The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

CSPA, CalTrout, NCCFFF and TU are all safeguarding the flows on the McCloud during the FERC re-licensing process. Log onto the CSPA website and sign on to the list of those who support these organization's efforts during the re-licensing process.

www.calsport.org

this is shaping up to be another long fight. If we dont show up in force the ww boaters will loby for a ramp like this one at Ash camp.

Be sure who your frineds are. Cal Trout has totally sucked up to the white water river rapers. Don't be supprised if they support white water flows along with the so called "Friends of the River",or Friends of the White Water Rafters as they should be named. NCCFFF also coped out on us.

Don't expect them to try to stop white water flows. Expect them to support ww flows, and you'll be prepared for what is actually going to happen.

We went through this same crap on the North Feather and the bastards that were supposed to be for environment of the river sold us out.

TD

Do we really need to do this again with the Cal Trout and FOR and all that mess left over from the NFF?

Cal Trout wants what's best for the McCloud. They are the folks that put out this alert, aren't they? There are good folks at Cal Trout and they are trying to do what is best. They are great advocates for trout in California.

Friends of the River, as I'm sure you know, is not a rafting advocacy group. If that's your read on what we do, you have to really disregard 98% of our conservation work and an equal amount of our 35 year history. We are a river-centric organization, responsible for more Wild & Scenic designations than anyone in CA and involved in as many damn relicensings as anyone.

There is another organization that could cause problems. I called a guy from there to see what they were really saying about the McCloud. The guy told me they wanted to see the natural hydrograph returned to the river (basically, the flows that would normally be in the river at any give month). That would mean higher spring flows that would taper down over the months to a lower summer flow. This would not involve pulse flows, the main issue from the NFF. Still, my question of these guys is why argue for a natural hydrograph on the Mac and not on the NFF? I think that's a valid question and one I'd love to hear an answer to. My other point on that would be that the Mac has been altered and the historic flows supported massive salmon runs and the only population of Dolly's in CA. Those things have been killed off because of dams, so we shouldn't look to simply restore the hydrograph if it would not support the populations of fish that are still there and maybe that have filled in the spaces left by the departed Salmon and Dolly's.

Of course, when you relicense a project you don't get to just lay out your terms and have that be the new license. Other parties get to say what they want. Some of those folks maybe care a bit more about rafting than about ecology. There might be folks that care more about off-road jeep access than about the ecology, or mining or farming or logging or whatever. They all get a seat at the table. There are entities that have "conditioning authority" where they get to put something in the license that HAS to happen, but they are federal or state agencies, not nonprofit advocacy groups like Cal Trout, TU or FOR. The license tends to reflect the combined and competing demands of those groups, not just what the 100% best thing is for a river.

In the case of the NFF the agreement provided for higher base flows, but allowed the recreational pulse flows. The deal has made some very, very unhappy. They believe that if Cal Trout (and FOR) had rejected the deal that it wouldn't have happened. I don't think that's true. Cal Trout couldn't have stopped the deal and by signing on they got to stay involved in the process and try to improve it for fish. These negotiations happen in the real world where compromise is not an option, even when it comes to our rivers and our fisheries.

If we ONLY did things that were positive for fisheries, we wouldn't pump water out of the Delta. Of course, that would impact farmers and folks in Southern CA and those considerations have us pumping water out of the Delta.

In the real world, Cal Trout and FOR need your support to do their work. The more support they have, the louder their voice in favor of ecology, fisheries and river systems.

B-

Dale,
Come on man, it's not the good that CalTrout or FOR can do, it's the good $$$ that CalTrout and FOR get. The mailings are probably on the way to the CalTrout and FOR bulk mailing facility right now, asking all who are on their mailing list to contribute because of the McCloud issue.

When I receive that mailing from CalTrout (lucky for me I'm not on the FOR mailing list, I guess I don't subscribe to white water magazines), I'll toss it in the trash where it belongs; more wasted funds used for bulk mailing that contributors believed were going to conservation, HA, f'ing, HA.

Paul