Home Register Today's Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Tennessee Trout Streams and Tailwaters

View Poll Results: TN Tailwater Guide License?
Against 27 62.79%
For 16 37.21%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-27-2011, 09:49 AM
Mike_Anderson Mike_Anderson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 70
Default

Just so were clear on this. This was all started by a few Trout guides constantly asking for it. It wasn't the brainchild of much thinking and debate. It's just a reaction to a constant nagging from some guides to implement it. From the results of the TWRA survey as a whole, the guides in the state overwhelmingly voted it down. However, somehow, I don't know how, there were enough "trout guides" who voted for it, though they are mostly absent from the many discussions on these forums...


If passed it isn't going to come anywhere near patching the hole left by the federal funding IF,, and that's a big if, they pull funding for it. It would only be the proverbial drop in the bucket.

Also I clearly understand that out of state guides are heavily using the rivers in East TN. At least they are buying license and stamps. I know all too well about crowded rivers. On a nice summer day on the Caney Fork you'll see no less then 300 kayaks (a constant flow of groups of boats all day) on the first five miles of river. You wanna know how much they contribute? Nothing. Wanna know how bad the river has become. It's almost to the point that it isn't worth fishing it anymore because of it. Why isn't that being discussed?? If I have to have abide by all these new regs shouldn't each kayak rental company also be forced to provide a guide who knows CPR and First aid, holds a captn license, and has proof of Isur, be provided with each group of boats they release??

IMO it's a made up fee for new rule that will accomplish nothing.

When the results as a whole came in that most guides in general were against it it should have died right there (All or nothing). There are alot more important wildlife issues facing our state that could be being discussed rather then trying to please a very small group who constantly complain and evidently can't be satisfied.
__________________
WWW.FlyFishingTN.Com

Last edited by Mike_Anderson; 09-27-2011 at 10:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:03 AM
cockeye valdez cockeye valdez is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 107
Default One piece of the plan

I hear that from others and is certainly part of any resource management plan but I think we also need to think about fish populations, efforts we can take to ensure fish sustainability and reproduction. It is very large discussion from all mature thinking individuals who want to let go of their personal agendas and plan for the future. We need to be better stewards and I hope most of us don't need enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:33 AM
br549 br549 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Knoxville
Posts: 28
Default

Against...I do not like one group singled out when they are by far the smallest group, and probably the best teachers to new fishermen on how to be good stewards. Catch and release, river etiquette etc...at least the one's I know personally. If your going to have a license for folks that make money off of our state resources, then by golly require one for everyone that profits from our resources. Including canoe and kayak rental companies, warmwater and hunting guides. And finally, 1000.00 is way too much.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-27-2011, 10:59 AM
Wilson10's Avatar
Wilson10 Wilson10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Clinton, TN
Posts: 287
Default

If a fee increase is necessary then charge the people who keep a stringer of fish each time they visit our tailwaters. Not like this could be enforced either but charging the guides whom bring money into our communities seems wrong to me.
__________________
Adam
awilson1010@gmail.com

My Blog: Fly Fish East Tennessee
www.flyfisheasttennessee.blogspot.com

><>
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-27-2011, 01:04 PM
white95v6 white95v6 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 99
Default

i voeted against it.

i don't think they should single out a small group. if they want to do a guide licence. then make it a state wide one on all fishing guides. and like said maybe a hunting guide licence too. i mean they profit from the Resourse no?

also like someone said before think of all those other fish raised in those hatcheries. its not just trout.

also i think a licence for those who keep fish is just as dumb as this tailwater licence. you don't think some fish die after you catch them. well they do.

also heck i think a trout stamp is dumb. is there a hybrid stamp? those are not a fish that would be here unless twra stocked them.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-27-2011, 02:40 PM
Hugh Hartsell's Avatar
Hugh Hartsell Hugh Hartsell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Morristown Tn.
Posts: 394
Default Tailwater Permit

I am voting against this proposal. After reading everything that I can about the matter and listening to many people that are affected by users of the tailwaters I have come to the conclusion that most of this "buzz' about the need for a guide's license is simply motivated by greed by a small core of guides and other fishermen on the South Holston and Watauga Rivers. I can certainly understand them wanting the out of state guides to be thinned down and have to pay for some of the expenses of the stocking of the rivers. I sure don't see any sense in the proposals that have been made to help in this situation. I could go on and on about many of the things that have already been mentioned, but what stands out like a sore thumb is the fact that if this is implemented as it is being presented, it will be brought to a court case as being unconstitutional and unfair to all parties involved. I think that some of the people who have made comments about how this would have positive effect on the future of some efforts that TWRA might consider doing need to go back and look at the amount that this tailwater permit is expected to bring in and also listen to the comments about past enforcement on the Tailwater rivers for such things as slot limits and license checks. That should bring you back to reality.
Hugh
__________________
Hugh Hartsell---East Tenn.
smokymountainflyguide.com

Last edited by Hugh Hartsell; 09-27-2011 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-27-2011, 03:03 PM
CinciVol CinciVol is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Knoxville
Posts: 157
Default

I voted against based mostly on what I have heard will be in the rule in terms of the large fee. On the surface, some sort of lecense for guides may have a positive impact as Shawn suggested the cost is just too high. Incidentally, the justifications we have heard seem to be at odds with what the rule would accomplish. Seems to me that (as others have said), as written the rule will eliminate jobs, raise little money, and only allow the big boys to use the river.

If the actual goal is to simply lower guide traffic on the South Holston and Watauga then why not have a lottery of daily passes for guides (or for anyone floating) or just charge a day use fee for those rivers. The rule seems like a very heavy handed approach to a limited "problem".
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-27-2011, 03:27 PM
Rodonthefly Rodonthefly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 389
Default

Go back to the old saying " It's a trout stamp not a food stamp"! charge those you wish to keep fish. After all I have to pay the market price when I go out to eat or buy it at the local store.
__________________
www.clinchriverflyfishing.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-27-2011, 03:45 PM
kytroutman's Avatar
kytroutman kytroutman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 451
Default

Go back to the old saying " It's a trout stamp not a food stamp"! charge those you wish to keep fish. After all I have to pay the market price when I go out to eat or buy it at the local store.

Unfortunately, they cannot or won't enforce the current regulations. I wonder what the numbers would show when you compare stocking days to the number of cans of whole kernel corn sold in the same time frame? Ensure that the waterways are being used by licensed sportsmen, not the poachers or those intent on filling a five gallon bucket with their "trophies".
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-27-2011, 03:56 PM
cockeye valdez cockeye valdez is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 107
Default another view

Sounds like most everyone voting is opposed to the fee and are also guides. I wouldn't have thought it would be any different. If I was getting a subsidized ride I would be against the proposed fee also. I have read some of most of the post and have not read one word about conservation and preservation of our natural resources. Most of what I am reading sounds more along the lines of 'use til its gone.'

The tubers, kayak outfitters are not taking or catching fish.

With half the population receiving checks from the government each week it should not surprise anyone that a group would feel entitled to use our resources with little or no responsibility to preserve them. I'm sure most reputable guides file income taxes each year but perhaps some don't and this would force them to do so.

I'm in favor of the fee, I'm also in favor of paying more for trout stamps.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:04 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.