View Full Version : Would the DNR support a statewide minimum size limit on brook trout?
Now that the only brook trout in GA are wild fish will the DNR propose a 7" minimum size limit or anything to protect our native specks. I'm really worried they will be fished out sooner or later. I do practice catch and release for native brookies. We need a size limit or fly fishing only.
Trtman
Drifter
06-08-01, 09:19 AM
Perhaps someone could convince the USFS to list the Southern Appalachian Brook Trout as an endangered species and institute a no-kill policy???
------------------
The Drifter <'(((><
NGTO License Plates (http://www.mindspring.com/~skeeble/ngtotag.htm)
The Virtual Fish Camp (http://www.mindspring.com/~skeeble/virtualfishcamp.htm)
Bill Couch
06-08-01, 01:47 PM
Trtman,
I put your question to Lee Keefer, a fisheries biologist responsible for managing northeast Georgia's trout streams. He provided as clear and complete answer to the question as I believe is possible.
"Bill, this issue has come up from time to time since Russ started working with brook trout in the 1970's. As you remember, he found no differences between streams with an 8" size limit and streams with no size limit. Overthe years we have found that in the southern Appalachians, brook trout seldom live longer than 3 years and max out at 6-7" in length even in unfished streams. Fish become sexually mature at age 2 and 5" in length or less. These streams are very low in productivity due to the infertile soils of the region, and food is the limiting factor in almost all cases. There is no evidence that angling has any impact on the viability of brook trout populations. Because of the limited numbers of larger (6 to 8") fish in a population, it is obvious that anglers can quickly skim off the larger fish,leaving nothing of any size for subsequent angling parties. This leads folks into thinking that the stream is "fished out". However, the 2 year olds that are left will reproduce the following fall and those that survive the winter will become the catchable size fish for the following year.
Electrofishing surveys show that brook trout populations in Georgia and other southeastern states have remained quite stable over the past 20-30 years. Prior to that time the records are sketchy, but all indications are that brook trout populations and range have remained rather stable over the past 50+ years. Electrofishing surveys also show that brook trout populations in unfished streams, such as some found in the Great Smokey Mountains NP are virtually the same as those in streams where fishing is allowed.
The average Georgia brook trout stream is less that one mile in length, and may contain from 10-30 fish greater than 5" in length and less than 1/10 of these will be 7" or larger.
This is really a social issue rather than a biological one. A high length limit, like 8" would be in effect a catch and release regulation that MIGHT result in a higher catch rate of 6-7" fish over a longer period of time. It would not, in my opinion, have any measurable impact on the long term fish population. Most of the protected 3 year olds will still never live to be 4 year olds (since they do not do so even in unfished streams). The total standing crop of fish will remain the same as it was before the regulation. The only benefit would be the potential to catch a few of those 6 to 8" fish more than once. In exchange for this we would be sacrificing virtually all harvest. The harvest of brook trout for food is a long standing tradition for many Georgia anglers, and many would continue to harvest anyway. Due to the remote nature of most brook trout streams, enforcement can be rather difficult."
Regards,
Bill
Mr. Couch,
Thanks for the reply but if not a size limit why not fly fishing single hook only for all restored brook trout streams. It's sort of like bow hunting for deer. You still allow harvest but without a big impact.
Trtman
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
Amen Allen! Brook trout are NOT for eating merely catching. Eat a brown trout or something people. I do.
Trtman
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
Allen, have you enjoyed fishing in Georgia? Instead of accusing the DNR you should be taking them out to lunch. I've said it again and again. Georgia is not Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington State. 90% of Gerogia's water is not natural trout water. IF you want to catch large brook trout, Georgia is not the place. If you like catching bass, brim, catfish, crappie, redfish, snook.... etc, including trout, Georgia is the place. If it wasn't for the DNR, this would be NGB(bass)O. Accusing the Georgia Department of Natural Resources of lieing to us is a bit reaching. If J.J. "fact" is true, which it very well might be, you need to re-read it before you go jumping the gun and think about it. JJ's qoute says lost their "range" not population. Apples and oranges. This is not Tennesee, this is Georgia. If the DNR says it has done studies for the past 20-30 years and the data says that the brook trout populations are stable then that is what the data says. Before you accuse the DNR of misrepersenting facts, I would suggest you start your own independent study and report back in 30 years your findings. The DNR has produced wonderful fisheries in Georgia and I for one are extreamly pleased with the job they are doing. But to create a conspiracy theory that for whatever reason the DNR wants to wipe out the population of brook trout is just unfounded.
The data provided is that the brook trout population is not in decline with the current regulation, and people have been harvesting brook trout in those locations for hundred of years in a time when you really did have to fish to live. Taking this all into account, if you still believe that the brook trout are going to be gone tomorrow unless we change a way of life for hundreds of "Bubbas" because you see a need to fix a problem that have been proven by data does not exist, then accusing the source of data of lieing would be your only recourse.
And P.S. my Great-Grandmother's family name is Bubba, the greatest women alive at 98.
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
Chris England
06-09-01, 05:39 PM
Snook?
-- tight lines
Allen, I read your profile "student" and now I understand your point of view.
RoyC
Allen:
Enforcement priorities are a function of money, budgetary priorities, these are set by our Governor and General Asssembly. Many of Georgia's fishing regulations are embodied in Georgia Law and the DNR management can not change them, once again they are set by our Governor and General Asssembly. So, lets see where you need to focus your energy, have you contacted your State Senator and State Rep? Have you sent a e-mail to Governor Barnes?
These are the only people who can assist with your wishes, the only problem possibly is that there are a many thousands of people in this state that do not agree with your position.
Considering the lack of fertility of Georgia's mountain streams, I and many others think DNR is doing a good job.
Enjoy what we have and lets work with the system to improve upon it.
RoyC
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
Well, if you decide to move, we would hate to see you go with all of your enthusiasm, but if you do I was fishing the Au Sable this spring and for a lover of brook trout it should be heaven. There are so many brooks they can become a pest when you are trying for the browns. All are native non-stocked and a 8 mile stretch of the mainbranch is no kill 365 days per year.
All you need to catch them is some bright pattern they are very accomadating.
RoyC
Lost of range does not directly effect population. The data in Tennessee says that range has been reduced %60 (apples). Brook trout can certainly migrate. I need to see solid numbers that tell me that there is actually a lost of population (oranges). Therefore apple and oranges. You are a student and may have studied causality. We can not prove that lost of range "causes" loss in population. We can not say that one thing has happened and therefore without a shadow of doubt that the other has happened. They might be related, but cannot be proven that one thing directly effects another. I need to see documented facts and not data that might be related.
Allen I certainly respect your point of view about the brookies. Looking at the big picture, the DNR are going a great job to cater to all types of outdoorsman including the local mountain folks who pay taxes and for the most part purchase a license to fish. Flyfisherman are a small minority still and to change a regulation to cater just to us and exclude the people who have lived there for years should happen. Again, the data is telling us population is stable. I don't want to make policy for a region that I don't vote in, and I wouldn't want them to make policy where I live.
If the data showed differently I would be one of the first to stand-up and lobby for change. From the information we have, there isn't a problem therefore, change is not needed.
We have to remember that we are not the only people who fish and in fact are the minority.
Chris, I'll take off snook (I figured they co-existed with Reds and therefore could live in Georgia) and tack on tarpoon, flounder, jacks, sharks, triple-tail, and grouper.
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
Allen, 60% decline of brook trout numbers is "data" that says there is a reduction of brook trout by 60%. (This is your assumption derived from data from J.J.'s book regarding Tennessee, and is only an assumption)
60% decline of range is "data" that tells me there is a reduction of 60% of range of brook trout. (data from J.J.'s book regarding a study in Tennessee)
What I am saying is when I see some "data" that tells me that brook trout numbers are in decline then I will worry about it.
What the DNR is telling me is that in Georgia the "data" shows that brook trout population is stable. (data from studies from the Georgia DNR)
To put it simple, tell me what the population of the brook trout was 30 years ago in Tenn, and tell me what the population of brook trout in Tenn is now. This is "data" that I can use to determine if there is a problem in Tenn. Not range, range tells me only that the "range" has been reduced. Not directly related nor does it show causality.
The "range" of the white tail deer in Georgia has been reduced by a large number, has that directly affected the population of deer????? This is just one of many examples that you can not determine one thing from another.
Basically in you have said is.
A) I don't know what I'm talking about.
(I want to say up front that I am not a fisheries biologist and probably don't know what I am talking about.)
B) Based on unrelated data
(That information is credited to fisheries biologist in TN.)
C) I believe that the Georgia DNR are liers
(Someone is not telling the truth and I don't think it is Jimmy Jacobs, becasue he has no reason to lie. The GA DNR on the other hand.....)
Before you accuse Bill Couch and Lee Keefer of beening liers, back it up with related and factual data. Not what you assume from something that has happened else where.
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
I said I probably didn't know what I was talking about because I didn't want to be accused of thinking I know everything. Also, I said I probably didn't know what I was talking about when I was talking about the effects of C&R on a stream vs. the effects of harvest on a
Mr. Keefer clearly stated that brook trout populations in GA and OTHER SOUTHEASTERN STATES has remained quite stable over the past 20 to 30 years. Why do you say that information from TN is unrelated to my argument that the DNR MIGHT not be telling us the truth. TN is a southeastern state, right? Remember, I said I DIDN'T THINK that J.J. was lieing or had incorrect information. Before I continue I would like to say that the original intent of my posting on this thread was to express my views on the brook trout regulations in GA. It was not until later when I was reading J.J. book when I realized it contained information that I believed directly contradicted what Mr. Keefer said in the post by Mr. Couch.
I am starting to get pretty frustrated with this and I am sure that you are also. If the brook trout lost 60% of its range, the fish in that 60% went somewhere, right? Since it would be virtually impossible for them to migrate, that means that they died. If some of the fish died, then the population dropped. If the population is dropping, then it is not "quite stable". I never said that 60% of the brook trout died. I said that the number of brook trout that lived in the 60% of lost habitat died. That might be 90% of the total population or 5% of the total population.
I will believe that brook trout populations in GA have remained stable for the past 20-30 years when someone shows me stream surveys of the major brook trout streams that prove it. Until then I will hold the belief that brook trout populations in GA are declining due to the lack of protection given the to the trout by existing laws, polution, encroachment of non-native species, and development.
------------------
Remember, you do not own the earth, you are simply borrowing it from your children.
Wild brook trout do need to be protected. I mean an 8 fish creel limit? That's a joke! At the very least their could be a lower creel limit (four fish. make it easy) with the same regulations as today. Something has to be done but flyfishers, spinfishers, and baitfishers have to compromise together. I enjoy bait fishing but not for native brookies. It's too easy. A number of years back 2 poachers were caught in Graham County, North Carolina with a couple hundred wild brookies. They were using bait. If I went to the Chatahoochee Headwaters with worms I'd clean 'em out guaranteed. Think about it! BUT maybe not if I was limited in my take-either by lures, size limit or creel limit. Besides I only know of a few streams with brookies. ITS NOT A WONDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T LIST THE SOUTHERN APPLACHIAN SUBSPECIES OF BROOKIE AS THREATENED. I'M BEING VERY, VERY SERIOUS!
Respectfully,
Trtman
Allen and trtman, I share your passion for the brook trout and want the best for them. This has been a good debate and broke-up what was otherwise and day of studying C++ programming and the like. If I saw solid numbers that said that the brook trout were in trouble I would be one of the first to lobby for protection. I believe at this point especially with the popularity of the brook trout and trout fishing in general and TU influence that if there was data to support a decline that they would be protected. I have faith that the DNR has the brook trout in there best interest. Even recently the DNR electrofished the Hooch in search of brook trout because of people here at NGTO have reported to have caught them. That holds good faith with me that the DNR is looking out for the brookies. Thanks for the info on Graham Co, I haven't heard about the poaching, even though I not surprised. Snowbird and little Snowbird creeks hold a special place with me and as a land owner on little snowbird mountain that is certainly bad news. The good news is that I was on Big Snowbird early this year and talked to locals who warned me that I'd better have my license otherwise if I was caught without it, North Carolina would be the new owners of a few rods, reels and one 78' Scout. Thanks for the comments/arguments and for being gentlemen.
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
trout whisperer
06-11-01, 08:49 AM
whisperer sez: Bill - let's say that DNR desired to establish and implement a program to increase BOTH the size and the population of native brook trout in Ga. assume, for now, that funding is not a restriction. what do you think that program would look like? imported stockers? imported breeders? specialized feeding? controlled fishing? quarrantines? genetic cloning? etc,etc is there such a program in place in another state that you are aware of? tks TW
duluthgator
06-11-01, 01:00 PM
This started out as a Georgia thread let's keep it that way. Tenn. and NC have nothing to do with this argument.
Jimmy Jacobs in the new 3rd Edition of TROUT FISHING IN NORTH GEORGIA has a section devoted to the Brookie.
On page 4 he discusses the problems with the decline of the Brook Trout in the late 60's. He then talks about how the WRD has reestablished the Brook in 6 streams in the Chattahoochee National Forest and that all have been a success except for Dicks Creek, where it appears someone reintroduced Rainbows.
He also speaks to the natural habitat and short life of the Brook Trout, pretty much echoing what Lee Keefer said to Bill Couch. While this does not address the issue of C&R or creel limits on Brookies, the book does say things are better than they were.
So Allen, if you are going to talk about Georgia and quote JJ as your authority, let's use his most current release of his GEORGIA book, not a SE Edition.
BLACK KNIGHT
06-11-01, 01:18 PM
Got Prozac?
biggatrout
06-11-01, 04:26 PM
BK
Im with you, reading all these posts sounds like a NASCAR race...
My apologies, I'll quit posting until I see another stimulating debate about barbless vs. non-barbless or stockers vs. non-stockers or "Does single hook regs mean I can't fish with a dropper?"
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
The Owl
06-11-01, 05:25 PM
Well, well, well.....
I think Allen is wise beyond his years....maybe a bit off course here and there, but sometimes we all are, so why turn on him....besides, we all know what he means don't we? ( Allen don't go taking that the wrong way, reread your post and realize that 8 inches IS big for a brookie in the Georgia )I'm guilty of not seeing the forest for the trees alot too. But, as we learn more and see more facts, and fish more waters, and think about things for more than just a few months, things usually get clearer. I'm simply glad that Bill was able( read allowed- which is a sad thread all it's own) to respond.
Now, I wonder this - If this is true *quote* "Electrofishing surveys also show that brook trout populations in unfished streams, such as some found in the Great Smokey Mountains NP are virtually the same as those in streams where fishing is allowed. " - then why are there ANY closed waters in the GSMNP? If fishing, whether with a length limit or not, poses no threat to brookie populations then why the closed brookie water there? Social issues? C'mon......
I also suspect that the reason there's no difference is that poaching continues(without enforcement) on both types of waters to the extent that both types of streams are equal, in terms of the size of the fish.
Another of what is becoming one of my "pet peeves" is the idea that any kind of regulation designed to promote C&R is a social move.........
this seems to be a legitimate claim at first.....until I hear that "tradition" is highly regarded within the ranks. If "tradition" merits specific regulations, then why would regulations of a "social" nature be out of reach? I can see how FFing Only waters could be seen as a social move.....but C&R is a "quality" move IMNSHO.
And lastly - NC and TN's fisheries programs?
I don't fish much in TN, but I do fish alot in NC, and NC's management fits into this conversation quite well. Somehow, the fisheries folks in NC have convinced NCians that it's good to have a 7 inch minimum on wild trout and a smaller(4 is it?) fish per day limit. I suppsose that NC just doesn't have it's data right for it's freestone streams.....they should know that a length limit has no affect on trout size or population and that special regulations are merely social moves. Nevermind that there's a well known( among NCfishers) stream within a 40 minute drive of Murphy that has 12 inch rainbows and 9 inchers that are fairly common - It's a slower stream that the Toot and more silted, and with less canopy to cool the water in summer.....more bugs? I never saw any. I have to believe that the minimum size limit has an affect here as to the "quality"(read size) of the fish.
Nevermind the D.
So, my last question is this.......and I know there's not a trout's chance in Rainbow Ranch( at least not if I hadn't said that-I suppose it could see some reply as a matter of saving face. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif ) that it'll get answered, but -
If special regulations are not effective, if they have not shown themselves to increase the number nor the size of the trout AND having them is merely a "social"( the term "social" was implied, not actually used, but it's obvious isn't it?) thing that means nothing to the majority of anglers or the fisheries, then why not REMOVE all the special regulations from all the streams in the state?
Make Noontootla, Jones, Mountaintown, Coleman, and all the others "regular" streams under general regulations. If we know it doesn't mean bigger trout or more trout( or healthier trout?), then why not trash the whole artificial lures and/or minimum size limit management plan. Then you could go and catch 3 inch trout, chubs and suckers in those streams, just like you can in Low Gap, Jasus, and Wildcat. It would seem that the phrase and phliosophy of " it doesn't fit " is an arbitrary ideal.
( I would like to know, how these streams got these regulations to begin with. Was it pushed by anglers? A test to see if biger fish would result? Some brainstorm by a DNR employee? Simply some "tinkering" with the system? )
Allen, hang in there, don't get frustrated, and keep thinking .........I have no doubt that one day the Allens and Phlysters and maybe even the Owls http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif ( and all the other closet length limit "supporters" that I talk to ) will make a difference in the way GA chooses to manage it's wild fisheries.
I think the DNR does a good job....but like everything else in this world, it can always be improved. My spelling and typing is just one example of that! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Putting a 7 inch length limit on all wild-trout streams makes NC my choice, when I have one. Assuming all stocked trout are bigger than this when stocked, the only trout affected would be wild trout. BUBBA could still follow the truck and keep his 30 fish a day.
[This message has been edited by The Owl (edited 06-11-2001).]
Good post owl, I'm through with this thread.
All I ever hear is ifs, and but, and then, and must be, and what ifs. Maybe I'm just over worked or not getting enought sleep, but give me something real.....before and after, university, government, or independant studys, not "I went to Smith's and didn't catch a fish, bubba must have been there the day before and wiped them out." Maybe it just means you didn't catch any fish.
Never mind it's like talking politics. See you guys around, I'm jumping ship.
GonetoSeed
06-11-01, 07:39 PM
This is thread represents some of the thinking that I fear the most - ie, lets divide ourselves into small interest groups (eg, baiters vs ff, local vs Atlanta). Then wonder why we lost the remaining habitat supporting brook trout (or any other indicator species for that matter). Here's how I, at least, reconcile the two apparently conflicting data points:
- The Brookie population is stable, but within a very small remaining range, and with corresponding limited numbers, after the range was almost totally obliterated 20-30 years ago - primarlily because of habitat destruction and the intoduction of Bows and Browns.
I also think that DNR was instrumental in keeping the range and the remaining fish from being totally lost and in fact did re-build some of the lost habitat as Jacobs points out.
Allen - an eight inch Brookie in GA is indeed a very big fish - and this was true 20-30 years ago. I think the point that Bill & Lee make is that the limiting factors on fish size are dominated by suitable habitat (or lack there of) and not someone who lives locally harveting "your" fish.
As a result, it seems to me that implementing regulations that have no natural support does two things, neither of which gets us to a common goal of more productive Brook Trout fisheries:
- Dillutes money that could go to habitat improvement and management because it is going to LE of a meaningless reg
- Allienates the "locals" who you have made criminals for no real sound natural reason (and they might not be biologist, but they do understand the fishery) - the very locals who you need to support you in the fight against the real villians - habitat destruction
Don't give a **** about helping them keep their traditions and lifestyles viable - for example, catching and harvesting a reasonable number of their native specks for the table - and they won't give a **** about voting in local politicians who want to keep the habitat for your pleasure of catching and releasing "your" fish. For every quid, there's a quo. Stop their fishing by instituting a size limit that effectively stops all harvesting by the law abiding citzens (the vast majority) and you stop their fishing.
Allen - in other words, I think you are "poking a stick in the wrong peoples' eyes". We need them on the side of restoring the habitat that in fact helps them keep their traditions alive - no habitat no Fish for the table or C&R. They make great hard headed friends when their "traditions" are threatened. Ask any revenurer.
BLACK KNIGHT
06-11-01, 11:01 PM
I'm sorry- if you have faith that those locals harvesting the brookies now, the one's we can't offend or alienate by treading on their "tradition" , are gonna be there in the fight to preserve habitat, you've got a heck of a lot more faith in mankind in general, and these folks specifically, than I do.
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
Allen think about your last post my friend. Deer are also not as big here as they are in Mich., Wis., Canada, but neither are the trout. I'm sure (no expert here) that it has a lot to do with the food source that is avaible. There is no way we can compair what we have here with what someone has 500 to 700 or even a 1000 miles from here.
------------------
Put a :) on a childs face, Take Them Trout Fishing.
Virginia has a lot more and bigger trout streams than GA. They have the best streams south of New York by many experts! The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries also stocks a lot of brook trout fingerlings.
If ANY regulation on native brookies were to be implemented in GA would not public comment be sought out by the DNR? I would hope so and if the locals opposed it then it would be hoped that the DNR would NOT implement it.
A regulation is only good if it is supported and enforced.
Good fishin'
Trtman
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
duluthgator
06-12-01, 06:52 AM
Brook Trout like water temperatures below 70 degrees and really 60 degrees or lower, year round. Much above 70 degrees is lethal for them. In Georgia, that is hard to find. having been a scout leader in the past, the waters up around Clayton Georgia get VERY warm during August and September. A VERY SMALL part of Georgia has elevations high enough to support the environmental requirement.
Georgia streams are not as NUTRIENT rich as streams further north either. Most the streams here are mainly created from runoff or small mountain springs. The water in northern streams tends to come from deeper underground springs that are rich in nutrients. While we do have insect hatches, they are not as large or predictable as hatches in VA and other states farther north.
Given all of this and the short life span of a brook trout explains a lot of why they are not as prolific on Georgia.
[This message has been edited by duluthgator (edited 06-12-2001).]
JOHNKIES
06-12-01, 09:16 AM
Three words on brook trout in Georgia: Habitat. Habitat. Habitat.
And preservation of habitat is to a large extent dependent upon the private land owner. Habitat will be preserved only when it is economically viable for them to do so: There is a lot of "it's my land I'll do as I please" viewpoint in the Georgia mountains. Most communities do not have zoning restrictions, for example. But preservation and conservation can be enconomic strengths. In Fannin County (Blue Ridge), the single largest industry is now tourism. When you're smart - you don't kill the goose that's getting ready to lay the golden egg. The tourists don't come for strip malls, neon, freshly scalped mountainsides and muddy creeks.
For more information on brook trout populations and fishing pressure, extensive studies have been conducted by SMNP fisheries biologists. Sorry - I don't have a contact phone number for you. But you will find the results of their years of study in a tightly controlled environment very interesting.
---JCK---
GonetoSeed
06-12-01, 11:42 AM
Yes BK, I have faith in my N GA neighbors - not all of them, but lot of them. For example, a number of prominent locals in Habersham county are fighting to prevent development of the high ridges. This is putting them up against some powerful developers - including other locals - who want to build houses with a view. The problem with these houses is kind of like being a trout - we see them, long before they see us. I am already concerned (mad) that when approaching Talluhah Gorge, that Hickory Ridge has a growing number of houses on clear cut lots right on top of what was once one of the prettiest views when first approaching the NE GA mountains.
These locals understand what Johnkies is saying - eventually the the tourists' money will drop when the views become scabbed over. Plus, they just like the unbroken views that have been part of their lives.
Many of them also understand that this situation is even worse for us fishers. When these mostly vacation homes are built, along with the roads and driveways to them, they need (want) to cap or re-route those pesky little spring runs that get in the way. The developers are in fact lobbying to change the trout stream buffer law by saying that there are no trout in those tiny little springs/run-offs. As long-time fishers - local and visting - are starting to realize, this along with logging the ridges, is contributing to a major silting problem in the headwaters that is now moving down stream. I think this is beginning to upset the fragile balance that was keeping the remaining Brookie populations "stable" in their last strong holds. It is also having a very negative impact on some of the lower small streams holding Bows.
As more and more of the once remote high ridges are coveted for their view vs being a pristine source for the watersheds, the more the last remaining range of the specks will disappear - and faster than they could ever be overfished.
So, there are locals who want to protect the natural resources and find a balance between ineveitable economic development based on tourism and visitors and their "way of life".
Many of them even have a inherent and deep understanding of the fragile nature of the environment in which they grew up and what they have to lose and are losing - to developers and Bubbas (local and visiting).
These locals, to me, are the front line in the battle to keep any of the NE GA waters productive. As a couple of the other posts have said, N GA has what can best be desribed as marginal water even under the best of conditions. The growing development of what is in fact a very small geographic area might be a shock to that system can't overcome.
I think it is in our best interest to support the locals in striking a balance, including not "over" regualting. Too many regulations limits the fishers (Owl - this is why there is a requirement for some regulations, including special ones. To intentionally limit the traffic. This sets aside some streams for the use of a limited number of people to enjoy a quality experiece as they define it and that you are searching to understand in your other post). Limit the number of fishers and you limit political clout. Limit politcal clout and the streams can be destroyed without one "destroyer" ever casting one corn nugget or poaching a single fish.
If the balance between economic development, including the the economic impact of many fishing experiences is not struck and in a hurry, we may one day have a thread talking about the heyday of the 1990s trout fishing in NE GA.
[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 06-12-2001).]
The Owl
06-12-01, 06:32 PM
no habitat no Fish for the table or C&R................................................. .......if the stock trucks will still run, then most of the "locals" and soem not so "locals" will still be happy.
I think it's naive to think that "BUBBA" is going to stand with us to protect the streams.
If TU or NGTO were 50% littering, poaching scum, then you might be right......but we're not.and TU is not.....think about the people involved in these groups in light of their fihsing and conservation and stream ethics practices.....that's whose going to save your trout water.
"BUBBA" will simply go catfishing......and at least with that, he can't violate any creel limits. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Now, those landowners that want to see streams remain healthy, that C&R trout, that pack out their worm containers and help to prevent erosion on their own farms and such......are they really locals, that have somehow become informed and enlightened - or are they locals from the city that have moved there to get away from the smog and pollution? ( Just asking - heck I don't know. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif )
Now for the good stuff -
<<< These locals, to me, are the front line in the battle to keep any of the NE GA waters productive. As a couple of the other posts have said, N GA has what can best be desribed as marginal water even under the best of conditions. The growing development of what is in fact a very small geographic area might be a shock to that system can't overcome.
I think it is in our best interest to support the locals in striking a balance, including not "over" regualting. Too many regulations limits the fishers (Owl - this is why there is a requirement for some regulations, including special ones. To intentionally limit the traffic. This sets aside some streams for the use of a limited number of people to enjoy a quality experiece as they define it and that you are searching to understand in your other post). Limit the number of fishers and you limit political clout. Limit politcal clout and the streams can be destroyed without one "destroyer" ever casting one corn nugget or poaching a single fish.
None of that makes any sense. Besides, who said I was searching to understand anything - no offense, but it's hard for anyone to read a post and know the motive....I've been on the other end of that a few times( The "Don't take this wrong, but...." thread from a few years back for example)
So....
#1 - Not all the water in GA is marginal. Period. Some of it is very decent freestone trout water. Most of it then? Maybe....but not all of it. You can't even call the Hooch marginal anymore with the browns reproducing like rabbits! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
#2 You stated that limiting the traffic was the reason for special regs. Then you said that if we have too many special regs it limits the people, then the political clout, thus allowing the destruction of the stream. So are you sayign that the people that make the regs(DNR) are allowing streams to be destroyed by having special regulations on them? If so, that's another good reason to remove them isn't it?
And X. My definition of a " quality angling experience"( not just "quality" ) is this -
Fishing for fish that know what a stonefly is and what they are supposed to do with it.
Quality has never been dumped off the back of a truck, even though I am a big supporter of stocking.....because we all know that without stocking, the wild fish would be toast...or at least nearly so. So stockign is a good thing.......but "quality"? That only comes from a wild fish in a clean, clear, cold stream. And yes, I do think that most anglers of any conscience would agree with me.
( Disclaimer - I do not mean to say that someone's child catching their first fish is not a "quality" experience for them....or their parents....or that someone in a wheelchair catching their first trout off a fishing platform or their first anything off of anywhere is not " quality ". Some people try to make things complicated - I'm refering to the type of "quality angling experience" that some of us drive hours, even days( or fly ) to find. We don't have to have 20 inch cutts to have quality angling. But we do need clean, cold, clear streams with fish bigger than the aforementioned 4 inchers. Unless we're now going to be told that new data is out and that's as big as they can get.)
I ramble. Sorry.
The Owl
06-12-01, 06:53 PM
Ya know what. I've changed my mind. I think things are fine just the way they are and you won't hear any more improvement related ideas from me if I can possibly help it.
I doubt the wall of apathy could be climbed anyway........at least not by one person...not even by a hundred.......Perhaps I should just take up golf.
Owl
GonetoSeed
06-12-01, 11:45 PM
Owl - Nice drive by post. I now feel more like a regular - getting misunderstood by Owl.
"You say - "I think it's naive to think that "BUBBA" is going to stand with us to protect the streams.
If TU or NGTO were 50% littering, poaching scum, then you might be right......but we're not.and TU is not.....think about the people involved in these groups in light of their fishing and conservation and stream ethics practices.....that's whose going to save your trout water".
No, I do not expect BUBBA to stand up for anything. I did not say that. I purposefully started the thread with the example of the local citzens who are fighting to maintain the quality of the ridges for aesthetics and their importance to headwaters and therefore to "clean, cold, clear streams with fish bigger than the aforementioned 4 inchers".
I am tired of the posts that imply locals are, or in your quote that 50% of the locals are "littering, poaching scum" BUBBAs. Or the implication in your question that unless you move there you can't be enlightened: "Now, those landowners that want to see streams remain healthy, that C&R trout, that pack out their worm containers and help to prevent erosion on their own farms and such......are they really locals, that have somehow become informed and enlightened - or are they locals from the city that have moved there to get away from the smog and pollution? ( Just asking - heck I don't know. )"
I think that there are times when statements are cleverly disquised as questions. Or, perhaps, maybe I'm another one who has misunderstood one of your posts concerning the definition of BUBBA?
The whole point of my post is that habitat is a - perhaps the - major issue that will ultimately determine the fate of the quality of the N GA fishery - marginal, almost marginal or world class (if we can undue /re-do some of God's original design). In this regard, it is the locals who will have a major say in local zoning ordinaces and enforcement. This is important because DNR management of a stream when the whole watershed is under stress is an almost impossible, at least extraordinary expensive, undertaking.
So, the numbers of licensed, ethical fishers who live and do most of the fishing in the area, ie, locals, and have a stake in a quality fishing experience is important to the political equation - their votes count.
I attempted to say that this number of fishers is and their stake in the fishery is influenced by their definition of quality experience (and yes, I interpreted you posing the question of quality as an example of "inquiring minds want to know"). I maintain that the majority of the locals define quality very similiar to yours, and the other NGTO responses (which also demonstrated the personal character of the experience), with the exception that they may also like to harvest a legal limit of fish. A legal limit set my the state's bilogists who have data that says that the harvesting does not do permanent harm to the fishery. I do not think the DNR is lying.
So, if you establish regulations that unreasonably, negatively impact their experience - a size limit that essentially precludes harvesting - then they, the locals with the local vote, will lose a stake in the fight to maintain the viability of the fishery. The harm? Maintaining the stream for a brookie or just wild trout is a lot higher standard than developers need in order to sell a house at a premium - they just need a clean, bubbling brook.
With limited, or anything short of passionate, local oposition because (the almost, but not quite "enlightened") locals were disenfranchised from their home waters, the developers will get what they want - stream side lots without the costly requirements of sustaining a watershed for trout fisherys for a few non-locals. Plus, they won't lose the bulkk of the tourist trade like leaf watchers, Octobfesters (Helen developers have fiqured out there is no harm in pissing off a few visting fishers - in fact standing-up with that most famous local, Jimmy Harris, is an example of mutual support I am trying to describe. Jimmy is trying to protect a very unique experience and even though there are some of us who may not enjoy or can't afford the experience of pay fishing, it is in all of our interst to support Jimmy in the local fight to protect the upper Hooch. My point is that there are other fights to protect unique experiences and traditions that do not harm the overall fishery)
And, BTW, I did not say I think everything is OK now - quite the contary, I think there is a lot to change to protect N GA fishing. And, I consider myself far from apathetic. The wild trout stream (and it does hold brookies above my property in the CNF) that runs through my property is slowly dying. I know first hand the frustration and heartbreak of trying to keep one stream viable in a deterioating watershed. You can set all the regs you want and it will not get the silt out, return the spawning gravel, return the biomass, re-elevate the O2 levels, drop the average annual temp .... I try hard on my little piece, but each year I lose a few more fish and not to "50% littering, poaching scum". I need my neighbors up there to help in the fight against habitat degradation and in return I do not begrudge them harvesting a number of fish that the DNR says is responsible (I have and will call the law to lock-up the BUBBAs who have accessed the stream through my property)
BTW, I also think that this creel number will drop because the degradation of the habitat and the pressure from the growth of fishers, will dictate it. I am also supportive of increasing the miles of water with special restrictions like artificail only and I suspect that this would be supported by the local "anglers of any conscience" who would agree with you.
Quality trout fishing only exists with quality habitat.
[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 06-12-2001).]
I quote " The DNR manages 1 stream correctly, Dukes Creek at Smithgall-Woods. Waters and the toot are close to right but still need some tweaking. The DNR is not doing a good job managing 99% of the wild trout streams."
hmm dukes is managed to have big fish by feeding the fish...without the supplment feeding it would fish in Smithgall the way it fishes above smithgall. ie. fish, not big but fish...lack of food in the river accounts for that.
waters creek...pellet fed in order for people to catch a trophy fish. wihtout pellets the population would decrease along with size
noontootla, slot limit...not fed...not many big fish caught...not tons of fish..way a wild streeam should be?? or just the way a wild stream actually is.?
the other 98% are being managed the best way that dnr currently can.
If you think all streams should be managed like smiths or waters then the rainbow ranch is pretty much on par.
like has been mentioned before: the food supply on a freestone creek is not ample enough to sustain a population of large fish.
Notice how when you can a large wild fish it is in the best lie, best food zone, and no other competitors really fighting for the food?? Natural selection at its best.
(sorry did not read whole thread, after saw the dukes/waters creek thing, I just had to comment)
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 06-13-2001).]
empty
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
The Owl
06-13-01, 04:45 PM
Well, it appears as if the misunderstandings are on both sides, but since I've changed my mind and decided to forego any future( or at least near future) remarks concerning the current regulations, I have to abstain.
And also, I think you misquoted me, but no big deal, just a lil' fyi. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Fish in peace.
Owl
unclever at best
Interesting. So you always yell when someone contradicts you?? And excuse me if almost two decades of flyfish experience and knoweldge doesnt fit into your current philosophym, and excuse me even more that there is such thing as stocked fish, cuz if there were not stocked fish, how would some of the streams ever even have a reproducing population that is now "wild" for you to fish on???
Are you making the point that southerns are ignorant or are you making the point that you are already more enlightened in your life than the rest of us will ever be???
Go to Montana, you would/will enjoy it, I enjoyed it when I lived out there... but I am sure you will find that the mgmt out there is different due to the fact the resource being managed is way different than it is in the south.
And dont yell if someone makes a point you do not disagree on/
[This message has been edited by jeffg (edited 06-13-2001).]
allen,
what do you consider "more and bigger fish"?
do you typically catch 5 8"ers or 30 20"ers?
all these terms are relative, i'd just like to compare expiriences.
i agree that the noontootla has more and bigger fish that many others, but it also has more flow and is a bigger peice of water. compare it to a smaller stream with a similar food supply, it is going to have more fish because there is more water.
bryan
"I don't think I'll be headed for Rainbow Ranch because except for the hooch, I DON'T FISH FOR STOCKED FISH."
How many native browns or bows have you caught this year?
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
Gray ghost
06-13-01, 06:23 PM
Hey guys I have a great idea. Pool up some money from the board and me and Owl will go out to Montana for a few weeks and take lots of notes on the fishing and the reg's .When we come back if we come back will give a detailed report on the comparison between Georgia fishing and our Reg's verse's Montana's. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif What say Ye.
Thanks Betzel for the flies . The Goblins you sent me are a thing of beauty.
GonetoSeed
06-13-01, 07:24 PM
Allen - its very interesting that you would consider making one of the most important decisions of your life based on trout fishing regulations. Hope you take a few moments and apply a few more criteria.
In re-reading this thread, I think it would help me write down my intepretation of the commonly used terms BUBBA and bubba and relate them to some of your comments.
BUBBA - best definition is the one Owl recently used in reply to me: "littering, poaching scum" to which I would add unethetical and law breaker. No matter the regs, or even the right thing to do, they can be counted on act outside the law, common deciency and just plain old good manners. They are the scum of the fishing, hunting and wildlife loving communities.
They are not isolated to the South. They poach deer in PA, they shoot Whopping Cranes on the nest in Fla, they shoot eagles out of the sky in Colorado, they kill re-intoduced wolves in Wy, they kill rhinos, gorriallas and elephants in Africa, they illegally catch sturgeon for caviar, they gill net the blues run in NC ....
DNR in GA and across the US do not change regs with any fear of backlash from these BUBBAs. In fact, a too large of percentage of their budgets go to LE and given the results or lack thereof as testified to on this board, even more money will have to go to LE rather than habitat improvement and management.
bubba - a commonly used description of a Southerner. When used by a Southerner about another Southerner can be considered a term of endearment. As in someone who loves his/her Mama and Daddy, college football, BBQ, sweet ice tea, a good truck, his/her sweetheart, country music (excluding the Dixie Chicks), hunting and fishing ... the list can go on. These bubbas have a deep repect for the outdoors and an understanding of the importance of its ethical and law abiding use. In fact, they, through their license fees, federal excise taxes on gear and their contributions of time and money have helped restore, or build, and protect the habitat that has brought back hunting and fishing of many species nearly lost, eg, deer, turkeys, redfish, stripers, shad ... Yes, they have done this for self serving reasons of being able to continue (and protect the right and quality) the "traditions" of hunting and fishing - including the harvesting of fish and game for the table and sport (mounted trophies).
But at the same time, I have personally seen a change in these bubbas attitudes and responsibilities over the years. When I look back at pictures of my Daddy's (a bubba if there ever was one, I see stringers of hundreds of fish that were eventuially cleaned and frozen and then ate multiple times a week. They thought the supply was inexhaustible, but then their own experiences with lower catch rates, seeing what happened to too many over fished/ over hunted species, they began to support stricter regs and enforcement. Before he and his friends passed away, they had moved to predominatley C&R because they were such good fisherman, they almost always caught more thant he creel limit. In fact many of them, stopped (do stop) when they have caught their legal limit.
The DNRs do not change regulations because the fear a backlash from these bubbas, but they do want to accomodate their needs for a quality experience - including harvesting -as much as scienitifically reasonable. DNR typically understand that these bubbas are actually a good source for information of a deteriotating fishery. If their catch rate is going down something is wrong.
Now there are non-Southerners and "enlightened, spohisticated Atlantans that refer to bubbas as illiterate, highschool dropout, redneck, whisky drinking, honky tonker womanizers (I have to admit that I have cousins who do think these are terms of endearment).
Allen - the unforunate thing is when these three distinctly different terms are slammed together. Just because a bubba wants to harvet a legal number of fish, does not mean he/her is a BUBBA.
A local may be a bubba and may be a BUBA, but if he/she is a bubba, that does not automatically mean they are a BUBBA.
And yes there are a lot of bubbas out there and they deserve - many have earned - the right to be included in the setting of the regs.
[This message has been edited by GonetoSeed (edited 06-13-2001).]
Well put GonetoSeed, I myself use the term bubba a lot when talking to well respected friends. (ie...Mel Justice LE for the DNR SC) I know when I first came to this site and read the post on bubba's I was a little confused but, after just a little reading I understood what was meant by the use of the term.
------------------
Put a :) on a childs face, Take Them Trout Fishing.
Consider this a conglomerated response to several of Allen's recent posts.
Allen previously stated "Someone is not telling the truth and I don't think it is Jimmy Jacobs, because he has no reason to lie. The GA DNR on the other hand.....".
That's a nifty trick because by using "the DNR" in the generalized form you can deny specifically attacking any one person and no one person can claim you questioned their personal integrity.
The problem with it, whether you recognize it or not, is that you offend everybody in the DNR and question their collective integrity with your generalizations.
I agree with some of your points. However, I disagree with your position that gernerlized character assassination is a good attitude to take. I also suggest that you might want to read Dale Carnegie's "How to Make Friends and Influence People" before you set out to change the system. Because you are taking steps backward right now, not forward.
I make this point because it seems your last few posts contain sarcastic jabs at "the DNR". Who specifically that is, you don't state or you don't know. In my opinion, this is not the way to change anything. People do not appreciate their integrity being challenged. Period. That's just the way the world works.
After meeting individuals in the DNR from the field level up to David Walls and Lonnice Barrett, my opinion of individuals in the DNR is directly contradictary to what you have implied.
Another problem you seem to overlook is that, in fact, the individuals in the DNR I have spoken to are probably more in sympathy with your views than the people that you seem to feel are against you (the "Bubbas").
However, when public servants start attempting to institute policy specific only to benefit a minority, the majority eventually does not allow them to be public servants much longer. You have to have good specific arguments and change the majority opinion. That too is a fact of life.
I suggest you need to stop your sarcasm about how unfair the system is and actually start trying to change the opinion of the majority. You won't do that here on NGTO because you are just preaching to the choir.
Also, if you are not already talking directly to individuals in the DNR, I suggest you do that. All the numbers of the various lead players in the DNR are available on the DNR web site. If you can't find those numbers I have collected most of them over the last couple of years and will gladly email them to you if you request.
BTW: There has been an electroshocking paper done on the Noontootla. If you are interested in it, call Jeff Durniak in Gainesville to find out about it.
FLYSLINGER
06-28-01, 04:15 PM
Allen,
With your attitude, College is gonna be a frustrating, eye opening experience. You are gonna learn that some of these concerns of yours your petty and would be ignored even if you were a respected politican. Stop and think about things a little bit and put it all into perspective if you are capable of it. Then maybe if you still have something to post folks wont burn your a$$ on herre like you are unintelligent or something, which i never called you. You do have some good concerns and observations to be a youngun. If you do indeed attend a real college, which you would be cheating yourself not to, you will really see what a priority twisted country we live in. Sad but true. Even if you go to school out west, you will still find something to b@tch about. So drink and fish heavily where ever you are, it makes school go by a little better.
------------------
TIGHT LINES,
FLYSLINGER
Rattlesnake Angling Guide
"BEER, Its not just for dinner anymore."
It has been suggested to me not to post my opinions anymore, only post facts. So, after I get my info from the DNR I'll post again. However, it is perfectly okay for the rest of you guys to post your opinions, just not okay for me. Sorry, I'll never post opinions that go against your "agendas" again.
TW, you gave me some good advice, I am in no way slamming you or what you told me.
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 06-29-2001).]
The Owl
06-28-01, 10:10 PM
You know, as I sit here and look at Allen's post, a smile crosses my face. I know how you feel Allen. Now, that's not to say that I agree with everything, but then again, I do think you're on the right track with some things.
Eg, your post makes alot of sense, but where is that skeptical side I've come to love? Allen has reasons for his words, however, sometimes it takes years to get to the point where you know when to just shutup.....Allen, not a slam, I speak form experience, and heck, I still don't know when to shut up half the time. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
( By shutup, I mean that it wouldn't be worth stating it......that it's a losing argument, etc. etc.)
EG - might I ask how members of NGTO should go about trying to change the opinion of the majority of fishers in GA? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
There's so much I would like ot say, but like I was saying, you have to know when to quit....and I'm learning "when" that is more and more...
......and I'd like to leave everyone with this thought......that we all could learn from , and live better by encorporating into our everyday dealings.....
" Consistency is best achieved and most notably effective when formulated by Truth..." http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
tight lines all
From this old head, "Don't ever, ever, ever argue with a teenager." And, is it any wonder that the WRD is somewhat reluctant to respond to messages on this board? Tight Lines, Tom
JOHNKIES
06-29-01, 11:39 AM
Allen: If you are going to proclaim your intelligence, I recommend that you first work on your spelling.
The Owl
06-29-01, 04:36 PM
Hey Allen, there's two cheap shots in a row!
C'mon, .....I mean really......
Tom, that makes me wonder what kind of good-ole boy tactics we're supposed to use around here. I don't think the citizens of GA should feel obligated to agree with every move that a public official( or org. ) makes, simply because it keeps the boat from rocking. I'm never trying to rock the boat, but when things smell fishy, then they smell fishy....what do we do, don clothespins? Good grief folks!
We're talking about an organization that is supposed to be working for us, and no doubt they do that day in and day out, but it's not wise IMNSHO, for us to simply take everything as gospel.........esp. when some of the facts we're to swallow do not add up. There will never be a day when I care to tell you about my private dealings with the DNR, and it's too bad for my reputation - I seem to look like an idiot when you don't know the whole story.( Go ahead..I know that one's asking for it. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif ) However, private things are private and, like I said, I'm not wanting to rock any boats. I WOULD however, like to see the day when NGTO and the DNR work together to benefit all state fisheries programs and all anglers, yes......even bait fishers and spinners, which I've never had any problem with.
I hear so much talk around here about how the kids of today will be the anglers of tomorrow....
Well, I hope the anglers of tomorrow don't walk around with their heads in a hole.
Grrr. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Owl
[This message has been edited by The Owl (edited 06-29-2001).]
duluthgator
06-29-01, 07:28 PM
I don't think we have our heads in any hole. There have been so many pot shots taken at the DNR from this board but we all know that Fly Fishermen (and women) are the minority in Georgia. At the same time, we all know there is not an unlimited budget for DNR to work with. There has been some progress. The DH section is one. Even Bill Couch said for us not to hold our breath just 2 years ago and it happened. Big government moves SLOOOWWW! Trust me, I know. I am the State and Local Govt. rep for the SE for a major international software firm. Big government moves very slow. But they have made a few positive moves, so there is a glimmer of hope.
Yeah owl, I understand now. You see, people are allowed to take cheap shots at me but I am NOT ALLOWED to take cheap shots at the DNR. That makes sense, right?
The Owl
07-01-01, 07:01 PM
I don't think you took any cheap shots Allen, I think the accusations of cheap shots came from people that don't know all the facts.
Owl
The Owl
07-01-01, 07:02 PM
DG,
What budget concerns are you referring to?
duluthgator
07-02-01, 01:09 PM
I did not mention any budget concerns. What I said is that the DNR does not have an unlimited budget. In other words if person shows up at a meeting with ideas, nobody at DNR is going to say GREAT IDEA OWL, let's appropriate 2 million for that over the next year.
Maybe you have done a lot. I assume you have since you said you did. I am an activist as well and the short time I have been here all I have seen is the complaining. If you have been leding the charge and everyone else has been sitting on their posteriors, then shame on them.
The Owl
07-02-01, 04:33 PM
DG,
I try to motivate NGTO, not the DNR. The DNR has often seen merit in the things suggested here...the biggest example is Lisa's willingness to spend money searching for brookies where they shouldn't be.....
Misunderstandings happen.
owl
The Owl
07-02-01, 04:34 PM
PS - I never said I was the only one that did their part....there are many, MANY who do more than I, and many who do more that's really meaningful.
Owl
Sorry for the little break but I hate to leave a good discussion. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Owl states, "EG - might I ask how members of NGTO should go about trying to change the opinion of the majority of fishers in GA?"
Owl,
Get them to read NGTO. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif It's a start. I say that in jest but seriously at the same time. It's just my opinion but I'll use a baseball analogy for you and Allen.
You seem to want to hit a homerun with each new project or idea. There is nothing wrong with that except swinging for homeruns usually does not succeed. Then the frustraion grows and ya'll seem to lash out at your usually sympathetic fishing peers with claims of "apathy" and such which then turns those peers to respond in many ways. Cheap shots at times as you says.
Now I stole this analagy but believe it to be true. Success usually comes in the way of singles slapped out day after day. It's not very exciting but much more successful than swinging for the fence on every occasion.
Owl,
My skeptical side is alive and well. I'd be more sypathetic with Allen if he would show me those letters and responses from the governor and "the DNR" so I could see for myself if he made good logical points. Many of his statements I've seen so far have been more like vinegar. I haven't had that opportunity to make an objective decision. I haven't seen any facts yet.
So far, I have only commented on the tone and attitude of this thread because that seems to be the only problem in my opinion. Trtman is out there making similar comments to the effect of Allen but nobody is taking "cheap shots" at him.
Part of my offense to Allen's original tone comes because I have made an effort over the past couple of years to try and get in the computer loop with many of the DNR personnel that are intregal to trout fishing in Georgia. I receive carbon copies of emails from all over the DNR that if I have time or something seems of interest to NGTO I get permission to pass them on.
From those discussions and the various projects I have worked with DNR personnel, I think I can make a pretty good judgement as to who is sincere. Because of this I do become skeptical when somebody makes statements that contradict the judgements I've formed.
I've seem the information that seems to have stirred up both you and Allen and my impression is that it is a misunderstanding. With your permission I'll post it on the board. I don't have email right now and did not today so I called the person paraphrased and spoke to them today.
I believe the information sited is both out of context and misquoted. And I think both you and Allen should call the person referenced and actually talk to them. But I have no problem trying to sort the matter out here. Since this thread seems to be the basis of several others floating around, I would just assume keep it here.
Owl and Allen,
What do you think?
Two asides. 1) Allen, if you have to state something like "I'll probably get slammed for saying this" as you originally did in this thread, you probably will. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
2) I previously meant to say the head of the WRD was David Waller. I noticed I previously said Walls by mistake.
EG, I don't think that it was out of context at all. I think that first statement generally sums up most members of the DNR's attitude towards trout fishing. We need to start a new thread and put those quotes in it.
You ask me what I think and here it is, again. I think that the DNR realizes that as long as the stocking truck runs, most GA trout fishermen will be happy. I don't think they care about a smaller group of pissed off flyfishermen enough to have special regs. As long as they make the baitfishermen happy, they have done their job, imo. Also, I love the DH program and I am glad we have it but, I think the DNR used the DH program as a way to make flyfishermen think that they were on our side. They were able to accomplish that with minimal effect on baitfishermen. Giving the wild trout streams special regulations would have a much greater effect on baitfishermen so they don't do it.
This is my bottom line:
Special regulations work but the DNR does not inact them becuase they know all they have to do is keep the majority happy.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it. And to borrow one from MR. T, "personal comments and slams are always appreciated"
Allen,
why do you continue to ignore what Lee Keefer has repeatedly stated?
"Bill, this issue has come up from time to time since Russ started working with brook trout in the 1970's. As you remember, he found no differences between streams with an 8" size limit and streams with no size limit. Overthe years we have found that in the southern Appalachians, brook trout seldom live longer than 3 years and max out at 6-7" in length even in unfished streams." - Lee Keefer
"Special regulations work but the DNR does not inact them becuase they know all they have to do is keep the majority happy." - Allen
where is the evidence that tells you that special regs work on a small mountain stream in GA? if you have it please post it, i'd like to have big brookies in GA, i love fishing for them and have never kept one. i'll jump on the special regs bandwagon as soon as i see some good evidence that they make a difference.
[This message has been edited by betzel (edited 07-10-2001).]
Sorry Betzel, I did not realize that I was REQUIRED to believe what the DNR says. Does the fact that a government officail said it mean that it is automatically true? I think not. I don't have to believe anything they say if I don't want to. And anyway, I'm not just talking about brookies, but all wild trout. I didn't even mention brookies in my last post. You show me data that proves special regs don't work. You all talk about it all the time but no one has been able to show it to me yet.
"the real reason that special regs make fishing better, is because it encourages those less willing to fish in a more sporting manner to fish elsewhere. I don't believe I saw this factor listed, compared, or even noted in any of the research data"
What do you say to that?
The Owl
07-10-01, 04:40 PM
Betzel - I didnt' think the comments were directed at brookie streams. I can show you wild brookies in the 8 inch range in GA, but not many. In that instance you are right, brookie water these days is seldom less than a couple of feet wide..five at the most....but I believe the discussion is now about( on multiple threads) whether or not special regulations affect fishing.
I would like to know to whom, then, the phrase " It doesn't matter if anglers keep more than 8 trout a day"( because of how the streams are stocked) can be attributed to? And, if not to the person whose name is above the article, then where the information came from that allowed someone to print such a thing, seemingly as a quote, and at the very least as fact. Who said it?
I'll wager that no one takes credit for that one.
Then again, maybe we'll all be suprised.
I wish like heck I'd have saved that newsletter, and by gosh, I'd be glad to scan it and print the whole dang thing...with their permission of course - like that would ever happen.
And lest we once again think these things are petty...this was not the only point that was worthy of a closer look.
I'm beginning to see why TU and the DNR are such good bedfellows, but that is of course, just an opinion.
Owl
PS - EG, if you're thoughts on how things should work represent the concensus of NGTO members, then you can count me out. But I suppose, as I've been recently told by another " conservation organization " ( you had 24+ hours to apoligize and you couldn't even muster the guts to do it? How sad. ).....I guess I'd be " no big loss " here either.
Owl
Allen, so you want to see "data" now? At least you are catching on. We have, many times, it's the DNR's, you don't have to believe it, but it is documented and provided, at least tell me why I should not believe it......please tell me, I'm dieing to know what it is. Again, email me the info. I'm still waiting for it. I still want to see it. I've never gotten it. I'm a smart guy, I can read the big words, I will understand it.
I think Owl opinion is a good one. I also think if a person is going to poach, regulations don't matter anymore. Is a person less likely to poach a stream because of regulations? Poaching is ignoring the regulations. But, that is my opinion.
Again, the information provided by the DNR, truthfull or not, has not been disproven (by you or anyone else) and is what I base my thoughts on the matter. Until someone shows me the "smoking gun" you guys talk about, I will continue to believe it.
And when you do post it, email, or send a post card, telegram, whatever, do us a favor and at least document your resources, that will save you a lot of slamming. Then again you don't have to do anything I guess. You don't have to back-up comments, but doing so will at the very least prevent you from getting kicked out of college when you get there. They don't like it when you provide information without resources.
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
[This message has been edited by J Byrd (edited 07-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by J Byrd (edited 07-10-2001).]
DeBacker
07-10-01, 08:30 PM
Loving the this thread and all others with Allen and OWl.
Great move by allen to delete his old posts so his words would not be used against him any longer.
Owl, I love how every group that is against something you agree with are all allied against you. DNR with TU, TU with Environmentalists, Environmentalists with Veggies, Veggies with PETA...
Funny how you also talk of freedom with driving a car, but not in method of fishing or limit to catching.
Keep it up guys.
Jason
my apologies to all for commenting on brook trout, guess i shouldn't read the title of the thread anymore http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
allen, you can believe anything you want, and i never told you you were "REQUIRED to believe what the DNR says"
what i said was "Allen,
why do you continue to ignore what Lee Keefer has repeatedly stated?"
if you have new light to shed on the subject, please share, i know for a fact that some of us would love to read it...deep down, i'm a geek, i'd love to read anything you've got.
i have no scientific papers(yet) to back up my beliefs, but given the choice between believing what a fisheries biologist says and a pipe-dream...i'll take the biologist.
I'm just glad to see you guys can fight without me.
My $.02: because brookies have such a short life span anyway, size and creel limits should have only a marginal impact on the population, UNLESS you're talking about making a significant change.
Obviously, raising the creel limit to 50 would hurt the population. By the same token, reducing it to 1 or 2 should help. But that's not a viable solution, as you would still need virtually 100% compliance in order to make a measurable difference.
The same argument holds for size limits. Since most of the fish will die before reaching 7-8" anyway, instituting a size limit of, let's say, 8" should not significantly impact the population.
At least that makes sense to me, but hey, I'm just a simple worm-fishing bubba with no more biology experience than the average Joe.
-- back to the shadows
"Since most of the fish will die before reaching 7-8" anyway, instituting a size limit of, let's say, 8" should not significantly impact the population."
If you are talking about brookies then your right but it doesn't hold true for bows and browns. In that case we can have C&R in brookie streams and a 3 fish 8" limit on streams with bows and/or browns. Some of the better bow/brown streams could be given more strict regulations.
JByrd, no regulations are going to stop poaching, only LE can do that. However, I think that some people who keep wild trout simply do not know any better. They have been doing it all their life or something. If the law was changed most of them would follow it. If you someone corn fishing your favorite wild trout stream with a stringer of 7 trout you probably would be mad as hell at him. But he is not the one you should be mad. You should be mad at the DNR for allowing him to do it. Some people are simply not educated enough to realize the harmful effects of baitfishing and keeping trout on wild streams and the DNR could change that IF they wanted to.
Personally, I hate seeing a stringer full of fish. I have kept one trout in my life time and that was when I was six. I even look back at that fish and feel somewhat bad about it. I even have a hard time at the kids fishing days. I wish every stream was catch and release. However, if I saw a guy with a stringer of legally caught fish under the limit, wild or not, I would suck it up and congratulate him/her on their catch and know that they are going home to feed their families. I have no problem with that. Personally, I'd go to Kroger. Many people get tremendous satisfaction from catching trout and bringing them home to feed the family and I would never want to restrict anyone from that. I also think about other people's way of life and what gives them a since of pleasure. Some people might disagree with something I do for fun, if it is legal, I don't want anyone saying I can't do it.
God forbid the day they restrict the amount of beer I can legally consume during a Georgia game, I'd have to burn down the establishment. Go Dawgs!
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
[This message has been edited by J Byrd (edited 07-11-2001).]
The Owl
07-11-01, 06:23 PM
.............aaaand as words start to twist, I will exit, stage right....... However, I do take offense that you'd think I was for something that the DNR, TU and Peta....oh well, one out of three.....
First though...a few PARTING SHOTS. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif haha
Allied against me? Nooooooooooooooooooooo....are you kidding?
I don't think ALL of them are allied against me, but some are allied against what I believe, and how I choose to express myself. You know, that truth and honesty bit? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
What's funny is how closed-minded all you liberals are with regard to organizational attributes, but then again, I suppose that there is an element of governmental control( or gov. type control) involved.........now, there's some irony for ya. And before someone starts yelling " I'm no liberal! ", let me just say that here, on a BB, words are the only thing we have to go by....and if the shoe fits......wellllll, then you must be wearing it. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
PS - I don't blame Allen a bit for deleting what he said. I've often thought of doing it myself on threads where I've been misquoted, misunderstood, or have had words put in my mouth. Besides, what you all seem to be so eager to jump on him about - well, the reason he can't tell you who or when or where.......is that he doesn't know - he simply believes what I've told him, and I told him nothing short of the truth - minus the names and details that would incriminate.
Allen, I'm really sorry for the reaction of a few on this board and sorry I got you involved. I never dreamed filling you in on what was going on( even without naming names to you) would cause such angry replies.
Tell you guys what.......I'd be glad to take all further attacks for the info posted...
Allen's posts are like TV movies....they are, for the most part non-fiction, but due to me not giving him names, rank or the exact wording of things that have occured in the last month, he could only join me in being skeptical and offended at recent happenings....which by the way, I will NOT be telling you about, since I'm not in the practice( at least now http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif ) of blabbing private (or semi-carbon-copied-private)emails all over NGTO including names and numbers and exactly who said what.
And yes, the original thread was about brookies, but no one was asking anything directly pertaining to the original thread by this point in the conversation....or at least not how i see it.
NEXT time I'll just come right out and spill it, so you non-believers can then accuse me of lying and leave some poor soul, that I happend to tell, alone. I'll just tell it to the whole board and get the lashing I deserve for accusing anyone of doing anything wrong. After all, no one makes mistakes or misleads or lies anymore anyway since the whole crappy world thinks right is worng and wrong is right. Everything's relative now, esp. if it comes from someone that thinks freedom and truthfulness is more important than kissing up and not rocking anyone's boat. If there's something that could possibly be wrong with the boat then you can count on me to shove it around a bit in order to see what falls out.
OWL
[This message has been edited by The Owl (edited 07-11-2001).]
DeBacker
07-11-01, 06:42 PM
Liberal? Close minded?
Conservative: tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these
Liberal: favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif., favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual
Don't see how you could label a liberal as close minded in comparison.
Also, if you are confusing me with the modern people termed liberals (really leftists or democrats) then I think you have my political ideology backwords.
I still don't see why you are calling for freedom in one area and not the other?
Jason
The Owl
07-11-01, 06:48 PM
<<<I even look back at that fish and feel somewhat bad about it.>>>
try hookless fishing......
<<I still don't see why you are calling for freedom in one area and not the other?>>
Jason, you intentionally cloud the issue with this statement. Though I basically (and respectfully) disagree with Owl on this subject, I must point out to you (as I think you realized before posting this statement) that some areas require more freedom, while others require less. Your remark merely spins what began as a potentially good thread further into the useless heap of waste it has become.
------------------
Speck
Follower of Christ
Pursuer of trout
DeBacker
07-11-01, 07:54 PM
Speck,
You are right, I did have an answer in mind before posting the question. It may have clouded this issue, though it is somewhat gone anyway. I was trying to pull together several of the threads we have going and get into a good discussion going(as it stands now, it is just people who buy what the dnr says vs. people who claim to have other info, but won't share).
And I was picking on Owl http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Jason
The Owl
07-11-01, 08:25 PM
Thanks Speck. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif I agree.
and too........
DeBacker - I knew that........kinda....I think. But, like I said man, you can't say you're one thing, and then run with the ball in another direction.....unless you're Neal Boortz ! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
I've shared as much as I'm going to without naming names, but like I said , in the future, I'll just let it fly....as long as it isn't a private email.
Owl
**** , if you guys ain't getting downright amicable here. Where's that heated debate?
I'll stoke the fire a bit ...
Bubba
BUBBA
Buhbuh
William Jefferson Clinton
That should do it.
Major Wader
07-12-01, 01:01 PM
Reference quote from a previous post <<I would like to know to whom, then, the phrase " It doesn't matter if anglers keep more than 8 trout a day"( because of how the streams are stocked) can be attributed to? And, if not to the person whose name is above the article, then where the information came from that allowed someone to print such a thing, seemingly as a quote, and at the very least as fact. Who said it?>>
Actual quote from Cohutta newsletter - "Even though some anglers exceed 8 per day limit, this does not affect availability of fish"
My comments, based on extensive conversations with Jeff Durniak:
The point being made by Mr. Durniak was that if one or more individuals "overharvests" in a STOCKED stream, it would be difficult for the average angler to notice the difference in his catch rate due to the quantity of fish stocked. This was NOT an endorsement of poaching, but a statement of fact.
Individuals caught overharvesting will be ticketed. Poaching is not condoned or tolerated by the DNR.
This spring alone, there were 12-15 "sting" operations in Northeast Georgia involving undercover DNR agents fishing on stocked streams. These individuals observed anglers while fishing themselves, and radioed to uniformed officers information regarding lawbreakers.
A word about creel limits: If the majority of anglers on a particular stream catch less than 4 fish, do you accomplish anything by lowering the legal limit from 8 to 6 or even 4?
Closing statements: The Cohutta chapter of Trout Unlimited meets on the 4th Thursday of each month at the Delkwood Grill on Delk Road. The social hour starts at 6:00, meeting starts at 7:00. All interested parties are invited to attend. We try to have topics and/or speakers which will interest trout anglers. All of our speakers, including Jeff Durniak, hold open Q&A session during the meeting and are available afterwards for more in-depth conversations as well.
"Even though some anglers exceed 8 per day limit, this does not affect availability of fish"
Lets see, that statement says to me that the total stream population is no different if an angler harvests 8 trout or 20 trout. Thats complete BS!
Owl, don't be sorry. Everyone may slam me but "it's no big loss", if you know what I mean http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
And now I will say something I haven't yet. Here are two experiences I have had with DNR officials in the field.
1. On the hooch dh I was approached by an officer in a truck while walking along the bank at palisades. He says "Do you have your license on you?" I say yes and he says "Ok", gets back into his truck and drives away.
2. After fishing the upper section of Low Gap once I was returning to my car which was parked in the campground. A DNR officer pulls up and gets out of his truck. Instead of checking licenses or coolers he proceeds to have a conversation with several baitfishermen about stocking schedules and then gets back into his truck and leaves.
I was so surprised by this behavior that I didn't get either one of the officers names so that I could file a complaint and I was very angry at myself afterwards.
------------------
Plan for the future, practice catch and release.
[This message has been edited by Allen (edited 07-13-2001).]
I went to the hatchery up on 107 with the kids. As we were getting out of the car I saw a DNR officers. We talk for a few mins until the kids wanted to go. Not once did he ask for my lics. About a half hour later he came by and wanted to check my Lics. so I ask him how come he did not want to see them when we were in the parking lot. His answer made a lot of sense. He said that we were not fishing out in the parking lot and even though we had our fishing gear it did not matter. They have to see you fishing first before they can ask to see your Lics.
Now I can't say this is true about all DNR personal in SC, but it was his story (boy do I want to ad-lib here) and to me it does make a lot of sense.
Now why the DNR officers did not stay to check lics. while he was there, who knows. Without hearing his side it's hard to say any thing about why he left. It's easy to condem, but it seems even harder to find out the facts why.
------------------
Put a http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif on a childs face, Take Them Trout Fishing.
[This message has been edited by Starr (edited 07-12-2001).]
Major Wader
07-12-01, 02:55 PM
<<Lets see, that statement says to me that the total stream population is no different if an angler harvests 8 trout or 20 trout. Thats complete BS!>>
As I said:
<The point being made by Mr. Durniak was that if one or more individuals "overharvests" in a STOCKED stream, it would be difficult for the average angler to notice the difference in his catch rate due to the quantity of fish stocked.>
Allen - If 500 trout per month are stocked into a stream (my number, not from DNR) and three poachers each keep 4 extra fish, most people fishing that stream who did not see the poachers would not notice the difference, because there are still 464 trout left.
The Owl
07-12-01, 05:37 PM
Major,
Would you care to post the section in question in it's complete form?
I believe that there was more to that quote.
Also, I think I understand why perhaps you and EG think I'm misquoting...I was paraphrasing the quote, and I believe that I stated that that's what I was doing in the original posting of the statement, unless I am "losing it".
After the original posting ( in which I said I was going to have to paraphrase it) I did not think it necessary to say that I was paraphrasing again - HOWEVER, I do admit that I shouldn't have used the quotation marks. Am I not known for the incorrect use of the keyboard? http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
Owl
The Owl
07-12-01, 05:46 PM
MW, that analogy is kind of silly isn't it? What if those same four poachers harvest 25 fish a day each( going home to dump them when they get 8 ) every day for a week?
The rest of the quote regarding why this theory is so, is actually what's disturbing.
I got the newsletter, and I read it....and I had no doubt that the statement was in reference to stocked fish due to the remainder of it - where it's said that it's not much to worry about because of why the fish are allocated to the locations that they are.( again paraphrasing )
If someone would be so kind as to publish the whole quote, I think you'd have more people than me with the opinion that it does not seem to be an appropriate statement...at least not as printed. Perhaps it was taken out of context a bit by the author.
Owl
who has never attended a TU meeting and freely admits it.
Major Wader
07-12-01, 06:31 PM
From the newsletter - "Even though some anglers exceed 8 per day limit, this does not affect availability of fish - Creel limits are set more due to allocation rather than stream pressure"
The stocking levels are determined based on stream pressure. Streams which are more heavily fished tend to get more fish.
My opinion - creel limits and stream pressure are independent factors.
The Owl
07-12-01, 08:03 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't the entire quote include the phrase " allocation of fish" or something.....
I'm going from memory and something just still doesn't sound right. Then again, maybe this is a good time to never do that again( go by memory), if that's the exact quote. ( Which still seems to be an odd statement, even assuming that you've quoted it exactly.( no offense, not sayign your not or anything, just saying that I don't remember that exact wording, and I wish I still had my copy)
From now on, I save everything.
Major Wader
07-13-01, 12:23 AM
Exact quote. I'd e-mail it, but only have the hard copy. (no scanner)
Sorry, I'm in the middle of an AIHA accessment response so I don't have as much time as I'd like to add to this discussion. But I print this for context to this and several other threads presently going on. Unfortunately, I have it in hardcopy form and have to manually type it.
From the June issue of the "Korn Dunker", the news letter of the Cohutta chapter of TU.
Georgia Hatchery Facts, from the files of Jeff Durniak, DNR
Burton Hatchery: 706/947-3112
> Of 100,000 stocked fish in Mr. Durniaks region, 85% are rainbows with a short life span
> 10-15% are brown trout, which have a longer life span, but don't necessarily get bigger
> No brookies were raised for the last 3-4 years, as they are susceptible to diseases that can contaminate the hatchery for other fish.
> The number of stocked fish is limited by hatchery carrying capacity.
Creel Limits/Management:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>1.1m catchable trout were raised last year statewide, 1.2m this year.
<LI>Once the stocking surpasses 900,00 per year, the DNR tries to allocate stocking levels to match the number of anglers on a particular stream.
<LI>Even though some anglers exceed 8 per day limit, this does not affect availability of fish - Creel limits are set more due to allocation rather than stream pressure.
<LI>Trout in Georgia are old if they see a 3rd birthday - due to floating gravel stream beds, which don't produce a lot of groceries and most of their energy goes into reproduction.
<LI>The best way to tell a stocked trout from a wild trout is by looking at the dorsal fin, which will be at a 90degree angle with a white tip. Fins that were clipped in the hatchery for identification, will grow back in 6 months and have a wavy appearance.
<LI>Mr.Durniak stresses that we all need to do more mentoring with the youth to perpetuate an interestin fly fishing as there does not appear to be a large number of young people to carry our torch later.
[/list]
I tried to repeat it as close to original (even leaving small typos) as the NGTO fonts allow. My apologies if I infringed on any copyrights. But it seemed pertinent to several discussions here on the board.
[This message has been edited by THE EG (edited 07-13-2001).]
FLYSLINGER
07-13-01, 04:25 AM
to quote Hank jr. " I'm a dinosaur, should have been dead a long time ago." According to Durniak and others, and some folks on this board and the way I think, that quote from Hank's great song rings all too true. Dammit, I am too young to think that way, but after the way things are in Downtown Athens on a thursday night now, i feel it all too much. sh$t, i had a nice evening and more going until the foxy young lady figured out I eat meat. She fishes and eats fish, but crawled my *** because i eat meat. what the f%ck!!!!!!...... I truly am a dinosaur and should have been dead along time ago or is it born a long time ago..... when the brookies were big and the only trout around.
Getting old sucks, feeling elderly in Athens is worse!
------------------
TIGHT LINES,
FLYSLINGER
Rattlesnake Angling Guide
"BEER, Its not just for dinner anymore."
Slinger, what's worst is I remember sitting on Milledge watching the cute girls jog by, and now my little sister whom I watch grow up IS one of those cute girls jogging down Milledge.
P.S. No hitting on my little sister!!! That goes for all of ya, Debacker, ATB, all of ya!!!
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
Jbyrd,
whats her name, and what does she look like?
i'll keep an eye out for her and make sure those other UGA guys aren't after her.
bryan
....while you're at it, what are her turn ons, pet peeves, and interests?
[This message has been edited by betzel (edited 07-13-2001).]
BLACK KNIGHT
07-13-01, 04:09 PM
I REALLY hate to perpetuate this dead horse but, I am really confused.
The newsletter says:
1. Stocking allocation is a function of stream pressure.
2. Creel limits are a function of allocation.
3. Creel limits are not a function of stream pressure.
I must be reading it wrong. #3 can't be true, given #'s 1 and 2. If I am wrong, set me straight. I apologize in advance for public education in South Carolina.
Betzel, 5'2", 180LBS, and a limp, with a 6'4", 260lbs extreamly unstable older brother. And remember, it's only about an hours drive on 78 to her dorm.
Just kidding..............she's 200lbs.
------------------
J. Byrd
Kid tested, mother approved!
It was written: We are born to die. Let us cover a lot of water in that time.
The Owl
07-13-01, 05:21 PM
BK, we're not supposed to understand it, we're just supposed to nod in agreement and say " Ohhhhhh. " . http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/smile.gif
BK are you fishing tomorrow?
Owl
The Owl
07-13-01, 05:21 PM
PS - I THOUGHT there was more to that sentence. http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif
Shhhheesh, if I could spell.....think that's what I'll ask the Wizard for ! http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/ubbngto/wink.gif A " speller" !
Owl
[This message has been edited by The Owl (edited 07-13-2001).]
BLACK KNIGHT
07-13-01, 05:38 PM
No, dude, the wife has plans for the family.
Might get lucky enough to take the boys down to the pond and see if any bream want to cooperate in the evening. I golfed Wednesday, and it was so darn hot, I am not at all excited about being out of doors for a while!
Gotta get up to check out that smallmouth lead, maybe one morning next week.
Owl,
You misquoted the newsletter and attempted to take it out of context.
You continue to insinuate there is some type of conspiracy going on. You are wrong.
You state in this thread "I'm not in the practice( at least now ) of blabbing private (or semi-carbon-copied-private)emails all over NGTO". Yet the only three points I know of that came from private email that are floating around the board right now are "no big loss", "It doesn't matter if anglers keep more than 8 trout a day" and the term "melodramatic".
They all came from you.
As for you wondering where the quote "It doesn't matter if anglers keep more than 8 trout a day" comes from. All I can tell you is the first place I saw it was from you and it's my opinion you have to take credit for it.
Also in this thread you state "NEXT time I'll just come right out and spill it, so you non-believers can then accuse me of lying and leave some poor soul, that I happend to tell, alone. I'll just tell it to the whole board...".
This is getting old. I have never accused you of lying. I believe you and Allen have only misunderstood or misrepresented statements. I am not trying to chase anybody from the board or take cheap shots. But I too am looking for the truth so I ask you to post anything you have. Because in my opinion you are making negative insinuations all over this board while playing the act of trying to "protect" somebody. Let's get this out on the board so every individual can make their own decision.
Another thing, somebody please show me where "the DNR" claims that special regulations have no effect on fishing quality. I believe that is a misrepresentation also.
BK,
I did not understand the "allocation" statement either. But my point all along has been that nobody on this board knows that anwser. Whether right or wrong, they can only infer what was said.
Talk to the editor of the paper or talk to Jeff Durniak. They are the ones who could most correctly answer your questions as to the meaning.
[This message has been edited by THE EG (edited 07-15-2001).]
the DNR states, everytime, that special regs don't affect population.
"Another thing, somebody please show me where "the DNR" claims that special regulations have no effect on fishing quality. I believe that is a misrepresentation also."
EG, what are you talking about? Do you not
read the board or something?
Here are some direct quotes from Lee Keefer stating the DNR's position: Special regs don' make the fishing better, they are only for social purposes.
"Because of the very low productivity of
most Southern Appalachian streams, including those in Georgia, restrictive
regulations do not result in significant changes in fish populations. In
smaller streams, which compose the bulk of out trout resource, few fish live
past age 3 or 4 unless they receive supplemental feeding. As a result,
restricting harvest will usually have very little impact on the density of
age 4 and older fish, which is the usual goal of such regulations."
"Restrictive regulations do
have the effect of "zoning" streams for use by particular angler groups. In
general, anglers interested in harvesting fish will not go to a stream with
a high minimum size or a bait restriction, thus effectively zoning the
stream for catch and release anglers using artificial lures. This is a
legitimate use of regulations, but everyone should be aware that it will
probably have little impact on the fish population."
"As you remember, he found no differences between streams with an 8" size limit and streams with no size limit."
"This is really a social issue rather than a biological one. A high length limit, like 8" would be in effect a catch and release regulation that MIGHT result in a higher catch rate of 6-7" fish over a longer period of time. It would not, in my opinion, have any measurable impact on the long term fish population"
"In North Carolina, the NCWRC feel that the present restrictive
regulations have made little or no difference on most of their streams."
------------------
Plan for the future, practice catch and release.
DeBacker
07-15-01, 06:19 PM
Allen,
Do you not read the board or something? I reread your post only three times, but I agree with Bryan. I am seeing population come up several times, but not quality.
Also, especially take note of the quote, "Restrictive regulations do
have the effect of "zoning" streams for use by particular angler groups. In
general, anglers interested in harvesting fish will not go to a stream with
a high minimum size or a bait restriction, thus effectively zoning the
stream for catch and release anglers using artificial lures. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE USE OF REGULATIONS, but everyone should be aware that it will
probably have LITTLE IMPACT ON the fish POPULATION." (Caps are mine for emphasis)-- This may be what you are looking for after all.
Jason
GonetoSeed
07-16-01, 06:57 PM
Allen posts:
1. On the hooch dh I was approached by an officer in a truck while walking along the bank at palisades. He says "Do you have your license on you?" I say yes and he says "Ok", gets back into his truck and drives away.
2. After fishing the upper section of Low Gap once I was returning to my car which was parked in the campground. A DNR officer pulls up and gets out of his truck. Instead of checking licenses or coolers he proceeds to have a conversation with several baitfishermen about stocking schedules and then gets back into his truck and leaves.
I see these two events differently. I see the first as a smart move by the officer. If you are not actually fishing or have evidence of fishing (eg, stringer) he can not ask you to produce a license. What he did, however, was send you a friendly warning - along the lines of, if I see you fishing and ask you to show me, you better have a license on you. For someone who did not have a license this could be a deterent -at least for that day because they would have to weigh into their thinking the risk of fishing when they knew an officer was in the area - an officer who had already noticed them.
In the second case, that may have been the officer's regular beat and he knew the baitfishers - including having checked their licenses and coolers before (baitfishers are not inherently unlawful). By being friendly and engaging them in conversation, he was visible in his job,ie, he was in the area and patrolling, but not hassling them. Again, knowing he was in the area and would walk up to them - eyeballing what was going on - meant that he was a possible deterant to them deciding to break the law.
Seeing that it is not possible to watch every fisherman everytime they are on the water (and seems to also violate the principle of probable cause) and catch every violator "red handed", both of these officers seemed to effectively leverage their presence - without coming across as the "gestapo" to those not breaking the law. In fact, my guess is they probably wrote a lot of tickets that day that you did not see.
Here is some more from Lee Keefer:
If quality is measured by catching
significantly larger fish and more of them, then regulations will do little
to improve fishing quality in most small streams. If you define quality as
having to share a stream with fewer other anglers, even though you may not
catch any more or larger fish, then yes regulations can improve the fishing
experience by dividing the resource up among different angler groups so that
those that want to use specialized gear can find a place to do so without
having to compete with large crowds.
So basically the DNR says that special regulations do not biologically improve the fishing, they just change the social aspect of a stream.
------------------
Plan for the future, practice catch and release.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.