Member
Felt the need to chime in on the ramp. As a licensed civil engineer I must disagree and say a ramp can be built. I have designed similar structures. Cost effectiveness/funding would be another matter, which does however have a different meaning for different people/organizations. Simply stated, a ramp can be built.Originally Posted by amoeba
Interesting discussion
Member
boat ramps
I happen to work in the enviro compliance world and I can say without any uncertainty that building a boat ramp there would be a regulatory nightmare. For those that have not tried working with the Corps, the flood board, the RWQCB, NOAA fisheries, DFG, USFWS, and local agencies..and then trying to get them all on the same page...it is an interesting chore at best. The flood protection board and the corps are far and away the most difficult to deal with. I can not see any way shape or form this would occur. Look at the latest boat ramp project at Tisdale Weir..that project cost millions, took a reallllly long time..and it is a catastrophe...None of these agencies are going to sign off on any boat ramps for awhile.
Member
Agreed, I work with those agencies on a daily basis, and yes it can become very expensive and time consuming. That is where the true cost of a lot of projects are. My reference was to the law of physics part. I have a bridge currently under construction wherein the enviro process started in 2003. Structure was originally designed in 1996 and stopped becuase of "feel and setting" issues brought up by SHPO.
Senior Member
No "awhile" about it; it ain't happening - ever.
actually - the opposite is in store, for all the reasons mentioned in my earlier post and more:
-such as the magnetic effect that public boat launching capability (legal or not, as is the current case); on fishermen, guides, and fishing pressure (something that DFG rigorously monitors on the Zuba, by the way, with kayak surveys, fishing report boxes, and steelhead report cards). One way of reducing such pressure is making it possible, but inconvenient (at least for some, as in carrying your boat). There are other ways, like regulatory prohibitions on fishing from a boat, days (or times of day) restrictions, gear restrictions (no weight); ala Oregon's Umpqua and Deschutes.
You want all that? Cuz that's what you're in for if trailer-based launching is permitted to continue. Get a grip (on your boat, and carry it to the river), and quit whining.
No "awhile" about it; it ain't happening - ever.
This thread is gonna be one of the all time "toldyaso's"...for someone, and I'm bettin it is not going to be me. Any takers?
Thanks for an answer Winterrun...anyone else? Why is driving on dry cobble bad?
Senior Member
vehicle access/launch idea - please die an early death
-car drippings into the river, or washed into river, even in tiny amounts, affects fisheries; for crying out loud, this is a spawning reach for salmon.
-disturbs wildlife, wildlife habitat, local residents, and other fishermen (noise, and physical trampling)
-it's illegal, dude, on private property, and public if there were any which there is not; the bridge easement doesn't include off-roading; the only place you can drive in an easement is on the bridge; where do you think you are living? This isn't baja.
-increases fishing pressure, especially by large driftboats, and associated guided parties, resulting in increased hooking mortality
-increases risk of non-native organism transfer, clams, fish, snails, and so forth;
-increases risk of stranding (in the river, or on the bar); requiring you to be pulled out, which means more disturbance.
-increases public cost of patrol and enforcement for various illegal activities associated with driving that cannot be as easily observed as on-road; like drinking, drugs, theft (of your fishing equipment while they are in the car), robbery, etc. Cars facilitate all this.
I can think of many more bad things and not one good thing about launching from a boat at this particular location. And - all of the above factors are reduced if not eliminated by the carraige of boats; similarly - none of the additional considerations mentioned previously about the costs and planning considerations of a motor vehicle launch, are necessary for a carry-and-launch.
In fact - if the resource agencies were to permit a public launch on a gravel bar, that could STILL involve significant environmental permitting and documentation.
I hope this whole idea that public access is somehow equal to a trailer launch ramp dies an early death - the sooner the better.
Member
Have a nice day....
Last edited by Tiger; 03-03-2011 at 09:28 AM.
Senior Member
thread
Caution:
close involvement with this thread could lead to amoebic dysentery.
Best to all,
Larry S
Banned
They dont need fisherman in the community to help the economy, they have meth!
Ameoba, maybe switch to decaf? Or off the hallucinigens, government allowed the DAM that destroyed the river. I trust interested parties who's livlihood depends on the matter at hand, not govt officials that can move onto something else to pretend to manage and actually destroy....
Senior Member
Forgive Me
Hmmmm - now we have a poster who thinks that the dams were built by the same government people who are gonna support and fund a project to keep joe guide man and his 12 twins from backing a trailer where-ever the heck they please; while providing for legal foot passage. Forgive me for not whining. I'm happy as a clam to sit back and let it happen.
Amoebic dysentery, eh? - better watch out - you could catch that from eating crow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks