Fore!
 

William Claspy typed:
On 6/15/06 10:01 AM, in article
, "JStraw"
wrote:

After all, this about fly fishing right?

What, is this new guy week or something? :-)

Nothing wrong with what you're saying JStraw, but think of it like
the first time you went to your wife's family reunion. (and if you
aren't married, just bear with me :-) You probably didn't barge into
Uncle Sam and Grandpa Joe's annual tete-a-tete about "tastes great"
and "less filling", right? I mean, the argument is meaningless and
it is never going to be resolved, but they go at it anyhow, as
they've done since the world began. Some of the folks here have been
doing their own peculiar dance together for many, many, many years.
Most have personalities that are unlikely to change because you want
to stick to "fly fishing only" regs. When it comes to ROFF, think
blackberry jam. You gots to take the seeds with the sweet. After a
while, you forget the seeds are even there.

Bill, running out of metaphors

I think it's time for a big group hug. Is 11:52 EDT okay with everyone?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Fore!
 

JStraw wrote:
snip
After all, this about fly fishing right?

JStraw as in Jack Straw from Wichita ? If so, welcome
fellow Deadhead, there's a handful of us in this loony
bin.

Read this:

http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~jcook/ROFF/

And pay particular attention to the section titled:

Are you thinking of complaining about all the non-flyfishing talk?

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry

Fore!
 

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:44:27 -0400, William Claspy
wrote:

On 6/15/06 10:01 AM, in article
.com, "JStraw"
wrote:

After all, this about fly fishing right?

What, is this new guy week or something? :-)

Nothing wrong with what you're saying JStraw, but think of it like the first
time you went to your wife's family reunion. (and if you aren't married,
just bear with me :-) You probably didn't barge into Uncle Sam and Grandpa
Joe's annual tete-a-tete about "tastes great" and "less filling", right? I
mean, the argument is meaningless and it is never going to be resolved, but
they go at it anyhow, as they've done since the world began. Some of the
folks here have been doing their own peculiar dance together for many, many,
many years. Most have personalities that are unlikely to change because you
want to stick to "fly fishing only" regs. When it comes to ROFF, think
blackberry jam. You gots to take the seeds with the sweet. After a while,
you forget the seeds are even there.

Bill, running out of metaphors

Well, now...maybe you need to look into, oh, I dunno, Shakespeare or
Ambrose Bierce or Oscar Wilde or Mencken or de Rochefoucauld before your
next reply...do you happen to have access to any books?

HTH (no, really, I do...of course, I know full well that some will say
otherwise, but they lie like dogs...on rugs...),
R
....and maybe some Machiavelli and Kesey, too...

Fore!
 

Tim J. wrote:

I think it's time for a big group hug. Is 11:52 EDT okay with everyone?

Ewwwwww, that's a visual I sure didn't need this early
in the day. Please save the horror stories for /after/
Happy Hour so I don't have to confront them while sober.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Fore!
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


...I'm as upset with the CDOW for maintaining two sets of regs but, as
Media and Promotion contact, perhaps TU would be better served with
someone a little more diplomatic.

Ah, yes! Someone more like.....well, you, perhaps?

It's one thing for a licensed angler
[with a particular beff] to be grumpy, another thing entirely for the
organizers and sponsors, IMO, to be unsympathetic to that grump.

Hm.....trade **** for honey, huh? So, how's that working for you?

Wolfgang

Fore!
 

"JStraw" wrote in message
oups.com...


Being new to this group I am astounded at the hate mongering that goes
on.

It's o.k., I've gotten used to it. Mind you, I don't mean to suggest that
I'd rebuff an offer of help in combating it, but I long ago ceased to expect
any such. At any rate, whining about it is just another distraction. If
you don't intend to help, at least try to shut up and go away.

When folks like TBone TRY to stay on topic, regardless of his/her
opinion, dudes like Wolfgang reply with almost anything but substance.

Tit for tat. Show me substance, I'll show you more.

So as opposed to being incredibly hateful, do you think you could stay
on point and respond intelligently so we can benefit from a good
debate.

Nice try, but it won't do any good. I tried asking nicely a long time ago.
You see the result.

After all, this about fly fishing right?

Well, I've just reviewed your whole post and, no, it doesn't look like it's
about fly fishing.

Wolfgang

Fore!
 

Fore!
 

On 15 Jun 2006 11:19:25 -0700, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:

wrote:

If the water is in some form of danger, it ought to be closed to fishing
and other forms of public access. TU wants to "conserve" for its own
interests,

First and foremost, when I say "TU," I mean TU national, not every local
TU chapter. That said...

Huh? It was established to work for conservation, so I would think it's
own interest would be in conservation. It's not meant to be a national
fishing club.

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 just, "A whole
bunch of stuff.... In addition to croquet and cocktail parties, Bob,
Sue, or whomever likes to fish..."

Regardless a troubled stream does not have to be closed
to need some intervention.

Why not?

For all I know, the guy Tim was talking to was a local CO TU guy, like
I said they are different. But just because some misguided fools in CO
belong to the same group I do doesn't make the group ineffective nor
inefficient. I understand why certain groups have taken offense to what
they consider a *liberal* bent in the national group. Conservation
lobbying tends to come from the left side more than the right, so be
it. They do seem to be taking a more balanced and consensus driven
approach lately I know guys that got mad at TU becasue they didn't
think enough was being done for their favorite stream.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with true conservation, it has to do with
squeaky wheels getting tax-free grease, and getting it twice, once in
the non-profit status and again in managing to coop "public" water for a
relative few to use the way they want. I'm 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."

We have choices, you can choose to not be a member, I will continue to
choose to be one until I at least get an alternative.

The largest TU chapter in US is (or was) in
Austin-****in-Texas, long known and respected as a premiere trout
fishing destination. And yeah, before anyone goes there, they do dump
truckloads of trout into the Guadalupe, but that don't make it a trout
stream...

All that means is lots of people in Austin decided joining TU would be
a good thing. I agree on the Guadalupe but TU isn't paying for that,
all those texans buying trout stamps are paying for that state program.
There's any number of streams in the south east and other places
getting trout trucked in where they don't belong and for the most part,
it's not for the benefit of TU members. (fwiw, I disagree with trucking
them in too)

the Peabodys have ducks, but AFAIK, no DU chapters...

But Memphis does.


I use Suburbans, trucks, and such for their utility value alone, I don't
"drive" one as a car, and none has a bumper sticker pimping anything,
nor do I trade them in on new models every coupla-three years. Ever
tried to pull and launch a large boat, pull a cargo/cattle/horse
trailer, or haul a flatbed loaded with a tractor down a wet dirt road,
or similar with a Prius or whatever the ecoyuppiemobiles are called?


I don't drive a Toyota so I wouldn't know it's towing capacity. I
drive a six year old BMW which had a higher towing capacity than my
sister's Tahoe at the time. And it's towed some things but I have no
need to tow a tractor and or horses. You drive your suburban because
you think you have a good reason.

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.

As long as what ever you classify a
yuppie pays for his/her vehicle, even if just to go to Nieman Marcus,
what sweat off your balls is it?

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.

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?

We have trucks, Wagoneers, Suburbans, and cars. The first three are
working vehicles, tools, and the fourth is transportation for people.
For a time, I did drive a Wagoneer as a dual purpose vehicle, but it got
more working use than transportation use. And when I'm in places like
the Northeast, where public transport is not only good but easier, I
don't want to be hassled with a vehicle, my own, rented, or a taxi, when
buses, subways, trains, etc. are more accessible, cheaper, and
more-or-less regular.

You're a smart guy, and if the others are to be believed pretty well off and
get some perks from that status.

I do? When? I'll take all the perqs I can get, and if I've missed any,
I'd like to know so as to claim them.

Why you have to put down others for aspiring to a certain status or
lifestyle. It ain't your life and maybe it even results in revenue to
the family business.

"Aspiring to a certain status or lifestyle..."? WTF? If you think
having a BMW SUV provides any status, more's the pity. Why would you
think having this or that material possession would impress someone who
can go buy one (or ten) just like it if they desired, but has made their
choice to either do so or not to do so? Old money doesn't buy **** like
that because of its status, they buy **** like that because it's
convenient, they have no need to price shop, and/or because they only
need to do it once every ten-plus years. If a Chevy is more convenient,
that's what they buy. There is simply no way to impress someone who is
comfortable with their money with your money because they just aren't
concerned about either. Now, if we're talking about the nouveau riche,
that's a whole 'nuther thing, and if you aspire to that, well, that's
why there's chocolate and vanilla, I guess...

TC,
R

Fore!
 

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. 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.

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?

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..

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?

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 had posted previously why I bought it. It was more a safety thing at
the time during the relocation from Illinois to the Plains ,that I got
a one time opportunity to get one at the employee price and I had the
discretionary funds. Its cargo capacity is not as big as I would like
but it serves it purpose when travelling or engaged into. The all wheel
drive works well when I've needed it and it handles like a German car,
even one sold as an SAV and built in South Carolina, should. I've got
pictures of the one I bought the first time that re-inforced the safety
reasons. I've got 180K miles on this one and I hope to drive it until
the thing goes to the great auto junkyard.

Now, if we're talking about the nouveau riche,
that's a whole 'nuther thing, and if you aspire to that, well, that's
why there's chocolate and vanilla, I guess...

The old rich were once nouveau riche. 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.

So what is a Yuppie in your book, anyone over 30 with a job?

Fore!
 

TBone wrote:

I see the boys made "The Stretch" above "The
Unnamed Reservoir" all C&R this year. Old Rusty'd be a poacher in that
stretch now-a-days.

Nope. I checked the 2006 regs, which are unchanged for that particular
stretch of water.
There is a nearby section that has been c&r for years, but that's not where
we were.

--
Rusty Hook
Laramie, Wyoming