PDA

View Full Version : New regs for the Caney?


gutshot
08-24-2009, 11:06 PM
Seems too good to be true. Am I hallucinating?

http://news.tennesseeanytime.org/node/2427

Caney Fork River
Rainbow and brook trout-14-20 inches PLR with 1 fish over 20 inches
Brown Trout-22 inches Minimum Length Limit (MLL) with 1 fish over,
(changed from 18-inches MLL with two over)
PLR - protected length range

I guess I can spend money in TN again, if they pass. I need a good duck hunt.....

Gerry Romer
08-25-2009, 12:15 AM
Two other noteworthy items from the same press release:

*South Holston Reservoir- Remove the closed trout season (Dec. 1 to Feb. 28)

*Also, on the Caney Fork, the TWRC Fisheries Committee will consider changing the daily creel limit from seven to five trout per day, per person

Interesting....

Gerry

Worrgamesguy
08-25-2009, 01:13 AM
Where is the dotted line I can sign on to show my support? :biggrin:

gutshot
08-25-2009, 11:24 AM
Write a letter to the TWRA saying you support the regs.

And you can vote here. Check out the wording, so much bias from a fishing guide.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_157455.asp

Apparently down at the bottom they have an additional option for a 24 inch minimum on the browns! If you have never written a letter to the TWRA, now is the time. I have written them for both the clinch and the caney and I have no intention of fishing the clinch at this time. I just think the regs are a good idea for the rivers and the TN economy.

GS

ChemEAngler
08-25-2009, 11:40 AM
*South Holston Reservoir- Remove the closed trout season (Dec. 1 to Feb. 28)

Gerry

Gerry,

So this is actually on the reservoir, correct? Or are they suggesting removing the closed waters on the tailwater during that time?

Maurer
08-25-2009, 02:04 PM
heck yeah, I like the sound of those regs, it will help produce more of these
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3vXyHqfHQao/SpHwilmcKUI/AAAAAAAAApI/sCk7211pcVc/s400/IMGP0170.

Also, just a heads up he ate a hopper last friday. The fish, not the guy in the blue shirt.

Gerry Romer
08-25-2009, 05:58 PM
Gerry,

So this is actually on the reservoir, correct? Or are they suggesting removing the closed waters on the tailwater during that time?


As best as I can tell, they're talking reservoir only right now. No suggestions on the closed sections of the river yet.

Gerry

JoelO
08-25-2009, 06:58 PM
Yee Ha! Great news!

Just wondering what you folks think about the 22" vs 24" proposal on browns. I'm C&R all the time so it wouldn't affect me so I'm guessing the proposal for a 24" minimum is to effectively make about all the browns C&R...right? Would that cause any problems with the rainbow/brookie populations?

Why is there a difference in the minimum length proposals between species? Is it because the rate of growth is different?

Byron Begley
08-25-2009, 07:27 PM
I'm going to do what I did when the regulation changes on the Clinch were considered. I'm going to send an e-mail to Frank Fiss at TWRA and our Region's Wildlife Commissioner, Mike Chase supporting the changes. They actually count those e-mails. All of you should e-mail the commissioner in your region. You can get their e-mail address from the TWRA website. Let them know you would like to speak at the commission meeting in October. Show up, stand up and tell them what you think. The fisheries biologists want these changes or they would not have been recommended. They need your support and it will happen if enough of us get involved. I'll see you there.

Byron

Maurer
08-25-2009, 10:33 PM
Byron is right we should all send emails. Here is a link to the TWRA contact page. Click on your region or on region 3 and send them a very nice email saying you are in favor of the new regs. I'd say go for the 24" minimum, I know a bunch of the guides were shooting for 26", as this is the TARP on browns but lets take what we can get. If they are considering 24 then lets hit them with that recommendation and maybe next year we can get it to 26.
Here's the link: http://www.state.tn.us/twra/contact.html

ChemEAngler
08-26-2009, 09:49 AM
Email sent!

gutshot
08-26-2009, 01:04 PM
Sent also.

Worrgamesguy
08-26-2009, 02:01 PM
Sent as well.

silvercreek
08-26-2009, 03:12 PM
So, what's the best email to use. The one that I found that made sense was to a Becky Gunn in fisheries management. Is there a better one?

wm1miller
08-26-2009, 03:20 PM
I emailed my support also.
Willaim

white95v6
08-27-2009, 09:05 AM
i guess we should take what we can get lol.

but i just don't see the need to keep a 7-10 inch fish. i think the bows should be moved to a 12inch min. and maybe make the PLR like a 16-20 or 16-22''.

over all though i like that they have done something.

David Knapp
08-27-2009, 01:16 PM
I sent an email and hope others will do so as well. These proposed regulation changes are incredible and will only do good things for this river...

flydoc
08-27-2009, 07:22 PM
This is great news! EVERYONE needs to take 3 minutes and contact the TWRA and support these changes. If you don't have three minutes for this don't complain about fisheries mgmt in TN. Here's the best way to submit your comments:

TWRA is asking for public comments on these proposed regulation changes by October 4, 2009. Public comments should be submitted by mail to: Sport Fish Comments, TWRA, Fisheries Management Division, P.O. 40747, Nashville, TN 37204 or emailed to TWRA.Comment@tn.gov. Please include Sport Fish Comments on the subject line of emailed submissions.

Grumpy
08-28-2009, 07:48 AM
i guess we should take what we can get lol.

but i just don't see the need to keep a 7-10 inch fish. i think the bows should be moved to a 12inch min. and maybe make the PLR like a 16-20 or 16-22''.

over all though i like that they have done something.

PLR on the bows starts at 14";)

white95v6
08-29-2009, 11:36 AM
PLR on the bows starts at 14";)

yea i know grumpy. and thats alot better then what we have now.

i just see no need to let someone keep a 7-10'' fish. make it a min 12'' limit. and move the PLR to a 17-24. :biggrin:

Stonefly
08-29-2009, 12:22 PM
What I think would happen then would be few fish making it to 17" where they'd be protected. Probably not much different than it is now.

As the proposed regs stand, I think we'll see a lot more fish in that safe zone. Assuming there's some enforcement of course. Once they hit 14", they can grow thru that protected range and we enjoy a lot more 16-17+ inch fish than we do now.

I need to look back at the note I sent to TWRA months ago, but this proposal sounds strikingly close to what I "asked" for.

sb

gutshot
08-29-2009, 12:59 PM
i just see no need to let someone keep a 7-10'' fish. make it a min 12'' limit. and move the PLR to a 17-24. :biggrin:


I would bet you might be very surprised how many people are thrilled to keep 7-10 inch trout for dinner. They think they are 12-14 inches because most people don't measure their fish..... What would you guess the average length of trout served in restaurants? I would say 10-12 inches mostly and never more than 14. The smaller fish just off the trucks have also used less of the food resource in the river and thus have less effect on the resource over the long term, leaving more to eat for the fish that are smart or lucky enough to not get culled out. These fish would be more likely to survive to large trophy size.....

I have seen many many people claim a 20 inch fish that when a tape was placed on it didn't go 15 inches.

I am tired of people saying that regs won't work without complete enforcement, this is a false conclusion based upon no data. I think more than 90% of anglers want to follow the law to the letter, as do a similar number of hunters. 5-8% are ignorant or unable to understand what they are reading and around 2% want to break the laws. If the 90% use their cell phones and call the law on the 2% there will never be an issue as far as resource depletion, and law enforcement's time will be spent more efficiently. Poaching of deer, as an example, still occurs in this state, but the overall population is not affected because a huge percentage of hunters understand the law protects the resource over the long term....

I have called the game wardens regarding fishing violations with prompt professional response in the past. I would encourage all of you to store the number in your phones. If word gets out that most anglers are watching out, then the law breakers will be at the least pushed to doing their thing in the dark or away from major fishing areas....

white95v6
08-29-2009, 01:40 PM
you are right i may be suprized.

just for me i think a smaller fish is not that good to take home. now i don't like to eat the bigger fish ehter. if i am taking home a fish to eat i normally keep the 12-16inch fish.