Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76

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

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    171

    Post Still Need Answers

    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.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alcoa, TN
    Posts
    506

    Default Back up and punt!

    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 donít 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

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    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

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Coastal Norf Cack-a-lacky
    Posts
    152

    Default

    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?
    Life is hard. But it's a lot harder if you're stupid.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Griffing View Post
    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?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Alcoa, TN
    Posts
    506

    Default Here you go Brian!

    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/wrr...y/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
    Last edited by Fishermansfly; 10-03-2007 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Forgotten Thoughts

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    147

    Default Per TVA

    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

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    147

    Default From TWRA

    "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


  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Townsend, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,034

    Default

    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

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Coastal Norf Cack-a-lacky
    Posts
    152

    Default

    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.
    Life is hard. But it's a lot harder if you're stupid.

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
  •