Hot-button issue sparks Merced River dispute

Fine with me. I occasionally drive down river on that dusty road below the Briceberg Bridge crossing and camp at McCabe flat. After spring that section becomes hot, dry, and brown with few visitors other than a few rafters. Even during spring when things are nicely green, few bother using those areas. A snippet from the MG article:

"...That would bring the maximum lake level to about half a mile from the falls and renowned fishing hole at the North Fork of the Merced River. The current high-water mark is about three-quarters of a mile from the North Fork."

So what? The fishing near the end of reservoir where the Merced flows in at the Bagby BLM camping area is chronically poor. Generally most all such foothill bathtub ring reservoirs that dammed our beautiful natural Sierra rivers have evolved over a few decades to have poor shore fishing except for a few trolling die hard boaters. Beneficial and necessary for water supplies but utterly destructive to its ecosystems. Water under the bridge at this point. For a short period in late winter some larger holdover trout from the reservoir are likely to move up the river regardless of where the Merced inlet of the reservoir begins.

---

http://www.davidsenesac.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2011 12:18PM by DavidSenesac.

Quote
DavidSenesac
Fine with me. I occasionally drive down river on that dusty road below the Briceberg Bridge crossing and camp at McCabe flat. After spring that section becomes hot, dry, and brown with few visitors other than a few rafters. Even during spring when things are nicely green, few bother using those areas. A snippet from the MG article:

"...That would bring the maximum lake level to about half a mile from the falls and renowned fishing hole at the North Fork of the Merced River. The current high-water mark is about three-quarters of a mile from the North Fork."

So what? The fishing ....

Not fine with me.
The issue is not usage or fishing, it's removal of a previously designated portion of the river from Wild and Scenic river status.

Quote
szalkowski
it's removal of a previously designated portion of the river from Wild and Scenic river status.

That's the part I find troubling as well.

Quote
szalkowski
The issue is not usage or fishing, it's removal of a previously designated portion of the river from Wild and Scenic river status.

I understand the issues here, but I have a hard time getting worked up over 1800 feet of river. It does set a bad precedence. Also, that river is far from wild. For the whole section along 140 it is channelized, not wild. It has a railroad bed on one side and a highway on the other - with riprap on both sides. Scenic in it's own way, but wild?

My problem is that I don't trust the Republicans to stop at 1800 feet. They want to take away all environmental protections.