Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,229 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/ChatfieldWeb-Current/Existing Conditions for Cultural Resources Report.pdf

Has everyone heard about the proposal to raise the maximum pool of Chatfield by up to 12 feet. according to my reading this could happen (provided it is approved, funding is provided and about a million other things.) as early as 2007.

This would require raising roads, moving or modifying the swim beach, moving picnic areas, rest rooms. lengthing and raising the boat ramp areas. and who know what else.

Do you like this idea?

I think about fishing for walleye along the bluffs and all the timber that would be flooded, (I hope they would leave some of there and not remove it all) and fishing along the steeper dam face for bass and walleye. Kingfisher area permanently being part of the reservoir and not just in the spring.

I like the idea. What would you like see done if they do that?

Dan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,399 Posts
Flooded timber is always a good thing. I dont fish the lake but I think it would help the fishery and create some jobs doing it, sound win win to me :p As long as the land they are taking away isnt used for something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,509 Posts
I would like to see a public docking area for people that are camped there for the weekend...and not the $22 a night the marina charges...I wouldnt mind paying a reasonable fee...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Hopefully this won't impact the ponds/wetland area to the south. That is where I mostly fish in Chatfield...depending on the season.

I guess it would also depend on how full they could keep it on a regular basis.

Fishing flooded timber would be some great bassin'. I can almost envision hitting those areas with a weedless jig.

Zman...let me get this straight. They charge you the boating access fee and then tack on another 22 bucks (per day?) just to dock your boat? Sweet Jeebus!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
Dan, I find my mind wandering to this very topic more often than not, and can?t help to think how great it would be to have the increased surface acres, and the potential for rapid fish growth due to newly submerged food sources.

I can only imagine that it would require some area closings while the construction takes place. The increased fees would be a definite negative, but I think that most folks that love to fish, would be pro the increased water level when you consider the benefits.

Pete
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I agree they should raise Chatfield. As far as $22.00 a night I pay a lot more than that to stay there all year in the marina. To me it is worth it, If I feel like going for an hour after work, my boat is already in the lake and I don't have to struggle with getting it out of storage, loading it then dragging it to the lake, then waiting in line for 1/2 an hour to put it in. Many Sundays I go fishing and when I am done there are people who have been waiting in line from when I got there justputting their boats in. What my pet peeve is that you can go through the marina any day and find many boats with out current year licences on them this is wrong. I have seen some back as far as 1996, tehy need to patrol them and fine them. Also the looky loos that drive in and out of the marina looking at all the boats, and running into them when they try to turn around. I have had my boat hit over 4 times by people just driving through and taking a look. Lately with the water being so low we have actually had people wade from shore and wonder around and actually go through some of the boats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
$22.00 is a bit more than I bargain for. Do we have these facts right?

I read some months ago about this in the newspaper, and I was under the general impression, the the $10.00 fee was for National Forests & stuff.

"I usually wait till the politickin' is done, and the bill passes into law. Then I say I was for it all along!" -Nawanda
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top