Ladies and gentlemen:
I am President of the Lake Berryessa Marina Resort Tenant's Association and have a vested interest in the future of Lake Berryessa.
I am not a fisherman, however, many of my friends are. I received your web page information from my avid fisherman friends they told me you are the folks to contact regarding the future of lake berryessa and the devastating impacts the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed action could have on fishing and boating as we know and enjoy it today. They were emphatic about you being able to help.
The Bureau of Reclamation has issued its Final Environment Impact Statement regarding their plan to "reshape" Lake Berryessa when the current agreements expire in 2008-2009. The document is huge to say the least but the impact is even huger.
In a nutshell their plan will reduce the number of boats on the lake from the current 3000 to 700; most if not all of the best fishing spots (I am told) will be inaccessible to motorized boats...yes even trolling motors. Just to name a few Putah Creek, Pope Creek; most of the coves will be reserved for canoes and kayaks; a proposed closure of the lake for 2 years while the "new" concessionaires "reshape" the lake.
I can't explain it all but if you check our web page one of the cofounders of the Task Force that has been fighting this for the last five years has provided a synopsis of the document.
The web address is http://lbmrta.org/ in the spotlight section.
There is going to be a meeting on November 19, 2005 @ 1:00 PM hosted by the city of Winters. This meeting will also have either Congressman Pombo or his staff as well as other congressional staffers with the purpose of getting the straight scoop. The Bureau of Reclamation decision makers will be answering questions regarding their plan.
Please try to attend!!!!! This I am told will be taped and sent back to Washington DC to key decision makers in Congress as well as the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton.
Please help.
Philip Constantino, President Lake Berryessa Marina Resort Tenants' Association And avid boater.
Phils4day@aol.com
Lake Berryessa IMPACT
I apologize to all but.....
.....I just cant help but point this out.
The marina owners/operators on Lake Berryessa have enjoyed a monopoly on Berryessa for quite some time. My uderstanding is that the new plan would either cancel their permits or allow other "options". I have no problem reviewing the entire plan, then making an appropriate decision as to which side I would support.
However, before I even do that, I cant help but think that I would not want to support any of the Marinas. And heres why. They price gouge. And they do this because they can, theyve got/had/and have had for a very long time exclusionary permits.
For example, if I want to night fish out of Markley Cove, and I launch at 9 pm and pull out at 6 am, I will be charged for two full days of lauch fees and user fees. Sorry, this is not remotely reasonable. Heres another example. I fish a Fed tourny out of Spanish Flat. I park my truck at the boat ramp for the day, Im a non-boater. At the end of the day I pay my boater, which includes all fees associated with the boat for the day. On my way out I get stopped at the gate of Spanish Flat and the guy tells me I owe him $12 dollars to park my truck at the launch site for the day. Sorry, I dont think thats remotely reasonable either.
Ive fished Berryessa two times, out of two places, and these are my experiences.
I have no problem supporting the Marinas, but they have to support us as well, and that includes being reasonable. I dont think they are doing that, and quite frankly, am surprised that they would come to this site asking for our support.
And heres the best part. Why do I have to pay anybody to access a public resource. The job of DFG is to provide and maintain access to OUR resources. Well, you all know where I going so Ill end it here
The marina owners/operators on Lake Berryessa have enjoyed a monopoly on Berryessa for quite some time. My uderstanding is that the new plan would either cancel their permits or allow other "options". I have no problem reviewing the entire plan, then making an appropriate decision as to which side I would support.
However, before I even do that, I cant help but think that I would not want to support any of the Marinas. And heres why. They price gouge. And they do this because they can, theyve got/had/and have had for a very long time exclusionary permits.
For example, if I want to night fish out of Markley Cove, and I launch at 9 pm and pull out at 6 am, I will be charged for two full days of lauch fees and user fees. Sorry, this is not remotely reasonable. Heres another example. I fish a Fed tourny out of Spanish Flat. I park my truck at the boat ramp for the day, Im a non-boater. At the end of the day I pay my boater, which includes all fees associated with the boat for the day. On my way out I get stopped at the gate of Spanish Flat and the guy tells me I owe him $12 dollars to park my truck at the launch site for the day. Sorry, I dont think thats remotely reasonable either.
Ive fished Berryessa two times, out of two places, and these are my experiences.
I have no problem supporting the Marinas, but they have to support us as well, and that includes being reasonable. I dont think they are doing that, and quite frankly, am surprised that they would come to this site asking for our support.
And heres the best part. Why do I have to pay anybody to access a public resource. The job of DFG is to provide and maintain access to OUR resources. Well, you all know where I going so Ill end it here
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Steve,
Future plans for Berryessa include serious restrictions on ALL powered boat access. At this time, I will happily join hands with our traditional "enemies" (ski boat owners, wake board boaters, jet ski drivers, etc.) to protect full access to a great lake. It would be absolutely stupid to lose access to most of this lake over a couple launch fee complaints. Once we get access protected, then we can talk with marina owners about ways to make their rates more reasonable. We need to address the big picture before we worry about small stuff.
Just my $.02
.....NaCl
Future plans for Berryessa include serious restrictions on ALL powered boat access. At this time, I will happily join hands with our traditional "enemies" (ski boat owners, wake board boaters, jet ski drivers, etc.) to protect full access to a great lake. It would be absolutely stupid to lose access to most of this lake over a couple launch fee complaints. Once we get access protected, then we can talk with marina owners about ways to make their rates more reasonable. We need to address the big picture before we worry about small stuff.
Just my $.02
.....NaCl
I dont know NaCl...
... I briefly perused BOR's FEIR, and I really dont see that it would adversely impact bass fisherman. I want to really give the document a once over before making sense of it but here is what Ive found so far.
Currently, a large number of users at Berryessa are considered "long-term users", and they primarilly consist of trailer and mobile home owners who operate under permits from one of the 7 marinas. Most use of Berryessa is from "short-term users", people like you and I who launch boats. Under current management, the public is restricted from much of the shoreline of Berryessa, and the whole managment strategy caters to the long-term users who have exclusionary rights under their permits (which they get from the exclusionary marinas). The current management strategy does not take into consideration the concerns of the "short-term users".
Under the new plan, the managment strategy would be geared towards the "short-term user", and this means providing access to much of the adjacent land for more of the public to enjoy. The plan also includes providing more "two vehicle access" to the lake. Essentially what the plan is doing is removing exclusionary access from a select few who have permits from the marinas, and making it a more "user friendly" lake for the occassional vistor (i.e., bass fishermen and women).
Now, the one thing I did find is that there was mention of a "non-motorized" access area of the lake. I have to get a map out to see how big of an area this is, but it didnt seem that significant to me. THIS IS THE ONLY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WOULD IMPACT BASS FISHERMEN AND WOMEN, THE REST WOULD BENEFIT US ALL.
I dont know what all of you think, but I think the facilities at New Melones are much better, and much more fishermen friendly, than the current facilities at Berryessa. BOR runs New Melones, and the Berryessa plan is by BOR, so I would imagine the plan for Berryessa is almost identical to that at New Melones.
At this point, pending a more in depth review of BOR's FEIR, I stand by my guns. The marina folks want us to support their monopoly on services and access at Berryessa, most of which go to support "long-term users", and not us "short-term users". The new plan hurts them, but would benefit weekend and tournament bass fishermen and women.
Currently, a large number of users at Berryessa are considered "long-term users", and they primarilly consist of trailer and mobile home owners who operate under permits from one of the 7 marinas. Most use of Berryessa is from "short-term users", people like you and I who launch boats. Under current management, the public is restricted from much of the shoreline of Berryessa, and the whole managment strategy caters to the long-term users who have exclusionary rights under their permits (which they get from the exclusionary marinas). The current management strategy does not take into consideration the concerns of the "short-term users".
Under the new plan, the managment strategy would be geared towards the "short-term user", and this means providing access to much of the adjacent land for more of the public to enjoy. The plan also includes providing more "two vehicle access" to the lake. Essentially what the plan is doing is removing exclusionary access from a select few who have permits from the marinas, and making it a more "user friendly" lake for the occassional vistor (i.e., bass fishermen and women).
Now, the one thing I did find is that there was mention of a "non-motorized" access area of the lake. I have to get a map out to see how big of an area this is, but it didnt seem that significant to me. THIS IS THE ONLY PART OF THE PLAN THAT WOULD IMPACT BASS FISHERMEN AND WOMEN, THE REST WOULD BENEFIT US ALL.
I dont know what all of you think, but I think the facilities at New Melones are much better, and much more fishermen friendly, than the current facilities at Berryessa. BOR runs New Melones, and the Berryessa plan is by BOR, so I would imagine the plan for Berryessa is almost identical to that at New Melones.
At this point, pending a more in depth review of BOR's FEIR, I stand by my guns. The marina folks want us to support their monopoly on services and access at Berryessa, most of which go to support "long-term users", and not us "short-term users". The new plan hurts them, but would benefit weekend and tournament bass fishermen and women.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
For forty years those folks have had it their way regarding Lake Berryessa. When was the last time they attempted to patch a launch ramp or assist "day use" folks in any manner. Help them now and they will raise their rates claiming "we had to fight in court" and therefore pass the costs on to us. NO! Don't come cryin" now.
-
Jeff Jewell
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:18 pm
- Location: Suisun City
From the BBAC
I got this off of the BBAC Website:
Lake Berryessa will be changed and re-licensed for 2008. The process is now in review with many requests for changes and restrictions. The following information is to update you as to some, not all, current requests for change.
The Sierra Club and the Berryessa Trails and conservation Group are requesting the following:
1. No motor areas.
2. Additional 5mph zones
3. A 5mph zone through the length of the narrows
4. Additional camping areas
5. Trails
6. Water Trails
7. Additional Ski areas
8. Electric boat rentals
9. Electric Lake Ferry
10. Reservation System
11. Swimming areas
12. Removal of land leases on many established residents
In review of the above requests, it's very easy to determine that some groups would like to see Lake Berryessa become a bird sanctuary, supported by swimmers, hikers, electric boats, sailors and skiers all of which will be required to have reservations?
On 4/19/04 the BBAC wrote Janet Sierzputowski, Bureau of Reclamation, a letter to the above concerns. See letter below. The BBAC will be watching with guarded input to insure the Black Bass angler's viable use of Lake Berryessa.
4/19/04
To: Janet.sierzputowski, Bureau of Reclamation
From: H. Carter Fickes, BBAC Development Director
Subject: Lake Berryessa Redevelopment
Dear Janet,
The Black Bass Action committee (BBAC) is a non-profit group representing more
than 3000 bass anglers and 57 bass clubs in Northern and Central California. Please
review our Web Site at |www.blackbassactioncommittee.org for a complete overview
of our orgnnization.
Currently, I am in receipt of several different proposals regarding the redevelopment of
Lake Berryessa. This letter is to advise the Bureau of Reclamation of the BBAC'S
concerns and suggested improvements for Lake Berryessa.
The BBAC does not support any 5 mph zones in transit areas (example: ''The
narrows"). BBAC is not opposed to 5 mph zones as they currently exist, in fact we
support such zones where applicable in protecting the environment and safety of
fellow boaters. We feel the Lake should have a Northern public Launch Ramp similar
to the Capell Cove facility. The Lake should have two Public Campgrounds.
Additionally, an entry fee should not be charged by private concessions. Two well
located and marked Ski Areas should be established. No motor zones are not
acceptable as qualified below.
Do to the location being close to the Bay Area, and the size of Lake Berryessa, it has
always has been a popular ski and fishing lake. However, Lake Berryessa is
geographically located allowing for both north and south winds. Commonly these
winds arrive quickly and are strong, contributing to hazardous boating. With this
concern, boaters must be able to return from long distances to safe harbor. This factor
alone is a strong contributor to maintaining the Lake's current boating practices.
Secondly, close to the Bay Area are countless small lakes that are quiet with no
engines allowed, only allowing electric motors or sail boats. These lakes are applicable
in regards to safety and the small boat environment.
In closing, the BBAC looks forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Sierra Club, and all other groups working in good faith in establishing an
environmentally safe and viable recreation resource. It is our responsibility,
requirement and privilege to serve all outdoor interests for today and ''For Generations
to Come'' .
Sincerely,
H. Carter Fickes
cc: Bill Martin, Bureau of Reclamation, Lake Berryessa
Carol A. bronze, Berryessa Trails and Conservation
Napa County Sierra Club
Don Reighley, BBAC Director of Government Affairs
George Hawley, BBAC North Coast Chapter Chairman
BBAC Board of Directors
file 91.20
Lake Berryessa will be changed and re-licensed for 2008. The process is now in review with many requests for changes and restrictions. The following information is to update you as to some, not all, current requests for change.
The Sierra Club and the Berryessa Trails and conservation Group are requesting the following:
1. No motor areas.
2. Additional 5mph zones
3. A 5mph zone through the length of the narrows
4. Additional camping areas
5. Trails
6. Water Trails
7. Additional Ski areas
8. Electric boat rentals
9. Electric Lake Ferry
10. Reservation System
11. Swimming areas
12. Removal of land leases on many established residents
In review of the above requests, it's very easy to determine that some groups would like to see Lake Berryessa become a bird sanctuary, supported by swimmers, hikers, electric boats, sailors and skiers all of which will be required to have reservations?
On 4/19/04 the BBAC wrote Janet Sierzputowski, Bureau of Reclamation, a letter to the above concerns. See letter below. The BBAC will be watching with guarded input to insure the Black Bass angler's viable use of Lake Berryessa.
4/19/04
To: Janet.sierzputowski, Bureau of Reclamation
From: H. Carter Fickes, BBAC Development Director
Subject: Lake Berryessa Redevelopment
Dear Janet,
The Black Bass Action committee (BBAC) is a non-profit group representing more
than 3000 bass anglers and 57 bass clubs in Northern and Central California. Please
review our Web Site at |www.blackbassactioncommittee.org for a complete overview
of our orgnnization.
Currently, I am in receipt of several different proposals regarding the redevelopment of
Lake Berryessa. This letter is to advise the Bureau of Reclamation of the BBAC'S
concerns and suggested improvements for Lake Berryessa.
The BBAC does not support any 5 mph zones in transit areas (example: ''The
narrows"). BBAC is not opposed to 5 mph zones as they currently exist, in fact we
support such zones where applicable in protecting the environment and safety of
fellow boaters. We feel the Lake should have a Northern public Launch Ramp similar
to the Capell Cove facility. The Lake should have two Public Campgrounds.
Additionally, an entry fee should not be charged by private concessions. Two well
located and marked Ski Areas should be established. No motor zones are not
acceptable as qualified below.
Do to the location being close to the Bay Area, and the size of Lake Berryessa, it has
always has been a popular ski and fishing lake. However, Lake Berryessa is
geographically located allowing for both north and south winds. Commonly these
winds arrive quickly and are strong, contributing to hazardous boating. With this
concern, boaters must be able to return from long distances to safe harbor. This factor
alone is a strong contributor to maintaining the Lake's current boating practices.
Secondly, close to the Bay Area are countless small lakes that are quiet with no
engines allowed, only allowing electric motors or sail boats. These lakes are applicable
in regards to safety and the small boat environment.
In closing, the BBAC looks forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Sierra Club, and all other groups working in good faith in establishing an
environmentally safe and viable recreation resource. It is our responsibility,
requirement and privilege to serve all outdoor interests for today and ''For Generations
to Come'' .
Sincerely,
H. Carter Fickes
cc: Bill Martin, Bureau of Reclamation, Lake Berryessa
Carol A. bronze, Berryessa Trails and Conservation
Napa County Sierra Club
Don Reighley, BBAC Director of Government Affairs
George Hawley, BBAC North Coast Chapter Chairman
BBAC Board of Directors
file 91.20
..................................................................
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
The bottom line here is do you want restrictions placed on your freedoms. I DON"T. We can bicker on the the topics of launch fees, marinas, and peoples rights to have a vacation home. However I don't want anyone to restrict my ability to launch my boat and tell me that I can't fish any part of the lake I want to. If we let these folks take from us they will continue to take even more. What's the next lake they will place restictions on? We have to fight to keep whats is ours to enjoy.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
LOL!! Currently, there are tons of restrictions on Berryessa, as in access to the surrounding public land. Do you like people telling you that you cant go shoot a turkey on public land?
The projected plan will remove most of the current restrictions.
The projected plan will remove most of the current restrictions.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
WOW! I'm really trying Hard here Steve to see your side of this argument. I do plan on going to the meeting but I really don't want to look silly. Looking at this:
The Sierra Club and the Berryessa Trails and conservation Group are requesting the following:
1. No motor areas.
2. Additional 5mph zones
3. A 5mph zone through the length of the narrows
4. Additional camping areas
5. Trails
6. Water Trails
7. Additional Ski areas
8. Electric boat rentals
9. Electric Lake Ferry
10. Reservation System
11. Swimming areas
12. Removal of land leases on many established residents
I can not see how any of this would give us more access to the water we fish or the land. Removing the land leases will just give the seirra club more leverage to make it no hunting, no off roading, ect.. No motor zone loss of water for us to fish. More 5 mph zones why are they needed most coves at Berryessa if they are long enough they are 5 mph. More camping areas who will pay for those? I think as a fisherman I can make more of an arugment to leave things the way they are rather than a change for the worse.
And complaining about the marina's? If thses proposed changes go into affect who will pay for all this?
So please if anyone can give me some insight and knock some sense into me please do!
The Sierra Club and the Berryessa Trails and conservation Group are requesting the following:
1. No motor areas.
2. Additional 5mph zones
3. A 5mph zone through the length of the narrows
4. Additional camping areas
5. Trails
6. Water Trails
7. Additional Ski areas
8. Electric boat rentals
9. Electric Lake Ferry
10. Reservation System
11. Swimming areas
12. Removal of land leases on many established residents
I can not see how any of this would give us more access to the water we fish or the land. Removing the land leases will just give the seirra club more leverage to make it no hunting, no off roading, ect.. No motor zone loss of water for us to fish. More 5 mph zones why are they needed most coves at Berryessa if they are long enough they are 5 mph. More camping areas who will pay for those? I think as a fisherman I can make more of an arugment to leave things the way they are rather than a change for the worse.
And complaining about the marina's? If thses proposed changes go into affect who will pay for all this?
So please if anyone can give me some insight and knock some sense into me please do!
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
You should beable to hunt turkey on public land, just as I enjoy the use of the lake for fishing. When the hunting restrictions where imposed I assume no one cared enough to take a stand (or maybe they did and lost the battle) but it's time to sound off now. It sound like you suport the U.S.B.R. plan just so you can hunt in the area. Well I support your right to hunt in that area, Hopefully you would support the right to full unrestricted access to the lake.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
Hey Rogue:
The only thing I can tell you is go read the FEIS. You have to read the thing like 3 times before you understand whats going on. I write these things for a living, and I still have a hard time following them.
Remember, the FEIS is one of the final steps in the NEPA process, and at this point I didnt see any of those "wants" from the Sierra Club imbedded in the document. They can ask for anything they want, anybody can, but that doesnt mean any of that is going to happen.
I know that many times the public is swayed based on what they hear and not what they have read. And I know that anytime on this board that people mention groups like the Sierra Club, immediately everybody gets huffy and puffy and is totally against anything that has to do with such groups. Just take the time to read the document thouroughly (if you already have I apologize).
Anybody that knows me knows Im passionate about natural resource management, and that Im particularly critical of the way that this occurs in California. This is because Ive lived and worked in enough states to have a basis of comparison, and Im telling ya California is completely screwed up. I do not think its right that the state will "lease" access to OUR RESOURCES to private entities for profit, and that those private entities can restrict our use of the resource. Heres a very small example. My buddy from Davis wanted to go fish Berry from shore, but he couldnt find anywhere to do it, and the one place he did it at he got kicked out of.
In my opinion, current management practices are exclusionary and very restrictive, and the projected plan removes lots of those restrictions and provides for more "2 vehicle access". It will also create a sorta park system complete with hiking trails and more campgrounds so that more of the public can enjoy the lake (is hunting allowed right now, you eluded that it is, if it is I would love to go shoot a turkey there), and at a more reasonable cost.
Everybody has their reasons for their opinions, thats what makes the world spin.
The only thing I can tell you is go read the FEIS. You have to read the thing like 3 times before you understand whats going on. I write these things for a living, and I still have a hard time following them.
Remember, the FEIS is one of the final steps in the NEPA process, and at this point I didnt see any of those "wants" from the Sierra Club imbedded in the document. They can ask for anything they want, anybody can, but that doesnt mean any of that is going to happen.
I know that many times the public is swayed based on what they hear and not what they have read. And I know that anytime on this board that people mention groups like the Sierra Club, immediately everybody gets huffy and puffy and is totally against anything that has to do with such groups. Just take the time to read the document thouroughly (if you already have I apologize).
Anybody that knows me knows Im passionate about natural resource management, and that Im particularly critical of the way that this occurs in California. This is because Ive lived and worked in enough states to have a basis of comparison, and Im telling ya California is completely screwed up. I do not think its right that the state will "lease" access to OUR RESOURCES to private entities for profit, and that those private entities can restrict our use of the resource. Heres a very small example. My buddy from Davis wanted to go fish Berry from shore, but he couldnt find anywhere to do it, and the one place he did it at he got kicked out of.
In my opinion, current management practices are exclusionary and very restrictive, and the projected plan removes lots of those restrictions and provides for more "2 vehicle access". It will also create a sorta park system complete with hiking trails and more campgrounds so that more of the public can enjoy the lake (is hunting allowed right now, you eluded that it is, if it is I would love to go shoot a turkey there), and at a more reasonable cost.
Everybody has their reasons for their opinions, thats what makes the world spin.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
I totally agree with you about the access land around the lake and the private leases. And I totally know where your coming from about your friend from Davis. I have tried to read the FEIS and my degree only allows me to understand bad guys not greek. Just kidding it is very hard to understand thats why I'm bring this up. I really don't see how more restrictions on the water will help anyone.
One other point I want to make. The public access ramp at Capels. Alot of problems at that ramp. I would much rather pay $10 launch my boat and not have to worry all day about my truck and trailer being ther when I got back. Not to say it wouldn't happen at a resort.
Just have alot of concern about what restriction will be put on us as tournament anlgers ans weekend worriers out in our boat????
One other point I want to make. The public access ramp at Capels. Alot of problems at that ramp. I would much rather pay $10 launch my boat and not have to worry all day about my truck and trailer being ther when I got back. Not to say it wouldn't happen at a resort.
Just have alot of concern about what restriction will be put on us as tournament anlgers ans weekend worriers out in our boat????
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
Yeah Steve, I've tried to read that thing a few times and it is confusing. But I agree...I don't see where they are even considering any of those things that Philip Constatino mentioned in his letter. As far as I can tell, there is no mention of any restrictions of motorized boats or coves/creeks. Philip makes it sound as though those restrictions are part of the plan being considered. I would love to hear a follow-up from him so that we can get a clear understanding of what is truly going on. Plus as far as I can tell, the Sierra Club "requests" aren't part of the current plan. If anyone can add any clarification or has other facts, I for one would like to hear it.
GregH.
GregH.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
Rougue, your concerns are legitimate, and I totally understand what you are saying. However, my concerns are holistic, Im concerned for more than only what would happen to "our on water access and tournament anglers". Holistically, the projected plan is a positive to fishermen and the public.
If you take your time, you can find where the document defines what areas are potentially going to be proposed as non-motorized, and I know that it is between pages 133 and 150.
If you take your time, you can find where the document defines what areas are potentially going to be proposed as non-motorized, and I know that it is between pages 133 and 150.
Re: I apologize to all but.....
I'd rather pay $50.00 to launch my boat at Spanish Flat than give up my lake rights to some tree hugging, bird watching groups like the Sierra Club !
You give um an inch they will take a mile.
If these groups are so dead set on preserving our recreation land to a pristine environment then why don't they just move to the Yukon?
You give um an inch they will take a mile.
If these groups are so dead set on preserving our recreation land to a pristine environment then why don't they just move to the Yukon?
dobynsrods.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
Ah Toby, your a perfect example
The only agency involved in this projected plan is Bureau of Reclamation.
Groups such as Sierra Club and all the other "tree hugging" groups are only involved at the public comment and public review stages, and anybody can be involved at those stages. These groups have no more input than you and I. And BOR does not have to incorporate any wants by any public entity; the FEIS does not incoporate any of the "wants by the tree huggers".
Had you read the FEIS, instead of just spouting and showing your misguidance, you would have known this.
See everybody, just like I said, mention some "tree hugging" group on this forum and immediately people like Toby freak out.
Ignorance is bliss.
Groups such as Sierra Club and all the other "tree hugging" groups are only involved at the public comment and public review stages, and anybody can be involved at those stages. These groups have no more input than you and I. And BOR does not have to incorporate any wants by any public entity; the FEIS does not incoporate any of the "wants by the tree huggers".
Had you read the FEIS, instead of just spouting and showing your misguidance, you would have known this.
See everybody, just like I said, mention some "tree hugging" group on this forum and immediately people like Toby freak out.
Ignorance is bliss.
-
Nozmo King
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:49 am
Re: Ah Toby, your a perfect example
Thanks, Steve, for your comments on this issue. With all the rumors of closing down the lake, no motorized boats in the Narrows, etc., I'm glad that somebody who posts on this Forum actually read the document involved.
I've also heard from someone who owns a home up there that the marinas are also partly to blame for doing a poor job of maintaining their sanitary systems. I realize that, to some who post here, anyone who isn't ecstatic over raw sewage flowing into their favorite lake should be deported to France or some other commie country.
And contrary to some of these posts, the Sierra Club is pretty middle-of-the-road these days. Every year when I backpack in the High Sierra, I'm thankful they fought hard 40+years ago to keep that awesome expanse of land largely unfenced & free of fast food joints, amusement parks & exclusive enclaves for the wealthy.
I've also heard from someone who owns a home up there that the marinas are also partly to blame for doing a poor job of maintaining their sanitary systems. I realize that, to some who post here, anyone who isn't ecstatic over raw sewage flowing into their favorite lake should be deported to France or some other commie country.
And contrary to some of these posts, the Sierra Club is pretty middle-of-the-road these days. Every year when I backpack in the High Sierra, I'm thankful they fought hard 40+years ago to keep that awesome expanse of land largely unfenced & free of fast food joints, amusement parks & exclusive enclaves for the wealthy.
Re: Ah Toby, your a perfect example
Ah you are right!
There must be a reason why "people freak out" when groups like the Sierra Club are even mentioned !
What you call ignorance is what I call experiance.
As I see it, to compare free interprise as in a (marina charging you to launch and park) with a monopoly is a bit ignorant in it's self, if you think the price is more than reasonable then don't patronize them, simple as that.
LOL and as far as the statement about the Sierra Club having the same input as "you and I do" I sure as hell don't have the money,time,backing and resources the Sierra Club has to lobby and neither do you unless you are a member , are you?
Have a nice day
There must be a reason why "people freak out" when groups like the Sierra Club are even mentioned !
What you call ignorance is what I call experiance.
As I see it, to compare free interprise as in a (marina charging you to launch and park) with a monopoly is a bit ignorant in it's self, if you think the price is more than reasonable then don't patronize them, simple as that.
LOL and as far as the statement about the Sierra Club having the same input as "you and I do" I sure as hell don't have the money,time,backing and resources the Sierra Club has to lobby and neither do you unless you are a member , are you?
Have a nice day
dobynsrods.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
-
Jeff Jewell
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:18 pm
- Location: Suisun City
hOW ABOUT A LINK TO THE REAL PORPOSAL?
Can anyone give a link to the BOR proposal. I could really care less about the trailers all around the lake. I would actually like to see more day use and camping faciliteis. The one map I could find looked like the entire narrows would be 5mph. I don't like that! And the area behind Big Island would be closed to all motors even electric. Don't like that either.
Jeff Jewell
Jeff Jewell
..................................................................
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
Re: Ah Toby, your a perfect example
Aw come on now Toby, I aint nothing but a redneck, an urban one at that.
I just take it one issue at a time, read the issues, then decide on my own which side I will support. If thats the side of the the republicans, so be it, if its the side of the democrats, so be, if its the side of the tree huggers, so be it. I grew up hunting, trapping, and fishing, but at the same time will argue to my death that there is no need to kill a mountain lion or cut an true old growth tree.
I just take it one issue at a time, read the issues, then decide on my own which side I will support. If thats the side of the the republicans, so be it, if its the side of the democrats, so be, if its the side of the tree huggers, so be it. I grew up hunting, trapping, and fishing, but at the same time will argue to my death that there is no need to kill a mountain lion or cut an true old growth tree.
Here ya go
Here is a link to the FEIS, you will want to scroll down and click on the first pdf file that you see called "FEIS, Main Document, Berryessa VSP".
The only alternative you need to read about is Alternative B (unless you are interested in the other scenarios that were considered but disregarded). And the stuff that will most affect us starts on Page 133.
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projde ... ject_ID=41
Oh, and it is true that lots of the exclusionary trailers and other private facilities, the same ones that are on public land and that block our access to public land, have sewage problems causing brownfish to show up in the lake.
The only alternative you need to read about is Alternative B (unless you are interested in the other scenarios that were considered but disregarded). And the stuff that will most affect us starts on Page 133.
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projde ... ject_ID=41
Oh, and it is true that lots of the exclusionary trailers and other private facilities, the same ones that are on public land and that block our access to public land, have sewage problems causing brownfish to show up in the lake.
I guess I'm the king of the short attention span...
but the main document to this plan is 267 pages and there are several supporting documents. Steve, you must be a speed reader my man. I fell asleep trying to get to the main points of the two alternative plans. There are two plans right?
I suppose my other question is why isn't this a matter that is put up to a public vote rather then allowing a government employee to make a final decision?
sTony
I suppose my other question is why isn't this a matter that is put up to a public vote rather then allowing a government employee to make a final decision?
sTony
-
Jeff Jewell
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 5:18 pm
- Location: Suisun City
Re: OK I think I found it............
On page 150 of the report it says that Plan B would implement NO restrictions other than those Identified under section 3.6 "Noise".
Section 3.6 says boats cannot eccede x number of decibles at x number of feet. Nothing that effects us that I could see. Pretty much standards that are currently state law anyway.
Section 3.6 says boats cannot eccede x number of decibles at x number of feet. Nothing that effects us that I could see. Pretty much standards that are currently state law anyway.
..................................................................
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
When in Doubt " Set the Hook"
Hey Tony
Nah, Im not a speed reader, but Im trained at reading those damn things so I can figure out quickly which parts to zero in on. That and my work load is very slow right now. Can you tell? I did read most of it though, several times actually.
Actually, there are 4 alternatives (or plans as you are calling them). The two that you will be interested in are the No Action alternative (what will happen if things stay just as they are) and alternative B (the preferred alternative, the one BOR is pushing to get passed). The other two alternatives, C and D, were evaluated but they decided were not as good as alternative B. Also, they must evaluate how each alternative potentially affects each resource topic. The resource topic that affects us is Recreation (starts on pg. 133; maybe a couple others too, but this is the main one).
You know how I get riled about these kind of issues. But, Im telling ya, the proposed plan is much better for us than status quo.
Actually, there are 4 alternatives (or plans as you are calling them). The two that you will be interested in are the No Action alternative (what will happen if things stay just as they are) and alternative B (the preferred alternative, the one BOR is pushing to get passed). The other two alternatives, C and D, were evaluated but they decided were not as good as alternative B. Also, they must evaluate how each alternative potentially affects each resource topic. The resource topic that affects us is Recreation (starts on pg. 133; maybe a couple others too, but this is the main one).
You know how I get riled about these kind of issues. But, Im telling ya, the proposed plan is much better for us than status quo.
Re: Redneck
Come on dude, you know the answer and the answer is no. I know nothing about that org, except that they spend the money to buy land for conservation and preservation; and this benefits not only the land (by preventing development), but it benfits all critters that depend on that land.
Just because somebody has passion about natural resources, doesnt mean that person is an "environmentalist", whatever the heck that is.
How bout you tobe, what groups do you belong to.
Just because somebody has passion about natural resources, doesnt mean that person is an "environmentalist", whatever the heck that is.
How bout you tobe, what groups do you belong to.
Re: Redneck
I am the same age as the lake itself and have been frequenting it since I was five years old. Currently I own four boats, two of which are bassboats (Allison XB2003 and HydraSports), one ski boat and one outboard drag boat (Allison XR2001).
In my opinion, the management and governance of the lake was flawed from its inception. Having said that, the resort operators who have invested millions of dollars over the past 50 years have played by the rules that were established. The Federal government made these rules. It is insanity to consider closing them down and kicking them out, and further insanity to contemplate closing the lake down for two years to bring in "politically correct" concessionaires. In a "free" America, what right should the government have to usurp and seize property from those who have worked hard and invested to improve it?
There are very few things that are "broke" at Lake Berryessa. The majority of things are not broken. Yet the Federal government in their mindless vision of bureacratic addiction to totalitarianism via acronym (FEIS, BOR, NEPA, WROS, the list is endless) and their "Preferred Alternative" in their New World Order now seeks to fix what ain't broke at this lake.
There are some septic issues and mobilehome placements which need remediation. These are a blight on the lake-scape and a health hazard, but they hardly constitute a mandate to sledgehammer the entire lake surrounds and create more restrictions.
I am unequivocally opposed to restrictions of any kind on watercraft in Lake Berryessa, in speed, numbers, type, or location. This lake is one of the last bastions of individual freedom to go fast in this already grievously-restricted state.
If the government has their way with the lake and imposes their idiotic vision of turning it into Walden Pond, those that support these freedoms will never give up the fight to restore nautical liberty on this body of water.
In the face of all the supposed enlightenment of the many alternatives, I support "No Action". That is, no action except for the current laws to be enforced on septic violations and other legitimate environmental concerns.
We don't need more restrictions on this lake, nor any more alphabet soup acronyms to tell us how to enjoy and protect it.
LESS government is BETTER government!
In my opinion, the management and governance of the lake was flawed from its inception. Having said that, the resort operators who have invested millions of dollars over the past 50 years have played by the rules that were established. The Federal government made these rules. It is insanity to consider closing them down and kicking them out, and further insanity to contemplate closing the lake down for two years to bring in "politically correct" concessionaires. In a "free" America, what right should the government have to usurp and seize property from those who have worked hard and invested to improve it?
There are very few things that are "broke" at Lake Berryessa. The majority of things are not broken. Yet the Federal government in their mindless vision of bureacratic addiction to totalitarianism via acronym (FEIS, BOR, NEPA, WROS, the list is endless) and their "Preferred Alternative" in their New World Order now seeks to fix what ain't broke at this lake.
There are some septic issues and mobilehome placements which need remediation. These are a blight on the lake-scape and a health hazard, but they hardly constitute a mandate to sledgehammer the entire lake surrounds and create more restrictions.
I am unequivocally opposed to restrictions of any kind on watercraft in Lake Berryessa, in speed, numbers, type, or location. This lake is one of the last bastions of individual freedom to go fast in this already grievously-restricted state.
If the government has their way with the lake and imposes their idiotic vision of turning it into Walden Pond, those that support these freedoms will never give up the fight to restore nautical liberty on this body of water.
In the face of all the supposed enlightenment of the many alternatives, I support "No Action". That is, no action except for the current laws to be enforced on septic violations and other legitimate environmental concerns.
We don't need more restrictions on this lake, nor any more alphabet soup acronyms to tell us how to enjoy and protect it.
LESS government is BETTER government!
Re: Redneck
Hey Steve,
From reading your positions on these previous posts and you're defense of Sierra Club, it sounded like you were either a member or a staunch supporter of this group.
There is a strong misconception particularly in this state that if you are not pro Sierra Club you are against conservation, I am very pro conservation but with comman sense and will never support any radical group like Sierra Club.
So my apologies for assuming your afilliation with Sierra Club, lol you must have taken that as an insult.
And to answer your questions about the organizations I belong to:
N.R.A. , Ducks Unlimited, P.A.A. ,F.L.W.
Have a nice day.
From reading your positions on these previous posts and you're defense of Sierra Club, it sounded like you were either a member or a staunch supporter of this group.
There is a strong misconception particularly in this state that if you are not pro Sierra Club you are against conservation, I am very pro conservation but with comman sense and will never support any radical group like Sierra Club.
So my apologies for assuming your afilliation with Sierra Club, lol you must have taken that as an insult.
And to answer your questions about the organizations I belong to:
N.R.A. , Ducks Unlimited, P.A.A. ,F.L.W.
Have a nice day.
dobynsrods.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
oasiswatersport.com
pepperjigs.com
clearlaketackle.com
laserlures.com
-
Sacto John
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:15 am
- Location: Citrus Heights
Re: Redneck
Thanks for the link Steve. I have read the majority of the document and I agree with Steve. Some of the important sections of the document to read are pages: 17-22, 43-53, 150-152, 169-171, 183- 186 and 191-192. I suggest everyone read as much of the document as they can, the more information we all have on this the better we will all be in makeing a decision.
-
Jim Conlow Sr.
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: Benicia Ca
What we all need to recognize is that groups like
Organized groups like the Sierra Club do vote as a block and these groups do influence the State officials who are dependent on votes to keep their jobs.
They in turn bring pressure to bear on the salaried employees of the state to make decisions fvorable to the organized voters.
Jim
They in turn bring pressure to bear on the salaried employees of the state to make decisions fvorable to the organized voters.
Jim
-
Jim Conlow Sr.
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: Benicia Ca
Back in the sixties I joined the Sierra club
I joined because they had some great rock climbing and mountain climbing traing programs and tha was a sport that i was deeply involved in at the time.
I resigned my membership when the head of the Sierra club published a statement of their intentions and stated that the members would vote for those representatives who best followed the intentions of the Club.
I too believe in the protection of our inviornment. But I believe that it can stand A lot of human use and still sustain itself with out being depleted and so that we can still get reasonable enjoyment from it.
Jim
I resigned my membership when the head of the Sierra club published a statement of their intentions and stated that the members would vote for those representatives who best followed the intentions of the Club.
I too believe in the protection of our inviornment. But I believe that it can stand A lot of human use and still sustain itself with out being depleted and so that we can still get reasonable enjoyment from it.
Jim
Not always the case....
Environmental extremists are quietly penetrating government agencies where they can slowly impose their anti-hunting, anti-fishing views. They are very smart and very determined. They are also very patient as they work their ways up into decision making postions in government. Here's a case in point...
The Department of Fish & Game is a government agency where the Sierra Club has way too much influence. You might say that the Sierra Club can do no more than offer its opinion regarding DFG final regulations. At least that is what your "theory" might propound! As it turns out, there is a member of the state Fish and Game Commission who is a former high level manager in the Sierra Club. Take a look at his bio...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742896/posts
If you think this guy cares about the needs of fishermen, you're misguided! He is now, and always has been, a staunch Sierra Club soldier who would love to deny us the right to hunt and fish.
I don't know the names or background for the people who are making the decisions about managing Berryessa. But, it would not surprise me at all to discover some of those people are "former" members of the eco-extremist movement to impose their agenda from the "inside", rather than their past ineffective tactics of external confrontation.
Ultimately, infringement of freedoms by ANY government agency should be subject to skepticism. That is especially true in our State of California where well known political appointees like Bob Hattoy of the Sierra Club are placed in positions of great power over fishing and hunting. If there was ever a conflict of interest, this political appointment by Gray Davis is an outstanding example. I'd have to examine the political background of the people on this Berryessa commission before I could support anything they propose.
One of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson is "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." The further restriction of Berryessa constitutes a further erosion of our freedom to enjoy the resource. Ironically, this is not about fishing, boating, hunting or launch fees...it's just more goverment power grabbing.
.....NaCl
The Department of Fish & Game is a government agency where the Sierra Club has way too much influence. You might say that the Sierra Club can do no more than offer its opinion regarding DFG final regulations. At least that is what your "theory" might propound! As it turns out, there is a member of the state Fish and Game Commission who is a former high level manager in the Sierra Club. Take a look at his bio...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742896/posts
If you think this guy cares about the needs of fishermen, you're misguided! He is now, and always has been, a staunch Sierra Club soldier who would love to deny us the right to hunt and fish.
I don't know the names or background for the people who are making the decisions about managing Berryessa. But, it would not surprise me at all to discover some of those people are "former" members of the eco-extremist movement to impose their agenda from the "inside", rather than their past ineffective tactics of external confrontation.
Ultimately, infringement of freedoms by ANY government agency should be subject to skepticism. That is especially true in our State of California where well known political appointees like Bob Hattoy of the Sierra Club are placed in positions of great power over fishing and hunting. If there was ever a conflict of interest, this political appointment by Gray Davis is an outstanding example. I'd have to examine the political background of the people on this Berryessa commission before I could support anything they propose.
One of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson is "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." The further restriction of Berryessa constitutes a further erosion of our freedom to enjoy the resource. Ironically, this is not about fishing, boating, hunting or launch fees...it's just more goverment power grabbing.
.....NaCl
-
Sacto John
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:15 am
- Location: Citrus Heights
Re: Not always the case....
His term on the Fish and Game Commission expires on January 15, 2003.
Was he reappointed?
Was he reappointed?
it simple really
If the Sierra club is for it I am against it PERIOD.
-
Sacto John
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 10:15 am
- Location: Citrus Heights
Re: it simple really
Again I suggest that people read the proposal.
As long as we are quoting Jefferson here is one of my favorites
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
As long as we are quoting Jefferson here is one of my favorites
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."
Lets Not Get derailed
The same type of plan for lake closures on Lake Castaic and Lake Mead were proposed two years ago. The anglers were able to change the "outcome" of said plan by grassroots hollerin.
Writing up petitions and CALLING your local congersman or assembly man. Calling there office really torques them off, I am new hear and I am not sure what political arena this is ?
However I will look up the phone number and post it here. These guys do NOT like phone calls and petitions lets give them BOTH!
HH
Writing up petitions and CALLING your local congersman or assembly man. Calling there office really torques them off, I am new hear and I am not sure what political arena this is ?
However I will look up the phone number and post it here. These guys do NOT like phone calls and petitions lets give them BOTH!
HH
- JaJa Jigs - Get THUNKED
Links to Check Out -
https://www.instagram.com/jm_ash/
https://www.bestbasstournaments.com/
Links to Check Out -
https://www.instagram.com/jm_ash/
https://www.bestbasstournaments.com/
-
MIKE TREMONT
- Posts: 1562
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:50 pm
- Location: FAIR OAKS
Re: Lets Not Get derailed
My inlaws had a place at Puta Creek since the 80's. I have freinds that still have beautiful places that they have worked hard on and invested plenty to have a nice place to get away.
I was envolved with several meetings with the feds and owners since this garbage began. It seems to be a losing battle when it comes to trying to work things out sensibly with any government agency or radical extremist group.
That lake is big enough to make everyone happy. But the powers that be don't have enough common sense to make it work without a long drawn out battle where a lot of people that don't deserve get burned with no recourse.
Personally I don't know why I even bother saying anything, I lost all faith in most of my fellow Californians after the last election.
I was envolved with several meetings with the feds and owners since this garbage began. It seems to be a losing battle when it comes to trying to work things out sensibly with any government agency or radical extremist group.
That lake is big enough to make everyone happy. But the powers that be don't have enough common sense to make it work without a long drawn out battle where a lot of people that don't deserve get burned with no recourse.
Personally I don't know why I even bother saying anything, I lost all faith in most of my fellow Californians after the last election.
I had to come back...I know...
-
Nozmo King
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:49 am
Re: it simple really
Calling members of the Sierra Club radical extremists is about as accurate as calling Republicans neo-Nazis or Democrats commie left-wing wackos. It’s hardly the case & hurts the credibility of some of these arguments. And, no, I’m not a member of the Sierra Club. Are there environmental extremists out there? Sure. But they’re loosely affiliated with groups like the Animal Liberation Front. The Sierra Club is way too middle of the road for them.
I don’t know what the percentage of radical vegans in the Sierra Club is, but my guess is, it’s not very high. A lot of Sierra Clubbers love to fish. The fact is, they’ve worked hard to protect wilderness areas & prevent pollution of our waterways, & that benefits all Americans. I grew up in a polluted part of the country that has undergone a remarkable turnaround, due in part to the advocacy of groups like this.
Do they have money to lobby politicians? Sure, that’s the way the real world works. Somehow, I don’t think the Chevrons & Monsantos of the world are helpless rubes that don’t know how to play the political game. And my guess is, the money thrown around in Washington & Sacramento by big business & industry dwarfs that of even big-time environmental groups like the Sierra Club or NRDC.
It’s ironic that we spend so much time arguing among ourselves & attacking environmental advocacy groups when the real threat to hunters & fishermen is loss of habitat to pollution & runaway development. And, yes, the “anti’sâ€
I don’t know what the percentage of radical vegans in the Sierra Club is, but my guess is, it’s not very high. A lot of Sierra Clubbers love to fish. The fact is, they’ve worked hard to protect wilderness areas & prevent pollution of our waterways, & that benefits all Americans. I grew up in a polluted part of the country that has undergone a remarkable turnaround, due in part to the advocacy of groups like this.
Do they have money to lobby politicians? Sure, that’s the way the real world works. Somehow, I don’t think the Chevrons & Monsantos of the world are helpless rubes that don’t know how to play the political game. And my guess is, the money thrown around in Washington & Sacramento by big business & industry dwarfs that of even big-time environmental groups like the Sierra Club or NRDC.
It’s ironic that we spend so much time arguing among ourselves & attacking environmental advocacy groups when the real threat to hunters & fishermen is loss of habitat to pollution & runaway development. And, yes, the “anti’sâ€
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
The purpose and need summarizes it quite well. Current Federal policy is aimed at reducing the number of exclusive uses of public lands. This is not just a Reclamation thing. The removal of the "boat houses" in Turntable Bay on Shasta Lake was a similiar move. That cove was pretty much exclusive use of only those individuals that had a boathouse.
Scott V.
Scott V.
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
This sounds like a repeat of what happened at Lake Mead a few years ago- except there were no plans to close the lake for two years, other than their "plan D" which was to designate pretty much the whole lake as a "primitive zone" and ban all combustion engines. They ended up with 95% of the lake open to all boats, 5% "primitive" (electric motors and canoe fairies only)- PWCs have a few more restrictions. Also- no EFIs or Carb motors after 2012. Camping is also impacted.
I'm sure that Bluewater Network is involved in this Lake Berryessa fascist takeover somewhere; they are subsidized by the Sierra Club and have led all the pushes to ban combustion engines.
These groups are about power and elistism, not the environment! They want to own nature and paddle their f****t arses around in their kayaks and eat tofu and granola -- and claim they're saving the world while telling us we're destroying it. Makes them feel better about their own insecurities.
Electric Lake Ferry?
Let's see it get across the 4-foot rollers in the main body on a windy day. Some of these morons have probably never even BEEN to the lake.
There is an important meeting in Winters this Saturday, the 19th, at 1:00 at the Winters High School gym. It is a town meeting and representatives from the BOR and Chairman Pombo's office will be there. If you give a rip about our ability to use Lake Berryessa for unrestricted fishing or motor sports, be there and let your voice be heard.
I'm sure that Bluewater Network is involved in this Lake Berryessa fascist takeover somewhere; they are subsidized by the Sierra Club and have led all the pushes to ban combustion engines.
These groups are about power and elistism, not the environment! They want to own nature and paddle their f****t arses around in their kayaks and eat tofu and granola -- and claim they're saving the world while telling us we're destroying it. Makes them feel better about their own insecurities.
Electric Lake Ferry?
Let's see it get across the 4-foot rollers in the main body on a windy day. Some of these morons have probably never even BEEN to the lake.There is an important meeting in Winters this Saturday, the 19th, at 1:00 at the Winters High School gym. It is a town meeting and representatives from the BOR and Chairman Pombo's office will be there. If you give a rip about our ability to use Lake Berryessa for unrestricted fishing or motor sports, be there and let your voice be heard.
Last edited by Lou on Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He also said....
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
Berryessa is a prime example of too much government. This current proposal with its huge number of pages exemplifies government excess. Is there really such a critical problem at Berryessa as to require so much verbage? Of course not! As I said before the REAL problem here is government out of control by the people. It's not about fishing, hunting, boating or launch fees.
Here's a suggestion...what if the "officials" were to agree to submit their final regs to public approval in the next election? Do you think the changes would be ratified? If they WOULD agree to public vote, I would have no further problem with the outcome. I support democracy, even if I don't like the outcome of the majority of voters. But, I LOATHE goverment dictatorships. CARB is a good example of an agency that imposes rules on the public with absolutely NO opportunity for the public to vote on the new "laws" they create.
John F. Kennedy might have said it best..."A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." So, why can't the public vote on CARB and BOR regulations when those new rules impose significant changes on us?
.....NaCl
Berryessa is a prime example of too much government. This current proposal with its huge number of pages exemplifies government excess. Is there really such a critical problem at Berryessa as to require so much verbage? Of course not! As I said before the REAL problem here is government out of control by the people. It's not about fishing, hunting, boating or launch fees.
Here's a suggestion...what if the "officials" were to agree to submit their final regs to public approval in the next election? Do you think the changes would be ratified? If they WOULD agree to public vote, I would have no further problem with the outcome. I support democracy, even if I don't like the outcome of the majority of voters. But, I LOATHE goverment dictatorships. CARB is a good example of an agency that imposes rules on the public with absolutely NO opportunity for the public to vote on the new "laws" they create.
John F. Kennedy might have said it best..."A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." So, why can't the public vote on CARB and BOR regulations when those new rules impose significant changes on us?
.....NaCl
-
BassTraveler
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 7:16 am
- Location: Clearlake
- Contact:
Re: He also said....
Can we also change the elections to be on April 16. Please.
[url=http://www.nosweatmist.com/][img]http://www.westernbass.com/shared/sponsors/150x50/nosweat.jpg[/img][/url]
www.nixonsmarine.com
www.nixonsmarine.com
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
Gentlemen: I am Phil Constantino. I do not own, work or are associated with the 7 concessionaires at lake berrryessa other than owning a mobile home @ Lake Berryessa Marina Resort and renting the space under it.
I was extremely pleased to see so much dialogue regarding berryessa. I will attempt to answer most of the comments regarding my request through Tony asking for your support. One thing is clear you are intelligent, articulate and passionate people.
For the last 25 years the Bureau of Reclamation (Bor) has mismanaged lake berryessa and its precious resources. Now that the 40+ year agreement is coming to an end they are attempting to "wipe the board clean of their mistakes" at the expense of stateholders.
The rezoning of areas on the lake are visible on a map provided by the bureau showing the proposed coves to be excluded to moterized boats, the inclusion of more 5 mph zones and other situations effecting boating at the lake. This map will be available for all to see at the meeting in Winters on Nov 19th. I have seen the map but couldn't tell you with holding the documents in my hands (that I do not have in my possession) where it is. Apparently some of you are quite adept at reading volumes of government rhetoric...unfortunately I am not that adept.
The question in my mind is simple. Reshaping which I believe is weasle wording for covering up 4 decades of mistakes has not sought to solve anything.
We have gatherer over 17,000 signatures opposing the bureaus' plan. We drafted an alternative that opens more areas to public access, provides more infrastructure, leaves mobile homes...yet changes the lake for ALL to enjoy. See our web page http://www.lbtaskforce.org/ as well as http://www.protectberryessa.org/stakeholders.htm.
The bureau has created this vast document to change berryessa, but how many stakeholders where notified. I purchased a mobile home 3 years ago and wasn't even notified of public hearings effecting my investment. Ask yourself have any of you heard about this plan in the making since 2001 until now? Where you aware that the original draft EIS of 2003 called for a COMPLETE closure of the lake for 2 years while the new "folks" were "reshaping?"
Were you aware that the bureaus draft EIS called for ONE concessionaire not 7. Talk about a monopoly!!!! How much do you think you would pay for gas, ice, beer or bait with only ONE person and no competition. Although not perfect at least there is competition for your hard earned $$$$ with 7 resorts.
This subject is much to lenghthy and has gone on for several years to be able to discuss on line. What I simple ask is that you SEE YOUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION AND QUESTION THEIR FACT FINDING, ANALYSIS AND MOTIVES YOURSELF! Please attend the meeting requested by the city of Winters on November 19th @ 1:00 pm at the Winter's High School located at 101 Grant Avenue (Highway 128) voice your questions, watch the bureau's policy makers body language and listen to how many times they say "I don't know" when asked focused questions and make up your own mind.
I will be there. Please stop and ask me any question. I don't know it all but there will be plenty of people that will be able to answer your questions at least from our group.
Thank you so much for your passionate interest. My only regret is not getting a hold of your group sooner...but it is not too late.
phil constantino
I was extremely pleased to see so much dialogue regarding berryessa. I will attempt to answer most of the comments regarding my request through Tony asking for your support. One thing is clear you are intelligent, articulate and passionate people.
For the last 25 years the Bureau of Reclamation (Bor) has mismanaged lake berryessa and its precious resources. Now that the 40+ year agreement is coming to an end they are attempting to "wipe the board clean of their mistakes" at the expense of stateholders.
The rezoning of areas on the lake are visible on a map provided by the bureau showing the proposed coves to be excluded to moterized boats, the inclusion of more 5 mph zones and other situations effecting boating at the lake. This map will be available for all to see at the meeting in Winters on Nov 19th. I have seen the map but couldn't tell you with holding the documents in my hands (that I do not have in my possession) where it is. Apparently some of you are quite adept at reading volumes of government rhetoric...unfortunately I am not that adept.
The question in my mind is simple. Reshaping which I believe is weasle wording for covering up 4 decades of mistakes has not sought to solve anything.
We have gatherer over 17,000 signatures opposing the bureaus' plan. We drafted an alternative that opens more areas to public access, provides more infrastructure, leaves mobile homes...yet changes the lake for ALL to enjoy. See our web page http://www.lbtaskforce.org/ as well as http://www.protectberryessa.org/stakeholders.htm.
The bureau has created this vast document to change berryessa, but how many stakeholders where notified. I purchased a mobile home 3 years ago and wasn't even notified of public hearings effecting my investment. Ask yourself have any of you heard about this plan in the making since 2001 until now? Where you aware that the original draft EIS of 2003 called for a COMPLETE closure of the lake for 2 years while the new "folks" were "reshaping?"
Were you aware that the bureaus draft EIS called for ONE concessionaire not 7. Talk about a monopoly!!!! How much do you think you would pay for gas, ice, beer or bait with only ONE person and no competition. Although not perfect at least there is competition for your hard earned $$$$ with 7 resorts.
This subject is much to lenghthy and has gone on for several years to be able to discuss on line. What I simple ask is that you SEE YOUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION AND QUESTION THEIR FACT FINDING, ANALYSIS AND MOTIVES YOURSELF! Please attend the meeting requested by the city of Winters on November 19th @ 1:00 pm at the Winter's High School located at 101 Grant Avenue (Highway 128) voice your questions, watch the bureau's policy makers body language and listen to how many times they say "I don't know" when asked focused questions and make up your own mind.
I will be there. Please stop and ask me any question. I don't know it all but there will be plenty of people that will be able to answer your questions at least from our group.
Thank you so much for your passionate interest. My only regret is not getting a hold of your group sooner...but it is not too late.
phil constantino
Phil C
Re: Lake Berryessa IMPACT
I know what would happen if they tried to pull something like this in Tennessee.
Weasel-wording is right. The bureaucrats are pushing for somebody's agenda, and it's not we the people.
Weasel-wording is right. The bureaucrats are pushing for somebody's agenda, and it's not we the people.
-
Fish Chris
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:22 am
- Location: Suisun City, Ca.
- Contact:
Hmmmmm.......
Now I really don't know what to think !?!?
.......and of course I always have problems opening PDF's ......DOH ! So I haven't even been able to read the freaking thing for myself yet. Can somebody please post a "PEF"... Plain English File ? Or will they sue you for copying and pasting ?
And geez, I just offered the Bureau of Reclamation a bass photo for their site; I'd hate to think I was doing favors for 'the enemy".....
Fish
.......and of course I always have problems opening PDF's ......DOH ! So I haven't even been able to read the freaking thing for myself yet. Can somebody please post a "PEF"... Plain English File ? Or will they sue you for copying and pasting ?
And geez, I just offered the Bureau of Reclamation a bass photo for their site; I'd hate to think I was doing favors for 'the enemy".....
Fish
Nozmo King your wrong
Sierra Club are extremists and dangerous ones at that.
I have not seen the tree spiking with
my own eyes which results in injury to anyone who might legally
cut down a tree but I have been harrassed while hunting because
I had to use a 4x4 trail that they wanted closed and I have seen
them use dynamite to try and close the Rubicon trail on private
land. Not my kind of people
I have not seen the tree spiking with
my own eyes which results in injury to anyone who might legally
cut down a tree but I have been harrassed while hunting because
I had to use a 4x4 trail that they wanted closed and I have seen
them use dynamite to try and close the Rubicon trail on private
land. Not my kind of people
-
Nozmo King
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:49 am
Re: Nozmo King your wrong
Rexford, I agree that tree-spiking is criminal, & using dynamite to close the Rubicon Trail is idiotic. I find it hard to believe that either of those things were done by Sierra Clubbers, but it's possible. Sounds more like vestiges of Earth! First or some truly extremist groups. All "environmentalists" may be lumped together in your mind, but there are vast differences in their philosophies & approaches.
Are there environmental extremists in the Sierra Club? Probably. Are there communists in the Democrat party or neo-Nazis in the Republican? Probably. That's hardly indicative of the makeup of the groups as a whole.
The Sierra Club is primarily made up of middle-class people who want clean air & water. BASS has supported with major dollars much of the same agenda, at least where clean water is concerned. I'm not going to label all BASS members as environmental wackos & anti-free enterprise nutcases because of it.
My point is, if folks start writing letters to Congress & going to public meetings screaming about environmental wackos in the Sierra Club, their arguments will lose credibility among people informed on the issue because - it just ain't the case.
Are there environmental extremists in the Sierra Club? Probably. Are there communists in the Democrat party or neo-Nazis in the Republican? Probably. That's hardly indicative of the makeup of the groups as a whole.
The Sierra Club is primarily made up of middle-class people who want clean air & water. BASS has supported with major dollars much of the same agenda, at least where clean water is concerned. I'm not going to label all BASS members as environmental wackos & anti-free enterprise nutcases because of it.
My point is, if folks start writing letters to Congress & going to public meetings screaming about environmental wackos in the Sierra Club, their arguments will lose credibility among people informed on the issue because - it just ain't the case.
a letter from Markley Cove...
Dear Winters Businessmen and Residents,
On Saturday, November 19, you have an opportunity to participate in a critical democratic process. Please join us in a meeting at PM at the high school gym where along with the Winters City Council, you may ask some hard questions of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau is not in Winters willingly – They were literally ordered here by the Department of the Interior after our council members dared to question whether the latest federal agency proposals would negatively impact our community.
And what of this plan – the Bureau of Reclamation’s Alternative B - it recommends ripping out most of the current improvements that belong to the business people that own and operate them. Alternative B demands that 1300 long term sites be eliminated even though in many instances these sites are not in conflict with short term use. It categorizes the water surface area in such a way that if followed, motorized boating on Lake Berryessa will most certainly be reduced and it arbitrarily determines what activities will be offered at each resort with no economic reasons for making these business decisions.
So, how does this really affect the City of Winters? Does it really matter what happens at the lake? Is it worth a Saturday afternoon to come and try to talk to more bureaucrats? Let me give you an example – My husband and I have been at Markley Cove for nearly eighteen years. After years of hard work Markley has become a thriving business serving 15,000 launch customers a year. Ninety nine per cent of these customers come through Winters on the way to or from the lake. They stop and purchase gasoline at the Chevron or Pisani’s. They pick up groceries at Town and Country, supplies at Berryessa Sporting Goods or a meal at Tomat’s or Roundtable Pizza. These are not strangers that will come once a year. They come week after week so they know what Winters has to offer and they make their plans to stop in town.
The current Bureau proposal states Markley Cove will be the Lake Berryessa Houseboat Rental Center. To quote the Bureau, it (Markley) would include some rental boat slips, fuel sales and launch activities to the extent that the houseboat operation has space available for its needs – end of quote. Markley is a very small area – I can tell you it does not have space for a rental houseboat operation, boat slips and the current launch activities. The loss of 15,000 customers that stop in Winters on a regular basis to spend their money will most definitely impact the Winters economy.
This scenario is being repeated at every resort. The Bureau is choosing to bulldoze assets and demand a new business plan based on unproven expectations. Their own economic analysis states the lake businesses should try to attract the “more affluentâ€
On Saturday, November 19, you have an opportunity to participate in a critical democratic process. Please join us in a meeting at PM at the high school gym where along with the Winters City Council, you may ask some hard questions of the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau is not in Winters willingly – They were literally ordered here by the Department of the Interior after our council members dared to question whether the latest federal agency proposals would negatively impact our community.
And what of this plan – the Bureau of Reclamation’s Alternative B - it recommends ripping out most of the current improvements that belong to the business people that own and operate them. Alternative B demands that 1300 long term sites be eliminated even though in many instances these sites are not in conflict with short term use. It categorizes the water surface area in such a way that if followed, motorized boating on Lake Berryessa will most certainly be reduced and it arbitrarily determines what activities will be offered at each resort with no economic reasons for making these business decisions.
So, how does this really affect the City of Winters? Does it really matter what happens at the lake? Is it worth a Saturday afternoon to come and try to talk to more bureaucrats? Let me give you an example – My husband and I have been at Markley Cove for nearly eighteen years. After years of hard work Markley has become a thriving business serving 15,000 launch customers a year. Ninety nine per cent of these customers come through Winters on the way to or from the lake. They stop and purchase gasoline at the Chevron or Pisani’s. They pick up groceries at Town and Country, supplies at Berryessa Sporting Goods or a meal at Tomat’s or Roundtable Pizza. These are not strangers that will come once a year. They come week after week so they know what Winters has to offer and they make their plans to stop in town.
The current Bureau proposal states Markley Cove will be the Lake Berryessa Houseboat Rental Center. To quote the Bureau, it (Markley) would include some rental boat slips, fuel sales and launch activities to the extent that the houseboat operation has space available for its needs – end of quote. Markley is a very small area – I can tell you it does not have space for a rental houseboat operation, boat slips and the current launch activities. The loss of 15,000 customers that stop in Winters on a regular basis to spend their money will most definitely impact the Winters economy.
This scenario is being repeated at every resort. The Bureau is choosing to bulldoze assets and demand a new business plan based on unproven expectations. Their own economic analysis states the lake businesses should try to attract the “more affluentâ€
Advertising
Copyright © 2013-2024 WesternBass.com ®