Colorado Fisherman Forum banner
21 - 31 of 31 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
A bit of advise then..and I'm not bashing at all because "some" of what you say is true. You need to pick your fights and go at it one or two at a time. If it's a gripe about EVERYTHING the organization does no one will listen. Also a positive approach might get everyone closer to the end goal. What if the DOW wasn't here, we would see stringers of 30 fish like the old school pictures show.

Down the road you will make a great board member for TU or BASS... :)
I hope this doesn't take away from us fishing together in July!

With Rampart being the last stop, thus the first water taken, it makes sense to me that it could get drawn down very quick. Even a 3 foot gap could be trouble for most.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
IceInTheVeins said:
wmccree said:
Bottom line is we the people have a right to decide what is safe and to take care of our own safety.

1. They make decisions without the consent of the people
I read these posts and try to keep quiet. But sometimes I just gotta speak up. I have picked only the 2 above statements to respond to. I could respond to almost the entire Post but will limit myself to these.

"Bottom line is we the people have a right to decide what is safe and to take care of our own safety. "

Very often people do not have the knowledge or good sense to decide how to take care of their own safety. This is why we have the annual "Darwin Awards".

"1. They make decisions without the consent of the people"

They are stewards either elected or appointed by our officials. Therefore they are acting with the cnsent of the people, perhaps not all of the people but none the less the people. Yes you are right, if you feel they are not doing a good job or have a pesonal agenda then you have the right (those who are of voting age) to cast your vote against them if they are elected or to cast a vote against the elected officials who appoint them.


Just my 2 cents worth.

Dan
 

· Banned
Joined
·
489 Posts
Dan said:
IceInTheVeins said:
wmccree said:
Bottom line is we the people have a right to decide what is safe and to take care of our own safety.

1. They make decisions without the consent of the people
I read these posts and try to keep quiet.  But sometimes I just gotta speak up.  I have picked  only the 2 above statements to respond to.  I could respond to almost the entire Post but will limit myself to these.

"Bottom line is we the people have a right to decide what is safe and to take care of our own safety. "

Very often people do not have the knowledge or good sense to decide how to take care of their own safety.  This is why we have the annual "Darwin Awards".

"1. They make decisions without the consent of the people"

They are stewards either elected or appointed by our officials.  Therefore they are acting with the cnsent of the people, perhaps not all of the people but none the less the people.  Yes you are right, if you feel they are not doing a good job or have a pesonal agenda then you have the right (those who are of voting age) to cast your vote against them if they are elected or to cast a vote against the elected officials who appoint them.


Just my 2 cents worth.

Dan
You make sense with what you are saying. However anytime they do something that the public disagrees with it is unethical behavior and is grounds for recall election. If the politicians were threatened with recall everytime they did something contrary to the will of the people, I don't think they would engage in this sort of treachery. It is their ethical duty once elected to follow the majority of the people as long as that is not in conflict with the consitution or standing law. I feel if they fail they should be recalled. Period.
Also, the people can choose to bypass those that they elect by gathering enough signatures to place a referrendum on the ballot. I guess what irks me almost as much or more than these water utility officials are people who don't participate and use their rights as citizens in a democracy. That's the main reason these types of regulations are in place. I just think that people don't do a good enough job of holding politicians accountable. Just like with the minute men down on the Arizona border now. If the government fails, it is up to the people to step in and get the task done to the full extent of what the law allows. And on a smaller scale, the water utility officials and much of the CDOW is failing us.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
489 Posts
wmccree said:
A bit of advise then..and I'm not bashing at all because "some" of what you say is true. You need to pick your fights and go at it one or two at a time.  If it's a gripe about EVERYTHING the organization does no one will listen.  Also a positive approach might get everyone closer to the end goal.  What if the DOW wasn't here, we would see stringers of 30 fish like the old school pictures show.

Down the road you will make a great board member for TU or BASS...  :)
I hope this doesn't take away from us fishing together in July!

With Rampart being the last stop, thus the first water taken, it makes sense to me that it could get drawn down very quick. Even a 3 foot gap could be trouble for most.

What you say makes sense. And I applaud the CDOW for trying at least and making sure limits are enforced. It is true that much of our fishing wouldn't exist if it wasn't for law enforcement because greedy pigs would take all the fish. I have found the law enforcement part of the CDOW to be okay, just not all that effective but that's not their fault, just because of a lack of manpower.
When I talk to the CDOW or to water utilities, I am a lot more positive and easy to deal with. I had even formed decent professional relationships with a few. However if they did not work with me or failed to do their job, I went from trying to work with them to working against them.
And I'm sorry if I'm ranting. I feel very strongly about having the freedom of choice to live our own lives. If that means putting ourselves at slight risks and opening up the possibility that people without common sense could hurt themselves, so be it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
IceInTheVeins said:
If that means putting ourselves at slight risks and opening up the possibility that people without common sense could hurt themselves, so be it.
Hypothetically we erase the rules that you don't see fit. i.e. ice fishing on Rampart for example.

16yr old teenager falls through and dies.

*Parents sue the City (It's our water supply) and the State because they knew there was a 1 in 10 chance the water level dropped.

*The majority is pissed at the state for not having rules in place in this unique situation.

*license prices double to cover liability issues due to a continued lack of responsiveness.

*We are in the same boat for hating the DOW over the rising costs of our passion.

I guess my point is I truly believe that the DOW does do what the believe is in the best interest in the rules of safety and the wildlife mgt. Have they made some mistakes, absolutely! Were the mistakes malicious, no way. I would never fire someone for making a mistake that they thought was in our best interest.

Other then ePic I know of no one that has gone to the recent DOW meetings. That includes myself. They have the meetings all the time. So they have made the effort and given a forum for us to voice an opinion in a group of our peers. If you (we) feel strongly about a particular subject we get everyone together and attend a meeting in a positive, constructive way, and take it from there. Again, one or two issues at a time.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,699 Posts
First off the DOW has nothing to do with rampart reservior or any other water that is in the City's ownership. So even if you drew up a patition or anything like that to do something about allowing ice fishing at rampart you'd have to direct it to the City of Colorado Springs. I asked the DOW about these reserviors at the meeting I went to the one that is fenced off is the only one you cant fish and that is because it is the last spot before we drink it.
Also there needs to be certain regulations on these waters for security purposes, you can what if all you want but if someone drove a bomb on the damn and blew it up it would hurt us greatly. However unlikely it might be there is always the chance.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
489 Posts
ePiC said:
First off the DOW has nothing to do with rampart reservior or any other water that is in the City's ownership. So even if you drew up a patition or anything like that to do something about allowing ice fishing at rampart you'd have to direct it to the City of Colorado Springs.  I asked the DOW about these reserviors at the meeting I went to the one that is fenced off is the only one you cant fish and that is because it is the last spot before we drink it.   
Also there needs to be certain regulations on these waters for security purposes, you can what if all you want but if someone drove a bomb on the damn and blew it up it would hurt us greatly.  However unlikely it might be there is always the chance.
When I spoke of a petition I meant to petition the voters of Colorado Springs, it had nothing to do with the CDOW. Only a registered voter of CO Springs could petition and only CO Springs residents signatures would be valid.
As for security, fences accomplish nothing. Keeping people away for "security" is actually counterproductive. The more people up there to keep on eye on things, the better. Having less people means less chance of someone uncovering suspicious activity. So security is not a valid excuse either.
As for it being the last place in the water works before we drink it, it's the last place in the water works before it goes into the TREATMENT PLANT. Using water quality as a reason to restrict access also is groundless. So many natural contaminants enter the system from ambient wildlife and from surface runoff, and it is thousands of times greater than anything any anglers, even messy ones, could introduce. And the treatment plants take care of all these contaminants that occur naturally. So water quality protection isn't a valid reason either.
I have fought these regulations for a long time. I know full well the reasons they generally cite for restrictive regulations. None of them hold any water whatsoever and science, common sense, and history completely shoots down every aspect of every excuse they use. They just try to do things that look good on paper. That's all it is. Plus their own agendas.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
489 Posts
wmccree said:
IceInTheVeins said:
If that means putting ourselves at slight risks and opening up the possibility that people without common sense could hurt themselves, so be it.
Hypothetically we erase the rules that you don't see fit.  i.e. ice fishing on Rampart for example.

16yr old teenager falls through and dies.

*Parents sue the City (It's our water supply) and the State because they knew there was a 1 in 10 chance the water level dropped.

*The majority is pissed at the state for not having rules in place in this unique situation.

*license prices double to cover liability issues due to a continued lack of responsiveness.

*We are in the same boat for hating the DOW over the rising costs of our passion.

I guess my point is I truly believe that the DOW does do what the believe is in the best interest in the rules of safety and the wildlife mgt.  Have they made some mistakes, absolutely! Were the mistakes malicious, no way.  I would never fire someone for making a mistake that they thought was in our best interest.

Other then ePic I know of no one that has gone to the recent DOW meetings. That includes myself.  They have the meetings all the time.  So they have made the effort and given a forum for us to voice an opinion in a group of our peers.  If you (we) feel strongly about a particular subject we get everyone together and attend a meeting in a positive, constructive way, and take it from there. Again, one or two issues at a time.
Actually I attend the meetings all the time. Over here on the West slope, BASICALLY EVERYONE is critical of the DOW for the same reasons I am. Those that don't live on the west slope really don't understand it.
As for your hypothetical situation of liabilities: I have researched and there has never been a single suit of that type ever successful in this state, be it against city, county, state, feds, or a private land owner. I read this fact in a past issue of a boating magazine in Colorado, and then researched it and it proved to be true.
In fact most cities are immune from these types of lawsuits. Most of the time suits like this are thrown out immediately.
Placing signs on the shore advising of the risks and that you are responsible for your own safety seals the deal that there really is no such thing as liabilities in this case. Again, it honestly is just another excuse to restrict access to reservoirs that we pay for and that belong to us.
The truths that we show the utility agencies and the CDOW that these regulations are groundless just go in one ear and out the other. For this reason, it's time for people to take the matter into their own hands. As I have said, I am talking with people from CO Springs, Denver, Palisade, and of course myself in Grand Junction to place measures on the ballot that would end these restrictions. That is the right of a citizen and if a city official doesn't like it, there isn't a thing they can do.
The majority of people think regulations like this are ridiculous. I have conducted polls of both anglers and non anglers in Grand Junction and have found that basically everyone thinks these regulations are wrong. Only a couple of people ever had doubts and thought that the reasons utilities cited might make sense, then I simply showed them all the evidence and they quickly changed their minds.
I'm not trying to sound like a broken record or to alienate anyone. I am only trying to stand up for our rights to fish on our own property. I just have a passion for this and it is my goal to unite anglers, not divide them. Politics is probably my future in this world. I simply think the best solution to solving problems is to educate people and to also encourage them to take a stand. When the government fails to act, it's up to the people to do so.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,699 Posts
IceInTheVeins said:
As for it being the last place in the water works before we drink it, it's the last place in the water works before it goes into the TREATMENT PLANT. Using water quality as a reason to restrict access also is groundless. So many natural contaminants enter the system from ambient wildlife and from surface runoff, and it is thousands of times greater than anything any anglers, even messy ones, could introduce. And the treatment plants take care of all these contaminants that occur naturally. So water quality protection isn't a valid reason either.
Go to any local pond here in Colorado Springs or Denver look at all the filth there, broken glass, trash, walmart bags, old bait containers, McDonalds and BK trash. You name it, its there. I dont think that statement has any merit. HUmans are gross, messy, lazy creatures they destroy alot more then they take care of. I wouldnt want all that crap laying around a lake that was going to be treated for water that would be coming out of my drinking fountain. Yes natural run off adds contaminants but those are usually from man to I've worked community service in a water treatment plant before it sucks working there and the chemicals they add are designed to treat the contaminants they get. New contaminants mean new chemicals which means different taste and more money. This is one of the reasons water tastes different no matter what part of the country you go to because they all use different chemicals for the different contaminants of that part of the country.

Basically this is a runaround question there will always be supporters and nonsupporters, I just wanted to point out that the restrictions on these reserviors have nothing to do with the DOW.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
489 Posts
ePiC said:
IceInTheVeins said:
As for it being the last place in the water works before we drink it, it's the last place in the water works before it goes into the TREATMENT PLANT. Using water quality as a reason to restrict access also is groundless. So many natural contaminants enter the system from ambient wildlife and from surface runoff, and it is thousands of times greater than anything any anglers, even messy ones, could introduce. And the treatment plants take care of all these contaminants that occur naturally. So water quality protection isn't a valid reason either.
Go to any local pond here in Colorado Springs or Denver look at all the filth there, broken glass, trash, walmart bags, old bait containers, McDonalds and BK trash.  You name it, its there.  I dont think that statement has any merit.  HUmans are gross, messy, lazy creatures they destroy alot more then they take care of.  I wouldnt want all that crap laying around a lake that was going to be treated for water that would be coming out of my drinking fountain.  Yes natural run off adds contaminants but those are usually from man to I've worked community service in a water treatment plant before it sucks working there and the chemicals they add are designed to treat the contaminants they get.  New contaminants mean new chemicals which means different taste and more money.  This is one of the reasons water tastes different no matter what part of the country you go to because they all use different chemicals for the different contaminants of that part of the country.

Basically this is a runaround question there will always be supporters and nonsupporters, I just wanted to point out that the restrictions on these reserviors have nothing to do with the DOW.

Well I have toured treatment plants and researched what contaminants are coming into the system. My point wasn't that humans can't cause contamination, but that contaminants from wildlife and aquatic life contribute literally thousands more fold contamination than even messy anglers. Other contaminants are generally nitrides from wildlife, heavy metals and some other non metallic elements that are naturally occuring. Never did I see manmade contamination a cause for concern in treatment plants and water quality reports. All natural contaminants.
That's not to say your wrong. I believe you. But if treatment plants can handle all this natural contamination, it can handle body contact and touching the water, and also non motorized and electric motor boating. Funny that Rampart allows motorized boating yet other lake operators whine like it could release a pestilence.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top