Arizona Fly Fishing Forums  

Go Back   Arizona Fly Fishing Forums > Arizona Fly Fishing > Colorado River News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-21-2012, 08:37 PM
Fly Chef's Avatar
Fly Chef Fly Chef is offline
trout lovin' chef
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 1,148
Send a message via Yahoo to Fly Chef
Quote:
Originally Posted by MudBug View Post
Those companies maintain the dams and manage the power that is generated, should they do it for free?

Maybe you would prefer that the dams are managed by government employees so they could get paid twice as much and do half as good a job. (Post office references are getting stale so I won't mention them.)

As for your 14% tax reference I think you don't understand why the capital gains tax is so low. It is to promote investment in other enterprises and small business. That's a good thing since banks aren't doing it even though the Fed Reserve keeps giving them free money. In case you weren't aware the fed keeps pumping super low interest rate loans into the banks hoping they will loan it out, but instead they invest it in bonds.
You know what? I get tired of hearing the constant bashing of Government workers being paid "twice as much" and doing "half as good a job". There are bad employees in every business. I would rather have more control over them - do you honestly believe that some CORPORATION is going to do things in OUR best interest when it comes time to make a tough decision? I have NO faith in Corporate America to do the right thing. Sometimes the bottom line can't be the focus, sometimes doing the right thing needs to be. How many times are we going to allow Corporations to destroy natural resources and risk lives and then file bankrupty when they get caught? We allow them to file bankruptcy and then incorporate under new papers and wipe their hands clean of any responsibilty. It is bull$@&%.
__________________
"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not the fish they are after". - Henry David Thoreau
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-21-2012, 08:55 PM
MudBug's Avatar
MudBug MudBug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 2,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly Chef View Post
You know what? I get tired of hearing the constant bashing of Government workers being paid "twice as much" and doing "half as good a job". There are bad employees in every business.
Private enterprise necessarily breeds better workers. If your product or service is bad you go broke. So the best people get promoted and the turds get flushed.

Government jobs where it is almost impossible to get fired and you get promoted because of time on job breads lazy incompetence.

Both of those statements are of course generalizations. There are bad workers in private enterprise and good workers in government, but neither are the majority.


Example;

The NFA branch of the ATF was moved from DC to Virginia. Most of processors did not move with it. With new employees the wait for paperwork went from 90 days to 30 days. Great, but as time went on and the employees became used to government work the times got longer and longer, working back up to 90 days.

Government work ruins good people.
__________________
450 Bushmaster Forum
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-21-2012, 10:16 PM
CHIEF's Avatar
CHIEF CHIEF is offline
CHIEF
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: APACHE NDN REZZZ
Posts: 4,499
Send a message via ICQ to CHIEF
[QUOTE=MudBug;132251]Private enterprise necessarily breeds better workers. If your product or service is bad you go broke. So the best people get promoted and the turds get flushed.

Government jobs where it is almost impossible to get fired and you get promoted because of time on job breads lazy incompetence.

Both of those statements are of course generalizations. There are bad workers in private enterprise and good workers in government, but neither are the majority.

Make up your mind. "Private enterprise necessarily breeds better workers" "Government breeds lazy incompetence" and now "there are bad workers in private enterprise and good workers in government"....

CHIEF
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-21-2012, 10:58 PM
WMF WMF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,232
Here is some science for us to think about. Scientists believed that trout were killing native fish. Truth.. of all the rainbows in the C.R. 1% had fish in there stomach, Brown trout 15% in their stomach. However they do not know if the fish were suckers, chubs, trout, or any other fish.

Scientists believed that trout had eaten 500,000 chubs (annually) flushed out of the LCR during the monsoons. They estimated 1,000,000 trout in the Colorado total, and 70,000 in the local close to LCR. So to be fair I could not find the ratio of Rainbow to Brown trout in the survey. So let’s say 8% of total trout eating fish (Grossly overestimated?). Over 4 years and 24 trips there was 20,000 trout killed with a 90% killing effectiveness. So the estimate of trout was 70,000 way high…the actual was 22,000 trout (20k plus 10%). Of those 22000 only 1700 (+- 8%) ate 500,000 chub over a two month (monsoon) period annually. Now let’s factor that they spent $4,000,000 over that time frame. So they spent $2400 per fish eating trout, again they cannot I.D. what type of fish…. But there are suckers, chubs, bullhead, channel cat, shiners, and trout at the least in this part of the river?

So that’s a possibility of 6 different fry in the river assuming they were equally eaten, the actual number of trout that ate chubs would be 280 +-(1/6 of 1700). 280+- trout that ate 500,000 chubs over a monsoon season (doubtfull), at $4,000,000 total or $14,000 per trout that ate chub…. Interesting that when you talk with game and fish talks about killing trout at lee’s ferry they say that 1% of the trout are predatory, so they worry that the fish will over populate, so if you remember 6-8 months ago they wanted to kill trout there to preserve the fishery… However the same type of trout downstream is killed for being overly predatory….. Now you already have a reference for what the trout eat at Lee’s Ferry… http://www.azflyandtie.com/flyforum/...ad.php?t=11572

For credit you can read any number of Terry Gunn’s articles to find this info…
__________________
http://www.stolenvalor.com/

Last edited by WMF; 09-22-2012 at 02:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-22-2012, 07:50 AM
Dub Dub is offline
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,033
Scuds

Flychef....to answer your question...where did the scuds go? Scuds live in the weeds. The high flows scour the river bottom and uproot the aquatic vegetation and the scuds go downstream with it. Because the high flows are usually timed at the onset of winter when the sun is low, it takes a longer time for the weeds to regrow on the river bottom. Back in the 80's the river was covered with weeds. When you hit the river early am, at it's lowest flows, the river bed was covered with mats of long green weeds. Now it is mostly sand and I've noticed different weeds growing now as well. Couple that with the fact the water coming out of Powell is not as nutrient rich as it used to be and you have problems growing big fish again....plus they're a different strain.
You're right about the scientists. They have no vested interest...they just want to make sure they get thier share of grant money to continue thier research the following year.

dub
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-22-2012, 08:39 AM
bhickfish's Avatar
bhickfish bhickfish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 888
I would like to read that paper WMF. I have never heard the term "killing effectiveness", maybe capture efficiency, but 90% would still be unbelievable capture efficiency. Also you have the cost at 4 million and 4 billion.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-22-2012, 09:44 AM
Fly Chef's Avatar
Fly Chef Fly Chef is offline
trout lovin' chef
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 1,148
Send a message via Yahoo to Fly Chef
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub View Post
Flychef....to answer your question...where did the scuds go? Scuds live in the weeds. The high flows scour the river bottom and uproot the aquatic vegetation and the scuds go downstream with it. Because the high flows are usually timed at the onset of winter when the sun is low, it takes a longer time for the weeds to regrow on the river bottom. Back in the 80's the river was covered with weeds. When you hit the river early am, at it's lowest flows, the river bed was covered with mats of long green weeds. Now it is mostly sand and I've noticed different weeds growing now as well. Couple that with the fact the water coming out of Powell is not as nutrient rich as it used to be and you have problems growing big fish again....plus they're a different strain.
You're right about the scientists. They have no vested interest...they just want to make sure they get thier share of grant money to continue thier research the following year.

dub
dub,
I can't get into where I got my confirmation, but my information in regards to the change in the nutrients causing the loss - or decrease - in the scuds is accurate. Scientific evidence of this is enough for me. I have very little faith in so-called "local knowledge" when it comes to scientific discussion.

As far as the highlighted portion of your post, also scientifically factual and a significant factor in the size of the fish.
__________________
"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not the fish they are after". - Henry David Thoreau
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-22-2012, 09:54 AM
Dub Dub is offline
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,033
Not quite sure what you are saying there, Flychef but if the powers that be would have listened to the "local knowledge" the river amd fishing would be in much better shape today.

dub
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-22-2012, 10:10 AM
troutramp troutramp is offline
tramp ala trout
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: linden az
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub View Post
Not quite sure what you are saying there, Flychef but if the powers that be would have listened to the "local knowledge" the river amd fishing would be in much better shape today.

dub
Ditto. Fly chef you should stick to running government cafeterias.
__________________
support your local , independent fly shop!!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-22-2012, 10:33 AM
Fly Chef's Avatar
Fly Chef Fly Chef is offline
trout lovin' chef
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flagstaff, AZ
Posts: 1,148
Send a message via Yahoo to Fly Chef
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub View Post
Not quite sure what you are saying there, Flychef but if the powers that be would have listened to the "local knowledge" the river amd fishing would be in much better shape today.

dub
What I am saying is the the problem with the scuds is a food issue for them because of the maturation of the lake above the dam. The high flows have actually had a POSITIVE impact on the food sources. Again, I won't get into my source but it is science based, not conjecture.

The other major factor in the fish is the strain of fish because of stocking because the "powers that be" DID listen to the "local knowledge" and caved to their pressure.

I like you dub, we have had fun fishing together in the AZFAT Bass events and I don't want to offend. But, I will take science over conjecture every time.
__________________
"Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing it is not the fish they are after". - Henry David Thoreau
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Logos, Trademarks are property of their owners. Other content Copyright 2006-2015 azflyandtie.com . All Rights Reserved.