MFS late season cancellations solution - Page 4 - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-31-2016   #31
 
fdon's Avatar
 
Christopher Creek, Arizona
Paddling Since: 1969
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 297
Great conversation! I have to be counted as another one favoring the lawsuit. Just with the data provided in this thread, it seems a strong case is present.

I have been a major party in a suit against the FS on an unrelated matter. We contracted with an attorney group who took the case for the eventual settlement fees which approached 200K so it cost our group zero. The FS ignored us until the suit was filed. After that they snapped to attention.

Perhaps a letter from an attorney stating the intent to sue would bring them to the table but perhaps we are getting the cart before the horse here; should we not organize a small group of us to approach the FS with our ideas in a more friendly matter? We could organize a "friends" group to take on this cause rather simply or we could ask a large NGO to take it on. Either way, something needs to be done as we are losing private permits in this instance and that is a "taking" of unparalleled magnitude in my opinion.

fdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-31-2016   #32
 
cedar city, Utah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,129
Agree on organized group trying to negotiate with USFS instead of starting with lawsuit.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Mountain Buzz mobile app
restrac2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016   #33
 
Medford, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 206
However if boaters win the lawsuit they can collect attorney's fees that happens all the time. I worked for the USFS and getting a biological opinion out of NMFS was like pulling teeth. The way the regulations say the system should work and the way it actually works are quite different. The USFS runs scared because they are afraid NMFS will not respond in time and so the entire season would be delayed because there is no Biological Opinion so they are ultra conservative in their calls. Plus many of the Biologists working in NMFS have actually never worked on the ground so they rely on literature reviews. It is a horrible process most fish Biologist just hate it.
rivers2run is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-31-2016   #34
 
Medford, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 206
The Biologist meet together, consultation, so they know in advance how NMFS will call it. They get manipulated into making may affect fish but not likely to adversely affect calls so they can avoid Biological Opinion that comes in months late. The elephant in the room are the dams but of course no one will touch that, so there is micro-management.
rivers2run is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016   #35
Misspellingintothefuture!
 
mattman's Avatar
 
Fraser, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2000
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by restrac2000 View Post
Agree on organized group trying to negotiate with USFS instead of starting with lawsuit.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Mountain Buzz mobile app
So usually I believe in trying to come to a friendly solution with conflicts as well, but from the info on the topic shap had, it sounds like it is not even possible for that rule to be changed, without a law suite, at least that's what I understood.

I could see the Forrest Service getting really goosey for a season, with a law suite on there hands, it could screw up boating the middle fork for a season. Of course it could also lead to a much better MFS situation in the future, maybe even take a bit of strain off the earlier parts of the season, if there was more of a chance at a late season permit.
I also wonder what potential implications for commercial companies could be, if the Forest Circus were to get really goofy for a season, due to a law suite, would they loose there ass big time? Put guides out of work? Or would it be fine?
__________________
" what the heck is that clunking sound in the washing machine? And where the hell is my phone?"
mattman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016   #36
 
Medford, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 206
I have wondered if holding NMFS feet to the fire in issuing Biological Opinions in the timeframes they supposed to respond. There were Fish Biologists on the forest I worked on that left the agency because the consultation process was so onerous. All they have to do is issue take, if they don't call jeopardy for the dams how could they do that for boaters it's utterly ridiculous. They could give terms and conditions which could put us back to where we are now, that's a possibility. I told them a few times on other projects give us a Biological Opinion or call jeopardy, of course I knew they never would.
rivers2run is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016   #37
 
shappattack's Avatar
 
Up North, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1985
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,344
Wake up call, read the Biological Opinion. It has an incidental take statement that allows "take" in the form of floating over and harassing spawners on up to 34 redds per year along the mainstem Middle Fork. 34 redds is like the maximum ever observed along the mainstem. The Biological Opinion determined that this level of take would not increase mortality and is allowed. Therefore, the Aug 15 to Sept 15 permit cancelation rule, designed to minimize harassment of spawners by floaters is entirely erroneous because the Biological Opinion itself already allows for take to an extent that would not be exceeded by any number of float craft. The biological opinion allows for harassment/floating by a total number of redds by the full number of boaters allowed through the existing permit system and makes no mention of any need for reduced floaters during Aug 15 to Sept 15. The USFS has been implanting this rule even though the Bioloigcal Opinion from NMFS makes it clear it is unnecessary.
shappattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2016   #38
 
shappattack's Avatar
 
Up North, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1985
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivers2run View Post
The elephant in the room are the dams but of course no one will touch that, so there is micro-management.
Actually the real elephant in the room is climate change and also inherent productivity changes in the ocean that happened prior the current climate change discussion, long term patterns in ocean productivity, which translate in to very large differences in adult returns and juvenile-to-adult survival rates. Ocean productivity is the biggest driver in population productivity by far. The real problem are cycles when the ocean has poor productivity and ocean survival is real low, which gets exacerbated by additional limiting factors in the freshwater environment, such as juvenile mortality at dams, adult mortality at fish ladders due to seals, colonary bird predation, Harvest mortality, etc. etc.
shappattack is offline   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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why so many main Salmon cancellations? flat_side_down Boaters Forum | General Boating Topics 3 08-09-2015 07:23 AM
Yampa cancellations- who got them? walkabout Rafting | Trip Planner 16 05-20-2014 09:57 AM
Deso-Grays Cancellations Beeks Rafting | Trip Planner 16 03-17-2014 07:33 AM
Golden Rodeo Series 2012 Date Cancellations/Updates PattyNYCO Whitewater Kayaking 2 06-12-2012 10:18 PM
Any Westwater Cancellations? Pcdc2 Kayaking | Trip Planner 0 07-11-2011 10:13 AM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.