| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Fore!
On 15 Jun 2006 14:16:36 -0700, "Wayne Knight"
wrote: wrote: Maybe it wasn't meant to be, but that's what it has become - "pay to play" fishing and a fund-raising contest. Many of the people at TU national are professional fund-raisers. Look at the resumes - fishing, trout or otherwise, is usually mentioned as an afterthought, after all the career stuff, and nothing to indicate any real knowledge, experience, or most importantly, love of fishing. It's a conservation group. It's a fundraising group raising funds for its own limited self-interests, and true conservation is not in its self-interest. Conservation can and does often mean doing without, and TU isn't interested in its members doing without because if they did without, TU might not get as much money from them. I can't say it has never happened, but I can't ever remember a TU pitch that went something like: "We need to buy this land so as to keep everyone off of it for 50 years and let it recover. You won't likely live long enough to see a benefit, but future generations will, so please send us a large check to help in this worthy endevour." They have biologists and grant writers on the payroll, local coordinators etc. There non profit status should not be the issue. That they need to raise money and use the tax code to their advantage in an attempt to get their message out is just a matter of fact. Only thing different about TU, DU, NRA, American Cancer Society, et al is their mission. Other than that they're all non profits trying to raise money. Exactly Again I disagree with the situation as presented by Tim but that doesn't paint the entire picture for the organization as a whole. Why not? More like why? If a western flow rate is down because irrigation or a southeastern river is full of clay from poor building purposes then why should you close it? I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that if the _public_ can't enjoy what is supposedly its own land and resources, but the "public" can, then the _public_ is getting diddled. TU works pretty damned hard to facilitate that diddling. a fisherman, with flyfishing as a subset, and I think "FFing only" on "public" water is ridiculous. If it's _public_ water, folks ought to be allowed to use cane poles and power bait to catch and eat their own damned fish, and if the water can't handle it, keep everyone off. That's among the reasons I think "public" water is a joke - it ain't _public_, it's "public." I agree with you. But pointing at the whole of TU is wrong. TU does not endorse fishing tackle methods. The FFF does that. And you can't have local chapters without the national group. No, I use such when I have a good reason. Otherwise, I don't, just like I don't use a hammer to tighten bolts or try to, just for T-Bone, OBROFF: use a big game rod on a small trout stream. When YOU have a good reason. Yep. None whatsoever, assuming they drive to Neiman's and keep their cakehole shut. But if they jump up in my face about conservation and right-wing this and that, I'll call them a yuppie hypocrite. So it's just the left wing SUV drivers eh? Pretty much, but not because they are left-wing. Why did you buy a BMW SUV? Or really, any SUV? Even the name "SUV" is pretty goofy-yuppie - what the hell is one supposed to do with a "sport utility vehicle?" Haul crates of footballs and golfclubs? How much "utility" duty do these things actually do? You've got several SUV's, I don't golf so you tell me. I don't consider any vehicle I own an "SUV." I consider them tools to accomplish a task, and sometimes that task can best be, or only be, accomplished by a large vehicle. The old rich were once nouveau riche. No, not necessarily, and the newly rich aren't necessarily nouveau riche. New money simply cannot think about money the same way old money can (and vice-versa) but new money can be gracious in their good fortune just as old money can be vulgar in theirs. I don't aspire to be rich, riche, or richard. I got off that train when I left my first employer in Chicago. I do what I do and I make what I make. That someone thinks it's not enough or too much I really don't care. It's my life as you have yours. I aspire to do a certain amount of good while I'm here and don't really give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of what I own or don't own. I wanted to know why you have this constant need to put people down? You answer that by implying that I'm trying to impress. Sorry one look at me and most would know I can't impress anyone. Hell, you've impressed me on many occasions, and not a single time was it related to anything anyone could buy with all the money of the planet. As to "putting people down" (or building them up), I feel no need to do either as a general principle. I treat people as they treat me and worry very little about the consequences of doing so. I don't waste my time holding grudges or currying favor. So what is a Yuppie in your book, anyone over 30 with a job? Nope. It's anyone concerned more about what they think is style over what I believe is substance...hey, you asked for MY definition, so it's gonna be subjective... TC, R |
Fore!
wrote in message ... Nope. It's anyone concerned more about what they think is style over what I believe is substance...hey, you asked for MY definition, so it's gonna be subjective... All I asked for :) and thanks for the compliment in there. quess we'll just agree to disagree about TU. Later |
Fore!
Tim J. wrote:
I think it's time for a big group hug. Is 11:52 EDT okay with everyone? Sorry. I'm penciled in to drown a litter of kittens about that time. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
Fore!
"Rusty Hook" wrote in message ... I checked the regulations directly, in the Colorado Code of Regulations.... Bad precedent. No good can come of this. :( Wolfgang who knows better than to wonder why this has never occurred to anyone else. :) |
Fore!
Wolfgang wrote: "Rusty Hook" wrote in message ... I checked the regulations directly, in the Colorado Code of Regulations.... Bad precedent. No good can come of this. :( Wolfgang who knows better than to wonder why this has never occurred to anyone else. :) To be clear. It is the printed regulations package that is distributed to the anglers that is referenced in the first post (pdf link) that is the problem. Please read this, section 8, and draw your own conclusions. Bone |
Fore!
wrote in message oups.com... Wolfgang wrote: "Rusty Hook" wrote in message ... I checked the regulations directly, in the Colorado Code of Regulations.... Bad precedent. No good can come of this. :( Wolfgang who knows better than to wonder why this has never occurred to anyone else. :) To be clear. It is the printed regulations package that is distributed to the anglers that is referenced in the first post (pdf link) that is the problem. On a conscious level, the problem is, and will forever remain, a complete mystery to you. You should listen to the little voice that whispers to you rather than continually shrieking to drown it out. Please read this, section 8, and draw your own conclusions. I have enough to read and I'm more interested in explorations than conclusions. You should be too; look at where the latter have gotten you. Wolfgang |
Fore!
"William Claspy" wrote in message ... When it comes to ROFF, think blackberry jam. You gots to take the seeds with the sweet. Not necessarily! My 72 year old mother strains the seeds using an *OLD* pair of pantyhose. After a while, you forget the seeds are even there. It's hard to discribe the unusual taste of mother's blackberry and wild raspberry jams? Op --And to see her in her mini-skirt with them purple and red pantyhose, well what a sight!-- Bill, running out of metaphors |
Fore!
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:36:19 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus"
wrote: "William Claspy" wrote in message ... When it comes to ROFF, think blackberry jam. You gots to take the seeds with the sweet. Not necessarily! My 72 year old mother strains the seeds using an *OLD* pair of pantyhose. After a while, you forget the seeds are even there. It's hard to discribe the unusual taste of mother's blackberry and wild raspberry jams? Op --And to see her in her mini-skirt with them purple and red pantyhose, well what a sight!-- My newsgroup day was going very well up until this point.G Kiyu |
Fore!
|
Fore!
wilii wrote: wrote: I've come to the conclusion that the contest wasn't against DOW regulations. The published regulations are confusing and were meant to only to apply to contests that involved tagged or marked fish. I think that the DOW SHOULD regulate all types of contests. Here's another response I got from one of the DOW persons that I found promising: William, Thanks for your e-mail question below about the National Fly Fishing Championship contest described below. The only fishing contests that the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) regulates are those using tagged or marked released fish. In looking through the website for that event, since it is a contest that does not involve tagged or marked released fish then what they did was not illegal on in direct violation of CDOW regulations. Unfortunately, our fishing brochure does not make this clear and I could see where you could interpret that what they did was in violation. However, I do have the same concerns that a contest such as this could possibly have an impact on the fishery resource. I am copying the Wildlife Officers located in that area so that if this organization hosts other events like this in Colorado in the future, we can monitor if they are truly having an impact on our fisheries. It is too late for this year since the event has already occurred the first part of this month. Thank you for your concern about our Colorado wildlife. Sincerely, Bob Thompson Assistant Chief of Law Enforcement Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216 The responses I got from CO TU had IMO, a very sanctimonious tone stressing that there was no way that TU would sanction anything that would harm the resource (unlike a Bass tournament which they implied was harmful). I got responses from two board members and it was interesting that they both had the same message. I get the impression they had to address this in the past and got a party line worked out. Their message was, basically, the contest was a benefit to the resource because of educational value, volunteer recruitment, and money generated. Since it was C&R and involved "class individuals" the resource wasn't impacted. Willi Willi, thanks very much for posting this. I got a fairly good response from the CDOW as well, which I have copied below my .sig. Hey thanks very much WIlli and thanks guys in general. Jonathon, Sandy, Wayno, dudes...it's great to be yakkin; with ya all. It's certainly a blessing. Anyway, here's the letters. Your pal, Tim ===== Response and reply to CDOW Below Tim, The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) only regulates fishing contest using tagged or marked released fish. I can see where one can mis-interpret in the 2006 fishing brochure under "Special Conditions and Restrictions" under number "8." on page six (6). On the inside of the first page at the bottom there is a disclaimer "NOTE: Laws and regulations in this brochure are paraphrased for easier understanding and are intended only as a guide. The official Colorado fishing statutes and regulations are available for viewing at DOW offices." I agree that people view the brochure as the law or regulation and it should state or paraphrase the law or regulation accurately. In this case mentioned above, I don't think the CDOW did a good job on paraphrasing and I will forward that information on to the regulation review committee. I'm not sure where you find the reference that you can take 20 trout in the fishing brochure? You can review the Wildlife Commission Regulations on the internet at http://wildlife.state.co.us/RulesRegs/Regulations/. The fishing regulations are in Chapter 1 and the regulation referencing fishing contest is #106 on page six of that chapter. The CDOW continues to strive to make our brochures accurately reflect what the law or regulation is. I appreciate you pointing this out and hopefully we can correct it in future brochures. If you do not agree with the current regulation on fishing contests then it needs to be brought forward as an issue to the Wildlife Commission. Thank you for your concern about our Colorado wildlife. Sincerely, Bob Thompson Assistant Chief of Law Enforcement Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO 80216 (303) 291-7342 -----Original Message----- From: Wildlife, Info Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:19 PM To: Thompson, Bob Subject: FW: Fishing Competition on Streams and Rvers -----Original Message----- From: Wildlife, Info Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:35 PM To: Wildlife, Info Subject: Fishing Competition on Streams and Rvers FAQ Question from Web http://wildlife.state.co.us/apps/askdow/ Division: Division of Wildlife Subject: Fishing Competition on Streams and Rvers Topic: Applications & Licensing Subtopic: Fishing From: Tim Walker DOB: 09/22/58 Senders Email: Question or Message: Dear Sir, I complained to the division 3 years ago about a competitive flyfishing event on the St. Vrain near the town of Lyons being in direct violation of section 8 of the colorado fishing regulations. At that time, I was told that there was a discrepency between the 'real' regulations and the 'printed' version. Just recently I complained about the International Fly Fishing competition on the So. Platte and was told the exact same thing. Since I view the regulations as the law and now I am told that they are not, please understand that, as far as I'm concerned the state wide bag limit is 20 trout and the regulations are printed in error. Is this an OK assumption or can you tell me why you maintain two different sets of regulations? Thank you, Tim Walker Address: 2537 Swee****er Lafayette, co80026 Telephone: (303) 552-2047 CC#: 193561529 Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Bob to Gmail Your message has been sent. Tim Walker to Bob, Info, Rob, Brighid More options 6:45 pm (0 minutes ago) Hi Bob, Thank you very, very much for this thoughtful response. It was 2 or 3 years ago that I complained about the same thing regarding a competition in Lyons. In my estimation, it is not only possible for misenterpretation: it is very clear, but wrong. This is a problem in a regulations pamphlet and it's not fair. Regardless, I would suggest that you read the discussion in the rec.outdoors.fishing.fly group in Google. I think that most people would favor it the way it reads. We can not attend the round tables as much as the folks in the industry, we're just regular fishermen. I have been flyfishing in Colorado since 1966 and was a huge proponent of the first "fishing is fun" waters, which, as you know, was one of the very first pure catch and release waters in Colorado. In retrospect I wonder if this was the right choice. The reference to the 20 fish bag limit was a serious statement. It speaks to the importance that the requirement that regulations you distribute being a reasonably accurate contract with the license holder. Please understand that I read them cover to cover and I act on them to the letter of the law. It is my hope that, not only you correct it in the pamphlet, but that the division looks hard at this issue in a larger sense and considers it the way it reads.. As a license holder I favor a basic flyfishing regulation based on an ethic similar to that finally derived by the Norwegian Dept of Agriculture in 1999 [at the following link, great read]: http://org.nlh.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm I thank you very much for the response and your time. Sincerely, Tim |
Fore!
"Kiyu" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:36:19 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus" My newsgroup day was going very well up until this point.G Kiyu Just think how I feel after a few slices of toast and some of mother's *OLD* blackberry jam! Op --I gotta eat the stuff, or risk being 'ritten out of mother's will (a quite sizeable will too, I might add, if ya count the 120 lb. German Shepard), but the poor bastids I give mother's jam to haven't got a clue!-- |
Fore!
Willi wrote: wrote: Willi wrote: wrote: Wet golf with living biological golf balls has officially come to colorado. Needless to say I'l not be sending my dues to the Colorado Troutmasters or was that Tournaments Unlimited this year. How any organization can simultaneously promote flyfishing competition while pretending to understand the word "wild" (and even emblazen this word on license plate bling) is entirely beyond my capacity to understand. There are so many things wrong with this it's not even funny. I wonder how they would feel about paint ball hunting deer? I'd sure like to have a conversation with someone trying to explain the difference to me. http://www.nationalflyfishingchampio...ion_rules.html Which is in direct conflict with the rules of fishing in Colorado which prohibit contests on moving water (see paragraph 8). http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonl...shbrochure.pdf Eventually all things merge in to one and a golf match runs through it. TBone Fishing contests like this are CLEARLY in violation of the 2006 Colorado DOW regulations. I emailed several people at Colorado TU, and the Colorado DOW. I'll be interested to see what, if any, response I get. PS How's the competition Bass fishing going Tim? Got any holes in one? Willi FWIW - I talked with a gentleman today who was fishing the Platte during the contest. In the morning he was told by one judge that there would be a contest but who was otherwise polite but pretty much told them to scat. Later on as more judges arrived they became more and more rude. They were surly and intimidating. The regulation is also clear on this...on still waters, where approval for a contest has been granted, fishing MUST stay open to the public during the contest. Next year I'm rocking the ****ers. TBone "I appreciate your concerns, and will try to respond briefly to them. First, with regard to fishing regulations, the actual DOW regulations limit fishing contests using marked/tagged fish; we coordinated with DOW to ensure that the National Fly Fishing Championships were consistent with their regulations and indeed had DOW represented on the event steering committee to ensure communication and compliance. The event was strictly catch-and-release, and public anglers were not excluded from the areas used (all of the areas we used for venues had that as a requirement). The event did not violate any DOW regulations. The more general question - why would TU be involved in this - the answer is three-fold. First, is educational value. The event provided a forum from which we could build greater awareness about fly fishing and conservation. For example, as part of the competition we had stringent gear-cleaning protocols in place to ensure that exotic species like mud snails and whirling disease were not spread; this was included in some print and TV coverage of the event and will help raise angler awareness about what they as individuals can do to follow this example. The event also included a Conservation Symposium with displays and speakers from various agencies, conservation groups, etc. - creating a platform for public education on those issues. Second, is volunteer recruitment. The event drew in around 100 volunteers, many of whom had not been active volunteers in the past but plan to be involved in the future. Third, is fundraising. While this year's event will have a very modest net, it has the potential to raise significant dollars for conservation. For example, the Jackson Hole One-Fly event raises $300,000 per year for conservation, and while we aren't expecting to reach that level we should be able to raise significant dollars for conservation. The participants in this event were class individuals with a real dedication to fly fishing and to conservation. It was an amateur, Olympic-style event with no money on the line, only pride and the opportunity to represent the U.S. at the World Championships later this summer. If your concept of competitive fishing is based on what you see with things like professional bass fishing, this event is nothing like that. Certainly events like this aren't for everyone, but it is not contrary to our mission for conserving, protecting, and restoring Colorado's trout habitats. [snip] Hmmm.... http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin...ut060623_1.htm Not one mention on our buddy the mud snail. Your pal, TBone |
Fore!
wrote: Willi wrote: wrote: Willi wrote: wrote: Wet golf with living biological golf balls has officially come to colorado. Needless to say I'l not be sending my dues to the Colorado Troutmasters or was that Tournaments Unlimited this year. How any organization can simultaneously promote flyfishing competition while pretending to understand the word "wild" (and even emblazen this word on license plate bling) is entirely beyond my capacity to understand. There are so many things wrong with this it's not even funny. I wonder how they would feel about paint ball hunting deer? I'd sure like to have a conversation with someone trying to explain the difference to me. http://www.nationalflyfishingchampio...ion_rules.html Which is in direct conflict with the rules of fishing in Colorado which prohibit contests on moving water (see paragraph 8). http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonl...shbrochure.pdf Eventually all things merge in to one and a golf match runs through it. TBone Fishing contests like this are CLEARLY in violation of the 2006 Colorado DOW regulations. I emailed several people at Colorado TU, and the Colorado DOW. I'll be interested to see what, if any, response I get. PS How's the competition Bass fishing going Tim? Got any holes in one? Willi FWIW - I talked with a gentleman today who was fishing the Platte during the contest. In the morning he was told by one judge that there would be a contest but who was otherwise polite but pretty much told them to scat. Later on as more judges arrived they became more and more rude. They were surly and intimidating. The regulation is also clear on this...on still waters, where approval for a contest has been granted, fishing MUST stay open to the public during the contest. Next year I'm rocking the ****ers. TBone "I appreciate your concerns, and will try to respond briefly to them. First, with regard to fishing regulations, the actual DOW regulations limit fishing contests using marked/tagged fish; we coordinated with DOW to ensure that the National Fly Fishing Championships were consistent with their regulations and indeed had DOW represented on the event steering committee to ensure communication and compliance. The event was strictly catch-and-release, and public anglers were not excluded from the areas used (all of the areas we used for venues had that as a requirement). The event did not violate any DOW regulations. The more general question - why would TU be involved in this - the answer is three-fold. First, is educational value. The event provided a forum from which we could build greater awareness about fly fishing and conservation. For example, as part of the competition we had stringent gear-cleaning protocols in place to ensure that exotic species like mud snails and whirling disease were not spread; this was included in some print and TV coverage of the event and will help raise angler awareness about what they as individuals can do to follow this example. The event also included a Conservation Symposium with displays and speakers from various agencies, conservation groups, etc. - creating a platform for public education on those issues. Second, is volunteer recruitment. The event drew in around 100 volunteers, many of whom had not been active volunteers in the past but plan to be involved in the future. Third, is fundraising. While this year's event will have a very modest net, it has the potential to raise significant dollars for conservation. For example, the Jackson Hole One-Fly event raises $300,000 per year for conservation, and while we aren't expecting to reach that level we should be able to raise significant dollars for conservation. The participants in this event were class individuals with a real dedication to fly fishing and to conservation. It was an amateur, Olympic-style event with no money on the line, only pride and the opportunity to represent the U.S. at the World Championships later this summer. If your concept of competitive fishing is based on what you see with things like professional bass fishing, this event is nothing like that. Certainly events like this aren't for everyone, but it is not contrary to our mission for conserving, protecting, and restoring Colorado's trout habitats. [snip] Hmmm.... http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin...ut060623_1.htm Not one mention on our buddy the mud snail. [snip] Nor here. http://www.flyfishingteamusa.com/Tea...onynaranja.htm I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity that this is about promoting awareness of conservation. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter