Quantcast
Utah

The story of a fish, a river and what's ahead for property owners

Comments

Return To Article
  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    March 12, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    I like the fish...in fact so much I would love to see all of them out on the bank where I can enjoy them even more

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    March 11, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    I don't understand how religious people who believe that God created this world, who looked at his creation when he was done and said it was good and was pleased by it, could be so callous in caring for this planet and it's animals.

    God's ultimate creation was us, I am not arguing animals take precedence. However I do believe that if we really and honestly believe in the creation than we would hold God's work with a high degree of reverence and respect, and frankly I don't see that here in Utah. I also believe that with a little thought and some inspiration God would help us find ways to provide for our needs while at the same time caring for his creations. Unfortunately that attitude is completely lost in today's world of extremes, if you even remotely care about the environment you are a leftist liberal hippy.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 11, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    People may be mistaking the intent of Chase's post. Though it perhaps could've used a bit of temperence, it seems primarily motivated by a discomfort(one that I share!) about "one old man"'s unnecessary remark.

    I doubt that he actually justifies unnecessary harm or suffering to animals at all, rather his intent is probably to help establish a sense of priority.

  • Southern Phoenix, AZ
    March 9, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    Do it. Utah Lake and its uniqueness needs to be embraced, not tossed in the garbage like it's been the last 70-80 years. Oh yeah, and give it back its original name: Timpanogos Lake.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    March 9, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    To those who dream of Utah lake being a blue pristine lake?

    It is a very shallow warm water lake where the green scum used to stick to you. You had to pick your spot to fall while water skiing or you were covered with scum.
    My grandparents remember it being a low shallow scummy lake, as did my great grandparents who came here as pioneers. The Native Americans caught and killed the big suckers in June because that is when they were easily caught spawning up in the swampy areas by the mouth of the Provo river, otherwise they could not be scene in all the scum.
    The reason the June suckers got so big was because of the warm shallow water and all the scum to eat!
    Make it blue and clean and pristine and you will kill the fish!

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 9, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Chase,

    I once lived by a couple guys who took a base-ball bat around the neighborhood. They beat this dog, then they beat him again. Then they found other dogs and continued.

    To accept anything about it as moral or tolerable is beyond feeling. If you cannot possibly care for the animal, I'd ask that you care for the child who lost something he truly loved.

    God indeed does judge us for what we do to other people, and indeed animals. When I see a starving horse that's been neglected... I have less feeling than my wife. I look at the owner and wonder what was so hard about being a good steward or shepherd over the animals in their care. I'm thinking of it from a more technical lens. But my wife... no. She doesn't. Women have a love for animals far greater. And if you think you'd be justified in treating animals however you like, I have a feeling God will hear the complaints of His daughters.

    An endangered species is often debated, so I'd understand you letting a fish die. But our actions will be judged.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    March 9, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    Why not relocate the June Sucker to other parts of the country and world where there is similar habitat.

    The Endangered Species Act is to prevent the extinction of animals. Move this special fish to 30 new locations instead of spending $50 million to build a home for a fish that can't survive in the Provo Bay Area anymore without welfare.

    As the population increases, then the fish won't be endangered anymore and he world is a better place. Better to un-endanger the June Sucker than to keep it on costly life supports.

    30 to 100 more locations for the June Suckers around the world would be more effective than to continue the program as being administered today.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 9, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    Serious??? So we are trying to save the Sucker? This is the same ugly fish that destroyed Strawberry Res 25 years ago causing the DWR to have to poison and replant the entire lake. I could see doing whatever is necessary to the Provo River to help the German Brown population but it seems to me we WANT to get rid of the Sucker before it destroys the River like it did Strawberry.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    March 8, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    If it sucks in June, what does it do the rest of the year?

    Utah lake will never be like Lake Tahoe or Geneva. They are deep lakes, Utah lake is like a shallow pan. Sometimes I feel like this is being done to give the Real estate business a talking point to sell homes on the shore of a shallow gnat and mosquito farm.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 8, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    I honestly think it's more sad that practically 1% of Utahn's have any sense of commitment to their own state, own traditions, and what makes Utah... Utah.

    In 20 years... welcome to Utah, land of the new silicon valley and great business opportunities... and supposedly a great outdoors... but we only sell the outdoors when profitable. We aren't actually good stewards over what we've been given.

    God created the fish. If we're the one's responsible for killing it off, we should do something responsible about it. There's nothing wrong with Utah having something to it's name more than fry sauce and a good economy. I'm being a bit absurd, I know... but in many ways I think those who'd argue otherwise aren't offering a better position. Money doesn't excuse being irresponsible with the land and creatures around us. I'm a conservative and by no means a tree huger, but I also don't believe in being reckless.

    I say, keep the Utah fish!

  • road2provo Davis, CA
    March 8, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    I like that old phrase, "you never know what you got until its gone." Protecting wildlife that beautify and restore natural surroundings is very much a valid public interest. As matter of policy, conservation is important in local communities . Solely restricting environmental protection to a few isolated state/national parks that many cannot afford to visit seems a bit under the mark.

    Another nice thought that Pete Seeger, among others, promoted was "think global, act local", which he applied to the Hudson River valley. The true cost (money/environmental) of poor management of water resources and the subsequent clean up effort was greater than doing it right the first time. Environmental planning with a healthy respect for all stakeholders involved sounds like what is happening here. Its the right approach.

  • Utah Teacher Orem, UT
    March 8, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    Being only about 12 feet deep at the deepest point, Utah Lake will never look like Lake Tahoe or Geneva. It is the wrong type of lake for that. However it can be a lot cleaner than it is now if we could just get rid of the carp. They stir up the bottom and keep the silt stirred up. The water isn't polluted just silty.

    The biggest mistake we would make is to build a bridge across it. Just get rid of the carp and it will be fine.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 8, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    Chase, that is one of the silliest comments I've ever seen here. Thanks for a very imaginative interpretation of Scripture.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    March 8, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    I'm glad we're restoring the lower Provo River's habitat and with it improving the condition of Utah Lake.

    Those who think this isn't a serious problem or that it isn't worth taking action don't understand the history of the river and the lake. They have no vision of the huge economic and quality of life benefits that would accrue from having a healthy river and lake - jewels and tourist attractions - rather than a dredged trench and an algae-filled, polluted cesspool that residents usually try to put out of their minds.

    (Did you know that there used to be twelve lively commercial resorts on Utah Lake, before we ruined the water quality and replaced native fish with poisoned carp?)

    I do wonder why the alternatives- especially the "preferred" alternative- reroute the river so far north rather than building habitat closer to the river's present course. Isn't the river already north of where its natural delta was a century ago? If some of the few property owners along the last miles of the present channel are upset about the diversion, would they be willing to have delta habitat in their area instead?

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    March 8, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    Let's see if I've got this right. . . Conservatives tell us that the scientific idea evolution is wrong, that God created the earth and all the animals on it. Humans were set up as the guardians who are charged with protecting all of creation. . . unless it costs money. Looks like the true God of conservatives is MONEY.

    It's now okay to destroy that which the Lord has created in order to save money. Macnkat asks "Who has made (given) liberals the final say on all things living?" Liberals in this case strongly support the creatures created by God, yet conservatives want their god (money) to have the final decision. The truth comes out.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    March 8, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    I'm glad we're restoring the lower Provo River's habitat and with it improving the condition of Utah Lake.

    Those who think this isn't a serious problem or that it isn't worth taking action don't understand the history of the river and the lake. They have no vision of the huge economic and quality of life benefits that would accrue from having a healthy river and lake - jewels and tourist attractions - rather than a dredged trench and an algae-filled, polluted cesspool that residents usually try to put out of their minds.

    (Did you know that there used to be twelve lively commercial resorts on Utah Lake, before we ruined the water quality and replaced native fish with poisoned carp?)

    I do wonder why the alternatives- especially the "preferred" alternative- reroute the river so far north rather than building habitat closer to the river's present course. Isn't the river already north of where its natural delta was a century ago? If some of the few property owners along the last miles of the present channel are upset about the diversion, would they be willing to have delta habitat in their area instead?

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    March 8, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    one old man...

    Animals were created for man, not man for animals.

    And since you brought God into the discussion, do you believe God would be pleased that his children utilized sacred monies (yes, tax is sacred...) for creatures that were created to die, rather than his underprivileged children who are in need of assistance by the rest of us?

    I always wonder how zealous animal supporters will defend their actions to God. How can you justify helping animals over people? Animals are not people. I don't recall a gospel about the salvation of animals.

    You and I will both be judged by our actions toward our brothers and sisters, not dogs and cats.

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    March 8, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    No. We don't need to reroute the river! Problem solved.

    Thanks. Send me a check for my consulting brilliance.

  • The Utah Republican Alpine, UT
    March 8, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Imagine a Utah Lake that's as clean and beautiful as Lake Tahoe or Lake Geneva.

    That used to exist, but our great-great-grandparents destroyed it. They used it for a cess pool, and as a farm pond for chinese carp. We need to put it back. The June Sucker is part of that.

    When it's done, Utah Lake will become a jewel in the desert. It should be a tourist destination. It will be when this project reaches maturity.

  • Joe Schmoe Orem, UT
    March 8, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    Those near the airport need to see the writing on the wall. Get out while you can. Between airport expansion and the june sucker you guys don't stand a chance. Sell while the money is there.

  • Elwood P. Suggins BEAVERTON, OR
    March 8, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    Man didn't cause dinosaur extinction. Many species become extinct on their own, without help from man. Which animals feed on the June Sucker? Not humans--that's fer darn sure.

  • Elwood P. Suggins BEAVERTON, OR
    March 8, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    The June Sucker... sucks.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 8, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Who has given conservatives the right to impose extinction on other living things? Are they claiming it's their God given right?

    If so, I'm sure God's not happy about that kind of arrogance.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    March 8, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Great. This must mean that we've got all of the serious problems in the state taken care of.

  • drich Green River, Utah
    March 7, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    It's amazing that some of these agencies and others
    Haven't tried to bring back the dinosaurs.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 7, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Saving a unique fish seems like a worthy idea, but is this goal worth borrowing more money from china to accomplish it?

    Does it taste good? If so plant it other places then it will no longer be endangered.

  • macnkat BEAUMONT, CA
    March 7, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    Save this fish at a huge expense, try to kill all the fish in Utah lake at a huge expense...the liberals can't seem to make up their minds. Who has made them the final say so on all things living?