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.

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.

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.

[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.

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. IMHO, the only thing that could've happened had he attended was more name calling....

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.

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 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. IMHO, the only thing that could've happened had he attended was more name calling....

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.

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 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. These examples are not the only ones noted and are not acceptable.

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....