The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

GregP wrote:

O"B J Conner" wrote:

It's just a preview of the future under the neo-con oligarchy. If anyone
voted for Bush and his gang of thieves you don't have a bitch coming. ...

It will come regardless of whether neo-fascists are running the
country. The one difference is that without their influence there
would be a chance that at least some waters would be limited
on an egalitarian basis, such as lottery.

The limiting of access to private land--by leasing to guides and
outfitters, as is happening throughout the West, or by long-term leasing
to exclusive "clubs", as in the NYT story--is probably bound to happen no
matter who's in office. The wholesale divestiture of public lands, on the
other hand, is an entirely right-wing agenda.

JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
GregP wrote:

O"B J Conner" wrote:

It's just a preview of the future under the neo-con oligarchy. If
anyone
voted for Bush and his gang of thieves you don't have a bitch coming.
...

It will come regardless of whether neo-fascists are running the
country. The one difference is that without their influence there
would be a chance that at least some waters would be limited
on an egalitarian basis, such as lottery.

The limiting of access to private land--by leasing to guides and
outfitters, as is happening throughout the West, or by long-term leasing
to exclusive "clubs", as in the NYT story--is probably bound to happen no
matter who's in office. The wholesale divestiture of public lands, on the
other hand, is an entirely right-wing agenda.

All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded. Here, virtually ALL water is publicly owned and the public's right
to use those waters is guaranteed so long as it can be gotten to and from
without trespassing. I am convinced that any fundamental change in these
policies would result would in a bloodbath that would make last week's
little embarrassment look like a typical ROFFian slapfest by comparison.

Wolfgang
remember cameron dam!

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law
is
founded. Here, virtually ALL water is publicly owned and the public's
right
to use those waters is guaranteed so long as it can be gotten to and from
without trespassing. I am convinced that any fundamental change in these
policies would result would in a bloodbath that would make last week's
little embarrassment look like a typical ROFFian slapfest by comparison.

Wolfgang
remember cameron dam!


Well, I for one can't remember Cameron Dam, but here is my two cents on
Lefty's little Club. They are widely regarded in PA as elitist jerks who
laid claim to waters on the Little Junianta which have been considered
public(and, I might add, were stocked at public expense). Briefly mentioned,
there is a lawsuit pending which will end the posting on the Little J(it HAS
to be ruled navigable in the stretch in question). The posted water on
Penn's is a fish farm near the cave, upstream from where we have the clave.
It is no more typical of the prime waters that make Penn's famous than your
average state hatchery. Some of the stats cited in that article are
ludicrous(for instance, implying that anything other than industry and
logging are responsible for the decline in Brook Trout). It comes down to a
sort of entitlement mentality among some well off types that they can be the
torch-bearers of trout fishing, not trusting the upkeep to the unwashed
masses. Such a position never works, and is complete BS. The private
fisheries of the UK are a prime example, loaded with largely hatchery-raised
trout. Spruce Creek has been similarly stocked for years, catering to
Presidents and industrialists. Nothing could be further from natural
sustenance. As someone noted in the thread, it is fools like these that help
elevate local poachers to revered status in the rural communities of central
PA.
Tom

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:40:38 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law is
founded.


Isn't there a challenge to that going on right now ?

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

All true, I think. But there is more to the picture. At least in some
places......like here in Wisconsin......the access limitations currently
being imposed in the west simply cannot happen without a major change not
only in current law, but also in the very philosophy upon which that law
is
founded. Here, virtually ALL water is publicly owned and the public's
right
to use those waters is guaranteed so long as it can be gotten to and from
without trespassing. I am convinced that any fundamental change in these
policies would result would in a bloodbath that would make last week's
little embarrassment look like a typical ROFFian slapfest by comparison.

Wolfgang
remember cameron dam!


Well, I for one can't remember Cameron Dam, but here is my two cents on
Lefty's little Club. They are widely regarded in PA as elitist jerks who
laid claim to waters on the Little Junianta which have been considered
public(and, I might add, were stocked at public expense). Briefly mentioned,
there is a lawsuit pending which will end the posting on the Little J(it HAS
to be ruled navigable in the stretch in question). The posted water on
Penn's is a fish farm near the cave, upstream from where we have the clave.
It is no more typical of the prime waters that make Penn's famous than your
average state hatchery. Some of the stats cited in that article are
ludicrous(for instance, implying that anything other than industry and
logging are responsible for the decline in Brook Trout). It comes down to a
sort of entitlement mentality among some well off types that they can be the
torch-bearers of trout fishing, not trusting the upkeep to the unwashed
masses. Such a position never works, and is complete BS. The private
fisheries of the UK are a prime example, loaded with largely hatchery-raised
trout. Spruce Creek has been similarly stocked for years, catering to
Presidents and industrialists. Nothing could be further from natural
sustenance. As someone noted in the thread, it is fools like these that help
elevate local poachers to revered status in the rural communities of central
PA.
Tom

JR wrote:


The limiting of access to private land--by leasing to guides and
outfitters, as is happening throughout the West, or by long-term leasing
to exclusive "clubs", as in the NYT story--is probably bound to happen no
matter who's in office.

That's become very common in CO. Not that I can blame the ranchers who
are able to get a bit more income out of their land, but even 10 years
ago, you could commonly get permission from ranchers to fish their land
just by asking. i used to have a number of stretches of privately owned
land that I could fish. Now I only have one. Most of the stretches I
used to fish are now rented out but a couple are ranches that have been
purchased by out of staters that no longer run cattle but don't want anyone
trespassing (which is their right).

Willi

JR wrote:


The limiting of access to private land--by leasing to guides and
outfitters, as is happening throughout the West, or by long-term leasing
to exclusive "clubs", as in the NYT story--is probably bound to happen no
matter who's in office.

That's become very common in CO. Not that I can blame the ranchers who
are able to get a bit more income out of their land, but even 10 years
ago, you could commonly get permission from ranchers to fish their land
just by asking. i used to have a number of stretches of privately owned
land that I could fish. Now I only have one. Most of the stretches I
used to fish are now rented out but a couple are ranches that have been
purchased by out of staters that no longer run cattle but don't want anyone
trespassing (which is their right).

Willi

Greg P opines:


It will come regardless of whether neo-fascists are running the
country. The one difference is that without their influence there
would be a chance that at least some waters would be limited
on an egalitarian basis, such as lottery.

A question: How the hell are youse guys gonna fish when the sky falls? Bunch
on wacko crybaby bedwetters.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Greg P opines:


It will come regardless of whether neo-fascists are running the
country. The one difference is that without their influence there
would be a chance that at least some waters would be limited
on an egalitarian basis, such as lottery.

A question: How the hell are youse guys gonna fish when the sky falls?
Bunch
on wacko crybaby bedwetters.

How you gonna live when the taxpayer tit runs dry?

Wolfgang