Public Access GONE on the Lower Yuba [Archive] - Bill Kiene's Fly Fishing Forum

Bob Laskodi

10-28-2009, 12:25 PM

Why is SYRCL (a conservation organization that stresses legal public access) teaming up with YOA (a profit making company that does not believe in public access even though it's the law)?????? That part troubles me even more than closure of road access.
Don't they know that the Yuba is a navigable river from Englebright down to the mouth??? Don't they know that there is a public easement to the river on both sides of the HWY 20 bridge???? They might be able to close road access (which would prevent drift boat access, but not inflatable craft access), but the public easement is there and it's the law.
Does Western AG have the necessary permits to alter the stream bed to prevent public access??? Again, what they want to do is against the law.
Again, I really want to know why SYRCL is teaming up with a law breaking entity like YOA???

BTW, I tried sending the above comments above through your referenced link to SYCRL. You can't do it because it's impossible to replicate their anti-spam codes correctly, since you can't tell the difference between upper and lower case alphabets. For example, lower case x looks exactly like Upper Case X on their system. Quite frankly their system sucks.

Mike R

10-28-2009, 12:54 PM

Hogan,

This is a great April Fools joke.

Problem is: it's October. If this is true, I am speechless. I am sure that you have a better knowledge than most regarding the stick "politics" of that river so if these seems funky to you, that's good enough for me. On the other hand, I really hope that SYRCL isn't getting behind this but words like "matching grant money" scare me. If so, just chalk another one up to conservation organizations continuing to stab those that are most supportive of them right in the back.

What's next, whitewater flows so the kayakers can go over Daguerre??!!

Should make the Film Fest interesting this year....

See ya,
Mike

Hogan Brown

10-28-2009, 12:57 PM

abcdefghijklmnop

nightgoat

10-28-2009, 04:07 PM

more on this topic:

http://yubanet.com/regional/Western-Aggregates-and-SYRCL.php

It sounds like there is still a long way to go before they can even begin. From the above link:

"The timing of the completion of the three phases is unknown at this time because of the funding needs of the project. Western has initiated a Yuba Salmon Enhancement Fund through a "challenge grant" to SYRCL of $50,000 â€“ Western will match SYRCL's fund-raising of the project dollar for dollar for the first $50,000 raised by SYRCL. Obviously, the project will require funding substantially in excess of the initial seed money. The four parties to the Agreement in Principle also must obtain the consent of certain third parties who have varying interests in some of the lands contemplated for the conservation easement."

So SYRCL has to raise $50k to get another $50k and that still won't be enough money for the whole project. Good luck with that.

Anyone know who these "certain third parties" are?

I don't see why they can't provide vehicle access for boat launching through the public easement along/below the bridge.

Mike R

10-28-2009, 04:25 PM

I bet they have moved quite a bit forward in over a year.

Is there any more info out there?

nightgoat

10-28-2009, 04:52 PM

oops, I just saw Oct. and assumed this year. I can't find anything else about it anywhere? No mention on the SYRCL site. YOA doesn't have a site (that I can find anyway).

Bob Laskodi

10-28-2009, 07:21 PM

Hogan, does YOA still have an active "harassment" program for anglers wading above the HWY 20 bridge? I'm getting too old to hike much, and do prefer floating (haven't been much above the bridge in years) so I am wondering if YOA is still harassing anglers like they used to.

Hogan Brown

10-29-2009, 06:39 AM

abcdefghijklmnop

speyfool

10-30-2009, 12:04 PM

bob - Ya I think it is relatively active not like it once was. I don't hike up stream at all anymore...just not a pleasant experiance if you have to deal with Jarvis. I have my spots down stream I go on my own.

As someone who hikes above the 20 bridge, what exactly is this guy doing? I've yet to run into anyone that was bothered by me being there. I'm not familiar with him at all, is he a land owner?

Bob Laskodi

10-30-2009, 12:30 PM

Yuba Outdoors Adventures (YOA) is a for profit "fishing club" in which they have leased access/trespass rights from many of the land owners above the HWY 20 bridge. Last I heard (several years ago), it cost $1500 annually for "membership" in YOA. In years past, YOA has hired security guards (IMNSHO armed thugs!!!) to "patrol" the Yuba above the bridge and has actively harassed anglers who are fishing the river for "illegally trespassing". In years past, YOA was VERY aggressive in harassing anglers, and IMNSHO their actions bordered on illegal. I have personal experience with the security guards and their harassment program and I have heard from other anglers of similar harassment. Apparently, their active angler harassment program has mellowed recently!!! Randall Jarvis is the person from YOA who I have interacted with the most. I am not sure if he is the actual owner of YOA or just the manager. YOA believes (incorrectly) that they "OWN" all the access on the Yuba River above the HWY 20 bridge and any one fishing there is trespassing. AFAIK, YOA has threatened trespassing charges against many individuals, but has never actually successfully prosecuted a trespassing charge. The Yuba River is listed by the US Army Corps Of Engineers, the US Agency responsible for administrating Navigable Waters, as being a navigable river from Englebright Dam to the mouth and can be legally accessed by the public via the easements under the HWY 20 bridge and below the "normal" high water mark of the river according to both Federal & State laws. Thusly, any one can legally access the Yuba River to fish, contrary to YOA claims. IMNSHO, these laws really "piss off" YOA!!!!!!

Mike R

10-30-2009, 01:10 PM

Why wouldn't these laws piss off YOA? They are getting people to pay for access to a public access river. Nice work if you can get it, I guess. It would be like the rv park on Putah Creek trying to offer "private access" to the water above and below the bridge.

Mike

Darian

10-30-2009, 03:26 PM

This type of situation isn't really anything new. There're private reserves (based on leases from government agencies) on public lands and have been for many years. Some along navigable rivers/streams. Pleasant Valley Preserve comes to mind. :cool: Landowners along the Sacramento River (below Sacramento) have been running off bankies with local Police Departments support for quite a while now. :| Even if they're unsuccessful in prosecuting in court, a person accused of trespassing is on the defensive throughout the process (a process that can be expensive and time consuming). :nod: Is it worth fighting :?: I guess that's a personal choice. :confused:

I don't like the prospect of it but that seems to be the way things are going.... :nod:

Tom Page

10-30-2009, 05:12 PM

Spey fool, Randy Jarvis is the lease holder on the property and you are furtunate that you have not been talked to about going up there. I brought this to Hogans attention at the begining of this week and it is no joke. I sat in at a meeting about a month ago. The way I understand it is that SYRCL is hurting for money and Randy Jarvis knows this, when he found out that Western aggregate wanted SYRCL to match dollar for dollar that is when his greedy a$$ steped in. I was told by a former freind who's the lawyer that is representing Randy Jarvis that he will be charging $15 per boat if he matches the money how long do you think it will take to make it back ( 15 x 365 x lets say 5 boats per day) I have several freinds and a former freind that belong to YOA and this has been Randy's dream come true. I can see it now we will have some walk in access for a year or two than it will be no tresspessing after that unless you pay the big bucks. He charges his members now $1000 for 9 months how much will he charge for 12 months. One thing Hogan did not mention is that their will be two places to park and they are only allowing 6 cars total. The next meeting will be some time in December when I get the date I will let you all know. Lets win this battle together!!!

speyfool

10-30-2009, 05:12 PM

I've always heard that the property owners along the Yuba (above hwy 20) will get in your face if you aren't in the water or very close to it. Perhaps all this time it wasn't really the property owners, but YOA. Interesting. I had no idea that a fishing club was possibly behind all of that.

Now that YOA now appears to be wanting to put a fence along the river below the bridge, it just looks like they are trying to remove all public access to this river for their own private fishing reserve.

If I were part of this club, I would be ashamed.

Tom Page

10-30-2009, 05:18 PM

speyfool

10-30-2009, 05:20 PM

I can see it now we will have some walk in access for a year or two than it will be no tresspessing after that unless you pay the big bucks. He charges his members now $1000 for 9 months how much will he charge for 12 months. One thing Hogan did not mention is that their will be two places to park and they are only allowing 6 cars total. The next meeting will be some time in December when I get the date I will let you all know. Lets win this battle together!!!

This is all very concerning. However, I'm baffled to think that this Jarvis fellow can somehow get around the public use rights. I can understand he may have the ability to eliminate parking in some areas or boat launches. But, I'm not sure how he can remove walk-ins if they come under the Hwy 20 bridge.

Where exactly is YOA's "property" boundaries? Is it immediately above the 20 bridge? Or a ways up river?

Whatever the case, I'm on board to try and stop this from happening. The Yuba is one of my favorite destinations. I'd hate to see it come to an end.

Tom Page

10-30-2009, 05:49 PM

The YOA property starts just above the bridge. If I am right and please correct me if I am wrong but as i understand the easment for public access is 80 feet on either side of the bridge. The land below the bridge all belongs to western aggragete. So if you stand back and look were we drive in to launch the boats it can be cosidered treaspassing.

Bob Laskodi

10-30-2009, 06:48 PM

AFAIK, YOA does not actually own any property, they are only leasing trespass rights from the various owners. And reportedly they have all the land owners locked up from the bridge until the UC property upstream. There actually are several public easements around the HWY20 bridge. While Western AG actually owns all the land having the public easements, they have no legal say in the public easements or their dispositions. They can not legally block access to the public easements for any reason. Basically, right now, SYCRL, YOA, and Western can't change the easements without a lot of wrangling with County officials (maybe that will happen). About the only thing they can legally stop right now, is direct road access to the river by vehicle (bad for drift boats, a non-issue for inflatables and walk-ins). And you are so right about Jarvis, IMNSHO-he's been trying to get the entire Yuba locked up in his back pocket so he can make money. He wants everything from Englebright to Daguerre in his control. Again, what I don't understand is how a respectable conservation organization like SYCRL would want any association with any of YOA's activities. Don't they know about Jarvis and his shenanigans? GEEZ, I wouldn't even want my name mentioned in the same sentence!!!! Yeah, they need money, but .........
PS: I think it's 20 feet either side of the bridge, but I could be wrong.

nightgoat

10-30-2009, 07:27 PM

I sat in at a meeting about a month ago.

So what is this project? Is it part of the HEA? That's about all I've been able to find on the net regarding the Yuba and there is no mention of a fence or YOA in the information available.

Tom Page

10-31-2009, 06:24 AM

Nigthgoat, I have been hearing about this project for over a year now and when I heard that YOA started to get involved that is when I got involved. I guide out of Nevada City Anglers and I have been harrased by Randy's group of thugs he called security. When I went to this meeting I asked questions regarding SYRCL's plan on protecting there project and that is when Jason Rainey's side kick let it slip that they plan on putting up the fence. And like I said in my last post I know the lawyer that is representing YOA and he told me about YOA's involvement. Bob is absolutly correct about Randy wanting to control the river from Englebright down to Daggure. Look you guys I was promissed to get access but that is not good enough for me that river belongs to every one, not Randy Jarvis.

nightgoat

10-31-2009, 07:34 AM

Hey Tom,

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with all you are saying. I'm just trying to put a name to the project as I can't really find anything by searching SYRCL and Western Aggregates. I did find info on the HEA projects here: http://www.sac-basin-hea.com/default.aspx . Specifically I'm thinking that it might be this
http://www.sac-basin-hea.com/Completed%20Questionnaires/NS-83%20Yuba%20Riv%20Backwater%20Sidechannel%20and%20 Floodplain-2.pdf

If this IS the project then we have more agencies to contact to make our concerns known. Some sort of public access to launch boats should absolutely be required!

Joe

Hogan Brown

10-31-2009, 09:00 AM

abcdefghijklmnop

Bob Laskodi

10-31-2009, 09:13 AM

<<<adequate public access is no boat launch, a fence, and 6 parking places all managed by Jarvis >>>
Those plans are completely unacceptable to me. Any association with YOA is unacceptable to me. I noticed in the HEA description (apparently that's where the money is coming from) that "there is currently no public opposition to this project". That needs to change!!!!

Fats

10-31-2009, 02:19 PM

So were does Cal Trout and TU stand on this? I don't understand how this would be legal, but I don't think I understand the full cast of characters.

fly on the wall

11-01-2009, 02:25 PM

Western Aggregates (WA) owns Park’s Bar. Prescriptive easements don’t extend into flood plains so the fact we’ve been ignoring their no trespassing signs and launching our boats for the past 25 years doesn’t mean we turned this into public property.

The parent company of Western has been sued repeatedly for injuries and a death resulting from ATV and dirt bike accidents on their properties across 6 western states. Following these suits, the parent corporation has asked all of their quarries to exclude motor vehicles to prevent them from being “attractive nuisances” to the ATV crowd.

Where needed, a single strand, knee high cable will be strung and Randall Jarvis has been contracted to build and maintain the cable (he has a fencing business). Tentatively, there will be two “official” parking accesses with gates so that people can drag or cart their rafts, kayaks or pontoon boats to the river. Motorists are free to pull over anywhere they like off the frontage road and simply step over the cable to access the river. There is no fee or limit to the number of river users.

A public access, fee-based boat launching facility will be provided. YOA will manage the boat ramp, but other than the launch facility and cable maintenance they will have nothing what-so-ever to do with the rest of the property. The headline that “public access is GONE ”, or that “YOA is taking over” the river is nothing but inflammatory hysteria.

WA is turning 180 acres (over 2 miles) of riverfront habitat into a permanent conservation easement, freely accessible to the non-motorized public. In addition they are donating $50,000.00 of matching funds toward salmon, steelhead and trout habitat development on the property. SYRCL is already three years into a lower river management plan and has matched WA’s $50,000.00 challenge.

As SYRCL noted in their press release, they will NOT condone infringement of private property rights, NOR will they allow infringement of public property rights. It was SYRCL who legally challenged YOA and had them back off on angler confrontation (where were the trout groups?). Because of SYRCL, the aggressive natures of some of YOA versus angler encounters are largely long past history.

That the very anglers who will benefit from WA and SYRCL’s actions have turned this incredible gift against them defies logic. Having to pay to launch a boat on private property is no different than the current system of having to pay to take out a boat on private property at Daguerre or Sycamore Ranch. The benefits of the project outweigh the cost of a boat launch fee by a billion to one.

If the rights of private property ownership don’t jive with your political views, perhaps the best course would be to take it up with the State and have them build a tax-funded public ramp at the Cal Trans easement under the hwy 20 bridge.

nightgoat

11-01-2009, 02:50 PM

you sound like you know a lot about the details. Care to give us your real name?

Darian

11-01-2009, 02:53 PM

Thanks for the clarification. Good post. :cool: :cool:

loganmike

11-01-2009, 03:40 PM

Thankyou for the post.

me

Charlie Gonzales

11-01-2009, 03:57 PM

Will the boat ramp be up stream or down stream from the bridge, and will there be a limited number permitted per day?

Randy B

11-01-2009, 04:41 PM

I'm curious if this has been brought to the attention of of the owners of Yuba Recreation Inc (the gun club) and owners of Sycamore Ranch as this project, which may have good intentions regardless of the YRA involvement, may have an very negative financial impact on two small business owners in a very difficult economy and in an area with a very high unemployment rate. They should probably talk to their local representatives (county board of supervisor, assemblyman, and senator) about its impact on them.

Also, again, while the project is well intentioned, the involvement of the YRA and their past practices should make everyone leary and I believe someone should get CalTrout and Trout Unlimited involved to protect the fish and also access rights (per previous court rulings)...it shouldn't be an issue with the project sponsors if they do not have any underhanded plans cooked up that have yet be brought to light.

Just my two cents.

fly on the wall

11-01-2009, 05:07 PM

The habitat restoration plan will largely direct the location of a ramp.

Ramp operations are still in the conceptual phase and will fall into line once the habitat plan starts to gel. I believe that is part of what SYRCL/WA will specifically be looking for when requesting stakeholder input. I have never heard anyone mention launch rationing.

When the formal request for stakeholder input is made, I will make sure to post it on this board.

Bob Laskodi

11-01-2009, 05:12 PM

Lotsa info in FOTW posts that I would like to address. FOTW is correct that easements don't extend into the floodplains, but that doesn't tell the whole story since the Yuba is a declared navigable river and the flood plains are completely open to public access any ways. Who controls access to actually legally get to the floodplains is the crux of the issue. And that is where the SYRCL/WA/YOA plan falls short. Their plans to "fence" (in whatever form that eventually takes) or build "berms" (in whatever form that eventually takes) to restrict access is the issue, especially on the public easements that do legally provide access to the floodplain. And contrary to FOTW claims, there are legal easements available to the public that do not involve trespassing on WA's properties to access the flood plain. YOA has a long history of abuse regarding public access within the floodplains that they can not be trusted in any way shape or form. Plus it's a definite conflict of interest to have a for profit entity like YOA that can benefit from denying public access managing anything (like boat launches & parking) that involves public access into the floodplain. And I do appreciate that SYRCL did contribute to toning down YOA's public harassment activities. What SYRCL needs to understand, is that due to YOA's past activities, the angling public is dubious of any plans that involve YOA. The angling public is not against SYRCL plans per se, but we do want continued access to a boat launching facility and unrestricted walk-in access to the floodplain. Many portions of the SYRCL plan do provide for this and they are to be commended for this. Personally, as long is YOA is involved in SYRCL efforts, I will not support the effort, due to YOA's activities in the past. I feel that many other anglers feel the same way as I do regarding YOA's involvement in this.

fly on the wall

11-01-2009, 08:31 PM

Bob-
I was at the presentation SYRCL's biologist Gary Reedy made to the Gold Country FF last week.

Since then I've done a lot digging and asking questions from SYRCL, Western (including their TX HQ) and YOA. It seems that YOA has a fractional investment/interest in the overall scheme of the project. This is a collaborative effort among some very dissimilar parties and for you to wash your hands of the entire project because YOA is involved seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You position yourself as representing the "angling public". Could you elaborate on the position you hold? I am not being facetious - I am making a serious effort to separate the squeaky wheels from the "silent majority".

Other than the obvious CalTrans easement, could you share with us where all these other public accesses through Western's property are? I'm making a serious effort to wrap my head around this issue and would appreciate specifics rather than vague generalities (from all parties).

Charlie Gonzales

11-01-2009, 09:29 PM

Obviously Im not in favor of anything that is going to impact public access on the Yuba or any other area. But if the fence is limited to a knee high, single cable, that protects themselves from liabilty suits, then so be it. And the Yuba is the only place where I DONT have to pay to launch, so thats no big deal either. I cant say nobody is entitled to profit off of public property when Im doing the same.

The big issue as I see it is going to be access.

So Fly on the Wall, who do you represent? I apperciate your post, but without presenting your identity, why should we trust your "facts".

fly on the wall

11-01-2009, 10:08 PM

Charlie-
I understand your concerns. I work for an agency who will likely become involved with this issue. It would be a breach of trust to even subliminally suggest i represent the voice of my employer. Right now I'm mining for information and letting the facts fall as I find them. Over time, I'm sure some of my "facts" will turn out to be wrong, but I'm doing my best to keep this community up to date in what seems to be an overly charged environment of rumor and conspiracy theory. I truly believe that the big picture of restoring the Yuba salmon is the over riding issue and don't want emotional nay-sayers to derail the project based on personal agenda or prejudice.

Bob Laskodi

11-01-2009, 10:40 PM

FOTW, get the county map showing property boundaries and easements around the HWY20 bridge. You will find several easements (including the CalTrans easement underneath the bridge) that come off both frontage roads along the river that provide legal access to the floodplain portion from those roads. I am aware of at least two additional easements in addition to the CalTrans one. And yes, I am aware that the current drift boat access crosses private property and have never used that trail (I don't even own a drift boat so I have no use for it). And to clear up a major point I don't represent any one but myself. Your statement about cutting off my nose may be your opinion (and may in fact be valid), but I suggest you have never had a run-in with Mr Jarvis and his armed thugs like I have. You may share a different perspective on this if you have had the same experiences I have (and also many others-don't take my word only, ask around, I'm sure you'll get quite an earfull!). Quite frankly, any thing that has an involvement with access issues on the Yuba involving YOA/Mr Jarvis is totally bogus, IMNSHO. I can throw an elephant farther than I trust him/YOA. IMNSHO, SYRCL is a respectable conservation organization with admirable and desirable goals and made a huge fatal mistake in teaming with someone with the reputation of YOA. And just to let you know my background, I am now retired, but I have extensive background on land access and hydrological issues when I worked for both the USNPS and USFS. In fact I have a degree in the Earth Sciences, so I am not quite the "emotional naysayer" you think. But quite frankly, your strong "opinions" that you have presented so far makes me question your objectiveness in this issue. In fact, I wonder if you are not using the same tactic Mr Jarvis used on the old NCFFB, to try and sway his misguided opinion his way???

Tom Page

11-02-2009, 07:27 AM

Fly On The Wall!!!!
I can say that you sound familiar, and when I say that I heard the same comments come from the lawyer that is representing YOA. Pesonally if any one should charge a launch fee for drift boats it should be SYRCL at least they will give back rather than take like Randy Jarvis will.

bonneville54

11-02-2009, 08:00 AM

Will you identify yourself? Yes or no?

I ask... as you sound reasonable....but, without knowing who you are, you can imagine that many readers could be suspicious.

If you cannot identify yourself, perhaps because of your job or position within an interested party, might you be doing some harm here? Or, at least, breaking some "trust" with your employer? And if your willing to do that...well...

It's interesting, here is an issue that on the surface, seems like most would support. Yet, emotions, secret witness', big companies, little companies and conservation groups conspire, subconsciously at least, to make it far worse than it needs to be.

Charlie-
I understand your concerns. I work for an agency who will likely become involved with this issue. It would be a breach of trust to even subliminally suggest i represent the voice of my employer. Right now I'm mining for information and letting the facts fall as I find them. Over time, I'm sure some of my "facts" will turn out to be wrong, but I'm doing my best to keep this community up to date in what seems to be an overly charged environment of rumor and conspiracy theory. I truly believe that the big picture of restoring the Yuba salmon is the over riding issue and don't want emotional nay-sayers to derail the project based on personal agenda or prejudice.

Bob Laskodi

11-02-2009, 09:09 AM

And Bonne54 hit the nail right on the head!!!! Something smells fishy (and not in a good way!) with this whole deal involving YOA!!!!!!!

Darian

11-02-2009, 09:38 AM

Mike R

11-02-2009, 09:53 AM

The habitat restoration plan will largely direct the location of a ramp.

That is the part that scares me. If there is a small cable fence, we may have to live with it. But, I could see this whole deal going south when it is determined that there isn't going to be any sort of vehicle access to the river because XYZ did/did not work.

This is the part that REALLY scares me: I think what FOTW has yet to grasp is that this project is putting the (boat) river access into the hands of somebody that has made profit from illegally preventing access to the river.

If FOTW is really looking for public comments, he came to a good place. If he asks around, he will most likely find that the flyfishing (and general angling) public is strongly in favor of salmon restoration and pretty much any sort of conservation. On the other hand, he will also find that these same people are strongly against anything that will limit access, or, worse, eliminate access. It's not complicated.

Mike

bonneville54

11-02-2009, 11:12 AM

OOoooooooo,.... I do love conspiracies. Paranoia running rampant. Guys using "handles" for names asking another using a "handle for a name to ID himself.... :unibrow: This one's gettin' better than the X-files "The Truth is Out There." :evil: :lol: :lol:

Touche'. I assume that's directed at me. My name is John Hendriksen, Grass Valley, CA.

In my defense (weak as it may be), I wasn't trying to be an authority on anything.

The difference is that Fly On The Wall, claims in some fashion, to have information that others do not. For example....

...Since then I've done a lot digging and asking questions from SYRCL, Western (including their TX HQ) and YOA. It seems that YOA has a fractional investment/interest in the overall scheme of the project. This is a collaborative effort...

And that is great...I applaud the effort. But when did he (or she) speak with the folks at Western and to whom and what did they say. The same goes for YOA and SYRCL. Who did you speak to, when and what did they say? It's not all that complicated.

I think FOTW is making some very salient and interesting points, but before I buy into it, I'd like to know who he or she is and what their motives might be. Might be perfectly innocent...and that, it seems would be easy to prove.

bonish

11-02-2009, 11:34 AM

BLM map indicating "ownership". Always fun to see "landlocked" public lands.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/folsom/gis_pdf_maps.Par.15286.File.dat/goldfields_public8x10.pdf

I'm not quite sure, but I believe at one time (and perhaps still) BLM was attempting to get Corps lands shifted to BLM. I think back in the mid-1990's BLM proposed to acquire the lands along the river south of the Parks Bar Bridge for public access in a partnership with Yuba County, but the county apprently dropped the ball (though it could have been for lack of resources). From my recollection, the cost at that time would have only been around $300K for the land that's currently the subject of this thread.

Darian

11-02-2009, 12:36 PM

Hi Bonneville (John),.... I really wasn't pointing at you in particular. I really do enjoy a good conspiracy theory. You've been on this BB for a while and have probably noticed that I've instigated a few of my own. :rolleyes:

I posted as I felt things were getting a bit too serious and needed to lighten up a bit. Especially the negative references to a certain organization/person in an open forum. Nothing like exposing ones self to Potential risk of litigation (whether right or wrong). From what's been written, I just don't see this project as being implemented tomorrow. It's not the end of the world even tho you can see it from here. :lol: :lol:

Lets not shoot the messenger. Time to attend a meeting or two and do some research. Then we'll all know what FOTW knows (or doesn't). 8-)

Charlie Gonzales

11-02-2009, 12:57 PM

So when is the next public meeting?

speyfool

11-02-2009, 01:04 PM

I love conspiracy theories too. With that said, FOTW sounds a little suspicious. If he is indeed just simply trying to find facts. He doesn't really come off as someone doing so.

The best thing we can do is attend the meetings and let them know what we think and what we are worried about. At some point we need to contact organizations like TU. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to contact some fly fishing magazines and let them know whats going on.

caltagm

11-02-2009, 01:34 PM

Consider TU contacted.

Cheers.

Randy B

11-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Public access to the Yuba goldfields seems to have a lengthy legal history. Maybe some of the groups that were involved in prior public access fights should be brought into the mix. See the article at http://www.hcn.org/issues/289/15190

I too like a good conspiracy theory, but I find it "fishy" (couldn't resist that one) that the project's sponsors seem to have either forgotten to include, or intentially left out, the traditional salmonid habitat conservation groups with the experience, expertise and resources in habitat restoration.

Mrs.Finsallaround

11-02-2009, 02:33 PM

Jason Rainey, Executive Director of SYRCL, hailed the progressive partnership with a for-profit business as historic and well-suited to the challenges ahead: “SYRCL has a track record for leading collaborative efforts in support of a healthy lower Yuba River. The stakeholder process in 2007 led over 40 interested parties into consensus around physical habitat restoration in the Yuba Goldfields. SYRCL will not be part of any project which denies access to the river on public lands and public right of ways. We’re working with the landowner to ensure public access in this 3 mile stretch of private land. We’ve been involved in discussions on how to best protect any physical rehabilitation that will occur and utilizing a cable barrier to restrict vehicle access from sensitive habitats under rehabilitation, but that stage of planning is still one year out. We see vehicular restrictions being localized, and implemented following review of stakeholders and stewards, including anglers.”

Did we all miss this part of the press release? Seems like SYRCL will take all stakeholders input into account...

I will say that we had him as a guest speaker at our monthly conservation meeting last year and our committee found his explanations quite informative on this issue. He is a pretty honest guy, and if you contact him, you're bound to get it right from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak. I have contacted him on more than one occasion to gain clarification on issues that have been blown way out of proportion and always gotten a response pretty quick... :-k

I believe this project is good for the Yuba River and its Salmon/Steelhead populations, regardless of whether launch access is affected.

Just my 2 cents... (that I'll probably regret, but oh well, there you have it:roll:)

pgw

11-02-2009, 05:44 PM

So, how much will it cost just to launch my drift boat at the YOA controlled ramp to float down to Sycamore Ranch where the parking and shuttle have a total cost of $25-$35?

Paul

Randy B

11-02-2009, 06:12 PM

As someone who launches a drift boat from under the bridge and pays for river access at the "gun club", I personally now feel relatively assured that everything will be just fine.

I spoke (emailed back and forth) with TU today and they're aware of project, albeit not intimately, and believe that the elimination of access or limitation on the number of drift boats that can access the river on a given day are not factually based. There are some well known, and I assume trustworthy, members of the fly fishing community that are involved and that I personally believe will look out for both the fisherman's and fish's best interests as this project moves forward.

Sure, we may have to pay a small (in comparison to the cost of the equipment we use to fish the river - $7k drift boat, $700 fly rod, $400 waders, and $300 reel, etc, etc, etc) launch fee to float the river.

Again, just my two cents.

Bob Laskodi

11-02-2009, 09:45 PM

Tfisher, The launch access and public access areas are being proposed to move to a small area controlled by YOA under the SYRCL plan. YOA has a long history of denying public access and harassing anglers on the Yuba River. In addition they have a conflicting monetary advantage to deny public access since they also sell trespass rights on the Yuba. Hence the distrust of any involvement with YOA having any responsibility for launch and access. Under the proposed plan, they will be closing access to the current launch area and the access areas under the bridge. The proposed launch area is not that far upstream of the current launch area.

kbs

11-03-2009, 06:48 AM

tonight at 7:00 @ nevada county fairgrounds the gold country fly fisher club will have a meeting. We have invited the president of the board of syrcl and from what I understand she will be there. We also invited Gery and Jason but I don't think they will come. the meeting will be in the senior center. Please come and give your input. thanks keith scott

Dabalone

11-03-2009, 08:27 AM

Bob Laskodi

11-03-2009, 10:03 PM

There you go again Tfish, asking logical questions that we would all like answered!!!!! There are actually many giant fumbles, and actually SYRCL needs to get many more "permissions" from various Govt agencies to implement their plan than you listed. And all of those Govt agencies will require a public comment period!
KBS, please keep us informed on your findings!!!

big bug

11-04-2009, 12:07 AM

It seems that wade fishing will be better if the number of drift boats is managed. Everyone knows that the drift boats back row the best spots so that wade fishers have a tough time catching fish. $15 is dirt cheap to launch if you ask me. I think one of the best parts of the Yuba is that you can wade all the way up past the UC property and all the way down past Daguerre. My opinion is that there have been way too many drift boats on the river this past few years. The clown across from the UC property is not cool, but you can access the river with a little effort. Blast away:D