Royal Wulff Products
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 216
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hancock
    Posts
    1,962
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    84
    Thanked in
    58 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    I can see your point. On my calender summer starts June 21st. Did not mean to leave out June, was just refuting the false statement made by TR about most of the summer.


  2. #62
    Unregistered NEFF Guest


    Originally posted by Jim Serio
    I can see your point. On my calender summer starts June 21st. Did not mean to leave out June, was just refuting the false statement made by TR about most of the summer.
    ..........
    And, summer ends on September 21/22 as well Jim.

    Why don't you take a look at the numbers below for storage in Cannonsville for the time period of June through September 2003.

    For the record [courtesy of NYC DEP]:

    ----------------

    Year 2003
    Cannonsville Reservoir
    Storage
    June 1 - 9 2003 / 101.7%-101.7%
    June 10- 19 2003 / 101.6% - 102.3%
    June20- June 29 2003 / 102.1% - 101.5%
    July 1 - July 15 2003 / NO SPILL
    July 16- July 31 2003 / NO SPILL
    August 1 - August 10 / NO SPILL
    August 13 - August 20 / 100.1% -100.2%
    August 21 - August 31 / NO SPILL
    September 4 - September 9 / 100.1%-102.2%
    September 10 - September 19 2003 / 101.7%-100.4%
    September 20 - September 30 2003 / 100.4%-102.5%

    ------------------

    For the others - and Jim you, too, might like to take a look- I have kept a digital logbook at:

    www.delawareriverfishing.com

    Then scroll down to "Last Year's 2003 Logbook"

    And select from the drop down menu.

    Jim, we are all stewards of this great river.

    And, this summer I - and hopefully others - will be as vigilant as possible about it's health.

    TR


  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Roscoe,N.Y.
    Posts
    1,658
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    So Mark, are you saying that if the suggested RELEASE schedule (FUDR) is followed, that the overall health of the trout fishery will be sacrificed for floatability?

    Bruce
    Bruce,

    Until the studies are finished and the science is in, we won't know.

    Mark

    Mark J. Romero
    www.fudr.org
    607-498-9944
    M&M Fly Fishing
    JazzMark Gallery
    94 Yorktown Road
    Roscoe, N.Y. 12776-5017

  4. #64
    Unregistered NEFF Guest


    --------------------------------------------
    Year 2003 - June through September
    Cannonsville Reservoir Storage

    June 1 - 9 2003 / 101.7%-101.7%
    June 10- 19 2003 / 101.6% - 102.3%
    June20- June 29 2003 / 102.1% - 101.5%
    July 1 - July 15 2003 / NO SPILL
    July 16- July 31 2003 / NO SPILL
    August 1 - August 10 / NO SPILL
    August 13 - August 20 / 100.1% -100.2%
    August 21 - August 31 / NO SPILL
    September 4 - September 9 / 100.1%-102.2%
    September 10 - September 19 2003 / 101.7%-100.4%
    September 20 - September 30 2003 / 100.4%-102.5%

    ----------------------------------------

    source: NYC DEP
    daily data from 2003 at:
    www.delawareriverfishing.com



  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York (Ulster County)
    Posts
    556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Mark,

    First you stated

    "Bruce,

    The overall health of the trout fishery should not be sacrificed for wadeablility or floatability.

    Mark......"

    Next, I asked

    "So Mark, are you saying that if the suggested RELEASE schedule (FUDR) is followed, that the overall health of the trout fishery will be sacrificed for floatability? "


    Then, you responded

    "Until the studies are finished and the science is in, we won't know."


    I don't think you answered my question with your response. The fishery would not be sacrificed by releasing more cold water, unless you know something about this that I don't, I'm not sure I get your point here.

    Bruce


  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,213
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    690
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Aside from your efforts, Bruce, I don't think that my original questions were completely addressed either. Not to beat a dead horse, but should I assume by a seeming lack of gusto to answer them that all of our FUDR supporters here, are in agreement with that reasoning of why "the plan" is worse? Ahh... just a refresher, for anyone who missed page one:

    1. How is the plan for the next three years WORSE than what had been in place for the last five? Please, be specific.

    2. And if it's not worse, why all the alarm about the imminent demise of the fishery when seemingly all the people pushing for 600 say the upper Delaware is a world class fishery NOW (without any help from the water barons)?

    3. What is the estimate (that some expert must have thought about) for AVERAGE flows on the WB and MS, given a MINIMUM 600cfs flow on the WB.

    John

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York (Ulster County)
    Posts
    556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Future,

    Last time I looked, the temp at Hale Eddy was 68 and the temp at Callicoon was pushing 75 (74.66). The Flow at Hale Eddy was 600+ CFS and the Cannonsvolle RELEASE was 125 CFS. It's not even June and this is not good for the fish. If it gets a little warmer, I don't care if you wade or float, no one should be fishing, you will kill fish. The higher rates of RELEASE are NEEDED for the fish!!


    Bruce


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hancock
    Posts
    1,962
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    84
    Thanked in
    58 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Bruce,

    At least I try to answer the questions that are asked.

    Future has asked a few times how is this plan worse than what was in place before?

    I do not believe it is worse, but better.

    More water for fish.

    Better flexibility.

    Protection for EB and Neversink with minimum flows.

    Better cooperation of all parties.

    Is it perfect? By NO means, but it is better.

    Any thoughts?

    Jim


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York (Ulster County)
    Posts
    556
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Future and Jim,

    This is what I posted earlier in this thread:

    "I'll try to answer your questions, but these answers are MY opinion,

    1) " How is the plan for the next three years WORSE than what had been in place for the last five? Please, be specific."

    Here we're talking about 160 CFS minimum RELEASE compared to 225 CFS minimum FLOW measured at Hale Eddy. Which one is better is hard to say. There will be times when one is better than the other, but neither one would be better at all times. For instance, during the thermal stress times, when Oquaga and the tribs between Cannonsville dam and Hale Eddy are additively flowing more than 65 CFS, the 160 CFS minimum RELEASE would be better than the 225 CFS minimum FLOW plan. And if the tribs are flowing less than 65 CFS, then the 225 CFS minimum FLOW would be better. But over the last five years, there have been fish kills on the main stem (more than one that I have heard of). The older 325 CFS minimum RELEASE during the thermal stress months was better than either of these.

    2)" And if it's not worse, why all the alarm about the imminent demise of the fishery when seemingly all the people pushing for 600 say the upper Delaware is a world class fishery NOW (without any help from the water barons)?"

    I believe I answered the one above. (325 RELEASE was better, as the fish kills could have been a lot worse over the last five years if Mother Nature had given us hotter and drier Summers)

    3. "What is the estimate (that some expert must have thought about) for AVERAGE flows on the WB and MS, given a MINIMUM 600cfs flow on the WB. "

    I would expect that if there was an agreement to the 600 CFS RELEASE (not flow) on the WB during the thermal stress period, that there would not often be the need to RELEASE more very often. The average flows at Hale Eddy could be calculated by adding 600 CFS to the AVERAGE of the tribs during the time period we're talking about. The 600 CFS release is the historical AVERAGE release duringthis thermal stress period (from what I understand), so to me there would be no change in what the AVERAGE has historically been. I will try to get the specific number for what the average flow would be at Hale Eddy. I don't have the data in front of me right now.


    Jim, there are times when the new plan is better than the old, and vice versa. For instance, yesterday, the old (160 RELEASE) was better than the new, since only 125 CFS was being released, and what I mean by better is lower temps, not higher flows as some of you think. Soon, Cannonsville will stop spilling and with the flow at Hale Eddy greater than 225 CFS, no water will be required to be released until:

    1) Montague drops below 1750 CFS (currently at 3520 CFS)
    2) Hale Eddy drops below 225 CFS (currently at 631 with 125 CFS Release and 195 CFS spill)
    3) Avg temp at Hankins 72 or max temp 75 (we almost hit the max temp yesterday, by less than 1/2 degree


    If the new plan is better than the 160 CFS Release plan we had, it is not much better, and there are certainly days when it is worse, like yesterday and today, and if someone looked back, we could count how many were better and how many were worse. The way it is now, the new plan is allowing for higher temps when we do not hit the thresholds.

    We need more COLD water for a COLD water fishery. I don't care what the flow is, I'll adjust my fishing to either float or wade depending on conditions, BUT I WILL NOT FISH WHEN THE WATER IS TOO WARM, like it is getting now, at least not in fresh water.


    Bruce


  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hancock
    Posts
    1,962
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    84
    Thanked in
    58 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Under the old plan the release would have been 45 cfs on the WB yesterday, not 160.

    Under the old plan the Neversink releases would not have happened to help the minimum. Response time was slow, but it did happen.

    The reason that the 325 release was changed was that the June 1-15 and August 16-31 and Sept. 1-15 time frames were critically bad in many years. The release was only 45 until June 15 and we experienced many early June days that were terrible.

    Still not enough but better than we had. The new plan, I believe is significantly better than the old one. Especially if, and I admit this is a big "if", it is managed properly. I think it is up to all of us to make sure that DEC, DEP, DRBC and everyone make sure that we make the best of the existing plan and continue to work for final solutions.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mid Hudson valley
    Posts
    1,518
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Just a reminder all... there has not been a plan in effect for the last 5 years.

    And, a little misleading on what Big Spinner says the releases on the WB would have been yesterday. Would have, could have, should have.... If they followed the law, pt. 671.3 DEC regulations, released would have been what the overflow from Cannonsville was yesterday. Was there only 45 CFS spilling? No, 125CFS was being released (according to BJ) so Im guessing, about 160 was spilling since they are only releasing half the spillage that they are required by law to do. (taking into account for the 45 CFS release)

    So the statement about 45 CFS is not accurate.

    The system has never been managed properly. How do you suppose we can make sure DEC. DEP and DRBC make the best of an existing plan, when they havent for years?

    The big IFS dont sit well with me. Guessing, possabilities, thats all nonsense. A minimum guaranteed release of 600CFS as FUDR proposes is better than anything that has been put forth. Why not just support that, Big Spinner.

    --FT
    Nothing grows faster than a fish between the time the fish takes your fly...and the time he gets away.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Milford, NJ
    Posts
    172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    I have a question for all...

    "The system has never been managed properly. How do you suppose we can make sure DEC. DEP and DRBC make the best of an existing plan, when they havent for years?"

    If this is the case, then it seems to me that no matter what the plan, the real problem is enforcement.

    Maybe the FUDR proposal is better for the river, but how does it matter if the above mentioned parties (DEC, DEP and DRBC) don't follow any plan?

    Just my .02


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Participants: 21

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •