The Flush is a go.....
- Thread starter Tiff Mapel
- Start date
- Status
Ditto on the water being required to move down canyon anyway but when does an "experiment" become "normal operating procedure"? Or is there some legal connotation to changing from an "experiment" to a "normal operating procedure" that they don't want to cross?
What is the purpose of moving the sand bars? Just so river runners can have other places to camp? I really haven't heard a solid explanation of "why". Don't agree or disagree with the procedure, just haven't heard a real "why you doing it"?
If the bars move every time we flood and then they go back to what they were, (we know that now after all these "experiments"), why do we keep "experimenting"?
What's the bottom line?
Also, what else happens of a detrimental issue with each flooding? Have never heard of anything of a detrimental note, on any issue, to the floods. Has anyone looked at that side. Can't imagine the "experiments" are always, in every aspect, a "positive" outcome. What's the down side or opposite issues? There has to be a negative side to the floods on some subject level, that no one is talking about.
Say "food base" for the current trout population? Or, are the Pike minnows and Chubs the only species "important enough" to even be of concern to the flood managers? When was the last time anyone heard of a 5 pound trout being caught in the river? Used to be a regular occurrence.
I don't have the answers I'm just asking the questions.
What is the purpose of moving the sand bars? Just so river runners can have other places to camp? I really haven't heard a solid explanation of "why". Don't agree or disagree with the procedure, just haven't heard a real "why you doing it"?
If the bars move every time we flood and then they go back to what they were, (we know that now after all these "experiments"), why do we keep "experimenting"?
What's the bottom line?
Also, what else happens of a detrimental issue with each flooding? Have never heard of anything of a detrimental note, on any issue, to the floods. Has anyone looked at that side. Can't imagine the "experiments" are always, in every aspect, a "positive" outcome. What's the down side or opposite issues? There has to be a negative side to the floods on some subject level, that no one is talking about.
Say "food base" for the current trout population? Or, are the Pike minnows and Chubs the only species "important enough" to even be of concern to the flood managers? When was the last time anyone heard of a 5 pound trout being caught in the river? Used to be a regular occurrence.
I don't have the answers I'm just asking the questions.
Gem Morris
Keeper of San Juan Secrets
The flush scours the river bed and deposits sand into backwater eddy’s, slow moving portions of the river and beaches.
It’s one of the reasons the river runners like a flush - gives them places to camp.
For sure a lot of silt lands at the mouth of the Colorado as it enters mead.
The river runs clear (no sediment at all) and cold for many miles - at least until the Paria River joins and more sediment comes in from the Little Colorado too
It’s one of the reasons the river runners like a flush - gives them places to camp.
For sure a lot of silt lands at the mouth of the Colorado as it enters mead.
The river runs clear (no sediment at all) and cold for many miles - at least until the Paria River joins and more sediment comes in from the Little Colorado too
- Status