Bollibokka anyone have extra space???

[donkeyhunter007]

Hello ALL,

I have been going to Bollibokka for Seven years in a row. It is the most magnificent place. The group of friends I go with every year is not coming together this year. Not going to Bollibokka is crushing me. I live all year for this trip.
If anyone is going or knows of a group that would like to supplement the cost by selling me a space PLEASE contact me (PM me I will send you my phone number).
I have over 50 days FISHING the clubhouse and waystation sections of Bollibokka. I would love to share my knowledge and experience with your group. I have fished both the clubhouse and way station sections. If you sell me a spot im just as happy to keep to myself or integrate with your group wichever you prefer. If your new to bollibokka I can help you find some nice fish, I can help with fly selection and/or setups. I can hold my own in the kitchen as well. Lower your cost and bring along a bollibokka veteran. I am 36 years old and I have a B.S. in watershed sytems (I love rivers!). Thanks for your time.



Mike

Lower section below Clubhouse
9115

[Walter]

If you care about California Water issues then you would not patronize this place as long as it is owned by Westlands Water District.

The area was purchased with the intention of raising Lake Shasta, as stated in Westlands Newsletter.


I will not patronize the Fly Shop as long as they "...proudly represent the interests of Westlands Water District."

[Alosa]

If you care about California Water issues then you would not patronize this place as long as it is owned by Westlands Water District.

The area was purchased with the intention of raising Lake Shasta, as stated in Westlands Newsletter.


I will not patronize the Fly Shop as long as they "...proudly represent the interests of Westlands Water District."

Walter: There's something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The original post was back in early June 2014. You obviously have a problem with this, but why did you wait 6 months to share it?

On a related note: who's got the popcorn...this outta liven things up around here (hang on folks!).

[Walter]

Walter: There's something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The original post was back in early June 2014. You obviously have a problem with this, but why did you wait 6 months to share it?

On a related note: who's got the popcorn...this outta liven things up around here (hang on folks!).

Because I feel strongly about the issue and was too buzy this summer to read it.

Whats your problem? Don't care about the watershed?

Letting sleeping dogs lie is how our rivers got so screwed up. Get a clue

If you support Bollibakka or The Fly Shop you are not helping with conservation or restorative ecological issues. Plain and Simple.

Merry Christmas! Maybe Santa will bring you a fish conscience. Now go eat your popcorn.

[Alosa]

Geez Walter, it's one thing to be passionate about a conservation issue that's of obvious importance to all of us (although I'm still not sure what exactly that is), but it's quite another to attack a member of the forum for expressing an opinion about the curious timing of your post. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Merry Christmas I guess.

[Walter]

Geez Walter, it's one thing to be passionate about a conservation issue that's of obvious importance to all of us (although I'm still not sure what exactly that is), but it's quite another to attack a member of the forum for expressing an opinion about the curious timing of your post. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Merry Christmas I guess.

Look up Westlands Water District. Their history of screwing fish. The ask yourself why The Fly Shop in Reddig would work with them to run Bollibakka. Thats the issue that makes me upset.

Both should be boycotted.

[steveg137]

Walter you clearly care a lot about this.
But personally I dont think you're going to help others to understand your pov with posts like this.
How about some more information so more of us can understand the situation.
I'm not a fan of private waters, New Zealand is wonderful testament to value or public water and access. But I don't know a lot about the situation here.
Care to elaborate?

[sierraangler]

Having only fished the McCloud once, I was pretty oblivious to the situation and while his reply to OP was a little out of left field, it led me to do a little digging on the subject, who Westlands Water District is and why they would shell out $33M for Bollibokka. It's pretty crazy and alarming that a water district in the southern Central Valley can manipulate legislation and protections to destroy this natural resource and it's history just for more water.

Here's some interesting articles I found:


Enlarging Shasta Lake feasible, U.S. report says - SFGate
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Enlarging-Shasta-Lake-feasible-U-S-report-says-3164364.php


McCloud River takes central role in dam-raising proposal - Record Searchlight (Redding)
http://www.redding.com/news/beloved-by-some-coveted-by-others-mccloud-river


Amid California's drought, a bruising battle for cheap water
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-westlands-20141021-story.html#page=1



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkJ5IdOIDuc

[steveg137]

Great info, thanks for sharing.
Based on this I understand and support opposition to Bol.
I'll make point asking Fly shop for their pov.

[Bob Loblaw]

I've followed the tangled history of this purchase a little and it is quite a web of greed and intrigue. Some of California's wealthiest dynastic families own estates along the McCloud. When the Hearst family donated that big estate in Cambria to the State, they made sure to keep the real gem in their real estate empire, Wyntoon on the McCloud. Its where Patty went to lay low after her kidnapping and bank robbing exploits. The Schillings (spice empire), Fishers (Gap) and Hills (Hills Coffee) among others all own private estates. T

The Hills owned Bolibokka for several generations and it was run as a family operated private fishing club. in 2007 they put it up for sale with an asking price of $30 million. The lead bidder was a property developer who wanted to build several luxury compounds on the property so a few more reclusive billionaires could enjoy their piece of the McCloud. This would not have been bad for the river because half a dozen billionaires with property interests on the lower McCloud makes for a lot of political clout to stop any proposed dam raising. The Nature Conservancy also had a reported $30m bid on the table.

That's when Westlands stepped in and offered the Hill family $35 million no questions asked. The Hills accepted the offer knowing that Westlands would eventually try to raise the dam and flood the lower McCloud. I guess even super rich people have their price.

Westlands have been trying ever since to convince the legislature that raising Shasta dam is a good idea. More water for their almond trees and more water for LA swimming pools....oh, and to move it all you need to build a peripheral to move it all around the delta.

For some reason, the Fly Shop after years of being a leading advocate against raising Shasta Dam, took over the management of Bolibokka for Westlands. If you love the McCloud and Bolibokka, you are hastening its flooding every time you put money in Westlands' pockets when you book a trip.

[Darian]

If I recall, correctly, approval/funding authorizing raising Shasta was a part of Proposition 2 in the recent election. Raising Shasta and constructing additional dams is, also, on the target list of federal projects for the incoming Congress. I believe that calling for increased storage is included in the BDCP and supported by many of our northern/central valley congress persons and our senior Senator (Dianne Feinstein). So, due to the level of interest at state/federal levels, some form of change to Shasta Dam is on the way.

I can't say I blame The Fly Shop for anything. They had nothing to do with the transfer of the property to Westlands. As a property owner, Westlands is entitled to do what it wants with its own land as long as it's legal/permitted. I'll bet the Fly Shop has no interest in seeing the McCloud inundated, either. I'd say they're offering an opportunity to fly fisherman who can afford it to fish a part of the McCloud that was probably too costly for the general public anyway....

Not defending them but Westlands is no different than any of the water contractors/districts. They obtain water to sell to their customers. They have learned, over time, that one way to acquire water is to buy real property in other water districts and then become a board member of the water district in question. That's what happened when LA Water/Power bought up large swaths of property in the eastern Sierras and drained Owens Lake, etc. Kern County Water Bank was taken over by corporate Resnicks and in another instance Metropolitan Water District acquired an interest in land in the Yolo Bypass (Conaway Ranch) area to obtain Sacramento River Water. Nothing new in this. Kinda looks like the way of future water moves to me....

[SeanO]

I've followed the tangled history of this purchase a little and it is quite a web of greed and intrigue...

Bob, thanks for that.

Great rundown on the history for new folks.

[Bob Loblaw]

Not the case Darian. the recent Water Bond, Prop 1, does have $2.7 billion for additional storage but none of it is earmarked for any particular projects. It is true that raising Shasta would be more cost effective than building a new dam elsewhere (it was engineered to be 200 feet higher, but they ran out of concrete during WWII), but the deal that was cut that kept most of the environmental groups out of the fight was that this money would be used to recharge depleted groundwater aquifers.

It is also going to be very difficult to get federal money for the project, especially without a considerable state match. Westlands have an uphill fight, but they are very well connected, have limitless amounts of money, and are ruthless. I also disagree that they are just like any other water agency, they are not. They have over many generations bought up water rights on dozens of California watersheds and have systematically used all their power to drain as much water out of them as possible, to hell with the consequences. Last summer, during the height of the drought, they sued to stop minimal water releases from Lewiston into the lower Klamath to keep salmon alive below the dam. Their farmers plant more and more almonds and their lawyers sue to stop minimum flows for fish. They are ruthless.

[Bob Loblaw]

Bob, thanks for that.

Great rundown on the history for new folks.

Shasta guide Jack Trout has a website that documents the whole sorry episode including email exchanges between himself and the Hill family. Its fascinating stuff.

[Darian]

With apologies for continuing the highjack of the original posters thread, I have to disagree with you, Bob L. While it's true that funding for a specific project was not included in the proposition, that certainly doesn't preclude using the funds ($2.7 Billion) that were included to match potential federal funding for use on raising Shasta even tho the bill that the proposition created was supposed to be "Delta neutral". Further, given the agenda of our newly installed congressional delegation/leadership from the central valley and the fact that our senior senator has been involved in the development of drought relief legislation, including increased storage capacity, it's very likely that specific, federal legislation with funding attached is passed out of this session.

Bob L states that:

"....Their farmers plant more and more almonds and their lawyers sue to stop minimum flows for fish. They are ruthless." True that. However, the last I heard, a grower may choose to grow whatever crop they want. After all, it's done on their land. Ruthless?? Yes, in the pursuit of water for their customers. It's how they use that water and then drain it untreated into or waterways that bothers me.

As to their lawyers suing for increased diversion from the Trinity River, I agree that was unfortunate but, again, not illegal. They sued to enforce contract provisions for delivery of water that they thought was withheld unnecessarily and lost. The court weighed the facts and greater good and decided against Westlands. Apparently, the risk of loss was worth it to Westlands.

I'm not sure why you think that Westlands is different than other water districts. Regardless of where they are located, all water districts either develop their own sources or buy water from the feds and/or state project water agencies; then sell it to their customers. It's not illegal that they have large sums of money or that they use it to buy property as long as that property is willingly sold. I don't particularly like what Westlands and some others do and we may not agree with or like how they carry out acquiring water to sell/distribute but as long as it's legal, they get to continue in business.

Perhaps you don't recall the horrific economic/environmental results of LA Dep't of Water & Power (now involved with LA Metro Water Dept) in acquiring land along the south-eastern side of the Sierras roughly from the northern Mojave area up thru Mono Lake to capture, store (in Crowley Lake) and transport that water to the San Fernando Valley for agriculture/development. It's a bit different now but when I was a teenager fishing up there, you had to be careful mentioning that you were from the LA area. If you need more examples, look up Kern County Water Bank, Central Basin Muni Water District for the connection between the district and former state legislators, the Calderons. Recently, LAMWD acquired land in Yolo County near or on Conaway Ranch for the purposes of acquiring Sacramento River water. Conaway, itself was sold to AKT Development who, in turn, sold at least some of the water rights acquired to Davis and Woodland. There're several more but I'm not sure this part of the discussion is useful.

At any rate, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue....

[Bob Loblaw]

At risk of descending into a point/counterpoint black hole, I'll agree to disagree with you too on pretty much everything you said. (and I have a copy of Cadillac Desert right here on my desk)

I would add however, (only because you asked) that what sets Westlands apart from most others can be seen in that litigation over water releases into the Trinity last summer. Lets ignore for a moment that Westlands is in the south eastern part of the Central Valley and under any natural law scenario they have no claim to Klamath/Trinity water. That water flowed into the ocean on the far north coast for hundreds of thousands of years and never went anywhere near Westlands until they facilitated the construction of a pipeline to transfer water out of the watershed and into the State Water Project. They claim they have "rights" to that water, but in reality they acquired it not through any inalienable birthright, but through the flexing of their political and financial muscle. The people in and wildlife in the Klamath/Trinity watershed have rights to that water, nobody else. But if we ignore that and focus on the litigation and why Westlands sued to stop releases for salmon last year you see how ruthless and uncaring they really are. They had already received 100% of their allocation for 2014 from the Trinity when they filed the lawsuit so any water released to keep the salmon run alive would have had zero impact on their activities. They were suing to make a point not to protect crops and if making that point meant killing a whole run of protected salmon, so be it. I don't know of any other water agency that has pulled a stunt like that. I also differentiate water agencies that supply drinking water for people in California from those that supply water to almond farmers who export their crop to China. I'm prepared to give California people more leeway and precedence over diners in Beijing and their Kung Pao Chicken.

[steveg137]

Great debate.
You guys know more about this than most people like me ever will.
nice for two people to lay out their pov without resorting to insults.
I hope you get together, agree common cause and champion change.

[kylgrn]

I was going to say, I have enjoyed learning more about this issue from recent contributions to this thread.

[NVTrout]

The problem is, theres too many dam people in California........important people at that....haha

[Walter]

Fishermen don't let friend drink Sonoma or Mendocino County Wines, eat Pistachios or Almonds or patronize The Fly Shop or Bollibakka.

[James]

Walters back!!

I love reading this shit when you guys get into it!

[mikel]

Walter is correct

[motosacto]

Sigh....

Probably everyone posting to this forum wants to preserve fishable water and ecosystems and the trout that reside in them. That said, I think the advice given here is not only misguided, but dead wrong. The Pebble Mine, for example, was not slowed/stopped by boycotting copper, or by refusing to go to Alaska! Bristol Bay WILL be preserved by "the people" beating the mining companies the courts, in congress, and at the EPA.

The Westlands Water District was reported to have purchased the Bollibokka property for "just under $35M". Going by the fees they charge, The Fly Shop grosses somewhere around $350,000 per year (plus or minus) if the Bollibokka property is fully occupied for the entire trout season. That is 1% of the cost of the property. It would take 100 years to pay off the purchase price with a zero percent loan. After The Fly Shop takes their cut and the property is cared for, it's hard to believe that there is really that much that returns to Westlands, anyway.

I suggest exactly the opposite of what other posters seem to be espousing -- I think everyone should find a way to go to Bollibokka at least once; fall in love with it; get as many other people to go and fall in love with it, too. Probably the biggest enemy of our wild lands is the giant urban population in this state that has no clue what is lost when when the lands are not preserved.

Probably most people reading this would have preferred for The Nature Conservancy to have been able to purchase the land. I get that and agree with it, but the ownership is what it is. What we can do is try to take advantage of what access is offered, find a way to share that experience with others, and be sure to contribute time and $$$ to those trying to preserve it.

My thoughts...

[Walter]

Does the property owner intend to preserve the property when the lake is raised? I agree with your sentiments. But the property was purchased with the inent of raising the lake. Its in the Westands Newsletter from the time.

[Darian]

motosacto,.... Maybe you can clarify this. Not sure I understand your calculation of amounts received by The Fly Shop and what may be paid by it to retire a loan. It only makes sense to me if The Fly Shop leased the right to manage the property not buy it. So it seems to me that The Fly Shop didn't buy the Bollibaka property but leased leased it for a specified period/amount for as long as it suits Westlands.... :confused: