TN Tailwater Guide License

[Realtyman]

Straight up or down vote. No B.S. Either you are for it, in some form, or you are against it.

Polling is open for 14 days.

What say ye?

*You must be logged in to vote*

[waterwolf]

No.............

[Realtyman]

Originally Posted by waterwolf

No.............

You gotta give me time to post the poll

Go back and vote

[Grumpy]

No here as well.

Grumpy

[MadisonBoats]

I voted 'For' in the poll. I think it could be a good thing. It could differentiate leisure fisherman from commercial fisherman. This will assist the resource agencies with data gathering and relevant information for making future resource allocations. The fee seems to be nominal for a professional guide that is typically-adequately outfitted with top of the line gear. Not that the guide should be punished with extra fees; but, to help give them a legitimate (segment) voice in the system.

Having a guide license would give guides a demographic segment in the resource agencies-user pool. This would allow them to collect data, report data for backing resource allocations, and to help implement control policies.

The only negative I see is in paying the extra fee. However; I think there could be endless possibilities in creating a new segment for the wildlife resources to justify expansion, new programs, funds, protection of funds, etc. Just my opinion; but I think most people are still under the impression that these agencies are out to get them. Many still do not register boats or fail to update their license demographic information. Doing these things help the resource agencies to collect accurate data and to justify resources appropriately. Additionally; much of this data is utilized in analyzing fishing pressure and fishery studies.

I am not trying to argue for this fee. I am just trying to illustrate constructive thought with reasoning.

I do think it would helpful for me to read the negative aspects from current guides and past guides.

[Steve Wright]

Yes ....... ( a select few grandfathered in )

[cockeye valdez]

I have read some of most of the post on this subject and it leads me to a larger question.

We may or maynot agree that guides should be required to have a license but we need to come to the realization that we are in danger of loosing a sport that we love. Unless we are willing to work with T.W.R.A. other agencies, together we will loose the fish.
With hatchery funds being reduced, pressure on rivers and access being reduced by land owners we have a larger problem.

My personal opinion is that if we want to continue to enjoy this sport it most likely will cost me more money and unless I am willing to work with, not against those managing our resources, bring local T.U. chapters to the discussion I can expect to travel West to enjoy fly fishing for trout.

John Gierach, No Shortage of Good Days has great line about fishermen with egos. I want to remind everyone it is about the fish, it is not about me or you either. if we loose the fish the only thing we'll be discussing is how much out of state license cost.

The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by cockeye valdez

The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?

More ENFORCEMENT.

Grumpy

[Grannyknot]

I voted "against". I just don't see how you can ask a guide to pay this fee in such troubled economic times.

[Grannyknot]

Originally Posted by cockeye valdez

The larger question is: how can we sustain/improve our natural resources?

Stop the useless stocking of trout in waters that can't sustain them year-round. Take these resources and apply them elsewhere.

Anyone who has ever looked at this list -> http://www.tn.gov/twra/fish/StreamRi...ckedtrout.html should know that it is quite absurd.