Connetquot

My impression is that the DEC has been trying hard to avoid this for
about two years. My suspicion is that the permit will be restored as
soon as the problem is demonstrably eradicated.



Connetquot fish hatchery to close for 5 years
DEC takes action to prevent spread of virus in river
BY BILL BLEYER |
12:06 PM EDT, September 16, 2008
In a move that is stirring controversy in the local angling community,
the state will shut down the historic Connetquot State Park Fish Hatchery
for at least five years to eradicate a persistent fish virus in the
river.

Anglers are split over the Department of Environmental Conservation
action.

Some agree it is necessary to keep the virus from spreading to the
Carmans and other rivers with natural populations. Others say it is
overkill because the disease doesn't affect humans and closing the
hatchery will result in fewer fish to catch in the Connetquot.

Built before the park was home to a stately lodge of the South Side
Sportsmen's Club visited by presidents, the 144-year-old hatchery has
helped make the park a world famous fly fishing site and center of the
local fly fishing scene. But it's been shadowed by a fish virus for
almost two years.
The state killed thousands of baby trout last year in an unsuccessful
attempt to kill off the infectious pancreatic necrosis, which poses no
health hazard to humans but can cause widespread mortality among young
fish.

So now the DEC will not renew the hatchery's permit, forcing the parks
department to close the hatchery by the end of the year. The fish in the
ponds around the hatchery will be placed in the river where fishermen
could still catch them, and fishermen are being allowed to catch six fish
instead of one to reduce the population to help fight the virus.

During the five-year shutdown, the parks agency will clean and disinfect
the hatchery while stocking the river with disease-free fish from other
hatcheries to allow the virus to die off.

Charles Guthrie, regional DEC freshwater fisheries administrator, said
the action is necessary because it would be "catastrophic" if the disease
spread to other rivers like the Carmans and resulted in the kind of
mortality rate now been experienced at the Connetquot hatchery.

Guthrie said the hatchery needed to be upgraded with the help of an
expert consultant or closed for at least five years to make sure the
virus had died off.

"A 19th-century hatchery doesn't work in a 21st-century world," Guthrie
said.

While officials of the fishing group Trout Unlimited support the DEC
action, some fishermen who regularly visit the park object.

Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."


________________________________________



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."

Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."

Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Sheesh,
R

wrote in
:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and
Draconian management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for
four hours of unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will
diminish to a trickle, and somebody in Albany is going to suggest
the unthinkable: Change the law which established the park preserve
in order to address the revenue shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use'
recreation: picnic tables, barbecue pits, ballfields or even, God
forbid, yet another golf course."

Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Sheesh,
R


Its a state park.

http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/info.asp?parkID=69

I don't think there's much of a call for "mixed use", though. Lot's of
green space out there.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."
Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Damn straight, if it's "public land" the public oughta be able
to build whatever the hell they want on it. Golf courses, condos,
strip malls, massage parlors, hell, why not a nuclear waste dump ?
The dump would bring in some much needed cash and when the trout
return they'll glow in the dark ! It's a win-win baby !

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and
Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."

Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Sheesh,

Moron.

Wolfgang

On 19 Sep 2008 15:23:53 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:04:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and
Draconian management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for
four hours of unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will
diminish to a trickle, and somebody in Albany is going to suggest
the unthinkable: Change the law which established the park preserve
in order to address the revenue shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use'
recreation: picnic tables, barbecue pits, ballfields or even, God
forbid, yet another golf course."

Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Sheesh,
R


Its a state park.

http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/info.asp?parkID=69

I don't think there's much of a call for "mixed use", though. Lot's of
green space out there.

Um, if there is no call for it, why is anyone worried about it? OTOH,
if the majority of the public wants to use "their" land for ballfields,
barbecues, or golf courses, it would seem to be their right.

TC,
R

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:28:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."
Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !

Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...

Damn straight, if it's "public land" the public oughta be able
to build whatever the hell they want on it. Golf courses, condos,
strip malls, massage parlors, hell, why not a nuclear waste dump ?

I wasn't suggesting commercial use, but yeah, if the public wants to
sell their land, or develop it and take the risks with the rewards, why
should they not have the same right as any, you know, normal ol'
landowner...?

HTH,
R

The dump would bring in some much needed cash and when the trout
return they'll glow in the dark ! It's a win-win baby !

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."
Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !
Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...
Damn straight, if it's "public land" the public oughta be able
to build whatever the hell they want on it. Golf courses, condos,
strip malls, massage parlors, hell, why not a nuclear waste dump ?

I wasn't suggesting commercial use, but yeah, if the public wants to
sell their land, or develop it and take the risks with the rewards, why
should they not have the same right as any, you know, normal ol'
landowner...?

That's silly. Followed to its logical conclusion there would be
no public land.

There's nothing wrong with designating public land fly fishing
only, or XC skiing only, or ATVs only, or god forbid, snowmobile
trails. There are many uses of public lands and not all of them
are compatible with each other. I don't want some motorhead maniac
driving his ATV through a stream I'm fishing and I'm sure the
motorhead maniacs don't want a bunch of mountain bikers clogging
up their trails.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sep 19, 10:07 am, wrote:

I wasn't suggesting commercial use, but yeah, if the public wants to
sell their land, or develop it and take the risks with the rewards, why
should they not have the same right as any, you know, normal ol'
landowner...?

Who said they can't? If the public unanimously wants to do anything,
it can and will. It really doesn't even take unanimity, only a
supermajority.

HTH,

Jon.