[WhiteH2OPdlr]

You come close to making a couple points in there, and I'll be happy to entertain further discussion at a later time, but just really quick...

You talk about the wild trout populations of the upper run, and conveniently, THAT'S WHERE BOATERS ARE ALLOWED. Alternative 4 banned boater presence from Burrells to 28, the DH section included, which is NOT a prime or unique fishery, but a "put, grow, take" fishery that IS artificially created. What is so ideal about a falsely created fishery? Why is it so "pristine"? I have yet to hear a good response to this.

As far as your assumption that AW is reading the minds of fishermen, please see my response to TroutTiger above regarding the dangerous precedent it sets...if they can ban boaters, they can ban any user group.

And finally, the thing that made me laugh was that you said

"severe restrictions are the only of their kind in the entire United States." The National Parks also restrict boating use, particularly in Yellowstone NP.

May I invite you to differentiate for your personal benefit, between a National Park and a National Forest. There is no other location in a National FOREST that bans boating.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/seki/nps_usfs.htm

Go ahead and read up, rethink, and regroup. I'll catch up with you later after you've reloaded and re-evaluated your debate scheme.

[JOHNKIES]

Ever notice the "hatch" of fingerlings whenever the Chattooga boating issue comes up? As I note in the large banner at the top of this web site, it is the Southeast Flyfishing Forum.

As to restrictions in our National Forests, they are quite common place with restrictions on vehicle use, hunting seasons, fishing seasons, restrictions on the type of weapons used, the type of fishing gear you can use, and where you can camp - just to name a few. Restricting boating does not single out any group as being the only use group which must comply with restrictions, rules and regulations. Without them, the forests would be chaos.

[gmreeves]

Originally Posted by JOHNKIES

Ever notice the "hatch" of fingerlings whenever the Chattooga boating issue comes up?

Hey now, I resemble that remark!

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

Ever notice the "hatch" of fingerlings whenever the Chattooga boating issue comes up? As I note in the large banner at the top of this web site, it is the Southeast Flyfishing Forum.

Ever notice a hatch of complete lack of logic capabilities when the issue comes up?

vehicle use, hunting seasons, fishing seasons, restrictions on the type of weapons used, the type of fishing gear you can use, and where you can camp - just to name a few.

The only one of those that is a ban on a USER GROUP is Vehicle use, and I'm absolutely positive that we can all agree that vehicle use is NOT a viable user group in line with the FS's mission. A "restriction" and a "ban" are two different things. Restrictions are common, they are rules, like speed limits. Bans on a safe, viable, and reasonable user group are kinda like saying you can't drive Toyotas on the interstates.

Johnkies, you've seemed to want to impose your opinions without followup before, so I assume this is the same thing again.

[Upstream]

[quote=WhiteH2OPdlr;296036]
The only one of those that is a ban on a USER GROUP is Vehicle use, and I'm absolutely positive that we can all agree that vehicle use is NOT a viable user group in line with the FS's mission. A "restriction" and a "ban" are two different things. Restrictions are common, they are rules, like speed limits. Bans on a safe, viable, and reasonable user group are kinda like saying you can't drive Toyotas on the interstates.
QUOTE]

Actually, there are many trails that I can hike, but from which horses, or ATVs, or mountain bikes, are banned. That's not a bad thing; some activites are not very compatible given the state of certain resources. And fishing and paddling can be such activites. I've had the experience of fishing the Nanty DH when some paddlers decided to run it. When they popped over a little drop without paying any attention to where I was, I was essentially told to watch out for myself; I've had a couple of similar experiences with mountian bikers careening down hiking trails. You may reject them as irresponsible boaters or bikers, but there are many irresponsible users, and it's the sort of conflict that can be avoided with the recognition that in some places, some resource users shouldn't be in the same place at the same time.

While I would certainly enjoy it if my own uses were recognized as the most important, and that all others would be required to yield when I want to fish, or hike, or whatever, the reality is that an ever increasing population is trying to recreate in a finite resource. The sort of zoning in time and space that the plan represents should probably happen more places, more often. And yes, I recognize that a zoning model may mean that there is a time and place that I am excluded from fishing a stream I want to fish because it is "reserved" for others at that time. I don't particularly like that, but an untrammeled wilderness set aside for my fishing pleasure will never happen; we need to use what we have as wisely as we can, with proper respect for others. I had begun to hope that the plan would serve as something of a model for other such compromises, but it appears that some user group organizations are not willing to accept compromise.

BTW, I certainly do NOT agree that vehicle use is inappropriate under USFS's mission. I may not like ATVs next to me, and certainly have concerns about the effects of their use if not properly monitored, but they are recreationists on public land too; all the more reason to recognize some zoning concepts.

[HowdJuhDo]

heres another fingerling "hatching" on this issue (don't worry, us people who boat have to deal with grumpy oldschoolers who crap on the "new guys" too... nothing new):

seems to me the main issue is erosion. obviously some of the examples already given (vehicles, horses, bikes) create a good amount of erosion.


lets be fair here and consider that most people agree that boaters want to boat when the water is too high for most fishermens' taste. also, boaters dont create much erosion considering they are floating most of the river.

so how does a logical debate continue from that point?

EDIT: oh ***** i'm not even a fingerling.... im a bottom feeder! go figure.

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

Originally Posted by Upstream

BTW, I certainly do NOT agree that vehicle use is inappropriate under USFS's mission.

Because of that one single line, I will not invest too much time nor energy in responding to your position.

The mission of the USFS:

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

And I HIGHLY doubt that even managed OHV access to remote areas is anywhere near meeting the qualifications of that mission. If I'm not mistaken, the closing of the Tellico OHV area was met with open arms on this forum. "Sustain" and "present and future" all go against blatant erosion, subsurface damage, and petrol/fluid discharge into pristine watersheds. Seems to conflict slightly, eh?

[WhiteH2OPdlr]

Originally Posted by HowdJuhDo

lets be fair here and consider that most people agree that boaters want to boat when the water is too high for most fishermens' taste. also, boaters dont create much erosion considering they are floating most of the river.

BUT, BUT, Howjuh.....dangit, you're messing up my argument...TroutTiger says that 800 is a GREAT fishing level, and everything I've read says 450cfs!!!! Explain to me, great Howjuh, how those boys in them plastic yaks can get down that upper river when the 76 bridge gauge reads a mere 1.4'!!!! Sounds like a GREAT middlin range for us fishermen!!!!

[HowdJuhDo]

Originally Posted by WhiteH2OPdlr

BUT, BUT, Howjuh.....dangit, you're messing up my argument...TroutTiger says that 800 is a GREAT fishing level, and everything I've read says 450cfs!!!! Explain to me, great Howjuh, how those boys in them plastic yaks can get down that upper river when the 76 bridge gauge reads a mere 1.4'!!!! Sounds like a GREAT middlin range for us fishermen!!!!

oh you make a good point thar matie! i propose that the USFS ban fishing for 30 years and then spend 4 years studying how to allow them 6 days on the water.
no, not really

[milligan trout degree]