Comments on the Lower Yuba River meeting

[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. 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 After all, SYRCL has agreed to work with WA and YOA (both of which have been at odds with SYRCL in the past).

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. Doesn't paint a very good picture of us, does it....

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.

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. Once again I'm sayin', get over it.

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

[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.

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. Once again I'm sayin', get over it.

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