Bollibokka anyone have extra space???

**donkeyhunter007** · 06-05-2014, 09:44 AM

Hello ALL,

I have been going to Bollibokka for Seven years in a row. It is the most magnificent place. The group of friends I go with every year is not coming together this year. Not going to Bollibokka is crushing me. I live all year for this trip.
If anyone is going or knows of a group that would like to supplement the cost by selling me a space PLEASE contact me (PM me I will send you my phone number).
I have over 50 days FISHING the clubhouse and waystation sections of Bollibokka. I would love to share my knowledge and experience with your group. I have fished both the clubhouse and way station sections. If you sell me a spot im just as happy to keep to myself or integrate with your group wichever you prefer. If your new to bollibokka I can help you find some nice fish, I can help with fly selection and/or setups. I can hold my own in the kitchen as well. Lower your cost and bring along a bollibokka veteran. I am 36 years old and I have a B.S. in watershed sytems (I love rivers!). Thanks for your time.

Mike

Lower section below Clubhouse

Click image for larger version.

Name: P1000460.jpg
Views: 714
Size: 98.4 KB
ID: 9115

**Walter** · 12-18-2014, 11:58 AM

If you care about California Water issues then you would not patronize this place as long as it is owned by Westlands Water District.

The area was purchased with the intention of raising Lake Shasta, as stated in Westlands Newsletter.

I will not patronize the Fly Shop as long as they "...proudly represent the interests of Westlands Water District."

**Alosa** · 12-18-2014, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Walter

If you care about California Water issues then you would not patronize this place as long as it is owned by Westlands Water District.

The area was purchased with the intention of raising Lake Shasta, as stated in Westlands Newsletter.

I will not patronize the Fly Shop as long as they "...proudly represent the interests of Westlands Water District."

Walter: There's something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The original post was back in early June 2014. You obviously have a problem with this, but why did you wait 6 months to share it?

On a related note: who's got the popcorn...this outta liven things up around here (hang on folks!).

**Walter** · 12-25-2014, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Alosa

Walter: There's something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie. The original post was back in early June 2014. You obviously have a problem with this, but why did you wait 6 months to share it?

On a related note: who's got the popcorn...this outta liven things up around here (hang on folks!).

Because I feel strongly about the issue and was too buzy this summer to read it.

Whats your problem? Don't care about the watershed?

Letting sleeping dogs lie is how our rivers got so screwed up. Get a clue

If you support Bollibakka or The Fly Shop you are not helping with conservation or restorative ecological issues. Plain and Simple.

Merry Christmas! Maybe Santa will bring you a fish conscience. Now go eat your popcorn.

**Alosa** · 12-25-2014, 10:33 PM

Geez Walter, it's one thing to be passionate about a conservation issue that's of obvious importance to all of us (although I'm still not sure what exactly that is), but it's quite another to attack a member of the forum for expressing an opinion about the curious timing of your post. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Merry Christmas I guess.

**Walter** · 12-30-2014, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Alosa

Geez Walter, it's one thing to be passionate about a conservation issue that's of obvious importance to all of us (although I'm still not sure what exactly that is), but it's quite another to attack a member of the forum for expressing an opinion about the curious timing of your post. Sorry if I touched a nerve. Merry Christmas I guess.

Look up Westlands Water District. Their history of screwing fish. The ask yourself why The Fly Shop in Reddig would work with them to run Bollibakka. Thats the issue that makes me upset.

Both should be boycotted.

**Bob Loblaw** · 01-05-2015, 03:29 PM

I've followed the tangled history of this purchase a little and it is quite a web of greed and intrigue. Some of California's wealthiest dynastic families own estates along the McCloud. When the Hearst family donated that big estate in Cambria to the State, they made sure to keep the real gem in their real estate empire, Wyntoon on the McCloud. Its where Patty went to lay low after her kidnapping and bank robbing exploits. The Schillings (spice empire), Fishers (Gap) and Hills (Hills Coffee) among others all own private estates. T

The Hills owned Bolibokka for several generations and it was run as a family operated private fishing club. in 2007 they put it up for sale with an asking price of $30 million. The lead bidder was a property developer who wanted to build several luxury compounds on the property so a few more reclusive billionaires could enjoy their piece of the McCloud. This would not have been bad for the river because half a dozen billionaires with property interests on the lower McCloud makes for a lot of political clout to stop any proposed dam raising. The Nature Conservancy also had a reported $30m bid on the table.

That's when Westlands stepped in and offered the Hill family $35 million no questions asked. The Hills accepted the offer knowing that Westlands would eventually try to raise the dam and flood the lower McCloud. I guess even super rich people have their price.

Westlands have been trying ever since to convince the legislature that raising Shasta dam is a good idea. More water for their almond trees and more water for LA swimming pools....oh, and to move it all you need to build a peripheral to move it all around the delta.

For some reason, the Fly Shop after years of being a leading advocate against raising Shasta Dam, took over the management of Bolibokka for Westlands. If you love the McCloud and Bolibokka, you are hastening its flooding every time you put money in Westlands' pockets when you book a trip.

**Darian** · 01-06-2015, 01:01 AM

If I recall, correctly, approval/funding authorizing raising Shasta was a part of Proposition 2 in the recent election. Raising Shasta and constructing additional dams is, also, on the target list of federal projects for the incoming Congress. I believe that calling for increased storage is included in the BDCP and supported by many of our northern/central valley congress persons and our senior Senator (Dianne Feinstein). So, due to the level of interest at state/federal levels, some form of change to Shasta Dam is on the way.

I can't say I blame The Fly Shop for anything. They had nothing to do with the transfer of the property to Westlands. As a property owner, Westlands is entitled to do what it wants with its own land as long as it's legal/permitted. I'll bet the Fly Shop has no interest in seeing the McCloud inundated, either. I'd say they're offering an opportunity to fly fisherman who can afford it to fish a part of the McCloud that was probably too costly for the general public anyway....

Not defending them but Westlands is no different than any of the water contractors/districts. They obtain water to sell to their customers. They have learned, over time, that one way to acquire water is to buy real property in other water districts and then become a board member of the water district in question. That's what happened when LA Water/Power bought up large swaths of property in the eastern Sierras and drained Owens Lake, etc. Kern County Water Bank was taken over by corporate Resnicks and in another instance Metropolitan Water District acquired an interest in land in the Yolo Bypass (Conaway Ranch) area to obtain Sacramento River Water. Nothing new in this. Kinda looks like the way of future water moves to me....

**Bob Loblaw** · 01-06-2015, 01:21 PM

Not the case Darian. the recent Water Bond, Prop 1, does have $2.7 billion for additional storage but none of it is earmarked for any particular projects. It is true that raising Shasta would be more cost effective than building a new dam elsewhere (it was engineered to be 200 feet higher, but they ran out of concrete during WWII), but the deal that was cut that kept most of the environmental groups out of the fight was that this money would be used to recharge depleted groundwater aquifers.

It is also going to be very difficult to get federal money for the project, especially without a considerable state match. Westlands have an uphill fight, but they are very well connected, have limitless amounts of money, and are ruthless. I also disagree that they are just like any other water agency, they are not. They have over many generations bought up water rights on dozens of California watersheds and have systematically used all their power to drain as much water out of them as possible, to hell with the consequences. Last summer, during the height of the drought, they sued to stop minimal water releases from Lewiston into the lower Klamath to keep salmon alive below the dam. Their farmers plant more and more almonds and their lawyers sue to stop minimum flows for fish. They are ruthless.