2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I would like to see it open. It is a hike to get to the lake and I doubt that there would be hoards of fishers tromping through the area. The restrictions are offered as an accomodation to researchers and others who feel fishers should be denied the opportunity to enjoy this fishing experience.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The fish in this lake are planted. A natural recovery is not available here to study. The fish are there. Left alone probably means over population, malnourishment, and death. I favor monitoring and use of best science to maintain a healthy population with or without fishing. While the resource is there I favor enjoying it and using the funds obtained for proper study and management.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

It is not a 'natural aquatic ecosystem'. The fish are planted. There is a motor boat with outboard motor on the lake. Thousands of gallons of fuel have been brought in. The lake is controled. It's about as natural as the Columbia River.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I agree that the introduction of exotics is a concern. Adding more fishermen does increase the probability of this happening. Hikers, bird watchers, and hunters as well as 'researchers' already pose this threat. That is why the proposal would limit fishers to a small number and under the watchfull eye of a host who would try to disinfect such things as waders or floating devises and try to ensure fishers kept to known and approved routes.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Protection from man's influence was lost almost as soon as the mountain blew. We built a tunnel to protect ourselves. We flew aircraft into the lake. We brought in great quantities of diesel fuel and pumps to control this lake and large construction equipment. The pristine nature of this lake flys in the face of reality.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Spirit Lake has not been left to natural recovery. There is a boat with outboard motor on the lake.

The fish are not part of a natural recovery. They have been stocked.

The law sets the area aside for research AND recreation.

Yes let the scientists monitor the area but quit pretending and face the reality of what is really there.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

There is no restricted access. It is no access.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

There is no restricted access. It is NO legal access.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I favor allowing fishing in Spirit Lake. Allow public access under regulations set up by WDFW and the forest service with full consideration given to procedures to protect scientific interests.

The law states that the area should be used for research and recreation.

The idea that this lake has been left 'pristine' is ridiculous. The lake has a boat with outboard motor for 'research'. Aircraft have been allowed on the lake. Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel have been brought in and pumps and construction equipment.

The fish are not native. They were not hiding in a protected pocket when St. Helens blew. The fish have been stocked. They are not a part of a 'natural recovery'.

People are allowed to walk to the lake. Once they are there why should they not be allowed to fish?

Hunters are given very free access to the area. Fishers could be given much more controled access. Bird watchers and hikers are allowed access to the area.

The opposition leaves one with the impression that there would be large numbers of people crowding the lake and detracting from the enjoyment of other visitors. This would be a far stretch of the imagination even if there were no restrictions on access. It is hard enough to see the numerous elk in the area which are considerably larger than people.

Fishing in the lake is already taking place. Why should this be restricted to those willing to break the law.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context