September 23, 2018

Go Back   FlyFishingInNH.com Forum > Conservation Section > Conservation Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:38 AM
GOLDNDEMON's Avatar
GOLDNDEMON GOLDNDEMON is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEWPORT, NH
Posts: 882
Default Meeting Canceled

The Feb 6th meeting in Newport to discuss the Sugar River is cancelled. No reschedule date at this time.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:42 AM
fatfisheater fatfisheater is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 48
Default

Lack of interest, no doubt.

Folks on the Internet don't really want to get involved, they just want to talk about it.
__________________
Ah crap! Another small mouth. Where's the hatchet?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:15 AM
TGIF TGIF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,631
Default

zinnnnnnggggggeeeeeerrrrrrrrr........

What was the meeting all about?
__________________
"And so my brother and I were left to assume that the Fisherman on the Sea of Galilee were fly fisherman and that John, the favorite, was a dry fly fisherman" -Norman McLean "A River Runs Through It"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:25 AM
s2ary s2ary is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatfisheater
Lack of interest, no doubt.

Folks on the Internet don't really want to get involved, they just want to talk about it.
That can be true in the planning stages because most people feel that they do not have much to offer. The key to the internet support is support by numbers to leverage for resources.

Now with that said, will we be able to count on you in the next 6 months when we start to roll out potential projects?

I can tell you for certain with the wetland restoration business that 6 proposals go out to get 1 project on the ground. There is a lot of competition for federal funding. If you’re not understanding of that you can get that sinking feeling like you are wasting your time.

A lot of times some of the 5 that didn’t get off the ground can all of a sudden come back to life. A good example of that is the Awcomin Salt Marsh Restoration Project in Rye, NH. We gave the Town a proposal in 97, they thanked us and that was it. 3 years later Sen. Gregg gets a $500,000 direct federal appropriations and the project is off and running. That was a 35 acre salt marsh restoration project that has now become the model for a new methodology for salt marsh restoration. The other model, the type that was done at Odiorne and by the Golf Course…Stick a fork in them, they’re done. The state is trying to determine the best way to reverse the damages they have caused to the marshes without causing them to further collapse.

So by design the restoration industry moves at the speed of a glacier. The reason for that is that it is an evolving science, each project builds off the last and if you are heading down the wrong path it takes a few years for that to become evident. The mosquito industry has been using the same flawed model in one way or another up and down the east coast for over 20 years, the reason it went on so long is there was no requirement for independent monitoring. The first IM review shut the entire mosquito industry down in less than 3 years.

That is the last thing we are going to do. Slow and easy working with longterm trajectories not the hard fast changes that can not control the variables. Given enough lead time you can nudge a meteor thousands of miles in a new trajectory with just a push. That is the way good projects get done. Light touches over a 5-10 year period for the habitat to find its own self sustaining trajectory.

When we first proposed attracting 24 state listed endangered species to an active landfill 5.5 miles from downtown Boston everyone laughed. I ate more cabbage at public meetings than the entire country of Poland. Now 10 years later we are half way through the list and we have some of the highest grassland bird densities in Essex County. Nobody is laughing any more.

Naturally when you propose something new the groupies snicker and talk trash. That’s nothing new. What would be new is if the same stuff they are failing to accomplish actually worked. The only way to fix a broken bucket is to get a new one. The only way to fix a failing methodology is to develop a new one.

So are you in or are you a groupie?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-04-2008, 09:39 AM
fatfisheater fatfisheater is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 48
Default

Not at all! I'm no different than anyone else. I'm lazy and indifferent. I'd be willing to talk about it, but thats the extent of my involvement.
__________________
Ah crap! Another small mouth. Where's the hatchet?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:01 AM
lowwall's Avatar
lowwall lowwall is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,323
Default Right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatfisheater
Lack of interest, no doubt.

Folks on the Internet don't really want to get involved, they just want to talk about it.
Looks like we agree on something! You are right. But it is not just the internet it is everywhere. For every TU chapter with acouple of hundred members there are 10 people who do all the work.

But with this being said we are not all sitting on our hands and accepting the deal we are delt. A few of us have something in the works that I hope will amount to something that pans out.

I have filed all the paperwork and paid the fees out of my own pocket to start a non profit corp to raise some funds to get something acomplished. There will be no official anouncemnet made until it gets approved by the state. Should be within 30 day's if all is ok.

I have learned my lesson on raising money through individuals, we apreciate the folks who have bought raffle tickets and stickers but it takes allot of effort for very little return. Need to try a different approach.

We may fail but it won't be for lack of trying
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-04-2008, 12:34 PM
s2ary s2ary is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatfisheater
Not at all! I'm no different than anyone else. I'm lazy and indifferent. I'd be willing to talk about it, but thats the extent of my involvement.
Well that’s too bad. It is funny that you would describe yourself as the stereotypical worm dunker.

In the future your indifferent virtue will serve you well. As southern NH begins to look more and more like Mass, central NH will become more like Southern NH is currently, and so on and so forth across New England. As this process continues the fishing in our more vulnerable waterways will start to resemble theirs. This progression of development is unavoidable. Growth is the only feasible way for a town to increase its tax base. Without an increasing tax base a town can not support its infrastructure which relates to services to the residents like schools, roads, etc.

To further exacerbate our decline in what we now have for fisheries is the fact that the practice of overstocking sections of waterways with floppy rags is nearing its end. Deny it as some may, no matter how you read your tea leaves, the New England antiquity of Put and Take Fisheries Management will no longer be economically or politically feasible in the future.

The economic challenges facing every state F&G agency and things similar to Mountain Road are additional bell weathers that point to its demise. With state funding cuts, dwindling private economic interests, and a growing population of lazy indifferent anglers PeTA need only file one lawsuit based on stocking fish into waterways that can not sustain the fish that are stocked and imposing undue harm to the existing resident fish, and stocking in New England is over. There is no state in New England that will fight that lawsuit, and there is no way they could win it if they did. Out west, the water resources can still support the fish that are stocked and the fertile alkaline streams can sustain their fisheries.

Surely any converted worm dunker can look over the rim of their glasses to understand this. Fish are restricted to a water body, and a water body can generate only so many ‘Pounds of Worms’ each year. The number of fish in the water body has a limiting factor of ‘Pounds of Worms’ that can be produced each year. Each fall when the population of fish increases dramatically because of fish stockings, the years worth of ‘Pounds of Worms’ are used up faster than if the fish were not stocked. During the late spring as the water warms, the remaining introduced fish that survived the winter succumb to temperature related factors leaving the resident fish to survive the summer with less than a summer’s worth of ‘Pounds of Worms’. As a result the resident fish are subject to inhumane treatment. Some southern states and mid western states deal with this by introducing large predator species to control the resident species, but that is another issue.

Perhaps the best question to ask is how did New England lose its ability to support its traditional sport fisheries? We get the same annual precipitation amounts that we have for thousands of years. The dams have been in place for hundreds of years. Then why in the span of a lifetime have we seen our fisheries collapse?

It is a simple issue of mismanaging our watersheds for a period of 40-50 years. The cumulative effects of development and its subsequent sustained stormwater diversion has allowed for our riparian resources to accumulate sediments and warm to levels that are detrimental to our native sportfisheries. Oops, what is a lazy indifferent converted worm dunker to do?

Make changes in watershed management strategies of course. As has happened in the areas surrounding NYC, Boston, and throughout Southern New England, continued growth in developed landscapes comes in the form of ‘Redevelopment’. A neighborhood is bought out by a developer; a mall is made bigger and better, Farms begin to grow houses. By working towards new watershed management techniques that avoid the known incremental negative influences we will reverse the degraded state of our resources. The negative impacts that we will be facing in the future are already written in the bones of our neighbors to the south. By looking at the degraded resources to our south we can predict how our resources will be if we do not take steps to prevent these impacts now.

Riparian resources are resilient, for thousands of years they have overcome devastating floods and natural catastrophes by ‘Time’. In time sediments move from areas of higher energy to areas of low. The excess sediments currently in our rivers will migrate out of the river channels down stream into flood plains if we can stop the steady inflow of sediments the gravel will again become exposed. As the sediments settle into protected low energy environments they entrap toxins and heavy metals under the sediments sealing them in a natural ‘landfill’, sealed forever.

By changing the way we manage storm water we will ‘cool our streams’ so they can sustain brook trout again. We receive the same amount of precipitation we always have, it is how we manage that water after it falls to the ground that is killing our waterways. The soil of a native forest is soft and permeable; you can stick you fingers deep into the coarse organic layers that top the porous glacial till. As the watershed is developed an increasing area of the watershed is converted to roofs, parking areas, and screened soils that compact nearly to the extent of cement. As a result the water that falls to the ground flows overland to warming ponds rather than percolating into the soil. In these warming ponds the water mostly evaporates into the atmosphere.

The change to this is to decrease the amount of Turf and other screened loam areas into highly permeable soils and redesign the stormwater holding ponds to percolate the water into the soil. As the water enters the soil, the mean temperature of the ground moderates the groundwater temperature to 55*. As we restore our local groundwater tables in the watershed the 55* groundwater migrates to discharge points, streams and wetlands. By increasing the amount of 55* groundwater discharges into our sediment free waterways we moderate the summer high temperatures restoring sustainability to our streams.

These two watershed management changes will establish the largest changes for our southern watersheds. As our northern watersheds evolve, if these modifications were in place now in advance of the landscape shift, we will prevent the degradation of these resources all together.

I promise you, these changes will take place; the only question is in which direction the pendulum swings.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-04-2008, 12:44 PM
T2 R3
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bla Bla Bla Wish I could attach a violin sound to a post
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-04-2008, 01:05 PM
fatfisheater fatfisheater is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s2ary
Well that’s too bad. It is funny that you would describe yourself as the stereotypical worm dunker.
Is this a personal attack. I thought this site was opposed to such things. Guess if you come from the proper side of the tracks you can say whatever you want.
__________________
Ah crap! Another small mouth. Where's the hatchet?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-04-2008, 01:15 PM
s2ary s2ary is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,412
Default

Youth… I merely summed up your self portrayal in a way I could best visualize it. I suppose that you could find some offense in depending on how loosely you feel you resemble your portrayal of yourself.

Hey wasn’t that a banjo they used in deliverance?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.