Your Show - Future of The Cache La Poudre

Your Show is a broadcast TV show here in Colorado that is based on
questions for a given topic are asked by the viewers. Info is below
my .sig.

Adam Schrager is a great guy and will follow-up with you any questions
you send along. This week's section is about he future of the Cache La
Poudre, a beautiful river in Colorado with something like 50 or more
miles of access from the road that follows it on up.

Willy, thought you'd be interested.

Your pal,

TBone

A man from the west will fight over three things: water, women and
gold, and usually in that order."
--Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater

This week, YOUR SHOW tackles the future of one of Colorado’s most
popular rivers, the Cache la Poudre, in northern Colorado.

Right now, it’s the only river in the state designated as “wild and
scenic,” and is one of the most popular attractions in one of the
country’s fastest growing regions. You can see the conflict. The
population coming to northern Colorado need water to drink and to
irrigate and think some of the Poudre water should be diverted into
reservoirs. Others see its pristine beauty, its majestic
characteristics and fear man-made intrusions on a natural landmark.

We’ll discuss the river’s future with experts on both sides of the
issue. If you want to participate in the conversation, please e-mail
us at: .

YOUR SHOW airs at 10:30 a.m. on My20, Comcast Channel 3 on Sunday
mornings. Each week, it’s your ideas, your comments and your questions
that produce YOUR SHOW.

If you don’t want to receive a note like this in the future, I’m sorry
to have inconvenienced you. Simply respond to this note and I’ll take
you off my list.

Thanks for your participation. Oh, and if you have a great quote about
water you’d love to share, we’d love to show it to our viewers.

Adam

Adam Schrager
9News Political Reporter
YOUR SHOW Producer/Host
www.9News.com/yourshow
303-871-1825 (w)
303-500-2935 (cell)

This is the question I posed for the show:

Hi Adam,

I caught my first trout in the Poudre when I was very young, around
1965. My photo from this was in the "Fishing and Hunting News". Since
then I've been a very avid Colorado outdoorsman that loves Colorado
and especially fishing for the jewels that swim in the waters of The
Glory of this state. Recently, you know, the state trout was changed
from the Rainbow trout (an introduced species, from California, no
less) to the more appropriate Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.
This would mean removing the bag limit on Rainbow trout while
protecting the Cutts that would have to be reintroduced (as fry
probably). Would the river sustain a wild population of Cutthroat
trout? Do you think having native fish in the river would increase its
value to the state and define conservation for the area?

Thanks,

---
Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

On May 2, 12:39 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

This show aired and is archived at http://www.9news.com/yourshow/articl...?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On May 4, 2:15 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On May 2, 12:39 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:



On May 2, 10:21 am, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This is the question I posed for the show:
snip
... Greenback Cutthroat Trout (an indiginous
species). I'd be curious to know what the long term affect of changing
the management of the Poudre towards the indiginous state would be.

You might be taken a little more seriously if you could spell
indigenous correctly.

I'm just sayin' ...

--
Ken Fortenberry

Good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

TBone

This show aired and is archived athttp://www.9news.com/yourshow/article.aspx?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

We'll have these hit and miss water projects until we get serious
about The Grid.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:


This show aired and is archived at http://www.9news.com/yourshow/articl...?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Although I support reintroductions of Cutts, the question is TOTALLY
irrelevant in this debate. It's you that didn't get it. The issue is
whether to take even more water our of the river. If more water is taken
there won't be ANY fish much less native cutts.

Picture of a common low flow:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Hatchery11152007.jpg

A pic of one of the beautiful Bows that is able to deal with the water
levels:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Untitled-1.jpg

Willi

On May 18, 7:52 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

This show aired and is archived athttp://www.9news.com/yourshow/article.aspx?storyid=91146.
It's pretty interesting, to say the least. My question was asked in
segment 3. They did not answer it at all, just didn't get it.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Although I support reintroductions of Cutts, the question is TOTALLY
irrelevant in this debate. It's you that didn't get it. The issue is
whether to take even more water our of the river. If more water is taken
there won't be ANY fish much less native cutts.

Picture of a common low flow:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Hatchery11152007.jpg

A pic of one of the beautiful Bows that is able to deal with the water
levels:

http://crystalglen.net/Fishing/Untitled-1.jpg

Willi

I understand the issue Willi, I don't believe you've thought it
through. I fully understand that the dam will be filled by diverting
more water from below the canyon, the project that will create super
low flows through the city. Water from where you've already shown it
to be ridiculously over allocated.

The question was this, maybe a bit cerebral than you gave it credit
for, One both groups hadn't considered, nor you, apparently.

Should supporting the native species in this watershed be a 'baseline'
of conservation for the project? The "vision" statement, if you will.

Now, all the developers will say is "the fishing in the canyon won't
be changed". Only a fool would believe that. A fool that doesn't
understand Holligan reservoir, a fool that doesn't understand
conservation, a fool that thinks Rainbow trout will not migrate, a
fool that's never understood the holistic ecosystem and does not care
to. Put another way, you can;t get what you want if you don't know
what you want. Now, say we want cutthroat in the river, period. Not
rainbow, or smallmouth bass or brook trout. We want cutts. They have
requirements to survive. We need to meet those requirements. Don't you
get it? This is the tactic that we need to use.

What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.

Each of these little band-aid solutions to this major problem adds up
to a disaster in the making.

"Alone we can only carry buckets but together we can drain rivers",
Mike Brady.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Willi


What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.


I guess I'm busting your chops because it seems that for you, every
fishery issue, comes back to your hatred of C&R and Rainbow Trout.

Introducing native Cutts, although this is something I favor, is not
going to stop the construction of the reservoir. The decision on the
reservoir will be made this Summer.

The proposed reservoir WILL have no effect (well there can always be
unforeseen effects) on the river above the point where the water will be
removed. It's not a damming of the Poudre, it's an off river reservoir
that will rely on a new piping system as well as existing canals to
transport water from the river to the reservoir.

My point is that no more water should be taken out of the river and that
flows should be better managed for the health of the river environment.

Although it is, by far, the most heavily used part of the river by
recreational users, there is no "official" recreational usage "on
record" for the river below the canyon mouth. Because of this, like you
heard in the Water Board's response, their position is that there is
"no" recreational usage of the Poudre below the canyon mouth and
dewatering the river even more will not have any effects on peoples'
usage. 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. This study will be part of the EIS that will be considered. This
is the first time in Colorado that an Environmental Impact Statement was
part of the approval process for a new water storage reservoir.

There are three possible outcomes (There are more, but for simplicity sake):

1. The reservoir will be built and the Water Board will regulate water
distribution like it currently does.

2. The reservoir will be defeated

3. The reservoir will be built but the Water Board will have to
mitigate for the damages the construction of the reservoir will cause. A
possible mitigation (one that the DOW favors) is to have some other
entity (possibly the DOW) have the right to make water demands for the
good of the river itself. In addition, the Water Board would have to
spread out their discharges to keep a more even flow in the river. Now,
in order to reduce the amount of water loss from infiltration and
evaporation, the Water Board will "push" water down the lower Poudre as
fast as possible. They raise the river level up several feet for a day
or so, then drop it back down the virtually no flow after they've moved
all the water they wanted.

It's not about C&R and Rainbow trout.

Willi

On May 18, 11:28 am, Willi Loehman wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Willi

What *is* your point anyway, just to deride me or are you supporting
the developers or what? Should we conserve using an introduced or
genetically altered fish that can survive drought flows so that we
can drain the water from the river? That's what you seem to be
implying.

I guess I'm busting your chops because it seems that for you, every
fishery issue, comes back to your hatred of C&R and Rainbow Trout.

Introducing native Cutts, although this is something I favor, is not
going to stop the construction of the reservoir. The decision on the
reservoir will be made this Summer.

The proposed reservoir WILL have no effect (well there can always be
unforeseen effects) on the river above the point where the water will be
removed. It's not a damming of the Poudre, it's an off river reservoir
that will rely on a new piping system as well as existing canals to
transport water from the river to the reservoir.

My point is that no more water should be taken out of the river and that
flows should be better managed for the health of the river environment.

Although it is, by far, the most heavily used part of the river by
recreational users, there is no "official" recreational usage "on
record" for the river below the canyon mouth. Because of this, like you
heard in the Water Board's response, their position is that there is
"no" recreational usage of the Poudre below the canyon mouth and
dewatering the river even more will not have any effects on peoples'
usage. 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. This study will be part of the EIS that will be considered. This
is the first time in Colorado that an Environmental Impact Statement was
part of the approval process for a new water storage reservoir.

There are three possible outcomes (There are more, but for simplicity sake):

1. The reservoir will be built and the Water Board will regulate water
distribution like it currently does.

2. The reservoir will be defeated

3. The reservoir will be built but the Water Board will have to
mitigate for the damages the construction of the reservoir will cause. A
possible mitigation (one that the DOW favors) is to have some other
entity (possibly the DOW) have the right to make water demands for the
good of the river itself. In addition, the Water Board would have to
spread out their discharges to keep a more even flow in the river. Now,
in order to reduce the amount of water loss from infiltration and
evaporation, the Water Board will "push" water down the lower Poudre as
fast as possible. They raise the river level up several feet for a day
or so, then drop it back down the virtually no flow after they've moved
all the water they wanted.

It's not about C&R and Rainbow trout.

Willi

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