Caney Fork

[gil1]

Now we're talkin'! Tubs - you sound better already! :D

 

[Tubakka]

No bow he really wasn't...


...

 

[Tubakka]

By the way gil, what's your fishing report/ I ain't seen any pics for a while? Pulled any nicfe ifsh this year?...at all?...

 

[gil1]

By the way gil, what's your fishing report/ I ain't seen any pics for a while? Pulled any nicfe ifsh this year?...at all?...

I'm sort of a fair weather fishing friend. I mostly deer, duck, and predator hunt when it's cold. When I do fish in winter, it's mostly for stripers and skipjack, but I have only gone once this winter.

As you know, I don't like flinging that fly on the Caney when the water's up. I enjoy wading in warmer weather, so I don't bother with winter on the Caney much. I went once about a month ago, and it was fairly slow for me and my buddy. The fish were slightly bigger than my average take, but the numbers were low, so I'd call it a fun but slow day. I think I got 7 or 8.

Now last spring and summer and into fall was the best year I've ever had on the Caney. I didn't catch any of your jerkbait lunkers, but both numbers and size were better than any year prior. I had a few days where I caught between 70-80 fish (mostly stockers), and that's excellent for me because I'm not above getting skunked on any river. Even with tiny midges, I was able to wrangle a few 20+ inchers in (mostly rainbows).

I don't enjoy streamer fishing, which is probably the most productive fly fishing method for big fish. It just bores me, so I don't do it that much. I'm sure you're shocked that I would choose the least productive strategy! :D

I like to be able to watch something strike rather than just feel it. I love to watch anything annihilate a dry fly or popper. 90% of the time, though, I fish with a strike indicator and a nymph or two dropped below it because surface action isn't consistent. No matter what the fly boys tell you, it is just like bobber fishing. I guess I never got over watching a cork as a kid.

That's one of the things that bothers me about our differences. I realize that I can't catch as many big fish on jerkbaits as I can fly fishing, but that's fine with me. You don't seem to be able to understand that. If someone catches more and bigger fish than me or are a much better fisherman than I, that's fine by me to. I'm out to have fun my way no matter what everyone else is doing.

I'm the same way with hunting. Although I dig blowing stuff up with a rifle, I prefer to bowhunt. Needless to say, I miss out on plenty of opportunities of nice deer walking 50 yards in front of me because I can't shoot that far with my bow, but I don't give a crap at all. I get more satisfaction when I add a little challenge to the deal.

Just like in fishing, I'm still targeting the biggest and the best deer (or fish), but I target them with a method that is a little more challenging even if not the most effective.

BTW, I think fishing with jerkbaits or any other method is fun, too. I just enjoy other methods more these days. In fact, I used to jerk a lot when I was your age! :D

You want pics? Here's the biggest fish I caught on my last trip. I have no idea how big it is, but even it's daddy probably wouldn't go 20 inches. I caught it with a fly I tied and even invented. Like all the rest, I watched it swim away for somebody else to enjoy catching some day. Some of your browns could have eaten it for breakfast. Had a ball nonetheless. :)

Rambling for nothing, but I figured I'd try to explain it again.

 

[B.D.]

Hey Gil, Sam Spade called.

He wants his hat back.

bd

 

[gil1]

Hey Gil, Sam Spade called.

He wants his hat back.

bd

:D :D :D

I was sort of going for the Indiana Jones look, but I can live with Sam Spade. It's kind of cool in a loser sort of way. :D

 

[MFBAB]

No dog in this fight but I learned more from Bucks green book (from way back in 1965)than anything else I've ever read on fishing- particularly structure fishing, and I have a couple of large bookshelves full of fishing books and magazines, lol. If you like to fish and you haven't read it, you're cheating yourself, JMO.

 

[Tubakka]

Gil,
Like I've always said what people do is cool until they start trying to use those given methods and thoughts to impose upon other people. Flyfishing only sections...regulations that seem to only accomodate those from that school of thought, vice versa. I have no problem with private streams having fly fishing sections if they want...but public water created mostly in part by the purchase of trout stamps that specifically allow the take of trout by the innumerable harvesters of these waters [when will we learn that harvest is not an inherently BAD thing?]
...the amount of trout going into our state's waters are relative directly to the sale of trout stamps. I doubt anyone would find a reason to fish our tailraces if the only folks buying trout stamps were those who practiced catch-and-release specifically.

Although, haha...I will admit. I'm on vacation up in Ohio right now visiting ma girl, and I happened to be scanning the channels and found the TU show on some obscure outdoor network. I honestly gave it a shot, the guide said "big browns" on the "little Tuckee river" or someplace out west. I'm no fool...some of those guys know what they're doing especially in those fisheries out west, so I gave it a shot. I saw their big one brought to net...16". 5...4....3...2...1....CSPAN.

 

[mr.big]

Uhhhh does anyone happen to remember me posting last summer that this would be a down year for the big trout?

I hate it when I am right.

I recall your saying that you couldn't kill enough fish to see the difference, that the Caney had enough big fish that you would never be able to dent the fishery. Correct me if I'm wrong. Or are you just saying we're on a downward side of the cyclical trend we always talk about?

Watch - this thread will be 10 pages. Life was getting boring anyway. :)

Yes, Gil, that is exactly what I am saying. Been seeing it for over 30 years. Every four to five years, you have a boomer like last year. Then you go back to normal Caney fishing. The fish are there, they just aren't in the same place. There are just not enough of those big fish caught and kept...or caught and released for that matter, to effect the fishing in the way we are discussing. And 95% of the fishermen are fishing the wrong end of the river.

It is very much like menopause.

caught a good brown below 70 stripe fishin the other day

 

[gil1]

Gil,
Like I've always said what people do is cool until they start trying to use those given methods and thoughts to impose upon other people. Flyfishing only sections...regulations that seem to only accomodate those from that school of thought, vice versa. I have no problem with private streams having fly fishing sections if they want...but public water created mostly in part by the purchase of trout stamps that specifically allow the take of trout by the innumerable harvesters of these waters [when will we learn that harvest is not an inherently BAD thing?]
...the amount of trout going into our state's waters are relative directly to the sale of trout stamps. I doubt anyone would find a reason to fish our tailraces if the only folks buying trout stamps were those who practiced catch-and-release specifically.

Thing is, though, Tubbs, you take a shot at fly fishermen every chance you get. I can't think of any incidences when anybody on any thread on this board were talking about telling anybody how they ought to fish (I mean except you). Why would I ever want a fly-only Caney Fork? Never once have I ever dissed another method. On the contrary, I've tried and enjoy most of them. It's like you conjured it somewhere.

I doubt anyone would find a reason to fish our tailraces if the only folks buying trout stamps were those who practiced catch-and-release specifically.

Except the zillions of us who practice catch and release specifically. ;) There are plenty of world class catch and release streams that are extremely popular. The reason they are world class? The reason they are so popular?...Because they are catch and release only.

But that topic is irrelevant - same deal as before. I can't recall anyone saying we should push for catch and release specifically. I realize that some folks want to eat their fish more than they want better fishing. Fine by me. Again, you conjured it out of thin air.

Although, haha...I will admit. I'm on vacation up in Ohio right now visiting ma girl, and I happened to be scanning the channels and found the TU show on some obscure outdoor network. I honestly gave it a shot, the guide said "big browns" on the "little Tuckee river" or someplace out west. I'm no fool...some of those guys know what they're doing especially in those fisheries out west, so I gave it a shot. I saw their big one brought to net...16". 5...4....3...2...1....CSPAN.

Had no idea you liked girls! :D

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I would have been glued to the tube because a 16 inch brown is a big brown to me. I get pretty excited about an 8 inch brown. Some of my greatest and proudest memories are of fish that were 6 inches or less.

IMO, you should take time to smell the roses. Enjoy whatever makes you tick. It doesn't have to be "you against the world" if you get out of the world's face. Dissing those who think differently than you (which is most everyone) will eventually take away from your own experience.

Yoda :)

 

[bowriter]

I can honestly say, Gil out fished me one day last fall and he did it with spinning rod and a Rattletrap. Never once picked up his fly switch.

BTW-Gil, we are now going to remain open until Oct. instead of shutting down May 1.

 

[Tubakka]

Gil,
I didn't mean to misquote you. I just remembered you saying something...maybe not...a while back about wanting to impose a catch and release only on the Caney. I know specifically of the incident on the Clinch when they held a meeting with the public to see how the favor was towards a trophy-only zone [this was a day long subject in a fisheries management class] and the only people who showed up were the TU guys. Which is fine, but...a whole demographic of the river was completely unaccounted for...

...I was told by the instructor at tech that the limit lasted for a bout amonth, until vast outcry by the bait fishing demographic in the area, as there were apparently lots and lots of shore sights, just raised so much hell with the TWRA over being ticketed with a regulation they were never included in. The TU guy surely knew that these people used this high traffic area [it ended at some bridge...don't remember, sorry, never fished the Clinch...but apparently it is a really popular pull off area for shore fishermen], and they just didn't consider it. Part of that I can understand, the other part I can kind of see them doing as a tongue in cheek maneuver to get back at the guys "killing their fish".

Like I said, there are lots of great anglers out there...guys who can use any tackle imaginable, including fly, with fluidity, like a trumpet player who can lay down Mahler, then go to the club after the concert and read over "Green Dolphin" or "Giant Steps". Such a parallel is the image of a compleat musician and a complete angler. My only issue has been with people who think that fly is some kind of superior sophisticated method that somehow qualifies a 12" fish on that tackle over a 24-26" fish on "plebeian tackle".

By the way, rattletraps are GREAT trout baits. As I recall the Kentucky state record brown was caught on a 1 1/2 ounce rattletrap the guy was chucking for stripers.

 

[gil1]

I can honestly say, Gil out fished me one day last fall and he did it with spinning rod and a Rattletrap. Never once picked up his fly switch.

BTW-Gil, we are now going to remain open until Oct. instead of shutting down May 1.

Yeah, I'm not so sure you weren't slackin' off a little just cause I was a bumbling idiot. :D

Is Bama's bow season open in October, or is that just for fishing? That's great news nonetheless.

 

[gil1]

Gil,
I didn't mean to misquote you. I just remembered you saying something...maybe not...a while back about wanting to impose a catch and release only on the Caney.

Tubs - you probably just misunderstood me. I rattle off all the time about how I wish such and such water were catch and release only, especially for some river smallie populations that I have watched decline to nothing over the years.

But I'm practical enough to understand that that mentality won't fly for the Caney or any other public water. I'm really fine with catch and eat, but I'd like there to be a compromise on what you can take so my fisherman's greed can be satiated.

My only issue has been with people who think that fly is some kind of superior sophisticated method that somehow qualifies a 12" fish on that tackle over a 24-26" fish on "plebeian tackle".

I have a problem with that. You just described yourself. You constantly belittle the fly guy because you say he's not versatile enough or smart enough to target big fish. If folks aren't following your lead on jerkbaits on the Caney, they're doing it all wrong. Maybe there is no right or wrong, just preferences across the board.

On the flip side, I've never seen a single post by anyone (fly, bait, jerkbait, or any other) that even had a hint of superiority or put down any other method as plebeian. Except you.

If a fly boy pissed on your jerkbaits as a child, that doesn't give you the right to diss all fly boys. I've met a few jerkbaiters that lived up to the "jerk" name, but there are bad apples in every group.

Methinks you have self awareness problems. Again, no charge. :D

Yoda

P.S. You get extra credit for using the paragraph format. ;)

 

[B.D.]

I know specifically of the incident on the Clinch when they held a meeting with the public to see how the favor was towards a trophy-only zone [this was a day long subject in a fisheries management class] and the only people who showed up were the TU guys. Which is fine, but...a whole demographic of the river was completely unaccounted for...

...I was told by the instructor at tech that the limit lasted for a bout amonth, until vast outcry by the bait fishing demographic in the area, as there were apparently lots and lots of shore sights, just raised so much hell with the TWRA over being ticketed with a regulation they were never included in.

"Never included in"??? Too bad they didn't care enough to show up for the meeting BEFORE the reg was passed, huh? It's not like TWRA kept the proposed reg secret from anybody but TU. Well, I guess they did make the announcement in written form, which could have been tough for some of the jerkbait guys...

Okay. I shouldn't have said that. I was just being mean.

Anyway, I know what you're trying to say. TWRA was a little slow to recognize that there are a bunch of people who will NEVER bother to offer input about a reg beforehand, but who will complain bitterly once it's passed. And the bait guys are probably heavily represented in that class, because they invest fewer resources in the way they fish and therefore are less proactive in protecting it.

Regardless, nobody's talking about "zones" right now for the Caney. They are impractical. I want to see a river-wide reg of 1 brown over 24" and a 16" to 20" slot on rainbows. Folks who want trout for the table could still keep 7 15" rainbows per person - that's a lot of meat. And it would maximize the number of big fish.

Are there some big fish even now? Sure. There are always some big fish. But there aren't anywhere near as many as there were this time last year.

Tubs, I know you like to look down your nose at folks who don't throw the same gear you do, but you've got to realize that there is a whole group of fly guys on the Caney who know how to target big fish. Guys who have caught multiple fish over 30" on a fly. Now, these guys are on the river constantly - you don't catch fish like that on a flyrod without putting your time in. Yet when they say the big fish numbers are being dragged down by harvest, you just assume they don't know what they're talking about because they don't throw gear.

Well, you're wrong.

I think pretty much everybody agrees that the last couple years have been some of the best ever on the Caney. It's not a coincidence - we've got better water quality and better regulations than ever, and it has paid off. I remember when the 18" limit on browns was proposed - some of the bait guys were complaining even then that it wouldn't make a difference. In fact, the same complaints bounced around when the trophy regs were proposed on the Cumberland in Kentucky. But surprise surprise, after a couple years with the regs in place, the quality of the fishery clearly improved.

You want more & bigger trout in the river? Simple - keep them in the river and out of the frying pan a little longer. It's not that complicated. I'm just looking for a way to build on the improvements.

bd

 

[Radar]

I have never seen so many wanna-be fisheries biologists on one thread . I'm not sure I'd want to fish the Caney after reading this .And it's not because of the fishery , but the fishermen . Sad.

 

[Trapper John]

I have never seen so many wanna-be fisheries biologists on one thread . I'm not sure I'd want to fish the Caney after reading this .And it's not because of the fishery , but the fishermen . Sad.

I've never had anyone on the river give me a hard time. A few knowitalls but I just consider an encounter with them entertaining. Then again I don't keep brown trout. I get dinner from the 'bows.

If you ever have a problem just demand they pay you the cost of your license. If they do it allow them to continue.

 

[JA1234]

I have never seen so many wanna-be fisheries biologists on one thread . I'm not sure I'd want to fish the Caney after reading this .And it's not because of the fishery , but the fishermen . Sad.

I've never had anyone on the river give me a hard time. A few knowitalls but I just consider an encounter with them entertaining. Then again I don't keep brown trout. I get dinner from the 'bows.

If you ever have a problem just demand they pay you the cost of your license. If they do it allow them to continue.

I never had anyone say a word about the way I was fishing on the caney...yet...but if they ever do I am going to use that...LOL

 

[B.D.]

. I'm not sure I'd want to fish the Caney after reading this .

Good news! Nobody's making you! :)

bd

 

[gil1]

...just cause I predicted this thread would go to ten pages, and it's only on nine. :D

 

[jakeway]

The last few trips I think I caught more Brookies than either browns or rainbows. Last summer it was mostly browns. Those Brookies sure are aggressive.

I also took a trout home to eat a couple weeks ago. It was badly injured and bleeding, so I thought I'd see what all the fuss was about.

Frankly, if I was fishing for a meal, Bluegills and Bass are better eating. If I wanted to eat trout, I could get them at Publix.

Having said that, I've got no problem with people taking home trout to eat if they want, but it would be good to protect the trophy class fish. I worry about the people I've seen that can't (or won't) distinguish a brown trout from a rainbow, and eat the 10-16 inch browns.

Now, what other drivel can I write in here to help Gil get it to 10 pages?

Oh, how about a picture of the fish I took home to eat:

 

[gil1]

Jake - I pretty much agree with all you said. Nice pic. of one of Tubbs' tartar sauce victims! :D

I eat a couple on a camping trip to the South Holston every year. I have no problem with killing a 12-inch trout here and there. My buddies love grilling it up over the campfire, but I think my didymo-covered wading boot would taste better! I think I'm just bringing a steak next year.

Although there are a few that are still against the brookies even though they have thrived (and for what reason I have no clue), I think they are a welcome treat. Just a bonus.

Just wait...when our new TWRA top dawg takes office, there will be a push for more regulations by many people and organizations wanting to protect the resource, and I believe they (we) will get it.

I'm hoping for a 13-20 slot on rainbows and a one brown trout over 26 inches limit. I'm not sure what the fate of the brookies will be or even if they plant to keep stocking them (maybe the same regs. as the rainbows), but I heard a guy say he thought they might ask to protect the brookies until they reached 16 inches, which might just protect them all.

But here's the great news, all these regs. are being discussed as statewide tailwater regulations, not just for the Caney.

The Commisssion wanted the browns to grow to trophy size, and by their own definition in the TARP program, a brown isn't a trophy until it reaches 26 inches. Those of us that want to see some bigger fish have the protection of rainbows from 13-20 inches. The trucks will keep dumping stockers out to replenish all the fish the meat hunters want to eat. 7 rainbows up to 13 inches is a heck of a meal, and folks could still take home a trophy brown or rainbow if they wanted. I think everybody wins, but especially the fishery that is being rapidly depleted.

I don't know if it will go through or if it's just talk, but I think it would be awesome. It will take a coordinated effort from many different oraganizations and especially TWRA for it to get passed. Now is the time for better and more progressive management, though. If it passed, I think it would be just like Dale Hollow. A few folks would raise all heyall, but when the fishery improved dramatically, most would praise the changes.

...more drivel to get us to page 10... :D

 

[Fordman]

So Tubs when are you opening your guide business on the Caney and Collins rivers? There are some folks up around Mcminnville that just cant wait to see you again.
Anyone think this is 9 and maybe 10 pages of exposure the river might not need? What about the boat rental places? I am pushing for anyone who uses public water for personal gain to have to pay a fee ie Guide license and a per boat tax...

 

[gil1]

Anyone think this is 9 and maybe 10 pages of exposure the river might not need? What about the boat rental places? I am pushing for anyone who uses public water for personal gain to have to pay a fee ie Guide license and a per boat tax...

I agree with the guiding fee and not just for the Caney. Unless there's an even better solution.

I agree with the exposure problem to an extent (I'm finally coming around on this subject ;) ), but I believe it is mitigated in this case because the discussion is about angling pressure and depletion of resources. When all this regulation stuff comes up in a few months, you can bet I'll be trying to get as much exposure as possible. IMO, All sides should be out in the open so people can have an informed opinion.

But here's the bone I'm going to pick with you, my friend. You are a guide. You are on the Caney more than most. You have a lot at stake when it comes to this river. When it comes to regulations and such, you tuck and run. Where are you? Why are you not SCREAMING on this thread for positive change?

In my opinion, you don't have the right to complain about anything if you aren't willing to speak up for it. I say the same thing to JM, Jordan, Anderson, and anybody else whose opinion I respect concerning the rivers. We're all on the same team and friends, but I don't understand hiding from the issues except when you're in a safe little fly shop.

If your argument is that you can't afford to piss off prospective clients, please explain that to me. I mean, isn't catch and release mandatory on you boat on the Caney? How many clients do you get that demand to eat all their fish anyway?

I'm beating on you a little, but it's been bothering me, and I really want to know.

 

[B.D.]

Gil, I'm going to have to dissent on the 13" to 20" slot on rainbows. That seems a little tight. I want to give more leeway to the folks who keep fish. In fact, every once in a while I'll keep two or three rainbows for the table, and I'll confess that a 14" or 15" trout is, in my opinion, the ideal "eater" size.

I don't see a lot of sense in putting a size limit on brookies until we've had a few years to see how they do in the tailwater. If they demonstrate the potential to get big, we can think about giving them a little more cover from harvest. If not, no sense in having restrictions for restrictions' sake.

Maybe we can start out with your proposal and compromise back to mine. :)

bd

 

[Buzzard Breath]

Gil, I'm going to have to dissent on the 13" to 20" slot on rainbows. That seems a little tight. I want to give more leeway to the folks who keep fish. In fact, every once in a while I'll keep two or three rainbows for the table, and I'll confess that a 14" or 15" trout is, in my opinion, the ideal "eater" size.

I'll try to help get this to page 10.

I have to agree with Brian. A trout that has lived in the river for a while and has been eating what trout are supposed to eat, tastes a whole lot better than one that has been eating dog food all its life.

 

[gil1]

Gil, I'm going to have to dissent on the 13" to 20" slot on rainbows. That seems a little tight. I want to give more leeway to the folks who keep fish. In fact, every once in a while I'll keep two or three rainbows for the table, and I'll confess that a 14" or 15" trout is, in my opinion, the ideal "eater" size.

I'll try to help get this to page 10.

I have to agree with Brian. A trout that has lived in the river for a while and has been eating what trout are supposed to eat, tastes a whole lot better than one that has been eating dog food all its life.

I didn't know this. I guess I've never eaten one over 12. I don't care for trout from restaurants or Kroger either, so it's moot for me.

I would say this - for me, I'd be willing to buy a trout at Kroger and catch another in the river rather than save that money and not be able to catch that fish. For me, the 14 or 15 inch fish is perfect for catching, not eating. I would never in a million years kill one that size unless I hooked it too deep or something. It is way to valuable as a game fish to me. It should be caught many times over for the sheer joy of the sport. JMO.

 

[gil1]

Hot dawg! We made it to 10! :D

 

[Buzzard Breath]

Hot dawg! We made it to 10! :D

Yea, I thought my post was going to do it. Apparently, I should have added a couple more sentences.

The trout at Kroger and the grocery stores are all farm raised, fed dog food, or "trout chow" as the bag reads. Eat yourself some real wild fish sometime. There's no comparison in taste.

I personally release 90% or better of the trout I catch. My wife is quite the opposite. If it's legal, it's in the cooler. I enjoy my time fishing with her more than trying to change her.

 

[gil1]

Hot dawg! We made it to 10! :D

Yea, I thought my post was going to do it. Apparently, I should have added a couple more sentences.

The trout at Kroger and the grocery stores are all farm raised, fed dog food, or "trout chow" as the bag reads. Eat yourself some real wild fish sometime. There's no comparison in taste.

I personally release 90% or better of the trout I catch. My wife is quite the opposite. If it's legal, it's in the cooler. I enjoy my time fishing with her more than trying to change her.

I get it. I really do. But it wouldn't matter what it tasted like to me. If it were a fat steak, I would release it. If it had a $20 bill in it, I'd release it. My point is that my recreational happiness is worth more to me than my stomach or money. Not only that, but I can have both if I eat my steak after I go fishing. You can't have both if you eat the fish.

I know that some folks fish for supper and nothing else. Whether it's with a cast net or dynamite or rod, it's about the food, not the fishing. For me, it's purely about the fishing. For most it's somehwere in-between. I also know that I can't teach someone to enjoy the fishing more than the food. I'm fine with their preference, just stating mine.

The problem lies in the fact that those who prefer food over fishing negatively impact my preference for good fishing over food. My preference for fishing over food positively impacts those that prefer food over fishing.