Your voice in river management

[Litespeed1]

I fished the ferry last weekend. It was "on" big time.

Everyone should voice their opinion.

I think their time, efforts and (my) money would be better spent finding a way to restore water flow along the Little Colorado River rather than trying to manage or eliminate trout in the main stem Colorado. The water below Powell is clear and cold and constant in temperature. The Little Colorado could behave much more like a natural river if the water in it's headwaters was allowed to flow more freely. So find a way to provide enough water upstream for people. Allow the Little Colorado to flow with volume and fluctuate naturally for the native fish.

Habitat is of utmost importance when restoring native species. Simply adding natural type habitat conducive to the natural fishes of the lower Colorado drainage would do far more than the "management" being proposed. Since GC dam is in place it doesn't make sense to micro manage the waters below.

As well take away GC dam or change the temp of the water below GC dam and stripers and other bass will come upriver and finish off ANY and ALL native fish with crayfish then finding a nice warmer habitat and ultimately wreaking their own destruction.

[Jeremy V]

Specific comments relating to science, biology, laws, and economics are more likely to help in this process than "screw the chub, trout rule!" Or "screw the trout, I wanna fish for humpback chub some day!"

Even more helpful are suggestions as to how to manage for both the native species and the trout fishery. Right, wrong, or in different, the Bureau legally has to account for affects to endangered species as a result of their actions, while they (for the most part) don't legally have to do anything for the trout fishery.

[cedar]

Previous commenter hit on something when he said the Bureau of Reclamation legally doesn't need to do much of anything for the trout fishery. True, the BR may not have a legal obligation to care about it. Next, take a look at the other prominent actor in the process: Grand Canyon National Park. Resources division leadership at Grand Canyon is the big force working on new river plans. You better believe it, they don't like trout in the river at all. 280 river miles and they won't admit a place for fish considered "non-native" in any of it.

Where does that leave the special fishery at Lee's Ferry? AZ Game and Fish defends it, the public defends it, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area may defend it some, although they will defer to big Grand Canyon, a much more powerful park.

where does it leave the fishery? In the hands of Nature, of course. Pure wild nature already spoke. It loves rainbow trout in the Colorado since the dam. I've caught fish at several places along the entire length of the river, and it's always a delight to see the silver-bright fish.

All a person can do is insist the managers recognize the value of non-native and native alike. And don't entertain destructive behavior, like electrofishing the river.

If you have to re-locate natives to other regions and take special care like they do for the California condor, go for it.

Thank goodness the river is so huge the trout are here to stay.

[Seldomseen]

Originally Posted by Litespeed1

I think their time, efforts and (my) money would be better spent finding a way to restore water flow along the Little Colorado River rather than trying to manage or eliminate trout in the main stem Colorado. The water below Powell is clear and cold and constant in temperature. The Little Colorado could behave much more like a natural river if the water in it's headwaters was allowed to flow more freely. So find a way to provide enough water upstream for people. Allow the Little Colorado to flow with volume and fluctuate naturally for the native fish.

It was my impression that the big issue with the lower LCR was the non-native fish presence. Removal of non-natives from this piece of water is not supported by a major player though - the Hopi Tribe. They do not believe in the killing of any life in that spot - even non-native species. It is important to note that the confluence area has great religious significance to the tribe as it is where their people came out of the ground into this world. I guess the Christian equivalent, if there is anything close, would be the Garden of Eden.

Overall, I think you are right. It is the spot for the chub and this is demonstrated by the largest local population is in the pools of the Colorado near the LCR confluence.

[Mr.Smith]

So, I browsed through that website and failed to turn up even a single reference to 'mechanical removal' of trout. Seems to me this entire thread is purely based on hear say and speculation. Where are you guys getting your information? The draft EIS hasn't even been released and you are fear mongering over an alternative that may or may not even be included. There are helpful links in the website that tell you all about Environmental Impact Statements and NEPA. I suggest some of you do some reading rather than speculating.

[WMF]

Originally Posted by T Gunn

This is as important at it gets for the future of Lees Ferry. All the enviros are lining up to try and shut us up and close us down as a fishery. Everyone should try to attend a meeting and voice your opinion. Pass it on.

Quoted for some clarity on the subject. There is a resident expert on all things Lees Ferry his name is Terry Gunn

[Mr.Smith]

Originally Posted by WMF

Quoted for some clarity on the subject. There is a resident expert on all things Lees Ferry his name is Terry Gunn

With a financial interest in one side of the issue. Again, not all of the information is on the table.

[Jeremy V]

Originally Posted by Mr.Smith

With a financial interest in one side of the issue. Again, not all of the information is on the table.

This document does a pretty concise (13 pages - considering the draft EIS will be 100s of pages) in outlining all of the issues the Bureau is addressing...

http://ltempeis.anl.gov/documents/do...ingPosters.pdf

The last page acknowledges the ecomonics of trout fishing at Lees Ferry...

Originally Posted by scoping poster page 13

Recreational activities that could be affected by LTEMP actions include boating, fishing, camping, and hiking. Recreation is a significant source of revenue for the regional economy.

Originally Posted by specific to fishing

Glen Canyon Dam created ideal conditions for a sport fishery for nonnative trout immediately below the dam.

I have not heard of environmental groups that realistically want Lees Ferry trout fishing eliminated (well, excpet for those in favor of complete elimination of Glen Canyon Dam - but this EIS is to formalize operations of the dam, considering all of the options).

This major issue from the fishery perspective is areas further downstream where there is likely conflict between trout and chubs; which yes, I understand is driven somewhat by what happens at the Ferry.

Like I posted before:

Originally Posted by Jeremy V

Even more helpful are suggestions as to how to manage for both the native species and the trout fishery. Right, wrong, or in different, the Bureau legally has to account for affects to endangered species as a result of their actions, while they (for the most part) don't legally have to do anything for the trout fishery.

As Mr. Smith said, the NEPA and EIS process has to put everything on the board, and allow for notice and public comment, which is a very good thing.

[T Gunn]

Originally Posted by Mr.Smith

With a financial interest in one side of the issue. Again, not all of the information is on the table.

Here are a few hundred pages on fish removal below Glen Canyon Dam

Draft Environmental Assessment
Non-Native Fish Control Downstream
from Glen Canyon Dam
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/nnfc/index.html

[Mr.Smith]

Thanks for the link Terry. I appreciate your passion. If my livelihood was on the line I'm sure I would be quite active in the discussion as well. I trust you submitted comments to the draft.

My comment was not intended as an insult and I trust you are intelligent enough to admit your own bias.