Delaware River Club
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 62
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    I don't know the point of your inquisition (nor do I frankly care); however, something needs to be pointed out as you've publicly posted inaccuracies.

    The DRF website does NOT state "Website created, hosted and maintained by the Fly Fishing Connection, a Truform™ Fly Co., Inc. property".

    The Coalition's website which was put in place to publicize the CP2 plan states that attribution at the bottom of its site.


  2. #14
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Fanatic View Post
    Mr. Watson,

    (NOT the pot calling the kettle black by any stretch of the imagination, but...)
    Could you just state what your goal is, here in this thread?
    John,

    Transparency is the goal. Is that not your mantra as well?


  3. #15
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JW1970 View Post
    I don't know the point of your inquisition (nor do I frankly care); however, something needs to be pointed out as you've publicly posted inaccuracies.

    The DRF website does NOT state "Website created, hosted and maintained by the Fly Fishing Connection, a Truform™ Fly Co., Inc. property".

    The Coalition's website which was put in place to publicize the CP2 plan states that attribution at the bottom of its site.
    JW, you are correct and the posting has been updated to reflect that. However, DRF is part of the same coalition.


  4. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Ah, I see. So you're a muck-raker trying to find something or someone in this flow issue process to undermine and discredit. Got it. Best investigate the FUDR while you're at it. There isn't an organization involved that doesn't have conflicts of interest galore.


  5. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,153
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    657
    Thanked in
    468 Posts
    Chats
    683
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 23 Times in 21 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ddawatson View Post
    John,

    Transparency is the goal. Is that not your mantra as well?
    Absolutely.

    I'm just trying to understand YOUR motivation.

    It seems that your implication is that Jim(DRF), who has been fighting the fight for years, who has been transparent in his advocating for all groups to work together and who has cooperated in the past with these diverse groups in an attempt to continue a relationship wherein the DRF could continue to affect change AND Larry, former FUDR board member who fought tenaciously to achieve 600cfs, who undertook a study to prove its feasability, discovered 600cfs was not feasible and is now no longer a FUDR board member are NOW somehow looking to sell out the Delaware system.

    Transparency IS good.

    But is my perceived implication of yours correct? Do you believe that they now do not have in their hearts the best interests (coming to a solution) of the flow issue?

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

  6. #18
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JW1970 View Post
    Ah, I see. So you're a muck-raker trying to find something or someone in this flow issue process to undermine and discredit. Got it. Best investigate the FUDR while you're at it. There isn't an organization involved that doesn't have conflicts of interest galore.
    Quote Originally Posted by JW1970 View Post
    Ah, I see. So you're a muck-raker trying to find something or someone in this flow issue process to undermine and discredit. Got it. Best investigate the FUDR while you're at it. There isn't an organization involved that doesn't have conflicts of interest galore.
    JW, label me what you will. However, note the following. It is a conflict of interest to have a governing board hires the same organizations that should provide clarity and independence on the development of laws that impact not just citizens but the surrounding ecology of the entire river system in the Catskills.

    I not so naive to suggest that these type of relationships DO NOT EXIST, however, if we are quick to judge FUDR for their position -- is it not just as FAIR to shed light on DRF, DRBC, DEC, DEP, and other organizations that impact the river system? The impression that I am getting is the CP2 is a cluster-f of organizations that have milked the taxpayer of dollars to push around studies, committees, meetings and other time/resource/money draining activities that ultimately provide what we have here today. A river system and management of reservoirs based upon the milking of the almighty dollar for agencies and SPECIAL INTERESTS GROUPS that have no inclination to provide a stable ecological system.

    I am not a member of either CP2, DRF, TU, or FUDR. I am a concerned taxed citizen who sometimes fishes on the BEST DAM(N) RIVER SYSTEM on the East Coast -- when the water is released by the power to be.

    Dennis T. Watson

    John 8:32 -
    "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
    __________________
    DTW,
    Always keep a reel full of backing...


  7. #19
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Fanatic View Post
    Absolutely.

    I'm just trying to understand YOUR motivation.

    It seems that your implication is that Jim(DRF), who has been fighting the fight for years, who has been transparent in his advocating for all groups to work together and who has cooperated in the past with these diverse groups in an attempt to continue a relationship wherein the DRF could continue to affect change AND Larry, former FUDR board member who fought tenaciously to achieve 600cfs, who undertook a study to prove its feasability, discovered 600cfs was not feasible and is now no longer a FUDR board member are NOW somehow looking to sell out the Delaware system.

    Transparency IS good.

    But is my perceived implication of yours correct? Do you believe that they now do not have in their hearts the best interests (coming to a solution) of the flow issue?

    FutureFanatic,

    I am not sure what to think at this point. I know that Jim Serio in public IS A GREAT GUY! However, the impression is collusion between DRF and DRBC over the CP2 proposal presented to DRBC for consideration.

    That is not clarity and certainly not what I perceived to be presented by DRF and the CP2committee.

    I am truly hoping that DRF has not been hired by DRBC.

    However, if the Federal Agency is aware of such a relationship and freely acknowledges such an arrangement, why didn't DRF publicly state this prior to the submission of the CP2 proposal?

    I find that troubling and frankly disappointing. I am hoping that this is incorrect, but it looks like the only way to find out as a taxpayer is to go thru the FOIA process.

    If there is a hidden agenda, hell, I am an adult -- just spell it out clearly and concisely.

    In terms of the dedication and effort involved, that can be applied to all groups, not just DRF.


    Dennis T. Watson

    John 8:32 -
    "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."


  8. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    collusion
    Ok, you're going to have to explain this one...

    if we are quick to judge FUDR for their position -- is it not just as FAIR to shed light on DRF, DRBC, DEC, DEP, and other organizations that impact the river system?
    I clearly said, then investigate the FUDR too. I didnt' say "instead." None of the groups (at least the fishing ones) are run very well in my opinion.

    I am not a member of either CP2, DRF, TU, or FUDR.
    Nor am I. TU national is pretty useless to the east coast. TU local has limited impact (more and less depending on the chapter). The FUDR has accomplished squat and had an overall negative impact on the negotiation process. The DRF has floundered on the big issues trying to take the "find the middle ground" approach which while logical has been pretty unsuccessful other than small steps made in relationship building. CP2 got shot down -- arguably because a certain organization wouldn't support it and worked hard to discredit it, although NJ may have shot it down regardless. (If NJ isn't the one who shot it down, someone please correct me.)

    taxed citizen?
    Interesting. If that's your primary point of perspective and concern, than you should dive a lot deeper into the DRBC, DEC, etc. THIS issue I'm sure is the LEAST of your tax-wasting concerns.


  9. #21
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JW1970 View Post
    Ok, you're going to have to explain this one...



    I clearly said, then investigate the FUDR too. I didnt' say "instead." None of the groups (at least the fishing ones) are run very well in my opinion.

    My response: I have not found any form of collusion between DRBC and FUDR. If you have, please let me know. But frankly, as much as this bulletin board members trash FUDR, I am surprised that some factual evidence has not risen to the top of discussion.

    Nor am I. TU national is pretty useless to the east coast. TU local has limited impact (more and less depending on the chapter). The FUDR has accomplished squat and had an overall negative impact on the negotiation process. The DRF has floundered on the big issues trying to take the "find the middle ground" approach which while logical has been pretty unsuccessful other than small steps made in relationship building. CP2 got shot down -- arguably because a certain organization wouldn't support it and worked hard to discredit it, although NJ may have shot it down regardless. (If NJ isn't the one who shot it down, someone please correct me.)

    My Response: I understand completely. I would rather instruct interested children and friends on the delights of fly-fishing and ecology than depend on my local TU chapter for collaboration or insight. I am not a big fan of TU either. I have made many attempts to participate, but always find my personal requirements un-met.



    Interesting. If that's your primary point of perspective and concern, than you should dive a lot deeper into the DRBC, DEC, etc. THIS issue I'm sure is the LEAST of your tax-wasting concerns.
    My Response: DRBC, DEC and DEP all need to be looked at more closely. After all, we are paying their salaries and they SHOULD BE accountable to the citizens, not corporations or special interest groups.


  10. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    127
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    7
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    After all, we are paying their salaries and they SHOULD BE accountable to the citizens, not corporations or special interest groups.
    Yeah, and if they were accountable to the corporations and special interest groups involved in this negotiation process, maybe we'd have a flow over 255cfs today at Hale Eddy. Hell knows they aren't accountable to us tax-payers on this issue.

    Mr. Watson, I do believe you're barking up the wrong trees.

    I also suggest you contact Paul Weamer, TruForm, the DRF, the Coalition and the DRBC next time before throwing out in public unfounded accusations which could have a wrongful negative impact on any of the participants involved. I realize you're speculating and trying to follow due diligence as a tax payer, but I believe your openly public speculation without ANY basis on which to base it is reckless.

    Have a good one. I need to go send my check to NJ. Let's see that's $1 for every CFS head back... collusion... Best lay off the crack, man.


  11. #23
    ddawatson is offline NEFF Guest Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, Md
    Posts
    136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    ":Mr. Watson, I do believe you're barking up the wrong trees.

    I also suggest you contact Paul Weamer, TruForm, the DRF, the Coalition and the DRBC ...."

    My Response: Funny you should mention those groups, I have contacted many of these groups in the past 3 business days plus additional contacts in each. (Department Of Interior at the Office of Secretary Level, Department of Interior, U.S.G.S., F.U.D.R., D.R.B.C. and a few un-associated fly fisherman). The contacts know who they are and I appreciate their insight. I have asked tough questions, and I have received very direct responses that leave very little question about the state of inter-locking relationships.


    It is sad how dismissive you are about something so important.


  12. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Everyone wants to know that
    Posts
    1,500
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,302
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,354
    Thanked in
    1,068 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 11 Times in 11 Posts


    Re: USGS study draft plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ddawatson View Post
    I have asked tough questions, and I have received very direct responses that leave very little question about...
    The envelope please..... (drum roll) .......


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Thread Participants: 13

Posting Permissions

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