Public Access GONE on the Lower Yuba

[Randy B]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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