The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

The link the post to help support the re-licensing efforts on the McCloud seems to be broken. Again, those wishing to help support the re licensing efforts are encouraged to sign on to
http://www.calsport.org
and follow the link to the sign up page.

Here are the goals of CalTrout, CSPA, NCCFFF and TU in the re licensing hearings:
**********
Maintaining and enhancing the McCloud's wild trout fishery is our primary goal. To determine what management actions will best meet our goals we will analyze the extensive study results to help answer three questions: 1) What flows seasonally optimize fish habitat for different life stages? 2) How does the dam and flow management influence spawning gravel recruitment and cleanliness? 3) How does dam management influence glacial turbidity events in the Lower McCloud River?

CalTrout, CSPA, NCCFFF and TU's approach in these re-licensing proceedings is to recommend flows that are best for the fish and their habitat.

Over 90% of the visitors to the Lower McCloud River are there to fish the extraordinary wild trout waters. We will place special emphasis on flow management issues that enhance and protect the extraordinary recreational fishing experience, including the ability to wade, because of the unique characteristics and special status of the McCloud River in the angling community.
**********

Some negative comments were made in the previous posting regarding the effort in the re-licensing process. If individuals posting on this board have better ideas they are invited to join in the negotiating process by joining, funding and becoming involved in the policy decisions of one of the four organizations supporting the re-licensing. Any slacker can criticise, it takes guts and fortitude to be able to fight the long battle necessary to achieve positive results.

Jerry,
You can call me a slacker all you want but I don't recall hearing from you when we went up against the artificial white water flows on the North Feather. You can discount the hard work of the many people who fought the good fight but you seem to be ignorant of what has transpired in this battle over the years. I do not mean ignorant as an insult!!!
It's just that we tried to work with Cal Trout but it was clear from the start they were going to vote for ww flows. Check my response to Andrew in his post on the subject.

If it was not for a very vocal very few dedicated people you would be seeing white water flows dang near every weekend below every hydro plant in the state. We were at the AWA rallies they were calling for ww releases every weekend. Cal Trout supported ww flows on the North Feather from the start. If you are going to rely on Cal Trout to do the right thing I the battle against artificail white water flows you can forget it. The only bigger joke then that would be to ecpect Friends of the River(FOR) to help you out. FOR is a whiter water advocasy group and always has been. Some white water advocate groups even called for looking the other way while the endangered species act was being violated. White water advocates even requested the removal of stream side habitat, includeing trees bushes and berry vines along the Caribou reach of the NFF. There are some things that I don't think should be compromised. Sadly Cal Trout does not see it this way.

TD

man... it just never stops, eh? Is FOR's work to try and get Wild & Scenic status for the Little Sur or the Arroyo Seco and several other Central California rivers/creeks a rafting issue?

Is our work to get the dams off the Klamath a rafting issue? Wouldn't the removal of those dams actaully remove white water flows on the Upper Klamath?

What part of our work to oppose Sites Reservoir or the Temperance Flat Dam would classify as advocating rafting?

Is our work to get the National Recreation Area on the Lower Sacramento near Red Bluff a rafting issue?

Is our work to revoke the water rights for the proposed Auburn Dam a rafting issue? How about our work to improve the spillway at Folsom Reservoir or improve/strengthen the levees downstream of Folsom?

Who, on the FOR Conservation Staff (Ron, Steve, Kelly) is working on rafting or whitewater issues?

I can't wait to hear. See, I work at FOR and I know that we are not working on ANY rafting issues in the State. We wouldn't begin to have the staff, time or money to work on rafting issues if we wanted to... and we don't. We work on rivers. We work on places that offer us the opportunities to use the tools available... Wild & Scenic legislation and Dam Relicensing and other levers.

It's just getting silly, man. You are not helping anything, anyone or any place with this.

B-

Troutdale, I'm sure if you examined the past positions of every NGO, you could find numerous issues on which you disagreed. If you were to hold a grudge in every one of those instances then you would soon find no group to work with on any issue.

The current issue is the McCloud. The goals for the fishery are stated. Four separate NGO's have signed onto those goals. The question that was asked was if you can assist in supporting those goals. The four have equal voice. If you would like to make sure that white water kayaking is not to be considered, pick one of the four, join, give any references that may prove of value and ask to be on the committee dealing with the McCloud issue. Work from the inside.

The issue of kayaks and white water is not mentioned anywhere in the goals.

Friends of the River are not one of the NGO's that has signed on.

The state of our fisheries is in too much peril to hold onto grudges and past disappointments.

I'm glad to hear that you are or were active in some type of advocacy. Many who post negative comments are not. Those are the slackers I'm referring to. I give much more respect to an adversary I face across a table than to a vandal with a spray can painting epitaphs on the building.