The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

Here's a website with info:
http://www...ds.com/alpers-trout.html

The articles I've read all say that Tim is moving the hatchery itself to a different location.

My experience with CalTrout has been that they have been fighting to keep more development out of the Eastern Sierras/Mammoth area for years. This surprises me. I'm going to keep digging, would even love to contact Tim if anyone has an e-mail to get it from the horse's mouth.

CT sold out quite awhile ago. first time I heard about them betraying us is when they jumped in bed with those G#% D@# F*(

Well, I figured out the GD part...who did they jump into bed with??

Crowley has always been considered a "put and grow" lake. Fish planted in that lake grow rapidly and get pretty big because of all the food that is available to the fish. Commonly the fish you catch in the fall are 15-22 inches and sometimes bigger, and fat. It is one of the great fisheries in California. After August 1st, it becomes basically a catch and release lake (you can keep one or two fish over 18". Mostly just fly fishers. Used to be that they would put massive numbers in the lake after the catch and take season ended on August 1st. In recent years that number has been dropping and it is feared that the number will drop even more significantly due to the hatchery closure. So yes, it is a planted lake, but unlike any other in California.
Betty

thanks for the info....

no/msg

Andrew,

Cal Trout, the Hydro Reform Coalition , American Whitewater Assn.,
Cal Water Quality Control Board.... they're all in bed together.

http://www...reform.org/about/members

All these groups supported the disneyland flows that increased the flows by 10x on some rivers with their whitewater weekends. Many ,in my opinion, ill informed fly fishing groups included. It's highly debatebly as to whether or not these flows did the river(s) any good.

Myself, and about 200 others here on this BB, agreed that these whitewater flows hurt the rivers, bugs and fish. These fishing and river groups supported these descisions (I believe) because they recieved $MONEY$ from the Hydro people.

Seems it's all about the money and great "boating" flows, not about the fish or bugs or the overall health of the river(s). There's an old saying that rings true, "You can't fight City Hall." I tried fighting those flows here on the Stan between Donnells and Beardsley...like pounding ones head against a brick wall.

That's who I thought you meant. I've said on this board before that FERC negotiations include interested parties on all sides--those who want no change in flows when the new contract is put in place, i.e. continued reduced flows because of dams, and parties who want to restore some of the flows. There is no doubt that compromises are made, and strange alliances created. Monitoring of conditions is put into the contracts, and presumably there is an obligation to mitigate if merited. I completely believe Dale when he says that there are fewer Velma Mays on the North Fork Feather. I also believe that CHRC had the right intention in fighting for increased flows. And I firmly believe that all parties are obligated to live up to the promise of analysis and mitigation, and if the increased flows have had a negative effect then American Whitewater, Friends of the River, CalTrout, TU--all have to follow up and make right what has been screwed up. But honestly, anyone who thinks CalTrout just went along to go along, that they were more concerned with rafters than anglers, I think those folks are wrong. It'd be sweet if CalTrout and TU and FFF could sit down at the FERC meetings and say, "We want increased flows, we want mitigation for fifty years of damage to the watershed, and we won't support recreational whitewater flows." Just doesn't work that way.

I think more would be gained if folks on this board who are pissed off at CalTrout would engage with them and hold their feet to the fire instead of pissing and moaning. Bottom line is that CalTrout, and particularly the conservation guys who work there, are working to preserve and protect trout and steelhead in California. Are there a handful of organizations doing that work? Isn't it in our interest to be engaged with them and be constructive?

I worked at CalTrout for a year. My year there did not end well, so I could have burned my bridges with the organization, certain personalities, some folks on the board. But as long as Brett, Tom, and Curtis are still there I support what they do. And I think Brian Stranko as Executive Director has been great for the organization and its collaborative work as well.

I doubt if I've changed anybody's mind, but what the hell.