|
Keeper, I'm just trying to re-focus folks on the issue that is ahead of us as opposed to behind us.
You want to talk about the report, fine, let's talk about the report. No one has come up with anything about the report except that it fails to mention the I.V.'s. Beyond that, there has been no discussion of the report. If you read the report and conclude that it says "Pulse flows = bad"... well, it doesn't say that... at all. I was actaully a bit surprised that the impacts they could see were so mild. The term "not statistically significant" crops up a lot. Someone throws out the Garcia Report as if it is a clear condemnation and it basically has no finding of drastic harm. It's weak sauce. It's not enough to put on the table and make any kind of demand.
Now, my degree is in History and International Studies, so I might be missing something... that's why I asked for some of our more scientific folks to chime in. That hasn't really happened. Not even Ralph commented on the Garcia Report's content and he's the buggiest guy the Board has probably ever seen.
I'm not in favor of pulse flows anywhere. Not on the NFF. Not on the McCloud. I didn't make the decision and it was before I came to FOR. I work for an organization that signed on to the agreement that folks are bitterly unhappy with. We tried to get some things that were positives in the agreement like increased base flows (that's a good thing, right?) and the adaptive managment system that would try to adapt the river's managment as negative impacts were indentified. People might not like the result, but I absolutely refute the insinuations about the motivations behind the agreement. People who say CT and FOR are just catering to white water folks have to disregard years and years of history (oh, and remember, history in precursor) and dozens of other data points to arrive at that conclusion. People don't work at these organizations for the fame or the money. People work at these organizations because they believe in the mission. One of the first things I did when I started at FOR was to sit down with our Conservation Director and ask about the NFF relicensing because I knew that it was such a hot topic. I was satisfied from that discussion that FOR had tried to make the best of a difficult situation. He also pointed out that when anglers and boaters are split, the power company usually benefits in the final agreement. That discussion has led me to try and explain our position and what I see as Cal Trout's (they are my competition, but the way) position to try and strengthen the hands of conservation organizations. When anglers are sapping the strength of Cal Trout... well... they are up against enough opposition, they/we don't need to tear down our own institutions. It's not just a little short sighted. It's stupid.
I'm not arguing for pulse flows. I'm arguing that anglers need to be more united behind the institutions that are carrying on the fights for our interests.
Now... I can't waste any more time saying the same stuff over and over again. So, I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread. You want to have a further conversation about this, give me a call. 408-802-6125. If you are going to attack me, post as yourself. Use your name. Your whole persona is weak sauce.
|
Favoured: 0
