Caney Fork

[bowriter]

Wen it is dem crappy or bream perch or sawgers, I is fishing fo de table, me. Same wid dem crawperch and soft hided crabs. En I'll take a 1-pound Kentucky spotted bass every time, me.

But I aint never throwed but one cheeseburger back. It like to made me puke. Tasted a lot like trout perch.

That's what I'm talking about, me!

BTW- Those are bream fillets.

 

[MFBAB]

You think that river is crowded now, I'd hate to see the ramp if they did have $20's in 'em!

 

[B.D.]

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.

We look at it slightly differently. It's not so much "food over fishing" or vice versa. Eating a fish every once in a while is PART of the fishing experience. I don't do it every time - not anywhere close. But every few trips, I put a couple trout in the cooler. Not a bunch - 2 or 3 decent sized trout is plenty for a meal. I like to pretend I'm a "gourmet chef" from time to time, and there's nothing like an almond-crusted, wild-caught rainbow trout with a nice glass of wine to top off an evening after a day on the water.

Kroger just ain't the same - if you could buy venison at Kroger, would you put down your bow and only carry a camera to your deer stand?

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

You aren't saying you don't catch 15" trout every time you go, are you? They're just so routine to me...

bd

 

[Fordman]

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.

Ok I was not going to even bother responding but... you have called me out so why not.
First and foremost I did not do ONE single day on the caney fork as a guide in 2008. I choose to stay on other rivers because I have friends, who are all hiding in the safety of a little fly shop, who depend on that river to make a living so its a respect thing Gil1. They send me a lot of warm water guide trips and I send every client who wants to fish the caney to the guy who is hiding in his little flyshop. Can you tell that I think that was a chicken shat thing for you to say yet?
Second I have attended more commision meeting in two years than you have in the past five so lets not go there. Were you at the meeting about tele check? Have you taken the time to get to know the commisioners? Tell me when is the meeting that the commision wants to hear from the people about the caney? I am sure you know when that is.
Now back on track. I log more days fishing than most folks and here is my little two cents worth on the caney. First no regulations are going to be worth the paper they get printed on until the stocking/enforcement issues are fixed. There is no stocking in the lower end of the river and nearly ZERO enforcement. Now anyone thats been involved in this issue knows that the enforcment above the smith county line is outstanding but below that line is needs some serious help. When the new commission get on board you can bet I will be at those meetings and I will be the one pushing for statewide guides license. In fact I have the numbers from 4 states that require them and they are very convincing. Its my opinion that we should be more concerned with the increased non angling traffic. Why are YOU not screaming to regulate the amount of rental boats that can be on the river? I have read no less than three times where you made references to the amount of non angling traffic. Dont throw stones my friend when you live in a glass house which we all do.
All that said yes my boat is catch and release only and if a client wants to keep fish then I am not the guide they need. Now I am going to hide in the safety of that little flyshop and talk about what should be done to protect the river. Have a nice day!

 

[madMax]

Can we get 20 pages? Anyone?

I must agree with those that point out the irony of this situation - which is the correlation between river pressure and internet exposure...

The same people who guide, make websites, and post threads and reports about the infamous Caney Fork are the same ppl that cry about how crowded "their" river is. Is it not common sense that the more exposure the river gets, especially on the internet, the more crowded it will get? This means...

-more "Meathunters"
-more Recreational boaters, canoes, and kayakers
-more Fly flingin' hippy "trouthuggers"
-and JUST MORE PEOPLE PERIOD!

In the 1990s as people like Bowriter and others have pointed out this was the same river...30' trout were still being caught. It still had cycles of good years and bad years. The only difference is not many people knew about it. Now we are in a new era.. An era where flaming 20 page threads pop up on numerous Tennessee Fishing websites every 6 months. Posts that act as advertisements, that draw in more people and more people and more people than the year before. People from all walks of life. People with different agendas and opinions...

There has to be a road in the middle - and I can guarantee threads like this won't get us there. Im not saying I know what that route is but I know this isnt it. I think we can all agree the infamous Caney Fork sure isnt "infamous" anymore....

20 pages here we come!

 

[gil1]

We look at it slightly differently. It's not so much "food over fishing" or vice versa. Eating a fish every once in a while is PART of the fishing experience.
bd

I totally get that. That's fine by me. It's just not part of MY fishing experience.

there's nothing like an almond-crusted, wild-caught rainbow trout with a nice glass of wine to top off an evening after a day on the water.

bd

See, to me, there's nothing like catching a fish. Killing them hurts the fishing. Obviously, I'm very selfish about fishing.

Kroger just ain't the same - if you could buy venison at Kroger, would you put down your bow and only carry a camera to your deer stand?

Man, that's a good question. Except aiming and putting a clean kill on the animal is part of the fun of hunting for me (that didn't sound very good, but it's true). Killing a fish isn't part of the fun for me. Letting it go and catching it again is the fun part.

Now the real question is, if you could shoot a deer with a bullet that just put it to sleep for a while but didn't kill it, would you? I know it's crazy, but the answer is yes. The hunt is more important to me than the meat and the kill, so I'd do it unless it were a case of the property needing that type of management.

 

[gil1]

Ok I was not going to even bother responding but... you have called me out so why not.
First and foremost I did not do ONE single day on the caney fork as a guide in 2008. I choose to stay on other rivers because I have friends, who are all hiding in the safety of a little fly shop, who depend on that river to make a living so its a respect thing Gil1. They send me a lot of warm water guide trips and I send every client who wants to fish the caney to the guy who is hiding in his little flyshop. Can you tell that I think that was a chicken shat thing for you to say yet?

Please explain. I love those guys and tell them to their faces that they are hiding. I consider them good friends. How in the world is telling the forum and your friends the truth chicken shat? I have no idea why y'all are hiding. I swear to God I have no idea what you mean. Respect for what? You can't say how you feel because you have friends (as I do) that work at a fly shop? How would anything you say affect your friends' fly shop? Seriously, I'm missing the whole deal I think. Does this have anything to do with changing your username back?

Second I have attended more commision meeting in two years than you have in the past five so lets not go there. Were you at the meeting about tele check? Have you taken the time to get to know the commisioners? Tell me when is the meeting that the commision wants to hear from the people about the caney? I am sure you know when that is.

You have no idea how much respect I have for that. So if you care enough to stand up for these issues in front of the Commisssion, why not here? I just still don't understand why you (or anyone - not singling you out) can talk about some things but won't talk about other things I know you believe are important on this forum - see above. Just explain the connection, and I'll shut up.

Why are YOU not screaming to regulate the amount of rental boats that can be on the river? I have read no less than three times where you made references to the amount of non angling traffic. Dont throw stones my friend when you live in a glass house which we all do.

If that were the topic, I would gladly talk about it. But until lately, I haven't really known how I felt. In other words, yes, I think traffic sux, but I didn't have a clue what to do about it. I'm still not sure I do, but I've heard ideas of guide fees, etc. that sound good to me. I just didn't have any solutions to scream about. Heck, I didn't mean to not talk about it - just didn't know what to do about it.

Now back on track. I log more days fishing than most folks and here is my little two cents worth on the caney. First no regulations are going to be worth the paper they get printed on until the stocking/enforcement issues are fixed. There is no stocking in the lower end of the river and nearly ZERO enforcement. Now anyone thats been involved in this issue knows that the enforcment above the smith county line is outstanding but below that line is needs some serious help. When the new commission get on board you can bet I will be at those meetings and I will be the one pushing for statewide guides license. In fact I have the numbers from 4 states that require them and they are very convincing. Its my opinion that we should be more concerned with the increased non angling traffic.

All that said yes my boat is catch and release only and if a client wants to keep fish then I am not the guide they need. Now I am going to hide in the safety of that little flyshop and talk about what should be done to protect the river. Have a nice day!

Hey, man, the above is all I'm asking for. Even though we love to disagree with each other, I respect your opinion because you know a bunch more about the issues than I do. Do I really have to piss you off before you talk about this stuff? I like pissing you off anyway, so that's fine with me. :D Well, you're out of the closet now. There's no turning back. I expect to hear more on these issues. We need all the help we can get.

Dern! We're going to go over 10 pages!

 

[gil1]

Can we get 20 pages? Anyone?

I must agree with those that point out the irony of this situation - which is the correlation between river pressure and internet exposure...

The same people who guide, make websites, and post threads and reports about the infamous Caney Fork are the same ppl that cry about how crowded "their" river is. Is it not common sense that the more exposure the river gets, especially on the internet, the more crowded it will get? This means...

-more "Meathunters"
-more Recreational boaters, canoes, and kayakers
-more Fly flingin' hippy "trouthuggers"
-and JUST MORE PEOPLE PERIOD!

In the 1990s as people like Bowriter and others have pointed out this was the same river...30' trout were still being caught. It still had cycles of good years and bad years. The only difference is not many people knew about it. Now we are in a new era.. An era where flaming 20 page threads pop up on numerous Tennessee Fishing websites every 6 months. Posts that act as advertisements, that draw in more people and more people and more people than the year before. People from all walks of life. People with different agendas and opinions...

There has to be a road in the middle - and I can guarantee threads like this won't get us there. Im not saying I know what that route is but I know this isnt it. I think we can all agree the infamous Caney Fork sure isnt "infamous" anymore....

20 pages here we come!

Great post. I agree, but I'm not so sure this thread is as bad as the "look at what I caught" threads. I'm certainly guilty of those, although they're often about what I didn't catch.

I think these issues are important enough to discuss. I don't know, maybe it does hurt the resource more than it helps it. Maybe.

 

[bowriter]

"I must agree with those that point out the irony of this situation - which is the correlation between river pressure and internet exposure..."

This just jumped out at me. Internet exposure is a minor factor in the upsurge of fishing pressure on the Caney. I started it 25 years ago when I started writing articles for national publications about the trout fishing. Then H. Lea Lawrence jumped in and it went from there.

Yes, some of the folks on that river read about it online. Most did not.

It is 95% the fault of the fancy schmazy fly flingers who made it fashinable to wear $600 worth of clothes and smoke pipes and say thing like, "Honor the fish...Bow to the fish." And stuff like "Is it spelled Wulf or Wolf and is it Lea or Lee?"

Then they say things like, "@#$%^&*some no good@#$%^& stole my car." And his buddy says, "@#$%^ your car, my boat was behind it."

 

[bob]

I was conceived on the Caney back when there wasn�t even a Dam there and have spent so much time fishing it that now I�m part man part Trout. My name is Buffalo Bob, the Buffalo is for Buffalo Valley where I spent my youth learning the ways of the wily stocker truck Trout. I was like a ninja when the stocking truck appeared. I would blend in with the stocking tube and pluck unsuspecting freshly stocked trout out like picking daises. I was also the one who made the Trophy the section and am responsible for pretty much everything good or bad that has ever happened on that river. Including the time I saved Uncle Thadbaker�s prized Black Angus calf from being eaten alive by Vultures after it got stuck in the mud on the riverbank. It�s ashamed what some of the fishermen before me did to that poor helpless calf�

Just ask anyone about ole Caney Fork Buffalo Bob and you�ll soon find out I�m the most unknown know it all on that river.

 

[bowriter]

Bob! Son!!! Your Mother was just lovely back then. But why did you have to let that motel go to he11. Buddy Mason would have bought it.

 

[B.D.]

See, to me, there's nothing like catching a fish. Killing them hurts the fishing. Obviously, I'm very selfish about fishing.

I am going to disagree that killing a few fish automatically hurts the fishing. There is, after all, a limited carrying capacity to the river. TWRA puts what, an average of about 115,000 rainbows and 30,000 browns a year in the river? Now, obviously a lot of those disappear without ever seeing a fisherman. Some of those get eaten by herons, ospreys, minks, stripers, walleye, and other trout; many die of natural causes; and a few wander off into the Cumberland where it gets too warm (I caught a rainbow in Cordell Hull tailrace last spring). But whatever way you slice it, that's a lot of trout going into the river. If we had NO harvest, we'd have to cut back the stocking rate, or eventually we'd have a lot of overcrowded, skinny trout.

Now, there have to be limits. There is enough pressure on the river that without any regulation at all, it would get all but wiped out. But clearly there is a sustainable level of harvest where you don't hurt the overall numbers, because the fish going in = the fish going out.

At that point the only debate is over which fish are harvested. Everybody pretty much agrees that the trout in the Caney grow around 4" a year. Thus, a 15" rainbow has been there around a year and a half on average, depending on how big he was when he went in.

I don't have a problem harvesting that fish. Everything I've seen tells me we have plenty of fish holding over a year or two, so there is a large cohort of fish to replace that rainbow if he's harvested.

A 24" brown, on the other hand, is different. I would rather limit harvest of those fish. Browns go in as fingerlings at about 6", so it takes nearly 5 years to grow a fish to that size, and there are fewer browns going in to begin with. When one that size goes out, there are a lot fewer fish in the next tier down to replace it.

bd

 

[bob]

Pop,, that you. Where the HE-double tooth picks have you been!

 

[gil1]

It's all a gray area with no real answers, just preferences and opinions. I wasn't saying your keeping a couple dozen 14-inchers a year makes a big dent. I say it makes a ding. Just like the ospreys and otters and everything else. I also say that it's a culmination of little dings that makes a dent. Like I said, I've dinged a little in my time, too. Although I've never kept a Caney trout, and I've caught many thousands by now.

Now, you stated that there have to be limits and the only debate is over which fish are to be harvested. Except your forgetting about those that believe in catch and release. So you save money and don't stock as many fish. The fishing's world class, and I don't give a crap about eating them, so that's absolutely perfect.

Yeah, I know. Impractical. Too many people want to kill their fish for that to ever work unless it's a private stream. Still, I completely disagree that there are enough 15-inch trout in the river. I'm sort of kidding, but there could never be enough.

I can't imagine sacrificing the catching of a 15-inch trout just to eat it. Never in a zillion years would I harvest a 15-incher on the Caney. That's just too big of a sacrifice just to feed hunger. If I were hungry, I would feel differently, but I am lucky that I can afford to eat at McD's if I am hungry. Again, I'm selfishly into fishing.

That's my own code. I don't have any misgivings toward you or anyone else for filling your bellies. I'd just rather catch than eat.

 

[bowriter]

Pop,, that you. Where the HE-double tooth picks have you been!

I've been devising an advertising campaign for Richard Sampson to sell shine out of his store. Odell kept us froze out for years.

 

[madMax]

I can't imagine sacrificing the catching of a 15-inch trout just to eat it. Never in a zillion years would I harvest a 15-incher on the Caney.

So there you have two ends of the opinionated spectrum. You have someone like Gil on one end, and people like Tubs on the other. Some fisherman are strictly C & R - others are catch and eat eat eat. The other 90% of us fall somewhere in between. There-in lies the real question...

At that point the only debate is over which fish are harvested.

Great question! The answer? I say we just let Bowriter decide. Since he started this mess 25 years ago its about time he cleans it all up! I say you and Buffalo Bob get together with the new TWRA commissioner and settle this dispute once and for all....

 

[shorefisherman]

:D :D .................. :D

 

[go_okfishin]

What if every trout caught was guaranteed to die, would you still fish? Kind of like duck hunting there ain't no either or. They are dead or they are not.

 

[bowriter]

Not being a farmer, I have never harvested a fish. I have caught and eaten a lot of them. I don't eat trout. Don't like them so unless someone wants a mess. I throw them all back.

But my philosophy is quite simple. When it is legal, I will keep and eat any dam fish I want. Everybody else can do what they like. I shoot small bucks and I eat 12 inch fish. I make no appolgies to anyone about it.

 

[gil1]

Not being a farmer, I have never harvested a fish. I have caught and eaten a lot of them. I don't eat trout. Don't like them so unless someone wants a mess. I throw them all back.

But my philosophy is quite simple. When it is legal, I will keep and eat any dam fish I want. Everybody else can do what they like. I shoot small bucks and I eat 12 inch fish. I make no appolgies to anyone about it.

To be clear about my position, I don't hink anyone should apologize for puttin' the Dr. Kevorkian on anything legally. I kill the hell out of lots of stuff. I just pick my spots, I guess.

 

[bowriter]

No, Gil, I knew that. I was just pointing out something that has now completely slipped my mind. I think it was about fishing with your fly-flinging fiance.

BTW- We are going to run WO until Oct. I may have to work this summer.