FFIM

You may want to take a look at Fly Anglers on Line's bulletin board. I think it will be of interest to you. LEft you a personal message but know how long it takes you to read them. Andre<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: andre on 2002-08-03 10:59 ]</font>

_________________
Andre

Wow!!! Great work Andre. Some people never cease to amaze me.

Hey Steve, <BR> <BR>Get a clue. You know damn well who that post was aimed at. Whether it was on another board, or not, it was a cheap and undeserved shot below the belt. And who are you to accuse Andre and me for ill advised posts. All I ever try to do is be fair and talk about fishing. It is guys like you who get this board off the subject of fishing (i.e. "Attn. Tourists"). If the post on the other board implicated someone else who you are allegedly close to, I'm sure you would have blown your horn in utter disgust. <BR> <BR>Garrett

Rory they probaly are stocked but it is water that has natural reproduction. And you could be right that regulations bring attention but as Bob M clearly states it is not a secret. Do you think that allowing things the way they are on that stretch is the best thing for the fish? I wont comment on the other posts in this thread as they are unproductive and I hope that every one can keep their cool and discuss a very serious issue rationally. <BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rj on 2002-08-03 14:49 ]</font>

_________________
rjflies

Steve, RW here <BR> <BR>Does anyone care? I care Steve, and I didn't like it. By the way, FAOL is based in Washington state, not Idaho. I'm from Maine and I'm a regular over there, and somewhat of one here. I knew exactly who he was talking about because he had just got done posting the same thing over here in another format, but a little nastier, including naming names. <BR> <BR>After he got done blasting Ken at 6:10 p.m. on 08/02 here, he went nationwide over to FAOL at 7:50 p.m. on 08/02 and wrote basically the same thing, albeit another format, because IMHO he has lost his credibility with so many people on this site he needs new blood to try and support his warped theories. Yeah, I know folks, we're not supposed to respond to that sort of nonsense. Well,it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. So Steve, you still say he wasn't refering to Ken on FAOL? How about you "gettin real". <BR> <BR>Later, RW <BR> <BR>

_________________
"Maybe your stature as a fly fisherman isn't determined by how big a trout you can catch, but by how small a trout you can catch without being disappointed." <John Gierach>

Steve, RW here <BR> <BR>Does anyone care? I care Steve, and I didn't like it. By the way, FAOL is based in Washington state, not Idaho. I'm from Maine and I'm a regular over there, and somewhat of one here. I knew exactly who he was talking about because he had just got done posting the same thing over here in another format, but a little nastier, including naming names. <BR> <BR>After he got done blasting Ken at 6:10 p.m. on 08/02 here, he went nationwide over to FAOL at 7:50 p.m. on 08/02 and wrote basically the same thing, albeit another format, because IMHO he has lost his credibility with so many people on this site he needs new blood to try and support his warped theories. Yeah, I know folks, we're not supposed to respond to that sort of nonsense. Well,it's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. So Steve, you still say he wasn't refering to Ken on FAOL? How about you "gettin real". <BR> <BR>Later, RW <BR> <BR>

_________________
"Maybe your stature as a fly fisherman isn't determined by how big a trout you can catch, but by how small a trout you can catch without being disappointed." <John Gierach>

Guys chill out! RW you have a right ot your point of view and respect you for being honest. Steve while it feels good having someone who is not opposing my point of view,I am able to handle criticism from others. Thanks for your efforts though.

_________________
rjflies

Rory an endless debate, thats fine with me. I just love talking about wild fish, trout habitat and matters of conservation in general. I find what you wrote a very interesting perspective and you make some fine points especially about C&r. Thank you for sharing your heart on this matter.

_________________
rjflies

John K i would love to hear your thoughts on the river and the section in question. Artificial lures have been something I have frankly probaly been a little prejudiced towards. However on my home waters i think that perhaps i would be more open to seeing regulations from ffo to artificials also. I would never imagine saying that before but after talking with a lot of people on this board i find my "previous prejudices" slowly changing. How much more damage due to a released fish caught on an artificial vs one on a fly? Does your educational background involve studys on this matter?

_________________
rjflies

John interesting reading. I think rivers should be regulated more because it is easier to release a fish properly in stillwater than in current.

_________________
rjflies

I am still debating the pros and cons and for not being a very bright fellow heres a few observations I came up with. Poachers are a given with or without regs, so take them out of the equation. Then there is the arguement that special regs bring attention, thats a posssibility. But those people that it attracts are for the most part law abiding citizens who will show tremendous care in releasing fish. looking at the tremendous impact bait fishermen can have on a stretch of water i have to say thats why I favor regs. But then the issue of enforcement comes in. Does the state have the manpower to enforce the regs? Are anglers willing to step up in the gap and make a presence there to discourage abuse of the laws? Tough questions lets hear some bona fide solutions, there are a lot of intelligent people who frequent this forum.

_________________
rjflies

Downtown Madison is undeniably in rough shape (run-down infrastructure, not enough traffic, etc.) As such, for Madison to survive (the mill can't do it all), it needs to find a way to draw folks into town to spend and invest. I personally can't think of a better way then to develop the fishery at The Pines - What else is there? While the current situation is nice (low traffic, etc.), the situation is temporary (people are figuring it out) and change is inevitable. Additionally, the fishing is not reaching its potential and as such the town benefits very little by it. As John points out, with a sound plan this section of river could provide economic relief to Madison and supurb fishing opportunities to anglers (it has great wade-in potential). Parking, trails, stocking and regs would do the trick and although it would clearly increase traffic, the fishing would improve (remember without support Shawmut would be nothing - we learn to live with the traffic) and the town would benefit. For those looking for something more secluded, there are small spots all up and down the river that have yet to be "discovered". Like John, I have a sincere desire to see the area (and the whole state) prosper and I believe that fishing (and tourism in general) is a big piece of the puzzle.

I agree with RJ.. Poaching is real and Anglers are the best "Policemen" for Anglers.. Peer pressure works wonders and traffic keeps poaching down. All we need then is to have the Maine DF&W/legal system implement "Fines" vs. "Fees" in regard to Game Violations ($50 for "Worms in an FFO Water" is an insult and by no means a deterent!) <BR> <BR>Rory - The water would need to be protected down past the powerlines to be effective (the fish need a buffer)

John i reread your article(you should post more). Two things, i would take my chances fishing with you anytime i am sure you have a lot of tricks up your sleeve. secondly i think regs on pond regarding bait is to protect the water from introduction of undesirable species. <BR> <BR>In nh the state seems to focus the stocking effort on ponds perhaps because of angler demand altough they have set aside waters as ffo. They call theese quality fisherys -basically a place to dump the 4-5lb broodstock brookies when they serve no more useful purpose. <BR> <BR>It seems like the upper stretch of the river is in good hands and both you and Bob M are going to make a difference.

_________________
rjflies