John/Dano,
I may not have stated the tradeoff question very clearly in my last post. I think that, with respect to minimum flows, the important tradeoff for you to consider is, which do you want to benefit the most from minimum flows, the standing crop of trout or ideal fishing conditions? Ecologically, the native fishery is gone. We are now dealing with the management of exotic species. If we were going to talk about true "ecological" issues, we would be discussing how to manage minimum flows to most benefit native species. I don't think that's that is going to show up as a realistic issue on the radar screen. So, we are back to the tradoff between minimum flows to benefit the standing crop of trout vs. minimum flows to benefit wade fishermen. In my mind, a solution designed for either output is fine, it is just a matter of whether you wish to maximize the benefit to either one, or meet in the middle. AGFC and the trout fishing population in general probably (I'm guessing) want to maximize the standing crop, wheras fly fishing gurus probably are not that interested in maximizing standing crop. Why should you be? You aren't keeping the fish (and removing the biomass) anyway! You want the best fishing conditions for the greatest amount of time, while keeping the trout population from being decimated from the low O2 concentrations that we discussed earlier. The moderator's humble suggestion is to use your energy to keep the political discussion framed in these terms. If you can pull that off, you can probably work a pretty good compromise. If anyone insists on making fish ecology an issue, let me know, and I'll bring channel catfish and a host of other warm water species into the debate. You will look so moderate by comparison that they will probably be happy to negotiate with you. -- Rick