Results 1 to 43 of 43
  1. #1
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,391

    Bear Creek Cutthroat Trout - Trail Changes might be coming

    Pure greenback cutthroat trout confirmed in remote Colorado stream - The Denver Post

    I am not sure what the final outcome of this might be, but it could forebode some issues for us trail users?

    Edit:
    <= Some thoughts =>
    Personally I have never seen any fish in the creek?
    Trail closure? Trails re-routed? Moto shutdowns? If trails are closed, how far up? Nothing?
    Think of Severy Creek's by Pike Peak and its decade long closure.
    This might put the stop on the Ring the Peak trail?
    Last edited by pastajet; 09-25-2012 at 02:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by pastajet View Post
    Pure greenback cutthroat trout confirmed in remote Colorado stream - The Denver Post

    I am not sure what the final outcome of this might be, but it could forebode some issues for us trail users?

    Edit:
    <= Some thoughts =>
    Personally I have never seen any fish in the creek?
    Trail closure? Trails re-routed? Moto shutdowns? If trails are closed, how far up? Nothing?
    Think of Severy Creek's by Pike Peak and its decade long closure.
    This might put the stop on the Ring the Peak trail?
    Ring the Peak was effectively killed with abandonment of the Pikes Peak Multi-use Plan and establishment of the South Slope Watershed Access Policy (access by special permit only).

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14
    [QUOTE=pastajet;9722302
    I
    Personally I have never seen any fish in the creek?

    QUOTE]

    I have seen alot of fish in bear creek, and yes this is scary considering the severy creek closure.

  4. #4
    I think I can.
    Reputation: JOEMTBR COLORADO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    According to the article the fish is prevalent in Colorado, so what is going to be the biggest issues as it pertains to trail users? It's just a fish and has survived without our help up to now, knowing the lower bear creek area the biggest problem is the dog park. I wouldn't touch a fish caught anywhere on the front range as water levels and contamination affect the quality of any fish.

    As for trails maybe research into how to build bridges like the one moto's built at the intersection of 666-667 could be the answer.

    Dam,
    Bikes are FUN

  5. #5
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,477
    Eliminating stream fords is one strategy that they can use to protect critical fisheries. Bridges can accomplish this but they are very expensive. even though they may be some distance from riparian areas. It' also important to create or modify trails/roads that absolutely minimize sedimentation load into waterways. It can also mean closing some trails to certain types of use.

  6. #6
    I'm with stupid
    Reputation: hitechredneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,986
    Sushi anyone?

  7. #7
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Eliminating stream fords is one strategy that they can use to protect critical fisheries. Bridges can accomplish this but they are very expensive. even though they may be some distance from riparian areas. It' also important to create or modify trails/roads that absolutely minimize sedimentation load into waterways. It can also mean closing some trails to certain types of use.
    They ruled out bridges already.
    Environmentalists suing over dirt bikes on popular Springs area trail | springs, dirt, bikes - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    "The group wants the agencies to close the trail to dirt bikes until it can be
    re-routed away from Bear Creek."

    5/10/12
    "An environmental group announced Thursday it will sue Colorado Springs
    Utilities and Pike National Forest, seeking to halt what it says is damage to
    endangered trout habitat from dirt bikes on one of the region’s most popular
    motorized trails."



    They want the OHV's out. It's that simple. Everything else is just talk.

    Dirt-bikers dispute enviro claims about impact on Bear Creek trout | trail, dirt, colorado - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    “We’re definitely not opposed to all dirt biking as a whole, but that trail,
    there’s not a way to protect the trout and have a trail right next to the
    creek that has dirt bikes on it,” Greenwald said. He said that though the
    population drop occurred downstream of where vehicles are allowed,
    upstream erosion could be a factor.


    “They think because they’ve been doing something for a long time it must
    be OK, and that’s not always true,” he said.




    More good fodder.

    Drink a beer, help restore fish habitat in the Pikes Peak region | beer, peak, pikes - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    Newcomer to the brewing scene, Monument-based Pikes Peak Brewing Co.,
    has partnered with Trout Unlimited to raise money for the protection of
    Greenback Cutthroat Trout in the Pikes Peak region.

  8. #8
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    They ruled out bridges already.
    Environmentalists suing over dirt bikes on popular Springs area trail | springs, dirt, bikes - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    "The group wants the agencies to close the trail to dirt bikes until it can be
    re-routed away from Bear Creek."

    5/10/12
    "An environmental group announced Thursday it will sue Colorado Springs
    Utilities and Pike National Forest, seeking to halt what it says is damage to
    endangered trout habitat from dirt bikes on one of the region’s most popular
    motorized trails."



    They want the OHV's out. It's that simple. Everything else is just talk.

    Dirt-bikers dispute enviro claims about impact on Bear Creek trout | trail, dirt, colorado - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    “We’re definitely not opposed to all dirt biking as a whole, but that trail,
    there’s not a way to protect the trout and have a trail right next to the
    creek that has dirt bikes on it,” Greenwald said. He said that though the
    population drop occurred downstream of where vehicles are allowed,
    upstream erosion could be a factor.


    “They think because they’ve been doing something for a long time it must
    be OK, and that’s not always true,” he said.




    More good fodder.

    Drink a beer, help restore fish habitat in the Pikes Peak region | beer, peak, pikes - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
    Newcomer to the brewing scene, Monument-based Pikes Peak Brewing Co.,
    has partnered with Trout Unlimited to raise money for the protection of
    Greenback Cutthroat Trout in the Pikes Peak region.
    I've seen dirt bikes, ATVs and Jeeps more than a few times yahooing up and down stream beds where trails cross them. It's not as uncommon as the OHV groups would like you to believe. Horsepower can be intoxicating and when you have a lot of it at your fingertips, restraint and respect is often not the first thing that comes to mind. I see that sort of thing too often to have much sympathy for the OHV enthusiasts when it comes to protecting watersheds.
    If I was the moto guys rather than fight for the "right" to drive their rigs in places close to streams, I'd start looking at re routes and how to make them happen. Say "OK, we don't need to be too close to these streams, you people partner with us to come up with an alternative that works for everyone."

  9. #9
    STRAVA!!!!!!
    Reputation: Waafoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    864
    I said it before and I will say it again...... Show me one!!! Does anybody have an up to date picture of the illusive fish from Bear Creek???? Been ridding up there for 30 years and I have not seen one....

  10. #10
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Waafoo View Post
    I said it before and I will say it again...... Show me one!!! Does anybody have an up to date picture of the illusive fish from Bear Creek???? Been ridding up there for 30 years and I have not seen one....
    Have you ever looked? If you really want to see the world around you you have to stop, slow down, get on your hands and knees. You have to go places you normally don't go, walking lightly and quietly. Many other living things we share the earth with are elusive.

    But if you don't want to put forth that effort, I'd imagine you could talk to someone at CDOW to ask for evidence.

  11. #11
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Waafoo View Post
    I said it before and I will say it again...... Show me one!!! Does anybody have an up to date picture of the illusive fish from Bear Creek???? Been ridding up there for 30 years and I have not seen one....
    Dude - they're *fish*... it pays, evolutionarily speaking, for you NOT to be able to see them. And don't you worry - they're there. Them fish are always there...

  12. #12
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    Dude - they're *fish*... it pays, evolutionarily speaking, for you NOT to be able to see them. And don't you worry - they're there. Them fish are always there...
    I realize you are joking but from what I've read so far the fish haven't
    always been in Bear Creek.

    The greenback cutthroat is native to the South Platte River Basin.

    Bear Creek is not in the South Platte River Basin,
    there are no "native" greenback cutthroats in Bear Creek,
    so how can anyone claim that populations are increasing or decreasing?

    Therefore the calls for saving the fish is a red herring used to mobilize
    public support for the real agenda which is removal of OHV's from public land.

    If they are really concerned about the greenback cutthroat they maybe
    should relocate them to the South Platte and close Waterton Canyon.

  13. #13
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,738
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    I realize you are joking but from what I've read so far the fish haven't
    always been in Bear Creek.

    The greenback cutthroat is native to the South Platte River Basin.

    Bear Creek is not in the South Platte River Basin,
    there are no "native" greenback cutthroats in Bear Creek,
    so how can anyone claim that populations are increasing or decreasing?

    Therefore the calls for saving the fish is a red herring used to mobilize
    public support for the real agenda which is removal of OHV's from public land.

    If they are really concerned about the greenback cutthroat they maybe
    should relocate them to the South Platte and close Waterton Canyon.
    Right. I was just addressing the "I ain't never seen no fish in that there crik" comment...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Waafoo View Post
    I said it before and I will say it again...... Show me one!!! Does anybody have an up to date picture of the illusive fish from Bear Creek???? Been ridding up there for 30 years and I have not seen one....
    You could ride up there for 100 years and not see one, if you stop and sit by the stream in a likely spot for a few minutes you certainly will.

  15. #15
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,003

    Which Bear Creek?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    ...Bear Creek is not in the South Platte River Basin...
    Just curious: which of the several hundred Bear Creeks in Colorado are we talking about here? Which basin does it flow into?
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  16. #16
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    Just curious: which of the several hundred Bear Creeks in Colorado are we talking about here? Which basin does it flow into?
    It's in the Arkansas River basin.

    Bear Creek in North Cheyenne Canyon.
    Flows into Monument/Fountain Creeks = > Arkansas River


    ref:
    Cutthroat Trout*
    Greenback Cutthroat Trout

    Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias
    <hr> The greenback cutthroat trout is the native salmonid of the South Platte basin and Colorado's state fish. Presumed to be extinct by 1937, numerous wild cutthroat populations identified as greenbacks were discovered in the South Platte and Arkansas basins starting in the late 1950s. However, genetic research published in 2012 has revealed that the true greenback cutthroat trout remains only in a single stream, outside their native range. The greenback cutthroat trout was listed as an endangered species in 1973 and downlisted to threatened in 1978. Diligent efforts to recover these populations were proceeding along a track that suggested the recovery plan benchmarks might soon be met, but the recent genetic findings will require that the Fish and Wildlife Service reevaluate the taxonomy and status of the species.

  17. #17
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,003

    666 ?

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    It's in the Arkansas River basin.

    Bear Creek in North Cheyenne Canyon.
    Flows into Monument/Fountain Creeks = > Arkansas River
    ...
    So the trail that is threatened would be the Bear Creek Trail (when I lived in CS it was #666) that exists between upper Capn' Jacks and lower High Drive?

    EDIT: I could imagine that back in the 1800s when Colorado Springs was a community of resorts and clinics for overcoming consumption somebody might have put a stock tank onto a train filled with S. Platte water with cutts in it and dumped it into Bear Creek. Which means that yes, it wouldn't be a native population, it would be introduced...
    EDIT-EDIT: OK, just read the Denver Post article where it says a hotel operator stocked Bear Creek with S. Platte Greenbacks. My guess was either a good one or I read that article in my sleep last night.

    What species of trout do you suppose was in the Ark Basin? Rainbow, Brown, Brook all are imports from elsewhere...

    One more EDIT: I think it's actually quite an asset to have a genetically pure population of greenbacks that are successfully reproducing wild in Bear Creek. It's a nice bit of trail, but introduced or not, if that's the only population we have then it's significant. Getting stocked fish to breed successfully isn't a slam dunk. I think it would be a good idea to stock some of the offspring of that population in remote drainages in the S. Platte basin and hope they become self-sustaining. But if there's a wild population, that's worth something. Just my opinion, don't want UT to hunt me down and kill me
    Last edited by TomP; 09-26-2012 at 11:36 AM.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    86

    Erosion?

    I'm curious about the whole issue of sedimentation of the creek and the effect on trout. The section of the creek in discussion- about 4 miles- is near some serious slopes. After most flash floods there are way more cubic feet of decomposed granite moved by water than the motorcycle or bike guys can accomplish. It would seem the fish would be better served with some good terracing then moving the trail. Ironically the population seems to be surviving some serious sedimentation issues currently without any intervention. Perhaps this is a good project for some of my grad students to investigate.

    Given the topography of that section of the creek I'm not sure a reroute is even feasible. I realize that many see this as a back door way to get the trail shut down.I'm not sure I've arrived at that conclusion. Any body have actual experience working with the group in question? Given the quotes from their lawsuit it doesn't look promising.

    A further irony is the amount of dollars in OHV grant every year poured into maintaining that trail. It isn't like there aren't already multiple agencies involved in oversight.

  19. #19
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    So the trail that is threatened would be the Bear Creek Trail (when I lived in CS it was #666) that exists between upper Capn' Jacks and lower High Drive?
    The Bear creek headwaters start up near trail 667 (Jones Park trail follows the creek), the creek merges with the 666 trail down Bear Creek Canyon proper until High drive, it follows High drive and then parallels Lower Gold Camp through the city all the way to Monument creek. Where the 150 fish population exists is speculation? Even if the fish exist further downstream than most of the biking trails, the upstream pollution (erosion?) can hamper trail access?

    It's all strange since this was a stocked non-native (to this creek and river basin) fish, but it's the only pure strain left. And what the heck does "an important part of Colorado's heritage" mean? The Pikes Peak granite naturally erodes anyway, and one major rainstorm puts a lot more damage on things than any user group?

    A big mess!

  20. #20
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    So the trail that is threatened would be the Bear Creek Trail (when I lived in CS it was #666) that exists between upper Capn' Jacks and lower High Drive?
    I think actually the section they are calling Bear Creek is what we would
    call upper Captain Jacks and then also from the creek crossing going up
    667 including the other creek crossings along Pipeline.

    IMHO they want to close Pipeline but are calling it Bear Creek Trail.


    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    yes, it wouldn't be a native population, it would be introduced...
    Correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    What species of trout do you suppose was in the Ark Basin? Rainbow, Brown, Brook all are imports from elsewhere...
    According to this:
    http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteColl...essRelease.pdf

    giant yellowfin cutthroat


    Quote Originally Posted by TomP View Post
    One more EDIT: I think it's actually quite an asset to have a genetically pure population of greenbacks that are successfully reproducing wild in Bear Creek.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the fish. But what I see is a group of
    people with an agenda misrepresenting the findings of the study to further
    their cause at our expense. The fish and the trail have coexisted for decades.
    There is no urgency.

    Besides CDOW has already introduced the fish into their hatchery breeding
    program for stocking into other areas.

    I'll also tell you this. Those fish are probably further down Bear Creek than
    you are being told. Like in the City, and we proposed constructing pools to
    enhance their habitat in our Bear Creek Park Master Plan update probably 6
    years ago, to which there was little interest. The dog park won out, and if
    you've ever visited the dog park you can see the muddy water created for
    yourself.

    I can't help but wonder why there was no concern about the sedimentation
    and feces/urine in the creek that that resulted and the effects on what
    few fish there were in that portion of the creek?

    And just to clear the air, I don't hate dogs.
    My only objection to the dog park has been this particular issue, allowing
    dogs in the creek to muddy the water. A representative of State Parks
    even agreed with me and questioned why water wasn't diverted out of the
    creek into pools for the dogs to wade, where sediment and pollution could
    be mitigated. Unfortunately, ignorance wins when mob rule is allowed.
    They want their dogs in the creek, and the fish and problems of protecting
    them became someone else's (bikers) problem.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rmalling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    300
    This is the state fish for Colorado and national organizations like Trout Unlimited and such will use this as an opportunity to celebrate how they are dedicated to protecting at risk species. The off road groups (IMBA, OHV groups, etc) will not win out over the environmental groups.

    As a member of trout unlimited, I respect their efforts to save a species that represents our state on many levels. Building bridges for bikes is acceptable, but horsepower does lead to misuse often at the detriment to the aquatic species. If this is really the last creek to host these fish, then off road users, and to some extent mtn bikers, need to respect that and relocate where they recreate. If not, we come across as stupid ignorant m-f'ers that die hard environmentalists bash and attack. These groups are looking for an enemy to blame for why species struggle and off road users are an easy target.

    Move on everyone, move on to a different drainage and play there.


    "We're only bike terrorists, 5:30, second Friday, Berkley BART" -Jeff Ott, fifteen

  22. #22
    STRAVA!!!!!!
    Reputation: Waafoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    Right. I was just addressing the "I ain't never seen no fish in that there crik" comment...
    I have seen plenty of Brook trout in that creek and every other creek I have hiked and biked around in the front range for the last 40 years! I have never seen a cut throat trout in any of the streams in Colorado springs.

  23. #23
    STRAVA!!!!!!
    Reputation: Waafoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by brownfinger View Post
    You could ride up there for 100 years and not see one, if you stop and sit by the stream in a likely spot for a few minutes you certainly will.
    I see fish in there all the time and they all have the tell tale white line on the bottoms of the pectoral, pelvic, and anal fins (Brook trout). You can see it from 15 feet away, go look for yourself.

    http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9...%20by%20JZ.jpg

  24. #24
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by rmalling View Post
    Move on everyone, move on to a different drainage and play there.
    The problem ^^^

    FYI in 2010 we essentially gave up the entire South Slope of Pikes Peak and Ring the Peak Trail.

    Before that it was the North Slope.

    We were told no access to the top of Cheyenne Mountain a few months ago, but hikers and horses can go.

    Waldo, Rampart Rez and everything north of there almost to Mt Herman is closed indefinitely b/c of the fire (about 35,000 acres of NF) .

    There aren't too many drainages left to ride.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,240
    Man, some of you guys are funny. Thinking just cause you can ID a brookie there are no cutts in there? Thinking that they are actaully "lower" what they're stating? What the heck does "an important part of Colorado's heritage" mean? Huh?

    Seriously, I would be pissed to be losing trail as well but the fish IS a part of Colorado's heritage. My experience* with them has only been at elevation and to think that you can figure out what's in a entire stream by the fish you can ID from shore is silly.

    I ride way more than I fish but I vote for the fish if it's in there as they say. Again, I'd be pissed at losing trail as well and don't wish it on anyone but if that fish is in there, regardless of how it got there they are going to protect it.







    *as stated, just my experience
    Last edited by jugdish; 09-26-2012 at 10:16 PM.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    119
    I sat by the stream today. Didn't see any cutts, but there were these strange jumping mice running around everywhere.

  27. #27
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    Seriously, I would be pissed to be losing trail as
    well but the fish IS a part of Colorado's heritage.
    What heritage is that? Folly? One of which a fish was stocked
    throughout Colorado at great expense and then everyone patted
    themselves on the back in 1994 by making the GB cutthroat the state fish
    because of it's heroic "comeback against all odds", only now to find out
    they reproduced and stocked a fish throughout Colorado that wasn't what
    they "thought" it was? And the GB cutthroat is STILL endangered. You
    want me to be proud that folly is our heritage? no. I'm sorry. I'm not
    going to do it.


    fol·ly [fol-ee]
    noun, plural fol·lies
    1. the state or quality of being foolish; lack of understanding or sense.
    2. a foolish action, practice, idea, etc.; absurdity: the folly of performing without a rehearsal.
    3. a costly and foolish undertaking; unwise investment or expenditure.
    4. Architecture . a whimsical or extravagant structure built to serve as a conversation piece, lend interest to a view, commemorate a person or event, etc.: found especially in England in the 18th century.

    Should Colorado change the state motto to:
    "Nothing without folly" ?

    Because nothing anyone has said changes the fact that the fish has
    survived for 80+ years and reproduced under the current conditions with
    mining, motos, MTB's, floods, blizzards, predators, etc... and it's still there.

    There is no "emergency". That's called PR spin. Propaganda.

    If sedimentation while spawning is the issue then a seasonal trail closure to
    ALL users would be the most logical next step, if one is needed at all.

    I've bred both salt and freshwater fish as a hobby. My knowledge of water
    quality is what got me my job as a Fermentation Scientist at NREL. Trust
    me. Fish don't like change. There is a balance, an equilibrium that must be
    maintained.

    The smartest thing to do is leave everything the way it is. How do you
    know that the sedimentation from erosion hasn't reduced the populations
    of a native BC fish/crab/shrimp that competes with the GB cutthroat for
    resources, and that's the real reason the GB has survived in BC?
    You don't. And neither do the paid-for experts.

    After all. Isn't competition from other species what wiped out
    cutthroats in the rest of Colorado? yes it is.

    Comrades you are engaging in and promoting scientific folly.
    Please use your brains and not your emotions when looking at this
    proposed trail closure and remember, fish don't like change.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,240
    Regardless of your typical grand standing, I still vote for the fish. So they restocked a fish that at the time they assumed was "the" greenback, then through luck found a strain that was "it", or at least closer. Fine with me.
    The fact that some dude in the way back stocked this stream and they had been lost and forgotten, then found adds to the awesomness of this story, IMO. If you've read anything about early stocking programs in the west this is precisely how so many drainages and high mountain lakes were stocked.
    Don't fall off the soap box.
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  29. #29
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jugdish View Post
    Regardless of your typical grand standing, I still vote for the fish. So they restocked a fish that at the time they assumed was "the" greenback, then through luck found a strain that was "it", or at least closer. Fine with me.
    The fact that some dude in the way back stocked this stream and they had been lost and forgotten, then found adds to the awesomness of this story, IMO. If you've read anything about early stocking programs in the west this is precisely how so many drainages and high mountain lakes were stocked.
    Don't fall off the soap box.
    Typical is attacking the messenger instead of the message because the
    facts scare you.

    So now folly is awesome? I'm past the point of being amazed.
    I'm now just waiting to be rounded up and sent to the re-education camp.

  30. #30
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    517
    I hesitate to add to this thread but I can't resist. I don't see any hard facts in any of the posts discussing the issue. I see lots of speculation and that tends to get people all riled up.

    Over the years CMTRA, in conjunction with numerous other groups, has been the main driver for maintenance of the Captain Jack's trail system. The bridges and almost all the reroutes have been CMTRA and the Forest Service. One exception is the drainage mitigation and trail reroute done by RMFI on 667 a few years back. A large group spent the better part of 30 days camped up there. A large portion of the work was done above the old mine shaft and crankcase alley and is most visible in the reroute of the trail up and away from the drainage. The bridges, the reroute and sedimentation work were all done to address the impact on the fish. Note the lack of any bridges in the Cheyenne Creek/668/Pipeline drainage. The fish have been located in the Bear Creek drainage and Pipeline does not flow into the Bear Creek drainage. If you look at the Pikes Peak atlas and use the scale provided 4 miles is approximately the distance from where 667 starts and where 666 ends at the blue gate on High Drive. DOW/USFS/COS Utilities have know about the fish for years.

    Now for a bit of speculation. There is no conspiracy to drive motos and then mtbs out. The relationship between CMTRA and the USFS has been a great example of getting things done without a lot of red tape. The issue is now being forced by the Center for Biological Diversity. To their endgame I can not speak but it seems that all other parties are more into cooperation to address the issue. For example the following quote:

    "Trout Unlimited officials called the litigation unfortunate because an emerging group of trail users has been gaining momentum in voluntary projects to rehabilitate degraded creek habitat. Motorized trail users, in particular, have mobilized to try to minimize harm from humans."

    Emerging? I guess if emerging describes groups active address the issue for numerous years. The point being that most stakeholders are interested in working together not driving a wedge. Also recall the overwhelming support when access to lower Captain Jack's was an issue a few years ago? I see cooperation.

    The the most affected parties, excluding the fish who can't weight in, are not in a conspiracy. To those folks chanting conspiracy and 'the fish don't exist' get involved and help rather than stand on the sidelines. Join CMTRA, show up for 666 trail maintenance on October 6th, donate to RMFI. My point is do something.

    Lastly in the spirit of full disclosure I ride my bike, my moto and I hike the drainage(s) in question with shocking regularity. It is the access to a large chunk of land that makes COS a great place to live. I used to work for DOW/USFG doing T&E work. I am on all sides of the issue. I see a lot to gain and lose on all those sides.

    Taking this AM. I sure don't want to lose access to this.
    all single...all the time

  31. #31
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by 32x18 View Post
    There is no conspiracy to drive motos and then mtbs out. The relationship between CMTRA and the USFS has been a great example of getting things done without a lot of red tape.
    Look.
    I don't believe there is an organized conspiracy, especially in the
    USFS or SP to remove motos. Yes, CSU/City I would question motives.
    Because I've learned not to trust either from my experiences with them.

    But I do know for a fact that individuals who represent large conservation
    organizations, national and state organizations here locally, who have
    shared with me their views on OHV's in private conversations, are
    vehemently opposed to OHV use on public lands and have/will go to any
    lengths to remove their use from those lands. Even to the point of placing
    conservation easements on land that has no conservation value or
    even by overstating environmental issues.

    Quite literally, their voices get loud and they get angry when the topic
    arises. I see the group from AZ who filed the lawsuit as one of these.

    I'm merely looking at history, their actions, and progression of events.
    It's predictable.
    biased environmental studies -> canned press releases -> lawsuits -> forced compromises -> public land closures

    Someone on our side has to speak out and state our concerns to keep
    these groups in check. Public perception scares these people.
    That's what stops these efforts.

    You may not like what I say, you may hate me for saying it, but it has
    to be said in a public forum for others to "google" and read themselves.
    Otherwise conversations are controlled using clever press releases with
    partial information to manipulate public opinion. They have to know we are
    watching and talking about it. That's why I'm here.

    I for one am just tired of listening to the nonsense and then being
    expected to roll over and play dead. I don't mind being the bad guy if
    it means I get to keep riding my bike. Obviously some people on MTBR
    don't share my passion to ride, with motors or without. And that's fine
    too. But just realize, one day it will be your favorite trail, and who will
    be there for you?

    Lunch is over gotta go.

    Nice pic by BTW.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,240
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Look.
    Obviously some people on MTBR
    don't share my passion to ride, with motors or without. And that's fine
    too. But just realize, one day it will be your favorite trail, and who will
    be there for you?
    .

    You're a piece of work, dude. An assumptive piece of work. Will you be there for me Unky Trail?
    Gone are the days we stopped to decide,
    Where we should go,
    We just ride...

  33. #33
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    517
    I will bite because I know that is what you are looking for.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    But I do know for a fact that individuals who represent large conservation
    organizations, national and state organizations here locally, who have
    shared with me their views on OHV's in private conversations, are
    vehemently opposed to OHV use on public lands and have/will go to any
    lengths to remove their use from those lands.
    You don't have to be anyone special or have 'private conversations' to see numerous groups that would love to get all OHV access shut down.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Quite literally, their voices get loud and they get angry when the topic
    arises. I see the group from AZ who filed the lawsuit as one of these.
    Which groups are you referring to? Like it or not your posting history on MTBR leads one to conclude you see shadow organizations and government conspiracy at every turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Someone on our side has to speak out and state our concerns to keep
    these groups in check. Public perception scares these people.
    That's what stops these efforts.
    If you don't call "these groups" out by name you are limiting the effect of speaking out.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    You may not like what I say, you may hate me for saying it, but it has
    to be said in a public forum for others to "google" and read themselves.
    Otherwise conversations are controlled using clever press releases with
    partial information to manipulate public opinion. They have to know we are
    watching and talking about it. That's why I'm here.
    I don't dislike what you say or hate you for saying it. I do find it funny that you rail against some of the same tactics you use to try and sway people to your view. Misinformation, unnecessary obfuscation, talking about how "conversations are controlled". Then the cherry on the sundae..."That's why I'm here". I see pictures of Super Man flash before my eyes.

    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    But just realize, one day it will be your favorite trail, and who will
    be there for you?
    I forgot about this quote. This is the cherry on the cheery.

    One question. What are you, UncleTrail, going to do to help reach a intelligent and rational resolution to the issue? I am not asking for super hero quotes just any old thing. So you don't feel unfairly called out I will list a few things I will do:

    1. Spend time maintaining the trails in question
    2. Make my opinion heard regarding limiting access
    3. Attend any public meetings on the issue
    4. Renew my OHV tag
    5. Renew my CMTRA membership
    6. Contact my local and state representatives and make my opinion known
    7. Continue to try and be the nicest person you will meet on the trail whether I am on the bike, the moto or hiking.

    Ball is in your court.
    Last edited by 32x18; 09-27-2012 at 12:44 PM. Reason: missing quotes...no shadowy stuff here
    all single...all the time

  34. #34
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Look.
    I don't believe there is an organized conspiracy, especially in the
    USFS or SP to remove motos. Yes, CSU/City I would question motives.
    Because I've learned not to trust either from my experiences with them.

    But I do know for a fact that individuals who represent large conservation
    organizations, national and state organizations here locally, who have
    shared with me their views on OHV's in private conversations, are
    vehemently opposed to OHV use on public lands and have/will go to any
    lengths to remove their use from those lands. Even to the point of placing
    conservation easements on land that has no conservation value or
    even by overstating environmental issues.

    Quite literally, their voices get loud and they get angry when the topic
    arises. I see the group from AZ who filed the lawsuit as one of these.

    I'm merely looking at history, their actions, and progression of events.
    It's predictable.
    biased environmental studies -> canned press releases -> lawsuits -> forced compromises -> public land closures

    Someone on our side has to speak out and state our concerns to keep
    these groups in check. Public perception scares these people.
    That's what stops these efforts.

    You may not like what I say, you may hate me for saying it, but it has
    to be said in a public forum for others to "google" and read themselves.
    Otherwise conversations are controlled using clever press releases with
    partial information to manipulate public opinion. They have to know we are
    watching and talking about it. That's why I'm here.

    I for one am just tired of listening to the nonsense and then being
    expected to roll over and play dead. I don't mind being the bad guy if
    it means I get to keep riding my bike. Obviously some people on MTBR
    don't share my passion to ride, with motors or without. And that's fine
    too. But just realize, one day it will be your favorite trail, and who will
    be there for you?

    Lunch is over gotta go.

    Nice pic by BTW.
    Yes Unc, and there are people who believe that they should be able to drive their motos, ATVs, monster trucks and yes, bicycles anywhere they want without restriction, regardless of impacts as well as those who would eliminate that use completely. There are interests in the extractive industries that would end all environmental regulation and lay waste to the entire planet for a buck and people who would end almost all extractive industry on public land. With any issue, there will be people on the fringes of that issue but they are almost always just that - fringe. The fringe does and should have it's place at the table just like everyone else, but although the pendulum swings back and forth on land use ideology with political winds fringe groups very rarely achieve their agenda.

    Of course there are people who have never met a conspiracy they didn't like.

  35. #35
    Adventurous Hacker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    435
    Speaking of this particular fish and closures in this watershed, the Gazette reported two years ago that the forest service was GTG with reopening Severy--pretty exciting to me since I've never ridden it.

    Severy Creek Trail, closed to protect fish in '99, may re-open | peak, pikes, creek - Top Stories - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO

    However, it doesn't seem to have happened. WTFO?
    All other things are rarely equal . . .

  36. #36
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by rmalling View Post
    This is the state fish for Colorado and national organizations like Trout Unlimited and such will use this as an opportunity to celebrate how they are dedicated to protecting at risk species. The off road groups (IMBA, OHV groups, etc) will not win out over the environmental groups.
    So would it surprise you to learn that Trout Unlimited's position is actually aligned with the CMTRA (Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association) on Bear Creek? And both are against the Center for Biological Diversity (closely tied to the Sierra Club) proposals and legal tactics.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by pcoady View Post
    i sat by the stream today. Didn't see any cutts, but there were these strange jumping mice running around everywhere.
    :d

    12345

  38. #38
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,477
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    So would it surprise you to learn that Trout Unlimited's position is actually aligned with the CMTRA (Colorado Motorcycle Trail Riders Association) on Bear Creek? And both are against the Center for Biological Diversity (closely tied to the Sierra Club) proposals and legal tactics.
    Something I've found when working on collaborative land use stuff and motorized groups are involved is that they begin to take stewardship seriously not out of any ideological conviction that could be construed as poesy sniffing, but mostly because their backs are up against the wall and they see themselves loosing access if they don't start acting responsibly. Trout unlimited is a quasi environmental organization in the sense that it exists because its members like to catch fish and fish, especially trout and other cold water game species require pretty healthy watersheds to be self sustaining.

    Certainly that's a bit of a blanket statement on both groups but overall, that's been my experience (I'm sure many folks who belong to Trout Unlimited also belong to more broadly focused environmental groups, not quite so sure about the motorized folks)

  39. #39
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Something I've found when working on collaborative land use stuff and motorized groups are involved is that they begin to take stewardship seriously not out of any ideological conviction that could be construed as poesy sniffing, but mostly because their backs are up against the wall and they see themselves loosing access if they don't start acting responsibly. Trout unlimited is a quasi environmental organization in the sense that it exists because its members like to catch fish and fish, especially trout and other cold water game species require pretty healthy watersheds to be self sustaining.

    Certainly that's a bit of a blanket statement on both groups but overall, that's been my experience (I'm sure many folks who belong to Trout Unlimited also belong to more broadly focused environmental groups, not quite so sure about the motorized folks)
    First, you imply that one user group is not being responsible to begin with. That point aside, I don't think the "back up against the wall" reaction is unique to any user group. I certainly would not doubt that CBD would love to get mtb's out of there as well... moto's are just the easiest starting point.

    My "alignment" statement is specific to the Bear Creek issue. Couldn't comment on other areas.

  40. #40
    Team Velveeta™
    Reputation: TomP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,003

    Cmtra

    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Something I've found when working on collaborative land use stuff and motorized groups are involved is that they begin to take stewardship seriously not out of any ideological conviction that could be construed as poesy sniffing, but mostly because their backs are up against the wall and they see themselves loosing access if they don't start acting responsibly. Trout unlimited is a quasi environmental organization in the sense that it exists because its members like to catch fish and fish, especially trout and other cold water game species require pretty healthy watersheds to be self sustaining.

    Certainly that's a bit of a blanket statement on both groups but overall, that's been my experience (I'm sure many folks who belong to Trout Unlimited also belong to more broadly focused environmental groups, not quite so sure about the motorized folks)
    I don't disagree, I know lots of advocacy groups would not exist unless they felt compelled by threat avoidance. Salida Mountain Trails, the group I co-founded, got together specifically because we were worried about losing access in the BLM's Travel Management Process.

    But I want to point out that CMTRA in the Pikes Peak Region has been a genuinely good organization for quite a while that I know of. Back in the mid 90's when I was going to Medecine Wheel workdays, quite often they were sponsored by CMTRA. And CMTRA people showed up even for work on non-motor trails in N. Cheyenne Cyn. I remember having a very high opinion of them, and I'm not a throttle-twister.

    FYI.
    Tom Purvis - Salida, CO - http://teamvelveeta.tom-purvis.com

    "I like my wimmen like I like my beer--cold and bitter!"

  41. #41
    The MTB Lab
    Reputation: pastajet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    So I went for a fun ride yesterday (partially in the rain), and parked at Section 16 lot, then up Gold Camp, down Spring Creek, up Columbine, up Buckhorn, up Captain Jacks, down Bear Creek (666), up and down Section 16.

    I did stop and enjoy the solitude and beauty of Bear Creek, and I did some exploring and found something interesting, a fish! Now, if I can just find the other 149 of them?

    I also noticed signs for no fishing on High Drive, and at the bottom of 666 and the 667/666 intersection for the Greenback. I have seen the upper sign, but never noticed what fish was stated on it until now.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Bear Creek  Cutthroat Trout - Trail Changes might be coming-bear_creek_greenback_cutthroat.jpg  

    Bear Creek  Cutthroat Trout - Trail Changes might be coming-bear_creek_no_fishing.jpg  


  42. #42
    SS Chimp
    Reputation: 32x18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    517
    Pastajet,

    It is amazing what you will see when to stop and take a look around eh? Since the fish issue first popped up awhile back I have made it a point to stop and look for fish. I can say that I have seen fish basically every time I have spent enough time looking around. Hell, my wife and I watched 2 fish in the Pipeline drainage for 20 mins early in the year. Kinda like watching the flames of a campfire.

    Who knows if the fish you saw is the one in question but it really does not matter. I think what matters is you decided to go out and dig a bit deeper into the situation. The more information you gather the better you can discuss the issues.

    Good on you.
    all single...all the time

  43. #43
    STRAVA!!!!!!
    Reputation: Waafoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by pastajet View Post
    So I went for a fun ride yesterday (partially in the rain), and parked at Section 16 lot, then up Gold Camp, down Spring Creek, up Columbine, up Buckhorn, up Captain Jacks, down Bear Creek (666), up and down Section 16.

    I did stop and enjoy the solitude and beauty of Bear Creek, and I did some exploring and found something interesting, a fish! Now, if I can just find the other 149 of them?

    I also noticed signs for no fishing on High Drive, and at the bottom of 666 and the 667/666 intersection for the Greenback. I have seen the upper sign, but never noticed what fish was stated on it until now.
    I'll be damn,that looks like him! Looks like we are going to loose a killer trail! Bummer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •