I like this but from my oberservations there are more regular fisher people than trophy fishers.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090 ... etter-news
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090 ... etter-news
Caney Fork Proposal
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
stillinscrubs
Well-Known Member
You have been hoodwinked by the Tennessean. Do not believe all that you read.
First, the Cumberland has had similar regulations in place for years.
Quote from the website below:
There is still a 15- to 20-inch protective slot limit on rainbow trout in the first 35 miles of the Cumberland River from Wolf Creek Dam to Burkesville. Five rainbow trout may be kept daily and only one of those trout may be 20 inches or longer. Trophy regulations are still in effect on brown trout on this section of the river. Anglers may keep one 20-inch or longer brown trout daily.
http://fw.ky.gov/newsrelease.asp?nid=172
The KDFWR is just a lot more streamlined and can adapt more quickly to changing conditions, so for the short term they can adopt the new regulations increasing the creel limit from 5 to 10 on rainbow trout below the creel limit. This has been done before and reversed as soon as the water conditions improve.
The Cumberland is longer and has tons less pressure. So go there to catch trophy trout.
Also the dedicated journalists at the Tennessean (I say this with much sarcasm) fail to mention that the Clinch and South Holston have some serious regulations in place also. The Clinch got them last year.
A better title for the article may have been "State Finally concerned about quality of Caney Fork fishery."
I think Mike Organ got some goading from some old decrepit outdoor writer to pen that junk. As an example from the article on why it is junk.....
The TWRC is considering drastic increases in terms of fish size while reducing the number of brown, brook and rainbow trout caught in the river that stretches 27 miles from beneath the dam at Center Hill Lake to the Cumberland River in Carthage.
Hey how is the state going to reduce the number of fish caught?
And going from nothing to something is not what one might call drastic. Melodrama should be left in the soap operas for the people that enjoy that type of entertainment.
First, the Cumberland has had similar regulations in place for years.
Quote from the website below:
There is still a 15- to 20-inch protective slot limit on rainbow trout in the first 35 miles of the Cumberland River from Wolf Creek Dam to Burkesville. Five rainbow trout may be kept daily and only one of those trout may be 20 inches or longer. Trophy regulations are still in effect on brown trout on this section of the river. Anglers may keep one 20-inch or longer brown trout daily.
http://fw.ky.gov/newsrelease.asp?nid=172
The KDFWR is just a lot more streamlined and can adapt more quickly to changing conditions, so for the short term they can adopt the new regulations increasing the creel limit from 5 to 10 on rainbow trout below the creel limit. This has been done before and reversed as soon as the water conditions improve.
The Cumberland is longer and has tons less pressure. So go there to catch trophy trout.
Also the dedicated journalists at the Tennessean (I say this with much sarcasm) fail to mention that the Clinch and South Holston have some serious regulations in place also. The Clinch got them last year.
A better title for the article may have been "State Finally concerned about quality of Caney Fork fishery."
I think Mike Organ got some goading from some old decrepit outdoor writer to pen that junk. As an example from the article on why it is junk.....
The TWRC is considering drastic increases in terms of fish size while reducing the number of brown, brook and rainbow trout caught in the river that stretches 27 miles from beneath the dam at Center Hill Lake to the Cumberland River in Carthage.
Hey how is the state going to reduce the number of fish caught?
And going from nothing to something is not what one might call drastic. Melodrama should be left in the soap operas for the people that enjoy that type of entertainment.
Fordman
Well-Known Member
Slot limits have nothing to do with trophy versus meat fisherman. They are about this state FINALLY managing a resourse. You cant take,take,take and expect a river to continue to survive. PLR's will still allow a meat fisherman to take a limit home anytime they choose yet still keep the quality and healthy fish in the river.
Fordman
Well-Known Member
Letter to the Tennessean....
After reading the article on the Caney Fork I feel compelled to respond to this column. It appears to me that the author knows very little about fishing and knows a lot about writing melodramatic pieces. He has pounced on an opportunity to stir the proverbial pot about these new regulations without conducting his due diligence, in regards to researching the subject matter material.
First and foremost the regulations are not to produce a �trophy trout river�. Will the end result be a high quality fishery? Well of course any positive regulation will result in a better caliber of fish caught. These regulations will CONSERVE the RESOURCE. The emphasis here is to conserve a resource not exploit one. The use of PLR slots is a means to keep quality fish in a system without stopping a fisherman who chooses to keep fish from doing so. These proposed regulations will not mean a trophy trout should be setting behind every rock. They mean that the healthiest of the fish will be allowed to live an additional season or two. That�s a win for everyone from a live bait fisherman to convemtional tackle anglers and fly fisherman alike. The article implies that these regulations are drastic and new. If the author had done his research and looked ther fisherman alike. Are several of our river systems with very similar regulations in place. The Clinch River and the South Holsten come to mind at the moment. Further research, yes I know it�s a pain but as a journalist it�s the authors job to check his facts, would have shown that the Caney Fork is already producing some very large fish. That�s the reason the pressure on this river had very easily doubled over the past year. Research would have told him that in years prior the river had limited access so angling pressure was confined to the handful of public access points. Today there are two major canoe/kayak rental services on the river that have made access wide open for anyone who wants to fish. The large increases in pressure and access have increased the amount of fish being taken out of the river to a point that we need more regulation, and enforcement of said regulations, in order for this river to maintain its high quality fishing.
The last and probably most important fact that got left out of this article was the economy. The Caney has received not only more angling pressure but more leisure traffic as well. People are not traveling as much and have chosen to explore the natural resources close to home.
It appears you made a couple phone calls and have suddenly become an expert on a fishery that some of us have been fishing for very literally decades. These proposed regulations are an important step in conserving a resource for everyone to enjoy. The byproduct of positive regulation will always be a better fishery. Calling these �trophy regulations� the author has failed to cover the logic behind fishery management and basically missed the point. Unfortunately since it was printed in a newspaper, people will take it a face value.
I would suggest you take a trip to the river and look at the fantastic resource we have here in middle Tennessee. Maybe then you will understand the difference between trophy regulations and solid fishery management. Those of us anglers who enjoy the fishing in the great state will be applauding the TWRA for getting involved now and not waiting until the river declined to the point it was once again a �ditch�.
Since the Tennessean is a �big dog� in the print journalism business I am a little surprised that they don�t realize the difference between a �sports writer� and an �outdoor writer�. I can write about football but since I don�t have a passion for it my writing would be hollow and lack substance.
After reading the article on the Caney Fork I feel compelled to respond to this column. It appears to me that the author knows very little about fishing and knows a lot about writing melodramatic pieces. He has pounced on an opportunity to stir the proverbial pot about these new regulations without conducting his due diligence, in regards to researching the subject matter material.
First and foremost the regulations are not to produce a �trophy trout river�. Will the end result be a high quality fishery? Well of course any positive regulation will result in a better caliber of fish caught. These regulations will CONSERVE the RESOURCE. The emphasis here is to conserve a resource not exploit one. The use of PLR slots is a means to keep quality fish in a system without stopping a fisherman who chooses to keep fish from doing so. These proposed regulations will not mean a trophy trout should be setting behind every rock. They mean that the healthiest of the fish will be allowed to live an additional season or two. That�s a win for everyone from a live bait fisherman to convemtional tackle anglers and fly fisherman alike. The article implies that these regulations are drastic and new. If the author had done his research and looked ther fisherman alike. Are several of our river systems with very similar regulations in place. The Clinch River and the South Holsten come to mind at the moment. Further research, yes I know it�s a pain but as a journalist it�s the authors job to check his facts, would have shown that the Caney Fork is already producing some very large fish. That�s the reason the pressure on this river had very easily doubled over the past year. Research would have told him that in years prior the river had limited access so angling pressure was confined to the handful of public access points. Today there are two major canoe/kayak rental services on the river that have made access wide open for anyone who wants to fish. The large increases in pressure and access have increased the amount of fish being taken out of the river to a point that we need more regulation, and enforcement of said regulations, in order for this river to maintain its high quality fishing.
The last and probably most important fact that got left out of this article was the economy. The Caney has received not only more angling pressure but more leisure traffic as well. People are not traveling as much and have chosen to explore the natural resources close to home.
It appears you made a couple phone calls and have suddenly become an expert on a fishery that some of us have been fishing for very literally decades. These proposed regulations are an important step in conserving a resource for everyone to enjoy. The byproduct of positive regulation will always be a better fishery. Calling these �trophy regulations� the author has failed to cover the logic behind fishery management and basically missed the point. Unfortunately since it was printed in a newspaper, people will take it a face value.
I would suggest you take a trip to the river and look at the fantastic resource we have here in middle Tennessee. Maybe then you will understand the difference between trophy regulations and solid fishery management. Those of us anglers who enjoy the fishing in the great state will be applauding the TWRA for getting involved now and not waiting until the river declined to the point it was once again a �ditch�.
Since the Tennessean is a �big dog� in the print journalism business I am a little surprised that they don�t realize the difference between a �sports writer� and an �outdoor writer�. I can write about football but since I don�t have a passion for it my writing would be hollow and lack substance.
B.D.
Well-Known Member
I agree with your sentiments, Troy, but I think your letter is longer than the article. 
bd
bd
With all due respect to my esteemed colleague at that larger paper, he is the same one who ran the picture of Skipjack and claimed it was a smallmouth.
My opinion, not that you asked for it, leave the Caney the he11 alone. It is doing just fine.
My opinion, not that you asked for it, leave the Caney the he11 alone. It is doing just fine.
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
Fordman
Well-Known Member
You have got to be kidding me...skipjack for a smallmouth... and your opinion is a welcome as anyone's. Its a public resource and everyone who follows the existing laws, has a fishing license and trout stamp should have their say. The problem here was a sports writer trying to be an outdoor writer.... so some they will say a writer is a writer but there is a difference and you and I both know it.bowriter said:
Fordman
Well-Known Member
Which only proves one thing, it took maybe 15 minutes to pen that letter. If its longer than the article just how much time did the author spend learning about is subject matter?Brian Dunigan said:I agree with your sentiments, Troy, but I think your letter is longer than the article.
bd
Oh I can answer that-none. It is a canned release. Yes, Troy, a skipjack, TN tarpon. Claimed to be a smallmouth caught on Old Chockory. Almost as bad as the 70-80 pound bobcat seen on the Caney two weeks ago (picture and story ran in my paper). I took that one to task. It was followed by two 8-pound brown trout form the Caney, The big one might weighted 3.5. I just let that go.
Verifies what I have always said. Believe nothing you read and dam little of what you see.
Verifies what I have always said. Believe nothing you read and dam little of what you see.
Fordman
Well-Known Member
Yes after the fact I found out it may not have been a canned release but it was meant to get the word out that there was change in the air.
Fordman,
Hats off bro. For once we're on the same page. And yeah...I couldn't believe that skipjack picture a while back. WTF man...although I may be wanting that guys number. My contact just got jailed and it seems like this guy has some good ju-ju in his system when he pens this malarky.
Hats off bro. For once we're on the same page. And yeah...I couldn't believe that skipjack picture a while back. WTF man...although I may be wanting that guys number. My contact just got jailed and it seems like this guy has some good ju-ju in his system when he pens this malarky.
By the way, I am all for these regs. I just don't want people to get the wrong impression though...for they will be disappointed. No matter how many big fish you have in a system...they will still behave like big fish. Period.
B.D.
Well-Known Member
To an extent yes, and to an extent, no. The 30 inch trout will always be an elusive fish. Any given river has limited capacity on how many of those it will sustain, anyway.
On the other hand, if the 24" limit and 14" to 20" slot work as intended, they will greatly increase the abundance of those intermediate fish around 20". The 20" fish behaves very different from a 10" fish, but it is still not an impossible fish for a basic angler to fool. Tough, but not impossible. Increase the abundance, and the law of averages says you'll get more hookups even among the non-specialist crowd. Even a corn dunker or a beginning fly fisher hits those fish every once in a while. I think we'll see good results there.
This is especially true with the rainbows, since a 20" rainbow still focuses most of its feeding time on bugs and stuff, and they aren't the same type of predator that the big browns are.
The experience on the Cumberland is a good point of reference for this. When the 15"-20" slot went in up there, people started catching a lot of slot rainbows, with a legit 17" fish being a lot more common than before. The big browns are tougher, but you still had even average fishermen picking up 18" to 20" browns more than before. Fishing for the 10+ lb. fish didn't really get any easier though.
bd
On the other hand, if the 24" limit and 14" to 20" slot work as intended, they will greatly increase the abundance of those intermediate fish around 20". The 20" fish behaves very different from a 10" fish, but it is still not an impossible fish for a basic angler to fool. Tough, but not impossible. Increase the abundance, and the law of averages says you'll get more hookups even among the non-specialist crowd. Even a corn dunker or a beginning fly fisher hits those fish every once in a while. I think we'll see good results there.
This is especially true with the rainbows, since a 20" rainbow still focuses most of its feeding time on bugs and stuff, and they aren't the same type of predator that the big browns are.
The experience on the Cumberland is a good point of reference for this. When the 15"-20" slot went in up there, people started catching a lot of slot rainbows, with a legit 17" fish being a lot more common than before. The big browns are tougher, but you still had even average fishermen picking up 18" to 20" browns more than before. Fishing for the 10+ lb. fish didn't really get any easier though.
bd
Compare trophy trout fishing to QDM. Once you get these fish to a certain size, they are as hard to catch as it is to kill a 160" whitetail.
Priest is a perfect example of fishery management at its' worst. Old Hickory is fast becoming the leader in poor management. Maybe the fish folks should take a page from the deer folks management plan.
We have a deer biologist who actually knows what he is doing. Now if we could just get one in fishery management. Now someone tell me, what the he11 is wrong with Caney? What needs fixing? It is providing some outstanding trout fishing for a multitude of anglers. It is a put an take ditch. That is what it is "planned" to do. I don't keep trout, makes no difference to me. But why not manage a resource in the way in which it was originally planned. If it aint broke, why try and fix it?
What needs fixing?
Priest is a perfect example of fishery management at its' worst. Old Hickory is fast becoming the leader in poor management. Maybe the fish folks should take a page from the deer folks management plan.
We have a deer biologist who actually knows what he is doing. Now if we could just get one in fishery management. Now someone tell me, what the he11 is wrong with Caney? What needs fixing? It is providing some outstanding trout fishing for a multitude of anglers. It is a put an take ditch. That is what it is "planned" to do. I don't keep trout, makes no difference to me. But why not manage a resource in the way in which it was originally planned. If it aint broke, why try and fix it?
What needs fixing?
Whew!!! I feel better.
Bowriter, I see this as a move to accomodate anyone. It still is a ditch for the people wanting to fill stringers with stockers, and accomodates the bigger fish. I'm more excited frankly about the rainbow reg than the brown.
Bd, I think you're right to a degree. But still, most of these fish don't get active and feed unless its at night in the runs, or under generation. I've waded enough to know, only near perfect weather conditions bring big browns shallow into the runs in daylight. You can get some over 20", but its rare. It's fun...but those who just wade on falling water right below the dam are not going ot see those fish no matter how many are in there. Just facts. Generation and nightfall are huge keys for the biggest browns, which I'm still learning albeit...
B.D.
Well-Known Member
Like I said, "biggest" browns yeah, but not necessarily the 20 inchers. I have caught fish that size nymphing in shallow runs in daylight. It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough that an average angler has a shot at one if he puts enough time in. Increasing the numbers of those fish increases the number of potential shots.
bd
bd
B.D.
Well-Known Member
bowriter said:
How much is 160" - about 13 feet? I agree that a 13-foot whitetail would be one hard-to-kill critter.
Who says the management plan can't change?
bd
drrxnupe
Well-Known Member
basset said:
Basset...you hit the nail dead center on the head.
So. What you are proposing is that that river, that public waterway, be reserved only for fishing? No canoe rental. Then how in he11 do you figure you have a right to fish it? Why do you have more right to that waterway than a guy in a canoe? If you stop canoe rentals, then I think they should stop stocking.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like all canoes, either. But I sure recognize their right to be there.
What is it you guys find wrong with the Caney?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like all canoes, either. But I sure recognize their right to be there.
What is it you guys find wrong with the Caney?
drrxnupe
Well-Known Member
bowriter said:
Whow...tone down...easy dude...was just blabbin off. I haven't proposed a single darn thing with regards to the canoe folks. My statement implied that I agreed with Bassett in that the gazillion canoe renters that choke the waterway (especially the ones with no manners) are annoying as all get out. But just as you and I...regardless of my opinion, they do have the right to be there. All I can do is keep paying my taxes and hope for the best. If it were that annoying to me...I'd fish elsewhere. If you posted a message on this board saying that you decided to drop your waders one day and take a big dump in the Caney...I'd reply...that's nasty. But that's my opinion and your choice to do whatever the heck you want to do.
shorefisherman
Well-Known Member
shooooot... i was bout to get a bush pilots license, so i can land my alaskan pontoon airplane on the caney to fish the remote areas above happy in the summer run.
trealtree
Well-Known Member
shorefisherman said:shooooot... i was bout to get a bush pilots license, so i can land my alaskan pontoon airplane on the caney to fish the remote areas above happy in the summer run.
Can I hitch a ride.
drrxnupe
Well-Known Member
shorefisherman said:shooooot... i was bout to get a bush pilots license, so i can land my alaskan pontoon airplane on the caney to fish the remote areas above happy in the summer run.
Ain't no remote areas up there no more...dang canoe folks in the way building subdivisions
B.D.
Well-Known Member
shorefisherman said:
I was gonna get a bush pilot's license so I could date Tubakka's mom!
[runs for cover]
bd
I'm sick and tired of having to negotiate around all the dang bank fishermen crowding the water. It's hard to find a place to pee anymore. And what is up with all the ugly women? What happened to the bikini broads. I should not have to try and run my jet boat around some 300-pound boulder in pink shorts. There are no brakes on a boat and at 60-mph, I could get hurt.
And what about all trees and carp in the water? Why can't COE clean that sucker out. Most times I can hardly get up on a plane before I have to slow down for a tree or some idiot standing out there in rubber pants. It has gotten to where we can't even ski that river anymore.
I wish they would just 'er down and fill it in with coal ash.
And what about all trees and carp in the water? Why can't COE clean that sucker out. Most times I can hardly get up on a plane before I have to slow down for a tree or some idiot standing out there in rubber pants. It has gotten to where we can't even ski that river anymore.
I wish they would just 'er down and fill it in with coal ash.
Bd,
Touche...
Yeah Shore...visions of sugar plums and guys in 800 dollar waders dancing for the shore as you buzz the last half mile run before Betty's Island...
...nnnnnnnnice. I hope I run into that guy again who backcast over my deck and nearly snagged my friend. if we hadn't been in a hurry to get to the campsite he'd have been placing a call to Orvis the next day for a replacement
Touche...
Yeah Shore...visions of sugar plums and guys in 800 dollar waders dancing for the shore as you buzz the last half mile run before Betty's Island...
...nnnnnnnnice. I hope I run into that guy again who backcast over my deck and nearly snagged my friend. if we hadn't been in a hurry to get to the campsite he'd have been placing a call to Orvis the next day for a replacement
