Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76

Thread: Here we go again...Proposed Clinch Slot Limit

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    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.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Alcoa, TN

    Default Utterly aggrivating!

    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!


  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Townsend, Tennessee


    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.


  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Alcoa, TN

    Default Byron

    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

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2007


    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.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Default Lucro

    Quote Originally Posted by billyspey View Post
    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?

    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 ??


Similar Threads

  1. Proposed Changes to the Hiwassee
    By waterwolf in forum Tennessee Trout Streams and Tailwaters
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 10:20 PM
  2. Clinch Slot Regulation Enforcement
    By Biggame1 in forum Tennessee Trout Streams and Tailwaters
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 01:41 PM
  3. Slot Limit on the Clinch
    By Byron Begley in forum Fisheries Management & Biology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-02-2007, 08:40 PM
  4. Trout Limit Changed on Cumberland River
    By marktronic in forum Fly Fishing for Trout in Other States
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2007, 10:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts