The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

Dave LaCourse wrote:
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.


You can call me a wacko crybaby bedwetter (but I know one of those
hasn't has been true for about fifty years).....

Bush does support privatization of public lands and managing them in
terms of their "highest and best use", as do a growing number of
Republican Congressmen (and probably some Democrats although I'm not
aware of
any). This is an issue that's VERY important to me and it's something
that I try and follow. This has been a growing political position over
the last ten years or so. However, the data shows that a large majority
of Americans oppose it, so it's not a position that is being campaigned
on. This means that you have to do some searching in order to find out
which of our representatives are in favor of this method of "managing"
our public lands.

I DON'T want our public lands run on the basis of "best and highest use"
(which means - how they can be used to generate the most possible income).
I DON'T want our public lands sold off to the highest bidder. I DON'T want
our National Parks run by corporations whose goal is solely to make as much
money as possible out of them. etc etc etc

Willi

Willi writes:

I DON'T want our public lands run on the basis of "best and highest use"
(which means - how they can be used to generate the most possible income).
I DON'T want our public lands sold off to the highest bidder. I DON'T want
our National Parks run by corporations whose goal is solely to make as much
money as possible out of them. etc etc etc

Willi

I doubt you will see any of the above in your lifetime. There have been "pay
and fish" places for as long as I can remember. My parents joined one in the
50s. I joined one in the 90s (and resigned after catching 100 pounds of brook
trout in two hours). There are two places in Georgia that I know of, and one
of them is state stocked.

We should be more concerned with the crowding than anything else. I intend to
have good fishing until I die, and if I have to go out of my way for it, so be
it. I do so now because of the crowding. Every river I've fished in the west,
south, New England, and to some extent, Alaska, has been crowded. Certain
streams in Alaska are worse than anywhere else.

Our population is growing in leaps and bounds, and more and more people have
more and more disposable income. Go to any airport in Montana, Idaho, Alaska,
wherever, and you will see all kinds of folks carrying fly rods. The camp that
I went to in Labrador from 97 - 00 is closing because the river is now crowded
with locals who come in with water jet craft, and they don't fly fish either.

The same thing is slowly happening in Alaska. We parked our Beaver in a sink
hole pond, only to return 4 hours later and see 4 more Beavers parked next to
us. Some lodges have switched to Otters so that they can saturate a river with
their own guests.

I'm not worried about any politician taking away my fly fishing. I *am*
worried about more and more people joining in the fun. A side note: The
commute that I used to drive 14 years ago before I retired required 20 - 25
minutes. That same commute now takes almost an hour because of so many cars on
the road. Too many people; not enough resources.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...I intend to have good fishing until I die...

And that's what it's all about!

Wolfgang
you put your left foot in...

"Dave LaCourse" wrote


I doubt you will see any of the above in your lifetime.


I doubt it too ....
BUT,
it seems to me that one of the very biggest differences between the "sides"
on this issue is that some of us DO care what happens after we are gone, do
care what our great great grandkids and their great great grandkids have in
the way of public lands and the chance to experience and appreciate Nature.
We do care about whether THEY will have clean water and air and we are
WILLING to give up some toys, income, and excesses for them. And we are
WILLING to pay a little more in taxes, in our own lives, to help pass on a
better world.

To some of us this is just as important and as "deep" or religious an issue
as any the "morality" causes we see the Religious Right championing, as they
vote ( probably unknowingly, in most csses) to limit the quality of what
their offspring's offspring will inherit .... as Americans

Larry L. opines:

it seems to me that one of the very biggest differences between the "sides"
on this issue is that some of us DO care what happens after we are gone, do
care what our great great grandkids and their great great grandkids have in
the way of public lands and the chance to experience and appreciate Nature.
We do care about whether THEY will have clean water and air and we are
WILLING to give up some toys, income, and excesses for them. And we are
WILLING to pay a little more in taxes, in our own lives, to help pass on a
better world.

To some of us this is just as important and as "deep" or religious an issue
as any the "morality" causes we see the Religious Right championing, as they
vote ( probably unknowingly, in most csses) to limit the quality of what
their offspring's offspring will inherit .... as Americans

You are assuming that I do not care. I do. But, I think it is less of a
problem than over-population. I've seen a pristine river where only a few
hundred people have ever fished it decay into something that is near to being
totally spoiled. And it wasn't government that did it, but rather population -
more people with more money. More people who do not care. More people who
take and never give.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
You are assuming that I do not care.

That's a lot like assuming the sun will rise in the east. Foolish, to be
sure, but thoroughly human.

I do.

That's a lie.

But, I think it is less of a
problem than over-population. I've seen a pristine river where only a few
hundred people have ever fished it decay into something that is near to
being
totally spoiled. And it wasn't government that did it, but rather
population -
more people with more money. More people who do not care. More people
who
take and never give.

Solve the problem. Die.

Wolfgang
who never DREAMED how much fun it could be to be invisible.

Larry L. opines:

it seems to me that one of the very biggest differences between the "sides"
on this issue is that some of us DO care what happens after we are gone, do
care what our great great grandkids and their great great grandkids have in
the way of public lands and the chance to experience and appreciate Nature.
We do care about whether THEY will have clean water and air and we are
WILLING to give up some toys, income, and excesses for them. And we are
WILLING to pay a little more in taxes, in our own lives, to help pass on a
better world.

To some of us this is just as important and as "deep" or religious an issue
as any the "morality" causes we see the Religious Right championing, as they
vote ( probably unknowingly, in most csses) to limit the quality of what
their offspring's offspring will inherit .... as Americans

You are assuming that I do not care. I do. But, I think it is less of a
problem than over-population. I've seen a pristine river where only a few
hundred people have ever fished it decay into something that is near to being
totally spoiled. And it wasn't government that did it, but rather population -
more people with more money. More people who do not care. More people who
take and never give.

Dave LaCourse wrote:

We should be more concerned with the crowding than anything else. I intend to
have good fishing until I die, and if I have to go out of my way for it, so be
it. I do so now because of the crowding. Every river I've fished in the west,
south, New England, and to some extent, Alaska, has been crowded. Certain
streams in Alaska are worse than anywhere else.

I frequently fish excellent public water where I seldom see another
fisherman. It's just a matter of making the effort to get there.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw writes:

I frequently fish excellent public water where I seldom see another
fisherman. It's just a matter of making the effort to get there.

Good for you. I have fished out west and have never seen it not crowded. The
Rapid River has more and more fishermen every year, and the camps I am familiar
with in Labrador are quickly becoming overfished. There are too many people
fly fishing, and I see no solution for it except to go deeper and deeper into
the woods.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
...I have fished out west and have never seen it not crowded. The
Rapid River has more and more fishermen every year, and the camps I am
familiar
with in Labrador are quickly becoming overfished. There are too many
people
fly fishing, and I see no solution for it except to go deeper and deeper
into
the woods.

Well, you COULD go deeper and deeper into the ground.

Wolfgang