Comments on the Lower Yuba River meeting

[nightgoat]

Pretty interesting meeting today. Western Aggregates, SYRCL, and USFWS were all represented as participants in the proposed project. Local fly clubs were the majority attendees. There were also a couple of property owners. YOA declined to attend (they were invited to send a representative). My impression is that the attending agencies really do have the best interest of the fishery in mind. I'm not so sure about YOA.

The good news is that none of the details are finalized (we still have time to give our input). The bad news is that none of the details are finalized (no one really knows what the actual plan is). Any implementation of the project is at least a year or two away.

So far there is only an "Agreement in Principle" whatever that means.

A couple of important points:

1. There will be a "barrier" constructed along Hammonton (sp?) Road on the south side of the river to prevent motorized vehicle access onto the gravel bar. This "barrier" is currently envisioned as steel cable routed through wood pilings. It was suggested by a meeting participant that a line of boulders would be more suitable and serve the same purpose. There would be designated parking areas where the public would have walking access to the river.

2. YOA has "volunteered" (my word) to construct the barrier at their own expense.

3. Currently YOA would be responsible for "managing" the conservation easement. This is from the Hwy 20 bridge to 4 miles down river. "Managing" would consist of enforcing the no vehicle access and maintaining the "barrier".

4. It was also suggested that area Fishing Clubs (rather than YOA) be given responsibility for managing the conservation easement.

5. According to the VP from Western Agg. there are currently no plans to provide for a boat launch.

This last point I find very interesting, considering the conversation I had with Ralph Cutter after the meeting. He told me that the "Agreement" included "fair and equitable" boat access to the river.

I would encourage anyone who fishes the Yuba to get involved in this project. It WILL affect your ability to access the river from the south side. The more anglers involved the better our chances of getting what we want.

I look forward to hearing comments from others who attended. And those who didn't.

Joe

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Hey Joe... good talking to you again! Your summary is pretty accurate, according to my memory. I thought it was a good meeting. I would say about 90% in attendance were fly-fishers.

The main point(s) the WA VP was trying to get across is a.) anyone currently launching on the south side below the bridge is trespassing on private property because to get there (even though it's a public easement 75 ft on either side of the bridge) you have to drive through their property, and b.) the original plan was to block all public access from their private lands. Bottom line is, Western Aggregates owns the property and could technically do whatever they please up to and including blocking all public access above the high water line. SYRCL has convinced them this is a bad idea, if they want as much public support as possible moving forward. Their main objective, I believe, is to relieve themselves of as much liability as possible by whatever means necessary.

I would have to agree that SYRCL/WA do have the best interests of the fishery in mind, but YOAs involvement must be defined to a "t". The other reason I believe YOA was allowed in on the project is they also would share the liability by "managing" the area because they would have to also provide for liability insurance, thus minimizing WA's risk (I'm not clear how this works, this is just what I've surmised from something the VP let this slip in a side comment during another conversation).

Of course, it would be more ideal if they were eliminated from the project entirely, but that is definitely not going to happen without more involvement from the fishing community. I was personally disappointed that there were not more BB members in attendance today, particularly those who were so vocal a few weeks ago when this first came to a head, not to mention the guides who will probably be the most impacted by this project. Tom Page was the only self-proclaimed guide there, that I know of.

Lastly, I will say that I do like the idea of the fishing clubs being involved in the funding/installation of whatever barrier is finally decided upon.

Thank you to those who did attend. It was definitely worth my time to go. It was good to get the "facts" as they stand thus far, rather than the speculation that has been going on recently....

[Charlie Gonzales]

Thanks for the report, I was very dissapointed I could not attend this one. Everything looks to be consistent with what Flyonthewall was reporting.

[Darian]

Robin, one of the things that you're going to learn to recognize is that for every cause only a few people will commit to participation for whatever reasons. :confused:

Interesting reports. As I suspected, it looks like the original high level of panic was unwarranted. Plenty of time left to work on this project for anyone interested. :cool:

personally, I'm not surprised YOA (especially the guy that had his character assassinated on this BB) didn't bother to attend the meeting. I'm not sure what good could've come from it :?: :?:

That may've been one of the reasons many, here, chose not to attend. :confused:

[nightgoat]

personally, I'm not surprised YOA (especially the guy that had his character assassinated on this BB) didn't bother to attend the meeting. I'm not sure what good could've come from it


Well, given the fact that his organization has a documented history of harassing anglers legally accessing the river, I'm also not surprised he didn't attend. I'm not so sure about his character being assassinated since all the facts presented about YOA are true. I feel it would have given YOA the opportunity to make amends with the angling community. But they choose to remain outside the discussion.

[nightgoat]

That may've been one of the reasons many, here, chose not to attend. :confused:

I'm not sure how this relates. Why would this keep people from attending a meeting that involves their ability to access the river?

[nightgoat]

Hey Robin,

It was nice talking to you. Thanks for attending and representing the local fly fishing community. I was happy to see several members from GBF at the meeting.

[Darian]

Actually,.... So called "facts" presented on this BB about that persons character went far beyond accusations of harassment. [-X IMHO, the only thing that could've happened had he attended was more name calling.... :rolleyes:

This guy can't even get any credit for participating in the joint venture by taking on the task of constructing and maintaining the "fence", regardless of his motives. :confused: If his long term goal is to try to obtain lease rights to limit access to establish "pay to play" fishing, that's still legal and making a profit in this country is still OK, the last time I checked. After all, privatization of fishing waters is certainly nothing new. If you doubt that, check out any fishing catalogue. :cool:

Personally, I don't like private waters but there appears to be some benefit planned for fisherman in this project. Why not give it a chance to succeed before condemnation :question: IMHO, there's far too much emotion/suspicion involved. Those attitudes may ultimately have a negative affect on access issues coming out of it. If we're interested in working on this, we need to overlook that stuff. :)

P.S. Nobody likes attending meetings that turn into name calling, shouting matches.

[nightgoat]

Actually,.... So called "facts" presented on this BB about that persons character went far beyond accusations of harassment. [-X IMHO, the only thing that could've happened had he attended was more name calling.... :rolleyes:

This guy can't even get any credit for participating in the joint venture by taking on the task of constructing and maintaining the "fence", regardless of his motives. :confused: If his long term goal is to try to obtain lease rights to limit access to establish "pay to play" fishing, that's still legal and making a profit in this country is still OK, the last time I checked. After all, privatization of fishing waters is certainly nothing new. If you doubt that, check out any fishing catalogue. :cool:

Personally, I don't like private waters but there appears to be some benefit planned for fisherman in this project. Why not give it a chance to succeed before condemnation :question: IMHO, there's far too much emotion/suspicion involved. Those attitudes may ultimately have a negative affect on access issues coming out of it. If we're interested in working on this, we need to overlook that stuff. :)

P.S. Nobody likes attending meetings that turn into name calling, shouting matches.

As a fisherman who was confronted by armed men on behalf of YOA while legally accessing the river I have no doubt that the "facts" (as you call them) are true. One participant at the meeting offered photographic proof of armed men confronting anglers legally accessing the river.

Make no mistake, I think this project will greatly benefit the fishery. I'm just not sure why the public access needs to be restricted for YOA financial gain. Further, I'm not sure why YOA needs to be involved at all. It was also suggested at the meeting that local fly clubs could be involved in the construction of the "barrier" rather than YOA. This seems like a much more angler friendly solution.

And as a side note the meeting was very civil. No name calling required :)

[Darian]

I guess I can't say this anyway but direct.... The harassment incident you mention was unfortunate. :-|

The character assassination I referred to came from prior posts/threads by numerous posters referring to Jarvis/YOA as ".... a law breaking entity....", "....employing armed thugs...." "....actions bordering on illegal....", "....when his greedy a$$ stepped in.", "....they don't know about Jarvis shenanigans....", "....never had a run-in with Jarvis and his armed thugs....", "IMNSHO, I can throw an elephant farther than I trust him." Lotsa personal opinion and hearsay here about a private citizen. All of these comments are published, they may be factual or probably not provable and may prove to be legally actionable. :confused: These examples are not the only ones noted and are not acceptable. :-k

At the present time, YOA is involved whether any of us wants it or not. That may not be the final outcome. Lets just get over it. If I were Randy Jarvis, I wouldn't bother attending any public meetings; just send my attorney.... :nod:

[Bob Laskodi]

Robin, your following statement is not true: "Bottom line is, Western Aggregates owns the property and could technically do whatever they please up to and including blocking all public access."
WA does legally own the area in question, no doubt about it. However, there are many public easements that can be used by the public to access the river floodplain through their property, so they can not legally block public access, PERIOD. In addition, under CA State Law and Federal Law, the public has the legal right to access the Yuba floodplain any where below the mean high water mark, even though WA does own the property. WA and YOA claims of "tresspassing" are patently false and grossly exaggerated.

[Bob Laskodi]

Well Darian, since you have quoted (and misquoted) some of my posts I will respond. My experiences with YOA are the same as described by Nightgoat. I was confronted and harrassed by armed guards claiming to be employed by YOA for "Trespassing". I was not trespassing and when confronted by the armed guards was actually standing in the water in the Yuba River. I can document fully and prove these "claims", even if you personally don't believe them. These are facts, and not opinions, and I want to make that completely clear.

[Darian]

Sorry Bob,.... Regardless of your claims, those quotes were taken from yours and others prior posts (in more than one thread). If the shoe fits, you'll just have to wear it. :|

IMHO,.... Seems to me that your/our cause would be better served if you toned down your comments and let Robin/nightgoat carry the ball. At least they have open minds.... :cool:

[Bob Laskodi]

Sorry, Darian, but I don't really care what your opinion is about me. If the shoe fits please wear it. Your comments will have no impact on myself posting on this forum, so, please don't bother.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Robin, your following statement is not true: "Bottom line is, Western Aggregates owns the property and could technically do whatever they please up to and including blocking all public access."
WA does legally own the area in question, no doubt about it. However, there are many public easements that can be used by the public to access the river floodplain through their property, so they can not legally block public access, PERIOD. In addition, under CA State Law and Federal Law, the public has the legal right to access the Yuba floodplain any where below the mean high water mark, even though WA does own the property. WA and YOA claims of "tresspassing" are patently false and grossly exaggerated.

I'm sorry I did not express this statement properly, I wrote this late last night after a long day at work, this meeting and back again and our club's general meeting.

What that should have said was "Bottom line is, Western Aggregates owns the property and could technically do whatever they please up to and including blocking all public access above the high water line." Those launching their watercraft are driving above the high water line to access the public easement.[-X

[Darian]

Bob,.... You are correct, my opinion of you doesn't matter. 8) I don't really know what kind of person you are. Most of the time you sound like a great guy (especially when fishing with your son). 8)

I've been trying to point out to you that regardless of who you really are, inflammatory/intemperate remarks and obvious closed mind in this aren't helping and may cause you some problems in the future. [-X At the least, your determination that YOA be removed borders on an attempt to torpedo the project. That outcome is not acceptable to the restoration of Salmonids in the Yuba River. 8)

From what you've stated about your working background, I'd say you have quite a bit to offer this project but unless you can tone down the actions/comments, your points will probably be ignored.... Lighten up. 8)

[Dabalone]

Never fished the Yuba, but the thread is interesting to follow. Trespass laws have always seemed straight forward to me, if its not yours and not public property you are more than likely trespassing. I think it really is that simple. The Yuba situation sounds complicated but it really boils down to where are the lines for public and private, if you can access public easements, lands without crossing private property then you would only be subject to the govts restrictions for use. Can you drive or walk to the Yuba without crossing private property?

[Tom Page]

Well all the arguing continues. Will it ever end? Probably not. I want to say thank you to Robin and the other member of Granite Bay for showing up and for their support. Thank you Night goat for your support. Some day we will all catch up with each other and discuss what we can do to move forward. That would probably be best done off this message board since WE are the ones that got the full story. It is very disconcerning to me that so much speculation is still being brought forth. Night goat and Robin have reported the truth they have no reason to lie to you. What was not mentioned is that WA's VP did say they will conceder a boat launch but right now the most important thing is and let’s not forget this is the return of SALMOM and STEELHEAD. Also the land is being listed as a Nature conservancy and WA will not let YOA operate the land as a pay to play club. I think that all the local clubs, fly shop owners and guides get together and build some trust that we can and will manage the land for WA and that we can volunteer our time to put up some barriers to protect SYRCL’s project. My fight is to keep YOA out of the picture. Thank you SYRCL and Western Ag. For listening to all of are thoughts, concerns and complaints you guys did a great job clearing things up. As to YOA ( Randy Jarvis) you will not get your way if WE the fisherman have anything to do with it.

Tom Page
Foothill fly fishing expeditions
tompage@gmail.com
530-913-3909

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

the most important thing is and let’s not forget this is the return of SALMOM and STEELHEAD.

BINGO!

:nod:

[speyfool]

Never fished the Yuba, but the thread is interesting to follow. Trespass laws have always seemed straight forward to me, if its not yours and not public property you are more than likely trespassing. I think it really is that simple. The Yuba situation sounds complicated but it really boils down to where are the lines for public and private, if you can access public easements, lands without crossing private property then you would only be subject to the govts restrictions for use. Can you drive or walk to the Yuba without crossing private property?

The problem with the Yuba is knowing where those lines are. While driving along New Truck Rd (or whatever it is called). It is very difficult to know what is public and what is private. For the longest time, I thought it was all public land on the river side of the road, but over the last 6 or 10 months, I realized it was mostly private land. If I'm reading my maps correctly, there is still a section that is public that you can get to the water. But figuring that out when you get there is almost impossible.

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

The problem with the Yuba is knowing where those lines are. While driving along New Truck Rd (or whatever it is called). It is very difficult to know what is public and what is private. For the longest time, I thought it was all public land on the river side of the road, but over the last 6 or 10 months, I realized it was mostly private land. If I'm reading my maps correctly, there is still a section that is public that you can get to the water. But figuring that out when you get there is almost impossible.

You can access the public easements by foot only... too steep for vehicles. If you stay within 75 ft of the bridge or below the high water line, you are on public land. West of that, above the high water line, belongs to Western Aggregates.

We were shown very detailed aerial maps showing exactly where those lines are. It was quite educational...

[speyfool]

inflammatory/intemperate remarks and obvious closed mind in this aren't helping and may cause you some problems in the future.

I don't know. His passion is what got me to pay more attention to the situation to begin with. Because of his experiences, it sounds like he is a little closer to the whole YOA thing. I don't blame him. As far as it causing him problems in the future? Not sure what you mean?

[Ffdoc]

Darian,


you wrote:

"This guy can't even get any credit for participating in the joint venture by taking on the task of constructing and maintaining the "fence", regardless of his motives. If his long term goal is to try to obtain lease rights to limit access to establish "pay to play" fishing, that's still legal and making a profit in this country is still OK, the last time I checked. After all, privatization of fishing waters is certainly nothing new. If you doubt that, check out any fishing catalogue. "

I can't say I know anything about the persons involved in YOA, but trying to make a buck is fine. Buying leases of PRIVATE land and charging for usage of that land is perfectly fine. What many of us object to is making a buck off blocking access to PUBLIC land. When we are accosted by them after legally reaching areas of the river that they want us out of, they are crossing the line and need to be shut down. This happened to me once in much the same manner as Bob Laskodi described and I told them if they thought I was breaking the law I would wait there while they go get the Sheriff. I never saw the Sheriff. I had not heard they are now carrying guns.
I do not know what the outcome of this proposed project will be. The extent to which it accurately delineates private property better so all can know for certain where to cross and where not to cross, it will be a good thing. If it allows for some limited acess for launching boats, that too is a good thing. Given the actions of the YOA folks, I would be very cautious and skeptical about their intentions. Since they have a presence there, however, seems logical they need to be involved in the discussion despite what I consider a history of objectionable behavior.

My 2 cents.


Ffdoc

[nightgoat]

I don't have a lot of time at the moment to comment, but I wanted to say that YOA has backed off their aggressive behavior toward anglers over the last couple of years. Because they were sued (or threatened with a lawsuit) by SYRCL.

I'll have more to say a little later.

Joe

[Darian]

IMHO, several persons passion and remarks about Jarvis/YOA appear to be over the top. For the point in time where this project was, accusatory remarks/rhetoric weren't timely and, if continued, won't contribute to cooperation on the part of project participants or to a positive result. :\\

Working with people and/or organizations on a project involves making a collaborative effort and shouldn't have participants stating: "....My fight is to keep YOA out of the picture...." before gaining a complete understanding of what part YOA will play. :confused: That's divisive and raises the question of what the real motive behind it is; benefit of fisheries or exact some measure of punishment (or whatever) from YOA :question: After all, SYRCL has agreed to work with WA and YOA (both of which have been at odds with SYRCL in the past). :cool:

Further, it's a bit hypocritical to say, on one hand, we're participating in a project to restore Salmon/Steelhead runs in the Yuba and only rant about YOA offenses, imagined access issues or excluding YOA. :confused: Doesn't paint a very good picture of us, does it.... :question:

Passion is a wonderful thing when justified and shown at the appropriate point in time. IMHO, this was/is not justified nor the appropriate point in time. As far as what has been reported, nothing in this project is chiseled in stone, yet. Let's hear from YOA before condemning their effort in the project. :confused:

As I've said before I do not condone past behavior of YOA employees and these incidents of harassment caused by YOA employees are unfortunate but have apparently ceased (according to nightgoat). I've encountered something similar on the North Fork Yuba below highway 49 where gold claims are regularly defended at gun point. Other than myself, haven't heard anyone complain about that. My solution is I don't go back there to fish. :cool: Once again I'm sayin', get over it. 8)

It's time to put all of this behind us and work for the common good of the fishery. :cool:

[nightgoat]

Passion is a wonderful thing when justified and shown at the appropriate point in time. IMHO, this was/is not justified nor the appropriate point in time. As far as what has been reported, nothing in this project is chiseled in stone, yet. Let's hear from YOA before condemning their effort in the project. :confused:

As I've said before I do not condone past behavior of YOA employees and these incidents of harassment caused by YOA employees are unfortunate but have apparently ceased (according to nightgoat). I've encountered something similar on the North Fork Yuba below highway 49 where gold claims are regularly defended at gun point. Other than myself, haven't heard anyone complain about that. My solution is I don't go back there to fish. :cool: Once again I'm sayin', get over it. 8)


I don't know if I could disagree enough about these two points. NOW is exactly the time that anglers need to let their passion for the river and the ability to access it be known. If we wait until things are "chiseled in stone" it will be TOO LATE. YOA was invited to the meeting and given the opportunity to present their side of the story. They chose to not attend.

If I was in charge of YOA and had the best of intentions, you better believe I would have sent a rep to the meeting. Admit that maybe things could have been handled differently in the past, and state that now we are trying to be good stewards of the river. It's a lot harder to hold a grudge when they admit to past transgressions in person face to face.

As far as "my solution is I don't go back there to fish": I don't even know where to start. Completely the wrong approach. This is exactly what the person you encountered wanted. Now you "The Public" have been intimidated from using a Public resource. Personally I would have walked out and called the local Sheriff.

If people do not stand up for their right to access and use PUBLIC resources, pretty soon there will be no Public resources.

Just to be clear, I 100% support this project. I think it will do great things for the Yuba fishery. But I am also 100% suspicious of YOA and their intentions.

Joe

[nightgoat]

A couple of more comments I would like to make.

I think the biggest (and only, in my opinion) bone of contention with this project is boater access. Mr. Greenblatt (the VP from Western Aggregates) stated unequivocally that NO ONE will be allowed to make a profit from access to the river below the bridge. So I'm not really worried that this section will be privatized. My concern is that YOA will acquire a monopoly on boat launching on the river (my understanding is that they have a boat launch area on the property they control above the bridge). I will not argue that they have a right to make money from the leased property they control, but there is no reason I should support restricting boater access below the bridge so that they can increase their profits. I am curious if their support for the project will remain should anglers manage to guaranty launch access below the bridge.

Joe