The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:01:15 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:13:49 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:


Er, no, not entirely accurate. You can't fish RIGHT below the dam (yeah, it may
be "your" land, "your" water, "your" fish, but...), but you can fish for a short
stretch below that, and then, it's private for a lot longer stretch than the
"public" stretch. The public stretch must be maintained, cleaned up (not all of
"the public" is as tidy as others), etc., and as you said, it's a circus. The
private stretch is clean, healthier, and closer to its natural state.


That is an issue of use. If something gets used heavily, ie it's popular
with people, then there will be maintenance.

The lower stretches may be cleaner (probably mainly because fewer people
use them) but healthier and closer to the natural state? It's the lower
stretches (including the private stretches) that have had the fish kills
in recent years due to irrigation usage. There was a heavy kill in the
lower stretches a few years back. And alfalfa fields and grazing cattle
are closer to its natural state?

Wrong places - the first 300 yards or so below the dam are off-limits to the
public, the next 400 yards are public-access (where your aptly-described
"circus" takes place), and then, it's private for quite a distance, and while it
is a ranch, the river itself is about as pristine as anything in the area.

TC,
R

Willi

On 03 Dec 2004 04:14:26 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote:

rw opines:

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Really? Why don't you give back your piece of land in Idaho and California?
That would remove any "stain" you might have. As for me, think I'll stay
"stained".

Well, you COULD change you shorts, you know...

Oh, please, it this REALLY necessary - G...

TC,
R

wrote

Oooooh...NOW I get it...it was stolen and the theft is a stain on
national
heritage, but the "public" is entitled to it, and as long as the
"public" can
fly fish (or whatever) on it, it's all good...

That's exactly right.

but those that would want to pay,
however much, to use it are just a bunch of thieves...ah, yes,
consistency,
consistency...

That's exactly wrong.

As long as I pay my taxes and can access my public lands for free, I will
consider a great benefactor and philanthropist anyone at all who wants to
volunteer to pay an admission charge--however much--above and beyond what
they've already paid with their fair share of taxes.

No inconsistency.

Dave LaCourse wrote in message
...
rw opines:

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Really? Why don't you give back your piece of land in Idaho and
California?
That would remove any "stain" you might have. As for me, think I'll
stay
"stained".

Regardless of what one does about it now, you mean you don't think there
IS a stain?

I personally believe some surcharge, say 0.01% (only a dime per $1,000),
should be added to all real estate transactions for, say, the next two
hundred years or so--paid *directly* to the nearest federally recognized
American Indian nation/tribe/reservation.....

.....alternatively, one mil from all property taxes paid in the country....

"JR" wrote in message
...
Dave LaCourse wrote in message
...
rw opines:

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Really? Why don't you give back your piece of land in Idaho and
California?
That would remove any "stain" you might have. As for me, think I'll
stay
"stained".

Regardless of what one does about it now, you mean you don't think there
IS a stain?

I personally believe some surcharge, say 0.01% (only a dime per $1,000),
should be added to all real estate transactions for, say, the next two
hundred years or so--paid *directly* to the nearest federally recognized
American Indian nation/tribe/reservation.....

....alternatively, one mil from all property taxes paid in the country....

Well, there IS another alternative. If current trends in Indian "gaming"
continue for a few more decades they can just buy it all back.

Wolfgang

"JR" wrote in message
...
Dave LaCourse wrote in message
...
rw opines:

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Really? Why don't you give back your piece of land in Idaho and
California?
That would remove any "stain" you might have. As for me, think I'll
stay
"stained".

Regardless of what one does about it now, you mean you don't think there
IS a stain?

I personally believe some surcharge, say 0.01% (only a dime per $1,000),
should be added to all real estate transactions for, say, the next two
hundred years or so--paid *directly* to the nearest federally recognized
American Indian nation/tribe/reservation.....

....alternatively, one mil from all property taxes paid in the country....

Well, there IS another alternative. If current trends in Indian "gaming"
continue for a few more decades they can just buy it all back.

Wolfgang

JR opines:

Regardless of what one does about it now, you mean you don't think there
IS a stain?

I personally believe some surcharge, say 0.01% (only a dime per $1,000),
should be added to all real estate transactions for, say, the next two
hundred years or so--paid *directly* to the nearest federally recognized
American Indian nation/tribe/reservation.....

....alternatively, one mil from all property taxes paid in the country....

Ridiculous! The native Americans have more than made up for it *in some
places* with their gambling casinos. You and I owe them nothing. How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?" Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki, Hiroshima,
Cologne, Hamburg. Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

wrote:



It's the kind that results from:

" And just how many voters have passed these measures?

The last one was close to 70%" and

" Again, how many voters have said no?

Over 70%"


If your point is that the majority of ELIGIBLE voters didn't vote for
the measures, that I'm sure that's true just like that's true on
virtually every thing voted on in an election.

My point was simply that both measures did pass by a sizable majority of
the people that voted. In addition, on three separate occasions, the
legislature
tried to divert funds from this program and on all three occasions the
voters (only those that voted obviously) rejected it. The legislature
tried
to make the last initiative as palatable as possible by proposing to
divert only a small percentage of the funds and directing those funds
toward schools. This also got rejected. Maybe Coloradoans are kooks,
but in a state that's already about 50% public land, and Republican to
boot, I think this is pretty telling.

Make of it what you will.

Willi

wrote:



It's the kind that results from:

" And just how many voters have passed these measures?

The last one was close to 70%" and

" Again, how many voters have said no?

Over 70%"


If your point is that the majority of ELIGIBLE voters didn't vote for
the measures, that I'm sure that's true just like that's true on
virtually every thing voted on in an election.

My point was simply that both measures did pass by a sizable majority of
the people that voted. In addition, on three separate occasions, the
legislature
tried to divert funds from this program and on all three occasions the
voters (only those that voted obviously) rejected it. The legislature
tried
to make the last initiative as palatable as possible by proposing to
divert only a small percentage of the funds and directing those funds
toward schools. This also got rejected. Maybe Coloradoans are kooks,
but in a state that's already about 50% public land, and Republican to
boot, I think this is pretty telling.

Make of it what you will.

Willi

wrote:


The lower stretches may be cleaner (probably mainly because fewer people
use them) but healthier and closer to the natural state? It's the lower
stretches (including the private stretches) that have had the fish kills
in recent years due to irrigation usage. There was a heavy kill in the
lower stretches a few years back. And alfalfa fields and grazing cattle
are closer to its natural state?


Wrong places - the first 300 yards or so below the dam are off-limits to the
public, the next 400 yards are public-access (where your aptly-described
"circus" takes place), and then, it's private for quite a distance, and while it
is a ranch, the river itself is about as pristine as anything in the area.


You're right I was thinking of the Delores. But the points are the same.

Any area that is heavily used (which means to me that it is popular
with people) is going to need "maintenance". But that applies to private
as well as as public properties. Usage will have an impact. If the
ranch you refer to is "cleaner, healthier, and closer to its natural
state" it's only because less people use it and the owner CHOOSES to
maintain it in this manner and not to develop it. In Colorado, as well
as the other Rocky Mountain states, more and more privately owned tracts
of land, especially along rivers, are being subdivided into communities
of "recreational" homes (which is the right for privately owned land).
Public lands are protected from this, as well as other types of,
development.

Just because something is private DOESN'T mean that that owner is going
to be concerned about the environment as a whole. It's NOT true that the
majority of privately owned land is "cleaner, healthier, and closer to
its natural state" than our public lands.


Willi