# A Trout in Trouble



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

Would be rolling on the ground if the subject wasn't so serious:

A Trout in Trouble

Help save the Colorado. Sign the petition!!!


----------



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

Excellent! Petition signed. Thanks for caring and sharing!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Done, and shared on FB. Funny video, but as you said, serious topic.


----------



## watermonkey (Aug 11, 2009)

Trout are my friends. Signed.


----------



## montuckymonkey (Aug 1, 2012)

Signed...gladly.


----------



## Iraft (Jan 16, 2012)

signed, I know there are Denver boaters on here, lets get some signatures from you guys!


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

signed!


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Yes folks, this IS very serious in so many ways. Please sign if you've ever enjoyed a day of fishing, a day of boating, appreciate CO wildlife and river scenery, OR know anyone who does.

The Fraser River is right by my house. We should have a month or more of good class III boating, but many years we don't get a single day of "boatable" flows due to water diversions. There is a great take-out, but the put-in is a bit tricky. This could be resolved if we actually had some water to float, but sadly folks want to take more water from an already endangered river. The low flows during the summer result in high water temps that kill the trout as well. Even if you aren't interested in the Fraser, since it flows to the Colorado, it will affect water availability for so many other river users.


----------



## crispy (May 20, 2004)

*sad for the trout and kayakers*

indeed fraser is a really nice run-good boating and scenery in a nice secluded canyon. used to live in tabernash for a while and got to do laps a few seasons. gets harder to run every year it seems and i havent done it in quite a while

why can't front range conserve water? been a while since i lived there. i know my brother says his las vegas water rate is far lower than when he was in seattle. just doesn't make any sense


----------



## BCxp (Jun 3, 2012)

Signed. 

Shoot the sprinklers. Go xeri. Stop making so many babies. Save our fish. Save our water for better uses than golf courses. Save it for breweries.


----------



## rehamxela (Jul 20, 2008)

laughingo and crying! when are we humans gonna figure it out. we need to exist with our planet. every change we make to it ends up f#####ing us!!

signed


----------



## BCxp (Jun 3, 2012)

Don't hold your breath...:sad: But work hard for the planet anyway!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

When I shared this on Facebook I got this comment from a friend who owns property in Winter Park as well as Denver, and thought it was worth sharing:

"Alright brother I signed this but in a conversation with a Diane Degette several years ago, she noted that the blanket petitions/emails are one of the least effective ways to instigate political change. She advised a personalized letter/email to your reps. I'll take the time to send one, hope you do too. And btw Denverites shouldn't be allowed to have lawns as far as I'm concerned.....it's called zero scaping people. That's what you get when you live in an arid climate zone."


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

It's called Xeriscaping. But I agree.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

David Spiegel said:


> It's called Xeriscaping. But I agree.


I'm aware of this, I was quoting someone else so I decided not to change it.


----------



## Miller Time (Apr 3, 2009)

I agree with xeriscaping. Most of my lawn is river rock or landscaping. I live in the front range. 

However, should we discuss the fact that some of the farmers on the front range (and other western state homesteads) use more water than hundreds of homes combined but yield no edible crop? "Use it or lose it" sound familiar? Slow down irresponsible water consumption premised upon 100+ years of antiquated water rights.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Yeah, I totally understand that it was a quote. And, given the usual pronunciation, it seems like they should just go ahead an respell it as zeroscaping. Sure would make it easier to find on google.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

lmyers said:


> "zero scaping"


I like it. Clear meaning to those not into Greek.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Logan - I do not pretend to understand this situation. It is very complex. However I have gone to a couple meetings on the topic, and while most of it was confusing to me this is what I gathered: 

Basically the water company bought water rights a million years ago for a donkey and a bushel of hay when Grand county had no concept of the number of golf courses and lawns they'd want to soak with our river, and now they own the water, period. The politicians (especially Senator Udall) are already on our side and fighting for us, but there is really nothing they can do to change the water rights. TU is trying to show the importance of NOT destroying this river/ecosystem and the unpopularity this will cause Denver Water if they do. While large corporations are ultimately about making money, they don't like to be hated either. This is where the petitions come it. Writing a letter is good too - make sure one goes to Denver Water though.

If I understood incorrectly, feel free to clarify.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

jennifer said:


> Logan - I do not pretend to understand this situation. It is very complex. However I have gone to a couple meetings on the topic, and while most of it was confusing to me this is what I gathered:
> 
> Basically the water company bought water rights a million years ago for a donkey and a bushel of hay when Grand county had no concept of the number of golf courses and lawns they'd want to soak with our river, and now they own the water, period. The politicians (especially Senator Udall) are already on our side and fighting for us, but there is really nothing they can do to change the water rights. TU is trying to show the importance of NOT destroying this river/ecosystem and the unpopularity this will cause Denver Water if they do. While large corporations are ultimately about making money, they don't like to be hated either. This is where the petitions come it. Writing a letter is good too - make sure one goes to Denver Water though.
> 
> If I understood incorrectly, feel free to clarify.



I don't disagree. It would probably be better served to send your letter to Denver Water than to your Senator. I also agree that it will likely change nothing because the water rights have already been purchased and the majority of citizens in our state are in favor of such projects. Good point to start a new conversation on.

What do you feel is the best way to approach facilitating future change to water consumption and water law in Colorado? The population is only going to grow, and if weather patterns continue to change in the way we have seen lately this is going to become an even larger issue in the future.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

I sometimes stay at a friends house in Denver. It is great to defrost every once in a while. I jog a 3 mile loop through the neighborhood and pass 200 green lawns (most on automatic watering systems) and 1 xeriscaped one. And this is in a desert environment. Water prices are so low that you can leave your faucet running 24/7 and I bet it wouldn't even impact your water bill. The bottom line is that I think there is not enough encouragement to conserve water. I don't think this is because people don't care - I think/hope it is because they aren't aware of the impacts. I think if they were, the water used per household could easily be reduced, eliminating the need for more water diversions, at least in the near future. But perhaps that is just a pipe dream. If people cut their water use in half, but the population triples, we are screwed regardless.


----------



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

It takes a change in attitude and while Aspen can seem like the epitome of excess, the overall culture is conservation. When gluttony is frowned upon, and education is sought, the future seems promising.


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

While I don't know of specific developments, anecdotally I believe that there are housing developments where the covenants require a certain amount of green grass.

We won't be able to change the culture to one of conservation and xeriscaping until developers understand that you needn't require eastern style landscaping just to sell houses.

In a similar vein, sadly, one of the west's best sources of native and xeric plants closed this year. High Country Gardens out of Santa Fe is no longer...!


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

John_in_Loveland said:


> In a similar vein, sadly, one of the west's best sources of native and xeric plants closed this year. High Country Gardens out of Santa Fe is no longer...!


Oh my gosh! I bought so many plant from them over the last 17 years. That's really a bummer as the only non-food gardening I'm going to do at our new house is drought-tolerant. I haven't bought plants in so long, what other options are out there? They were getting awfully expensive, but the selection was great.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

lhowemt said:


> Oh my gosh! I bought so many plant from them over the last 17 years. That's really a bummer as the only non-food gardening I'm going to do at our new house is drought-tolerant. I haven't bought plants in so long, what other options are out there? They were getting awfully expensive, but the selection was great.


Crump Greenhouse in Buena Vista is supposed to be THE premier cactus and succulent distributor in Colorado, although they don't have a website and certainly don't seem to advertise much....

https://plus.google.com/115062209663122322475/about?gl=us&hl=en

http://www.ccss-online.org/pdf/CCSS-POI-July08.pdf


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

lmyers said:


> Crump Greenhouse in Buena Vista is supposed to be THE premier cactus and succulent distributor in Colorado, although they don't have a website and certainly don't seem to advertise much....
> 
> https://plus.google.com/115062209663122322475/about?gl=us&hl=en
> 
> http://www.ccss-online.org/pdf/CCSS-POI-July08.pdf


Thanks, but being in Montana a web/mail order place is what I'm looking for. We have some local sources, but it's extremely limited.

Edit- their website says they are still doing mail order, yay!


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Agreed: Xeriscaping is the way to go and we all should use less water

However, about 80% of the water sent to the Front Range goes to agriculture. So if we people want to truly have an impact on water conservation, we need to stop eating meat, as that consumes more water per Calorie than anything else. Can't give up meat, just give up beef, that is the highest water usage of the lot.

Just some info.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

wamsley said:


> Agreed: Xeriscaping is the way to go and we all should use less water
> 
> However, about 80% of the water sent to the Front Range goes to agriculture. So if we people want to truly have an impact on water conservation, we need to stop eating meat, as that consumes more water per Calorie than anything else. Can't give up meat, just give up beef, that is the highest water usage of the lot.
> 
> Just some info.


great point. way to cut through the fat.


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

Wamsley,
I would challenge your data about meat taking the most water per calorie? Where did you obtain that data?


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

This is from the gov'ment. Granted its a game, but it gets the point across. You don't have to make guesses, just hit the submit button and the next page will give you the answers. A pound of hamburger is like 18,000 gallons of water. A pound of corn is 110 gallons.

Water content of foods, USGS Water Science School

Hell, just skip to the answer page: 
Water Science for Schools: Water used to grow common foods


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

wamsley said:


> Agreed: Xeriscaping is the way to go and we all should use less water
> 
> However, about 80% of the water sent to the Front Range goes to agriculture. So if we people want to truly have an impact on water conservation, we need to stop eating meat, as that consumes more water per Calorie than anything else. Can't give up meat, just give up beef, that is the highest water usage of the lot.
> 
> Just some info.



1. Yes a lot of water is used for agriculture. People need to eat to live. That is a fact of live. People do NOT need lush green lawns to survive. Unless they are eating their lawn, which I doubt....

2. Denver Water does not supply agriculture (they supply treated water) yet they are sucking our rivers dry. The average front ranger uses 86 gallons of water a day and 55% of this is for outdoor use. Water Use | Denver Water

3. They claim to promote conservation, but no one up here can see any conservation efforts - just a dried up river bed.

4. My grandfather is a cattle rancher in TX. In 50 years of cattle ranching, he has not provided one drop of river water to his cows. He dug a big hole in the ground with his backhoe (a pond) and they drink from this. There are no rivers withing 100 miles (hard to have a river with no gradient) just ponds and lakes with lots of water (it rains down there). I'm not arguing that agriculture does not use a lot of water, just saying his herd ain't sucking our rivers dry. And it is nice to eat.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Apologies, you are correct, Denver Water does not supply agricultural needs.

However, my previous post was intended to inform people that regardless of where they live and how much water may be around them, that they too can conserve water by changing their eating habits. 

As I said before, the vast majority of water in our state goes to agriculture (actually 86%) Check link #1 below. Therefore if we are to have the largest impact upon conservation, it would be centered around our diets. As raising cattle for consumption is highly water intensive, it would make sense to stop eating it (sorry that this would affect your relative's business). I also agree on xeriscaping lawns (and that would affect many landscaping companies negatively as well)

Also, Denver Water is responsible for consuming 2% of all of Colorado's Water Usage (see link 2, the same, I believe you gave before Jennifer). Again, this goes back to my original point of addressing agricultural demands over private home users.

So this begs a question: is it really the consumption of front range lawns that is causing the Colorado to "dry" up? My answer would be that front rangers do need to use less, but the agricultural demands placed upon the river far out way Denver Water's, so that is where big change needs to occur. 

Finally, many people who golf or have families like their green lawns, just as you said you like beef (because it's tasty). Asking one group of people to sacrifice for conservation sake, while you do not, is a bit hypocritical, yes?


Colorado Water Conservation Board

Water Use | Denver Water


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

So let me see if I get this right:
1) Lawns and golf courses are a higher priority (read "societal need") than food?
2. We should eliminate beef from our diet because it uses 10,000 +/- gal of water to produce 17 g of protein plus high levels of iron and zinc and essential amino acids not found in vegetarian based diets...even though the vast majority of this water is used NOT to water the cattle, but to process them. And the water used for processing is returned to the environment once it is cleaned. Further more, cattle spend most of their lives eating roughage that is not useful for anything else nor can the land be farmed due to lack of water 
3) We should stop eating bread because it uses 10 gallons for a measily 2 G of protein.
4) We should also stop drinking coffe because it take 35 gal per cup and I drink 14 cups a week so that is 500 gallon per week
5) We should stop eating corn because it uses 8% of the global water supply.
6) Luddites that we are, we should ban GMO "golden Rice" that contains a significantly higher level of Vitamin A than regular rice and has the potential to eliminate the high levels of vitamin A deficiency in children in rice eating coutries.
7) We should also stop engineering grains that require lower levels of water to grow or soybeans that can be grown in tropical regions such as brazil and tropical africa.
8. We should stop using BT products and let the bugs eat all our crops so we really do have to stop eating these foods.

Read this paper by Jeffery Simmons the President of Elanco. The World population will reach 9 Billion by 2050. We are going to need 100% more food to feed the world. Yet we certainly won't have 100% more quallity land (or water). So the only answer to starvation is using technology to improve yields, water effeciency, plant varieties, disease resistance, etc. Just eliminating items from our food supply is not the answer, in fact it is ignoring the reality of global agriculture and propulation growth.

http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/M...Economics-and-Consumer-Choice-White-Paper.pdf


----------



## ukonom (Nov 21, 2008)

Remember that irrigated agriculture in Colorado - especially those higher elevation grass pastures - provide some other important benefits, like wildlife habitat, late season return flows to streams, and scenic open space. So yeah ag uses a lot of water, but its got other benefits - while the transfer of water from the west slope to water lawns on the front range is an entirely consumptive use - none of that water returns to the Colorado. What "big" changes would you suggest for ag? Maybe we should all switch to grass-fed beef which uses much less water and utilizes land that can't be used for other food crops.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

The facts are that Colorado does not have enough water to support everything that Coloradoans would like to do in the future. These future activities include (but are not limited to) ranching, farming, drilling for oil/natural gas, playing golf, and growing grass in residential yards. 

The point that some have been trying to make is that you can't talk about water conservation without considering the one use (agriculture) that makes up for over 80% of all water used in the state. 

I think everyone agrees that food is more important than golf courses or grass yards in Denver. However, I think it is shortsighted to think we can fully solve our water problems by focusing on solely on residential users who currently make up 6-7% of water usage in Colorado.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Ukonom is correct- there is a very important distinction here between consumptive and non-consumptive users. Ag on the west slope does use tons of water, but a lot of that returns to the river. If you have never paddled from Pallisade through Grand Junction, I would actually recommend it. The river loses tons of it's whole flow for a bit as it's all sucked out for agriculture. Then, over the course of the "15 mile reach," it regains almost that entire flow. You can actually see the water seeping through the shale layers. Yes, it it more polluted/saline (it actually forms cool travertine-like formations at the seeps), but it does indeed return. Water used on east slope lawns, on the other hand, obviously never returns to the river. 

It is also important to think about the size of the watershed in play with Denver Water's use. The headwaters contains a very small amount of flow relative to the entire state. So, while Denver Water only uses 2% of statewide water, that 2% is a really really significant part of the water in the headwaters. Between Denver's firming projects and the Northern Water Conservancy's Colorado Big Thompson Project, the front range actually takes 60% of the headwaters' flow. Estimates of new projects' predict that this will expand to 80%. yep, 80%. 

While paddling from Rocky Mountain NP to Kremmling this summer, it was amazing how the river actually loses water constantly as soon as it leaves the park. You are scraping on bone dry rocks until you hit the Williams Fork and the Blue down by kremmling. Definitely wouldn't want to be a trout in that stretch of river. PS, don't bother trying paddling this section... you have to negotiate with about 20 land owners in order to make the trip through the shallow (really shallow) class II. 

Point is, front range water use has an undeniably huge effect on the headwaters region, regardless of agriculture's overall dominance of statewide water use.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Ah, ignorance is bliss, is it not?

A vegetarian diet can and does provide all essential amino acids needed for a human. Google it.

I am not saying that golf courses are essential to life, nor am I saying a green lawn is. In fact both can be given up, and it would be better for water conservation. However, so can beef. Hate to say it, but eating a hamburger or a steak is not essential to life either. If you really need meat, eat eggs, chicken, fish, or pork. All use less water to produce.

As for the comment "And the water used for processing is returned to the environment once it is cleaned." from John_Loveland. Well a lawn and golf course both let the water return to the soil. That point has no bearing.

Cattle are not native to Colorado, Texas or anywhere in the USA. Again, hate to be a realist, but the overgrazing of lands is partially responsible for major environmental problems like the dust bowl. To say that their eating of scrub plants and drinking surface water has no impact upon water conservation, is ignorant. Agriculture greatly diminishes water tables.

Look, I am defensive of my position, because it is fact based. The only idea I want to put forth is that Agriculture uses way more water than anything else (actually, technically speaking, cooling power plants is actually #1, but that is whole different tangent). To have the biggest impact upon water conservation we should cut our Agricultural Water needs. The easiest way to do this is by eating more vegetable matter and less meat. And the biggest meat user of water is beef. 

Pretty reasonable idea: Eat beef one less time a month and you can help conserve water. If we did this as a population, and reduced our beef eating, it would have a considerable impact.

Just food for thought


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

*Stupid Vegans*

I challenge you to tie this into the original post. We want to preserve the Upper so we can raft it, and fish it. Lots of people who fish it also eat the fish they harvest. Therefore, I also challenge you to kiss my ass. The elk, deer, and bear that I eat consume the same amount of water whether I shoot and eat their flesh or not. I fear that your quarry is big agriculture, and that doesn't apply to a lot of table fare for Coloradoans that I know.



wamsley said:


> This is from the gov'ment. Granted its a game, but it gets the point across. You don't have to make guesses, just hit the submit button and the next page will give you the answers. A pound of hamburger is like 18,000 gallons of water. A pound of corn is 110 gallons.
> 
> Water content of foods, USGS Water Science School
> 
> ...


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

RiverCowboy said:


> I fear that your quarry is big agriculture, and that doesn't apply to a lot of table fare for Coloradoans that I know.


Really? Are you that completely clueless about our food supply? It's pretty much ALL big ag. Even most of the organic companies are owned by big ag (or coke) or big enough to be a similar paradigm. For goodness sake, before you spout off and call people stupid, make sure you aren't doing so with a stupid statement.

And before you go insult vegans keep in mind that being one isn't always a choice. Regardless, eating no animal products results in a personal food footprint that is a LOT smaller. That's a fact and not the worst side effect. Once you get off the addiction of meat it's a lot easier to see these things clearer.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Wamsley, I don't think I'm a hypocrite. I only cooked beef once in the past 40 days, I weigh 110 lbs so I eat less than the average american regardless of what I am eating, I have no yard or running water to the outside of my house, my car hasn't had a bath in almost a year (other than what fell from the sky), and I have even started timing my showers so I am down to just a few minutes. 

I do think getting people to completely change their diet is a harder sell with most people than encouraging less outdoor faucet use. Yes it is easier for dimwits like myself to see water pouring into the yards and streets of Denver as wasteful, as opposed to the lunch I just consumed. I do know we are about to lose another river (Fraser River), and almost half of it will be watering lawns in Denver. The boating, fishing, wildlife, and economic benefits that that river brings our community is just as important as your lawns, and it will be missed. I hoped that water conservation would have been a topic that buzzards could unite on, but alas I see even this brings strife here.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Jennifer, I agree with you. Thank you for your last post. All I desired was to get more info out there about water conservation. I would hope that all on this post would agree to the benefits of using less water and eating less meat in order to conserve our water ways. Hopefully someone has read these postings and will make more educated choices about their lifestyle in regards to their water consumption.

As an avid boater and fisherman it does suck to lose water to these important headwater streams. I have kayaked the Fraser and it was good. I have spent countless days on the Upper C boating, fishing, and enjoying life. I hate to see that diminished.

I hope that we Americans can begin to shift our ways of living and become less consumptive and more sustainable. If everyone tries, we could get there. 

Stop watering the lawns, eat less meat, and if its yellow let it mellow!


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

Wamsley,
I totally disagree that reducing meat consumption will reduce western water usage. If you want to reduce your meat consumption, do it because its an ethical choice or mistakenly beleive its a health choice. But don't lay a vegan lifestyle on others as the be all and end all to the destruction of the Fraser and the Colorado River.

Denver Water and Northern Colorado Water are all about domestic and/or urban and/or industrial water usage. While I am an inveterate supporter of Ag, I think trying to farm west of the 100th meridian is a fools errand and unfortunately the farmers who were led down this path 100 years ago by homesteading laws are now stuck.

Denver and the entire front range - Where the bulk of the population resides - can reduce water usage significantly by eliminating lawns (I have) eliminating water intensive landscaping (I have) shifting to "links course" type of golf courses that have patches of green interspersed with natural xeric landscaping and by paying more for the water they buy. In the end though it will be ag that dies a slow death, not the least reason because they can sell their water rights to Denver and retire.

We aren't going to solve this problem with a "holier than thou" Vegan mantra. Sorry to be somewhat offensive, but I beleive veganism is elitist. If you were poor and hungry and didn't have enough protein in your diet like so many people in this world (and I have travelled around the world and know a thing or two about food cultures), you would not hesitate to eat an egg, a fish, an elk steak, a pork chop, ground beef, or as they do throughout the world (and think of it as delicacies), intestines, chicken paws, tripe, liver, beef hooves, sweetbreads, and all other manner of sources of protein that we stick up our noses at (excuse the grammar).

I am done with this post, I thought the subject was enlightening, instead its put me in contact with more vegans....my least favorite idealogy


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

It seems probable to me that if the ag uses downstream of denver didn't take/use as much water as they do, then denver wouldn't need to go west of the divide and suck so much of that water. Correct, at least in theory and disregarding the added complexity of water rights.


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Reducing or eliminating red meat consumption will save water. In Cadillac Desert the author states that, to produce 1 pound of beef, 300 gallons of water is used. Also on average reducing how much meat you consume has more of positive impact on the environment than if you stop driving a vehicle.

Rivercowboy your a bad ass, everyone I know that eats bear is a bad ass. So are some great vegan athletes, that are far from stupid, a few would no doubt kick your ass. Great Vegan Athletes | Great Vegan Athletes




I recommend reading this book.


----------



## Iraft (Jan 16, 2012)

just think, if everyone used one gallon less, that's a lot of water!


----------



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

Damn, I'm getting thirsty...and I might have to try "chicken paws"


----------



## crispy (May 20, 2004)

Gremlin said:


> Damn, I'm getting thirsty...and I might have to try "chicken paws"


ah, having travelled in asia a bit, i can tell you they are not as good as they sound


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

Laura, 

I apologize if I came across inappropriately and sounded ignorant. I must admit that sometimes as a sustenance harvester I become very defensive about the vegetarian/vegan point of view that is often thrown into public discourse, as it seems to target all people who eat meat regardless of where it came from.

I grew up in the hills of North Carolina, west of mass-produce-turn-your-stomach-unspeakable hog farms. I have seen big meat ag, and don't like it. My point, however clouded by my defensiveness it may have been, is that going vegetarian/vegan is not in my opinion a valid argument to be used on the circle of people i run in that harvest most/all of their meat. I don't eat beef. The only time I eat retail pork is if I cannot make it south or east to harvest ferals. I do buy chicken at the supermarket, they are just hard as hell to deal with in your back yard.

I do what I feel is the best I can do in the name of sustainability, considering my inherent cultural convictions and values. I look forward to the sustainable produce market you described in response to my honest question about MT boating. I hope you can understand that although we may not be the same, there are some issues that all of us may never see eye to eye on, but that doesn't mean that we are across the proverbial fence from each other. The grass will only stay greener on OUR side if we use reason, dialogue, and compassion to understand each other, while taking stereotypes with a huge grain of decomposed granite from the rivers that we love.

Regards and hopes of understanding, 

Paul 



lhowemt said:


> Really? Are you that completely clueless about our food supply? It's pretty much ALL big ag. Even most of the organic companies are owned by big ag (or coke) or big enough to be a similar paradigm. For goodness sake, before you spout off and call people stupid, make sure you aren't doing so with a stupid statement.
> 
> And before you go insult vegans keep in mind that being one isn't always a choice. Regardless, eating no animal products results in a personal food footprint that is a LOT smaller. That's a fact and not the worst side effect. Once you get off the addiction of meat it's a lot easier to see these things clearer.


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

Easy, buddy.

I apologized to Laura already for the way I must have come across. Consider it an apology to you as well if you took it such a way. No man, vegan or otherwise, needs to worry about kicking my ass (multiple reasons not to try). I think I explained my defensive position well enough to her, but I'll say it again: I don't "consume" commercial red meat. I float and fish, I hike and hunt. They are natural resources, that when managed appropriately by stewards of the land such as ourselves-not just land managers-will exist for every generation to come, without any more impact on water than each species has always had.

Paul



treemanji said:


> Reducing or eliminating red meat consumption will save water. In Cadillac Desert the author states that, to produce 1 pound of beef, 300 gallons of water is used. Also on average reducing how much meat you consume has more of positive impact on the environment than if you stop driving a vehicle.
> 
> Rivercowboy your a bad ass, everyone I know that eats bear is a bad ass. So are some great vegan athletes, that are far from stupid, a few would no doubt kick your ass. Great Vegan Athletes | Great Vegan Athletes
> 
> ...


----------



## hand8272 (May 24, 2011)

I have been trying to stay out of these post but I just can't hold back any more. I work for a major ag irrigation company and an avid river runner. 
I believe many people see agriculture as the "big bad water users". Irrigated agriculture sees the problems, it is not just there green lawn thats at stake, it's their livelyhood. That is why irrigated agriculture is the most efficient form of irrigation there is. Your typical lawn applies water at an efficiency of approximately 50-60% at best. Pressurized ag irrigation ie. center pivots etc. your looking at 80-90%.
People forget that farmers and ranchers are what put the food on the table. Your not going to have time to run rivers if you have to manage crops to feed your family.
Yes, conservation is needed and agriculture is conserving. Don't hate the American farmer, there doing there part, I would say better than anyone.
Good farming practices, protecting soil, using less fuel, less fertilizer, and yes less water makes growers more profitable. This is why farmers aren't the enemy.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

hand8272 said:


> That is why irrigated agriculture is the most efficient form of irrigation there is. Your typical lawn applies water at an efficiency of approximately 50-60% at best. Pressurized ag irrigation ie. center pivots etc. your looking at 80-90%.


I don't buy those numbers. I grew up in Kansas and spent many years assembling center pivot irrigation systems. They use lots of water, and spray it into the air where much of it evaporates and sublimates into the atmosphere. There are efficient ways of irrigating crops, but it is drip irrigation, and unfortunately you don't see it promoted. Seems to me it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to help subsidize the development of drip irrigation more....


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

lmyers said:


> I don't buy those numbers. I grew up in Kansas and spent many years assembling center pivot irrigation systems. They use lots of water, and spray it into the air where much of it evaporates and sublimates into the atmosphere. There are efficient ways of irrigating crops, but it is drip irrigation, and unfortunately you don't see it promoted. Seems to me it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to help subsidize the development of drip irrigation more....


Just went and did a little research and apparently hand8272's numbers are correct. The manufactures of center pivot systems claim new technology allows them to operate at 85-90% efficiency. Although drip irrigation operates at 95% percent efficiency, it requires more labor and maintenance. 

I know that south-central Kansas finally instituted water rights laws this last growing season. They have been having a problem with aquifers and springs that recharge the Arkansas River drying up. Last time I visited (Thanksgiving) I saw tons of center-pivot and linear irrigation systems watering their early season winter wheat. There was a 50 mph wind and 25% humidity...... I don't see any way those irrigation systems were operating at 85-90% efficiency....


----------

