.