Re: Topic for Debate

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ message board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mr. T on July 17, 1998 at 15:43:35:

In Reply to: Topic for Debate posted by Erik on July 17, 1998 at 09:34:54:

> Mr. T,

> I'm not Skip, but I think that I have a topic that
> some members of the board might like to discuss...
> the Chattahoochee River. .

Erik -- I've been following you debate with Flyguy and like him, I feel that you're way off base. You remind me of a young, well-meaning environmental wacko who believes that the government should step in and "fix" everything. I used to be a member of several state and federal wild life federations and associations, the sierra club, etc. but I dropped all of those memberships about 20 years ago when they started promoting taking people's land away at worst or promoting comprehensive plans which prohibit people from using their land as they see fit. All they have to do is declare a puddle a wetland and it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose. Of course they can't do it themselves, they do it through the auspices of the government. Now I'm all for the purchase at fair market price plus lands that are indeed valuable as wild resources for buffer zones for rivers such as the hootch. But I don't think that every time some small businessman in my rural counties wants to put up a service station or campground, or a wh_rehouse for that matter, he should have to fight outside evirnomentalists to use his property as he see fit. I believe in protecting the environment and in conservation, but I think the government's role should be one of eduction and purchase of property not condemnation and confiscation through the laws of emminent domain. Frankly, I think your comments about the lower hootch were unnecessary and inappropriate. I didn't participate because I haven't fished the lower hootch but there are plenty of regulars on this board who do. Based on their comments and some of the photos elsewhere on this board, it appears to me that the area below the dam is very similar to the White and Little Red River fisheries in Arkansas.The difference being that for reasons that are both natural and artifical, the hootch is not a sustainable fishery. Any while your mountain streams of north georgia can handle a native fishery, they could not sustain the pressure of the thousands of fishermen without the stocking programs paid for by those of us who fish through our licenses and trout stamps. You seem to look down your nose at artifical fisheries. But, the acknowledged world class fisheries on Arkansas' White and Little Red Rivers are totally artificial created by manmade dams. The Rivers which are now producing 40+ pound browns, were warm water rivers before the dams were built and those warm water fisheries were lost and replaced by some of the world's finest trout fishing. I say the loss was justified. I think everyone on this board knows the lower hootch has problems and if you'll go back through the current list of postings and some of the archives you will see several discussions expressing concern about legislation which could have extended the problems of the hootch. Several regulars on this board participated in one way or another in the defeat of that legislation. What i dislike about you is that you jumped in and started spouting off without being sensitive to others or even worse, being aware but not giving a dam. I wholeheartly support Rod's premise and comments.

Mr. T

(If you'll go back down the board, you can find my real name.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ message board ] [ FAQ ]