Home Register Today's Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Fisheries Management & Biology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-01-2007, 10:02 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron Begley View Post
Hi Running Wolf, Uh Oh! Here we go again.

First let me say that I know you are not questioning my integrity and I surely wouldn’t question yours. You and Mrs. Running Wolf will always be friends of mine even if I can’t convince you to change your position and that of LUCRO. But I’m still going to try. Or, maybe you will change mine. Who knows. I also know you are intelligent. Your career alone tells me that.

I have met some of the folks who represent LUCRO and they were nice to me even though they knew I was not on their side of the unfortunate dispute that happened a few years ago. And, maybe in some ways I was on their side. I sort of understood their beef back then but I don’t understand it now.

You made some good points in your last post referring to my comments earlier. You said some things that made sense that I had not thought of before. I guess that’s one of the reasons I like debating with you.

I would like to ask you some questions.
I would respond to your questions about LUCRO however some if I answered them in sufficent detail might give some clues to other members of their executive committee I believe it is called. Through the public knowledge that Wayne Kline is their spokesman (and not me as some have so erroneously claimed) he has already received harassing mail over this issue and there needs to be no chance that others have to tolerate the same childish behavior that has been shown to him. The harassment is something that both my wife and I can identify with as we too in the past have received similar and worse harassment over our position on the river

Mr. Kline as you may recall is a fisherman himself and is doing this work as a unpaid volunteer of LUCRO. I have called you and discussed the rest of your questions in this post as well as confirmed that you knew the appropriate people In LUCRO if you need your questions answered

The membership is near 800, per people I know in the organization and it is getting new members. My wife and I are joining, as we believe in science managing our resources not people's goals. Unfortunately many do not.

LUCRO along with the CRCTU was never given the opportunity to sit down and have a discussion with other major user groups as the agency promised in 02. That is also contrary to their management guidelines they are suppose to go by. They charge the agency with holding meetings with the various stakeholders and facilitating discussion about possible solutions that they see is a problem. All they did was tell people give us your comments for them to develop a proposal that it appears they had already made their mind up on.

What I suspect will happen due to many factors that is to long to discuss here is that most members of LUCRO will not get to riled until they start getting tickets as most do not know that the changes have been proposed or they think that the executive board is on top of it. It appears the agency is mistakenly counting their spokesperson as one person. Much like with the quality zone once it was in place and they realize what happened by the new regs being published, that TWRA ignored them again the proverbable ___ will then hit the fan again.

Last edited by RuningWolf; 10-02-2007 at 01:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-01-2007, 11:42 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Re

Quote:
Originally Posted by kytroutman View Post
RW, I appreciate and respect your posting.
"In Pennsylvania, there are a number of streams now closed to the public because of the landowner/waterway rights."

That does indeed occur some here in Tenn. they also have one of the most bizarre set of regulations that you ever want to read.

"Other streams have the rights purchased by fishing clubs to restrict access to members only. "

That already happens in Tenn. and there is now only one on the Clich there was three. On one if you waded into and certain members of the club were present you were told to either pay the initiation and yearly dues, leave or be arrested for trespassing.

"My fear is that may be what's happening to the Clinch, inadvertently. "

Some more landowners have recently looked at charging for access. If the river gets labeled a trophy type river then it will be more of an occurance

"If that means the introduction to slot limits, that may be a start. "

It is a put and take and a put grow and take fishery. Noone know what the average life expectancy of trout is in the tailwater. There is a current study going on to do that. However it will always depend on stocking the 3-5 in fingerlings to substain a healthy fishery with a good cross section of fish. The next flood event will wash certain size ranges out of the river and it will take about 2 years for the river to come back. There is nothing that can be protected for future generations by regulations, as there is no real wild trout to protect. To protect for future generation then conservation efforts must me performed in the entire watershed that has nothing to do with size limits and size restrictions. The shocking data shows that the large fish are there in very healthy numbers

"If the issue of streambed ownership is enacted, who are the real winners?"

See above

Last edited by RuningWolf; 10-02-2007 at 02:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-01-2007, 11:53 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UofMontanaAlum View Post
I see bait-fishermen walk off the Clinch with over 20 fish on their stringers every Saturday and Sunday and all I ask why is there no enforcement of the already existing 7 fish limit.

I have been down there every weekend with the exception of 1 this summer and I have not once been checked for license or creel limit.

I am all for the slot limit but will they enforce it if it passes?

I don’t think anyone will argue that enforcement is not a problem. If you read all the reports I have they keep stressing that is a priority. We do need to keep in mind that they have a large area to patrol and are understaffed for what they do. The drunks on the lake take precedent over poachers.

With that being said I cannot emphasis enough report violators with your cell phones, give good descriptions, car tags, take a pic with your digital camera’s. The agency has responded many times in the past especially to reports of repeat violators. A good description has led to the enforcement personal being able to observer reported offenders from the bank on a different weekend and has resulted in several arrest. I have seen this happen many times and know of many other occurrences. The officers generally do not get into the river but sometimes a undercover officer will and report to officers waiting in the parking lot or the road to make their arrest or give a citation. A lot of bait fisherman have pointed out violators and not all violators are bait fishermen or spin fisherman. One of the worse I have ever seen was a fly fisherman. I have spoken with the manger in charge of enforcement recently and the number of violations they have ticketed on the river was not to shabby.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:08 AM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kytroutman View Post
RW, I have a brother who lives in the State College area so I travel up to fish the area there. This includes the Penn's, Spruce Creek and the Springs. I have also fished around the Lancaster area and plan to spend next Spring on the Yellow Breeches. I normally fish in the Spring since Summer water levels drop. If you like Fall fishing, avoid weekends when Penn State plays. It's impossible to get around the traffic when that's going on.
My wife is from the Pocono Mtn area.

If you think Penn State football is bad you should try getting around Ktown when Tenn plays as well as some of the outlaying areas.!!!!

We fish a lot of the areas and streams that flow into the Lehigh as well as the Lehigh (talk about tricky wading), the Little Susquehanna, Fishing Creek, Nescopeck Creek, Kettle Creek, Mud Run to name a few

Are you aware of the Penn. Hunting Commission getting sued for mismanaging the deer herd?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Fishermansfly's Avatar
Fishermansfly Fishermansfly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alcoa, TN
Posts: 506
Default Need a little help RW!

I've read your passionate debate over the matter starting with the original thread reading a multitude of post until I finished here! Let me start off by saying "Let's get back to the basics!" This thread is over run with "official" and "unofficial" numbers covering a broad spectrum of things! I will add to say that I really don't have alot to offer on the matter and don't have a lot of stream time on the Clinch! I've been actively fishing that water for about 5 years and only figuring out fly fishing and catching fish for about 4! This past year my catch rate went up dramatically, I'll only blame that on proper technique and better fly selection, and I'm still learning.

I'm still trying to understand LUCRO's standpoint on the whole matter at hand and what they wish to see or don't wish to see! More importantly, how do they intend to make it a better fishery abrod? I've watched TWRA work a dwindling deer/turkey population into a flourishing (understatement) population....You know it's gotten out of hand when your seeing wild Turkey in the City of Alcoa!

I will agree with what everyone is saying about the enforcement issues. No matter the reg's there has to be enforcement! It's not a "pop shot" at TWRA I know the many other issues at hand they face in a days time, and the fact there a state organization and don't have a lot of man power! Thank goodness it's not NPS, there are even fewer covering a much more vast area!

So to get back on topic, two questions for you to take this "back to the basics".
1) What is LUCRO offering to make the Clinch River a better fishery?

Based on what I'm hearing you say, the "Don't fix what aint broke!" stance, how will this improve the fishery....I'm sure you all have heard this in one way or another before, "There is always room for improvement!"


2) What is LUCRO so upset about, and more importantly what have they got to lose?

I don't wish to page back and find the person that mentioned putting regs and a trophy section in place, but that person mentioned changing it for three years. Making the proper observations/study's, documenting it, and report it to the group (ie; LUCRO, TU, TWRA, TVA) as a whole. Then if things don't improve change it back! What's the fuss?

I will second your opinion on the effects of various water/flow conditions and holding patterns! It's something very prevelant right now in the TN side of the Smokies!

Thanks,
Brett
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:46 AM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Lar

“Let me guess.... You are a biat fisher?”

No but I have fished with some in years gone by

“ While I have nothing against bait fishing, all of my bad experiences on the Clinch have been with bait fishers.”

Unfortunately I have had it with both. The majority of my bad experiences have been with fly fishermen.

“In my 10+ years of fishing on the Clinch, I have never seen a Fly Fisherman leaving with over the creel limit, never has my space been invaded by and never have I been cused by a fly fisher. “

I have fished the river since the mid 60’s as a bait, fly and spin fisherman I primarily fly fish but will still throw some hardware on occasion. The space is to limited for me to tell you what my wife and I have experienced or have witnessed. That is part of the reason I stress to all be courteous. I could name names as to some of the Fly fisherman I have seen leave with over their limits


“The Clinch needs regulations to protect the future health of the river. “

The health of the river has nothing to do with regulations. If one is concerned with the health of the river one should be concerned and I will be brief from what could be a rather long list; the church parking lot draining into the river with no bmp’s installed, no bmps on the bridges that cross over the river to prevent spills from entering the river, stream bank restoration in the entire watershed to lessen the amount of silt, Water and waste treatment plants improper discharges, the Rogers group installation, etc, etc

“As mentioned above in one of the posts; as more people learn of the church access we will see more and more people fishing, thus more fish leaving the river. “

The people who use to fish there will come back (mostly bait and spin fisherman). There is a lot of excess traffic at the moment from people who fish in other areas.

”We should all be thinking of the best intrest of the river, not your personal intrest. Do you think Deer and Turkey hunters "wanted" regulations? “


As a sportsman I understand regulations I know of no hunters that want no limits. IMO there is no need for this PLR/Size restriction per the data

“Probably not, the regulations have led to increased popualtions “

One of the prime things that decreased populations was people hunting for food when they could not afford it, they could not get jobs due to many factors like the depression. Also a era of if you did not kill game you had no meat and maybe no food period.

“and over all health of the populations. This would be true for the Clinch. The point of the Clinch being a "local" fishery has no relavance. "Local" holes need to be protected too.”


Tell me what needs to be protected. The data show the river has more large fish than ever since they started keeping records. If it was not for that 88% of the local users who use the fishery why would TWRA stock the river? It is stocked for that very reason.

“Your name Running Wolf suggests an Indian heritage. Do you not believe in the Indian ways of protecting the land and it's inhabitants, or did you think the name sounded cool?”

You have said you where not attacking me, this by most standards would be judged that you are trying to attack my creditability. The name was given to me by a elder whose NA's last name was Crowe, which was his name givers spelling much as the Runing was his spelling for me. I am very aware of all the facts and myths regarding native America heritage and also realize a lot of it you have to get nation specific. While they where overall good guardians of nature they also over harvested at times. Have you ever seen a old NA fish trap in a river ? if you did yo should realize that nothing escaped when it was herded into it. Are you aware of the depletion of the deer herd in the SE for the fur trade by NA’s in response to pay by the Europeans? Many nations where nomadic as they had to move as they depleted the resources in the area. There is more but I think this should give you some idea that there is a fallacy to some of the concept about NA’s. There is no way the resource will be depleted as long as TWRA keeps stocking, other wise as it is not sustainable it will go away
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:53 AM
irfishing irfishing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 166
Post Key Questions

Man what a thread!!!!!

Just wish someone (maybe Runing Wolf) would answer Fishermansfly's two questions in the above post. All the other discussion is interesting but doesn't provide an answer to LUCRO's opposition to the proposed slot limit.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:16 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Patience young grass hopper

Quote:
Originally Posted by irfishing View Post
Man what a thread!!!!!

Just wish someone (maybe Runing Wolf) would answer Fishermansfly's two questions in the above post. All the other discussion is interesting but doesn't provide an answer to LUCRO's opposition to the proposed slot limit.
Maybe some body will answer some of mine. I did just take a look and two key answers are in these two threads twice.

I understand differences of opinion. Bryon and I have one as does someone else who stated their opinion very well. I also understand hard data. 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 don’t 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.

The data is there to show that the fish are there, not based on some good days, bad days etc. but by a proven scientific method. My wife, others I know and my self have had no problem catching a good cross-section of a size range from that river in the areas that the public uses. If the data supported otherwise many would feel different and might support something other like a closed season for 4 months. That would effect every body the same would it not?

Understand that LUCRO has done a lot to support the heath of the river, the studies and the spawn in Clear Creek as well as other projects that is before you consider some of them allow river access.

If you have noticed I have responded to most people with information as I have the time. Nor am I a spokesperson for LUCRO. I can say some as I have had numerous discussions with members. There is also a lot of info in an earlier thread. Not trying to be a smart--- just pointing something out

Last edited by RuningWolf; 10-03-2007 at 10:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-02-2007, 02:15 PM
Fishermansfly's Avatar
Fishermansfly Fishermansfly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Alcoa, TN
Posts: 506
Default More Numbers And Un Official Factoids?!

This is like sitting down for a meal and nibbling away at everything but the main course! I want the meat, not the potatoes! What is the beef? A bunch of various factoids surrounding the question does not answer the question. It sounds very much like you are gaining alot of your information from member's of LUCRO and people who really don't give two s%^* about helping to improve a fishery? TWRA is not asking for the opportunity to mess up the fishery, or are they? You have posted alot of information from various standpoints, whether they be your own or some other LUCRO members opinion. I understand that land owners don't want people littering up there property. Don't you think that all of the fuss created back in 92' with the following 15 years of bickering between the two would force TWRA to enforce/patrol/write more individuals on that water! I'm simply going on what your saying, about enforcement and that seems to be one of your "beef's" and you being an un official member!

If it's enforcement you want then, I'd strongly suggest to all of you members to allow it to happen. TWRA has invested too much time already to try to make this work only to have it shot down and in continuation attempting it again. TWRA is not going to invest a large sum of money into something to have it destroyed by people wanting to "not" abide by the rules! May be that's what you want! Let's suppose that three years from now after those rules come into effect that the fishery is full of larger/smarter/spawning/reproducing fish. Making it a "World Class" fishery! This will not only bring dollars to your beloved LUCRO members (LAND OWNERS) but also bring a few dedicated guides to the Clinch! I think a vast majority of the waters out west are not only protected by the officials but it's guides within the given water....After all it's their bread and water! So why does LUCRO want to diminish that....Do they want the water to themselves? That's what it sounds like based on all the information your dealking out of the mouth's of LUCRO and it's people! Which if that is what your saying I'll refer you back to a previous statement in the thread. If this is the case than what Bill said is utterly true....Let TWRA give it to your people, let them quit stocking it and let them run 2 generators 24/7...There you all can have your beloved tailwater! How stupid...Don't land owner's see the potential in the fishery? Why do they oppose a change to make it a better fishery...You haven't summed that up into a simple answer! Ok, maybe it isn't a simple answer. Then sum it up into categories that "take on" TWRA's management plan and why it so wished to combat it! It should aslo be written as simple as TWRA has so pronounced there attempt at making the Clinch a better fishery.

You can't tell me or anyone else that because of TWRA's (declining) numbers and based on an old diary you have lying around that TWRA's new management plan for the tail water is "NOT" neccesary! I'll even go as far as to say that maybe and to an extent your right...As I stated earlier I think that TVA opening up the gates for any length of time will have an effect on the fish! I'm not opposing that fact nor do I think will anyone argue the point on that matter....Maybe LUCRO see's it as TWRA's lack of investigating and figuring out why, as being unessasary. OK, then for LUCRO, they should see it as TWRA taking the slightly wrong approach to improve the fishery! OK, let there silly mistake pay off for everyone!

You refered to BMP's in your posting...Which to be quite honest with you I have no idea what the **** that is abbreviated for. I would imagine it's a catch all for various debree that comes from different sections of the adjoining roadways, runoff's and land. OK, I'm glad someone see that...Is this part of what LUCRO is suggesting we do? Is this part of there plan...If you ask me LUCRO should be paying there volunteer attorney to spend some time combatting this issue the other way...This is to much like politics and quite frankly it does nothing but piss me off! Let's argue someone's attempt to make a better fishery for our own sought out purposes but let'd do nothing in the river's defense. Am I wrong here. Why have we not seen anything LUCRO and it's people have done to help out the river system? It's stupid from there stand point! No matter what way you look at it, it is. They take no position in saying "Come join us, this is how we wish to fix the problem!" That being said they will never grow to be any bigger than the actual "LAND OWNERS" How incredibly stupid! TU, is an organization for the sole pupose of educating and protecting our natural resource! So how does a name that encompasses LAND OWNERS plan on getting anything done...It's no wonder to me that some LAND OWNERS have recieved threating voice mails and letters. Is it childish, absolutely! Do they have a point, I don't know what they said so I can't say! But, I will say this...If it was refering to a group of people that wished to keep the water for themselves as stated above, then well I just won't comment!

So let's get back to the basics here and answer the simple question what is LUCRO's plan to not neccasarily fix what is (or may not be) broken to improve this fishery?

What's the beef, in a line by line, with TWRA's proposed management plan?

If you answer these questions you might see your self raising some eyebrows! Not by pointing the finger and saying that its just wrong! Pass this along to who's in charge, in stead of poiting the finger, tell them to figure out a way to make it a better fishery and get people on there side on the matter. Not just the beloved LAND OWNERS! If that's the stance they wish to take then there organization will be no more than an bunch of stubborn "stuck in their way's" bunch of people!

Oh, and to add I'd love to see where your getting your numbers about people not wanting a reg change on the Clinch! I'm not refering to the obvious 800+ members of LUCRO either....I don't know who you've been talking too! Improving a fishery would be backed by most under, most circumstances! I'd love to see unbiased opinion on that matter! You would lose hands down! Period! Fisherman and public alike!

Still waiting!
Brett Romer
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:45 PM
billyspey billyspey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 312
Default clinch slot limits meeting

Wednesday October 24, 2007 1 Pm Gatlinburg Convention Center,,
For Those That Are For Limits Bring And Tell Everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!! We Need Lots Of Support By Thousands
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 05:15 PM.



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