01-14-2010, 12:20 AM
The Harriman stretch of the Henry's Fork is my favorite peice if fishing water I've ever fished. Ever. Anywhere. More than Florida. More than Alaska. Its just special. My roots are there. My fly fishing lessons are there. My fondest memories are there. If I had one day left to fish, I'd like to be standing in a run on "the Ranch,"
wondering how the hell I was going to get "that one" to eat my fly on the first cast!
According to the article: "The family’s gift had some conditions, including that a state agency be created to manage the park. According to the agreement between the Harriman family and the state of Idaho, the park must revert to the family should the state default on any parts of the agreement, including that of the provision of a managing agency."
And: "Otter said he wants to merge the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Lands and move the state park system to user-fee based financing. He guessed that the move will save $10 million next year and $7 million in future years. The Department of Lands is mandated to manage its holdings to produce the greatest possible income. It’s land management policies are nothing like those of IDPR."
So would the state still me managing the property? Would we still have fishing access? Would it still be somewhat preserved and regulated? The part about managing for the "greatest possible income" is a bit scary.
Those are the questions I'll be watching for answers to.
[signature]
wondering how the hell I was going to get "that one" to eat my fly on the first cast!
According to the article: "The family’s gift had some conditions, including that a state agency be created to manage the park. According to the agreement between the Harriman family and the state of Idaho, the park must revert to the family should the state default on any parts of the agreement, including that of the provision of a managing agency."
And: "Otter said he wants to merge the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Lands and move the state park system to user-fee based financing. He guessed that the move will save $10 million next year and $7 million in future years. The Department of Lands is mandated to manage its holdings to produce the greatest possible income. It’s land management policies are nothing like those of IDPR."
So would the state still me managing the property? Would we still have fishing access? Would it still be somewhat preserved and regulated? The part about managing for the "greatest possible income" is a bit scary.
Those are the questions I'll be watching for answers to.
[signature]