# Darbydale Dam/Lake?



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Any of you other old timers remember when they were going to build another "Hoover" water supply down around Darbydale? The state or city actually bought my uncle's farm down there, this was back in the 70s I think...somehow it never happened but wish it had.

Just happened to be driving around down there today and thought of it again, anyone else remember the specifics?


----------



## Mr. Basskisser (Oct 18, 2005)

I believe the discovery of the Scioto madtom put a stop to it. The neighborhood up off Hubbard Rd. is called Darby Lake Estates. Personally I am glad we have those miles of the creek to wander instead of a lake. I have wondered about the miles of the Scioto that Griggs and Oshay have inundated.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

It was to be called Big Darby Creek Reservoir. 

I was and still am near were it would have been built.

I really wish they would have built the lake, it would have provided many thousand more times use for the Ohio public that the creek does and Ohio really needs more public boating and fishing waters


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Lundy said:


> It was to be called Big Darby Creek Reservoir.
> 
> I was and still am near were it would have been built.
> 
> I really wish they would have built the lake, it would have provided many thousand more times use for the Ohio public that the creek does and Ohio really needs more public boating and fishing waters


Have you lived in that area for awhile? My uncle was Adam Redd and his wife's name was Hattie, she was my dad's sister. They lived on a farm and I'm almost positive the city bought their land and they had to move, I suppose they must have bought up a bunch of other farms etc. too?


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

Wasn't this reservoir supposed to be really big? One that would rival the southern impoundments. Around 30,000 acres. This is what I think I remembered hearing.


----------



## Snyd (May 5, 2004)

I second that of what Lundy said. Ohio could really use another lake one that is triple of what Alum is or bigger.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

All I'll say is that Darby inspired me to become a serious angler and is the only reason I remain in the Grove City Area...


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Mr Good, I have lived here for 35 + years but I did not know your relations. 

Yes there were a lot of property owners that were forced to sell to make way for the new reservoir. All the land was purchased, plans were drawn, funding was in place and then.............a little known fish was found............ and all plans were scrapped except no one was permitted to purchase back their property. 

All of the current Metro parks land along the creek were originally all purchased to allow construction of the new lake.

I like Big Darby, I have waded it more times than I can count even way before the proposed lake plans, my son has fished it since he has been a young boy, I've had my own leach attacks on the Darby, I've had many 50+ smallmouth days on the Darby, I've eaten smallmouth out of the Darby and I still think a Lake would have been a very good use of that section of the creek and the surrounding property.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Lundy, I can see your point. And I agree that we could use more boating fishing waters. But the Darby? The Gem of the Midwest? National Scenic River? Its literally one of the last of it's kind. And maybe mankind has jerked with Mother Nature enough for now.

It always strikes me as odd when sportsmen put their own best interest in front of conservation. And in my opinion, damming up a place like the Darby for the purpose of more boating waters is the epitome of that mindset.


----------



## Big Joshy (Apr 26, 2004)

Your dammed if you do your dammed if you don't

Maybe i'm not seeing it right but...The darby is what it is today because of the plans for the lake. The plans that bought up all the land around it keep it protected from industry and development down to this day. So once it was singled out as the flow to protect it just kept getting better and better with more diversity of wildlife, which led to more land being bought and more protection. Many rivers could have greatly benefited from that much protection over that span of time. So is it really amazing because its the darby and it inherently different than other local flows or is it because its the one that someone picked out to keep untouched while all the others were abandoned.
I really don't know the answer?


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Bubbagon said:


> Lundy, I can see your point. And I agree that we could use more boating fishing waters. But the Darby? The Gem of the Midwest? National Scenic River? Its literally one of the last of it's kind. And maybe mankind has jerked with Mother Nature enough for now.
> 
> It always strikes me as odd when sportsmen put their own best interest in front of conservation. And in my opinion, damming up a place like the Darby for the purpose of more boating waters is the epitome of that mindset.


Good point Bubbagon! One of the most diverse streams in the midwest needed protection. I'm glad wiser heads prevailed. It's unfortunate a bunch of land was bought up for a Columbus water supply lake (would have been <10 horsepower anyways ) but you can always know that your relatives made a sacrifice for thousands of school kids, anglers, hunters, and nature lovers. We need another river impounded river like I need a hole in my head. The more sustainable option is the upground reservoir. It won't fill up with sediment, doesn't negatively effect streams and watersheds, and can be easily maintained. That's why they are the only new reservoirs being built these days in these parts.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Big Joshy said:


> Your dammed if you do your dammed if you don't
> 
> Maybe i'm not seeing it right but...The darby is what it is today because of the plans for the lake. The plans that bought up all the land around it keep it protected from industry and development down to this day. So once it was singled out as the flow to protect it just kept getting better and better with more diversity of wildlife, which led to more land being bought and more protection. Many rivers could have greatly benefited from that much protection over that span of time. So is it really amazing because its the darby and it inherently different than other local flows or is it because its the one that someone picked out to keep untouched while all the others were abandoned.
> I really don't know the answer?


It has a lot to do with that. Darby is also "blessed" with a healthy groundwater supply from alluvium/sediment deposited during the last ice age. It has good flow throughout the year which is imparative for biodiversity. Disolved oxygen levels are able to be maintained due to flowing water, water stays cooler due to ground water flow, etc. Another creek with similar healthy ground water flow is Alum Creek. Despite the trash and effects of stormwater, it is still much more diverse than many much cleaner streams around the state.

We can't forget that Batelle Darby accounts for a relatively small section of the watershed. Above it are huge sections of Big and Lil Darby. Below it is "unprotected" all the way down to Circlville. 

There is also the Big Darby Accord which has nothing to do with the ghost lake. It is a voluntary plan adopted by Columbus, Hilliard, and other area municipalities/townships that accounts for development restrictions in western Franklin County. Whether you consider it an overbearing or overly restrictive government action or not, it keeps the Darby free of excessive storm water runoff and streamside erosion.


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

Mushijobah said:


> It has a lot to do with that. Darby is also "blessed" with a healthy groundwater supply from alluvium/sediment deposited during the last ice age. It has good flow throughout the year which is imparative for biodiversity. Disolved oxygen levels are able to be maintained due to flowing water, water stays cooler due to ground water flow, etc. Another creek with similar healthy ground water flow is Alum Creek. Despite the trash and effects of stormwater, it is still much more diverse than many much cleaner streams around the state.
> 
> We can't forget that Batelle Darby accounts for a relatively small section of the watershed. Above it are huge sections of Big and Lil Darby. Below it is "unprotected" all the way down to Circlville.
> 
> There is also the Big Darby Accord which has nothing to do with the ghost lake. It is a voluntary plan adopted by Columbus, Hilliard, and other area municipalities/townships that accounts for development restrictions in western Franklin County. Whether you consider it an overbearing or overly restrictive government action or not, it keeps the Darby free of excessive storm water runoff and streamside erosion.


I feel safe, and clean when I fish the darby. And the natural wildlife seems much more abundant and diverse than other rivers. This is all due to its protection. When i fish other rivers such as the scioto or Alum, I often question whether I should actually be standing waste high in that "water."


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

One of the main reasons the Darby is today a State and later a National scenic river is because it was a legal maneuver by the ODNR to prevent the City of Columbus from building the water reserve reservoir. It took 10 years of legal battles and the Ohio Supreme court to settle the fight. It was only after the supreme court ruled that the State scenic designation by the ODNR was legal that the city gave up trying to move forward with building the lake.

I get all of the reasons why Big Darby Reservoir wasn't built, I don't personally agree with all of them but I get it. Ironically one of the primary reasons, the poster child for the cause, the Scioto Madtom catfish is believed to now be extinct. Maybe it still exists. I would like to hope so after all that went into trying to preserve it, but it was last seen way before the legal battles over the reservoir.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...e-more-extinction-big-darby-catfish-gone.html


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Lundy said:


> One of the main reasons the Darby is today a State and later a National scenic river is because it was a legal maneuver by the ODNR to prevent the City of Columbus from building the water reserve reservoir. It took 10 years of legal battles and the Ohio Supreme court to settle the fight. It was only after the supreme court ruled that the State scenic designation by the ODNR was legal that the city gave up trying to move forward with building the lake.
> 
> I get all of the reasons why Big Darby Reservoir wasn't built, I don't personally agree with all of them but I get it. Ironically one of the primary reasons, the poster child for the cause, the Scioto Madtom catfish is believed to now be extinct. Maybe it still exists. I would like to hope so after all that went into trying to preserve it, but it was last seen way before the legal battles over the reservoir.
> 
> http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...e-more-extinction-big-darby-catfish-gone.html


You never know, the Scioto Madtom still could be around! I don't think it's the main reason either, but probably a reason brought forward by the powerful Darby Creek Association of the day. It's funny how the City has come full circle on their attitude towards the creek.

It's a shame that it's likely gone. As a young kid, my dad introduced me to Milton Troutman, the great professor and author of The Fishes of Ohio. He discovered the scioto madtom and watched it disappear in front of his very eyes. I examined some preserved specimens at OSU's Fisheries Museum...sad.

Here's an assessment by the US EPA from 2000. This document has tons of great info on Darby and why it was protected.



> Proposals to Dam the Big Darby and Reaction. There have been three proposals to dam the
> Darby; none have gone forward. In the 1960s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed a flood
> control dam on the Big Darby; it was abandoned for geological reasons. In the late 1960's the City
> of Columbus began planning a water supply dam and reservoir on the Big Darby. This proposal
> ...


http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/darby13.pdf


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

National parks, national forests, national seashores, national scenic rivers...the whole point of designating areas as such is to preserve and protect them from greedy corporations that want to extract the natural resources then "develop" the land for their own purposes. I say we protect as many of our natural treasures as we can before we have nothing left to bequeath to future generations...


----------



## fishin'forlife (Aug 2, 2011)

Where exactly was the proposed dam supposed to be? Around 665?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

fishin'forlife said:


> Where exactly was the proposed dam supposed to be? Around 665?
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I think so? Lundy said if you look at the Metro Parks map now you can see where the lake would've been. I wish they would've built the lake too, it would be cool to see the plans if anyone knew where they could be found? Sounds like environmentalism out of control, even way back then!

Funny to think about all those people who opposed it could now be living in million dollar homes along a lake, like many of those next to Hoover! Thank God the nut jobs weren't around to stop Hoover or even Alum from being built.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Mr.Good said:


> I think so? Lundy said if you look at the Metro Parks map now you can see where the lake would've been. I wish they would've built the lake too, it would be cool to see the plans if anyone knew where they could be found? Sounds like environmentalism out of control, even way back then!
> 
> Funny to think about all those people who opposed it could now be living in million dollar homes along a lake, like many of those next to Hoover! Thank God the nut jobs weren't around to stop Hoover or even Alum from being built.


In the case of Alum we were busy with other things like trying to stop the war in Vietnam...


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

The Big Darby is one of the VERY FEW success stories of municipalities and corporations doing the right thing. In a day and age when you can't swim in toxic algae lakes in Ohio, and Toledo can't drink the water because of the way we've treated Ma Nature, we're flat topping mountains, we're fracking in State Parks....to think of advocating damming up a place like the Darby is mind blowing. To hear it coming out of sportsmen's mouths just literally makes my head hurt.
It would be like spray painting over a Picasso to use it as a yard sale sign. Yeah, you needed to make a sign, but you don't need to destroy a priceless work of art.

I THOUGHT we, and by we I mean everyone on the planet even outside of sportsmen, had all figured out by now that damming up rivers is not the best course of action. 

If you're a reader, check out _Cadillac Dessert_, by Marc Reisner.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those with opposing views.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Lundy said:


> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even those with opposing views.


Well of course. And there are all kinds of opinions: Good ones, bad ones, opinions founded on facts, opinions founded by emotion.
And yes, everyone seems to have one. 

Mine is this: 
We, mankind, have absolutely messed with Mother Nature quite enough. To the point where we literally can't swim in, or even DRINK our own drinking water supplies.
We're messing with Mother Nature in ways that can NOT be undone....permanently RUINING streams, mountains, marshes, deltas, etc...
The very last thing that we need is to destroy one of our very last pristine places in our state. To create anther crappy spillway where people can fight over the trapped fish while dodging hypodermic needles; to eliminate even more endangered species; to ruin the natural flow/flooding cycle that has proven to be detrimental over time.
Especially when we've already learned from those mistakes; when there is CLEARLY a better way to go about creating a reservoir than to dam up a river.
My opinion is also that sportsmen should be the ones who get it and should be leading the charge against things like damming up a place like the Darby; even when it goes against their own personal interests.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

I agree; we don't need another place for guys to take their bass boats. Ohio should have clean, free-flowing rivers and streams, but we've ruined or severely damaged most of those. (Southeast Ohio is the worst with all the acid mine runoff that turns many of the smaller streams orange and kills most of everything.) Do we need to wipe out the Last One so we have another place to catch crappie and take our wave-runners? Head north to where natural lakes are plentiful if that's the kind of fishing you want to do and leave what little we have left alone. If anything we need to raze a lot of these impoundments and return the rivers and streams to their natural state. Personally, I'd love to see Deer Creek permanently drained and the stream restored...


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Last I checked humans are part of nature. Just as are beavers  To think we can permanently harm the environment is human egotism taken to the highest level. 

It wasn't my intention to start a thread to reopen the debate of the damn vs. stream (it's hardly a river after all!). I was just wondering how many of you guys remembered the project and was trying to remember exactly where the lake would've been. My uncle and aunt were very old when the city bought their place, and didn't live long enough to actually have to move out. Their children reaped the financial benefits, and it was not an ungenerous price they received.


----------



## OnTheFly (Jul 30, 2010)

dams are wack, olentangy would be way better without the silt pile that is delaware. thank god they are finally taking out the lowheads.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Mr.Good said:


> Last I checked humans are part of nature. Just as are beavers  To think we can permanently harm the environment is human egotism taken to the highest level.


Wow. Not even sure what to say about that. Maybe you should Google "China Environmental Issues", or "Mountain Top Mining", or "disappearance of Rain Forest".....actually I can't even believe I'm answering in a serious tone.
Unless of course beavers have figured out how to jerk with physics at an atomic level and/or can create nuclear bombs. If they have then yes, I'd have to defer that humans and beavers have an equivalent potential impact on the environment.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Bubbagon said:


> Wow. Not even sure what to say about that. Maybe you should Google "China Environmental Issues", or "Mountain Top Mining", or "disappearance of Rain Forest".....actually I can't even believe I'm answering in a serious tone.
> Unless of course beavers have figured out how to jerk with physics at an atomic level and/or can create nuclear bombs. If they have then yes, I'd have to defer that humans and beavers have an equivalent potential impact on the environment.


Okay that last part cracked me up


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Bubbagon said:


> Wow. Not even sure what to say about that. Maybe you should Google "China Environmental Issues", or "Mountain Top Mining", or "disappearance of Rain Forest".....actually I can't even believe I'm answering in a serious tone.
> Unless of course beavers have figured out how to jerk with physics at an atomic level and/or can create nuclear bombs. If they have then yes, I'd have to defer that humans and beavers have an equivalent potential impact on the environment.


Yes there is some cost for progress. Since you don't like it, write me a letter and we'll continue our correspondence  Or maybe a smoke signal? No wait, can't make smoke anymore either


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bubbagon said:


> The very last thing that we need is to destroy one of our very last pristine places in our state. To create anther crappy spillway where people can fight over the trapped fish while dodging hypodermic needles;.


I hate it when the state makes a lake with a new spillway and stocks it with hypodermic needles. It just draws in all of the ethnic groups that so many here post negatively about and they keep all of the little hypodermic needles before they have a chance to mature into a full grown syringe. 

Also, twice you have tried to drive home the phrase "personal interest": as if that is the primary driving influence in a formed opinion. Certainly opinion and personal interest are not synonymous nor does one have to rely on the other to exist. I know I have some personal strongly help opinions that are in opposition to my personal self interest, I'm guessing you do to, or should, in my opinion.

You seem rather intolerant of people and opinions that differ from yours, but I'm guessing those opinions that differ would be fall into your category of "bad ones or ones founded on emotion"

I don't think you need to worry much, the Darby will never have a dam built on it in our lifetimes, that is a pretty safe bet. 35 years ago it wasn't so certain.


----------



## Big Joshy (Apr 26, 2004)

if this continues I think we will be using a different kind of lock system to work around these dams


----------



## shwookie (Jun 15, 2007)

> Last I checked humans are part of nature. Just as are beavers To think we can permanently harm the environment is human egotism taken to the highest level.


Sarcasm? Has to be.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Mr.Good said:


> No wait, can't make smoke anymore either


You can but you'll need a file a permit and pay a small fee


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm not intolerant of others opinions at all. But I am enthusiastic about environmental issues around our streams and drinking water, if you haven't noticed. It is after all the basis of all life. And I feel no need to feel apologetic about that.

I will also add that it does get frustrating to debate when the opposing view isn't real meaty with facts or science. I'd much rather be proven wrong, or maybe learn something I didn't know about an issue. But the contrary responses can sometimes have a lot more "I think", or "I feel"....

I guess I was waiting for someone like you, who usually has a reasonable take on things, to offer some kind of reasoning behind why you think a place like the Darby should be dammed up. I mean, is it really because we need more boating opportunities in Central Ohio?


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Mr.Good said:


> Yes there is some cost for progress. Since you don't like it, write me a letter and we'll continue our correspondence  Or maybe a smoke signal? No wait, can't make smoke anymore either


Absolutely there's cost of progress. That's not what we're talking about.
What I'm talking about is that we've learned the cost for progress of dams are too high, and there are MUCH better options available that won't permanently adversely effect our resources.


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

Peanut Butter


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Ask all the people who benefited by the electricity generated from the TVA damns. And be glad there is a Hoover so you have drinking water too...

I love "scientific facts" and people who have blind faith in them. To paraphrase probably the greatest scientist of all time, Einstein, "the more I learn about science, the more I realize how much we don't know..."

Scientists change their minds all the time. And as for feelings, you were the one to brought up nuclear bombs when all we were talking about was when, where, and why wasn't a dam built.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't say I blindly believe in scientific facts, I said it would be an interesting debate if someone actually mixed some FACTS in...or some data...or a study...or anything beyond an emotional opinion. Heaven forbid.
You might as well be saying that you like dams because they're pretty...or you like the way it's kind of a cuss word, but kind of not a cuss word....


----------



## shwookie (Jun 15, 2007)

Mr.Good said:


> Ask all the people who benefited by the electricity generated from the TVA damns. And be glad there is a Hoover so you have drinking water too...
> 
> *I love "scientific facts" and people who have blind faith in them.* To paraphrase probably the greatest scientist of all time, Einstein, "the more I learn about science, the more I realize how much we don't know..."
> 
> Scientists change their minds all the time. And as for feelings, you were the one to brought up nuclear bombs when all we were talking about was when, where, and why wasn't a dam built.


How rich.

Too bad no one will be able to call you out on your monumentally ironic position.


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)




----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Bubbagon said:


> Your reading comprehension is lacking. I didn't say I blindly believe in scientific facts, I said it would be an interesting debate if someone actually mixed some FACTS in...or some data...or a study...or anything beyond an emotional opinion. Heaven forbid.
> You might as well be saying that you like dams because they're pretty...or you like the way it's kind of a cuss word, but kind of not a cuss word....


Or just maybe I own a concrete company  Lighten up boys or cut back on the Starbucks!


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Mr.Good said:


> Or just maybe I own a concrete company  Lighten up boys or cut back on the Starbucks!


Zinger! I guess when all else fails, in the complete absence of facts or any solid reasoning, insult the other person and accuse them of caring too much.
A VERY fitting end to your distinguished debating skills today.


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Bubbagon said:


> Zinger! I guess when all else fails, in the complete absence of facts or any solid reasoning, insult the other person and accuse them of caring too much.
> A VERY fitting end to your distinguished debating skills today.


Sarcasm! Guess I found out where your goat was tied, didn't I?


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Mr. Lundy, guess it's time to close this one down...


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

In before the close....

I hate reservoirs by the way.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Deazl666 said:


> Personally, I'd love to see Deer Creek permanently drained and the stream restored...


Personally, I prefer the flood control dam the way it is and so does pretty much every other farmer below the dam. I think the creek itself below the dam is in great shape, and there's some different fishing opportunities above the lake.
Back to the subject of Darby-The dairy at the Orient prison did more harm downstream of it on Big Darby than probably anything else in the 60's.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

streamstalker said:


> in before the close....:d
> 
> i hate reservoirs by the way.



Nice!....


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Sciotodarby said:


> Personally, I prefer the flood control dam the way it is and so does pretty much every other farmer below the dam. I think the creek itself below the dam is in great shape, and there's some different fishing opportunities above the lake.
> 
> Back to the subject of Darby-The dairy at the Orient prison did more harm downstream of it on Big Darby than probably anything else in the 60's.



I'm sure they do prefer it; I'd be happy as well if the State subsidized my corporate farm to the point of impounding a river, even if the resulting reservoir turned out to be a tremendous eyesore...


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Mr.Good said:


> Sarcasm! Guess I found out where your goat was tied, didn't I?


Ummmm, sure. 
I will say I'm intrigued, as I'm not sure if you're tongue in cheek or if these are really your thoughts. 
If it's the latter, I'm much less intrigued.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Deazl666 said:


> I'm sure they do prefer it; I'd be happy as well if the State subsidized my corporate farm to the point of impounding a river, even if the resulting reservoir turned out to be a tremendous eyesore...



What exactly is a corporate farm? Do you understand subsidies?


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Sciotodarby said:


> What exactly is a corporate farm? Do you understand subsidies?



Yes, and look it up...


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

I don't know what your definition of a corporate farm is, but I can guarantee there are no true "corporate" farms in the water shed below the dam......


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bubbagon said:


> I'm not intolerant of others opinions at all.


 You have, in my opinion, demonstrated that you are so blatantly intolerant of differing opinions from yours that you can not even tolerate the possibility that you are intolerant.



Bubbagon said:


> I'd much rather be proven wrong, or maybe learn something I didn't know about an issue.


I question if it would even be remotely possible for you to learn something new about anything



Bubbagon said:


> I guess I was waiting for someone like you, who *usually *has a reasonable take on things, to offer some kind of reasoning behind why you think a place like the Darby should be dammed up


I think you just answered your own question

From your first post you have been critical of any statement by anyone that has not been in alignment with your opinion, all the way to where you stated it made your "head hurt". You have classified any dissenting opinions as bad, or based on emotion, you have implied that they must be based on personal interests which you also structured as bad. You said you THOUGHT the whole world had learned, implying any one the disagrees with you must not have learned the lesson, again lording your opinion above all others.

Here is the difference to which you are apparently blind. I have never asked you why or how you have arrived at your opinion because I don't care how you have arrived at your opinion because it is yours, you can have it without my intervention. As long as your opinion or anyone else's doesn't impact my life, I don't care. Your opinion has zero impact on my life and as such zero significance to me. You seem to have problems accepting that reality from others

Are we done yet? I hope so, or would you like the last word?


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Yes those who hate reservoirs are absolutely right, Hoover is one UGLY place and you should all stay away from it! Go wade in your pristine little creek


----------



## polebender (Oct 29, 2011)

Mr.Good said:


> Mr. Lundy, guess it's time to close this one down...


Please don't shut down. This is very good reading!


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

I love lamp.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Lundy said:


> Are we done yet? I hope so, or would you like the last word?



I wish Bubba would come back on and say "word"!!!


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

Llew96 said:


> I love lamp.



Pipe down Brick!


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

Deazl666 said:


> Pipe down Brick!


LOUD NOISES!!!


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

No seriously, I think everyone has valid points on both sides. I just think its funny how heated people get over this. It's wonderful to have both lake and stream fishing access here in central Ohio. This would not be possible without the reservoirs AND the natural creeks. While there are other underling issues, such as subsidized farming, like Deazle pointed out (which is a whole 'nother ball of wax), and the elimination of endangered species, its important to remember that the world is ours, for better or worse. We, as humans, have emerged as the dominant INTELLIGENT species on this planet. That being said, it is our responsibility to not only mold this planet to our desires, but to also create a balance between what damage we bring about and how we preserve the naturalness (if that's a word) of our planet. It's all about balance. As I've said before, there are times in certain rivers that I wonder whether I should actually be in the water, and there other times that I am grateful for a wade in a "clean" river such as the darby. But, at the end of the day, some sacrifices must be taken in order for us all to not only enjoy the nature that is around us, but to also accept the progress that manipulating that nature can bring about. When the first mills were built on the rivers, some probably balked at the idea of damming up a river for industrial purposes. But look at what that innovation has brought about. Preservation is important, but so is progress. Human machinations will never change the world on an ecological scale. Nature is too powerful to allow that to happen. So again, it is about balance. Using nature to serve man's purpose, while preserving the innocence of that nature to the best of our ability. At the end of the day, I am thankful for what man has created, AND for what nature has instituted on this planet.


----------



## Mr.Good (Dec 11, 2006)

Llew96 said:


> No seriously, I think everyone has valid points on both sides. I just think its funny how heated people get over this. It's wonderful to have both lake and stream fishing access here in central Ohio. This would not be possible without the reservoirs AND the natural creeks. While there are other underling issues, such as subsidized farming, like Deazle pointed out (which is a whole 'nother ball of wax), and the elimination of endangered species, its important to remember that the world is ours, for better or worse. We, as humans, have emerged as the dominant INTELLIGENT species on this planet. That being said, it is our responsibility to not only mold this planet to our desires, but to also create a balance between what damage we bring about and how we preserve the naturalness (if that's a word) of our planet. It's all about balance. As I've said before, there are times in certain rivers that I wonder whether I should actually be in the water, and there other times that I am grateful for a wade in a "clean" river such as the darby. But, at the end of the day, some sacrifices must be taken in order for us all to not only enjoy the nature that is around us, but to also accept the progress that manipulating that nature can bring about. When the first mills were built on the rivers, some probably balked at the idea of damming up a river for industrial purposes. But look at what that innovation has brought about. Preservation is important, but so is progress. Human machinations will never change the world on an ecological scale. Nature is too powerful to allow that to happen. So again, it is about balance. Using nature to serve man's purpose, while preserving the innocence of that nature to the best of our ability. At the end of the day, I am thankful for what man has created, AND for what nature has instituted on this planet.


Well said friend! Every once in awhile, I think it's on the History channel, they replay a show called "Earth After Humans" and it shows how quickly the earth would absorb all they we have built and "permanently" done to this old world. I say quickly in terms of the Earth having been around billions of year and likely a few billion more after we are long gone


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

The Earth will be fine in the end, we just want it to be nice in the meantime 

I'll again refer interested folks to the US EPA overview of the Darby Watershed I posted earlier. I know lots of reading scares some folks, but it's very interesting and worth your time!


----------



## shwookie (Jun 15, 2007)

Mushijobah said:


> The Earth will be fine in the end, we just want it to be nice in the meantime
> 
> I'll again refer interested folks to the US EPA overview of the Darby Watershed I posted earlier. I know lots of reading scares some folks, but it's very interesting and worth your time!


Your just wasting your breathe. On both accords.


----------



## Deazl666 (Mar 30, 2012)

We certainly have changed the planet; now we're gonna be Nature's bitch...


----------



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Well that's certainly an interesting arm chair psychiatric analysis, Lundy.. Although I thought we were talking about the pros and cons of dams. Not sure why you're turning your attention toward me personally, but OK..
I reread my responses, not sure where I chapped your bag, but obviously I did.. Possbly is I were a more vocal proponent of local swim baits....I dunno. 
Also not sure how I'm on the wrong side of this issue. But I strongly believe that I'm in the majority that believe there should be less dams, not more.
I'm at that point where I can see that some are not interested in actually debating the topic...which is disappointing as there are actually valid points to be heard on both sides. 
Take some more cracks at me. That's cool. I'm gonna go fish your neighborhood and dream that there are jet skis and million dollar home surrounding me. Click my heels three times and think "If only the Darby were more like Alum Creek..."


----------



## Llew96 (Jun 26, 2014)

Bubbagon said:


> "If only the Darby were more like Alum Creek..."


NO Thank You!


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

I've been waiting on you, and now that you have had the last word..............


----------

