"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