Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre

On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

You're completely missing my point.

1) define the characteristics of the river you want to conserve
2) conserve it

Does the vision, including long term future vision, include trying to
restore the watershed to indiginous species? If yes, than that would
be part of the mitigation. If not than it's a moot point.

TBone


The river need water to even be a river. Without water it ceases being a
river. Right now, the river is basically an irrigation canal for the
water companies.


With respect to restoring the native Greenbacks. It's very difficult to
restore a tiny single isolated stream back to native species. In the
Poudre drainage, the DOW tried to restore several small feeders to
native Greenbacks. Here some shots of one of the few that were successful:


http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1763%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1778%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1789%20(Medium).JPG

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/IMG_1792%20(Medium).JPG



Most of the reintroductions were unsuccessful. In one, they either
failed to remove all the Brookies or someone put some in, in another
Rainbows somehow got back in and in a couple the Cutts failed to re
establish themselves. (You fished one of these unsuccessful restorations
with me). Greenbacks don't seem to be able to compete with other trout
or char.


Success is spotty even with very small self contained streams. Restoring
a watershed the size of the Poudre River watershed to native species
would be beyond any DOW's means. Consider the size of the watershed with
probably thousands of miles of streams and river. I don't think the
technology, will, money, support etc exists to accomplish such a massive
program.

Willi

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone


We're conducting a specific study designed by the DOW that includes
on-stream
angler counts, interviews and creel/catch statistics. It's being
done in a specific manner so that the data is can be quantified and will be
reliable and valid so that it can be compared to data obtained on other
sections of the Poudre River. It's a fairly rigorous study, not just a
simple
opinion poll, so that it can be included in the Environmental Impact
Statement

Willi

On May 18, 4:37 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
I'm in a group that's doing a study for the DOW to establish the
recreational usage of the section of the Poudre that will be dewatered.
I've been doing a survey of anglers to establish angler usage of this
area.

Dear DOW.

As a Colorado angler I'd like to see cutthroat trout in the Poudre all
the way below Ft. Collins and a year round minimum in-stream flow to
sustain them as well as to provide decent visual aesthetics for the
river through town by sufficient flow, say enough to float an inner
tube.

Thanks for listening.

TBone

We're conducting a specific study designed by the DOW that includes
on-stream
angler counts, interviews and creel/catch statistics. It's being
done in a specific manner so that the data is can be quantified and will be
reliable and valid so that it can be compared to data obtained on other
sections of the Poudre River. It's a fairly rigorous study, not just a
simple
opinion poll, so that it can be included in the Environmental Impact
Statement

Willi

I'm worried about preparing for an EIP when the organizers aren't even
considering the state's indiginous species in the discussion.

Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


I'm worried about preparing for an EIP when the organizers aren't even
considering the state's indiginous species in the discussion.

There is NO WAY that all the introduced species of plants and animals
will be removed and all the indigenous ones restored to the river
corridor that would be affected by the reservoir. This is not Rocky
Mountain National Park. It is a river corridor that runs through the
city of Fort Collins then easterly through farm country. There are
countless numbers of introduced species in the area. There are parks,
gardens, homes, bike paths, farms, ranches, ponds, etc. all along the
corridor.

Actually there is a chub on the endangered list that lives in the lower
river. I believe a study on the chub that was done by one of the members
of our group will be part of the EIS. Greenbacks are no longer on that
list and they no longer exist in that part of the drainage.

Water quality studies will be included that show high levels of
estrogen, nitrates, etc levels in the water.



Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

What is the C word?


Willi

On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:07:59 -0600, Willi Loehman
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
[...]

Seems like folks just don't want to hear the C word in Colorado.

What is the C word?


Willi

Best guess: "conservation"
Next guess: "cutthroat"
Best fit: "crackpot"

/daytripper (hth ;-)

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

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

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

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?

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.