PDA

View Full Version : Here we go again...Proposed Clinch Slot Limit


Gerry Romer
09-02-2007, 05:04 PM
Not really a new thread...

Here's a link to an article by Bob Hodge in this morning's Knoxville News Sentinel regarding a new slot limit proposal for the Clinch River.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/02/slot-limit-proposal-on-clinch-riles-lucro/

On the same page, there was another story, also by Bob Hodge, about a Gatlinburg pier designed for handicapped fishermen. This topic also appears on this board under another thread. Two by Bob Hodge on the same day!

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/02/pier-for-handicapped-fishermen-to-be-dedicated/

Gerry Romer

Byron Begley
09-03-2007, 10:07 AM
Where is everyone Gerry? I expected my monitor to be melting by now.
Thanks for the post. I put it on the fishing report this morning.

Byron

nvr2L8
09-03-2007, 11:18 AM
Byron,

I believe the drought has carried over to the board. This stream flow is definitely down and the temps are rather tepid. All the fly fisherpersons are obviously huddled in the riffles, waiting for a cloudburst.

Gerry Romer
09-03-2007, 01:50 PM
Well, we did have some combat fishing on the Clinch this morning...

More later

Gerry

appalachian angler
09-03-2007, 04:39 PM
I was there on the Clinch this morning also...combat fishing, but I have seen worse. I was in the white GMC 4x4.

Back to the slot limit: All I can say is bring it on! I practice C&R 99 & 44/100th's% of the time so it won't hurt my feelings!

Where do I vote...I seemed to miss that part of the article?

AA

kytroutman
09-03-2007, 04:58 PM
I am all for the slot limits. It would make the Clinch a trophy stretch of waters. I am sympathetic to some of the claims made by the local landowners but a little education of what the river can become in the future will hopefully win out.

CinciVol
09-05-2007, 09:44 AM
Maybe everyone is still worn out from the big Clinch debates that went on in the board a few months back? I'm all for a slot limit as well. Since I moved back to Knoxville about 2 months ago, I've fished the river exclusively, I love the fact that I can fish for 3 hours and be home by noon. Thinking a bit further, I can think of two good spins to sell the slot limit to the public.

1) Having a happy fisherman (or woman) home by noon rather than a tired one home after dinner after driving two hours each way to the S Holston may just drive down the area divorce rate considerably!

2) By my odometer, I can get to several spots on the Clinch in 30 miles, while the closest spot on the S Holston is well over 100. Here's my slogan "Slot Limits on the Clinch, Reducing our Dependence on Foreign Oil"

Honestly though, I would think that placing a slot limit on the river would lower the number of trout you would have to stock annually. Considering that the second article in the New Sentinal last week discussed possible cuts in the TWRA budget, I would think that most people would be in favor of stocking fewer fish rather than raising the license fees as a way for TWRA to stay solvent.

Rockyraccoon
09-05-2007, 10:24 AM
THe slot probably wouldn't lower the number of trout stockings needed. IT would however, increase the numbers of quality fish in the proposed slot limit.

So, once the fish reach the slot they will be protected. They would still be fair game before they reach the protective slot. So, the folks who want to take some home can, it's not like the smaller fish are hard to catch. So, the C&R guys can still release them all yet get into a few more quality fish along the way. The kill it and grill it crowd can still keep fish. So all should be happy and we should all start seeing more of those Clinch torpedos that we all love to tangle with.

Byron Begley
09-05-2007, 10:32 AM
I have always respected size limits for fish and wildlife. As a turkey hunter I don’t shoot hens. It is against the law and there is a reason for it. For at least most of my life there has been size limits on gamefish wherever I have fished. I don’t have a problem with that because I think it is better for the fishing overall. In most states they have mandated a slot limit for redfish, speckled trout, cobia and grouper. All of our lakes here in Tennessee have size limits on gamefish. Here in the Smokies you can’t harvest a trout that is under seven inches. In some of our best tailwaters there is a slot limit. The Cumberland River below Wolf Creek Dam and the South Holston are good examples.

Many anglers and hunters take it upon themselves to better their sport. Years ago bass fishermen decided to practice catch and release fishing. It caught on and bass fishing improved. Trout fishermen did the same thing. I know a lot of deer hunters who won’t shoot a small buck even though it is legal. Why, because they want to improve their sport. I wouldn’t consider shooting a young jake turkey. I’ve done it but I wouldn’t now. I might harvest a large older gobbler. Or I might just watch him walk away. I consider myself a sportsman but probably not much of a killer.

So why would anglers have a problem with a size limit on trout in the Clinch River. Maybe some people don’t consider trout a gamefish. I do.

Some people might argue that tailwater trout are stocked to be caught and eaten. Some may say a tailwater is an artificial fishery, without stocking there wouldn’t be any trout so why not just kill them and take them home.

Stocking and limiting harvest has made hunting and fishing a better sport for all of us. When I grew up there were almost no deer in central Kentucky. We never saw a wild turkey. They started stocking turkeys and limiting the harvest of both deer and turkey. Now they are everywhere. At my home here in Townsend I see more wild turkeys than rabbits and squirrels. Why, because of stocking and limiting the harvest.

It seems to me that a slot limit or size limit on trout in the Clinch River is a compromise that is good for everyone. The fishermen who want to can catch a limit and take them home to eat. The fishermen who fish for the sport only can enjoy what they perceive to be better fishing. I think that should make everyone happy.

Byron

jeffnles1
09-05-2007, 10:54 AM
I think that should make everyone happy.

I don't think it's possible to make everyone happy regardless of the topic being discussed.

In this case, the state should just decide what's best for the fishery and the the majority of the fishermen and pass the law. Once it's passed, it should be enforced.

I'm from Kentucky and as has been stated here a number of times, the Cumberland has slot limits and the sky did not fall.

All of our lakes and streams here have some type of size and creel limit on bass and other game fish.

The tailwaters below Brookville lake (where I do most of my trout fishing) has a limit on brown trout to try and improve the overall fishery.

Bottom-line, I just don't see what all the fuss is over. I don't like driving 20 MPH on the street leading to my house, but that's the speed limit and unless I want to get a hefty fine, I have to drive a max of 20 MPH. It's the law until it gets changed.

I do not have a dog in the hunt. I've never fished the Clinch and probably never will. I fish the Mountains a few times a year and have an interest in all fishing areas and seeing fisheries being well maintained and preserved.

I have seen several of these types of epic battles and in the end, nobody wins and all of the hard feelings and finger pointing ends up being over something that just really does not matter once the day is over.

Size limits are just not that big of a deal. I doubt anyone is living off the fish they catch so a size limit is not taking food out of children's mouths and if it is, then there are bigger problems than size limits of fish.

In my opinion, wWhen all is said and done, the argument is a silly one. The state stocks the fish and the state has the right and obligation to manage the fishery.

Just the opinion from a very opinionated Kentucky fisherman.

Jeff

billyspey
09-05-2007, 09:50 PM
i know that the guys from twrc and twra have been fishing with the kentucky fisherys guys on the cumberland, they have done this more than once , and have been impressed with the quality of fish and numbers . i hope this translates to quality fishing here in tn. but it seems that the clinch land owner association are opposed to any changes and are threating legal action.
i don't understand the beef they have.they still can keep a limit of those little stocker they have always kept.

Rockyraccoon
09-05-2007, 11:19 PM
they still can keep a limit of those little stocker they have always kept.

True, and in the case of most slot limit scenarios.....they can still keep a real trophy as well if they so desire as most slots allow one fish over the protected slot.

Not that I support that or anything...but we'd have to honor it and not look down our noses at those who decided to.

A slot limit on the Clinch would be a wonderful thing. As would all of the fly guys, hardware fishermen, bait chuckers, and land owners working together to really better fishery.

Jswitow
09-05-2007, 11:39 PM
Is this a done deal? There was a comment period, I bet most of you put in your 2 cents. I did and received a response the same day. The Clinch was a much better fishery when the trophy section was in place. There were many more large fish in the river then. It has been proven that the fish grow at outrageous rates in the Clinch when left to grow. Maybe the time has finally come. The face of the Landowner is changing, many more weekend homes along the river, people there for the fishing, looking for quality fish.
I hope TWRA stands their ground.
Tight lines,
John

Gerry Romer
09-06-2007, 12:04 AM
Not a done deal yet. TWRA has proposed regulation changes for four East TN areas. The proposed Clinch River slot limit is one of those four. If you read the News Sentinel article (link in my firs tpost here), you'll see that LUCRO is gearing up for another fight to defeat them.

Gerry

ijsouth
09-06-2007, 01:10 AM
As an interested spectator in this discussion, if there is one certain thing, it is that regulations have to change with the times - and they have. I remember my dad telling me that, when he was growing up, you didn't need a fishing license in Louisiana, and there were no limits on anything; you didn't need them - the resource was that good, and the boats and motors of that time were so unreliable, no one could cover a lot of water or go very far from the launch. Fast forward to when I was growing up - you only needed a license for freshwater, and it cost all of $2.50 (enshrined in the the state constitution at that). There were limits, but they were pretty liberal - 15 bass, no size limit, and in saltwater, you could take a combination of 50 speckled trout and redfish per person - a "box of mixed" as they say around here. Now, not only do you need a basic license, you have to pay extra for a saltwater stamp...however, I still consider it a bargain - mine last year ended up costing $15 - really a nominal fee. There are all sorts of slot limits and restrictions on bass, depending on where you fish, and saltwater has really changed - 5 redfish a day, with only one over 27 inches allowed, 16 inch minimum, and 25 speckled trout a day, 12 inch minimum. Over in Texas, it's 14 inches/15 a day, I believe. Guess what? The fishing is better than ever, with more quality fish landed. It's needed - more people are on the water than ever before, with boats with high-quality motors that can get out to places only dreamed of when my dad was a kid.

Now, if Louisiana, which is hardly known for enlightened policies in any area of government, can come up with regulations that most people seem to be able to live with, why can't Tennnessee in the case of this tailwater? This slot limit certainly seems reasonable, as has been pointed out on other posts on this thread...what I don't understand is what is the landowners' beef with this? Is it a case of them having the attitude that "it's my fish, since I live here on the river"? We went through that about a decade ago here, with the commercial fishermen and the gill net ban.

Realtyman
09-06-2007, 01:41 PM
Would whoever is in charge of spearheading these proposed changes please PM me if your interestaed in support from other areas of the state. Evidently there are several people lurking in the shadows on this issue according to the number of times this post has been viewed.

Curtis Martin

irfishing
09-06-2007, 03:00 PM
Although I will probably never fish the Clinch, better management of any fishery is a good thing for everyone.
Gerry if you know the email address of the TWRA person responsible for getting public comments, could you post it on the board? There are probably a number of folks outside of East Tennessee who would support getting this proposal approved byTWRA.

Flat Fly n
09-06-2007, 04:32 PM
There are a couple of observations that I find interesting on this whole scenario.

1. Paraphrasing from the Trout management report for this year from TWRA...Of the six "heavily fished tailwaters" in the state,the Clinch is the ONLY tailwaters without any form of regulations....

Solution....maybe those of us that use the Clinch for sport fishing and some of those folks are indeed landowners should hire an attorney to include the Clinch in these special regulation waters, which is by their own statement the most fished, or drop all regs on the other 5 tailwaters so that the Clinch is not singled out....or left out.

2. Mr. Kline (attorney for LUCRO) probably does not do this for free.

Solution...Surely someone at TWRA can see this for what it is. Given the 300-400 dollars per hour charge, every phone call, every trip to Nashville. He only makes money if he is dragging this out, stirring the pot, and issuing statements of the poor starving landowners and users of the Clinch River. Maybe he should point out to the landowners that their property values would more than likely to increase IF the fishing improved to world class.


3... Mr. Kline has not done his homework

Solution....As an attorney he needs to present evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt(sounds like lawyer talk don't it) that slot limits are BAD for trout management.

4....That LUCRO has managed to dictate policy on the Clinch River since the 90's.

While I have come to agree with them over the initial bad decision that was railroaded through by TU members, this horse is dead....WE are not talking about total control of even a section of river where one cannot keep fish.. We are talking about improving a fishery with proven methods.

Solution...IF LUCRO insist on dictating management policy on the Clinch, then I say let TWRA stop stocking the river (TWRA is paid to manage the fisheries), and let LUCRO collect fees and stock the fish for John Q public to remove as they see fit.

5...Keep the rivers in East Tennessee put and take

Solution....IF the fishermen in this area want a put and take river..Let them have the Holston.. Reduce the number of fish stocked in the Clinch, give that to the Holston and let them take them out by the bucket full.. The river warms up too much in the summer, although there are some hold overs. If this is unacceptable to those from Anderson county unwilling to drive to the Holston, then find a pond or for that matter a swimming pool and dump a thousand fish in there every Saturday morning and let the games begin.

6....LUCRO wants no regulations on the river the LANDOWNERS have....

Solution.....Simple. NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL OWNS ONE INCH OF LAND ABOVE THE WEIR. MAKE IT CATCH AND RELEASE OR ONE FISH/WITH A SLOT OR EVEN MORE RADICAL --- DELAYED HARVEST FOR 10 MONTHS OF THE YEAR!

7... If there is no improvement in the fisheries in the next 3-5 years....

Solution....Change it back. God knows we have lived with LUCRO's management of this river since the 90's and it has been proven not to be working for the past 16 years!

Flat Fly'n

Byron Begley
09-06-2007, 04:43 PM
Hi Flat,

I was wondering if you missed this thread. And, I called RunningWolf yesterday just to check on him.

TO EVERYONE!

Yesterday I talked to Frank Fiss who is in charge of the trout program at TWRA. He would appreciate your comments. That is a very important part of this process. The Commission and the agency considers written individual opinions either pro or con. They have an e-mail address set up for your responses.

twra.comment@state.tn.us


Byron

Flat Fly n
09-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Byron,
I had not missed the thread, however I was waxing and waning over a complete apathy towards this ongoing situation waiting for TWRA to grow a backbone and tell these guys just who is in charge, to trying to control my blood pressure long enough for a response.

I will forward my response to TWRA. I would hope that others will do so as well. Giving up now will certainly be the death nail for the river to advance. Funny thing is. I just got back from Idaho. The best fishing, numbers, not neccessarily size(although I saw some REALLY big fish that obviously were smarter than I am), were from streams that had either C&R restrictions, or two-fish with slot limits(Big Wood River from Bellvue to Ketchum, and Silver Creek). The others ie. Big Lost River in Mackay, ID will never see me again. Public access is limited, NO special regulations, and the fishing absolutely was non-existant secondary to most of the fish in those sections had been fished out.

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee78/tnflyfish/IMGP0078.jpg


With great regards,
Flat Fly'n

irfishing
09-06-2007, 08:24 PM
Byron,
Thanks for the email address for comments to TWRA. My input of support for the proposed slot limit regulation has been sent. Hope others on the board will voice their opinion to TWRA.

Realtyman
09-09-2007, 03:03 PM
Some of us here in Middle TN have been getting the word out as well and sending in our comments to the e-mail address provided on TWRA's website. At least the Clinch has a fighting chance and that's more than it had this time last year:biggrin:

RuningWolf
09-24-2007, 10:19 PM
I am all for the slot limits. It would make the Clinch a trophy stretch of waters. I am sympathetic to some of the claims made by the local landowners but a little education of what the river can become in the future will hopefully win out.

If you knew a lot of the landowners and users you might understand they know what it can be. They also know what it is. The river does produce plenty of trophies and the data shows that there is plenty in the river. They study the reports done by TWRA and understand what they mean. They do back the use of science to manage the river. One of reports from the Clinch made a note that the people who use the Clinch where the most educated of any of the other tailwaters overall.

RuningWolf
09-24-2007, 11:18 PM
Maybe everyone is still worn out from the big Clinch debates that went on

I have other commitments and have been slow to respond. Worn out, try over 8 years of this battle

1) Having a happy fisherman (or woman) home by noon rather than a tired one home after dinner after driving two hours each way to the S Holston may just drive down the area divorce rate considerably!

Have you tried the Holston? it may be closer

2) By my odometer, I can get to several spots on the Clinch in 30 miles, while the closest spot on the S Holston is well over 100. Here's my slogan "Slot Limits on the Clinch, Reducing our Dependence on Foreign Oil"

This is not directed at you but there are two slogans we had. “There is more to fishing than fishing” and “There is nothing wrong with this river that getting rid of the snobs and slobs won’t cure”


Honestly though, I would think that placing a slot limit on the river would lower the number of trout you would have to stock annually.

TWRA stock some many fingerlings, and so many catchables, and lord only knows how many fry they have thrown in that cannot be found. The catchables have a short survival rate. Then they disappear. No explanation except that it is not from being caught. The fingerlings and their survivability are what make that fishery.

RuningWolf
09-24-2007, 11:39 PM
THe slot probably wouldn't lower the number of trout stockings needed.

You are correct. It appears TWRA has done a over kill. Most of the fish are fry they have thrown in and have little to no survivability

IT would however, increase the numbers of quality fish in the proposed slot limit.

Quality an interesting word. TWRA talks of different peoples ideas on quality being vastly different

So, once the fish reach the slot they will be protected. They would still be fair game before they reach the protective slot. So, the folks who want to take some home can,

Many in the "catch and harvest" crowd feel that the 14-20 in fish are better tasting.

So all should be happy and we should all start seeing more of those Clinch torpedos that we all love to tangle with.

I have seen and tangled with plenty of them this year and in years past.

Glad to see where someone the other day someone recognized you for your good service. I sent you a email the other day I hope you got it

RuningWolf
09-25-2007, 11:55 PM
Byron says

“I have always respected size limits for fish and wildlife.”

I would think most people do at least that has been my observation.

“For at least most of my life there has been size limits on gamefish wherever I have fished.”

There where none when I was growing up. We released a lot of fish but kept those that obviously where not going to make. Also when I was growing up fish was a primary source of meat in our house. The size limits came years later when fishing populations dropped; in some instances it was to protect the breeding size fish. There are several factors at play in why the populations of Crappie, walleye, etc dropped. One is the fish they fed on disappeared. Much debate remains if the striper is the cause or not. But every lake or river they are in has problems. Most of the protected limits had nothing to do with over fishing

“Many anglers and hunters take it upon themselves to better their sport. Years ago bass fishermen decided to practice catch and release fishing. It caught on and bass fishing improved.”

There is more to that story than meets the eye. Most people don’t eat bass, they enjoy catching them but it was never high on the fisherman who fished for them catch and harvest list. At least not all the anglers I was exposed to growing up

It was also noted that since tournament fishing started bass populations dropped. I was surprised at the mortality amount in the study I sent you. It would make a good argument for banning bass tournaments during certain times of the year. This thread (http://littleriveroutfitters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7568 )does have some info on normal mortality for non-tournament bass, which is quite high, but the disastrous mortality of the tournaments during the warmer months should have raised some eyebrows.

I know a lot of deer hunters who won’t shoot a small buck even though it is legal. Why, because they want to improve their sport.

How is not shooting a small Buck improving your sport? The younger deer IMO are the better eating. When you establish min. antler size limits it cheapens the trophy. A true trophy IMO is one that you match wits with. He has been hunted in all lilely hood before, he knows to fear man. His defensive skills are more honed. You have to scout sometimes in remote areas finally when you locate him you have to wait until the conditions are right to match your skills against his to stand the above average chance of success (yes some get lucky stumble out of their truck sat drinking their coffee smoking a cigarette and one who has lost all sense of self preservation comes by and the rest is history)

“I wouldn’t consider shooting a young jake turkey. I’ve done it but I wouldn’t now. I might harvest a large older gobbler. Or I might just watch him walk away”

I hear stories of the ones that walk away never the one that gets shot. Along with something about “beans”

”So why would anglers have a problem with a size limit on trout in the Clinch River. Maybe some people don’t consider trout a gamefish. I do.”

I have never heard anyone say it wasn’t. This is a given

Some people might argue that tailwater trout are stocked to be caught and eaten. Some may say a tailwater is an artificial fishery, without stocking there wouldn’t be any trout so why not just kill them and take them home.

I have never heard anybody say just kill them all and take them home. I have seen all types of anglers catch more than their limit and take them home. Since cell phones all I have seen have been reported and a good many of them caught.

” When I grew up there were almost no deer in central Kentucky. We never saw a wild turkey. They started stocking turkeys and limiting the harvest of both deer and turkey. Now they are everywhere”

That happened a lot due from over harvesting in the era where if you did not kill game you might not eat.

“It seems to me that a slot limit or size limit on trout in the Clinch River is a compromise that is good for everyone. The fishermen who want to can catch a limit and take them home to eat. The fishermen who fish for the sport only can enjoy what they perceive to be better fishing. I think that should make everyone happy. “

The same can be said without the special regs. it happens now those who want to eat a fish keep them those that don’t release them. All the major tailwaters in East Tenn have special regs. The Clinch does not. Most of the major stakeholders who use the other tailwaters met and agreed to it. The Clinch has a major group who compromise 83-85% of the fishery who do not want them. It should also be noted that there is a decent number of fly fisherman who do not want the regs. Some catch and harvest and some primarily catch and release. I can name several of them by name and so can your. Granted there may be a few spin fisherman that may embrace them but for the most part they do not. They did a survey and found that most anglers on the Clinch do not want them and we know from the data the user groups is predominately local and has remained the same for 15-20 years, at least from the data taken by creditable and verifiable sources that I have seen. It also coincides with years of personal observations on the river. As you may recall there are a lot of years I spend a lot of time on the river

Now tell me when TWRA is committed to providing a diverse fishery for all the different user groups why the majority shcould give way to the small minority here? They don’t travel to fish. Why should they? The Clinch is a wonderful fishery and produces many outstanding sized fish as well. I catch them, I see them caught regularly, I talk to people who catch them regularly. Most of the 17% fish other rivers both those managed by TWRA, those in the National Forrest, the Great Smokey Mtns and fisheries in surrounding states that all have special regs. The length of these waters probably comes close to 1000 or more miles and people want to force special regs down the super majorities throat that only has about 4.5 miles of what could be called public access and about half of that is because of the good graces of landowners. It does not make sense in my book and by my moral values (*See note below) this is wrong. This is the common blue collar worker that is getting something else shoved needlessly down their throat

I know we disagree as I have said in other threads, as well as in one on one conversation with you. I understand your side and where you are coming from but I do not buy it


Have a good day and pet once Dubbing for us.

*(Note I think Byron already knows this but others may misread what has been said or its intent. This is not saying that Byron is a person of low moral character. Byron IMO does have a very high moral character. This is talking of my values, morals, codes that I try to live by. I understand where Bryon is coming from and they are just opposing views, values, etc. based on a different set of reasoning)

RuningWolf
09-26-2007, 12:04 AM
I
Just the opinion from a very opinionated Kentucky fisherman.

Jeff

My family being from Harlan County I understand opinionated!!! I also understand a lot of other issues

kytroutman
09-26-2007, 05:44 AM
RW, I appreciate and respect your posting. I also saw your origins in Harlan which does explain your defense of the landowners. Being raised in Eastern KY and SE KY, one learns first hand how much damage the outsiders can cause to the natural landscape, i.e. coal.

On the other hand, I understand and have seen first hand, what happens when landowners are able to control a waterway that should for all practical purposes, be open to the public. In Pennsylvania, there are a number of streams now closed to the public because of the landowner/waterway rights. Other streams have the rights purchased by fishing clubs to restrict access to members only. My fear is that may be what's happening to the Clinch, inadvertently. In the end, while the entire public is supporting the Clinch, only a select few may be able to enjoys its benefits. There must be an acceptable middle ground developed to protect the landowners but also further develop the Clinch, more for future generations than ours. If that means the introduction to slot limits, that may be a start. What we want to avoid is an us versus them mentality. The important thing to remember, if slot limits don't work, it is simple to reverse them. If the issue of streambed ownership is enacted, who are the real winners?

Byron Begley
09-26-2007, 04:49 PM
Hi Running Wolf, Uh Oh! Here we go again.

First let me say that I know you are not questioning my integrity and I surely wouldn’t question yours. You and Mrs. Running Wolf will always be friends of mine even if I can’t convince you to change your position and that of LUCRO. But I’m still going to try. Or, maybe you will change mine. Who knows. I also know you are intelligent. Your career alone tells me that.

I have met some of the folks who represent LUCRO and they were nice to me even though they knew I was not on their side of the unfortunate dispute that happened a few years ago. And, maybe in some ways I was on their side. I sort of understood their beef back then but I don’t understand it now.

You made some good points in your last post referring to my comments earlier. You said some things that made sense that I had not thought of before. I guess that’s one of the reasons I like debating with you.

I would like to ask you some questions.

I am having trouble understanding what you meant when you said: “The Clinch has a major group who compromise 83-85% of the fishery who do not want them.” Did you mean that 83% to 85% of the people who fish the Clinch are opposed to regulation changes? Or did you mean that they own 83% to 85% of the land on the Clinch?

How is LUCRO structured. Do they have a President, a Board of Directors, Bylaws and do the members vote on the position the organization takes?

When the President or official leader of LUCRO speaks on behalf of the organization how many people is he or she representing and can that be documented? Do they have membership dues? Are they asked to renew their membership on an annual basis or are they all life members?

How would the President or official leader respond when asked, “Why is your organization against a slot limit on the Clinch River?”

Would you say that LUCRO is against any management ideas that would limit the harvest of trout?

Is LUCRO a 501-3C non-profit organization?

How are they funded?

In your extensive research did you learn how many different individuals fish the Clinch River at least once a year?

Note: RW is a friend and a great guy in my opinion. Mrs RW is a fine lady. Either of them would not do anything to hurt my feelings and I wouldn’t hurt them over this issue or any other. It wouldn’t be worth it. I would just as soon forget the whole thing.

Dubbing just said hey to both of you.

Byron

UofMontanaAlum
09-26-2007, 05:13 PM
I see bait-fishermen walk off the Clinch with over 20 fish on their stringers every Saturday and Sunday and all I ask why is there no enforcement of the already existing 7 fish limit.

I have been down there every weekend with the exception of 1 this summer and I have not once been checked for license or creel limit.

I am all for the slot limit but will they enforce it if it passes?

Stonefly
09-26-2007, 05:43 PM
[quote=UofMontanaAlum;43308] I have been down there every weekend with the exception of 1 this summer and I have not once been checked for license or creel limit.

I've fished in Tennessee all my life, and I don't recall _ever_ being carded. In NC, I'm checked pretty much every time I go.

sb

RuningWolf
09-28-2007, 12:37 AM
True, and in the case of most slot limit scenarios.....they can still keep a real trophy as well if they so desire as most slots allow one fish over the protected slot.

Not that I support that or anything...but we'd have to honor it and not look down our noses at those who decided to.


Most people prefer that I have talked to fish of the 14-20 in range for eating.

A problem I know you don’t have, but many others do is that they do look down their noses at bait and spin fishermen

RuningWolf
09-28-2007, 12:39 AM
Is this a done deal? There was a comment period, I bet most of you put in your 2 cents. I did and received a response the same day. The Clinch was a much better fishery when the trophy section was in place. There were many more large fish in the river then. It has been proven that the fish grow at outrageous rates in the Clinch when left to grow. Maybe the time has finally come. The face of the Landowner is changing, many more weekend homes along the river, people there for the fishing, looking for quality fish.
I hope TWRA stands their ground.
Tight lines,
John

Gee I wonder why the shocking data from the end of the quality zone shows 1.5 CPUE/(fish per hour over) 18 inches and the 07 shows around 11 CPUE/(fish per hour over) as to those over 14 inches data from the end of the quality zone shows 10 CPUE/(fish per hour over) and now about 15 CPUE/(fish per hour over). The 14, I find remarkable since the high flows of 03-05 washed a lot of the fingerlings out of the river that would have grown into this size range of fish. A fact that TWRA admits as part of the cause or the problem with what the agency it self said was a “ambitious objective “ in the 02-07 plan

Over the past 4-5 years after fishing the river for over 40 years I have had more success at catching bigger trout than I ever have and most of this is in heavily used waters!!!!! As a note my wife has had similar success and it is rare that If I do not see others having similar success

Byron Begley
09-28-2007, 01:50 PM
Steve,

Here's a good one for you. Paula just got back from court. We had an alleged shoplifter arrested a few months ago and the trial was today. It was called off due to a pre-trial diversion. Before she found that out she had to sit through a ton of cases. There were 20 cases against fishermen for fishing without a license. There were other cases involving TWRA. At least in our county they are actively catching people who break the law. A guy I know pretty well and a bunch of other buddies were caught hunting bear over a baited field. Those guys were nabbed by TWRA officers who had been carrying out a covert investigation.

I bet you will find the same thing going on in Anderson County. Like RW said, we have cell phones today and it's easy to report someone who breaks the law. That could make TWRA's job easier and give them more effective use of their personel. I know of one individual who was fishing with stolen tackle on the Clinch, someone figured it out and called TWRA. I think the arrest was made by TWRA within a few minutes. Paula had to go to that trial too.

This summer four or five young guys walked in our store accompanied by a National Park Ranger. They all stepped up to the counter and bought a Tennessee Fishing License. The ranger was giving them a break but followed them to the shop to make sure they fullfilled their promise.

Wildlife officers are sharp folks. I bet they can pick out someone breaking the law from a ways off and they have probably learned not to waste their time on someone like you. Steve, maybe you look too honest. In fact, I know you look honest. Your Tennesse tags may be of suspect in NC. ;)

Byron

jeffnles1
09-28-2007, 02:54 PM
While not in Tennessee, here in KY, a KY Wildlife officer came up to me two nights ago. We chatted, and he started to walk away. I asked him if he wanted to check my license. He replied that he had checked my license early in the spring. He does not see a lot of fly fishermen around here and we stand out. After he mentioned it, yes, he was the guy who checked me back on the Saturday before Easter.

Oh, here's a link to state poacher hotlines.
http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/poaching.asp

I'm going to print this out and keep it with my fishing stuff.

Jeff

RuningWolf
09-28-2007, 10:33 PM
i know that the guys from twrc and twra have been fishing with the kentucky fisherys guys on the cumberland, they have done this more than once , and have been impressed with the quality of fish and numbers . i hope this translates to quality fishing here in tn. but it seems that the clinch land owner association are opposed to any changes and are threating legal action.
i don't understand the beef they have.they still can keep a limit of those little stocker they have always kept.

No where has it been said or hinted at except by some people who are not dealing in facts that the Land Owners and Users of Clinch River Organization has threatened any legal action. I do know the spokesman and some of their board none have even hinted at the possibility.

Most people I know who eat trout prefer the 16-20 in for a variety of reasons.

LUCRO is upset for a variety of reasons. They do support science managing the river. The science shows the fish are there in significant numbers; most of their members I talk to or have seen fishing, have no problem catching them.

There is also issues dealing with the agency not living up to its management polices it has put forth or promises made in meetings I personally attended that involved both TU and LUCRO. That is before you get to the fact of why should a minority stake holder dictate to a super majority stakeholder what the regs should be? Why should all rivers have special regs? What about the common man, should he not have a place to go and fish to with out special regs?

Jswitow
09-28-2007, 11:06 PM
RW,
Most all of us are common men and women, whether we like to admit it or not. So who are you speaking of with your rhetoric? Pretty humorous. Most people I know like the eat the fish in the 8 - 11" range, they are definitely the better tasting, the meat is milder. Of course that would require more trips to the river. Why not leave it there to be caught again. Those fish are worth money in the form of tourist dollars. This in old stale argument, let the slot happen for a few years and see the results. They will be favorable, you know it, whether you want to admit it or not. Yes you will see more "high brow" flyfisherman (I am as common as they get). It is a pretty fair assumption when you see a bait fisherman that he/she is keeping every fish that eats the meal (a real meal). How many times have I heard "I got my limit in 2 hours!" There are too many of us for that now. The resource is nothing but put and take, just let it be "put, grow, and take", never any more than that, it will always require stocking. That is reasonable and equitable for all parties.
Best from the "common man",
John

RuningWolf
09-28-2007, 11:52 PM
RW, I appreciate and respect your posting. I also saw your origins in Harlan which does explain your defense of the landowners. Being raised in Eastern KY and SE KY, one learns first hand how much damage the outsiders can cause to the natural landscape, i.e. coal.



I will get back to the rest of your post in a few days.

Question how familiar are you with Pa? and if very much what area?

kytroutman
09-29-2007, 08:46 AM
RW, I have a brother who lives in the State College area so I travel up to fish the area there. This includes the Penn's, Spruce Creek and the Springs. I have also fished around the Lancaster area and plan to spend next Spring on the Yellow Breeches. I normally fish in the Spring since Summer water levels drop. If you like Fall fishing, avoid weekends when Penn State plays. It's impossible to get around the traffic when that's going on.

billyspey
10-01-2007, 08:49 PM
MR WOLF you are the spoke person for lucro and clinch chapter of tu is it true that you and your members are just against any and all changes ,and want no regulations for the clinch? if so ,i would suggest that twra lift all restrictions on the clinch and cease stocking of trout or any fish in the tailwater . than tva could run 2, 24,7 and no one would care. so lucro and mr wolf would be happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RuningWolf
10-01-2007, 10:02 PM
Hi Running Wolf, Uh Oh! Here we go again.

First let me say that I know you are not questioning my integrity and I surely wouldn’t question yours. You and Mrs. Running Wolf will always be friends of mine even if I can’t convince you to change your position and that of LUCRO. But I’m still going to try. Or, maybe you will change mine. Who knows. I also know you are intelligent. Your career alone tells me that.

I have met some of the folks who represent LUCRO and they were nice to me even though they knew I was not on their side of the unfortunate dispute that happened a few years ago. And, maybe in some ways I was on their side. I sort of understood their beef back then but I don’t understand it now.

You made some good points in your last post referring to my comments earlier. You said some things that made sense that I had not thought of before. I guess that’s one of the reasons I like debating with you.

I would like to ask you some questions.


I would respond to your questions about LUCRO however some if I answered them in sufficent detail might give some clues to other members of their executive committee I believe it is called. Through the public knowledge that Wayne Kline is their spokesman (and not me as some have so erroneously claimed) he has already received harassing mail over this issue and there needs to be no chance that others have to tolerate the same childish behavior that has been shown to him. The harassment is something that both my wife and I can identify with as we too in the past have received similar and worse harassment over our position on the river

Mr. Kline as you may recall is a fisherman himself and is doing this work as a unpaid volunteer of LUCRO. I have called you and discussed the rest of your questions in this post as well as confirmed that you knew the appropriate people In LUCRO if you need your questions answered

The membership is near 800, per people I know in the organization and it is getting new members. My wife and I are joining, as we believe in science managing our resources not people's goals. Unfortunately many do not.

LUCRO along with the CRCTU was never given the opportunity to sit down and have a discussion with other major user groups as the agency promised in 02. That is also contrary to their management guidelines they are suppose to go by. They charge the agency with holding meetings with the various stakeholders and facilitating discussion about possible solutions that they see is a problem. All they did was tell people give us your comments for them to develop a proposal that it appears they had already made their mind up on.

What I suspect will happen due to many factors that is to long to discuss here is that most members of LUCRO will not get to riled until they start getting tickets as most do not know that the changes have been proposed or they think that the executive board is on top of it. It appears the agency is mistakenly counting their spokesperson as one person. Much like with the quality zone once it was in place and they realize what happened by the new regs being published, that TWRA ignored them again the proverbable ___ will then hit the fan again.

RuningWolf
10-01-2007, 11:42 PM
RW, I appreciate and respect your posting.

"In Pennsylvania, there are a number of streams now closed to the public because of the landowner/waterway rights."

That does indeed occur some here in Tenn. they also have one of the most bizarre set of regulations that you ever want to read.

"Other streams have the rights purchased by fishing clubs to restrict access to members only. "

That already happens in Tenn. and there is now only one on the Clich there was three. On one if you waded into and certain members of the club were present you were told to either pay the initiation and yearly dues, leave or be arrested for trespassing.

"My fear is that may be what's happening to the Clinch, inadvertently. "

Some more landowners have recently looked at charging for access. If the river gets labeled a trophy type river then it will be more of an occurance

"If that means the introduction to slot limits, that may be a start. "

It is a put and take and a put grow and take fishery. Noone know what the average life expectancy of trout is in the tailwater. There is a current study going on to do that. However it will always depend on stocking the 3-5 in fingerlings to substain a healthy fishery with a good cross section of fish. The next flood event will wash certain size ranges out of the river and it will take about 2 years for the river to come back. There is nothing that can be protected for future generations by regulations, as there is no real wild trout to protect. To protect for future generation then conservation efforts must me performed in the entire watershed that has nothing to do with size limits and size restrictions. The shocking data shows that the large fish are there in very healthy numbers

"If the issue of streambed ownership is enacted, who are the real winners?"

See above

RuningWolf
10-01-2007, 11:53 PM
I see bait-fishermen walk off the Clinch with over 20 fish on their stringers every Saturday and Sunday and all I ask why is there no enforcement of the already existing 7 fish limit.

I have been down there every weekend with the exception of 1 this summer and I have not once been checked for license or creel limit.

I am all for the slot limit but will they enforce it if it passes?


I don’t think anyone will argue that enforcement is not a problem. If you read all the reports I have they keep stressing that is a priority. We do need to keep in mind that they have a large area to patrol and are understaffed for what they do. The drunks on the lake take precedent over poachers.

With that being said I cannot emphasis enough report violators with your cell phones, give good descriptions, car tags, take a pic with your digital camera’s. The agency has responded many times in the past especially to reports of repeat violators. A good description has led to the enforcement personal being able to observer reported offenders from the bank on a different weekend and has resulted in several arrest. I have seen this happen many times and know of many other occurrences. The officers generally do not get into the river but sometimes a undercover officer will and report to officers waiting in the parking lot or the road to make their arrest or give a citation. A lot of bait fisherman have pointed out violators and not all violators are bait fishermen or spin fisherman. One of the worse I have ever seen was a fly fisherman. I have spoken with the manger in charge of enforcement recently and the number of violations they have ticketed on the river was not to shabby.

RuningWolf
10-02-2007, 12:08 AM
RW, I have a brother who lives in the State College area so I travel up to fish the area there. This includes the Penn's, Spruce Creek and the Springs. I have also fished around the Lancaster area and plan to spend next Spring on the Yellow Breeches. I normally fish in the Spring since Summer water levels drop. If you like Fall fishing, avoid weekends when Penn State plays. It's impossible to get around the traffic when that's going on.
My wife is from the Pocono Mtn area.

If you think Penn State football is bad you should try getting around Ktown when Tenn plays as well as some of the outlaying areas.!!!!

We fish a lot of the areas and streams that flow into the Lehigh as well as the Lehigh (talk about tricky wading), the Little Susquehanna, Fishing Creek, Nescopeck Creek, Kettle Creek, Mud Run to name a few

Are you aware of the Penn. Hunting Commission getting sued for mismanaging the deer herd?

Fishermansfly
10-02-2007, 12:45 AM
I've read your passionate debate over the matter starting with the original thread reading a multitude of post until I finished here! Let me start off by saying "Let's get back to the basics!" This thread is over run with "official" and "unofficial" numbers covering a broad spectrum of things! I will add to say that I really don't have alot to offer on the matter and don't have a lot of stream time on the Clinch! I've been actively fishing that water for about 5 years and only figuring out fly fishing and catching fish for about 4! This past year my catch rate went up dramatically, I'll only blame that on proper technique and better fly selection, and I'm still learning.

I'm still trying to understand LUCRO's standpoint on the whole matter at hand and what they wish to see or don't wish to see! More importantly, how do they intend to make it a better fishery abrod? I've watched TWRA work a dwindling deer/turkey population into a flourishing (understatement) population....You know it's gotten out of hand when your seeing wild Turkey in the City of Alcoa!

I will agree with what everyone is saying about the enforcement issues. No matter the reg's there has to be enforcement! It's not a "pop shot" at TWRA I know the many other issues at hand they face in a days time, and the fact there a state organization and don't have a lot of man power! Thank goodness it's not NPS, there are even fewer covering a much more vast area!

So to get back on topic, two questions for you to take this "back to the basics".
1) What is LUCRO offering to make the Clinch River a better fishery?

Based on what I'm hearing you say, the "Don't fix what aint broke!" stance, how will this improve the fishery....I'm sure you all have heard this in one way or another before, "There is always room for improvement!"


2) What is LUCRO so upset about, and more importantly what have they got to lose?

I don't wish to page back and find the person that mentioned putting regs and a trophy section in place, but that person mentioned changing it for three years. Making the proper observations/study's, documenting it, and report it to the group (ie; LUCRO, TU, TWRA, TVA) as a whole. Then if things don't improve change it back! What's the fuss?

I will second your opinion on the effects of various water/flow conditions and holding patterns! It's something very prevelant right now in the TN side of the Smokies!

Thanks,
Brett

RuningWolf
10-02-2007, 12:46 AM
“Let me guess.... You are a biat fisher?”

No but I have fished with some in years gone by

“ While I have nothing against bait fishing, all of my bad experiences on the Clinch have been with bait fishers.”

Unfortunately I have had it with both. The majority of my bad experiences have been with fly fishermen.

“In my 10+ years of fishing on the Clinch, I have never seen a Fly Fisherman leaving with over the creel limit, never has my space been invaded by and never have I been cused by a fly fisher. “

I have fished the river since the mid 60’s as a bait, fly and spin fisherman I primarily fly fish but will still throw some hardware on occasion. The space is to limited for me to tell you what my wife and I have experienced or have witnessed. That is part of the reason I stress to all be courteous. I could name names as to some of the Fly fisherman I have seen leave with over their limits


“The Clinch needs regulations to protect the future health of the river. “

The health of the river has nothing to do with regulations. If one is concerned with the health of the river one should be concerned and I will be brief from what could be a rather long list; the church parking lot draining into the river with no bmp’s installed, no bmps on the bridges that cross over the river to prevent spills from entering the river, stream bank restoration in the entire watershed to lessen the amount of silt, Water and waste treatment plants improper discharges, the Rogers group installation, etc, etc

“As mentioned above in one of the posts; as more people learn of the church access we will see more and more people fishing, thus more fish leaving the river. “

The people who use to fish there will come back (mostly bait and spin fisherman). There is a lot of excess traffic at the moment from people who fish in other areas.

”We should all be thinking of the best intrest of the river, not your personal intrest. Do you think Deer and Turkey hunters "wanted" regulations? “

As a sportsman I understand regulations I know of no hunters that want no limits. IMO there is no need for this PLR/Size restriction per the data

“Probably not, the regulations have led to increased popualtions “

One of the prime things that decreased populations was people hunting for food when they could not afford it, they could not get jobs due to many factors like the depression. Also a era of if you did not kill game you had no meat and maybe no food period.

“and over all health of the populations. This would be true for the Clinch. The point of the Clinch being a "local" fishery has no relavance. "Local" holes need to be protected too.”


Tell me what needs to be protected. The data show the river has more large fish than ever since they started keeping records. If it was not for that 88% of the local users who use the fishery why would TWRA stock the river? It is stocked for that very reason.

“Your name Running Wolf suggests an Indian heritage. Do you not believe in the Indian ways of protecting the land and it's inhabitants, or did you think the name sounded cool?”

You have said you where not attacking me, this by most standards would be judged that you are trying to attack my creditability. The name was given to me by a elder whose NA's last name was Crowe, which was his name givers spelling much as the Runing was his spelling for me. I am very aware of all the facts and myths regarding native America heritage and also realize a lot of it you have to get nation specific. While they where overall good guardians of nature they also over harvested at times. Have you ever seen a old NA fish trap in a river ? if you did yo should realize that nothing escaped when it was herded into it. Are you aware of the depletion of the deer herd in the SE for the fur trade by NA’s in response to pay by the Europeans? Many nations where nomadic as they had to move as they depleted the resources in the area. There is more but I think this should give you some idea that there is a fallacy to some of the concept about NA’s. There is no way the resource will be depleted as long as TWRA keeps stocking, other wise as it is not sustainable it will go away

irfishing
10-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Man what a thread!!!!!

Just wish someone (maybe Runing Wolf) would answer Fishermansfly's two questions in the above post. All the other discussion is interesting but doesn't provide an answer to LUCRO's opposition to the proposed slot limit.

RuningWolf
10-02-2007, 12:16 PM
Man what a thread!!!!!

Just wish someone (maybe Runing Wolf) would answer Fishermansfly's two questions in the above post. All the other discussion is interesting but doesn't provide an answer to LUCRO's opposition to the proposed slot limit.
Maybe some body will answer some of mine. I did just take a look and two key answers are in these two threads twice.

I understand differences of opinion. Bryon and I have one as does someone else who stated their opinion very well. I also understand hard data. I also understand there is over 1000 miles of regulated water that most of those who want to have the experience of fishing special regs have that that use, I also understand that majority of users on the Clinch don’t and that is the only place most of them fish. There is approximately 4.5 miles of river access for the pubic why should those who want the fishing experience of a quality fishery with a healthy distribution range of fish be subjected to regulations that only a very vocal minority is supporting? What is fair about depriving them of that experience? There is nowhere else they can go that is within a reasonable driving distance to experience that.

The data is there to show that the fish are there, not based on some good days, bad days etc. but by a proven scientific method. My wife, others I know and my self have had no problem catching a good cross-section of a size range from that river in the areas that the public uses. If the data supported otherwise many would feel different and might support something other like a closed season for 4 months. That would effect every body the same would it not?

Understand that LUCRO has done a lot to support the heath of the river, the studies and the spawn in Clear Creek as well as other projects that is before you consider some of them allow river access.

If you have noticed I have responded to most people with information as I have the time. Nor am I a spokesperson for LUCRO. I can say some as I have had numerous discussions with members. There is also a lot of info in an earlier thread. Not trying to be a smart--- just pointing something out

Fishermansfly
10-02-2007, 02:15 PM
This is like sitting down for a meal and nibbling away at everything but the main course! I want the meat, not the potatoes! What is the beef? A bunch of various factoids surrounding the question does not answer the question. It sounds very much like you are gaining alot of your information from member's of LUCRO and people who really don't give two s%^* about helping to improve a fishery? TWRA is not asking for the opportunity to mess up the fishery, or are they? You have posted alot of information from various standpoints, whether they be your own or some other LUCRO members opinion. I understand that land owners don't want people littering up there property. Don't you think that all of the fuss created back in 92' with the following 15 years of bickering between the two would force TWRA to enforce/patrol/write more individuals on that water! I'm simply going on what your saying, about enforcement and that seems to be one of your "beef's" and you being an un official member!

If it's enforcement you want then, I'd strongly suggest to all of you members to allow it to happen. TWRA has invested too much time already to try to make this work only to have it shot down and in continuation attempting it again. TWRA is not going to invest a large sum of money into something to have it destroyed by people wanting to "not" abide by the rules! May be that's what you want! Let's suppose that three years from now after those rules come into effect that the fishery is full of larger/smarter/spawning/reproducing fish. Making it a "World Class" fishery! This will not only bring dollars to your beloved LUCRO members (LAND OWNERS) but also bring a few dedicated guides to the Clinch! I think a vast majority of the waters out west are not only protected by the officials but it's guides within the given water....After all it's their bread and water! So why does LUCRO want to diminish that....Do they want the water to themselves? That's what it sounds like based on all the information your dealking out of the mouth's of LUCRO and it's people! Which if that is what your saying I'll refer you back to a previous statement in the thread. If this is the case than what Bill said is utterly true....Let TWRA give it to your people, let them quit stocking it and let them run 2 generators 24/7...There you all can have your beloved tailwater! How stupid...Don't land owner's see the potential in the fishery? Why do they oppose a change to make it a better fishery...You haven't summed that up into a simple answer! Ok, maybe it isn't a simple answer. Then sum it up into categories that "take on" TWRA's management plan and why it so wished to combat it! It should aslo be written as simple as TWRA has so pronounced there attempt at making the Clinch a better fishery.

You can't tell me or anyone else that because of TWRA's (declining) numbers and based on an old diary you have lying around that TWRA's new management plan for the tail water is "NOT" neccesary! I'll even go as far as to say that maybe and to an extent your right...As I stated earlier I think that TVA opening up the gates for any length of time will have an effect on the fish! I'm not opposing that fact nor do I think will anyone argue the point on that matter....Maybe LUCRO see's it as TWRA's lack of investigating and figuring out why, as being unessasary. OK, then for LUCRO, they should see it as TWRA taking the slightly wrong approach to improve the fishery! OK, let there silly mistake pay off for everyone!

You refered to BMP's in your posting...Which to be quite honest with you I have no idea what the **** that is abbreviated for. I would imagine it's a catch all for various debree that comes from different sections of the adjoining roadways, runoff's and land. OK, I'm glad someone see that...Is this part of what LUCRO is suggesting we do? Is this part of there plan...If you ask me LUCRO should be paying there volunteer attorney to spend some time combatting this issue the other way...This is to much like politics and quite frankly it does nothing but piss me off! Let's argue someone's attempt to make a better fishery for our own sought out purposes but let'd do nothing in the river's defense. Am I wrong here. Why have we not seen anything LUCRO and it's people have done to help out the river system? It's stupid from there stand point! No matter what way you look at it, it is. They take no position in saying "Come join us, this is how we wish to fix the problem!" That being said they will never grow to be any bigger than the actual "LAND OWNERS" How incredibly stupid! TU, is an organization for the sole pupose of educating and protecting our natural resource! So how does a name that encompasses LAND OWNERS plan on getting anything done...It's no wonder to me that some LAND OWNERS have recieved threating voice mails and letters. Is it childish, absolutely! Do they have a point, I don't know what they said so I can't say! But, I will say this...If it was refering to a group of people that wished to keep the water for themselves as stated above, then well I just won't comment!

So let's get back to the basics here and answer the simple question what is LUCRO's plan to not neccasarily fix what is (or may not be) broken to improve this fishery?

What's the beef, in a line by line, with TWRA's proposed management plan?

If you answer these questions you might see your self raising some eyebrows! Not by pointing the finger and saying that its just wrong! Pass this along to who's in charge, in stead of poiting the finger, tell them to figure out a way to make it a better fishery and get people on there side on the matter. Not just the beloved LAND OWNERS! If that's the stance they wish to take then there organization will be no more than an bunch of stubborn "stuck in their way's" bunch of people!

Oh, and to add I'd love to see where your getting your numbers about people not wanting a reg change on the Clinch! I'm not refering to the obvious 800+ members of LUCRO either....I don't know who you've been talking too! Improving a fishery would be backed by most under, most circumstances! I'd love to see unbiased opinion on that matter! You would lose hands down! Period! Fisherman and public alike!

Still waiting!
Brett Romer

billyspey
10-02-2007, 08:45 PM
Wednesday October 24, 2007 1 Pm Gatlinburg Convention Center,,
For Those That Are For Limits Bring And Tell Everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We Need Lots Of Support By Thousands

irfishing
10-02-2007, 09:16 PM
I was seriously hoping there would be answers to Fishermansfly's questions since they might help understand the opposition's viewpoint. They might even gain some support.
Well if there are answers in RW's post, they are really hidden. I wish someone would help all of us who need simple, concise answers rather than long ambiguous writings.

Fishermansfly
10-03-2007, 02:38 AM
I'm not only trying to figure out your stand point on this issue but LUCRO's as well! RW, let me start off by saying, by no means am I trying to set you out or make you look like a fool! Your post's are long and heart felt from your stand point and seem to get lost in an unknown numbers and factoids. I have went back to re-read your latest post's to try and get a better understanding of your view point on the matter! Trust me there has been alot of head scratching trying to figure this all out and a rediculous amount of reading....it's 1:30 in the morning as I post this!

By trying to further understand your view point what I'm gaining from your views is that by allowing slot limits and regs to be in place your allowing/empowering the LAND OWNERS to basically shut down the river system cordining off their little sliver of the river! Making it unfishable, unfloatable, and otherwise un bareable to any other fisherman! If this is what your saying than I'll have to agree as will everyone else who's ever been able to float the Clinch! "Stream bed ownership" as you so referred too! This would be sad! So, I'll agree from that stand point. I will say this though, if the land owners took possesion of thier "stream bed ownership" than TWRA would easily sever there ties, quit stocking, quit enforcing, etc. So with TWRA saying "You all take ownership" then it would meen just that..You all take care of stocking, stream management, etc and will let you all along with TVA (who by the way really cares nothing more than generating power) can have your beloved river. Would they not? Why of course they would, this is not a wild stream! Most streams that owners have enacted their stream bed ownership in are wild (by this I mean spawning/self sustaining trout water) trout streams that are in very little need of water/trout management. I'm more than likely speaking out of text, as I'm not really sure of the actual numbers of streams that have owners that have enacted thier stream bed ownership!

I agree it's wrong all the way around, but in some aspects I think there are alot of opposing views that could be seen, heard, and respected all the same.

So with a river system that could be "made" or possibly be made better then why stand in some one's way to do so. Why?

In my earlier post I refered to LUCRO as LAND OWNERS and Land owners alone. I'm fully aware of the acronem and that it includes USERS as well. Many of the comments you have stated refer to talking with the land owners and thier dislikes! So when I hear you refer to LUCRO, all I'm hearing you say is LAND OWNERS! Yes, I know your not a representive, nor do you claim to be! It's seems as if that's the only people you speak for, are the actual land owners! I still stand by what I said earlier in reference to the acronem LUCRO and it's meaning...Who thought that name up?! It certainly does speak in volume and it screams LAND OWNERS.

"I also understand there is over 1000 miles of regulated water that most of those who want to have the experience of fishing special regs have that that use, I also understand that majority of users on the Clinch don’t and that is the only place most of them fish. There is approximately 4.5 miles of river access for the pubic why should those who want the fishing experience of a quality fishery with a healthy distribution range of fish be subjected to regulations that only a very vocal minority is supporting? What is fair about depriving them of that experience? There is nowhere else they can go that is within a reasonable driving distance to experience that." RW

"that majority" and "only place most of them fish" because they don't have to worry about regs? I'm sorry but it sounds as if your refering to a bunch of guys/gals who strictly fish for meat and are too lazy to fish elsewhere to get their meat and don't want a few reg's to get in their way of taking home anything over 7! You can't be refering to any dedicated fisherman I know! Yes, I said "FISHERMAN" not dedicating that to fly or spin fisherman...Because most that I know want to explore any water they can get there feet wet in, and most don't mind the travel! It's a sport, and wouldn't be a sport unless it included trying your skills on a different water every now and again. You made the "majority" sound like really boring sportsman! I will agree with gas prices, being as high as they have been, that no water, the Clinch included, is with in reasonable driving distance!

As far as your reference to the "vocal minority" is concerned, brother I think you barked up the wrong tree! I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that a few new regs in place to make it a better fishery would make almost anyone, whether fisherman or the general public, say yes! Yes, let's allow a change for a few years to see how far and how much better we could possibly make it!

In conclusion, RW, I am in no way trying to befriend you or trying to push your buttons, but really get to the bottom of this un official beef? I am however, though it may seem lost in my writing, trying to see your, land owners, users, and LUCRO's stand point on what evil TWRA is asking to do! I am a young grass hopper, but I've waited patiently all day on a response and even waited intently for a reply while you were logged on earlier!

Most importantly, in order for other's to see yours and LUCRO's "Science Mangagement", What is LUCRO proposing we/they (TWRA) do/not do? What is LUCRO doing to improve the quality of the fishery? No, I'm not refering to small/large organized groups of clean up crews stream side removing debree! That's fantastic! A pat on the back to all of those people involved in doing such! I'm wanting to know just how LUCRO TIVE, LUCRO is!? What are their big items on the agenda, what big things are they planning on doing to improve the fishery?

I just don't understand LUCRO and it's member's trying to combat the issue in stead of coming together with a state organization such as TWRA or TU (who has the time/manpower/money) to make a difference....There is very little logic involved here from LUCRO's standpoint! I guess that's why people are so afraid of "CHANGE" sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't! But it's hard to see the LUCRO's logic when you see all the other "1000 miles" of regulated water doing so d___ well! I guess that beat's the drive! Oh well! I'm off my soapbox for now! I'm looking forward to your response maybe that will enlighten some to your cause, me included! I'm a very open minded individual but always like to know the who, what, when, where, and why's! Most importantly the "WHY'S"

~Brett Romer

jeffnles1
10-03-2007, 08:00 AM
Not being from the area, I just don't understand the debate.

TRWA owns the fish (until they're released in the water).
TWRA owns setting policy and policy enforcement.
TWRA decides when, where, and how many fish are stocked in waters.


I guess I just don't understand why TRWA is even asking the question and opening themselves up for the debate. Pass the new regulations and be done with it or don't pass the regulations and be done with it.

Choose to stock the river, or choose to focus on other rivers.

The landowners own the stream bed (in most states) but they have absolutely no claim on the flowing navigatable waters. The Government (state and fed) owns the waterway and what goes in it and ultimately what comes out of it. A pont or lake completely on private property is a different story, but a river is a different matter.

I can understand the passion, but I honestly don't think the landowners have a leg to stand on here as it comes to fishing regulations on a river.

Jeff

Brian Griffing
10-03-2007, 09:37 AM
I have read a lot in this thread about stream bed ownership. Having lived in TN for just a little over a year, maybe I am ignorant of certain laws. I was of the belief that people could only own streams if the source and destination were both within the boundaries of their land. And, generally speaking, if you didn't cross someones land to access a river, and stayed below the high water mark, you were on public land. From what I have been reading, it sounds like this may be off the mark. Anyone care to set me straight?

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 12:25 PM
I have read a lot in this thread about stream bed ownership. Having lived in TN for just a little over a year, maybe I am ignorant of certain laws. I was of the belief that people could only own streams if the source and destination were both within the boundaries of their land. And, generally speaking, if you didn't cross someones land to access a river, and stayed below the high water mark, you were on public land. From what I have been reading, it sounds like this may be off the mark. Anyone care to set me straight?
There is no high or low water mark on most tailwaters and there is none on the Clinch. I will not address other rivers as I am not current on them nor do I care to be. I have had extensive discussion with TVA’s watershed teams and legal staff in the past dealing with that issue.

TWRA address it as well in one of their fisheries report. It is one I have here on my desk and when I go back through them for the umpteenth time over the next few days I will post the quote and report number to you when I come across it again. I will not post emails, meeting notes etc. I have on numerous CD’s as I am not going back though that shear volume of files for this go around on the various issues.


There are numerous small streams in Tn that this applies to as well.

I will say most landowners don't mind people in the river, unless they get insulting and that has happened. Good manners will eventually open a lot of doors in East Tenn.


What part of the state are you living in?

Fishermansfly
10-03-2007, 12:58 PM
Stream bed ownership is defined as RAPARIAN LAW..I went and did a little reading this morning looking up a broad aspect of things and came across a few different things. First the TN Raparian Laws
http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/divisions/wrrc/water_supply/chapter3.htm


This is also a list included in the Act as reference to other acts that all effect Raparian law. Two are noteworthy TVA ACT and WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT. However the Clinch not being a wild scenic river!

The endangered spcicies act
The rivers and harbors appropriation act
The tennessee valley authority act
The wild and scenic rivers act

The Obed rivers system, though I really didn't read in, faced something similar when it comes to stream bed ownership and raparian laws. You can google up all of the above and get more than a few dedicated responses. I don't have alot of time this morning to sort throught all the information but I will say that based on the TVA ACT, TVA is a FEDERAL ENTITY accompanied by the ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS! Which does come into play when someone is refering to a NAVIGATABLE river system! The Clinch being such!

Brian, stream bed ownership affecting other states have seen things such as cordined off streams stretching the entire width of the river. IE; A gate/fence that stretches across stream to not allow navigation or crossing. PA, Plateau Angler, made reference to this on his trip out west on his BlogSpot.... thetroutzone.blogspot.com , You will have to look under his August reports to find what I'm talking about...He refered to a majority of the land being privately owned and un accessable. There are small streams here in east TN that are under this law! IE:Black Berry Farms Private Stream!

I may myself be off the mark on this, I'm just trying to figure out what RW is refering to as part of Land Owners envoking their right to the RAPARIAN LAW. If I'm reading right it will never happen due to TVA and ARMY CORPS. Tennessee is defined as a PARTIAL RAPARIAN LAW STATE...What ever that's worth. I'm gonna have to look into it more. It's the quickest answer I could give.

RW, it's got peoples intrest's up, I don't have all the answers, what do you know that we don't. I'm trying to really help you here!

Thanks for any input,
Brett

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 01:08 PM
refFishermansfly Stream bed ownership

The Clinch is a non-navigable river above the HWY 61 Bridge. They where trying to get it changed to be able to enforce some issues that I have discussed early (see sewage etc) but their legal staff said it would not affect ownership

Don’t you think TVA’s watershed teams and TVA’s legal staff would know what they are talking about? How about the Landowners who own property that I have asked about their deeds? How could someone then want to charge people for fishing on their property that was very accessible from a public access?

Most of the deeds go to the middle of the river. Some new ones do some don't depends on how you get the new deed drawn up. I do not know the details and it is unimportant.

As to the rest of your posts I will get to you when I have time

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 01:16 PM
"Although all streams are public waters, the bottom of a stream is private property in Tennessee. Access is limited to most of our trout fisheries because of the lack of public ownership"

Trout Management Plan for Tennessee 2006 – 2016

Paula Begley
10-03-2007, 02:18 PM
May I make a request that will make this thread a little more easy to read? It's really hard to follow the way you all are doing it now.

When you are quoting a question or a comment by someone else, could you please enclose it in [ quote ] [ /quote ]. You can even type [ quote= postername ] [ /quote ] and then we can see who said it. When typing that code, you will not have spaces between the brackets and the quote /quote. If you don't want to type the code, you can use the little quote text box above...it is the icon to the right of the mountains when you are in the reply mode.

Thanks.

Paula

Brian Griffing
10-03-2007, 02:50 PM
RW and Fishermansfly, thanks for the info. You are both obviously more dedicated researchers than I am. Its better for me to be educated about the law this way than to answer rhetorical questions while staring into a flashlight.

RW, I am in Maryville, but have only fished the Clinch once. I keep meaning to get back there, but I just can't pull myself away from the mountain pocket water. And now that bow season has started, I am chasing trout even less.

Byron Begley
10-03-2007, 03:26 PM
I think some counties are taking the river bottoms out of deeds as they are transferred. Here in Townsend the landowner owns the river bottom in most cases. At least one owner I know had the river bottom removed from their deed because they thought it would limit their liabiltiy. Our County does not take the river bottom out of deeds automatically upon transfer. I don't know about Anderson County. I heard they were doing it on the Clinch but I'm not sure. So, be nice to land owners. You may be tresspassing and not know it.

Byron

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 03:44 PM
May I make a request that will make this thread a little more easy to read? It's really hard to follow the way you all are doing it now.

When you are quoting a question or a comment by someone else, could you please enclose it in [ quote ] [ /quote ]. You can even type [ quote= postername ] [ /quote ] and then we can see who said it. When typing that code, you will not have spaces between the brackets and the quote /quote. If you don't want to type the code, you can use the little quote text box above...it is the icon to the right of the mountains when you are in the reply mode.

Thanks.

Paula

I have tried to at least include the 1st line from whom I was responding as well as their handle to so as someone could fins that post read it and then read my response. It is difficult to understand unless you read what I was answering and to just read what I have posted. It is also difficult if you have not read the various reports and have a better than passing knowledge of them, many require reading and rereading to get the big picture. I don’t have the time at the moment to answer every body who I want to and some I have waited to think of a way to answer or reply without flaming.

Anyway I am almost out of this debate and the reason why will be apparent then (from my post) as I will talk to your other half

By the way I have been remiss in thanking you for encouraging people to be more responsible when going to different waters.

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 03:49 PM
I think some counties are taking the river bottoms out of deeds as they are transferred. Here in Townsend the landowner owns the river bottom in most cases. At least one owner I know had the river bottom removed from their deed because they thought it would limit their liabiltiy. Our County does not take the river bottom out of deeds automatically upon transfer. I don't know about Anderson County. I heard they were doing it on the Clinch but I'm not sure. So, be nice to land owners. You may be tresspassing and not know it.

Byron

I might be mistaken but I think what I was told was you had to request it to be left in there now in Anderson County. Don’t recall the details, it didn't matter to me at the time and it does not matter to me now and in the overall scheme of the issue it doesn’t really matter most of the deeds still say to the middle of the river

More than one landowner whom people are crossing are getting very concerned about liability issues as well as some vandalism that has occurred

Bottom line be respectful to all it may open some doors for you on down the road.

Gerry Romer
10-03-2007, 05:59 PM
Okay, RW...

Let's try it another way. In 25 word or less, what does LUCRO want?

Gerry Romer

RuningWolf
10-03-2007, 06:06 PM
RW and Fishermansfly, thanks for the info. You are both obviously more dedicated researchers than I am. Its better for me to be educated about the law this way than to answer rhetorical questions while staring into a flashlight.

RW, I am in Maryville, but have only fished the Clinch once. I keep meaning to get back there, but I just can't pull myself away from the mountain pocket water. And now that bow season has started, I am chasing trout even less.
If you want to go sometime next spring let me know
Understand bow season

Byron Begley
10-03-2007, 06:41 PM
Gerry,

A trophy section was established in the 90's and the landowners didn't know it was coming. They were left out of the decision process. TWRA thought the land owners were behind the decision and they thought everything was "hunky dory". The land owners formed a group of very upset people, and called it LUCRO, to have the "trophy section" overturned and they were successful. I attended most of the public meetings. It was a mess! I also met a lot of their members and the ones I got to know were nice, reasonable, intelligent people. Next time you are in the store I'll tell you the whole story. You are getting bits and pieces on this forum. There is more than meets the eye. Personally, I don't think LUCRO will be out in force over this issue. I may be wrong. This slot limit is a totally different from what they had to deal with years ago. I think the Commission will approve the proposed slot limit and I don't think there will be strong opposition. If there is, I'll be surprised. I'm looking forward to the Commision meeting. I think TWRA has done their homework and are going to do what they think is best for the fishery. I'll be the guy standing next to RW during the meeting. From past experience, there will be standing room only. I hope you can attend. I hope everyone here can attend. I'm just trying to figure out where I'm going to park my truck in Gatlinburg. Any advice would be appreciated. Come to think of it, I might ride over with Mr. and Mrs. Running Wolf and let him worry about the parking.
Byron

Gerry Romer
10-03-2007, 07:01 PM
Thanks, Byron.

I already had the gist of all that. What I think we're all having a hard time with here is figuring out exactly what it is that LUCRO does want. Obviously, it's not enough to just be against something. If the world operated that way we'd all still be trying to figure out where fire comes from. So what I'm asking is, what is LUCRO actually for? You can't tell from anything that's ever been posted on this board that I've read that spells out what LUCRO is for - only what they're against. And it seems that that's how LUCRO came into existence... simply by being against something and hiring an attorney to argue their position.

If their primary interest is in managing a body of water through scientific method then their argument against slot limits doesn't hold water (pun intended), since the theory of slot limits has been tested and proven time and again on various tailwaters throughout the region. By asking for or demanding scientific controls, they are, in fact, asking for exactly what TWRA is proposing!?

So I have to ask again. Just exactly what does LUCRO want that will offer even the possibility of improved perceived fishing experience quality?

Gerry

Byron Begley
10-03-2007, 07:02 PM
RW,

I recently read some Tennessee Law that exempts landowners from liability on their land that is under a river unless there is some sort of gross negligence involved. If a landowner ran a strand of barbed wire across Little River and someone got hurt, there would be some grounds for a lawsuit. I'm not an attorney so don't take my opinion and make an important bad decision.

Byron

Byron Begley
10-03-2007, 07:16 PM
Gerry,

I don't know what they want or don't want. All I know is what RW is saying. He is not a member of LUCRO he just knows some or all of them. The Commissioners may have heard from people who are against the slot limit but as an organization I don't think they have stated their position in public. Maybe 800 of them will show up at the commission meeting or maybe only a few will be there. Or maybe none of them will be there. For all I know, they don't exist as a group. They haven't contacted me. I haven't contacted them. The attorney who is their "spokesman" attended a TU meeting in Norris where TWRA gave a presentation on their plan for next year and he just took notes. Who knows. None of them have debated here and I know they are watching what we have to say. I guess we'll find out this month. The most important thing is: Send an e-mail to TWRA and state your case, pro or con. I think that will make the most difference in how the Commission will vote. See you soon buddy!

Byron :smile:

Gerry Romer
10-03-2007, 07:40 PM
That pretty much sums up what I was getting out of all this. As I said, it's real easy to be against something. Fortunately, some of our ancestors didn't take the easy way out and today we can all flick our Bics.

Seriously, though, some of this stuff sounds like it comes right out of the pages of a Flat Earth Society journal. :biggrin:

Yeah, you probably will see me soon... I haven't had my fix lately:cool:

Gerry

billyspey
10-03-2007, 08:34 PM
mr. wolf i have a question ? if your orginazition of lucro were mainly concern, is the regulation on the clinch river , why was your lucro opposing the brown trout regulations on the caney fork river in middle tn. ? you say your org. would like everyone that wants slot limits go some where else and fish ,what right's do you'all have on the caney fork river.

Fishermansfly
10-03-2007, 09:09 PM
I....I...I just don't get it!? Silence. I hate seeing a one sided argument and I'll have to tag along with dad to figure out what is really going on! Obviously it's more than meets the eye! What I'm really interested in hearing is, of course, LUCRO's standpoint on the changes why they oppose such changes. Do they oppose all changes, some, or one! More importantly if there are some intently reading and watching what is said, why keep quiet. Those whom are reading, nothing can be done with out saying it...More importantly you all are going to look foolish when you all do voice your opinions at the meeting and not sooner. In stead of saying something now that would possibly sway the "other" parties, who agree with the change. Still again, not a minority!

Silence won't help your cause and like I said earlier "Pointing the finger" and saying it's wrong with out actually proposing a change or putting up good numbers that are set in stone as to actual anglers not wanting a change won't help LUCRO's cause! I'm yet again, out of breath and want some answers....It looks as if there isn't any right now and I, along with many others, will just have to wait until the 24th! Till then!

Byron look forward to seeing the crew as usual and listening in to further info on this issue!

Brett

Byron Begley
10-05-2007, 11:45 AM
I think the debate is over. It has been a good one. Thanks to RW and everyone else who sifted through the data. I learned a lot. By the way, RW is not a member of LUCRO. He just lives there and has his own opinions about change and that they should be based on science. I don't think the folks at LUCRO are going to try to stop this. Maybe we have found some common ground. But, I've been wrong before. See you on the 24th.

Byron

Fishermansfly
10-05-2007, 01:57 PM
I took a long hard look around the net yesterday in regards to the organizition LUCRO. It didn't really turn up any good information about past issues involving LUCRO. I specifically tried to research the 92' or really 93' event with TWRA. I did, however, run across a letter written by one of the big cats at TU which was forwarded to TWRA. The letter was dated 2001 in regards to TWRA's management ideas. Anywho, the letter basically stated that TU had/had been teamed up with LUCRO and it's affiliated members and that they wished/wanted to work side by side with TWRA on figuring out a new game plan for the tail water. It was an interesting short read that basically laid out no clear cut facts about what the issues where but they wanted to be heard in regards to the matter!

I clearly understand that, everyone is entitled to their given rights and should be more than aloud to voice their opinion/concern. One given thing that was addressed on the letter were the studies on populations. They agreed with the numbers but stated there was no effort put into the study of the effects of overgeneration and flooding. Ok, I agree. Has a study been conducted to see what effect it does have on the fish? 6 yrs later after all! Maybe they haven't and maybe that's one issue LUCRO has! Another issue RW has clearly stated is an increased amount of sediment due to the bridges, farm land, and new construction.

I did however run across several TWRA articles in PDF format on their web site regarding the "new" management plan. I had a hard time finding their actual plan that includes slot limits and a possible trophy section. However, I had no problem finding a PDF about "proposing" some changes on the Clinch river. It basically stated some of the issues fisherman were having (ie; smaller and fewer fish) and that they wanted to address the issue in 2007, that all opions, suggestions, hate mail, and issues anyone may have! I do no know when they produced that PDF or published that particular letter! It sounds to me that TWRA has done their homework allowing everyone to voice their opinion on the matter before they started making changes. Another big item issue they addressed was the lack of presence of law enforcement! They stated they would address this at the 24 meeting!

All of this has me really wondering what exactly took place in 93' with LUCRO and makes me really think about the lack of enforcement their! Politics will be played and I begin to wonder what enforcement looked like in and before 92'.

Going back to the original thread and running right through I see a concern from RW about the land owners getting ticketed for something they have been doing for years. RW, states that he didn't think it would be an issue with the land owners until that point. Well, I'm gonna have to agree with others on the matter and that they are playing spoiled! They have fantastic access to that water and have fished as such for many years. Just because 800 members don't want a ticket for various changes TWRA makes isn't right. There was a statement made about giving LUCRO's members and un-official pass to "break the rules" this would be wrong and a tremendous waste of TWRA's time! I will also state that those fish are put there with tax payers dollars and everyone should have the same privaledges! Period. You can't make exceptions because of membership or ownership of adjacent land.

The more and more I read I find alot of the same. It's all about the change. They just don't want it, especially if it comes to being ticketed for something they've been doing for years. Science for LUCRO has a clean up and beautify type attitude and not across the board attitude. There using someone elses data to combat change on the Clinch. This is opinion, my opinion and I may be wrong!

It's aggrivating to see an orginization not wanting change especially if they aren't willing to fit the bill for it! Put your money where you mouth is! If they had the money to pay for research, stocking, river improvements, etc. then I'd jump on board provided they had a "plan" to further improve the fishery! This problem is compounded by the simple fact that I, along with several others, pay for a fishing license and trout stamp. I so far have contributed $500 smackeroo's to TWRA. Here's where I'm going with this, I along with several other's pay TWRA monies to fish that water. My monies translates to stocking, upkeep, and management of these waters! So, I only fish the clinch about 8 times a year and all over the state of TN the rest. My monies pay for stocking several waters in TN. So why would I be OK with 800 members of a small organization not allowing change for all Tennesseans on this particular water if TWRA is proposing a better fishery? More importantly why is TWRA cowering over 800 members of a fishery...Pull out, give them there fishery and spend my hard earned money elsewhere. Make it private land and give it to the owners and users.

RW, I agree that I would hate to see this happen but sometimes you have to let people waller in their own s___! Trust me when I say it wouldn't take long. 800 members is not an organization that can fit the bill for 800 members if you know where i'm getting with that! That's why TWRA, a state organization, is in charge of taking monies from across the state and equally distributing it through out! So, that would leave the land owners moaning to TVA and there over generation. I say "There ya go it's all yours!"

RW, my moaning is directed at you so please don't take it that way I can't stress that enough! You seem to be the only one willing to speak up, even though I might not/don't (ha ha) agree. I seriously commend you for that and keep up the fight! I continually go back and forth reading various statements you have made and I see that your a fisherman like me who doesn't want stupidity to over rule making the Clinch (close to home) a good fishery. I live here in Maryville and don't fish that water as much as I would like to, usually do to generation and my rigerous schedule. Please don't take any of this to heart and I think I really see what your against in this matter, it's just been hard to sift through!

As for TWRA, I think they have done there homework and LUCRO is in for a big surprise come the 24th. Leaving an open invitation via the world wide web via PDF to say "Suggestions, comments, issues, concerns, complaints are welcome!" then listing an e-mail address and phone number to pertinant people. So if LUCRO hasn't commented/talked with TWRA by now it's only their fault!

I hope and encourage all to send TWRA an e-mail in regards to the above. You can find that link under Byron's Fishing Report. Follow the link at the top of the page to Fishing Report, open it, scroll down, and it's there on the bottom!

Lastly I hope LUCRO sees that fishery as every fisherman that pays for a license has a right to fish that tailwater and not a fishery that is thiers. This is the problem I have with thier name/acronem, users and land owners alike! I also wanted to touch on the fact regarding abuse of this privaledge. Being able to wade out into that water to fish is a privaledge. Being able to hold a rod and cast as such, is a privaledge! Being able to have the funds available (Byron) is a privalidge! So, I whole heartedly agree that being able to fish that water is a privaledge, so please don't abuse it. Yes, this does include being nice to the individuals that are lucky enough to own adjacent land! Be overly nice to these people or anyone else you might be fishing beside on the water because you never know who they might be! Use good ethics and be curtious and it will get you places!

I believe I'm done now!
Brett Romer

billyspey
10-05-2007, 04:52 PM
did you hear about the guy who was ticketed for having 47 trout over legal limit. [and yes you read it right] he had 2 stringers and a laundry basket full the laundry basket was placed against the bank under brush twra was watching him confront him and issued a ticket he went to court in anderson cty was fined $25.00 plus court cost. thats was less than 50 cents per fish.

Gerry Romer
10-05-2007, 05:27 PM
he went to court in anderson cty was fined $25.00 plus court cost. thats was less than 50 cents per fish.


If these are our tax dollars at work, who's putting up the rest of the $$ to cover the costs? :rolleyes:

re: your earlier post. Is it possible that they're so organized that they've been able to branch out to middle Tennessee and form the Landowners and Users of the Caney River Organization ?? :eek:

Gerry