Thread: Tailwater Stamp
View Single Post
Old 09-24-2011, 08:23 PM
highstick's Avatar
highstick highstick is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 25

Thanks for the video upload.

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

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

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

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

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

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