I'm taking a poll on Caney Size Regs

[B.D.]

This forum doesn't have a poll option, so I'm linking to a different forum. I hope that's okay.

I've got a poll going here:

http://www.fishingtn.com/showthread.php?t=2532

Text:

To everyone who fishes the Caney:

As we all know, the Caney Fork is a great trout tailwater, but it gets more fishing pressure than just about any other trout water in Tennessee. With the river fishing really well for the last couple years, a lot of discussion has been starting about strengthening the size regulations on the river.

Current regs include no size limit on rainbow trout, with a "trophy" limit on brown trout where people can keep no more than two over 18" per day.

I support improving the size limits, but I've noticed that there are a lot of different thoughts floating around about what limits would be best. I have tried to include all the different options I've heard. If we can, I think it's best to speak with one voice on the issue. Therefore, I'm putting out "feelers" on several boards to see if there's any consensus about what the most popular size limit rule would be.

Let me know what you think!

bd

 

[gil1]

I guess we can't vote in that poll unless we're logged in? Or did I miss it?

Well, you know I wish it were all catch and release, but I guess I'd better try to be reasonable. 1 brown over 20 inches per day, and a 16-20 inch slot limit on rainbows. Wonder if they're going to keep stocking brookies? If so, they should definitely be a bonus fish - catch and release.

 

[bowriter]

I favor no size limit on any of 'em. Reduce the creel limit if you want, but size limits on trout in the Caney never have and never will work.

For full explanation, see my article in Tn Sportsman- "Screw Your Ruler, The Story of a Crooked King."

Seriously. In a put and take situation...get real.

 

[stillinscrubs]

I agree with bowriter all fish that are solely put and take should have no size or creel limit.....GMAFB.

So every species of fish stocked by the state: stripers, hybrid striped bass, walleye, largemouth bass, crappie, trout, sturgeoon, muskies, what have I missed......

Good thing I no longer get Tn Sportsman the writing was just cheap manufactured poo, each article could be written for another state by simply changing the names on the bodies of water.

Get rid of the brookies, what a waste of money.

Scrubs

 

[gil1]

I favor no size limit on any of 'em. Reduce the creel limit if you want, but size limits on trout in the Caney never have and never will work.

For full explanation, see my article in Tn Sportsman- "Screw Your Ruler, The Story of a Crooked King."

Seriously. In a put and take situation...get real.

All evidence to the contrary...

 

[7mm08]

Bowriter, I like you, but I strongly disagree with you on this. Slot limits are essential even in a put and take fishery. Without any regulatons, there is NO regulations. In other words the threat of getting busted by johnny law with ruler in hand, the killers will run rampant as they have on the Clinch and other tailwaters.

One quick question. Have you ever paid for a plane ticket or spent time to go out west and fish? Why did you do that..for the quality fishing, provided by slot limits, and catch and release limits that have been in effect for years. How many people come to TN to trout fish vs those that travel to WY, MT, or even Arkansas for that matter. Quality management doesn't just envolve deer. If that's the case, kill every deer you can find and watch what happens to the herd in a year(although yes they can reproduce, but it too is artificial since there are already doe only, buck only, regs in place for management).

If you don't want regs on put and take trout streams, just quit stocking the things all together. Let mother nature take it course, and spend the money that you get on licenses on crappie, or bass fishing, although I would say a larger percent of fishing license go towards trout management in this state.

 

[Model70Man]

Instead of doing a size or creel limit, keep the regs the same, but do a trophy section where only 22" or above can be kept.

 

[bowriter]

Model 70- Explain to me just how you would do that and how you would enforce it. It didn't work 20 years ago. How would it be better now?

Now as to my statement re size limits. That stream is not stocked for the trophy fisherman. It is not stocked for the flyfisherman or the bait fisherman. It is stocked for the enjoyment of all fishermen, very few of whom would support a size limit or even understand it.

Why, pray tell, can't we just leave it alone. There are very few of us interested in trophy trout. Why can't it just continue to be managed for trout fishing?

And scrubs, I haven't written for that rag in 15 years. But I think I'll start again. :)

7mm08- No, I never have. Never gave it a thought. The trout fishing here is so much better, it never crossed my mind to fly somewhere and fish for smaller fish.

Now Gil- What evidence do you speak of?

I'm having fun, now.

 

[trealtree]

:)

 

[waterman]

browns on the caney are much better after the 18" limit was put into effect. I wouldnt be opposed to a slot limit on the rainbows.

 

[Stalker]

Model 70- Explain to me just how you would do that and how you would enforce it. It didn't work 20 years ago. How would it be better now?

Now as to my statement re size limits. That stream is not stocked for the trophy fisherman. It is not stocked for the flyfisherman or the bait fisherman. It is stocked for the enjoyment of all fishermen, very few of whom would support a size limit or even understand it.

Why, pray tell, can't we just leave it alone. There are very few of us interested in trophy trout. Why can't it just continue to be managed for trout fishing?

And scrubs, I haven't written for that rag in 15 years. But I think I'll start again. :)

7mm08- No, I never have. Never gave it a thought. The trout fishing here is so much better, it never crossed my mind to fly somewhere and fish for smaller fish.

Now Gil- What evidence do you speak of?

I'm having fun, now.

Get'm BW!!

I think that the regs should support having a fishery not a trophy fishery...We are experiencing the same crap on Smallmouth over here in Region IV and it stinks...I understand some of the slot limit for brood fish but in some good areas they have changed to 1 fish 20"...I'm sorry that is managing the entire fishery for trophies only and that aint what my dollars should be funding. You can not have or expect to have trophy fish on your line every time you go...what kinda trophy would that be if you caught them everyday?

 

[Doskil]

I think managing browns for 'trophy' status is fine but leave the rainbows and brookies for the dinner table

 

[gil1]

I think managing browns for 'trophy' status is fine but leave the rainbows and brookies for the dinner table

Not stirring, but couldn't you live with seven 15 1/2 inch rainbows for supper per outing?

 

[bowriter]

Okay. Being serious now. Here is the problem with slot limits and most size limits on trout in a place such as the Caney. I should say, here are the problems because they are manifold. And let me also state, I throw them all back so I am not affected by any kind of limits.

#1- As I stated earlier, the majority of fishermen, just as with the majority of hunters, are not trophy enthusiasts. Therefore, that river would be managed for a minority. That, to me, is not fair.

#2-It is my belief that the reason for the size of the browns in the Caney is that they are more predatory and to some degree, harder to catch once they reach a larger size. I am not convinced the 18" size limit has a single thing to do with it. Afterall, there are plenty of rainbows being thrown back to produce a trophy fish in common amounts. Few are actually caught over 8#.

#3- RE trophy waters: If you have trophy water on a river, it must either be a stretch at the mouth or at the head. It can't be in the middle. When this was first discussed, I'm thinking maybe 15 years ago. I pointed out to the then head of enforcement, the enforcement problems and how easy it would be for anyone ticketed to get it thrown out of court. Those problems still exist. You have to ban live bait fishing and go to barbless, single hooks. You can't do that in the middle of a floatable river and make a case. Just as you can't ticket someone for having an undersized fish in the middle of a floatable river. No judge would even hear it.

#4- The trout fishing on the Caney is better than any I have seen out West. Keep in mind, I lived in WY for 10 years and fished most, if not all of the major streams in WY and MT. By a long mile, I have caught far bigger rainbows and browns out of the Caney in one year than I caught out there in 10 years.

#5- When you take the first five into consideration, then add the incredible fishery that river is right now (crowding not included)I can't see a reason for change. There is ample opportunity to catch trophy fish right now and that opportunity has been there for almost as long as I can remember. You just have to know how, when and where to fish for big fish. A size limit or slot limit will not change that. For that to change, the entire river would have to be no live bait, single barbless hooks and closed to fishing for at least three months each year. And that is just not fair.

Now my field of expertise is not in icthyology. But it appears to me, those of us who would really like to catch trophy fish, whatever your definition of that is, are already practicing catch and release. So do we want now to force our views on others who may not agree with us? Gil, didn't I just read a post of yours in answer to a post from Troy that was against that very thing? :)

Come on guys. Keep in mind, that river is only 26 miles long from dam to mouth. And for the most part, less than half of it gets any fishing pressure. If you want to declare from Stonewall to the mouth trophy water, I'll support that...cause that's where the real trophy fish are right now.

I wonder if you realize I started this whole dang thing back 25 years ago with an article, "Silver Bullets of the Caney Fork." Until that ran, you never saw another fisherman on that creek.

 

[stillinscrubs]

BW,

You're a legend in your own mind. Anyone who buys the load you shovel deserves what they get.

 

[bowriter]

BW,

You're a legend in your own mind. Anyone who buys the load you shovel deserves what they get.

Perhaps you'd care to elucidate?

 

[bowriter]

Well said C. Hook. No problem with your views. If the Caney was constantly stocked, I would have no problem with slot limits. My posisiton is, with the stocking and the number of fish not caught or caught and released, there is no need for it. As it is, it is bascially a fish pond...just a long one.

 

[gil1]

Of course we don't NEED slot limits, but do we want them? I wish I had the data from the Tech survey taken a few years ago. We used the results as evidence to try to get the brown trout regs. on the Caney. Basically, the data showed that things have changed. The definition of a "quality fishing experience" is changining dramatically from years ago. Yeah, the states around us have changed, and we're ripe for a change, too.

I think that if you build it, they will come. In other words, those that disagree can be swayed once they see the difference. I believe that's what happened on Dale Hollow when people were adamantly against limits but are for limits now.

According to the survey, people want to catch bigger trout. They're willing to give a little to do that because what they get back is much better. Instead of driving to AK, KY, or GA for that experience, they'd like a shot at that here. There are plenty of ditches that are stocked in the urban stocking program here that can be unprotected and solely for the meateaters.

But the Caney has room for tons of improvement in that fish are starting to holdover well. Obviously, and I'll never understand why folks don't get it, but the more you protect the fish, the more and bigger the fish will be to catch. Only a fool can't figure that one out. "Size limits don't work." - if enforced, name me one example in the world where they don't, just one. Anyone that has ever fished a healthy catch and release trout river knows differently.

There is no data on how effective the brown limits are on the Caney. The science has not been done, and there are too many factors at work. The overwhelming majority believes that they are producing astonishing results because the big brown fishing has been so off the charts, but although it may seem obvious that the regs. are working, nobody knows for sure why there has been such a big brown explosion.

Just like the Cumby in KY, the only way to know if it works is to try. The results have been remarkable, and the public has been swayed. They love the rainbow slots and the 1 brown over 20. And as much as I love the Caney and see its potential, it can't, won't, hasn't, and never will fish as well as the Cumby (or not consistently) because there are few protections for the fish.

I'm really sick of hearing that something won't or can't work because TWRA won't enforce the regs. That's a cop-out. You put pressure, do the best you can, get TWRA behind it full-force, and soon the people will be behind it. They can be won over, but it takes time. Some folks will never play by the rules. And some others need to be slowly swayed into progressive management so that they can see and believe in the results themselves.

Really, no offense to anybody and all and this is just my opinion, but it's time to move on. It's time to stop living in the past. It's time to start believing that people can't change because they do, they have, and they will. Progressive management is working all around us. Not only that, people love the results. Everybody wins. The meathunters are happy because they get tons for supper and the fishermen are happy because the fishing is much better.

The other side benefit to regulation is that you force folks into a change in thinking - that a river is a precious and limited resource. For some folks, the Caney is a drive-thru fast food window. They pay for their license, they catch and eat all they can, they toss their trash in the driveway, and they move on to their next meal without thinking of any consequences to the resource.

I believe progressive management teaches people to think for just a little bit. Maybe they will even teach their kids to protect the resource. The reason I joke about the Caney being just a big ditch is because that's what some folks see when they take from it. In my mind, it's a much more complex and beautiful gal. Maybe we can enlighten some others to take stock in the resource instead of just using it as a drive-thru.

 

[onerarebreed]

can anyone tell me what the leafy stuff growing in the Caney fork is.I have lived on the river all my life and it did not start growing there until a few years back.

 

[bowriter]

OKAY-MY BAD In my last post, it should have read if the Caney was NOT constantly stocked.

Now Gil. :) I never said size limits don't work. Of course they do. I am not convinced they would make much difference on the Caney in terms of rainbow trout. What I said was...and I stick by this, are they fair? I also said a trophy "piece of the river won't work". I stick by that as well.

I have no idea what survey you refer to re folks wanting bigger fish. But I suspect if you asked 100 fishermen on the Caney, they would all, 100% say they want bigger fish. Now ask them if they are willing to throw fish back to achieve that goal. The ones who speak fluent English might, by about 40%. But I am also pretty sure, at least 70% of those surveyed would just like to catch...and keep a limit of trout.

Remember, we here on this forum are accustomed to catching 20-50 fish a day. The average Caney fisherman is tickled to death with a limit.

I know as a staunch TU member, you have certain standards to adhere to. I also know you believe in those standards. I have no problem with that at all. But as you know, I don't keep trout. They are all C&R to me. But I do feel an obligation to the Joe Saturday fisherman. Right now, the Caney Fork just suits his needs ideally. And is that not, afterall, what that fishery should be about? That guy is not going to KY or wherever to catch bigger fish. That guy could care less about big trout if he can only keep one. That guy...just wants to catch him a limit of fish to eat. I don't have a problem with that. That is why that river is constantly stocked.

Now, stop stocking? That's a whole new ballgame. Then I am in your corner 100%.

RE the grass. I don't know what it is but it has been there a long time. It is just getting more prevalent.

Again, let me state. I don't keep any trout. So I have no personal axe to grind. Make the whole shebang no fish under 24 inches, I'm cool with that. But let's not apply QDM logic to a fishery equation.

And hasn't this become a dadgummed good discussion?

 

[bowriter]

Addendum...this sort of discussion is what I was thinking about when I suggested a float trip/campout.

 

[onerarebreed]

Does anyone know if the trout reproduce in the caney or not.I have cought several over the years and found them to have eggs in them. And I also believe the key to good trout in the caney is the amount of generation.I think you will see better fish of all species when the get the orfice installed in the sleuce gate at the dam.

 

[gil1]

Lord,, I wish I could continue, but I have to go redneckin'. The carp are waiting.
It's all black and white in my pea brain, but the reality is that we're into a very gray area. I really would like to implement BSKish QDM data to a trout stream, but it doesn't work that way.
It's hard to win hearts and minds by asking people to just believe what you believe. I guess it's just a leap of faith deal, and you sometimes land on your azz.
Will continue after I get this disgusting slime off my face. :sick:

 

[gil1]

I know as a staunch TU member, you have certain standards to adhere to. I also know you believe in those standards.

Dangit, got held up from carpin'!

I want to make something clear. Yes, I believe wholeheartedly in those standards, but unfortunately, Trout Unlimited does not and will never back those standards. They are a coldwater conservation organization, not some fishing club. Nowhere in their mission statement will you find anything that has to do with catching big fish. The fact that there is usually good fishing in clean water is just a bonus.

When I was Pres. of the local chapter, I traveled along with many other TU members to speak to the Commission about the brown trout reg. proposal. In a complex round-about beuarocratic way, the regs. would definitely help TU's mission, but TU would not support my stance because regulation is none of their business unless it somehow effects the resource. For TU, the resource is the water, not the fish. I was not even allowed to say that I was a member of the organization.

Don't get me wrong - TU will gladly dangle stories and pics. of beautiful salmonids in order to boost membership, but when they go to Capitol Hill to try to change laws or even when TU fights the local battles, it will be about water, not fish.

It's sort of the "little known fact."

 

[bowriter]

Well the heck with them, then. I'm calling BSK. :)

That makes me so mad, I am going right straight to the Caney tomorrow and investigate. Then we'll see just what is what!

 

[Stalker]

Stalker I strongly disagree with you on the smallmouth regs, especially the river smallmouth regs. I am glad to see TWRA take a proactive approach and properly manage a very valuable resource. Of course most people who kill river smallies never take into consideration it takes them 8 years or so to reach 8"-10" long, and a 18" bass might be 14 years old or older.

For one I said that I understand slot limits to a degree for brood fish...for sustainablility of the fish population. But I disagree with the 1 fish over 18 or 20 inch rules because that is trophy only fishing...Why should smallies only be a trophy fish? Also, the info I found on smallies size to age raatio put them at 8 inches by age 3 and in the 18 inch by age 10 and older...

 

[Stalker]

Stalker I strongly disagree with you on the smallmouth regs, especially the river smallmouth regs. I am glad to see TWRA take a proactive approach and properly manage a very valuable resource. Of course most people who kill river smallies never take into consideration it takes them 8 years or so to reach 8"-10" long, and a 18" bass might be 14 years old or older.

Also, you called the smallmouth a resource? With regs of 1 fish 18 to 20 inches who is resourcing them? Trophy hunters...that's who...

 

[Stalker]

Not everyone wants trophies evrey time they go fishing...they will be there naturally anyway...Why not use methods that allow for the future of the fishing instead of the quality of each individual fish...The experience and opportunity to fish should be above all else...Who wants to tell their young kids who are begging to keep the fish they caught..."sorry, its not big enough" Not me...I want my kids to experience the entire fishing experience from water to frying pan...How many fish are killed and wasted because they were too small? Ever hooked one not big enough and toss it back to just be a floater...Tears me up! Wast of that fishes life...could have been on my plate but no it will just rot in the water because some trophy reg says it's not big enough to keep.

 

[stillinscrubs]

Stalker,

Smallmouth bass don't have a slot limit? I think what you are trying to say is if they had a slot limit, you could keep and eat some eating size fish....the breeding population would be protected, and people could keep a trophy if they chose....

Is that about right?

Scrubs

 

[onerarebreed]

you boys are just splitting hairs.just go out and enjoy nature as it exist,while you still can.The real trophy is in the experince and when that is lost all is lost.i been at this stuff since i was big enough to go fishin with my grandpa.Fish aint changed people have.