04-18-2013, 06:42 PM
Hmmm.
"the ranch will have 3 miles of fishable water."
and:
"We plan to invest $1 million to improve and enhance the property, creating 10,000 feet of spring creek along its north side."
Unless they're measuring ponds in miles, then it's probably going to be some sort of creek.
If the water originates on the property (spring), they'll be able to pond the downstream end and keep people out, even if the public gets its water back. As far as changing the waterway, I'm sure that will only be a small hurdle to obtain the proper approvals.
If I had property with a good spring, I would be inclined to make positive changes to promote fish habitat and would expect the authorities to work with me on that, especially if I'm not harming anything.
Sorry, not defending the money baggers. I hate when anything becomes unavailable, that once was. I'm just not sure about this case though. It sounds as if the property is already unavailable under our current situation, so nobody is losing anything, given the circumstance.
Who knows? Perhaps the improvements can have positive effects on upstream/downstream fish populations.
Of course if everyone gets their stream access again, it may cause some issue. That's why I bring up water originating on the property and impounding the bottom end (can't trespass on a private lake/pond for access to the stream).
It's hard to pinpoint front the article, where exactly this will take place. It only references "within a few minutes" of Victory Ranch.
If it turns out that public stream access is restored, I can only imagine that efforts will be made to ensure that public access won't be available on these "elite" sporting grounds. Geographic deterrence and isolation from legal public access spots come to mind.
This is interesting. Thanks for the link, TD.
[signature]
"the ranch will have 3 miles of fishable water."
and:
"We plan to invest $1 million to improve and enhance the property, creating 10,000 feet of spring creek along its north side."
Unless they're measuring ponds in miles, then it's probably going to be some sort of creek.
If the water originates on the property (spring), they'll be able to pond the downstream end and keep people out, even if the public gets its water back. As far as changing the waterway, I'm sure that will only be a small hurdle to obtain the proper approvals.
If I had property with a good spring, I would be inclined to make positive changes to promote fish habitat and would expect the authorities to work with me on that, especially if I'm not harming anything.
Sorry, not defending the money baggers. I hate when anything becomes unavailable, that once was. I'm just not sure about this case though. It sounds as if the property is already unavailable under our current situation, so nobody is losing anything, given the circumstance.
Who knows? Perhaps the improvements can have positive effects on upstream/downstream fish populations.
Of course if everyone gets their stream access again, it may cause some issue. That's why I bring up water originating on the property and impounding the bottom end (can't trespass on a private lake/pond for access to the stream).
It's hard to pinpoint front the article, where exactly this will take place. It only references "within a few minutes" of Victory Ranch.
If it turns out that public stream access is restored, I can only imagine that efforts will be made to ensure that public access won't be available on these "elite" sporting grounds. Geographic deterrence and isolation from legal public access spots come to mind.
This is interesting. Thanks for the link, TD.
[signature]