Irvine Lake  Lip Ripperz   Bass Pro Shops   Shop West Marine!  Daveys Locker Sportfishing  Newport Landing Sportfishing   Shop Hunting  SARL / Corona Lake  Trout Only Guide Service  Pete Marino Guide Service  Parchers Resort  Team 57 fishing  Bob Sands Fishing Tackle  Last Chance Fishing Tackle 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Looks like Lake Matthews will remain a ninja spot

  1. #1

    Default Looks like Lake Matthews will remain a ninja spot

    Sadly, according to the link below, the latest effort to open Lake Matthews up for public recreation has been dropped because of an "ironclad agreement" between MWD and other agencies. Darn The Man and his lawyers!

    http://www.raglm.org/pdfs/AB-1686_Withdrawal.pdf

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    reeferside -951-
    Posts
    2,608

    Default

    Ya that's a bummer that lake is litterly down the street from my house

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    sa bernardino
    Posts
    660

    Default

    I wondered what the outcome of that agreement with the water agency was. Thanks for the info

  4. Default

    Sad, even more sad that a few anglers on this forum weren't too interested in seeing Matthews open to the public. *sigh*.


    Specifically citing a legally binding agreement in 2002 between Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
    (owners of the Lake and surrounding property), California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, and the Audubon Society, Jeffries said
    that even if he could further amend the bill to resolve the remaining concerns of some neighbors, passing
    the bill would only lead to re-opening costly lawsuits that would have to be paid for by the taxpayers and
    ratepayers of Riverside County and the State of California.

    “I think the settlement agreement that closed the Lake and surrounding property was a bad deal for
    residents of Riverside County, but our consultants believe it is bulletproof. Unfortunately, even a
    compromise that could have left the Lake protected, but opened the 5,000 acres surrounding the Lake to
    low impact hiking is prohibited under this agreement. This is what happens when you have an agreement
    between four agencies and organizations that are not seeking a balanced approach with our public lands
    —people lose.
    Despite the progress we were making, and the overwhelming support we’ve gotten for the
    bill from neighbors and local officials, I cannot in good conscience force the taxpayers of the County and
    the State to fork out unknown amounts of money trying to re-open a Lake that has been so successfully
    sealed shut by the lawyers.”


    All of the above agencies should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting. Keep locking up public lands, brilliant idea!
    Last edited by carpanglerdude; 12-09-2012 at 08:37 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Murrieta
    Posts
    2,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carpanglerdude View Post
    Sad, even more sad that a few anglers on this forum weren't too interested in seeing Matthews open to the public. *sigh*.


    Specifically citing a legally binding agreement in 2002 between Metropolitan Water District (MWD)
    (owners of the Lake and surrounding property), California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, and the Audubon Society, Jeffries said
    that even if he could further amend the bill to resolve the remaining concerns of some neighbors, passing
    the bill would only lead to re-opening costly lawsuits that would have to be paid for by the taxpayers and
    ratepayers of Riverside County and the State of California.

    “I think the settlement agreement that closed the Lake and surrounding property was a bad deal for
    residents of Riverside County, but our consultants believe it is bulletproof. Unfortunately, even a
    compromise that could have left the Lake protected, but opened the 5,000 acres surrounding the Lake to
    low impact hiking is prohibited under this agreement. This is what happens when you have an agreement
    between four agencies and organizations that are not seeking a balanced approach with our public lands
    —people lose.
    Despite the progress we were making, and the overwhelming support we’ve gotten for the
    bill from neighbors and local officials, I cannot in good conscience force the taxpayers of the County and
    the State to fork out unknown amounts of money trying to re-open a Lake that has been so successfully
    sealed shut by the lawyers.”


    All of the above agencies should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting. Keep locking up public lands, brilliant idea!
    Yup, only the privileged get to fish that lake. Most of the "privileged" work for said agencies save for a hand-full of other privileged cronies. While the folks who really pay for it all, tax and rate payers are locked out...

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HawgZWylde View Post
    other privileged cronies.
    I guess that's me...

    Here's what your missing...a pic from the last roundup I went to. Had to toss some of these fish in the trash because, there wasn't anything to even clean. I just don't know if this lake could ever improve. "Kwin" would know better than me but, I'm just not sure it could be turned into a lake that you would want to fish.


    DVL_Local

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DVL_Local View Post
    I guess that's me...

    DVL_Local
    LOL.

    Mark, you privileged cronie!

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DVL_Local View Post
    I guess that's me...

    Here's what your missing...a pic from the last roundup I went to. Had to toss some of these fish in the trash because, there wasn't anything to even clean. I just don't know if this lake could ever improve. "Kwin" would know better than me but, I'm just not sure it could be turned into a lake that you would want to fish. DVL_Local
    If a lack of diversity in the fish population, including forage base, is a reason to keep anglers away and lock up public waters, then we better close up a whole lot of lakes and ponds around here. Heck, most of the places like Rancho, Yucaipa, Glen Helen, etc would be empty puddles without the frantic trout stocking. Matthew wouldn't be worse.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Corona
    Posts
    1,916

    Default

    I believe Kwin commented on this before: Lack of biodiversity, lack of an adequate, sustainable food web, drastic changes in water level and lack of structure and habitat diversity. If I can remember he said that after about 2 weeks, the lake would: "suck worse than any other place out there". I believe that is how he put it :-)

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
    I believe Kwin commented on this before: Lack of biodiversity, lack of an adequate, sustainable food web, drastic changes in water level and lack of structure and habitat diversity. If I can remember he said that after about 2 weeks, the lake would: "suck worse than any other place out there". I believe that is how he put it :-)
    I do recall the post. Another body of water to fish is another body of water to fish, biodiversity or not.
    Drastic changes in water level sound like something very common for many reservoirs in the area.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •