Tndeer Logo

Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#839758 - 07/27/08 07:36 AM Okay. Let's Brainstorm
bowriter
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 42232
Loc: Lebanon,TN USA

Offline
How do you think floatcraft traffic should be regulated on the CF. And no nonsense about fishing regulations. This is a different topic. But here are some criteria we should keep in mind.

First of all, they have every bit as much right be there as fishermen do.

Secondly, this should be approached from a safety and environmental aspect, not a crowding of fishermen aspect. (see number one)
_________________________

Constipation has ruined many a good day. Not as many as stupidity, though.

Top
#839763 - 07/27/08 07:49 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: bowriter]
stillinscrubs
4 Point


Registered: 08/16/07
Posts: 351
Loc: nashville, tn

Offline
I'll get really specific with you.....

If it is a good regulation and you convince me of three things, (1) It is biologically and environmentally sound, (2) It benefits the entire sporting segment and (3) It is financially feasible, then I'm all for it.

Any person or service that uses the landings/boat ramps should pay in some way to maintain and upkeep these public access points. Anglers pay with licences, registered boat owners pay with registration fees....who isn't paying?

Scrubs

Top
#839765 - 07/27/08 07:52 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: stillinscrubs]
bowriter
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 42232
Loc: Lebanon,TN USA

Offline
OMG!!!! We agree on something. That does it. I'm going to church. See y'all after while.
_________________________

Constipation has ruined many a good day. Not as many as stupidity, though.

Top
#839794 - 07/27/08 08:17 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: bowriter]
Southpaw
12 Point


Registered: 09/03/00
Posts: 5913
Loc: Drummonds, Tn

Offline
\:D
_________________________
My parents spanked me as a child... I now suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others"

Top
#841802 - 07/28/08 01:41 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: Southpaw]
B.D.
8 Point


Registered: 03/24/08
Posts: 1484
Loc: Hendersonville TN

Offline
1. Register canoes just like motorized craft. This solves the issue of paddlers impacting the resource but not paying a share to maintain it.

2. Anyone who wants to run a commercial canoe/kayak/tube rental operation has to have a permit to do so. The permit entitles the operation to run "x" number of trips on the river per day. There should be a cap on the number of permits available, so that the total number of trips by all commercial operations falls below whatever the maximum sustainable number per day is determined to be. Include fishing guides in this if you want.

3. Commercial operations should have identification clearly displayed somewhere on their watercraft - name and permit number. Warn commercial operators that if there are an excessive and disproportionate number of complaints against any individual operation, it could affect their permit. That way, commercial ops have an incentive to give their customers some rules about being courteous to others on the river, picking up their trash, etc.

bd

Top
#842056 - 07/28/08 03:36 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: ]
bowriter
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 42232
Loc: Lebanon,TN USA

Offline
Well, I agree with Brian 100%. I Think Capt. Hook's discrimination against bait slingers, as he calls them is pure Horse Hockey. Reasoning: Those guys fees paid for the trout in the first place just as yours did. It is exactly that mindset that gives the flyrod and C&R fishermen a bad name.

But Brian is right on. To my way of thinking, the Commish should give that some serious consideration.
_________________________

Constipation has ruined many a good day. Not as many as stupidity, though.

Top
#842174 - 07/28/08 04:18 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: bowriter]
rsimms
10 Point


Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 2735
Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Offline
OK, at risk of destroying my "nice guy" reputation, I'm going to put on my "bad guy hat" (a.k.a. bowriter hat) and explain why I don't believe any effort at so-called regulation can, or should, work.

Public waterway means just that... just because they're making money off the Caney, and interfering with our fishing, why should they be charged extra to enjoy it?

They shouldn't.

They are not harming the resource anymore, and perhaps less, than fishermen.

The license argument doesn't hold water. Maybe if they are all strictly TWRA-owned access ramps... but our fishing license dollars don't support Corps, TVA or other ramps or access points. And even if they are TWRA-owned ramp(s), no way can TWRA legally "discriminate" about who can, or can't, use their ramps.

I can't argue the "canoe registration." I've never understood why you have to register a vessel that is under sail power, but not paddle power. BUT, that isn't strictly a Caney Fork issue. That's a statewide issue.

Fishing guides have been mentioned.... I think it would be grossly unfair to regulate canoe liveries anywhere and not guides (or other commercial operators). On the Caney specifically, fishing guides are making money and probably more directly impacting the fishery far more than the canoers. (Note I said "fishery," not "fishermen.") But if you do that on the Caney, why not Hiwassee, or the Clinch, or the Buffalo or the Obey?

What precedent would a canoe livery tax set across the state to other Canoe or Raft rental places on Buffalo, Sequatchie, Hiwassee, Clinch? Or even a boat dock on Kentucky Lake that rents fishing boats, or even worse, jet skiis? How could anyone legally justify an extra tax/charge for canoe liveries on the Caney without impacting dozens and dozens of other similar operations all across the state?

Can't be done.

I can certainly understand and sympathize with the pain and aggravation of watching your favorite fishing haunt overrun with "multi-use" users. But the fact is, there is no way to focus any such regulatory effort strictly on the Caney Fork without have far-reaching impact all across the state.

If that's the goal... okay, it's worthy of discussion. I don't think we need, or should, do that.

But to try and come up with a reason why the Caney Fork should be treated differently than all the other Tennessee waterways is an exercise in futility.

Although chances are there are armies of lawyers with pocketfuls of billable hours out there that would love for someone to try.



OK, here's the target. Fire away.
_________________________
Read my book, "An Outdoor State of Mind"
http://stores.lulu.com/rsimms
"The outdoors is not just a place, it's a state of mind."
http://www.ScenicCityFishing.com

Top
#842181 - 07/28/08 04:23 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: rsimms]
bowriter
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/31/02
Posts: 42232
Loc: Lebanon,TN USA

Offline
I hate it when people make sense. Richard, there are some arguable points but the argument is pretty weak. Mostly it would be applied to numerical impact. Whateverinell that is.

Good post.
_________________________

Constipation has ruined many a good day. Not as many as stupidity, though.

Top
#842276 - 07/28/08 05:47 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: rsimms]
B.D.
8 Point


Registered: 03/24/08
Posts: 1484
Loc: Hendersonville TN

Offline
Richard, I think the distinction on the Caney is simple. The Caney is facing a crowding issue that isn't present (yet?) on the other rivers you discuss. The whole purpose of the permitting is to get a grip on the exploding usage issues so that one group (commercial paddlers) doesn't overwhelm the other groups who want to use the resource.

If crowding becomes an issue on those other rivers in the same way, then yeah, maybe a similar approach should be used. If crowding's not an issue, there's no need to apply it where it's not needed simply because the Caney sets some sort of "precedent."

It's okay, legally and ethically, to "discriminate" between two rivers if the circumstances on the two are different.

We're not breaking entirely new ground here anyway. Overcrowding became an issue on the Ocoee due to the proliferation of commercial rafting businesses, and a similar permitting requirement was started. It has worked well and has prevented the Ocoee from becoming a circus. It's time to start thinking about doing something similar on the Caney, for similar reasons.

bd

Top
#842277 - 07/28/08 05:47 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: bowriter]
LA man
18 Point


Registered: 05/31/03
Posts: 20811
Loc: spencer, tn/houma, la.

Offline
good points on both sides, but i agree more with rsimms. sorry guys
_________________________
GO LSU

Top
#842584 - 07/28/08 08:37 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: ]
Crosshairy
10 Point


Registered: 08/22/06
Posts: 2698
Loc: Bartlett, TN

Offline
the canoe registration requirement isn't a bad idea from the general state-wide perspective, because it can generate revenue.

I don't think that revenue would go towards the TWRA, though (At least not directly?) so I guess it's not that critical.

Not to push the Caney issues aside, because I hear your arguments, but I would be more in favor of legislation that generates revenue from the TWRA that does not additionally tax the sportsmen that are already providing the lion's share of funding.

Whether that be canoers, birdwatchers, horseback riders, or whatever - they need a monetary "shot in the arm".

Sorry to half-heartedly hijack your thread...
_________________________
I'm hungry and tired. Don't poke my belly.

Top
#842793 - 07/29/08 12:06 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: Crosshairy]
Fordman
12 Point


Registered: 08/06/00
Posts: 5871
Loc: Rockvale,tn

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Crosshairy
the canoe registration requirement isn't a bad idea from the general state-wide perspective, because it can generate revenue.

I don't think that revenue would go towards the TWRA, though (At least not directly?) so I guess it's not that critical.

Not to push the Caney issues aside, because I hear your arguments, but I would be more in favor of legislation that generates revenue from the TWRA that does not additionally tax the sportsmen that are already providing the lion's share of funding.

Whether that be canoers, birdwatchers, horseback riders, or whatever - they need a monetary "shot in the arm".

Sorry to half-heartedly hijack your thread...


Good Pont but I would like to add that currently sportsman foot the bill and we do have a majority of the say in how things are handled by the TWRA. Once you make everyone pay to use a resource you also are obligated to give them equal say in how something is managed. The river is PUBLIC and the public, even though at times is a pain, has as much right to be there as fisherman. Now the public, non angling, would be hard presed to limit fishing on the river because the revenue generated by fisherman is currently substantial. Make the public pay to use the river and the fisherman are now the minority and the smallest revenue maker. Who do you think will sway the comission more the anglers or the non angling public. Never forget that sportsman are the MINORITY in America. Its the non anglers and hunters that will dictate what,where, and how we enjoy the outdoors.
Personally I am all for a river use fee for all outfitters and guides provided its across the table statewide. I think thats a fair requirement. Its America and I am all for someone making a dollar. Does the river seem crowded? Yes compared to last year but even on its worst day its still better than some of your bigger name rivers.

Top
#842797 - 07/29/08 12:51 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: B.D.]
madMax
4 Point


Registered: 04/09/08
Posts: 130
Loc: Middle TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Brian Dunigan
1. Register canoes just like motorized craft. This solves the issue of paddlers impacting the resource but not paying a share to maintain it.

2. Anyone who wants to run a commercial canoe/kayak/tube rental operation has to have a permit to do so. The permit entitles the operation to run "x" number of trips on the river per day. There should be a cap on the number of permits available, so that the total number of trips by all commercial operations falls below whatever the maximum sustainable number per day is determined to be. Include fishing guides in this if you want.

3. Commercial operations should have identification clearly displayed somewhere on their watercraft - name and permit number. Warn commercial operators that if there are an excessive and disproportionate number of complaints against any individual operation, it could affect their permit. That way, commercial ops have an incentive to give their customers some rules about being courteous to others on the river, picking up their trash, etc.

bd


I also think these are very good ideas and would make a great start for discussion if they were ever seeking input. The Caney is becoming a unique situation, and I think it would be hard to treat all TN rivers/tailwaters the same.

I also agree with Troy in that the more people they make pay (and give a say) the more people they have to please. You make the rec. canoers and kayakers register to use the resource they are going to have some ideas on how to manage the resource too. However, commercial traffic is almost guaranteed to increase every year from here out so there is def. gonna be a dilemma on the table.

..Bait slinging guides eh? gotta love it

Top
#842804 - 07/29/08 03:52 AM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: B.D.]
rsimms
10 Point


Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 2735
Loc: Chattanooga, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Brian Dunigan
Richard, I think the distinction on the Caney is simple. The Caney is facing a crowding issue that isn't present (yet?) on the other rivers you discuss. The whole purpose of the permitting is to get a grip on the exploding usage issues so that one group (commercial paddlers) doesn't overwhelm the other groups who want to use the resource.

If crowding becomes an issue on those other rivers in the same way, then yeah, maybe a similar approach should be used. If crowding's not an issue, there's no need to apply it where it's not needed simply because the Caney sets some sort of "precedent."

It's okay, legally and ethically, to "discriminate" between two rivers if the circumstances on the two are different.

We're not breaking entirely new ground here anyway. Overcrowding became an issue on the Ocoee due to the proliferation of commercial rafting businesses, and a similar permitting requirement was started. It has worked well and has prevented the Ocoee from becoming a circus. It's time to start thinking about doing something similar on the Caney, for similar reasons.

bd


But what is the legal definition of "crowded." What is "crowded" to you might just be a "fun group" to someone else.

And how do you prove in court that the crowd is impacting the resource. I'm not saying it can't be done... just saying it can't be done subjectively on a whim.

I can't say this with authority, but I believe Ocoee provided regulatory opportunities 1) because it lies within the boundaries of a National Forest, and 2) the outfitters voluntarily set up a cooperative agreement to give themselves bargaining power with TVA to pay for, and insure, they were provided the water to ply their trade.

Caney doesn't meet #1 criteria, and key word in #2 is "voluntarily." Nobody forced them to cooperate.

There has been at least a couple of mentions of Wildlife Commission. I am certain that the TWRC has absolutely no authority to regulate public river access or requirements, outside of the the canoe registration question. And I believe that would take action by the full legislature, not just wildlife commission.
_________________________
Read my book, "An Outdoor State of Mind"
http://stores.lulu.com/rsimms
"The outdoors is not just a place, it's a state of mind."
http://www.ScenicCityFishing.com

Top
#844239 - 07/29/08 08:41 PM Re: Okay. Let's Brainstorm [Re: ]
Crosshairy
10 Point


Registered: 08/22/06
Posts: 2698
Loc: Bartlett, TN

Offline
Bumping license fees follows the law of diminishing returns, as far as I'm concerned.

In the past, I'd go ahead and by the sportsman's license to avoid the hassle of buying individual license down the road, and because I was likely to take advantage of enough opportunities to make it a cost-effective choice.

I am less and less likely to do this the more that license fees increase, because my hunting and fishing opportunities have already decreased with the higher gas prices. At some point, I'm just going to buy the single licenses that I absolutely need, which means I'll probably spend less than half the cost of the Sportsman's License.

In that scenario, the TWRA probably lost about $50. Multiply that by 50-100,000 sportsmen in the same boat, and it starts to add up fast.

It usually seems that the best solution is to diversify the sources of funding.
_________________________
I'm hungry and tired. Don't poke my belly.

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  RUGER, Unicam, CBU93, stretch, Bobby G, Cuttin Caller, Kimber45, Mrs.Unicam, Crappie Luck 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4106436
RUGER
88231
Deer Assassin
65979
BSK
61892
Crappie Luck
51392
spitndrum
Newest Members
cw308, TNDeerHunter270, rmyers@atpro1, ojf, Muwasi
13551 Registered Users
Who's Online
126 registered (Arrowslanger, RUGER77MAN, JAY B, guthooked, Slacker, drock1, 11 invisible) and 197 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13551 Members
42 Forums
99362 Topics
1168873 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
November
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.042 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.