Lower yuba access

[amoeba]

I was kidding about ending the debate, RandyB, I just want a reason to go down to Kiene's and buy excess equipment when I don't need anymore currently; wait a minute - I can always use "one more", right?:

As far as eliminating the positive effects of driftboat fishing, the proposed action has no such effect. You can still launch a driftboat, or some other craft, by carrying it down to the water. Smaller, lighter, craft will likely require fewer people to do so, or less dragging over the cobbles, or maybe some sort of big-wheeled dolly of sorts will work. Heck, who cares?

The world of fishing doesn't revolve around guides and large heavy driftboats. Never has.

Koom buy yaaa.

[Chris Gearhart]

I am still not sure I understand how driving on cobble to launch a boat is a big threat to the environment. Next thing you know they will decide walking on the river bed is disturbing the cobble and then these anti-driftboaters will be looking for support.

[amoeba]

I am still not sure I understand how driving on cobble to launch a boat is a big threat to the environment. Next thing you know they will decide walking on the river bed is disturbing the cobble and then these anti-driftboaters will be looking for support.

I support driftboaters - so I don't know who you're talking about.

I just don't associate driftboats as something that necessarily is so big and heavy, that it has to be backed over the gravel bar by trailer to the water to launch it. Me saying anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get with the program and figure out something that doesn't involve a vehicle, doesn't translate into antagonism towards driftboats. There should be no public access for vehicles at all; not for launching, not for driving around, not for anything. Let's not parse this into separate issues. Cuz it's not. And if you think I'm some hidden supporter of the private access clubs, that do drive around on their property. Guess what? I'm not. I don't like that either - if there's some way to limit it, or diminish it's impacts, that should be done as well. But this is not about what people can or can't do on their property. It's about improving and legalizing pedestrian access, and preventing ANY vehicular access to Western Aggregate's property.

I also don't think anyone's particular understanding or opinion of what is a big threat, or even the opinion the threat has to be big to be avoidable (small threats can be important, and avoided as well), is especially relevant. There's enough fingers in this pie (SYRCL, Yuba County, YOA, fishy agencies, locals, private property owners) to have fully discussed this, and determined that they know what they're proposing and supporting is the right thing to do. I have had nothing to do with those proceedings, and have no intention of poking my head in at this point.

[FlyReelFisher]

You banter too much. If you support driftboats. Carry mine in for free will ya? In some ways I agree with you. However, its annoying as hell when current public access is restricted(I can drive my boat down right now cant I?), and its annoying that you defend that loss. Thats my opinion.

Go ride a bike. Western Aggregate should pay for you to carry everyones driftboat for all the environmental damage they've caused. I dunno...

[koffler]

I have a vested interest in this....I have voluntereed my time relating to Yuba River legislation initatives, river clean-ups, etc. I have fished the Yuba since 1989 on foot and since 1995 in my boat - I love the river. I have seen adverse restrictions relating to access over the past 12+ years.

My primary question/concern is that the river is not in Wyoming where current law defines that private property be in the middle of the stream bed - are we not entitled to fair access? Look at the Lower Sac and the Feather - is it out of the question to ask that some sort of easement be made for the good of the people to access the river? I have and never would litter, I have towed people off the cobble, I have called DFG when rules were broken - I think most of us would do the same. Is it out of the question to ask that some sort of public easement be made such that the greater good can access the river. The Yuba is a phenomenal resource. I DO NOT understand why it can be gobbled up by the powers that be such that it would end in many people not being able to readily access the river -

I could be overly zealous in saying the following; I honestly believe flyfisherman have the best in mind for our resources at large. Is there nothing that can be done to sway the policy makers to help ensure the river is accessible in the short and long term - am I PollyAnna?

Jason

[Randy B]

Well, if you don't asscoiate a drift boat as something that has to be trailered and launched from that trailer, then I'd suggest you are not familiar with the subject of your discussion...which really makes me wonder about what point of view you're representing.

[amoeba]

Well, if you don't asscoiate a drift boat as something that has to be trailered and launched from that trailer, then I'd suggest you are not familiar with the subject of your discussion...which really makes me wonder about what point of view you're representing.

I could say the same thing about you - namely - you associate a drift boat as something that has to be backed into water. There's all sizes of drift boats, and all sorts of places where you have to carry them. Go to the Gualala, go watch a river runs through it again; and then - go to the Yuba. To be clear; all of the public accesses on the Yuba were specifically designed to preclude boat launching with trailers - the north side of 20, hallwood, and hammon grove - all have guardrails for this reason. It's not supported - and by that I mean not by me - I mean, not by Yuba County, SYRCL, nor a bunch of land managers and owners - YOA, UC-Sierra, a bunch of fishy agencies, and who-ever else is involved.

I'm representing the point of view that you can either bring a boat that you can carry, or go elsewhere.

FlyReelFisher is wrong; he can't drive a boat down there right now. That's illegal. And he's also wrong that public access is being restricted; it's not. Exactly the opposite - it's being improved.

Koffler doesn't get it quite right, either. He wants the river accessible; and he wants a public easement; and that's exactly what this proposal does. Just by foot.

I share Koffler's concerns about access being diminished on the Yuba over the last 12 years, and foot access in particular; what he's talking about, I suspect, are loads of barbed wire set up by YOA, signs, on what were historical accesses on the south side; much within the high water line, and the rest that might fall into the "reasonable right of portage" entitled in navigability case studies in other states (unfortunately not yet here in CA). DFG has had some authority and opportunity to have improved access to the north side through the property transfer/exchange of it's Polaris hatchery to UC; and intended to - but it just didn't work out - and is now buried in a heap of ex post facto documents somewhere in the bowels of their Region II headquarters in Rancho Cordova. And what of the expansion of Nordic back in the early 1990's - does anyone even remember what it was like then? Streambed alteration permit conditioning, would have been a way to retain what was then historical access on that side; combine it with an established foot trail through the UC property; and much of the north side could have been legally available. But it wasn't. To their credit, it was DFG who forced Nordic to remove a gate (or maybe it was DFG who cut it with a torch); when it was erected over the SR 20 northside access (historical and public freeway easement).

Just don't ask for a public vehicular boat launch. Drawing that line in the sand (or cobble) is not going to be productive.

[Terry Imai]

I'm assuming that most of the people on this BB are fishermen (fisherperson??) and this "discussion" of launching your driftboat on the Yuba River at highway 20 is like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.... I'm not an engineer but I do agree that due to the shifting foundation of the Yuba River's bedrock does not allow a permanent boat launch. I really question the potential contamination issue from vehicles launching their driftboats. How many gallons of mercury and other toxic materials were distributed in this watershed (and still present) from past and current gold mining?? I wonder if a certain poster had their own driftboat and could float the river on a regular basis would change their personal view of driftboat river access. If the mining company actually wanted public access on the Yuba (which I really question), they could drops several truckloads of spawning size gravel in a 100-200 designated yard stretch of the river and to allow driftboat launching only in that location. Any loose gravel from boat launching would get moved into the river and drifted downstream for spawning redds with minor disruption to the riparian habitat.

Once they restrict the launching of driftboats, how soon before the powers in force start making some additional "changes" to the Yuba River access?? Just because certain people don't care because they don't float the river, guess what will happen when the people that float go to other rivers and have to leave you to fight the biggies without any support. Don't you remember when the entire Yuba River was under total lock and key without any access??

My $.02 for the day....

[amoeba]

Terry:

I'm gonna say it again.

The proposed action doesn't restrict driftboat launching. At all. There isn't a vehicle boat launch under SR 20 to be taken away. The fact that a bunch of people drive all over the place (through someone else's private property), doesn't make there one.

It's an improvement in access. It provides legal access. The only restriction is on vehicles; and it is not solely due to oil/grease, or the movement of gravels - even though you're wrong on each and every point you do mention (the one on relative mercury risk is hilarious, for example, you have no idea what you're talking about, or what's been specifically studied on the Yuba with respect to this - in sediments or fish tissues, if you did, you wouldn't go out and make blanket speculations that are sheer nonsense), it's more than that; go read the prior thread on this for all the other reasons I mentioned.

What's more, you will not be given a "choice" or a "voice". This isn't a ballot measure; and it isn't up to the public to decide. You can whine and complain till the cows come home and it isn't going to matter.

You can carry your boat to the water, with help, or by yourself - if it's light enough. There is nothing to prevent you from doing so. Owning a driftboat has nothing to do with anything. I've carried driftboats; no big deal. You'll get used to it. Or you'll walk. Or you won't come. But one thing you won't do, is use a vehicle to launch.

Koom buy yaaa.

[Terry Imai]

In tribute to the current MLB spring training, Bonneville hit one out of the park and squarely identified Amoeba's overall condescending attitude in his posts. Most fly fishermen (fisherperson) that I have met over the years have been pretty good people with minimal attitude or posing. I removed myself from many other BB especially the shooting ones that allow boorish behavior to other posters. I like to spend shooting the b*ll sh*t with other people treat enjoy this wonderful recreation of fly fishing and when someone constantly wants to be the chain yanker in the group gets old especially when they demonstate major attitude.

Thanks for identifying the situation....