PDA

View Full Version : TN Tailwater Guide License


Realtyman
09-26-2011, 10:24 PM
Straight up or down vote. No B.S. Either you are for it, in some form, or you are against it.

Polling is open for 14 days.

What say ye?

*You must be logged in to vote*

waterwolf
09-26-2011, 10:25 PM
No.............

Realtyman
09-26-2011, 10:27 PM
No.............

You gotta give me time to post the poll :):)

Go back and vote

Grumpy
09-26-2011, 10:59 PM
No here as well.

Grumpy

MadisonBoats
09-27-2011, 07:47 AM
I voted 'For' in the poll. I think it could be a good thing. It could differentiate leisure fisherman from commercial fisherman. This will assist the resource agencies with data gathering and relevant information for making future resource allocations. The fee seems to be nominal for a professional guide that is typically-adequately outfitted with top of the line gear. Not that the guide should be punished with extra fees; but, to help give them a legitimate (segment) voice in the system.

Having a guide license would give guides a demographic segment in the resource agencies-user pool. This would allow them to collect data, report data for backing resource allocations, and to help implement control policies.

The only negative I see is in paying the extra fee. However; I think there could be endless possibilities in creating a new segment for the wildlife resources to justify expansion, new programs, funds, protection of funds, etc. Just my opinion; but I think most people are still under the impression that these agencies are out to get them. Many still do not register boats or fail to update their license demographic information. Doing these things help the resource agencies to collect accurate data and to justify resources appropriately. Additionally; much of this data is utilized in analyzing fishing pressure and fishery studies.

I am not trying to argue for this fee. I am just trying to illustrate constructive thought with reasoning.

I do think it would helpful for me to read the negative aspects from current guides and past guides.

Steve Wright
09-27-2011, 08:04 AM
Yes ....... ( a select few grandfathered in )

cockeye valdez
09-27-2011, 08:34 AM
I have read some of most of the post on this subject and it leads me to a larger question.

We may or maynot agree that guides should be required to have a license but we need to come to the realization that we are in danger of loosing a sport that we love. Unless we are willing to work with T.W.R.A. other agencies, together we will loose the fish.
With hatchery funds being reduced, pressure on rivers and access being reduced by land owners we have a larger problem.

My personal opinion is that if we want to continue to enjoy this sport it most likely will cost me more money and unless I am willing to work with, not against those managing our resources, bring local T.U. chapters to the discussion I can expect to travel West to enjoy fly fishing for trout.

John Gierach, No Shortage of Good Days has great line about fishermen with egos. I want to remind everyone it is about the fish, it is not about me or you either. if we loose the fish the only thing we'll be discussing is how much out of state license cost.

The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?

Grumpy
09-27-2011, 09:10 AM
The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?


More ENFORCEMENT.

Grumpy

Grannyknot
09-27-2011, 09:18 AM
I voted "against". I just don't see how you can ask a guide to pay this fee in such troubled economic times.

Grannyknot
09-27-2011, 09:25 AM
The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?

Stop the useless stocking of trout in waters that can't sustain them year-round. Take these resources and apply them elsewhere.

Anyone who has ever looked at this list -> http://www.tn.gov/twra/fish/StreamRiver/stockedtrout/stockedtrout.html should know that it is quite absurd.

Mike_Anderson
09-27-2011, 09:49 AM
Just so were clear on this. This was all started by a few Trout guides constantly asking for it. It wasn't the brainchild of much thinking and debate. It's just a reaction to a constant nagging from some guides to implement it. From the results of the TWRA survey as a whole, the guides in the state overwhelmingly voted it down. However, somehow, I don't know how, there were enough "trout guides" who voted for it, though they are mostly absent from the many discussions on these forums...


If passed it isn't going to come anywhere near patching the hole left by the federal funding IF,, and that's a big if, they pull funding for it. It would only be the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Also I clearly understand that out of state guides are heavily using the rivers in East TN. At least they are buying license and stamps. I know all too well about crowded rivers. On a nice summer day on the Caney Fork you'll see no less then 300 kayaks (a constant flow of groups of boats all day) on the first five miles of river. You wanna know how much they contribute? Nothing. Wanna know how bad the river has become. It's almost to the point that it isn't worth fishing it anymore because of it. Why isn't that being discussed?? If I have to have abide by all these new regs shouldn't each kayak rental company also be forced to provide a guide who knows CPR and First aid, holds a captn license, and has proof of Isur, be provided with each group of boats they release??

IMO it's a made up fee for new rule that will accomplish nothing.

When the results as a whole came in that most guides in general were against it it should have died right there (All or nothing). There are alot more important wildlife issues facing our state that could be being discussed rather then trying to please a very small group who constantly complain and evidently can't be satisfied.

cockeye valdez
09-27-2011, 10:03 AM
I hear that from others and is certainly part of any resource management plan but I think we also need to think about fish populations, efforts we can take to ensure fish sustainability and reproduction. It is very large discussion from all mature thinking individuals who want to let go of their personal agendas and plan for the future. We need to be better stewards and I hope most of us don't need enforcement.

br549
09-27-2011, 10:33 AM
Against...I do not like one group singled out when they are by far the smallest group, and probably the best teachers to new fishermen on how to be good stewards. Catch and release, river etiquette etc...at least the one's I know personally. If your going to have a license for folks that make money off of our state resources, then by golly require one for everyone that profits from our resources. Including canoe and kayak rental companies, warmwater and hunting guides. And finally, 1000.00 is way too much.

Wilson10
09-27-2011, 10:59 AM
If a fee increase is necessary then charge the people who keep a stringer of fish each time they visit our tailwaters. Not like this could be enforced either but charging the guides whom bring money into our communities seems wrong to me.

white95v6
09-27-2011, 01:04 PM
i voeted against it.

i don't think they should single out a small group. if they want to do a guide licence. then make it a state wide one on all fishing guides. and like said maybe a hunting guide licence too. i mean they profit from the Resourse no?

also like someone said before think of all those other fish raised in those hatcheries. its not just trout.

also i think a licence for those who keep fish is just as dumb as this tailwater licence. you don't think some fish die after you catch them. well they do.

also heck i think a trout stamp is dumb. is there a hybrid stamp? those are not a fish that would be here unless twra stocked them.

Hugh Hartsell
09-27-2011, 02:40 PM
I am voting against this proposal. After reading everything that I can about the matter and listening to many people that are affected by users of the tailwaters I have come to the conclusion that most of this "buzz' about the need for a guide's license is simply motivated by greed by a small core of guides and other fishermen on the South Holston and Watauga Rivers. I can certainly understand them wanting the out of state guides to be thinned down and have to pay for some of the expenses of the stocking of the rivers. I sure don't see any sense in the proposals that have been made to help in this situation. I could go on and on about many of the things that have already been mentioned, but what stands out like a sore thumb is the fact that if this is implemented as it is being presented, it will be brought to a court case as being unconstitutional and unfair to all parties involved. I think that some of the people who have made comments about how this would have positive effect on the future of some efforts that TWRA might consider doing need to go back and look at the amount that this tailwater permit is expected to bring in and also listen to the comments about past enforcement on the Tailwater rivers for such things as slot limits and license checks. That should bring you back to reality.
Hugh

CinciVol
09-27-2011, 03:03 PM
I voted against based mostly on what I have heard will be in the rule in terms of the large fee. On the surface, some sort of lecense for guides may have a positive impact as Shawn suggested the cost is just too high. Incidentally, the justifications we have heard seem to be at odds with what the rule would accomplish. Seems to me that (as others have said), as written the rule will eliminate jobs, raise little money, and only allow the big boys to use the river.

If the actual goal is to simply lower guide traffic on the South Holston and Watauga then why not have a lottery of daily passes for guides (or for anyone floating) or just charge a day use fee for those rivers. The rule seems like a very heavy handed approach to a limited "problem".

Rodonthefly
09-27-2011, 03:27 PM
Go back to the old saying " It's a trout stamp not a food stamp"! charge those you wish to keep fish. After all I have to pay the market price when I go out to eat or buy it at the local store.

kytroutman
09-27-2011, 03:45 PM
Go back to the old saying " It's a trout stamp not a food stamp"! charge those you wish to keep fish. After all I have to pay the market price when I go out to eat or buy it at the local store.

Unfortunately, they cannot or won't enforce the current regulations. I wonder what the numbers would show when you compare stocking days to the number of cans of whole kernel corn sold in the same time frame? Ensure that the waterways are being used by licensed sportsmen, not the poachers or those intent on filling a five gallon bucket with their "trophies".

cockeye valdez
09-27-2011, 03:56 PM
Sounds like most everyone voting is opposed to the fee and are also guides. I wouldn't have thought it would be any different. If I was getting a subsidized ride I would be against the proposed fee also. I have read some of most of the post and have not read one word about conservation and preservation of our natural resources. Most of what I am reading sounds more along the lines of 'use til its gone.'

The tubers, kayak outfitters are not taking or catching fish.

With half the population receiving checks from the government each week it should not surprise anyone that a group would feel entitled to use our resources with little or no responsibility to preserve them. I'm sure most reputable guides file income taxes each year but perhaps some don't and this would force them to do so.

I'm in favor of the fee, I'm also in favor of paying more for trout stamps.

BlueRaiderFan
09-27-2011, 04:16 PM
No need to enforce the regs if they increase the cost of the stamp to such and extent that those who rely on fishing to reduce food costs can't afford it. There are plenty of warm water species and waters that they can fish for to stock their table. No need to do it with trout. Besides, after the first few miles below the dam the warm water species show up. Let them fish further down the river. There is plenty of access to warm water fish, especially relative to trout.

Lumber_Jack
09-27-2011, 09:37 PM
I talked to a guide today t the fly shop here in Johnson City. He was in favor of the fee. His reasoning. A lot of out of state guides are coming to Tennessee and not spending a dime beyond their license. No food, no gas, nothing, no need too the just bring it all with them. He also believed that this will in no way thin the guide population, or at least not enough to matter. Most guides who have any stake in their business will pay the fee, only a select few would not. It's a revenue that was otherwise not collected and wheether it fills the entire void left by federal funding withdraw or not, it's still more than nothing. He mentioned that a $200 resident $1000 non resident option was on the table, and I would be all for that, to help promotion our local guides.

We all like to blame the bait fisher, or "stringer full" guy, but the truth is we all use the resource whether we actively keep fish or not. Fish die, sometimes naturally, sometimes with a size 18 fly in their throat. If we want them their to catch, I think we need to be willing to pay to support them. I agree that trout stamps should be higher as well, it's currently $10 cheaper than any other add on stamp. $10 per angler would go a long way to support the fisheries.

These fees also would not go into the general fund, they would be specifically allocated to Trout Fishing, so if we add all other warm water guides and hunting guides, that's just mre hands in the cookie jar.

Hands down I just think it's a good idea

Lumber_Jack
09-27-2011, 09:41 PM
I also agree that we should stop stocking ares with trout that cannot support them year round. I undertake they don't reproduce at great rates in certain areas, but some streams they all die in the summer. That just seems ridiculous to me

waterwolf
09-27-2011, 10:06 PM
I voted 'For' in the poll. I think it could be a good thing. It could differentiate leisure fisherman from commercial fisherman. This will assist the resource agencies with data gathering and relevant information for making future resource allocations. The fee seems to be nominal for a professional guide that is typically-adequately outfitted with top of the line gear. Not that the guide should be punished with extra fees; but, to help give them a legitimate (segment) voice in the system.

Having a guide license would give guides a demographic segment in the resource agencies-user pool. This would allow them to collect data, report data for backing resource allocations, and to help implement control policies.

The only negative I see is in paying the extra fee. However; I think there could be endless possibilities in creating a new segment for the wildlife resources to justify expansion, new programs, funds, protection of funds, etc. Just my opinion; but I think most people are still under the impression that these agencies are out to get them. Many still do not register boats or fail to update their license demographic information. Doing these things help the resource agencies to collect accurate data and to justify resources appropriately. Additionally; much of this data is utilized in analyzing fishing pressure and fishery studies.

I am not trying to argue for this fee. I am just trying to illustrate constructive thought with reasoning.

I do think it would helpful for me to read the negative aspects from current guides and past guides.
Madison you bring you bring up some decent points of discussion and reasoning.

However, I disagree with you mainly because being a guide with good gear doesn't mean that you are rolling in cash. Guides get gear super cheap from mfgs, and sometimes even get it for free. Trust me, from years of being a guide you are far from living the high life.

The reason I retired, and went into my current line of work is because I couldn't afford to hardly survive as a guide. There is 6 months out of the year when you **** near starve.

I loved guiding, but surviving for me was difficult on a guides income.

There is so much cutting into the guide fee: Lunches for 3 people, Gas, Boat purchase/upkeep, Flies/Fly Tying Materials, Insurance, Tippet, Leaders, Drinks, Ice, etc etc. That when your overhead is removed from $375.00 there is about $125-$150 a day left. Add that up over a week which during peak season is about 5 trips on avg, then subtract out the 6 months when there is virtually no work, and you have a pretty meager chunk left.

Adding a guide fee to this makes it that much harder for our guides to stay in business.
Yes ....... ( a select few grandfathered in )

Typical big govt liberal response, pick the winners and losers by taxing a few to achieve some agenda.

**** are there no conservatives left in this country?

waterwolf
09-27-2011, 10:15 PM
I just read a couple more of the "yes" responses, and the common theme is that none of the yes votes have ever guided, and seemingly don't know a lot about the industry or the challenges of making it work.

I also wonder how many folks know guides or have ever been guided, because it seems as if there is this tainted few of a guides life, or how a guide uses the resource.

It is really stunning to se the all out war being waged on businesses in this country now, it is coming from all angles....feds, states, and even citizens.

It seems that anyone who runs their own business, and tries to make a buck is demonized, and taxed to oblivion.

I do not understand the dramatic shift in views of Americans, but this used to be a country where we believed in smaller government, less regulation, free markets, and more freedoms.

Honestly, this whole topic makes my skin crawl, and that it has trickled down to fishing is really freaking scary.

My questions is, once you open this door to rampant taxation, what comes next? Think about it....

flyman
09-27-2011, 11:35 PM
The way it has been proposed, nope, I can't go along with it. One thing I've seen a couple of times that is being underestimated is the amount of money out of state guides and anglers are spending in TN. I know every time I fish one of the tail waters, I fill up the truck (gas is much cheaper in TN then NC), buy ice, drinks, snacks, and often times a meal at one of the local restaurants. We end up using a local about half the time to run the shuttle, and often camp or stay in a motel, and almost always stop in one of the local fly shops. Plus on my way out of town I throw all the beer and soda cans out of the window for the locals to pick up and recycle.:biggrin:

MadisonBoats
09-28-2011, 07:50 AM
Madison you bring you bring up some decent points of discussion and reasoning.

However, I disagree with you mainly because being a guide with good gear doesn't mean that you are rolling in cash. Guides get gear super cheap from mfgs, and sometimes even get it for free. Trust me, from years of being a guide you are far from living the high life.

The reason I retired, and went into my current line of work is because I couldn't afford to hardly survive as a guide. There is 6 months out of the year when you **** near starve.

I loved guiding, but surviving for me was difficult on a guides income.

There is so much cutting into the guide fee: Lunches for 3 people, Gas, Boat purchase/upkeep, Flies/Fly Tying Materials, Insurance, Tippet, Leaders, Drinks, Ice, etc etc. That when your overhead is removed from $375.00 there is about $125-$150 a day left. Add that up over a week which during peak season is about 5 trips on avg, then subtract out the 6 months when there is virtually no work, and you have a pretty meager chunk left.

Adding a guide fee to this makes it that much harder for our guides to stay in business.


Typical big govt liberal response, pick the winners and losers by taxing a few to achieve some agenda.

**** are there no conservatives left in this country?

I can appreciate your perspective and point of view. Your post helps illustrate and convey the guide's perspective. Thanks for adding the information to this conducive discussion.

...........
My questions is, once you open this door to rampant taxation, what comes next? Think about it....

I do not enjoy rampant taxation as well. I am still trying to figure out the true intent of this proposed topic and whether it could lead to more control and political vices. I do think it is in outdoorsman's best interests to cognitively critique issues such as these before locking in a stance on either side.-myself included...:smile:

silvercreek
09-28-2011, 07:59 AM
The power to tax is the power to destroy.

cockeye valdez
09-28-2011, 08:48 AM
The money I pay for a license and trout stamp are subsidizing the income of guides. That is a fact, I don't mind some of it because I think the presence of guides on the river indicate that the sport is active and I use guides from time to time. I think a reasonable amount say $1000 per year is acceptable. General contractors pay fees, many other self employed professions do the same. Professional guides should do the same.

I have used guides, here and out west. I understand the value they add to to experience of fly fishing. I understand it is a difficult profession, so are many other professions. You chose it, now do something to ensure your profession. Form a professional organization and be a voice for the river.

As I have said I am in favor of raising the cost of a trout stamp. Not sure at what amount it discourages sportsman that it is detrimental to the sport but just under that amount.

Bfish
09-28-2011, 09:18 AM
Having minimum standards aka guide license should happen IMO.

However it should apply to all guides not a specific subset.

Besides, I am not really sure what nexus there is to require a guide to buy a "fishing" license when most don't actually fish. I don't think TWRA has the legal authority to be able to issue "business" licenses.

br549
09-28-2011, 09:25 AM
First, let me say that I am not a guide. I have never used one in Tennessee. In my opinion, I think this guide tax is not about revenue generation for trout hatcheries, increased enforcement or other means to protect a resource (an artificial resource when we speak of tailwater trout). The amount of money estimated that this fee will generate is 65,000. The cost of implementing and maintaining the guide license will probably cost 65,000 in the case of a government agency. My little company could make 65,000 go a long ways, but I doubt the coldwater crew at TWRA could make it buy waders and winter coats. Lets be honest, it is only about limiting out of state guides. Let's just say it. We already have outrageous out of state fees to come fish here. And the management of our coldwater fisheries or wildlife in general pales in comparison to our neighbors Arkansas and Kentucky.

Lumber_Jack
09-28-2011, 09:29 AM
I just read a couple more of the "yes" responses, and the common theme is that none of the yes votes have ever guided, and seemingly don't know a lot about the industry or the challenges of making it work.

I also wonder how many folks know guides or have ever been guided, because it seems as if there is this tainted few of a guides life, or how a guide uses the resource.

It is really stunning to se the all out war being waged on businesses in this country now, it is coming from all angles....feds, states, and even citizens.

It seems that anyone who runs their own business, and tries to make a buck is demonized, and taxed to oblivion.

I do not understand the dramatic shift in views of Americans, but this used to be a country where we believed in smaller government, less regulation, free markets, and more freedoms.

Honestly, this whole topic makes my skin crawl, and that it has trickled down to fishing is really freaking scary.

My questions is, once you open this door to rampant taxation, what comes next? Think about it....

We are way beyond small government and no taxes. Without the government and their program there would be no trout to catch in the first place. And without TWRA, TVA, and USFWS to support the fisheries they would be fished out in no time.

At some point we have to make a choice to either pay more or let it dissipate into a river with no fish. If we don't pay more who is going to. The government, wait no, we said we wanted small government so who is left. This is not a tax, it's a use fee. If you don't use it you don't pay the fee.

You are correct in that I am not a guide, but I did have a very candid conversation with one yesterday, and that was the points I conveyed.

I don't think it's a slippery slope to ask those who guide to buy a license. I'm a forester, if I want to practice in the stated on NC I have to pay a license fee, contractors pay a license fee. It's not the end of fishing/guiding as a profession.

Mike_Anderson
09-28-2011, 11:20 AM
Lets say you make your living cutting pines while the majority of lumber jacks make their living cutting Hardwoods. Suddenly, one day outa nowhere, only the people who cut pines are selected to pay a new fee and pass a whole new set of regulations. The hardwood cutters aren't required to pay this new fee or pass the regulations at all. This fee in the grand scheme of things does absolutely nothing to help your buisness or the lands you work on to grow and prosper as it will be consumed by administration of the new fee. This fee was lobbied for and implemented by a big pine corporation who would like to see lumber jacks who only cut pines forced out of the profession so that they can cut your lands and receive the profit.

Would you think that was fair?

Lumber_Jack
09-28-2011, 12:01 PM
Lets say you make your living cutting pines while the majority of lumber jacks make their living cutting Hardwoods. Suddenly, one day outa nowhere, only the people who cut pines are selected to pay a new fee and pass a whole new set of regulations. The hardwood cutters aren't required to pay this new fee or pass the regulations at all. This fee in the grand scheme of things does absolutely nothing to help your buisness or the lands you work on to grow and prosper as it will be consumed by administration of the new fee. This fee was lobbied for and implemented by a big pine corporation who would like to see lumber jacks who only cut pines forced out of the profession so that they can cut your lands and receive the profit.

Would you think that was fair?

If it promoted the replanting of pines for me to cut in the future, while was significantly higher for out-of-state loggers to help me secure more contracts...then yes.

I get you're point about other guides for other species not paying the fee, I understand. But for me to say a fee is bad because it's not fair, doesn't seem like a valid reason.

I understand the fees won't accumulate to a large dollar amount but I can't imagine that a $200/year fee is going to cripple a guide. If it is you're on the verge of starving already.

PS full disclosure: I'm a forester not a logger, the username is a joke because that's what everyone thinks when I tell them I'm a forester.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this topic, good thing is I'm not in charge of making decisions that affect anything remotely important.

Mike_Anderson
09-28-2011, 12:18 PM
Well, lumber jack just sounds so much cooler too. No worries, it's just a forum for sharing opinions. I don't expect everyone to agree and I most certainly don't have any ill will against the folks who are for it. I see their points as well. I just think it should be all or none.

David Knapp
09-28-2011, 01:18 PM
The money I pay for a license and trout stamp are subsidizing the income of guides. That is a fact, I don't mind some of it because I think the presence of guides on the river indicate that the sport is active and I use guides from time to time. I think a reasonable amount say $1000 per year is acceptable. General contractors pay fees, many other self employed professions do the same. Professional guides should do the same.

I have used guides, here and out west. I understand the value they add to to experience of fly fishing. I understand it is a difficult profession, so are many other professions. You chose it, now do something to ensure your profession. Form a professional organization and be a voice for the river.

As I have said I am in favor of raising the cost of a trout stamp. Not sure at what amount it discourages sportsman that it is detrimental to the sport but just under that amount.

Raising fees is great for people that have lots of discretionary spending money. How about the rest of us? If the goal is to eliminate other fishermen/guides (competition) then these fees are spot on. That just seems slightly selfish though... :eek: If costs go up much, I will go to spending ALL my fishing time in the Smokies or on non-stocked streams...

cockeye valdez
09-28-2011, 01:31 PM
First, David thank you for ending your post as you do. "Follow me..." It is a tremendous witness and puts into perspective this discussion.

Second, I am not in favor of raising the fees to the point that only the privileged can participate. This is what happened in Britain, however there is an amount that would acceptable.

We just have to do a better job of caring for our natural resources and it cost money to do it. We've lived on the cheap and are reaping the harvest.

Rodonthefly
09-28-2011, 01:54 PM
[QUOTE=cockeye valdez;96181 We just have to do a better job of caring for our natural resources and it cost money to do it. We've lived on the cheap and are reaping the harvest.[/QUOTE]

Stop the bastards from taking bucketts of trout out of the river! Bottom line. if they can't get better about enforcing this, then you can kiss our tailwater fishing good bye! catch and Release or pay extra to keep fish! That will save the resources plus give more money to the ****ed TWRA!

Realtyman
09-28-2011, 03:09 PM
I can buy a nonresident fishing guide license in Arkansas for $100 online or over the phone. No certification or training required. No first aid or cpr training, and no ridiculous background check. Who came up with $300 for resident and $1,000 for nonresident in TN? What are these numbers based on?

The discussion going on at commission meetings is purely motivated by greed and the love of money, which often occurs anytime the state gets involved. This has nothing to do with protecting or enhancing our fisheries.

TnTodd
09-28-2011, 08:03 PM
Who came up with $300 for resident and $1,000 for nonresident in TN? What are these numbers based on?

Not to be nit-picking, but, It is actually $200 resident, $1,000 non-resident. Reason being solely that is the current cost of a Tennessee Commercial fishing license.


One erroneous thing that keeps popping up is that guides are depleting the resource. Every guide I know catches and releases unless it looks like the fish is going to die. On the other hand, your average fisherman takes home much of what he/she catches. Which is fine by me since it is legal.

When you look at the bigger picture though, the problem with our fishery is just like the problem with EVERY other government run entity. It is run by people incapable of basic math.

The average cost for EACH trout released in Tennessee is about $3. A trout stamp is $18. The creel limit for many of thesee affected waters is 7 fish per day.

So, when a fisherman goes out and catches and keeps his limit of 7 fish, which happens frequently, the TWRA has aldeady LOST $3 in revenue. PLUS they continue to loose an ADDITIONAL $3 for each fish that person catches and keeps for the rest of the life of the trout stamp. ONLY a government agency would be stupid enough to operate under a business model like this.

As Bill Reeves the former TWRA Chief of Fisheries once so ignorantly said, "we are turning money into fish".

Steve Wright
09-28-2011, 08:17 PM
I have fished the South Holston several days this week & polled every guide I encountered. Each one was for the restricting the # of guided trips per day, have no problem paying a fee of $250 as a resident guide & support non-residents to pay $1,000.00 to guide.
Everyone must have forgotten the article in the News-Sentinel several years ago where Randy Ratliff voiced his desire to see a restriction on guiding ,etc. The seed was planted long ago.

I find it interesting Jim Jordan can't understand the frustrations guides have on the Watauga & SH ....especially when I can remember him being irrate one Saturday afternoon eight years ago ( May 24 I believe it was ) Jim was voicing displeasure of seeing a "guide" from Kentucky in a drift boat on the Holston below Cherokee ,making fun of the big cowboy hat one of the sports was wearing, blah blah blah.He thought his turf was being encroached upon ?.........ironically Jim was leaving that afternoon to stay w/ friends in Ky. & fish the Cumberland.
Some guys go out of state & see no need to buy a license to hunt & fish .......same will happen w/ some guides .

old east tn boy
09-28-2011, 10:24 PM
Against.

People fishing for trout guided by professionals purely for their own enjoyment (darn good thing we don't have trout tournaments or anything like that) and paying the guide for their services are getting their money's worth, specifically the price for the service. Most of the time clients couldn't care less about anything except catching fish, the more the better. I have to wonder how many even ask about any type of certifications the guide has, maybe it's assumed he's good to go?

So how come guides come here in the first place? Are they better, cheaper, more qualified because they have been certified? Are locals overwhelmed or do they just want it all for themselves? Almost sounds like a turf war on specific rivers. And TWRA in some convoluted way is gonna play cop by administering a new fee?

It's a win-win for TWRA if this goes through, First, they get more money and second, they can say yeah, we took action. Seems to me this does nothing to solve the root problem, which is lack of enforcement and mismanagement.

waterwolf
09-28-2011, 10:41 PM
On this stuff, some of y'all make some valid arguments for this new tax, not that it has changed my opinion, however.

My biggest issue is the singling out of trout guides and saying that this tax will help pay for the resource. If that were actually true then maybe, and I mean maybe I could support it. However, this tax won't raise enough money to help at all, and will be wasted just like thousands of dollars are wasted by TWRA each year.

If trout are so valuable then why dump them in every piss trickle that can hold trout through the winter months? Why not focus on the most cost effective ways to raise fish (fingerlings), not stock them in marginal trout waters, and lower the freaking state wide limit? Simple solutions which would vastly help the bottom line.

Maybe I could get on board if I felt like TWRA was actively managing our rivers to produce at a maximum level.

If this tax was aimed at all guides statewide, every freaking one. Then I would be more inclined to support it, but picking the smallest sector and taxing it is absurd and unwarranted.

Here is an idea, if the NE TN guides desire this, then have a specific fee to guide on those rivers, but so far from what I can tell no other guides in this state are in favor.

Here is another idea, have individual river permits, that would certainly generate more revenue.

As with the feds, TWRA doesn't have a revenue problem they have a spending problem.


Also, stating that guides "take" from the resource is factually incorrect. I know of no Fly Fishing trout guides who keep fish.

To those who think all guides to is take, and not give back. Think again, many times clients come from out of state and buy annual licenses to only fish for a few days.

What makes our trout stamp/fishing license different then a guide who pays the exact same amount. We all pay to use the resource, we just use it differently.

And whoever said guides don't fish.....you have to be kidding me.


I think I am going to propose a tax to folks who fish dry flies, because I hate fishing dry flies, and think fish eat them deeper, thus causing more mortality. Dry fly fisherman "take" more from the resource and therefore should be taxed because of this.;):biggrin:

Slippery slope this whole guide tax thing is....

Steve Wright
09-28-2011, 10:45 PM
[QUOTE=old east tn boy;96205]Against.

"People fishing for trout guided by professionals purely for their own enjoyment (darn good thing we don't have trout tournaments or anything like that) and paying the guide for their services are getting their money's worth, specifically the price for the service. Most of the time clients couldn't care less about anything except catching fish, the more the better."

Hey they need to hook up w/ 3 new guides from N.C using Y2K egg patterns soaked in power bait..... catching alot & making the customers happy .....probably not considered legal in the trophy section, but who cares ....pure enjoyment !!!!!

Steve Wright
09-28-2011, 11:15 PM
I think I am going to propose a tax to folks who fish dry flies, because I hate fishing dry flies, and think fish eat them deeper, thus causing more mortality. Dry fly fisherman "take" more from the resource and therefore should be taxed because of this.;):biggrin:

....

Now I know you voted for Obama ...probably shine his shoes & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

waterwolf
09-29-2011, 06:50 AM
Now I know you voted for Obama ...probably shine his shoes & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Yeah, most who know me, know I am staunch Obama supporter. It is hard to hide my love for him personally, and his liberal views. I love the guy so much I hope he finds a way to permanently stay in power, and has the ability to pass his agenda without using congress. Wait a second, he already bypasses congress...:eek:

Lumber_Jack
09-29-2011, 08:03 AM
Here is an idea, if the NE TN guides desire this, then have a specific fee to guide on those rivers, but so far from what I can tell no other guides in this state are in favor.

Here is another idea, have individual river permits, that would certainly generate more revenue.

I would agree with this! I'm actually fine with doing nothing, but the question was posed so I joined in.

I think there is a Jet boat dealer coming to Johnson City, which I fear could add vastly to the river congestion. Which if driven safely and ethically(don't drag chain) they would be fine, but I'm afraid of drifters being run over by some crazy dude with a jet boat. But that's another topic for another day I guess.

Steve Wright
09-29-2011, 09:35 AM
I would agree with this! I'm actually fine with doing nothing, but the question was posed so I joined in.



In reality this approach has worked well so far.......some guides try to intimidate the passive ones & get the low-hanging fruit quite easily. Government regulations create problems......men should be men.
Settle your issues as I have & the way Jim Jordan & Chris Ralston would. The boys up in East Tennessee know how to cut tires & deal w/ matters.Guides up there that got "initiated" paid their dues & deal w/ the drama best they can.

David Knapp
09-29-2011, 11:02 AM
First, David thank you for ending your post as you do. "Follow me..." It is a tremendous witness and puts into perspective this discussion.

Second, I am not in favor of raising the fees to the point that only the privileged can participate. This is what happened in Britain, however there is an amount that would acceptable.

We just have to do a better job of caring for our natural resources and it cost money to do it. We've lived on the cheap and are reaping the harvest.

That is reasonable and I can see your perspective. I just would be concerned that TWRA will over do it if they start thinking about raising rates. I really wish we had a tiered system for our trout stamps. I don't think I should have to pay as much for a trout stamp to fish strictly wild streams in the National Forest of east Tennessee simply because that money is mostly going to stock trout. Also, catch and keep fishermen should be paying more, but I may just be biased since I release everything...:rolleyes: :biggrin:

ChemEAngler
09-29-2011, 12:53 PM
That is reasonable and I can see your perspective. I just would be concerned that TWRA will over do it if they start thinking about raising rates. I really wish we had a tiered system for our trout stamps. I don't think I should have to pay as much for a trout stamp to fish strictly wild streams in the National Forest of east Tennessee simply because that money is mostly going to stock trout. Also, catch and keep fishermen should be paying more, but I may just be biased since I release everything...:rolleyes: :biggrin:


David,

I don't think you are that biased, and I agree with that philosophy. I keep fish on occasion, and think it is only fair that I should pay a little more than somebody who doesn't. I am not talking about doubling the trout stamp fee, just raising it a little. I can guarantee you that most people who keep fish are definitely keeping more than $18 worth of trout.

TnTodd
09-29-2011, 02:54 PM
We already have THE highest resident license fees in the nation, it's time the TWRA starts doing a more efficient job, and cutting expenses just like the rest of us.

Heck, I can fish for trout as a non-resident in many states cheaper than I can fish as a resident in my own state. There is something wrong with that picture...

Knothead
09-29-2011, 06:36 PM
I can fish for trout as a non-resident in many states cheaper than I can fish as a resident in my own state
I had thought about that myself but the extra cost of gas and time eliminates what I would save on license fees. From my house, the Hiwassee is about an hour (28 miles to the powerhouse), Tellico is at least 90 minutes (depending on how far I go up the corridor), Townsend is 88 miles (about two hours) and then mileage where I want to go in the Park. I'll stick with the home waters.

TnTodd
09-29-2011, 10:49 PM
I had thought about that myself but the extra cost of gas and time eliminates what I would save on license fees. From my house, the Hiwassee is about an hour (28 miles to the powerhouse), Tellico is at least 90 minutes (depending on how far I go up the corridor), Townsend is 88 miles (about two hours) and then mileage where I want to go in the Park. I'll stick with the home waters.

It wouldn't be an option for everyone, but it is a great option for some. For example, on one of my web sites, I get a ton of of people searching for and asking about information on fishing the Smoky Mountains. Sadly for my state, I always encourage them to buy their license from North Carolina. The North Carolina license is about 1/2 the price, it's good throughout the park in both North Carolina and Tennessee, and the annual option is good for a year in North Carolina from the date of purchase, not only until February 28 like Tennessee.

Another good option is that if you were from Tennessee and lived close to the Smoky Mountains, just buy a N.C. non-resident and only fish the Smokies. There are more streams there than you could possibly fish and you could fish both the NC side and the Tennessee side.

Lumber_Jack
09-30-2011, 07:16 AM
I don't get that philosophy. If you reside in Tn your license without trout stamp is $28, it's $30 for non resident NC. Now you add an $18 trout stamp and your at $46, that's high but not so much I'm gonna buy a on resident NC, and I live pretty close to the border.

For out of staters, nonresident "no trout" (fishing the park) is $41, vs again $30 for NC.

Now non resident with trout is $81 which is steep but go out west and you'll pay that much at least for an annual permit. I know Montana is $70.

TnTodd
09-30-2011, 09:20 AM
I don't get that philosophy. If you reside in Tn your license without trout stamp is $28, it's $30 for non resident NC. Now you add an $18 trout stamp and your at $46, that's high but not so much I'm gonna buy a on resident NC, and I live pretty close to the border.

For out of staters, nonresident "no trout" (fishing the park) is $41, vs again $30 for NC.

Now non resident with trout is $81 which is steep but go out west and you'll pay that much at least for an annual permit. I know Montana is $70.

My guess is that you either have money to throw in the trash, and/or don't have a family. I have a wife and 3 kids, so any savings is multiplied times 5 (x5). Any savings goes towards supporting and feeding my family or towards other family activities.

Tennessee's $81 non-resident is the second highest in the country, and our resident $46 for trout is THE highest in the country, yet our fishing is average at best. I was in Montana not to long ago, I think I paid $60, and the fishing and fishing opportunities here don't even come close to comparing.

I want to support my state, but I don't want to get screwed and watch my money be flushed down the toilet in the process. The TWRA has to reign in spending. They have to stop handing out no-bid contracts to buddies and cousins, and they have to start using common sense.

Like I said in my previous post

"The average cost for EACH trout released in Tennessee is about $3. A trout stamp is $18. The creel limit for many of these affected waters is 7 fish per day.

So, when a fisherman goes out and catches and keeps his limit of 7 fish, which happens frequently, the TWRA has already LOST $3 in revenue. PLUS they continue to loose an ADDITIONAL $3 for each fish that person catches and keeps for the rest of the life of the trout stamp. ONLY a government agency would be stupid enough to operate under a business model like this."

There are really only three logical options for our trout fisheries, we have to do one or more of the following; 1) reduce the creel limit 2) reduce the cost of the fish 3) or other businesses that profit from fisherman such as hotels, gas, food have to start contributing to the resource.

Lumber_Jack
09-30-2011, 10:14 AM
First off I don't have money to through in the trash, I just don't think the fee is outrageous. Obviously you do, so be it. But to say that East Tennessee trout fishing is "average at best" is way understating our opportunities to catch trout. Move to another state in the south east, KY, WV, GA, AL, even Arkasas outside of the White, I just think it doesn't come close. Sure it's no Montana, but what is.

Lumber_Jack
09-30-2011, 10:18 AM
There are really only three logical options for our trout fisheries, we have to do one or more of the following; 1) reduce the creel limit 2) reduce the cost of the fish 3) or other businesses that profit from fisherman such as hotels, gas, food have to start contributing to the resource.

1) I agree

2) it's illogical to think they can revamp the fish hatcheries to make fish cheaper. It may be possible, but it's not gonna happen.

3) but not fishermen, or Guides? Why should restaraunts and hotels contribute before guides? Since that's what this original topic is about?

TnTodd
09-30-2011, 11:40 AM
2) it's illogical to think they can revamp the fish hatcheries to make fish cheaper. It may be possible, but it's not gonna happen.

Why is it illogical to think that a government agency should run their operations in a fiscally responsibly manner?

3) but not fishermen, or Guides? Why should restaraunts and hotels contribute before guides? Since that's what this original topic is about?

Fisherman and guides already contribute by paying THE highest license fees in the nation. If you look at a fisherman's expenses v/s his or her overall expenditures on a trip, the license fee is the lowest expense when compared to gas, food and lodging.

Say the average day of fishing tourism generates $4.60 in license sales, $20 in gas sales, $15 in food sales, and often $35 in lodging fees. Why should the license sales be the ONLY contribution to the resources that drives that tourism?

Lumber_Jack
09-30-2011, 12:26 PM
Why is it illogical to think that a government agency should run their operations in a fiscally responsibly manner?



It's not illogical to think the SHOULD, it's illogical tO think they WILL. they don't think they are wasting money, it's all justified or they would do it differently.


I just think there is not enough correlation between trout fishing and Hotel/Gas/Food to ask those businesses to contribute. It'd have to be proven that a substantial portion of their income was directly related. I just think again we are a minority, their are more people visiting these reas for other reason than trout fishing.

Knothead
09-30-2011, 04:45 PM
Question here without taking time to research:
Is the NC fishing only? TN is combo fishing/basic hunting. They do this because more people fish than hunt. That way TN gets more federal money. Because of the combo license, TN license dates starts the day after the end of hunting season. Many states split their hunting and fishing licenses. Louisiana did this when I lived there- $6 basic hunting, $6 fishing or both for $10 (that was 24 years ago). Just curious.
The Caney Fork and Hiwassee Rivers generate about $2.5 million to the economy.

Lumber_Jack
09-30-2011, 05:49 PM
Question here without taking time to research:
Is the NC fishing only? TN is combo fishing/basic hunting. They do this because more people fish than hunt. That way TN gets more federal money. Because of the combo license, TN license dates starts the day after the end of hunting season. Many states split their hunting and fishing licenses. Louisiana did this when I lived there- $6 basic hunting, $6 fishing or both for $10 (that was 24 years ago). Just curious.
The Caney Fork and Hiwassee Rivers generate about $2.5 million to the economy.

Yes it's separate, $15 for fishing, $15 for hunting, or $20 for combo. Of course non resident is sold separately in both states.

Realtyman
09-30-2011, 06:12 PM
The Caney Fork and Hiwassee Rivers generate about $2.5 million to the economy.

I would love to know where these numbers come from? That's pretty impressive data.

waterwolf
09-30-2011, 10:03 PM
I would love to know where these numbers come from? That's pretty impressive data.
I personally feel it is very hard to prove this data, sure it is possible and could be proven. However putting a firm number on it leads me think it is BS.

If true, then local towns and businesses should be freaking pissed that something might be passed which could effect their profits.

However, in this age of big govt business is left out to dry for the sake of bloated over spending govt agencies. TWRA is another prime example.

Raise taxes to pay for over spending, and poor money management. Rather then cut spending and reform money management. Brilliant, just like the management of our trout rivers.

Knothead
10-01-2011, 04:30 PM
No BS! It was at a TU chapter meeting a while back. I have an email in to a friend who should have all the details.
Waterwolf, the people you mention are really concerned about the cuts in hatchery funding for this very reason.

Steve Wright
10-01-2011, 06:27 PM
As with the feds, TWRA doesn't have a revenue problem they have a spending problem.



Slippery slope this whole guide tax thing is....

Jimmy & all your liberal thinking buddies..... Goldwater had the right idea ,sell TVA .Every person that knows me can recite my support of Goldwater & him being correct to privitize TVA. Reconciling the loss of warmwater species w/ their efforts toward a coldwater fishery has been costly. Yet you & others bitch about their shortcomings . Can't have your cake & eat it too........no don't argue it's mismanagement , it's government . PERIOD.
You bitch about TWRA. It's a bureaucracy some say is better than the old Commission....what do you think ? Both political BS & employees justifying their jobs ?
People that have built a livelihood around stocked trout are foolish to think that all the $$$$ coming in because of it pay the bill . MB & MC have stated they are for giving back & paying a fee ? HH is not willing to do so ? WHY ?
I do not believe the federal government needs to be in the business of making fish or electricity.
You bitch about the deer management ,turkey management etc. ...........I'm sure you approve of the decline of grouse ?
I've enjoyed pheasant hunting & know the CRP program is a crock......as far as the abuse of $$$$$ , same w/ ducks.
The problem as I see it, we have too many people drawing from the resource. Yeah , it's a public resource & everybody has rights to it....... regulate it , "NO" as I interpret some saying here.
Now that the economy is sour , we can't tolerate the mismanagement & it's effect on our stocked trout. I THINK WE ALL NEED TO PUT PRESSURE ON YOUR SMALLMOUTH TURF & YOU CAN BE THE POSTER BOY ON HOW TO DEAL WITH IT. I'll HAVE CHRIS RALSTON & SOME OF THE ANTI-LIMBHANGERS ON NOTICE.

MadisonBoats
10-01-2011, 07:48 PM
Jimmy & all your liberal thinking buddies..... Goldwater had the right idea ,sell TVA .Every person that knows me can recite my support of Goldwater & him being correct to privitize TVA. ..............

I whole-heartedly agree with this point! I was very close to TVA for a while and learned a little too much about its internal politics and operations. It is something that has truly changed my confidence in honor and integrity within these bottomless checkbook utilities.

waterwolf
10-02-2011, 12:29 AM
Steve,

Rather then try and figure out your nonsensical hysterical drivel I will try to explain my reasoning.

TWRA states the reasons for this proposal is to help fund the hatcheries. This new tax won't even hardly fund the light bill, so why implement it?

If funding is an issue here are some other suggestions:
1. Lower the creel limit on trout statewide to 2 fish from seven.
2. Stop stocking seasonal trout streams.
3. Stock more fingerlings which are less expensive to raise.
4. Charge $33.00 for a C&R Trout stamp, and $66 for a harvest trout stamp.
5. Seek contributions from voluntary donors (I would contribute).
6. Enforce the current regulations.

However this isn't about funding for the hatcheries IMO, this is about trying to limit out of state guides and/or guides in general. Which if that is their goal then state that, but don't hide behind a false objective. If it is about guides then I am against it, adamantly. I shouldn't care because I am just a recreational angler like you and others, I haven't guided in years. I also contend with the North Carolina guides on several different smallmouth rivers, and they show up in pretty large numbers anymore. But I don't care, they pay for a license and we all find a way to make it work. I don't need the govt to clear the river for me by imposing a stringent tax on them for trying to make a living. Making ends meet is hard enough as a guide, this new tax will make that more difficult.

On Chris Ralston, you keep throwing Chris' name out there like it has relevance. Sure Chris and I had a run in years ago on the Clinch. However, from my perspective we patched things up and have gotten along quite well since then, same goes for his dad. I have zero issues with either of those guys, and always have a pleasant conversation with them when we cross paths.

What I find incredibly hypocritical on your part is that you seem to want this tax because of the pressure from guides. Do you not realize that you and your buddies fish every day, and on the same stretches of river. You put just as much pressure on the resource as the guides do, so should folks like you who have the ability to fish every day pay a higher rate as well? Personally I say no, you are privileged to have the time available to spend on the river and should without having to pay extra.

Maybe the best approach is to charge the folks who do directly effect the trout population negatively a little more. The folks killing fish, are without question removing from the resource, no gray area here. This works two different angles, it raises more money, and creates a culture which can lead to more C&R anglers which will require less stocking on an annual basis.

I have a serious issue with singling out one small niche industry and imposing this sort of tax on them. It just goes against my beliefs to the core.

Grumpy
10-02-2011, 08:11 AM
I have a serious issue with singling out one small niche industry and imposing this sort of tax on them. It just goes against my beliefs to the core.



Agreed, i was contacted about this from the beginning, one small thing was left out of the conversation, "for trout guides only", i was left with the impression it was for all guides, i was for that, i'm not for singling out one group just because a few flyshops want it for their "power" & a few rivers have to much out of state traffic.

Grumpy

Corbo
10-02-2011, 09:00 AM
Please; It's not about MONEY.... it's about Government intrusion. If it ain't broke it doesn't need fixin and really what is TWRA gonna learn about the Clinch or other rivers that it doesn't already know?

It's just more Government harrassment of an industry.

Steve Wright
10-02-2011, 09:00 AM
Steve,

Rather then try and figure out your nonsensical hysterical drivel I will try to explain my reasoning.



Jim , You are right, I did confuse my motivation w/ irrelevent BS . This was to be a straight-up vote ..no BS.
Probably should not have put my tongue -in-cheek ( select few being grandfathered).

However, IMO the keyboard fuels your ego & attitude . My motivattion was from your commenting on my post. So I'm going to make it clear: I can not believe someone hasn't whipped your *** before now. I'll also make it clear I have heard from others comments made by you about me. I think you are a PUNK .

TnTodd
10-02-2011, 10:27 AM
4. Charge $33.00 for a C&R Trout stamp, and $66 for a harvest trout stamp.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous suggestion.

Tennessee already has THE highest resident license fees in the nation, and our fishing is no better than most other places. If the manament at TWRA is to stupid to be able to do a better, more efficient job, then they should be replaced with someone that can.

David Knapp
10-02-2011, 10:45 AM
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous suggestion.

Tennessee already has THE highest resident license fees in the nation, and our fishing is no better than most other places. If the manament at TWRA is to stupid to be able to do a better, more efficient job, then they should be replaced with someone that can.

You have to remember that all those other great fishing locations have wild trout whereas most of our tailwaters contain anywhere from mostly to completely stocked trout...

While I hate to see any license fees go up, I do agree that someone does have to pay for all those stocked trout. It makes sense to ask those that keep their catch to pay more in my opinion. If I kept a limit every time I fished the Caney Fork, over the course of a year I would keep on average $735 worth of fish using the statistic that it costs on average $7 a fish to raise in a hatchery. Now, thats a lot of money and only assuming I visit the river 15 times. What if I live right by the river and keep a limit 30 times a year? We are now looking at well over $1000 worth of trout...unfortunately, since our tailwaters are not managed for wild trout (for the most part), someone has to pay for those fish...

waterwolf
10-02-2011, 10:48 AM
Jim , You are right, I did confuse my motivation w/ irrelevent BS . This was to be a straight-up vote ..no BS.
Probably should not have put my tongue -in-cheek ( select few being grandfathered).

However, IMO the keyboard fuels your ego & attitude . My motivattion was from your commenting on my post. So I'm going to make it clear: I can not believe someone hasn't whipped your *** before now. I'll also make it clear I have heard from others comments made by you about me. I think you are a PUNK .
Geez, I don't think I have ever said one cross word about you, ever. If someone is saying other wise, then they are not being truthful.

I have no bone to pick with you, why would I? You and I never hardly cross paths and when we do we have always seemed to have a very amiable positive conversation. If there is an issue it is one created by you based on something unknown to me and your problem with me as a person.

You need to take a few deep breaths, you have worked yourself into a frenzy for no apparent reason other then I disagree with you on this new tax. Best I can recall I have never slighted you on the river, and always gave you plenty of space whenever I have floated past you over the years. ****, I even spoke to you which is more then I do for 90% of the folks on the river. :biggrin:

And BTW if you want to speak with me call me 207 1021

waterwolf
10-02-2011, 10:55 AM
Sorry, but that is a ridiculous suggestion.

Tennessee already has THE highest resident license fees in the nation, and our fishing is no better than most other places. If the manament at TWRA is to stupid to be able to do a better, more efficient job, then they should be replaced with someone that can.

Our licenses are highish, but despite my distaste for TWRA, they do provide an unbelievable amount for us as license holders. I seriously doubt there are many states that have the diversity of fish/game that we do, that have lower license fees. I do not have facts to back that up, so I may be wrong. TWRA controls, owns, and manages more acreage then a person can hunt in a lifetime. That costs serious $$$. They are also trying to fund roughly 8 tailwaters for trout stocking, and countless seasonal fisheries. That costs real money, which I understand.

TWRA could be a very good organization, and I shudder to think what the alternatives might be. They just need to be audited by an outside consultant to find wasteful spending, cut that, and rethink their management goals IMO.

Politics are and have been mixing too much with our game management for too long. Until that stops the problem is just going to continue spiraling out of control.

TnTodd
10-02-2011, 11:13 AM
... using the statistic that it costs on average $7 a fish to raise in a hatchery. ..

According to the TWRA the fish cost $3 each, but, I understand what you are trying to say. However, many if not most of the other states are also using stocked trout to some extent. As you are probably aware, rainbow and brown trout are not even native to North America, much less Tennessee. What you may not know is that there are many folks within the TWRA who don't even think we should be stocking non-indigenous species like as rainbow and browns period.

This tailwater trout guide license ay very well be a way to fragment the fishing community to decrease the number of trout fishermen as a step in phasing out trout fishing for non-natives in the state all together.

Lumber_Jack
10-02-2011, 01:17 PM
.

This tailwater trout guide license may very well be a way to fragment the fishing community to decrease the number of trout fishermen as a step in phasing out trout fishing for non-natives in the state all together.

If this is truly their plan, it's piss poor, and isn't going to work. Aside from our differences on whether or not this should be implemented, in the end we all trout fish, and will continue to do so. Even if it puts a few guides out of buisness, which I doubt, those individuals will likely continue to fish.

I personally think it's a strategy by large guide outfits to limit competition and TWRA lines some pockets. I think this is also a piss poor plan that will not work, although it may slow slightly out-of-state guides, I just don't see legitimate guides quitting over the fee.

Lumber_Jack
10-02-2011, 01:25 PM
TWRA states the reasons for this proposal is to help fund the hatcheries. This new tax won't even hardly fund the light bill, so why implement it?

If funding is an issue here are some other suggestions:
1. Lower the creel limit on trout statewide to 2 fish from seven.
2. Stop stocking seasonal trout streams.
3. Stock more fingerlings which are less expensive to raise.
4. Charge $33.00 for a C&R Trout stamp, and $66 for a harvest trout stamp.
5. Seek contributions from voluntary donors (I would contribute).
6. Enforce the current regulations.

However this isn't about funding for the hatcheries IMO, this is about trying to limit out of state guides and/or guides in general. Which if that is their goal then state that, but don't hide behind a false objective. If it is about guides then I am against it, adamantly.



I agree with all of the above, and think all should be implemented. Although I'm still not against the guide fee. I understand your points about making ends meet. I just don't think it's as big as we've blown it up to be in this thread.

waterwolf
10-02-2011, 01:31 PM
I agree with all of the above, and think all should be implemented. Although I'm still not against the guide fee. I understand your points about making ends meet. I just don't think it's as big as we've blown it up to be in this thread.
You are probably right, but when I was guiding 1000 bucks a year would have hurt me. Granted I would have found a way. Easy enough to past the costs onto what we charged.

Twra realizes how valuable our trout streams are and will keep them around forever imo.

TnTodd
10-02-2011, 01:40 PM
Twra realizes how valuable our trout streams are and will keep them around forever imo.

I have many friends that work for the TWRA that I went to TTU with. I deal with the TWRA and the TWRC at the very minimum of once per month and I can guarantee you that there are many, MANY people within the TWRA who think stocking a non-native species is wrong and should be done away with. They have told me so personally.

I know a couple of the TWRA guys who think this, are reading this thread. I bet not one has the balls to step forward and say their opinion out loud in a public forum though.....

Knothead
10-02-2011, 02:11 PM
Here is the information I referred to in my post of 9/30/11:

http://www.state.tn.us/twra/fish/StreamRiver/tailtrout/Value%20of%20Tailwater%20Trout%20Fisheries.pdf

Realtyman
10-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Thank you John, for posting the report for all to see. Good info right there.

Lumber_Jack
10-02-2011, 04:21 PM
I have many friends that work for the TWRA that I went to TTU with. I deal with the TWRA and the TWRC at the very minimum of once per month and I can guarantee you that there are many, MANY people within the TWRA who think stocking a non-native species is wrong and should be done away with. They have told me so personally.

I know a couple of the TWRA guys who think this, are reading this thread. I bet not one has the balls to step forward and say their opinion out loud in a public forum though.....

I believe you , and have talked to a few with at TWRA very similar views as listed above. However the final say is gonna come down to revenue. If ditching the trout program will cost anyone lost revenue, it will stay.

David Knapp
10-02-2011, 04:59 PM
I have many friends that work for the TWRA that I went to TTU with. I deal with the TWRA and the TWRC at the very minimum of once per month and I can guarantee you that there are many, MANY people within the TWRA who think stocking a non-native species is wrong and should be done away with. They have told me so personally.


I can understand where that type of opinion would come from...but before I jump on board anything remotely close to that bandwagon, I want to see all the artificial environments (i.e., tailwaters) go also...blast the dams, return the natives...:rolleyes: :biggrin:

Seriously, this will obviously never happen, but it amuses me when people do not want to stock any non-native species into what is already an artificial environment that cannot support the native species very well anymore. Humans have messed things up a lot, the best thing we can do now is live with the consequences and help the waters adapt as best we can... If that means stocking a species that can actually survive in the now cold environment of the tailwaters, great!!! I'll enjoy fishing for them...:cool:

David Knapp
10-02-2011, 05:03 PM
According to the TWRA the fish cost $3 each, but, I understand what you are trying to say. However, many if not most of the other states are also using stocked trout to some extent. As you are probably aware, rainbow and brown trout are not even native to North America, much less Tennessee. What you may not know is that there are many folks within the TWRA who don't even think we should be stocking non-indigenous species like as rainbow and browns period.

This tailwater trout guide license ay very well be a way to fragment the fishing community to decrease the number of trout fishermen as a step in phasing out trout fishing for non-natives in the state all together.

Thanks for the correction on that stat, and glad you still got my point despite the bad math... :smile:

On another note, rainbows are native to North America, specifically the west coast...but as you said definitely not Tennessee...

waterwolf
10-02-2011, 11:02 PM
It is somewhat striking that TWRA folks would be against the stocking of trout because they are non native for a couple of reasons. They fill a void in the cold tailwaters that are too cold to support any species of native game fish. They provide a big chunk of revenue to the state each year. What I do not know, is whether the costs of the trout program run over the revenue received from license purchases. This would be almost impossible to prove because not everyone who buys a sportsman's license trout fishes, and some folks trout fish but do nothing else. So proving how much revenue comes in is virtually impossible.

Nothing would surprise me with some of the folks at TWRA, they don't really show the capacity to logically understand much.

Also, TWRA has certainly stocked other non-native species. The Elk which are here, are not even remotely native. Yes, I know we used to have Elk, but they are not the same as the Elk which have been stocked recently.

The bulk of our deer populations is non-native as well, they are made up of various sub species from all over the country.

The freaking nightmare geese also aren't supposed to live here, sure they can migrate through but establishing a resident population was solely created by TWRA 's effort.

How about the ever elusive walleye, I don't think they are native.

How about saugeye? A lab born hybrid is not native.

Yellow perch, not native.

Ohio River strain muskie in some of our rivers not native.

Blacknose crappie, another lab born hybrid is certainly not native.

Stripers, definitely not native.

Sturgeon, seriously don't think they are native.

And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.:biggrin:

pineman19
10-03-2011, 05:50 AM
[And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.]

I HAVE to agree with waterwolf on this one:biggrin: I have nothing against brook trout, they are fine as natives in the mountain streams, but in the tailwaters they are pretty much useless as a sport fish. I have caught them on the Watauga and the Clinch. They look terrible when they are first stocked, pale with yellow bellies:rolleyes: A yellow-belly catfish is a better looking specimen than these dolts. They are easy to identify when hooked, it's like realing in a big chub;) Seriously, it is a waste, browns and rainbows work best in the tailwaters I have fished. I thought I heard that they stock brook trout because they get the eggs or maybe even the fish free from the feds. A prime example of government doing something stupid because it is the cheaper alternative.

Neal

waterwolf
10-03-2011, 07:31 AM
I am pretty sure the first load of brook trout were free from the feds. I do not know anything about the ones since then.

However, nothing is free. There has to be transportation costs, and/or something we are giving the feds.

Here is another thing on this trout stocking issue. For a couple of years TWRA used Eagle Bend Hatchery on the Clinch to raise fingerlings which were raised as a result of stripping eggs and sperm from rainbows which moved up Clear Creek each winter. For at least 2 years and maybe more they were successful in raising something like 750,000 fingerlings. Then they just stopped for no apparent or explained reason.

I remember hearing the hatchery manager speak and talk about how it was very cost effective because during the colder months that hatchery isn't used, and they could raise those fingerlings for little cost.

I know I personally worked with them to collect the eggs and to fertilize those eggs.

That plan worked, and they quite doing it, why? Time to revisit that one I believe.

David Knapp
10-03-2011, 08:47 AM
And one last little tidbit, if money is so tight with regards to the trout program why in the **** are they still dumping brook trout in the Clinch? They don't seem to survive or really do anything other disappear after a few months. Add that to my earlier list of money saving ideas.:biggrin:

I'm all for stocking as many brookies as possible...brown trout food you know... :biggrin:

pineman19
10-03-2011, 02:56 PM
I am pretty sure the first load of brook trout were free from the feds. I do not know anything about the ones since then.

However, nothing is free. There has to be transportation costs, and/or something we are giving the feds.

Here is another thing on this trout stocking issue. For a couple of years TWRA used Eagle Bend Hatchery on the Clinch to raise fingerlings which were raised as a result of stripping eggs and sperm from rainbows which moved up Clear Creek each winter. For at least 2 years and maybe more they were successful in raising something like 750,000 fingerlings. Then they just stopped for no apparent or explained reason.

I remember hearing the hatchery manager speak and talk about how it was very cost effective because during the colder months that hatchery isn't used, and they could raise those fingerlings for little cost.

I know I personally worked with them to collect the eggs and to fertilize those eggs.

That plan worked, and they quite doing it, why? Time to revisit that one I believe.

Seems like a good strategy using eggs etc. from fish that have been in the river a while. If this was done every year, wouldn't the fingerlings gradually be better adapted to living and thriving in the Clinch? Maybe it would take some time but I would assume that stronger fish would be attempting to spawn in Clear Creek and they would tend to produce good offspring.

Neal

pineman19
10-03-2011, 03:04 PM
I'm all for stocking as many brookies as possible...brown trout food you know... :biggrin:

David, David, always thinking about monster brown trout;)


Neal

waterwolf
10-03-2011, 03:18 PM
Seems like a good strategy using eggs etc. from fish that have been in the river a while. If this was done every year, wouldn't the fingerlings gradually be better adapted to living and thriving in the Clinch? Maybe it would take some time but I would assume that stronger fish would be attempting to spawn in Clear Creek and they would tend to produce good offspring.

Neal
You could make that case, but I really do not know whether it would result in that or not.

What it would provide is a very good strain of fish that are from parents who were river raised and have the genes to thrive in the Clinch.

The biggest attraction is the cost along with the logisitics of transport.

Knothead
10-03-2011, 06:26 PM
They fill a void in the cold tailwaters that are too cold to support any species of native game fish.
The only coldwater species native to the southeast is the Appalachian strain brook trout. We all know brown trout are from Europe and rainbow trout are from the western states.

waterwolf
10-03-2011, 11:09 PM
The only coldwater species native to the southeast is the Appalachian strain brook trout. We all know brown trout are from Europe and rainbow trout are from the western states.
There are plenty of native fish which live in coldwater rivers. Hosts of minnows, darters, catfish, buffalo, log perch, etc etc.

There just aren't any coldwater "game" fish native to our tailwaters. Or that thrive in those types of environments.

Knothead
10-04-2011, 09:37 AM
waterwolf, my oversight but I was speaking of what is classed as gamefish. Many, if not most, species of fish in Tennessee can live in cold water. Look at what lives in real cold water in the northern states.

mcfly
10-08-2011, 11:10 PM
The fee for out of state guides should be no less than $5000 annually. The fee for in-state guides should be no less than $500 annually.

License checks should be mandatory before all guides and their clients can launch or wade in a river. No fish should be kept and a maximum catch rate should be established for guide trips.

Out of state licenses should be tripled.

And anyone who needs a guide to fish should be charged at least 4 times the normal fee for their license, 5 times if they are out of state.

Anyone wearing one of those vented shirts or a cowboy hat in or near any river should have their license suspended for no less than 10 years. A similiar fate should result from the usage of "tight lines" in speech or writing.

The latest graphite broomstick fly rod, especially if it is called "the one" or anything similarly ridiculous, should not be allowed on any river until next years piece of junk broomstick rod is released.

That's just how I feel about it.

waterwolf
10-08-2011, 11:17 PM
The fee for out of state guides should be no less than $5000 annually. The fee for in-state guides should be no less than $500 annually.

License checks should be mandatory before all guides and their clients can launch or wade in a river. No fish should be kept and a maximum catch rate should be established for guide trips.

Out of state licenses should be tripled.

And anyone who needs a guide to fish should be charged at least 4 times the normal fee for their license, 5 times if they are out of state.

Anyone wearing one of those vented shirts or a cowboy hats in or near any river should have their license suspended for no less than 10 years.

That's just how I feel about it.

Awesome. Nuff said on the majority of the above.

I agree on the vented shirts and cowboy hats however. Add to that the dweeb hats that have long bills and a flap down the back.

TnTodd
10-10-2011, 08:36 PM
The fee for out of state guides should be no less than $5000 annually. The fee for in-state guides should be no less than $500 annually.

License checks should be mandatory before all guides and their clients can launch or wade in a river. No fish should be kept and a maximum catch rate should be established for guide trips.

Out of state licenses should be tripled.

And anyone who needs a guide to fish should be charged at least 4 times the normal fee for their license, 5 times if they are out of state.

Anyone wearing one of those vented shirts or a cowboy hat in or near any river should have their license suspended for no less than 10 years. A similiar fate should result from the usage of "tight lines" in speech or writing.

The latest graphite broomstick fly rod, especially if it is called "the one" or anything similarly ridiculous, should not be allowed on any river until next years piece of junk broomstick rod is released.

That's just how I feel about it.


I'm sure Obama will appreciate your vote next election. The more regulations the better for the lazy socialist class....

Trico
10-10-2011, 08:54 PM
mcfly, I am from out of state and fish Tenn yearly. I am the one in the vented shirt and the newer graphite fly rod. I have also have been known to go with a guide when fishing new unfamiliar waters for the first time. I have been known to wear floppy hats. I may have bumped into you once. Were you the guy in the hip boots with the rope stringer tied to his belt and the worm can?:smile:

Lumber_Jack
10-11-2011, 09:47 AM
mcfly, I am from out of state and fish Tenn yearly. I am the one in the vented shirt and the newer graphite fly rod. I have also have been known to go with a guide when fishing new unfamiliar waters for the first time. I have been known to wear floppy hats. I may have bumped into you once. Were you the guy in the hip boots with the rope stringer tied to his belt and the worm can?:smile:

Close, no worms, just jars of powerbait.

Btw, wth is wrong with a vented shirt? Maybe you like to sweat, but I prefer not.

Also I don't really know what this has to do with tailwater guide fees