The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

"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

"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

"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

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

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

"Thomas Littleton" wrote in message
news:9OOpd.288$8v3.217@trndny08...

...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.

Well then, while you may not remember Cameron dam, it looks like you know
the story well enough.

Wolfgang
who knows how easy it is to elevate a ****head to folk hero status when he
(or she) is the lesser of two (or more) ****heads.

"Thomas Littleton" wrote in message
news:9OOpd.288$8v3.217@trndny08...

...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.

Well then, while you may not remember Cameron dam, it looks like you know
the story well enough.

Wolfgang
who knows how easy it is to elevate a ****head to folk hero status when he
(or she) is the lesser of two (or more) ****heads.

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

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.