# Not going to poisen Boulder Creek



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=1828723 ... oning-plan

PBH ??


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

More politics usurping proven science.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Good grief, did you read the comments? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

? Are those guys on weed?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> ? Are those guys on weed?


The residents of the town of Boulder? Yes. They are.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Two types of people in Boulder: 1) very backwoods conservative anti-government types or 2) ultra liberal move-ins who love Birkenstock and would give a grasshopper mouth-to-mouth to save it after it splattered on their windshield.

Hopefully, this project will still ultimately be done...


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Ok, quick question for you Southern Utah guys. When I first read this, my first reaction was to crack off an inbreeding joke that would probably incur the wrath of the mods and a few board members living there. It seems that the reasons for opposition border on paranoia, especially from the "backwoods, conservative, anti government" set. 

Is there any hope in reasoning these guys? What can the rest of us do to help the project happen?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Actually, I think most of the paranoia is from the other group... the super ultra liberals. I don't know what can be done to help it happen, but I think you ought to email the forest service and the DWR and ask...


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Hopefully, this project will still ultimately be done...


WHY?
Have you ever fished this section of the Boulder creek before?
I usually don't get involved in discussions like this one, but you guys who are for poisoning this section have obviously never fished it. I have been fishing this section for 30+ years and I have NEVER seen another person down there and I can't even recall seeing evidence that other people fish it.
In july I fished the upper 2-3 miles of this section and caught rainbows, brookies, and browns, they ranged in size from 8"-18"
I understand the Feds reasoning but IMHO it it a total waste of money. Bottom line!
I will agree with most of the comments about Boulder locals, having a cabin down there for 20 years and relatives who still live there I will say it's a interesting place.
I have been to a couple town board meetings and all I say is WOW!


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

hockey said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, this project will still ultimately be done...
> ...


I agree with you Hockey IF.......the majority of the fish were not brook trout from 8-10". Otherwise, why not poison it if the stream would be restocked with natve CO cutts that would have the potential to do well in such a stream and also help keep the feds off our backs?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

hockey said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, this project will still ultimately be done...
> ...


Which section....I have fished it all the way to the headwaters of East Boulder Creek and try to hit it at least once every year. I have also helped electrofish both the mainstem of Boulder Creek and East Boulder Creek. The native fish at the very top end are incredible...the brook trout the few miles down to the Garkane impoundment are awful--skinny and stunted. I have never caught a brown above the Garkane (King's Pasture Reservoir) impoundment and haven't seen any rainbows for years...

Not only am I all for this poisoning, but it will make a better stream!

The West Fork of Boulder Creek down to the mainstem of Boulder Creek is a little different...much harder to access and fish. It does hold some browns and bows that are decent fish. But, to protect the native fish in East Boulder Creek, the west needs to be poisoned too...


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

The 8 mile section they are talking about is between hwy 12 and the lower garkane, where the water is piped down the hill into the canyon.
Rainbows make up most of the fish in this section with browns and brookies the rest


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Are you sure:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 325466.pdf

I thought that was only one portion of the project....?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... r.html.csp


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

That's what gets me the most on this subject. We have people that that voice strong opinions (and even question whether or not guys like W2U have ever even fished the area!) and yet those same people are ignorant of the subject at hand. They haven't a clue as to what is even happening, where, why, or how! But they'll throw a fit and get it shut down! Amazing!

FWIW:



USFS said:


> approximately 7.8 miles (12.6 km) of East Fork Boulder Creek from the natural barrier
> (below headwater meadow) on East Fork Boulder Creek to its confluence with West Fork
> Boulder Creek;
> approximately 0.2 miles (0.4 km) of lower West Fork Boulder Creek, from a previously
> ...


If you're going to complain about the project, and if you want it stopped, then by all means go ahead and complain. But at least understand what you are complaining about!


----------



## hockey (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over east fork west fork and sections of the Boulder creek. All I know is that there is a map posted on the town hall bulletin board in boulder from the USFS that has the lower section colored in red for poisoning. Most of the upper creek along with kings pasture and west fork res have already been poisoned


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

hockey said:


> I'm not going to get into a **** match with you over east fork west fork and sections of the Boulder creek. *All I know is that there is a map posted on the town hall bulletin board *in boulder from the USFS that has the lower section colored in red for poisoning. Most of the upper creek along with kings pasture and west fork res have already been poisoned


dude: go look at the USFS site for yourself. Learn something new. Have an open mind. Stop following the herd.

East Boulder Creek from the Garkane impoundment up to the "headwater meadow" has not been done -- if it had been done, then why all the fuss??? West Boulder Creek has been done (down to the barrier ~1/4 mile from the confluence).

good information is so much better than hearsay, rumor, and lies.

Here's your map: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 325973.pdf
(page 3)

the area in RED is: Boulder Creek (below the confluence of East and West). The RED does NOT designate the proposed area. It simply designates "Boulder Creek" (as opposed to "East" or "West" which are designated green and blue respectively). The cumulative project area is a combination of those highlighted areas. There is only 1/2 mile below the confluence. The biggest section is above the Garkane impoundment.

Now that we've cleared that up, please go back and re-read the proposed project area so you can understand better the proposal. Now, don't you feel silly that you threw a fit concerning something you didn't fully understand??


----------

