Re: NANFA-- Give Me A Home Where The Buffalo Roam

mcclurg luke e (mcclurgl_at_washburn.edu)
Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:35:01 -0500 (CDT)

I don't know who you are...but my information comes from PHD's at the
University of Kansas. MY POINT was missed entirely in the post. THE
POINT was that one might look at a stream today that is running clear ALL
the time and not realize that is not it's natural state. If you want to
argue about the conditions of the Kansas River over the last 100-150 years
go duke it out with Frank Cross and the Museum of Natural History at
Kansas University in Lawrence. It was there collection accounts
(transmitted personally) that I was drawing from.

And I think that the way my post has been "handled" by those on
NANFA...eager to attack and put down...is a perfect examply of the
"extremism" I was referring to. Not to mention people like the Sierra
Club and others who are now trying to force the EPA into unreasonable
water standards throughout the state.

Now, I'm done arguing over this...

Luke

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 SHasloue_at_kdhe.state.ks.us wrote:

>
> ----- Forwarded by Steve Haslouer/Kdhe on 09/19/00 09:10 AM -----
>
> Bob Angelo
> To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> 09/15/00 cc: Steve Haslouer/Kdhe_at_Kdhe
> 09:34 PM Subject: Re: NANFA-- Give Me A Home Where The
> Buffalo Roam
>
>
>
>
> Mr. McClurg:
>
> I've perused your earlier comments on this subject and would be curious to
> know why you believe the Kansas River was a "muddy" stream prior to the
> settlement of this region by Anglo-Europeans. Meriwether Lewis reported
> (1804-06) that the water of the Kansas River was transparent in summer and
> autumn. In 1819, Major S. H. Long observed that the Kansas River was less
> turbid than the Missouri except at times of high flood. In 1833, Count
> Maxmillion recorded that the "clear green water [of the Kansas River] was
> distinguished by a well defined, undulating line from the muddy stream of
> the Missouri." In 1853, Lt. Joseph L. Tidball surveyed the river from Fort
> Riley to its confluence with the Missouri. He noted that the river bottom
> was comprised predominantly of an "easily yielding quicksand", with beds of
> gravel and coarser materials occurring in some reaches.
>
> Apparently, you've also accepted the notion that man-made reservoirs in the
> basin ultimately offset the increase in stream siltation which followed the
> conversion of native grassland to cropland. According to David Pimental et
> al., Cornell University, the plowing of native grassland increases the rate
> of soil loss some 250- to 750-fold. Even though 85% of the Kansas River
> drainage is now situated upstream of at least one major reservoir, it may
> well be that the remaining 15% contributes more silt to the Kansas River
> than did the entire drainage before settlement. Reservoirs also have
> reduced the downstream replacement of sand and gravel in the river, leading
> to further changes in the composition of the stream bed. The Kansas River
> and its tributaries once supported species of fish and other wildlife which
> would not have survived in the presence of continuously elevated turbidity
> levels or heavily silted stream bottoms. Examples included the hickorynut
> mussel, Obovaria olivaria, the black sandshell mussel, Ligumia recta, and
> the gill-breathing snails Campeloma crassulum and Pleurocera acuta. These
> species no longer occur anywhere in the basin, and some (e.g., O. olivaria)
> were extirpated prior to 1900. By 1926, officials with the Kansas Fish and
> Game Commission were publicly lamenting the destruction of "nearly all the
> natural spawning beds for fish in Kansas streams [including the Kansas
> River and its tributaries] due to cultivation and stream pollution."
>
> Finally, I'm troubled by your characterization of certain individuals as
> "misinformed extremists." Are you confident you understand the views held
> by these individuals? Given your affiliation with an institution of higher
> learning, one would have hoped for a more open-minded evaluation of the
> opinions of others and a willingness to refrain from name calling.
>
> Robert T. Angelo, Ph.D.
> Kansas Department of Health and Environment
> Division of Environment
> Forbes Field, Building 283
> Topeka, Kansas 66620
> 785-296-8027 (tel)
> 785-291-3266 (fax)
> bangelo_at_kdhe.state.ks.us
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Bob Angelo/Kdhe on 09/15/2000 05:33 PM -----
>
> Steve
> Haslouer To: Bob Angelo/Kdhe_at_Kdhe, Steve
> Cringan/Kdhe_at_Kdhe
> 09/15/2000 cc:
> 11:20 AM Subject: Re: NANFA-- Give Me A Home Where The
> Buffalo Roam
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded by Steve Haslouer/Kdhe on 09/15/00 11:18 AM -----
>
> mcclurg luke
> e To: nanfa_at_aquaria.net
> <mcclurgl_at_was cc:
> hburn.edu> Subject: Re: NANFA-- Give Me A Home Where The
> Sent by: Buffalo Roam
> owner-nanfa_at_a
> quaria.net
>
>
> 09/15/00
> 11:17 AM
> Please
> respond to
> nanfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't disagree with you Steve. My point is that those days are
> gone. What we need to do now is EDUCATE people as to how we can first
> stop the downward slide and THEN begin to try to reverse some of the
> damage. Getting people to understand that a river is not necessarily to
> be judged by how "clear" or "muddy" it is would be a big start. You get
> your drinking water from the Kaw like everyone else around here, and I'm
> sure you know it's problems (probably a LOT better than I do). Do you
> want to let people continue to misunderstand it's problems based on false
> perceptions? I doubt you do. On the other hand...do you want
> misinformed extremists who come in and tell us now that the EPA has
> to regulate every single body of water in the state including a farmers
> stock pond used for watering cattle to meet safe drinking standards for
> that water? You and I both probably know that is not only a ludicrous,
> but also unenforcable law and it's already caused a severe
> anti-environmental backlash. And it's going to get even uglier, and a lot
> of valuable dollars will be wasted before all the smoke clears. All
> because some extremists had an "all or nothing- our way or the
> highway" approach to the issue.
>
> Luke
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 SHasloue_at_kdhe.state.ks.us wrote:
>
> >
> > I've spent the last 25 years getting paid for working in streams and
> rivers
> > in Kansas, doing fish community sampling above and below point sources
> and
> > non-point sources.
> >
> > If I had my druthers, I'd just as soon go back to the days when roving
> > herds of bison were "the" major impact on water quality. At least they
> > "moved on" when they had overstayed their welcome!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
> > / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
> > / Association"
> > / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
> Association
> > / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the
> word
> > / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email
> to
> > / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> > / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> > / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
> http://www.nanfa.org
> >
>
>
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
> / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
> / Association"
> / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes
> Association
> / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
> / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
> / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,
> http://www.nanfa.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
> / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
> / Association"
> / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
> / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
> / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
> / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
> / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
> / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org
>

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org