FishingBanter - View Single Post

**Ken Fortenberry[_2_]** · September 19th, 2008, 05:43 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Scott Seidman quoted:
...
Richard Steinberger of Oakdale criticized "this ill-advised and Draconian
management 'solution.' Anglers will cease to pay $20 for four hours of
unproductive fishing, revenues to the park will diminish to a trickle,
and somebody in Albany is going to suggest the unthinkable: Change the
law which established the park preserve in order to address the revenue
shortfall by enhancing 'mixed use' recreation: picnic tables, barbecue
pits, ballfields or even, God forbid, yet another golf course."
Sounds like Tim Walker. ;-)

Fore !
Assuming this is "public" land...

Yeah, who do those "public" *******s think they are, wanting to use
"their" land for what they want instead of fishing...
Damn straight, if it's "public land" the public oughta be able
to build whatever the hell they want on it. Golf courses, condos,
strip malls, massage parlors, hell, why not a nuclear waste dump ?

I wasn't suggesting commercial use, but yeah, if the public wants to
sell their land, or develop it and take the risks with the rewards, why
should they not have the same right as any, you know, normal ol'
landowner...?

That's silly. Followed to its logical conclusion there would be
no public land.

There's nothing wrong with designating public land fly fishing
only, or XC skiing only, or ATVs only, or god forbid, snowmobile
trails. There are many uses of public lands and not all of them
are compatible with each other. I don't want some motorhead maniac
driving his ATV through a stream I'm fishing and I'm sure the
motorhead maniacs don't want a bunch of mountain bikers clogging
up their trails.

--
Ken Fortenberry