San Franscisquito Creek - Spey Pages
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-19-2014, 09:36 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Headwaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 286
San Franscisquito Creek

Hi all,

Here's another good project to support...

San Francisquito Creek

Stanford University:
Stanford University Help Desk: Phone: 650-725-4357 (5-HELP)

American Rivers:
http://www.americanrivers.org/?gclid...FYuXOgodbxkAAQ

I'll be making contacts on Monday...

FF

Where it all begins...
Headwaters is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 01:54 PM
Registered User
 
longrodangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: great lakes
Posts: 397
thanks for sharing .will send my petition .
longrodangler is offline  
post #3 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 03:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Snake, Grande Ronde
Posts: 210
Ridiculous!

I am an avid steeheader, an ardent conservationist and have lived within 2 miles of San Francisquito Cr. for decades. The cost of removing the dam and the millions of cubic yards of sediment from the dam that has been there for almost 100 years would be many tens of millions of dollars if not more. The number of steelhead in that stream now or in the past 50 years has been trivial, as I know from having fished it many times as a kid and living near it for decades.

As long as nobody except Stanford has to foot the bill for this huge and highly expensive undertaking to save a tiny run of steelhead, I guess it will receive some public support. It has been heavily promoted by advertising and public relations pushed and organized by one well-connected individual advocate to an uncritical public that hasn't examined the costs of the proposal because it would be paid for by somebody else - Stanford.

The time, effort and money that would be wasted on this extravagantly expensive proposal could be far better used on any number of California or other coastal watersheds. I have no financial or other interest in this issue, just hate to see scarce resources wasted on an ill-conceived proposal.
speycaster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 03:39 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 1,087
there is not a wild/native steelhead population in the United States that is trivial. stanford university is trivial

"Never be afraid to show love" Frank Moore

Last edited by roballen; 04-20-2014 at 03:41 PM. Reason: making it less inflamitory
roballen is offline  
post #5 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 03:58 PM
LCH
Fish Whisperer
 
LCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: S. Ontario
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by speycaster View Post
Ridiculous!

I am an avid steeheader, an ardent conservationist and have lived within 2 miles of San Francisquito Cr. for decades. The cost of removing the dam and the millions of cubic yards of sediment from the dam that has been there for almost 100 years would be many tens of millions of dollars if not more. The number of steelhead in that stream now or in the past 50 years has been trivial, as I know from having fished it many times as a kid and living near it for decades.

As long as nobody except Stanford has to foot the bill for this huge and highly expensive undertaking to save a tiny run of steelhead, I guess it will receive some public support. It has been heavily promoted by advertising and public relations pushed and organized by one well-connected individual advocate to an uncritical public that hasn't examined the costs of the proposal because it would be paid for by somebody else - Stanford.

The time, effort and money that would be wasted on this extravagantly expensive proposal could be far better used on any number of California or other coastal watersheds. I have no financial or other interest in this issue, just hate to see scarce resources wasted on an ill-conceived proposal.
You may be correct speycaster, but I'd be surprised if the numbers fall out the way you suggest. If that dam has been there for almost 100 years then its safe life is over and the cost of repair/replacement to reduce liability risk once it fails (and all dams will ultimately fail without major $ inputs) would likely far exceed the cost of decommissioning.

Here in Ontario the most common factor that pushes the decision in favour of decommissioning of ageing dams is that it is the cheapest alternative compared to repair or replacement. You can't just let an ageing dam sit there and crumble. The risk property damage and loss of life once the dam fails is just too great.

Thanks Furface for posting this.

Larry
LCH is offline  
post #6 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 09:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Snake, Grande Ronde
Posts: 210
Actually, the lake is filling with sediment so fast it will become a meadow fairly soon, not requiring a substantial dam to hold back a lake any longer. The lake has been shrinking very fast after an earthquake caused an increase in sediment flowing into the lake from upstream creeks. Taking out the dam, however, would require an enormous earth moving project in addition to the dam removal itself.

No question that removing the dam would restore a small amount of steelhead habitat. But the real issue is - at what cost?
If this were a California Fish & Game decision at taxpayer cost, there is no way the project would go forward - there are far higher priorities. But if somebody else is footing the bill and the public gets the benefit for free (a questionable assumption) then I guess it's a very worthwhile project.

Lots of well-intentioned people support this project without much knowledge about it and the surrounding environment.
speycaster is offline  
post #7 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-20-2014, 11:32 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rogue River
Posts: 11,027
Seen the damn-dam ..

And did a 'What the (four letter word). At one point it may have been necessary in someone's mind, but now? if they can take out old damns in Washington, they can take out this.

fae




Fred Evans - White City, Oregon
fredaevans is offline  
post #8 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-21-2014, 01:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by speycaster View Post
Actually, the lake is filling with sediment so fast it will become a meadow fairly soon, not requiring a substantial dam to hold back a lake any longer. The lake has been shrinking very fast after an earthquake caused an increase in sediment flowing into the lake from upstream creeks. Taking out the dam, however, would require an enormous earth moving project in addition to the dam removal itself.

No question that removing the dam would restore a small amount of steelhead habitat. But the real issue is - at what cost?
If this were a California Fish & Game decision at taxpayer cost, there is no way the project would go forward - there are far higher priorities. But if somebody else is footing the bill and the public gets the benefit for free (a questionable assumption) then I guess it's a very worthwhile project.
that's why steelhead are disappearing. everything else is more important
Lots of well-intentioned people support this project without much knowledge about it and the surrounding environment.
Americans spend 760 million dollars to see the movie Avatar... there is money to restore the creek without hurting anyone it's 100% about priorities.

"Never be afraid to show love" Frank Moore
roballen is offline  
post #9 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-21-2014, 02:09 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Snake, Grande Ronde
Posts: 210
I'm in favor of saving steelhead too. I think you should ask yourselves, however, if you were asked to contribute $100 toward taking out a dam on say the Snake, Deschutes or your favorite river that has a dam or spend that same money on a stream that will probably cost a million dollars or more per fish in the run - which would you rather do?? Of course if it's totally free to you, the answer is painless and easy. Trouble is, it's not really free at all, it's just that it won't cost you personally anything. Conservation resources are scarce and I'm just in favor of using them where there's way more steelhead bang for the buck
speycaster is offline  
post #10 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-21-2014, 10:49 AM
sushiyummy & C&R
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sandy, Deschutes are nearby
Posts: 1,020
There is Legacy costs, both as passing down the bucket to future generations (dam deterioration), and as invisible unaccountable cost to the web of life we are part of.

As for small numbers, these numbers are perhaps small from habitat destruction as local contributing factor? But when you see all the habitat losses occurring in a protracted way, we have poor sea run returns not to only this river but to any rivers itself?

An organism view of interdependency perhaps can give broader context a puddle of symptoms can't point to.

IMHO, we all are creatures of self interest. But how enlightened is this self interest now that we know the above legacy costs is not invisible anymore.

Yes, the cost to fix a problem is often multifolds of a tens to thousands or more than the prevention.

Conservation is nothing more than the fight to save ourselves from ourselves, work that can only be done by ourselves.

www.awholenuthalevel.com Spey casting website.
sushiyummy is offline  
post #11 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-27-2014, 10:51 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 113
Sf creek...................

I will tell STANFORD what they can do with their DAMN DAM..........it needs to go! Not today; but yesterday.
bigtroutchaser is offline  
post #12 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-27-2014, 10:55 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 113
Thanks fur face!!

FF,

This is great stuff. I will be speaking with many friends down that way tomorrow. Again, much appreciated. We ALL must jump on these issues OR we will be fishing a "LOST COAST"......seriously guys, WTF UP!

?Isn't it TIME for you to get involved? Don't answer me..............
bigtroutchaser is offline  
post #13 of 13 (permalink) Old 04-28-2014, 05:09 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Headwaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by roballen View Post
there is not a wild/native steelhead population in the United States that is trivial.
Oh that people would wake up to this fact!

Where it all begins...
Headwaters is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome