PDA

View Full Version : Tailwater Stamp


pineman19
09-11-2011, 07:44 AM
Hey,

Read a thread on another SE forum discussing the possibility of TWRA implementing a "tailwater stamp" as a means of generating more revenue and to supposedly lighten the pressure on the most popular tailwater streams. I don't buy the idea that they would be trying to lessen the pressure on these waters with a new stamp, that would defeat any revenue gained by the monies from a Tailwater Stamp. No matter what, I think license fees will continue to rise as the economy continues to stagnate and the revenue base for state and federal wildlife commissions continues to dwindle.

Neal

white95v6
09-13-2011, 11:50 AM
if they do i am not sure i will trout fish much longer. we already pay for the privlage to try to catch the fish they stock.

now here is something me and a buddy was thinking about. there are trout in center hill,dale hollow and other lakes right? a trout stamp is not needed to fish these lakes right?

why are we paying to fish a river with trout? i mean trout are not the only fish in most if not all stocked tailwaters.

Flat Fly n
09-13-2011, 12:01 PM
Does that additional money come with a dedicated game warden for that particular tailwater? If so, bring it. I will buy a stamp for each of the tailwaters I fish in if it means law enforcement. IF not, it's just more wasted tax dollars.

white95v6
09-13-2011, 12:02 PM
The Fisheries Management Committee asked TWRA Fisheries Division personnel to recommend a proposed guide license, both resident and non-resident, along with any qualifications or restrictions that may be necessary. Also, the update will include a projected cost of managing the program and the projected revenue.

The recommendation made earlier was to consider a guide license for the following waters: The rivers immediately below Wilbur, Watauga, South Holston, Cherokee, Norris, Appalachian, Tim’s Ford, Dale Hollow and Normandy dams.


and

Guide License Proposal

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission discussed the possibility of implementing a fishing guide license at the Aug. 25 Commission meeting in Kingsport. The Commission felt that a guide license is needed to assist in expenses at TWRA’s state fish hatcheries due to the likely reductions in trout production at federal fish hatcheries in Tennessee, Dale Hollow and Erwin National Fish Hatcheries.

A recommendation was made to consider a fishing guide license only for the following waters: the rivers immediately below Wilbur, Watauga, South Holston, Cherokee, Norris, Appalachian, Tim’s Ford, Center Hill, Dale Hollow, and Normandy dams. The Agency was asked to recommend a proposed cost for the guide license, both resident and nonresident; any qualifications or restrictions that may be necessary; the projected cost for managing the program; and the projected revenue generated from the program. These recommendations will be presented to the TWRC on Oct. 13 at the Commission meeting in Nashville.

you can email your comments to them.

TWRA.Comment@tn.gov. Please include “Sport Fish Comments” or “Fishing Guide License Comments” on the subject line of emailed submissions.

white95v6
09-13-2011, 12:07 PM
Does that additional money come with a dedicated game warden for that particular tailwater? If so, bring it. I will buy a stamp for each of the tailwaters I fish in if it means law enforcement. IF not, it's just more wasted tax dollars.

a warden 24/7? yea right. while we are hopeing/dreaming lets get 3 or 4 of them.

not realy trying to be a SA just saying it won't happen.

ChemEAngler
09-13-2011, 12:21 PM
The recommendation made earlier was to consider a guide license for the following waters: The rivers immediately below Wilbur, Watauga, South Holston, Cherokee, Norris, Appalachian, Tim’s Ford, Dale Hollow and Normandy dams.

you can email your comments to them.

TWRA.Comment@tn.gov. Please include “Sport Fish Comments” or “Fishing Guide License Comments” on the subject line of emailed submissions.

So..... basically all of the trout tailwaters in the area. I am assuming this is only a license for the guide himself and not his client. The client would still be responsible for a fishing license and trout stamp whether they be from TN or Out of State.

I have only floated the Watauga once, but have waded it a few times. If there was one tailwater on the list that I would support having a guide license fee on, that would be it. It is a zoo up there on weekends, and midweek isn't much better. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a driftboat is out there trying to make a buck. This results in some major congestion and even the occasional heated encounter when one person sits on a honey hole and blocks everybody from passing.

Not to mention the overwhelming majority of the vehicles (guided an not) on both the Watauga and South Holston are from out of state.

However, I don't necessarily agree with another license or fee. Why aren't they charging a bass tournament fee on the area's large lakes? Last time I checked North Carolina had a lower out-of-state trout license that ran 1-yr from date of purchase, with a lot more quality trout streams (including excellent DH waters). If we get too greedy, the OoS fisherman I referenced above on the Watauga and South Holston may just take their fishing trips and money to a neighboring state. What good does that do us?

Flat Fly n
09-13-2011, 12:33 PM
a warden 24/7? yea right. while we are hopeing/dreaming lets get 3 or 4 of them.

not realy trying to be a SA just saying it won't happen.

you're right....they won't do the right thing...just waste more of our money. they will take that money and supply trout to be stocked in cement ponds for special occations as they have done at the Worlds Fair park here in the past. Trout you and I paid for, and wasted to promote TWRA.

waterwolf
09-13-2011, 12:36 PM
Flat Fly N' can vouch for my disapproval of this idea. I think he read my pointed and direct objections to this latest idiotic idea by the buffoons at TWRA.

I will just say this and be as clear as possible. "I vehemently disagree with any new license or fees levied on guides or catch and release anglers. "

I think the bait slingers should have to pay double, to pay for the damage they do to the resource daily, and the removal of their trash which they can't seem to pick up on their own. Not to mention the cigarette butts and inane chatter between them on the river.

Grumpy
09-14-2011, 09:09 AM
Correct me if i'm wrong, if i decide to guide in a neighboring state, i'm required to have a guide license, i believe this is what's stimulating the the new proposed fee, in that case i'm all for it, bunch of out of state guides are making some good bucks in our state.

Grumpy

Mike_Anderson
09-15-2011, 08:42 PM
This has to be the most unfair crock of horse you know what I've ever heard of. Trout Guides bring in more revenue to TWRA via trout stamp AND license purchases by their clients, usually two at a time, then ANY other type of guide. So what do they want to do?? Punish them with another fee.

This is a political push from some people who want the rivers and profits only for themselves. It's greedy and it's wrong. Across the board licenses for all guides or nothing at all. Nothing at all has been working very well for a very long time.

white95v6
09-15-2011, 09:16 PM
yea if they want to make a guide licence a requirement. then it needs to be state wide. not just for tailwaters.

if you are getting paid to take someone fishing. then buy a guide licence. and your guide licence should cover the fishermen in your boat.

flyman
09-15-2011, 09:55 PM
NO MORE! The cost of the out of state licenses is already high enough.:mad:

white95v6
09-17-2011, 05:44 PM
The fishing guide license options presented were 1) no change to existing rules or no guide license required; 2) fishing guide license required ($200 for residents, $1,000 for non-residents); and 3) fishing guide license required (the same fee of $200 for residents, $1,000 for non-residents) and guides would need to meet qualifying criteria. Those criteria included for discussion were proof of insurance, background check, first aid/CPR training, and boating safety training. No decision was made on these options. However, the discussion was centered around the guide license for designated tailwater fisheries.


just a update. i am emailing again lol.

waterwolf
09-17-2011, 10:59 PM
Ahh yes more big government and taxation. Nothing like liberals, think that taxing and stealing more money from folks will make everything okay.

Corbo
09-18-2011, 12:57 PM
Well.... This is simply another TAX!

I moved to TN as Maine had become notorious for their creative use of new taxation methods... They call them "revenue streams"; seems our rivers here are now looked upon by TWRA as revenue streams. The perception that fly fishermen have more disposable income among government employees is ridiculous or that a "lucrative" & thriving industry such as guiding needs to be punished with regulations and fees is shameful!

I wonder what it costs TWRA to stock walleyes, crappie and STRIPPED BASS or Hybrids? Hmmmm?

Seems to me that anyone who can purchase a $35,000 bass boat ought to be "taxed" or Fee'd for chasing other stocked fish.

white95v6
09-18-2011, 05:54 PM
Well.... This is simply another TAX!

I moved to TN as Maine had become notorious for their creative use of new taxation methods... They call them "revenue streams"; seems our rivers here are now looked upon by TWRA as revenue streams. The perception that fly fishermen have more disposable income among government employees is ridiculous or that a "lucrative" & thriving industry such as guiding needs to be punished with regulations and fees is shameful!

I wonder what it costs TWRA to stock walleyes, crappie and STRIPPED BASS or Hybrids? Hmmmm?

Seems to me that anyone who can purchase a $35,000 bass boat ought to be "taxed" or Fee'd for chasing other stocked fish.

its funny i am against new taxes for the most part and this is a tax just dressed different. lol

like i said if they are trying to make a guide licence then it needs to be state wide and cover ALL guides. not just tail water guides. and that guide licence should cover the fishing licence for his customers.

and you have a very vaild point they don't charge us to fish for those other stocked fish soo why charge us to fish for trout they stock? gotta stick it to us when they see a chance i guess.

waterwolf
09-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Great points fellas, how about he wasted money on the stupid brook trout in the Clinch? How about the wasted money on stocking the Big Pigeon? How about the wasted money on the absurd Elk Project? How about all the new trucks TWRA folks are driving?

I could go on and on for pages, but the buffoons at TWRA really have no clue about anything other then riding around and asking some one for a license. And they can even enforce that.

Which brings up another point, they can't enforce the rules we have now, how in the **** are the going to enforce this stupid tax? So I am guiding on the Clinch, a game warden asks me if I am a guide. I say no, he goes home. End of story, this idea is laughable and I feel like I am being kind.

How can he prove I am guiding if he sees no money changing hands? Even if I have a guide decal on my boat, or am a guide can I not fish with buddies without being taxed to oblivion?

They ought to call it the stupid tax (license), because the folks who support it, came up with it, and most importantly get duped into buying it are idiots. It is unenforceable, and they don't have enough man power to enforce current laws, so how can they enforce this?

Corbo
09-19-2011, 06:48 AM
How can they enforce this new law/tax/fee?

Really simple..... with new "revenue"... "they" (commonly known as unionized government labor) can hire MORE help! OR they can get MORE overtime pay.

Really now; government needs to go on a diet.... I'm tired of the theory that MORE control, more government power and MORE government employees improves anything at all.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!

Grumpy
09-19-2011, 08:08 AM
I had a discussion with a couple of my TWRA friends yesterday & after the discussion i can't support it, it does need to apply to all guides & not just tailwater guides.
I do like the FANTASY world that some of you guys are living in though, taxes don't run TWRA, license sells, a few dollars off violation ticket's & some Federal funding, thank goodness the Goverment hasn't gotten ahold of control over TWRA, we wouldn't have squat after they wasted the money.
I would support a guide license on all levels, as i posted earlier, i can't guide in other states w/o purchasing one.
Enforcing it would be a nightmare, the officers asked yesterday how they could tell if i were guiding or not, i told them they'd know i wasn't guiding if i were in the front or back of the drifter instead of in the middle.
Has TWRA made some mistakes, sure, just like you or me, it happens.

Grumpy

Mike_Anderson
09-19-2011, 09:28 AM
Glad you came around Grumpy. What's being proposed is wrong period. I'm a huge fan of the Job TWRA does both in the field and the streams. There are programs that I don't support as I am sure there are programs I love that other sportsmen don't support. It all evens out.

As for the Hatcheries closing I've mentioned many times before that we should start a non profit "Friends Of" club that can put on charity events and collect donations for the local hatcheries. I know this has been done in Arkansas and has been very successful there. I'd be more then happy host this on my site, and to donate money to the Hatcheries, as would a whole lot of the people who frequent my site. I think it could potentially drive more revenue <<DIRECTLY>>> to the Hatcheries then a guide stamp and there would be no way for the money to be used for anything other then the hatcheries.

Just something to think about...
Mike

ChemEAngler
09-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Really now; government needs to go on a diet.... I'm tired of the theory that MORE control, more government power and MORE government employees improves anything at all.


In a little over a year the country will have a chance to try and change that mentality....


This is a political push from some people who want the rivers and profits only for themselves. It's greedy and it's wrong. Across the board licenses for all guides or nothing at all. Nothing at all has been working very well for a very long time.

This is basically what my email to TWRA said, just in about four times as many words. :biggrin:

How about this idea:

If they are proposing these taxes and fees to account for loss of Federal funding for hatcheries, how about charging the people who account for the need for hatcheries. Why not create two types of trout stamps? One for C&R and one for Creel Fisherman. Make the people who are keeping the fish and reducing the resource pay more. And before anybody jumps on me for saying that, I do keep fish on occasion. So, this isn't a radical C&R proponent here proposing this idea. I just believe in personal responsibility. If I take more than somebody else, I should pay my fair share for that resource. I have never asked for handouts, and don't expect others to pay for my portion.

pineman19
09-19-2011, 01:02 PM
In a little over a year the country will have a chance to try and change that mentality....



This is basically what my email to TWRA said, just in about four times as many words. :biggrin:

How about this idea:

If they are proposing these taxes and fees to account for loss of Federal funding for hatcheries, how about charging the people who account for the need for hatcheries. Why not create two types of trout stamps? One for C&R and one for Creel Fisherman. Make the people who are keeping the fish and reducing the resource pay more. And before anybody jumps on me for saying that, I do keep fish on occasion. So, this isn't a radical C&R proponent here proposing this idea. I just believe in personal responsibility. If I take more than somebody else, I should pay my fair share for that resource. I have never asked for handouts, and don't expect others to pay for my portion.

ChemE,

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I haven't kept a tailwater trout in the 5 or so years I have been fishing TN tailwaters. I have nothing against those who do, but why should myself or others who mainly practice catch-n-release on these waters pay for those who treat these rivers like a entitlement? They raised the cost of the Trout Stamp this year, I guess they are afraid of raising it again, the fish mongers will raise cane if it goes up again, so they are looking for another avenue to generate additional monies. In the end, it's more about politics instead of doing what is proper management for the resources.

Neal

mikebone
09-19-2011, 01:16 PM
Hello everyone..I just recently was made aware of the whole trout guide license issue. Since I'm coming up on the nearly two decade mark as a full time tailwater guide here I'd like to add my thoughts. First, I am not opposed to a "guide license" in the state of Tennessee, never have been. But it should be done to ensure a level of safety and professionalism, not as a fund raising effort. Guides already bring in money to TWRA through license sales. I regularly take folks who purchase three day licenses with a trout stamp, out of state folks pay more, often they fish one day, take no fish from the resource (we've always been catch and release), and leave. These same people stay in local hotels, frequent local restaurants and contribute to the area economy. Out of state guides probably contribute much less to the local economy but still bring in revenue to the TWRA through licenses.
Be assured, nobody is making a killing at this. You don't become a guide for the money, and you sure won't stay one for long if that is your motivation. Not everyone who floats in a driftboat is a guide, matter of fact, most these days aren't. Most people here probably already know that, but I wonder sometimes about TWRA's perception. There are very few people out there who count on guiding as they're primary source of income. I know most of 'em..they're good guys, they don't have beach houses. It's a lot like farming, some years you make it, some years you don't.
Don't get me wrong, if you derive income from a resource you probably should contribute a little more, but it needs to be fair. Tennessee is not Montana, people don't travel from all over the world to fish here. I for one am happy about that as it keeps the traffic, and number of guides down by virtue of supply and demand, a tried and true system. Enforcement of the current regulations on tailwaters is quite frankly a joke. Anyone who spends much time there knows that. TWRA officers are already stretched thin, where would they find the resources to enforce this new regulation? Are you going to stop everyone in a driftboat and ask if they're a guide?How much money could it actually bring in minus the cost of administration? This has been proposed before and found to be not feasable. What changed?
Bottom line is this reg would make an already tough business tougher, ask the fly shops. Tennessee tailwaters, like all great rivers, will ultimately only be maintained through common sense regulations that benefit the resource, and dilligent enforcement of those regulations. Not through knee jerk reactions just to appear to be doing something.

Mike_Anderson
09-19-2011, 04:56 PM
I'd love to know where the overwhelming 73% of Trout guides support of this came from? Guides that were hand fed to the agency for the survey no doubt...

73% supported a proposal that's cost and regulation was open ended at the time of the survey? Wow!

Survey Results
http://www.sceniccityfishing.com/forumpics/Guide_Survey_Results.pdf

mikebone
09-19-2011, 06:47 PM
Wow Mike...that is interesting! Took a look at the "survey" results from the link you posted. Thanks. I would like to see that list myself. None of the guys I have spoken to had heard anything from TWRA at all about it, and I seriously doubt if you asked around at all, one of our names would not have come up. One of them has even published books on the area! Unbelieveable! Gotta make some calls..thanks again!

waterwolf
09-19-2011, 11:01 PM
I had a discussion with a couple of my TWRA friends yesterday & after the discussion i can't support it, it does need to apply to all guides & not just tailwater guides.
I do like the FANTASY world that some of you guys are living in though, taxes don't run TWRA, license sells, a few dollars off violation ticket's & some Federal funding, thank goodness the Goverment hasn't gotten ahold of control over TWRA, we wouldn't have squat after they wasted the money.
I would support a guide license on all levels, as i posted earlier, i can't guide in other states w/o purchasing one.
Enforcing it would be a nightmare, the officers asked yesterday how they could tell if i were guiding or not, i told them they'd know i wasn't guiding if i were in the front or back of the drifter instead of in the middle.
Has TWRA made some mistakes, sure, just like you or me, it happens.

Grumpy
TWRA is the poster child for mistakes and government wasting money. I could list the hundreds of wasted projects, salaries, etc etc that they do every year, but it would shut this sight down.

Name one aspect of management they do better then other states surrounding us? And you better support it with facts or stats.

They are a travesty, and this new tax is just another fine example of the lack of intelligence they possess from their core to the guys in the field.

waterwolf
09-19-2011, 11:06 PM
I'd love to know where the overwhelming 73% of Trout guides support of this came from? Guides that were hand fed to the agency for the survey no doubt...

73% supported a proposal that's cost and regulation was open ended at the time of the survey? Wow!

Survey Results
http://www.sceniccityfishing.com/forumpics/Guide_Survey_Results.pdf
Mike they come up with these BS numbers every time they need to push some crap legislation through. They have pulled it for deer regs, turkey regs, crappie regs etc etc. They hire it out to UT and do random surveys generally, on this one in particular I don't know the facts, but I know of zero guides who even remotely support this proposal.

Cheme makes a great point, and one that I agree with 100%. Why not charge the folks who actually remove part of the resource more, that seems far more equitable then hammering a person who takes nothing.

Bottom line TWRA is as bad or worse then the federal govt. anyone who has ever attended a public meeting will understand what I am saying. They are basically almost impossible to talk with in an intelligent manner, and have their mind made up prior to even hearing logical opposing views.

A better idea to save money would be to eliminate the coldwater fisheries folks, they are pitiful at best and a giant money pit. If any evidence is needed look at the horrid job they do of managing a wealth of coldwater resources now.

flyman
09-20-2011, 12:53 AM
I'm all for a nominal fee and more stringent requirements to be a guide. NC charges a nominal guide fee,. The real cost are acquiring the permits to fish National Parks and Forest, liability insurance, and the required training such as first aid and cpr. I have long been an advocate of these requirements and will not fish with a guide who isn't legit.:cool: Always ask before you book a trip, some pirate could take you out and get you killed or seriously injured and you wouldn't have any means of paying your hospital or doctor bills, let alone compensation to your family for your life. Kinda hard to get any money out of someone who lives in an old school bus and drives a 15 year old pick up and has $11. 32 in his bank account :frown:

waterwolf
09-20-2011, 07:01 AM
I'm all for a nominal fee and more stringent requirements to be a guide. NC charges a nominal guide fee,. The real cost are acquiring the permits to fish National Parks and Forest, liability insurance, and the required training such as first aid and cpr. I have long been an advocate of these requirements and will not fish with a guide who isn't legit.:cool: Always ask before you book a trip, some pirate could take you out and get you killed or seriously injured and you wouldn't have any means of paying your hospital or doctor bills, let alone compensation to your family for your life. Kinda hard to get any money out of someone who lives in an old school bus and drives a 15 year old pick up and has $11. 32 in his bank account :frown:

You do realize that all guides that are worth their salt have insurance for the very thing you speak of. Not many of the guides I know are just rolling in cash, they make a living but certainly aren't the richest Americans.

What's wrong with a 15 year old pick up?

You have a lot to learn when it comes to choosing guides.

If I go with a guide and have a heart attack, how is that his fault? Guess personal responsibility is totally gone in this country.

Progressives have **** near taken over ever facet of our society, and will/are destroying capitalism with every passing day.

flyman
09-20-2011, 07:59 AM
Waterwolf,
I think I may not have made myself clear. I've know a lot of people over the years that have called themselves "guides" and had neither insurance nor the proper permits to be conducting business in the National Park nor the National Forest.

There's nothing wrong with a 15 year old pick up, mine is only 13/14, I was using that simply as an example of the lack of assets that some have. If a situation were to arise that came to a civil lawsuit there might be very little in the way of assets.

It's not a guides fault if I have a heart attack, but it would be nice to know that a guide could offer you some help if you did have one, or some other type of accident, like a lighting strike, or drowning.

I'm about as conservative as they come, and believe me, I wouldn't have much trouble picking out a guide, or knowing the warning signs of one to avoid. I know guiding is hard work, and a good one earns every cent he makes.

Rodonthefly
09-20-2011, 10:31 AM
I'm all for a nominal fee and more stringent requirements to be a guide. NC charges a nominal guide fee,. The real cost are acquiring the permits to fish National Parks and Forest, liability insurance, and the required training such as first aid and cpr. I have long been an advocate of these requirements and will not fish with a guide who isn't legit.:cool: Always ask before you book a trip, some pirate could take you out and get you killed or seriously injured and you wouldn't have any means of paying your hospital or doctor bills, let alone compensation to your family for your life. Kinda hard to get any money out of someone who lives in an old school bus and drives a 15 year old pick up and has $11. 32 in his bank account :frown:

I disagree with this comment to say the least,

My boss and his family hired the same boat over the past 10 years, to go tuna fishing. They pay big money to go with the same crew year in and year out. This past Easter the boat they were on, ran aground while leaving the inlet. My bosses brother broke his back. This outfit has not once offered to help in anyway, they have guide and captian license. Those sure as **** didn't help in my bosses case.

You might find that some of the finer folks in this world are those, who set them selfs aside and do what ever they can to help others out insurance or not, license or not.

Being a guide is not about making money, in most guides eyes, if it was we all would be better off working at Walmart. What little money, I make most of the time gos back into fly fishing or some other hobby I have.

Guiding is enjoyable, but offten a pain in the ***! It is hard work, and every cent is earned.

To me if I was picking a guide it sure as ****, wouldn't have anything to do with what he drove, where he lives. Might want to think about that, next time you hire a guide.

As far as a guide willing to help in case of accident, most guides I know have enough common since not to put the clientes in dangers way, and the client should have the common since as well. I have my certs in CPR and first Aid.

So if you were to hire me and have a heart attack after landing the fish of your life time, getting struck by lighting wouldn't happen because I have the common since to not be on the water holding a lighting rod during a storm in the first place. But if it were to happen and I was to be stuck in a civil suite, sorry all your gonna get is a old dodge truck, a old drift boat, a few rods, and $11.32

Now my thoughts on the "guide license", is the same as others, if that money is going to go back into the river, then I'm all for it, i know TWRa well enough to know it won't happen.
Any why not charge the folks who keep the fish the same prices of the fresh fish prices on the market.

flyman
09-20-2011, 11:22 AM
Rodonthefly,
I'm sorry Rod, I'm not trying to stir anything up. Did you read the post I made after that one you quoted? The point I am trying to make is the license fee would be a good way to keep track of all of these so called "guides". Make it mandatory that you have insurance and the proper permits to obtain the guide licenses. I know I worked for years as a general contractor. I had to carry general liability and workmen's compensation policies out the yeng yang. That was a cost of doing business.

If I were you're boss, I would have already hired a lawyer. The boat captain should have insurance, that's where the claim would be initially made. Only in the event the boat captain does not have insurance and litigation were to move onto civil court would the guides assets become important. Most are not wealthy, so there in lies the importance of insurance. A guides personnel wealth has nothing to do with his ability to guide. It does however make insurance coverage important.

The US Park Service and the National Forest require permits to conduct fly fishing guide business. I bet in NC about a 1/3 of the guides fishing the National Forest do not have the proper permits or insurance. Last time I checked, you can get a guides licenses in NC for about $10.

Knothead
09-20-2011, 11:35 AM
Someone might want to research what is required for guiding for big game hunts in the western states and on saltwater. It goes beyond just paying a fee for a license.

white95v6
09-20-2011, 12:02 PM
Someone might want to research what is required for guiding for big game hunts in the western states and on saltwater. It goes beyond just paying a fee for a license.

like the TWRA :biggrin:

David Knapp
09-20-2011, 02:19 PM
In theory, I don't actually have a huge problem with the guide license, but I DO have a problem specifically targeting trout guides. What concerns me is that they will continue to add more licenses and fees which will always hurt the little guy. I've summarized my thoughts (http://thetroutzone.blogspot.com/2011/09/twra-changes-proposed.html) over on my blog for anyone that is interested...

waterwolf
09-20-2011, 04:25 PM
Waterwolf,
I think I may not have made myself clear. I've know a lot of people over the years that have called themselves "guides" and had neither insurance nor the proper permits to be conducting business in the National Park nor the National Forest.

There's nothing wrong with a 15 year old pick up, mine is only 13/14, I was using that simply as an example of the lack of assets that some have. If a situation were to arise that came to a civil lawsuit there might be very little in the way of assets.

It's not a guides fault if I have a heart attack, but it would be nice to know that a guide could offer you some help if you did have one, or some other type of accident, like a lighting strike, or drowning.

I'm about as conservative as they come, and believe me, I wouldn't have much trouble picking out a guide, or knowing the warning signs of one to avoid. I know guiding is hard work, and a good one earns every cent he makes.

When I hire a guide my only concern is whether they are able to put me on fish or game. If I need a doctor I will hire a doctor.

I could just easily get struck by lightning, have a heart attack or drown while fishing with one of my buddies and they certainly don't have the knowledge or abilities you desire in a guide.

Anytime you go into the outdoors you are taking a risk. Whether you are with friends, guide, or alone.

flyman
09-20-2011, 09:42 PM
WW,
I agree, putting me on fish or game is #1. The first aid and CPR are not really of that much concern to me. The only reason I mention them is because some places like National Parks require guides to have that training. I was a medic with the 2nd Marine Division in Vietnam, so I think between my medical and survival training I think I could handle most situations. I still want my guide to be insured and have the proper permits.:smile: It's not fair to the professional guides out there trying to make a living that others are short cutting the system. it's kinda like people that drive without a licenses or insurance.:eek: BTW, I think every state should require hunting and fishing guides to be licensed.

Sorry for all the rambling, I know this kinda got off track of the original purpose of the thread.;)

Rockyraccoon
09-20-2011, 10:38 PM
A lot of good points on this topic already.

I've been working as a guide now for close to ten years. I think Mike said it best when he compared guiding to farming. If your in it, your "all in". Some years you can do ok for yourself, some years you really have to get creative with cooking ramen noodles.

There's a whole lot more that goes into a guided fishing trip then the distance from the put in to the take out. Hours of phone calls, emails, planning, preparing gear, prepping lunches, arranging shuttles, playing meteorologist, monitoring water flows, and all the costs involved.

Being a legit guide isn't cheap. And by legit, I mean playing by the rules set forth by the managing agencies. In all honesty, the current rules here in Tennessee are not bad at all from the guides wallet point of view. Pretty much just by a fishing license and trout stamp.

I also guide in KY. Now I incur some hefty fees when I guide in KY. KY requires out of state guides to purchase a $400 guide license. As a guide who obtains his total income from guiding.......that's pretty much two trips you need to work just to break even. I hate paying $400 but can accept it because I justify it in my head as carrying my weight as I use the resource. And to be honest, I've been checked about a dozen times there over the past few years......so I felt like maybe my contribution was helping with enforcement etc. In addition, they also require a Coast Guard OUPV Captains License. Personally, I think this is a total crock.....There was not one single thing in all of the books and test I took that had anything to do with guiding freshwater rivers. But, they said I had to have it so.......I got one. A huge expense.

On the other front. I've been very lucky over the years to have never had a serious injury on a fishing trip. I've seen many other guides and casual floaters end up in deadly situations and with bad injuries. Fly fishing, or maybe more specifically float fishing, falls into the category of adventure activities, and often times.....these adventures carry risk. A guide does his best to insure safety at all times...but let's face it....sometimes $h1t happens. I think if your willing to call yourself a guide you've got to be willing to accept that these risks cannot all be controlled, and protect yourself with liability insurance as well as liability waivers.

Over the years, I've found myself in situations where I had to perform cpr and more first aid then I ever wanted to. Mostly to inner tubers and folks who shouldn't have been rafting. But once, I had a client stop breathing after lunch. His wife said "Oh my, it's his heart again". I didn't feel a pulse, and instantly crapped my pants. I followed the criteria for cpr at the time....and by some miracle of God....after 45 seconds...he started coughing and slowly regained consciousness. I was scared to death. But I had some training for the situation and for that I'm thankful that I was required to have cpr first aid by the USFS.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a guide license that required liability and cpr first aid cert. As far as the fees go....I don't suppose I mind paying my part for using the resource. I'd love to see a TWRA agent at every boat ramp, giant fish in every puddle I fish etc....but I don't know how well monies raised would help. As others have mentioned...I really don't know how in the world such a license would help. Enforcing it would almost be impossible and the only people buying them would be the legit guides. I honestly think the rest who would guide without insurance and proper certifications would just keep guiding without them.

I know a lot of this issue stems from NE TN and luckily, I don't pull oars for pay up that way very often. Our local rivers, have never seemed overwhelmed with guides or out of state guides. Most of the guides I see are folks who have been at it for a long time and do a good job of representing what a "guide" should be. The few bad apples I've seen over the years don't seem to make it long, or just guide here on occasion I suppose.

It's a tough issue for sure.

waterwolf
09-20-2011, 11:04 PM
WW,
I agree, putting me on fish or game is #1. The first aid and CPR are not really of that much concern to me. The only reason I mention them is because some places like National Parks require guides to have that training. I was a medic with the 2nd Marine Division in Vietnam, so I think between my medical and survival training I think I could handle most situations. I still want my guide to be insured and have the proper permits.:smile: It's not fair to the professional guides out there trying to make a living that others are short cutting the system. it's kinda like people that drive without a licenses or insurance.:eek: BTW, I think every state should require hunting and fishing guides to be licensed.

Sorry for all the rambling, I know this kinda got off track of the original purpose of the thread.;)

I can agree with you here, I think guides should be insured for the off hand chance something really bad happens. It protects the guide and the client.

I personally feel guides should know basic first aid, not required by the govt, but should be able to stitch someone up if necessary.

I also have no issue with guides having to purchase a fishing license just like the rest of the fisherman. However, we all do, because we fish when we aren't guiding.

Federal parks are a different story, and that really isn't part of this discussion IMO.

Easy solution for TWRA is to eliminate stocking marginal waters which can't support trout annually. Enforce current regulations, and the revenues collected from violations could easily fund the trout programs in this state.

Very simple 2 step solution, and the second part should be done now, but as we all know it certainly is not. TWRA has epically failed at one of their primary responsibilities.

Rodonthefly
09-21-2011, 07:45 AM
Easy solution for TWRA is to eliminate stocking marginal waters which can't support trout annually. Enforce current regulations, and the revenues collected from violations could easily fund the trout programs in this state.

Very simple 2 step solution, and the second part should be done now, but as we all know it certainly is not. TWRA has epically failed at one of their primary responsibilities.

That's the God's honest truth! TWRA is a joke, there's no ifs ands or buts about it.

As many years as I have fished the Clinch I have been checked 2 times by the TWRA. When asked for my license and stamp. I made the smart a$$ remark sure I'll show it to you, I'm glad to see my tax dollars and license money hard at work, there needs to be more of it!

Knothead
09-21-2011, 10:14 AM
Refer to my post of 9/21/2011, 8:47 AM.

mikebone
09-21-2011, 10:24 AM
It seems to me everyone is pretty much on the same page here. If guides are to be licensed it should be for safety or to protect a potential client. That's not what this is about. This is about fund raising. Technically speaking the Coast Guard requires anyone who guides on a navigable waterway (as defined by the Coast Guard) to have a six pack license which is one step below the Captains license. Those regs have never been enforced, although there was some talk about it years ago. Btw..all our major tailwaters (not sure about the Hiwassee) are defined as navigable rivers even though you may not be able to float a large stick down them when the water is off. Doesn't matter, it's on the books. This has zero to do with the TWRA. I've never actually seen the Coast Guard on the Clinch, but I don't see TWRA much either.
I've hired a good number of guides, I couldn't care less if they were licensed or not. I hired them because they came recommended and were known to be good at what they do. Possessing a "guide license" doesn't mean a thing except you payed your money.
If and when all this comes to pass honest guides will do the right thing, the others won't, just like any regulation. I just hope the people who are pushing this abide by the same ethics.
Btw.. my truck is 17 years old and $11.32 is nothing to sneeze at! :smile:

Knothead
09-21-2011, 10:48 AM
To all, do a search for different states, Florida and Montana to start, to see what I was talking about in a previous post.

Mike_Anderson
09-21-2011, 12:50 PM
With all due respect TN isn't Florida or Montana. For the most part we have artificial Trout water and no ocean to fish. This isn't exactly a fishing destination state....

Also, this isn't across the board licensing for all guides. In other words I have pay a fee and abide by all the regulations while somebody who doesn't guide on a tailrace doesn't. I fail to see any logic or even legality in that. If passed I expect it would go to court...

waterwolf
09-21-2011, 02:26 PM
With all due respect TN isn't Florida or Montana. For the most part we have artificial Trout water and no ocean to fish. This isn't exactly a fishing destination state....

Also, this isn't across the board licensing for all guides. In other words I have pay a fee and abide by all the regulations while somebody who doesn't guide on a tailrace doesn't. I fail to see any logic or even legality in that. If passed I expect it would go to court...


Mike appreciate your input, I have been on the phone today with TWRA, and they are completely clueless about what they are doing. I don't know where they are getting their information, but it is so unbelievable that it is laughable there basis for this decision.

I like you could give a rip what they do in other states. They probably do lots of things we wouldn't do here in TN, and vice versa.

This whole thing is a giant scam forced by TWRA, and politicians. That is the bottom line. The new word is that the fee will be $1,500 for residents, and $2,500 for non residents. Plus a week long course which will be mandatory and done by TWRA, a coast guard captains license, cpr training, and emergency first aid training. Extra costs will come with the latter requirements naturally.

This is the worst example of a giant govt heavy hand we have had in this state, and to do it on this industry is really scary.

Rockyraccoon
09-21-2011, 03:14 PM
The new word is that the fee will be $1,500 for residents, and $2,500 for non residents. Plus a week long course which will be mandatory and done by TWRA, a coast guard captains license, cpr training, and emergency first aid training. Extra costs will come with the latter requirements naturally.

For lack of a better word.....Holy Smokes!

The week long course, sounds hokey, and I'm sure it would cover everything except the actual skills and situations associated with a float guide. Maybe if they wrap up the day long cpr refresher and the first aid into a day or two.....they might be able to justify a couple day class of some kind.

The whole Captains License with a driftboat thing still puzzles me. I would feel bad for all the real deals out there that would now be forced to go through that ordeal, which again has no real bearing on freshwater fishing for trout. Not to mention pretty expensive in itself. After I finished my Coast Guard Licensing...I was more qualified to work on an oil tanker maybe, but not a tailwater fishing vessel. I suppose I can understand for those guides who work the main river systems such as the Tennessee. Which has regular commercial barging operations going on every day, in which they must work around each other.

Whew.....$1500? Perhaps their looking into patrolling the rivers by choppers or something? I wonder if we can make payments? Thats essentially an additional 8 - 10 trips (after the actual expenses of the trip) you'd have to run each year before you got back above the surface. On my best years, I've done slightly over 200 trips. Worse years closer to 100. Usually somewhere in the middle.......either way, an extra $1500 expense would be hard to handle to say the least.

I was thinking something reasonable would be $100 - $200 for resident and $400 - $500 for non resident, and proof of insurance, cpr/first aid certs....and your good to go. Then let the economy finish us off on it's on.

There's parts of this thing that I'd not feel bad about supporting, but the other issues in it are horrible enough to make it all sound bad.

Rodonthefly
09-21-2011, 03:16 PM
You've got to be ****ting me Jim!!!!!! Must be a part of the new Obama work force plan. :mad:

I guess we all could row for donations, wonder if you could get away with that?

waterwolf
09-21-2011, 03:57 PM
My level of anger is reaching a dangerous level.

This bunch of bafoons at TWRA is really something else. It starts with the idiots in the coldwater fisheries division that probably don't even know what a trout is.

Knothead
09-21-2011, 06:24 PM
It's me again, Margaret! Here your chance to tell them what you think.

http://news.tn.gov/node/7808

white95v6
09-21-2011, 06:28 PM
ok i think i have come to a descison if they screw over just trout fishing guides i will no longer buy a trout stamp and stop trout fishing. i hatre it cause even though i am not a flyfisherman i do enjoy catching them. oh well i guess we will see.

white95v6
09-21-2011, 06:32 PM
It's me again, Margaret! Here your chance to tell them what you think.

http://news.tn.gov/node/7808


well i have already emailed them twice. maybe a 3rd,4th or a 5th time might help. lol.

flyman
09-21-2011, 08:49 PM
Thanks to all you guides for your input. $1500 for a TN guide licenses is a little heavy IMO:eek: I guess like everything else once the federal or state government gets involved we're screwed, glued, and tattooed!:frown:

br549
09-22-2011, 09:23 AM
You guys will surely be forced to pass that on to your clients. I'm assuming trip rates will have to cost as much as Montana and Florida now. Geez...I would think it would be in their interest to recruit new fisherman...this will have an adverse effect on that I can only assume. And as been stated before, I love Tennessee and its outdoors but it ain't no hunting and fishing destination like Montana and Florida. I guess you guys will have to start charging for flies and leaders like they do out West to be able to make a profit on a trip.

Mike_Anderson
09-22-2011, 09:54 AM
Meanwhile the commercial canoe and Kayak companies are allowed to dump in a continues stream of hundreds of boats into our tailwaters all summer long for,,,,,,,, nothing, 0, nada.

waterwolf
09-22-2011, 10:42 AM
I would like to know what is driving this. TWRA claims that guides came to them with this idea.

Personally I find this hard to believe, and with the amount of half truths TWRA puts out annually I really feel this is just another to add to the list.

Mike_Anderson
09-22-2011, 11:21 AM
Waterwolf I'm not going to open that can of worms but there are people who want to shut down as many independent guides or "fly by nighters" as I've heard them called, so that they can get all the buisness. Think about who stands to gain and then you'll know who they are. They also have the ear of the TWRA person who's seems to be pushing this. This whole thing smells of good ole fashioned cronyism.

TnTodd
09-22-2011, 09:10 PM
Hi Folks!

My name is Todd Ratermann I am new to the forum, but not new to fly fishing, guiding, or dealing with the TWRA/TWRC.

I am the person who made the original post on the SE forum that got this post started over here. There have been a lot of great points and good questions asked here and I would like to address them all, but to keep from boring everyone I will stick to the highlights for my first post.

The question was asked "what got this started". The TWRA claims that "Guides have asked for it". This is at least partially true. At one TWRC meeting (Kingsport, Aug 15) there was ONE guide who spoke out in hopes of getting this put in place with what I interpreted as wanting as many obstacles as possible. I think it falls along the lines of what Mike Anderson said in that the "big guides" want to use it as a way to push part timers out of the business. I guess with the thought and hope of having less competition. I also called and talked to Steve Nifong (TWRA) and asked if there was a guide license, not that I wanted one. This was taken by the TWRA to mean that I wanted one.

The second reason is no secret to anyone who has been at any of the TWRC meetings. They want to reduce the number of people using the rivers. Period. Preferably people from out of state. One commissioner stated something to the effect that "there are just to many people using the resource". There was also someone that I think was a county mayor complaining that people coming over from North Carolina and they weren't spending any money here. They were filling up with gas at home, coming over and using our river, then heading back without spending any money at all.

well i have already emailed them twice. maybe a 3rd,4th or a 5th time might help. lol. Probably wouldn't help much. However, I would HIGHLY recommend contacting the TWRC commissioners. They are the ones actually approving, or hopefully not approving, these regulations and proclamations.

I recommend that you respectfully call AND e-mail each commissioner, you can find their contact info at the following link.

http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/outdoors/hunting/tennessee-wildlife-resources-commission.html

I will conclude this post by saying that based on the TWRA's estimates their two (of 3) options that include introducing a guide license will only bring in $65,000 or $63,000 in annual income. That is not much money compared to their $80,000,000 budget. There is also an admitted unknown number of lost revenue due to the loss of resident/non-resident license fees this may cause.

I have been to every meeting that this has been discussed, and will be to all the meeting in the foreseeable future. So, If you have any specific questions you would like me to try to answer, OR, if you would like me to hand deliver and messages to the commissioners I can do that as well.

I can't stress how important calling and e-mailing your commissioners will help to get this stopped. The last thing we need in these tough financial times is more taxes keeping people from visiting our great state.

MadisonBoats
09-23-2011, 09:20 AM
Hi Folks!

My name is Todd Ratermann I am new to the forum, but not new to fly fishing, guiding, or dealing with the TWRA/TWRC.
.................................................. .......
I can't stress how important calling and e-mailing your commissioners will help to get this stopped. The last thing we need in these tough financial times is more taxes keeping people from visiting our great state.

Excellent post and I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate and address this topic. Whether we agree or disagree with this topic; I find that your post was very informative and helpful in illustrating the pros and cons of this topic.

Rodonthefly
09-23-2011, 11:51 AM
TN-Todd,

Thank you for for posting the contact info, I e-mail Mr. Harold Cannon, this morning and expressed my concerns. I promptly got a reply. it was as follows

Mr. Jennings:

First, thank you for taking the time to prepare your email. You are in my "neck of the woods" and your thoughts carry a lot of weight with me.

I am in Nashville today and will followup with a more detailed response by Monday. However, be assured that some of the information that you have been hearing is not correct. While options have been presented by Staff at the last meeting, we are far from any decision. It should be noted that one of the options presented is the 'do nothing' alternative.

Likewise, this is being discussed solely from a resource stewardship standpoint ...one that is understood to be misused particularly in Upper East TN by out-of-state guides. TN guides such as yourself, as well as those from out of state who 'do it right' are at the center of these discussions, so as to keep from negatively impacting you.

Again, I will respond more formally by Monday but wanted to get back with you as quick as possible.

Hope fishing goes well for you this weekend...

HC

Harold Cannon, P.E.

Unless he's just blowing smoke. I recommend others contact him as well.

TnTodd
09-23-2011, 03:35 PM
Unless he's just blowing smoke. I recommend others contact him as well.


From my experience(s) Harold Cannon is the best and most reasonable of the commissioners. Unfortunately, he is only one of 10 commissioners regularly attending and voting. He is also new to the commission, he was appointed sometime after the May 16th meeting.

So, having said that, don't just contact the commissioner in your area, contact them all.

be assured that some of the information that you have been hearing is not correct.

Not sure what he is referring to here since I don't know what you expressed to him.


Likewise, this is being discussed solely from a resource stewardship standpoint ...one that is understood to be misused particularly in Upper East TN by out-of-state guides. TN guides such as yourself, as well as those from out of state who 'do it right' are at the center of these discussions, so as to keep from negatively impacting you.

I don't consider this to be entirely true. This is the goal stated by TWRA


1) To increase revenue to TWRA for management of the resource.

2) ensure that guides are contributing more to the resources that they use for commercial benefit.

However, at the Kingsport meeting August 15, two other goals were openly discussed; 1) reducing the number of people on the rivers, 2) making up for possible federal $$ shortfall should the feds shut down hatcheries as discussed earlier this year. I guess to some #1 may fall under a "resource stewardship standpoint". To me it falls more into the this is my river and I don't want some out-of-towners coming over here and bothering me when I am occasionally fishing it standpoint.

Addressing #2 (guide contribution) above, I don't think most guides are out there getting rich off of the resource(s). Sure some make a little money, but in general they also tend to treat the resource better, release the fish with a slightly more gently hand, and rarely keep what they catch. In adition their service helps bring more people into the sport and state, they help sell more licenses, sell more gear, and help keep "rookies" from getting hurt. A good guide will also be passing down good resource stewardship practices that someone on their own might not ever learn.


It should be noted that one of the options presented is the 'do nothing' alternative.

This is correct, and what I alluded to in my first post. These are the options that are being discussed.

1) No change, leave it as it is.

2) require guide license with no qualifications. Use current commercial license which costs $200 resident, $1,000 non-resident. They expect to sell about 75 resident, and 50 non-resident license at this cost. This option would generate approximately $65,000 for the TWRA

3) guide license to guides that meet specific criteria. The cost for the actual license here would be about the same as #2, but there would be additional fees to the license that the guide would have to pay. They mentioned $350 that would cover drug screen, materials, background checks, etc. This option would likely require guide to have insurance which would cost an additional $1,000 annually. Because of additional administrative costs, this option would only generate approximately $63,000 for the TWRA


Todd

TnTodd
09-23-2011, 03:51 PM
P.S. I videoed the Jackson meeting a week or so ago and could post the guide discussion on Youtube if there is any interest in it. The video camera was set-up stationary so their is not a lot in terms of viewing the data they presented, but the audio is clear and you can hear it in their own words.

MadisonBoats
09-23-2011, 04:06 PM
P.S. I videoed the Jackson meeting a week or so ago and could post the guide discussion on Youtube if there is any interest in it. The video camera was set-up stationary so their is not a lot in terms of viewing the data they presented, but the audio is clear and you can hear it in their own words.

Todd, that would be interesting to view. I have discovered that Youtube has several editing features that allows the uploader to add notes of interest and information at different points during the video. Anyhow; I think it is great to discuss/debate topics such as these. It ensures they get adequate attention and review before blindly getting implemented.

TnTodd
09-23-2011, 09:10 PM
Here is the video, it is about 17 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUc9AnFav0

highstick
09-24-2011, 08:23 PM
Thanks for the video upload.

After watching the video and reading the posts throughout the discussion I wonder what guides were contacted for the data collected for and mentioned in this presentation. As it reads on this forum none of the guides on our local waters were contacted, yet their home waters will be affected by this decision. I as well knew nothing of this proposed change.

It was mentioned in the presentation that most of the pressure for this proposition comes from the flows in north east Tennessee, so why would pressure on those two tailwaters result in state wide regulation. I wonder how many out of state guides drive in to guide the Clinch or the Holston??

If those water sheds need more regulation or monies why not target those specific flows. I pay extra fees, on top of a trout stamp, to fish selected stocked streams, such as Tellico, or G-burg, in the form of a daily permit.

I also can not understand the purpose of even proposing the need for a six pack license on tailwater. This is in fact a tailwater guide license. That is yet another cost to the guide. A boater safety course, sure, not a coast guard captains license.

I also have a question about the warm water stocking program. We know in buying a license as sporting anglers that we are paying for the management of our game and non game resources and any conservation efforts there. So in buying my sportsman license every year I am also funding the stocking of alligator gar in west Tennessee and the counting if shiners in one of our beautiful east tennessee rivers. However, sportsman are the flow of that revenue. If we are losing funding to one part of a program and not another why would we not take care of that source of revenue and reallocate the funds that they are already putting into the system. I am not a huge fan of gar anyway and I would say that trout probably sell more license than walleye.

Dont get me wrong. I am not completely against the use of a guide license. However, like others have mentioned it needs to be for the right reasons and done the right way. Guiding is a hard enough business, as mentioned, and I know that the majority of in state guides are not making a fortune as it is now... I dont know about that 2 river area that this proposition is addressing.

Mike_Anderson
09-25-2011, 11:21 AM
Thanks for the video Todd. Considering that our tailwaters have been under attack by mother nature the COE and around here canoe and kayak business, you'd think TWRC would appreciate the guides who have been out there trying to keep them in good graces in the public eye. Instead they want to punish them. It's a shame.

TnTodd
09-25-2011, 04:59 PM
Just an FYI, the next TWRC meeting is as follows.

October 13-14, 2011
TWRA Region 2 Ray Bell Building
Ellington Agricultural Center
Nashville, TN 37211
615-781-6500
Thursday - 1:00 p.m.
Friday - 9:00 a.m.

Mike_Anderson
09-26-2011, 04:42 PM
From a TWRA officer over at TNdeer on this subject.

"And, apparently, the Caney has become nationally recognized as one of the premier trophy trout rivers in the country. Guides are booking clients from all over the country to fish the Caney, and some guides want to protect the quality of the fishery by restricting the numbers of guides and reducing the fishing pressure. So, from what they tell me, the sentiment does not seem that we need more non-resident trout fishermen, but that we have more than plenty."

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2529025&Board=31&page=1&fpart=all&gonew=1#UNREAD