View Single Post
  #19  
Old 10-01-2007, 02:46 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Re

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron Begley View Post
Let's discuss the proposed slot limit on the Clinch River. I am very much in favor of this regulation change.....


As promised I got back to you on the rest of this post

“Many of our customers fish on the Clinch River and I've heard for a few years from them that the fishing quality has declined. “

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

The shocking numbers show other wise. I also know many anglers who will tell you the Clinch fishes better than ever.

“My question is, do the local people who live near this river understand that fishing is big business? “

Yes they do. You should hear what some people have been offered for their property and read what some properties have sold for.

“Fishing means tourism, tourism means revenue and revenue means jobs.”

Anderson County is not hurting for jobs. I also do not see anywhere in the mission statement of TWRA it is to manage our wildlife for tourism. One would hope that they would use good science instead of what feels good for some people or else they may wind up the Penn and be facing lawsuits over mismanaging a resource. I do hear that the commercial fisherman here are looking into that possiablity.

“It seems to me that the opposition to this proposal (not you RW) are folks who live close to the river and may not be looking out for the best interest of all the citizens in their county and their state. Could it be that they don't want anglers fishing their river? Could it be that they know that better fishing will attract more fishermen and they don't want that?”

Most people seem to forget that LUCRO is more than a landowners organization it is a users organization as well. There are nearly 800 members. That is a lot more people than who are landowners.

Another point the river fishing pressure has remained fairly constant over the years. I have seen over crowed conditions regularly at Millers Island and up river and on more than one occasion at Clinton. As most of the access is on and across private property and you know that even then only about 4.5 miles of river is readily accessible where are you going to put more people? Are we going to displace users who are the core group? Those who pay taxes (which are some of the highest in the country) and spend their most if not their entire paychecks in the local fisheries counties?

“It is not a step toward mandated catch and release.”

You know as well as I do that once you start it is a progressive step towards more restrictive regulations which is mute most of the anglers do not want them. One survey I am sure you read showed only modest support for a minimum size limit and slightly more support for closed seasons. The management objectives state that TWRA is to provide a wide variety of angling experiences to the public. The Clinch is the last quality fishery in the area without them. It is a local fishery and the regulations are against the desires of mot of those who use it. The other tailwaters if memory serves me correctly got a substantial buy in from the various user groups. That has not happened here and does not appear to be likely to for some time unless the unfiltered science data supports it. In fact the management outlines tell you that at times those who wish to experience a more specialized fishery that they may need to be directed elsewhere. The minority who are pushing this have over 1000 miles of water with special regulations that they can pursue to their hearts content what they want. The users of the Clinch have 4.5 miles of publicly available water to purse their desires. Hardly seems equitable IMO and you know my wife and I are primarily C&R anglers and have kept virtually none in the past unless it was obvious the where not going to make it. I will now keep more browns as I need the vitamins as well as a fw atsy recipes for 14 in and up Browns.

“It is simply a management tool to improve the perceived quality of fishing to a larger group of anglers who buy a license to fish the river, visit Tennessee and provide jobs in the counties near the resource.

perceived is a good word. We all long for the good old days when all things where better.

Quality per TWRA is used man ways. Quality has nothing to do with size. Quality is a healthy fishery and a watershed with adequate numbers to allow for all inhabitants to mature and grow in what it will sustain.
Reply With Quote