Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre

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

Why would you have to convert a farm to have cutts in the river?

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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?


There is no absolute wilderness anymore. It's a matter of degree. There
are "no" homes or other development in Glenwood Canyon. Fort Collins is
a town of 120,000+ people. BIG contrast.




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.


I'll try and explain this as plainly as I can. An EIS determines the
impact a project will have on the environment. The reservoir will have
NO impact on the Greenback population because there is no Greenback
population in the effected area. For that reason, it is not a part of
the EIS.

For example, there is now considerable pollution in the Poudre River
running through Fort Collins. The EIS will look at this and try and
determine if building the Reservoir will add to the pollution. If the
reservoir will increase the levels of pollution, it will be included in
the EIS. If it won't then, it won't be included. The builders of the
reservoir aren't be responsible to cleanup pollution they didn't cause.


Willi

On May 23, 9:40 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
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?

There is no absolute wilderness anymore. It's a matter of degree. There
are "no" homes or other development in Glenwood Canyon. Fort Collins is
a town of 120,000+ people. BIG contrast.



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.

I'll try and explain this as plainly as I can. An EIS determines the
impact a project will have on the environment. The reservoir will have
NO impact on the Greenback population because there is no Greenback
population in the effected area. For that reason, it is not a part of
the EIS.

For example, there is now considerable pollution in the Poudre River
running through Fort Collins. The EIS will look at this and try and
determine if building the Reservoir will add to the pollution. If the
reservoir will increase the levels of pollution, it will be included in
the EIS. If it won't then, it won't be included. The builders of the
reservoir aren't be responsible to cleanup pollution they didn't cause.

Willi

Willi -

You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down. Yet, in the false
safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

Well Tim, when communicating with you on usenet, it seems you ignore
what other people post. You don't address their points, you just go off
on YOUR agenda. It sure seemed to me that you DIDN'T get it (or you
acted like you didn't). Cutthroats CAN'T be part of of the EIS because
they don't exist in the area being considered. Now it seems that you
just don't like the EIS process. (which is an entirely different thing)


I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down.

I disagree with this, but Fort Collins is far from a wilderness.
However, there has been alot of restoration in Fort Collins with the
addition of lots of open space, ponds, wetlands, parks etc. There are
more "wildish" places now than when I moved here 30 years ago (and a
WHOLE lot more people).

Yet, in the false
safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

An EIS is a tool (just like C&R ) . This is the first water project in
CO that even included an EIS. It's not perfect but it's a step forward
and it's a WHOLE lot better than not having it. It does offer SOME
protection.


I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

As much as I agree with you on this, you know that's not going to happen
except on an incremental basis. Even Rocky Mountain National Park is
having a hard time doing this because of all the opposition, much of it
from anglers. Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't
happen in our lifetime.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

Willi

On May 24, 6:03 pm, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

You don't think I get this? Sometimes you talk to me like I'm a
child.

Well Tim, when communicating with you on usenet, it seems you ignore
what other people post. You don't address their points, you just go off
on YOUR agenda. It sure seemed to me that you DIDN'T get it (or you
acted like you didn't). Cutthroats CAN'T be part of of the EIS because
they don't exist in the area being considered. Now it seems that you
just don't like the EIS process. (which is an entirely different thing)



I have lived here since 1960 and caught my first trout out of the
Poudre. I inner tubed in the hughline canal when farmers were still
using DDT. I have read Fradkin's "A RIver no More" so many times, the
binder is warn.

One thing is certain...this thing, "wilderness", it slips,
inextricably, out of our grips with each of these EIS approvals to
further erode it. Another dam is built. Another subdivision goes up.
Another road is built. The possibility of returning to wilderness gets
further and further and further out of reach withe each one. It is
highly ironic. Like the hatch of mayflies always flies upstream to
conserve the species man seems to always fly down.

I disagree with this, but Fort Collins is far from a wilderness.
However, there has been alot of restoration in Fort Collins with the
addition of lots of open space, ponds, wetlands, parks etc. There are
more "wildish" places now than when I moved here 30 years ago (and a
WHOLE lot more people).

Yet, in the false

safety net of an 'EIS' we fool ourselves that we are protecting what
we have.

An EIS is a tool (just like C&R ) . This is the first water project in
CO that even included an EIS. It's not perfect but it's a step forward
and it's a WHOLE lot better than not having it. It does offer SOME
protection.



I ask again: What is the baseline environmental conservation you want
to establish in the rivers of Colorado? I say we work our asses off.
Cutthroat and Whitefish or nothing.

As much as I agree with you on this, you know that's not going to happen
except on an incremental basis. Even Rocky Mountain National Park is
having a hard time doing this because of all the opposition, much of it
from anglers. Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't
happen in our lifetime.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

Willi

Willi,

Do you have to attack me with every post?

Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't happen in our lifetime.

That's for damned sure. Especially when we keep sucking it dry and
moving more people in. You're right. Nothing is protecting the Poudre
and I think we agree the EIS has marginal effect.

Have YOU done any volunteer work in this area?

No Willy, I'm not retired yet. I do write letters and post information
and, yes, had my question asked on television, thus this post. My
volunteer work, when I have time, has been as a vessel examiner for
the USCGA, that is life-jacket, back-flame and safety inspection on
the boat ramps. When I do retire I want to do more of that.

Here's what I think.

Any project that gets approved for any water conservation has to
include funds that are directed to establishing the national
irrigation grid once and for all.

TBone

On 25-May-2008, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Willi,

Do you have to attack me with every post?

Restoring a watershed as massive as the Poudre won't happen in our
lifetime.

That's for damned sure. Especially when we keep sucking it dry and
moving more people in. You're right. Nothing is protecting the Poudre
and I think we agree the EIS has marginal effect

Please guys -sorry to interfere but lets keep it firendly
IWe do not need a mirror of ROFF
IMO
Ther are too many humans and money talks
Governments will fight wars suck people and rivers dry fior $$
I do not know what the answer is?

I have a lake
Do not ask me how I or any human has a lake but the lake has me or I have it
We are both lucky - It is healthy and beautiful
We let neighbors and friends in that are respectful re babless hooks ,
landing practices and other such thinga
and of course the beauty

I see greedy developers every minute that see comdos and malls
I see the dancing in their greedy klittle fat pig eyes -
Ever look at Cheneys eyes - evil evil eyes


All I can say is that I will protect my property!
What else can you do?


Fred

wrote:


I have a lake
Do not ask me how I or any human has a lake but the lake has me or I have it
We are both lucky - It is healthy and beautiful
We let neighbors and friends in that are respectful re babless hooks ,
landing practices and other such thinga
and of course the beauty

I see greedy developers every minute that see comdos and malls
I see the dancing in their greedy klittle fat pig eyes -
Ever look at Cheneys eyes - evil evil eyes


All I can say is that I will protect my property!
What else can you do?

So your answer is compassionate, private ownership??

In Colorado, over 1/3 of our land is owned by the public. Protecting
these public lands from development and keeping them in the publics'
hands is a worthwhile thing.

Willi

On 26-May-2008, Willi Loehman wrote:

So your answer is compassionate, private ownership??

In Colorado, over 1/3 of our land is owned by the public. Protecting
these public lands from development and keeping them in the publics'
hands is a worthwhile thing.

Willi
That is not my answer at all and I never said it was. In my case it just so
happens to be the case. I certainly do not trust private "compasionate "
ownership. Humans are rarely compassionate & only when it suits them.
They can kill maim & torture each other over stupid variations in their
religious beliefs.
In the caseiof the Colorado rivers all that I did was to infer - that when
you have a lot of humans around money changes hands and money certainly
motivates politicians, developers and others regardless of the public
views.
What you do then is entirely up to you!
I am totally l in favor protecting lands from human development.and urban
sprawl
Colorado has certainly seen its lands endangered fom this.
Where does Denver begin and end now? Boulder is almost part of Denver Firt
Collins has at least quintupled in size.
Where, when and how does this end? Everyday more people are being born and
many are moving out West.
The last time I was in Vegas - speaking of a dead ******** - On the trams -
There was a recording saying how next cenrury, at this growth rate there
will be a trillion people there - SICK CITY? i do not believe in politics
as a vaible ottion and I have not for a long time..
However Willi and Tim - I do wish you luck with your envionmental and
political aspirations and endeavors but I offer no other or better options

Fred

wrote in message
...
I was in Vegas - speaking of a dead ******** - On the trams -
There was a recording saying how next cenrury, at this growth rate there
will be a trillion people there ......
Fred

where, Fred, in the flow of complimentary adult beverages, did you actually
hear anyone suggest that Vegas, or even the planet, could sustain a
population roughly 200 times the current number of humans on Earth? I
suspect that something got lost in translation.
Tom

where, Fred, in the flow of complimentary adult beverages, did you actually
hear anyone suggest that Vegas, or even the planet, could sustain a
population roughly 200 times the current number of humans on Earth? I
suspect that something got lost in translation.
Tom

Amazing but true
I myself could not believe it,
I even commented to other passengers
The announcement was happy about and bragging about the infux of pople
moving to Vegas.

Fred