The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

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

Jonathan Cook wrote:


Of course if you corral the public into 400 yards of river, that
section is going to get over-used. If the public was allowed to
access the entire length (with laws such as montana's), that impact
would be spread out and could more easily be absorbed by nature.


This is especially true because it holds the largest trout of any river
in CO (maybe the largest in the lower 48).

http://wildlife.state.co.us/imagedb/images/1794.jpg

http://www.coloradofishing.net/ft_taylor3.htm

The fish suck up the mysis shrimp coming out of the lake. It's like the
dam is a feeding station.That's the "circus" I was referring to, not the
crowds (although it IS crowded).

Willi

Jonathan Cook wrote:


Of course if you corral the public into 400 yards of river, that
section is going to get over-used. If the public was allowed to
access the entire length (with laws such as montana's), that impact
would be spread out and could more easily be absorbed by nature.


This is especially true because it holds the largest trout of any river
in CO (maybe the largest in the lower 48).

http://wildlife.state.co.us/imagedb/images/1794.jpg

http://www.coloradofishing.net/ft_taylor3.htm

The fish suck up the mysis shrimp coming out of the lake. It's like the
dam is a feeding station.That's the "circus" I was referring to, not the
crowds (although it IS crowded).

Willi

Dave LaCourse wrote

JR opines:

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.

Think a moment about the *actual* value of the land of the U.S. The tens
or even hundreds of millions of dollars from Indian casinos are the
smallest drop in the ocean by comparison. Tens of billions wouldn't
be a big drop.

You and I owe them nothing.

They are "owed" their stolen land. But since "we" stole it fair and
square and all, the most they have a prayer of ever getting--even in a
future, better America--is an honest, universal recognition by Americans
that the land is in fact stolen. The modest proposal above would not
represent a just economic retribution, a "making up for it", but simply a
small, continual reminder that the real wealth is there, that it is
growing, that receivers of stolen property are making fortune after
fortune from it. The tiniest of tiny cuts kicked back to the real owners
doesn't seem unreasonable....

How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?"

Well, the Irish monks and Vikings are not still in possession of much
stolen land, so that narrows a bit any search for the beginning of
the relevant wars of aggression, conquest and occupation.

Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki,
Hiroshima, Cologne, Hamburg.

Apples and oranges. It that war we were not the aggressors, and in
any event, we are no longer occupying Japan or Germany. Maybe we
could just give them commissary and PX privileges...

Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

Oranges and apples. I spent a decade and a half in Africa, and saw
little sign of U.S. occupation. I see no particular reason, however,
to exempt black Americans from the Occupied Land Tax.

JR

Dave LaCourse wrote

JR opines:

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.

Think a moment about the *actual* value of the land of the U.S. The tens
or even hundreds of millions of dollars from Indian casinos are the
smallest drop in the ocean by comparison. Tens of billions wouldn't
be a big drop.

You and I owe them nothing.

They are "owed" their stolen land. But since "we" stole it fair and
square and all, the most they have a prayer of ever getting--even in a
future, better America--is an honest, universal recognition by Americans
that the land is in fact stolen. The modest proposal above would not
represent a just economic retribution, a "making up for it", but simply a
small, continual reminder that the real wealth is there, that it is
growing, that receivers of stolen property are making fortune after
fortune from it. The tiniest of tiny cuts kicked back to the real owners
doesn't seem unreasonable....

How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?"

Well, the Irish monks and Vikings are not still in possession of much
stolen land, so that narrows a bit any search for the beginning of
the relevant wars of aggression, conquest and occupation.

Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki,
Hiroshima, Cologne, Hamburg.

Apples and oranges. It that war we were not the aggressors, and in
any event, we are no longer occupying Japan or Germany. Maybe we
could just give them commissary and PX privileges...

Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

Oranges and apples. I spent a decade and a half in Africa, and saw
little sign of U.S. occupation. I see no particular reason, however,
to exempt black Americans from the Occupied Land Tax.

JR

JR writes:

Think a moment about the *actual* value of the land of the U.S. The tens
or even hundreds of millions of dollars from Indian casinos are the
smallest drop in the ocean by comparison. Tens of billions wouldn't
be a big drop.

Agreed. But why should we owe them anything?


You and I owe them nothing.

They are "owed" their stolen land. But since "we" stole it fair and
square and all, the most they have a prayer of ever getting--even in a
future, better America--is an honest, universal recognition by Americans
that the land is in fact stolen. The modest proposal above would not
represent a just economic retribution, a "making up for it", but simply a
small, continual reminder that the real wealth is there, that it is
growing, that receivers of stolen property are making fortune after
fortune from it. The tiniest of tiny cuts kicked back to the real owners
doesn't seem unreasonable....

Well, since my fraternal grandmother was 1/2 Abenaki and she married my
grandfather who had "some" Abenaki blood (but was mostly French Canadian), does
that mean I am owed something? I can not see *how* (no pun intended)!


How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?"

Well, the Irish monks and Vikings are not still in possession of much
stolen land, so that narrows a bit any search for the beginning of
the relevant wars of aggression, conquest and occupation.

Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki,
Hiroshima, Cologne, Hamburg.

Apples and oranges. It that war we were not the aggressors, and in
any event, we are no longer occupying Japan or Germany. Maybe we
could just give them commissary and PX privileges...

I sure could use some of them. Kennedy and Kerry have scared all the military
from Massachusetts. Not much in commissary or pxs left. The only advantage,
really, was not paying the Mass taxes on everything. For 15 years or so, I had
to pay income taxes to Taxachusetts on my retirement, while retired Mass
employees did not. They finally changed the law about 6 or so years ago.


Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

Oranges and apples. I spent a decade and a half in Africa, and saw
little sign of U.S. occupation. I see no particular reason, however,
to exempt black Americans from the Occupied Land Tax.

JR


We'll have to agree to disagree, John. I owe nothing to someone who had
absolutely no concept of owning land more than 200 years ago. I haven't
researched it, but I am sure there is lots of land in the hands of native
American's besides the casinos. The two places I have seen where the land is
owned by an Indian tribes (NC near Bryson and some land near Peter Charles'
home) seems pretty good, and in the NC case, they get *lots* of help from the
federal government.

Just remembered another case of Indian land ownership. The Big Horn in
Montana. I believe the lodges and guides on the Big Horn pay something to the
Crow Tribe. All of the land from Hardin to the Wyoming border is Crow
Reservation. Some very nice land. I am sure there are other instances of
Indian ownership of land.

So, you do have my address, right? I expect a monthly check - $0.10 will do
nicely, thankyouverymuch. d;o)

JR writes:

Think a moment about the *actual* value of the land of the U.S. The tens
or even hundreds of millions of dollars from Indian casinos are the
smallest drop in the ocean by comparison. Tens of billions wouldn't
be a big drop.

Agreed. But why should we owe them anything?


You and I owe them nothing.

They are "owed" their stolen land. But since "we" stole it fair and
square and all, the most they have a prayer of ever getting--even in a
future, better America--is an honest, universal recognition by Americans
that the land is in fact stolen. The modest proposal above would not
represent a just economic retribution, a "making up for it", but simply a
small, continual reminder that the real wealth is there, that it is
growing, that receivers of stolen property are making fortune after
fortune from it. The tiniest of tiny cuts kicked back to the real owners
doesn't seem unreasonable....

Well, since my fraternal grandmother was 1/2 Abenaki and she married my
grandfather who had "some" Abenaki blood (but was mostly French Canadian), does
that mean I am owed something? I can not see *how* (no pun intended)!


How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?"

Well, the Irish monks and Vikings are not still in possession of much
stolen land, so that narrows a bit any search for the beginning of
the relevant wars of aggression, conquest and occupation.

Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki,
Hiroshima, Cologne, Hamburg.

Apples and oranges. It that war we were not the aggressors, and in
any event, we are no longer occupying Japan or Germany. Maybe we
could just give them commissary and PX privileges...

I sure could use some of them. Kennedy and Kerry have scared all the military
from Massachusetts. Not much in commissary or pxs left. The only advantage,
really, was not paying the Mass taxes on everything. For 15 years or so, I had
to pay income taxes to Taxachusetts on my retirement, while retired Mass
employees did not. They finally changed the law about 6 or so years ago.


Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

Oranges and apples. I spent a decade and a half in Africa, and saw
little sign of U.S. occupation. I see no particular reason, however,
to exempt black Americans from the Occupied Land Tax.

JR


We'll have to agree to disagree, John. I owe nothing to someone who had
absolutely no concept of owning land more than 200 years ago. I haven't
researched it, but I am sure there is lots of land in the hands of native
American's besides the casinos. The two places I have seen where the land is
owned by an Indian tribes (NC near Bryson and some land near Peter Charles'
home) seems pretty good, and in the NC case, they get *lots* of help from the
federal government.

Just remembered another case of Indian land ownership. The Big Horn in
Montana. I believe the lodges and guides on the Big Horn pay something to the
Crow Tribe. All of the land from Hardin to the Wyoming border is Crow
Reservation. Some very nice land. I am sure there are other instances of
Indian ownership of land.

So, you do have my address, right? I expect a monthly check - $0.10 will do
nicely, thankyouverymuch. d;o)

JR writes:

Think a moment about the *actual* value of the land of the U.S. The tens
or even hundreds of millions of dollars from Indian casinos are the
smallest drop in the ocean by comparison. Tens of billions wouldn't
be a big drop.

Agreed. But why should we owe them anything?


You and I owe them nothing.

They are "owed" their stolen land. But since "we" stole it fair and
square and all, the most they have a prayer of ever getting--even in a
future, better America--is an honest, universal recognition by Americans
that the land is in fact stolen. The modest proposal above would not
represent a just economic retribution, a "making up for it", but simply a
small, continual reminder that the real wealth is there, that it is
growing, that receivers of stolen property are making fortune after
fortune from it. The tiniest of tiny cuts kicked back to the real owners
doesn't seem unreasonable....

Well, since my fraternal grandmother was 1/2 Abenaki and she married my
grandfather who had "some" Abenaki blood (but was mostly French Canadian), does
that mean I am owed something? I can not see *how* (no pun intended)!


How far back
should we go in history to remove the "stain?"

Well, the Irish monks and Vikings are not still in possession of much
stolen land, so that narrows a bit any search for the beginning of
the relevant wars of aggression, conquest and occupation.

Should we pay all the survivors
or their ancestors that lost everything in Tokyo, Yokohama Nakasaki,
Hiroshima, Cologne, Hamburg.

Apples and oranges. It that war we were not the aggressors, and in
any event, we are no longer occupying Japan or Germany. Maybe we
could just give them commissary and PX privileges...

I sure could use some of them. Kennedy and Kerry have scared all the military
from Massachusetts. Not much in commissary or pxs left. The only advantage,
really, was not paying the Mass taxes on everything. For 15 years or so, I had
to pay income taxes to Taxachusetts on my retirement, while retired Mass
employees did not. They finally changed the law about 6 or so years ago.


Should we pay compensation for every Black man/woman because
their ancestors were once slaves?

Oranges and apples. I spent a decade and a half in Africa, and saw
little sign of U.S. occupation. I see no particular reason, however,
to exempt black Americans from the Occupied Land Tax.

JR


We'll have to agree to disagree, John. I owe nothing to someone who had
absolutely no concept of owning land more than 200 years ago. I haven't
researched it, but I am sure there is lots of land in the hands of native
American's besides the casinos. The two places I have seen where the land is
owned by an Indian tribes (NC near Bryson and some land near Peter Charles'
home) seems pretty good, and in the NC case, they get *lots* of help from the
federal government.

Just remembered another case of Indian land ownership. The Big Horn in
Montana. I believe the lodges and guides on the Big Horn pay something to the
Crow Tribe. All of the land from Hardin to the Wyoming border is Crow
Reservation. Some very nice land. I am sure there are other instances of
Indian ownership of land.

So, you do have my address, right? I expect a monthly check - $0.10 will do
nicely, thankyouverymuch. d;o)

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

(NC near Bryson and some land near Peter Charles'
home) seems pretty good, and in the NC case, they get *lots* of help
from the federal government.


The Canucks have come face to face with what they owe their aboriginals
over the past decade or so. I don't remember how that worked out. Maybe
Peter can update us.

Scott

irate (Dave LaCourse) wrote in
:

(NC near Bryson and some land near Peter Charles'
home) seems pretty good, and in the NC case, they get *lots* of help
from the federal government.


The Canucks have come face to face with what they owe their aboriginals
over the past decade or so. I don't remember how that worked out. Maybe
Peter can update us.

Scott