Question:

In some sense the problem of new dams is mostly past.  I think there is no "good" place left in the US to build a really large dam (with the possible exception of the Grand Canyon).  The last big dam built (Teton Dam) collapsed 25 years ago.  It was the almost inevitable result of continuing to build after the last technically "good" location was used. I think building of medium sized dams pretty much stopped soon thereafter.  It is harder to tell because smaller dams are less newsworthy.  Generally, it is no longer economically justified to build most dams.  Partially this is because of the elimination of cheap real estate.  Just as with large dams, the "good" locations were already used.  A significant increase in environmental concerns raises the associated costs.  There is also a realization that many older dams are technically weak, so new dams now require a much more conservative (that is expensive) design.  The result is that new dams are not being built and a few old dams are even being removed for economic reasons. I think the conclusion is that new dams are pretty much a non-issue.  Of course there are still a lot of old dams around with no viable justification for their existence.      Larry

Response:

What do you all think? I think there would be little runnable water in the east without dam releases! – Mothra

As you know, the Cheat has no dams in its watershed yet still offers a very long season. Its tributaries are free flowing and a hoot to paddle when the Cheat Canyon gets too high. Without dams in the East paddling would be…different. More seasonal. Less crowded. Still fun. But I’ll admit, I’d hate to do ALL my Upper Yough paddling in February Jordan

Response:

That’s the best response I’ve heard yet. At least the one I liked best.  I wish more people were able to look at things as objectively. There is nothing wrong with being against something as long as you have good reason to feel the way you do. And it’s always better to temper your position with an understanding of the other side of an issue.

You did not originally ask for a balanced judgement on whether dams are beneficial or detrimental to the world and to society at large: You asked why boaters don’t like them. — JML

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers?

Have a look at what has been done in Austria or the French Alps… Many rivers have been dammed, often burying great stretches of white water, creating environmental nightmares in the places that were swamped (think Brazil). The parts that are left unburied are either degraded to concrete channels in which the water is urged downstream as quickly as possible, to prevent flooding problems, or have become completey dry, as the water is led around the steepest (and therefore often the best) stretches of original riverbed. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity.

Actually, you just gave off yet another problem: by using that water for agricultural use, drinking water or letting it evaporate, you lose a lot of what before the damming went down to fill the riverbed downstream. So even more of the river gets hit! Wilko PS: Mind you, I agree that there are some benefits as well, like "clean" electricity, controlling floods that threaten people and such… For Austria for example it’s one of the few dependable export products they have (AFAIK They have no large ore or mineral deposits). PPS: No Scott, don’t even try, I won’t waste the energy to reply to you. — Wilko van den Bergh                       quibus(at)europe(dot)com     Eindhoven           The Netherlands            Europe                       "Look Mum: No sense!"  

Response:

In other cases, dams are objectionable because they have flooded incredibly beautiful valleys.  Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon are prime examples.  I seriously doubt that these would be built today.

And don’t forget the New Melones Dam that drowned out a fantastic class III run of the Stanislaus River.  I never got to see it because I started paddling the first year it was no longer (and had moved the the east coast, the year the drought brought it back).  That stretch was a big loss to river runners.  Sure, the South Fork of the American is nice, but it’s great to have some choices. Lori

Response:

2.   OK,  now let’s look at dams from purely a whitewater paddling perspective.   Yes,  some dams actually improve our whitewater resources. The Grand Canyon is the obvious biggie.

I would disagree with this statement.  I think the Grand Canyon was a better place to paddle before the Glen Canyon Dam.  First of all, the flows were consistent, rather than these funky daily fluxuations that go on now.  Also, the water was much warmer.  It was also possible to hit it at a high flow, which can happen now, but doesn’t happen every year like it used to.  I think the yearly patterns were fairly predictable, and I’m sure there was plenty of water most years for a full season.  There were also more sand bars.  And the list goes on….. I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that there is any good contributed to river running due to the Glen Canyon Dam.  The only good that dam does is for the Casinos in Las Vegas. Lori

Response:

   p.s. I can’t stand it when people call a dam controlled body of water a lake.  It’s a flowage or in some cases backwater.  (It’s usually the people who overpaid for property around it that will call it a lake)

Response:

That’s the best response I’ve heard yet. At least the one I liked best.  I wish more people were able to look at things as objectively. There is nothing wrong with being against something as long as you have good reason to feel the way you do. And it’s always better to temper your position with an understanding of the other side of an issue. It makes me feel better about this board to know that some of the people who frequent it  can logically address a topic and include insight with their opinions.  The Lake Powell thread on a similar subject had me doubting. -k_thomas

Response:

    I wouldn’t consider myself as an eco-nazi but benefits be "damned", should we screw with Mother Nature as much as we really do?       Living in the Great Lakes region I have seen the dramatic effects of water usage.  Lake Superior alone last year was down 13-20ft. (according to the media.. I never measured it)        I believe our world is dramatically changing every day, and not to our benefit.  Granted I’m only 30 years old, but I can remember snowfalls that where a far greater amount than we receive now.  There are probably a gad-zillion reasons why our planet seems to be changing so rapidly, and I just don’t see the benefits of raping a ecosystem that has had so much damage in the last 130 years.       As a more mature friend of mine has often stated to me…"think globally..and act locally" Craig       …and no I’m not about to stop driving my truck to the river.

Response:

Hetch Hetchy in California is perhaps the most egregious example.  A valley equivalent to Yosemite Valley is under water and closed to most public uses. The water from it goes to farmers and could easily be stored in Don Pedro Reservoir which is below it.

I dispute you here… Glen Canyon is by far the most egregious example with Boulder Damn not far behind. Having spent several long seasons climbing in Yosemite and imagining what was under Hetch Hetchy, I can agree that it too is an egregious wrong, but nowhere nearly so large or so environmentally destructive in it’s extent as Glen Canyon Damn and Lake Foul. Warren

Response:

I know that this isn’t the forum for a discussion of alternative energy sources but I really think that we need to take a serious look again at nuclear.  It, besides hydropower, is the only conceivable short-term source of abundant power.  If we, like much of the rest of the world, had a significant portion of our energy that comes from nukes, we wouldn’t need so many dams. I laugh whenever I hear the "Solar, Wind, Geothermal…." argument.  None of those are or will ever be a source of the abundant power that our country thinks it needs.  I don’t think that it is realistic to expect that Americans will be willing to drastically change the way we use energy. So what are the choices? 1) Fossil fuels – Bad, bad, dissappearing. 2) Hydropower – (see this discussion for reasons not to like them). 3) Alternative Energy (Diffuse – Not readily available) 4) Nuclear Energy Many of our fears about them are based on experiences from the 60’s and 70’s – The rest of the world has gone full speed ahead and the industry has forty years of experience behind them.  We can make them clean and safe. Many countries are sucessfully using our technology to dispose of the waste. Randy Hodges BTW – An interesting book about the depression era dam building is "Bucking the Sun" by Ivan Doig.  I found it interesting because my grandfather helped build Shasta Dam in California. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t think my post really clasifies as a troll.  I was obviouslly looking for responses, but the intent was provoke thought and dialogue not argument and emotion. It just seems to me that paddlers have a knee jerk reaction to dams that defies logic. Someone in this thread mentioned the destruction of salmon species and of particularly unique environments as an argument against dams.  In the cases where those are valid concerns I completely see the agrument against the dam.  Those cases seem to be more an exception than a rule in my limited experience.  Maybe thats because I live in the east. But, I honestly believe that ,in general, dams are better for the environment that the main alternatives available today(coal, natural gas, and nuclear).  So to me the generic bad for the environment arguments holds no water(pun intended).  Solar, wind and tidal power may provide a cleaner, more environmentally friendly option in the future but are not economically viable yet today. my $.02 -k_thomas

Response:

      That’s a thoughtful question, D. There are MANY reasons why kayakers generally oppose dams, and no answer under 100 pages will be complete.   So I’ll try to give a simple perspective on two basic reasons why kayakers hate dams:     1.    I would say the simplest reason is purely ecological.  Dams tend to destroy habitat, first by the massive construction and earth-moving project, and then forever by changing river flow that has existed for millions of years, shaping the surrounding ecosystem.     2.   OK,  now let’s look at dams from purely a whitewater paddling perspective.   Yes,  some dams actually improve our whitewater resources. The Grand Canyon is the obvious biggie.  Here in the West,  the NF Payette in Idaho and the Tuolumne and Lower Kern in Calif. are other examples of dams stretching out the season.  A lot of boaters back east benefit from dam releases creating long seasons.       But there are many dams that reduce or outright  KILL a good whitewater run.   Nothing kills a river quicker than taking the water out of the river and putting it into a pipe. One of the greatest whitewater rivers in the world is the Kern River in Southern California. For about 20 million people to the south,  this is the ONLY major whitewater river within reasonable weekend driving distance.      The aforementioned Lower Kern runs longer because of the dam at Isabella Lake,   But this dam also raises water temperature,  and something is very wrong with the fish screening system at the dam’s outlet.  This combined with the lake use,  results in horrible water quality on the lower. Lots of ww paddlers complain about sinus problems after rolling in this water.  It takes a lot of the fun out of this run.      The best convenient day-run whitewater on the Kern that is not restricted by special-use permits (as is the classic Forks Run)  is the North Fork, or Upper Kern,  which holds almost 20 miles of runnable ww above Kernville.  Class II, III, IV and V runs are available on this stretch,  plus many playspots, and the whole stretch can be run in a day.          Anyway,  this absolute gem of a run is uniquely blessed with a long, long season,  thanks to the fact that it drains the highest peak in the lower 48, Mt. Whitney.  So on a good snowpack year,  you can run this whitewater,  on natural flow,  from March to October.        Well,  at least according to Mother Nature you can.   That’s where the evil hydropower dam comes in. The KR-3 hydro-dam at Fairview impounds and pipes the flow for about 13 miles of the NF Kern,  reducing  a world-class 17-mile river run,  deemed "Wild and Scenic" by Congress,   into two miles at the top, and two miles at the bottom,  with the middle 13 miles fairly dry for much of the season.               The pipe holds about 600 cfs.  Now,  on a good year, when the river is raging at 4,000 in spring,  it  doesn’t matter much  that the flow in the bypass reach,  or impacted stretch,  is reduced to 3,400.  But that’s the exception.   For most of the season,  the flow is usually around 1,000 cfs, which is a very fun flow for that river.  But reduce that to 400,  and the river is unrunnable for most kayakers.  Almost anything below 1,000 is pretty much  unrunnable for rafters.  So a world-class river, the closest such resource to the second-largest urban population in the country,  is unrunnable when nature is providing a lovely 1,600 cfs.   On dry or even moderate years, the flow might not get higher than this all year.         All of this for an outdated,  inefficient hydropower plant that has seen better days.      This is just one example of how one dam can dramatically impact a river,   and impact the kayakers and rafters who call this river home.  There are many other examples.    We’ve already dammed too many rivers.  We don’t have enough rivers left.   An earlier poster mentioned solar.   Concur.    Until I see a lot more solar panels and modern windmills,  I don’t want to hear about more hydropower dams.  And more important than all of this, we citizens and public agencies need to work much, much more on CONSERVING electricity.  We’re too spoiled with cheap energy.  Maybe the current price crisis out west will have a positive long-term impact.  Turning lights off,  not running our computers 24 hours a day, using efficient appliances, and recycling everything we can (saves mucho electricity from the manufacturing process) is a much better idea than damming more rivers.     OK, that’s the short answer. Respect our rivers.      Steve Waterstrat Steve Waterstrat

Response:

Dams suck because they drown rapids, cause untold ecological damage to the riparian environment downstream and are just one more example of humans thinking they know best.  There are almost always better ways to accomplish the same need. Warren – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.  Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.  This makes it easier to determine which ecosystems will be affected and if that impact is worth the benifits of the dam. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity. I can understand frustration and anger with certain companies(like TVA) that are unwilling to work with us, but not the overall resentment of dams themselves. What do you all think? -k_thomas

Response:

I don’t think my post really clasifies as a troll.  I was obviouslly looking for responses, but the intent was provoke thought and dialogue not argument and emotion. It just seems to me that paddlers have a knee jerk reaction to dams that defies logic. Someone in this thread mentioned the destruction of salmon species and of particularly unique environments as an argument against dams.  In the cases where those are valid concerns I completely see the agrument against the dam.  Those cases seem to be more an exception than a rule in my limited experience.  Maybe thats because I live in the east. But, I honestly believe that ,in general, dams are better for the environment that the main alternatives available today(coal, natural gas, and nuclear).  So to me the generic bad for the environment arguments holds no water(pun intended).  Solar, wind and tidal power may provide a cleaner, more environmentally friendly option in the future but are not economically viable yet today. my $.02 -k_thomas

Response:

What do you all think?

I think there would be little runnable water in the east without dam releases! – Mothra

Response:

Whoa!" when someone speaks of damming a river is that the history of human intervention with the environment

yeah, but around here you can still find traces of Indian fish "dams" on some rivers – places where rocks have been strategically placed to funnel the fishies into a chute.  i think we’ve been messing with mother nature for a long, long time. what’s scary to me is how little "wilderness" or natural places are left.  even in wild, wunderful west virginia there’s more bulldozers every year.   the rainforest too is becoming more and more civilized.   i’m no super environmentalist but i guess the earth is waning – dying if you will.  i love looking out my window at my stand of trees, but there’s a house being built next door and the lot next to me has been sold to a developer. . . . – Mothra

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I can’t speak for all paddlers.  In my case, the reason why my first thought is "Whoa!" when someone speaks of damming a river is that the history of human intervention with the environment is full of unintended consequences.  When we dam a river, we change things, in a big way.  We can’t always anticipate exactly what will result. —

As always, there are two valid sides to any argument. On the pro-dam side we have: -An exceptionally clean source of electricity (an important concern in these days of "global warming" allegedly caused in part by CO2 produced from coal and natural gas fired power plants). -Flood control, saving lots of money in property damage and possibly some lives every spring. -Recreational benefits from the created lakes (e.g. sailing, power boating) -Irrigation On the anti-dam side we have: -Aesthetics (a flowing river is much nicer to look at than a wall of concrete) -Environmental concerns  (e.g. the effects of flooding habitats, blocking migration routes, etc.  A result of the law of unintended consequences was discovered when they  flooded huge areas of northern Quebec–naturally occurring mercury in the soil and trees ended up in the water, making the fish from the new reservoir toxic…) -Recreational benefits (e.g. kayaking, rafting, fly fishing) -Concerns regarding decommissioning -Concerns regarding effects of silt build up -Danger of poorly maintained, or aging dams.  Just ask people who lived along thousands of kilometers of the Peace River in northern BC and Alberta a few years ago when a sinkhole was discovered in the Bennett dam.  Luckily the sinkhole turned out to be minor and not an indication of imminent failure of the dam, but there was a real scare for a while. The spillway of the dam, opened all the way up could not drain the reservoir sufficiently to prevent a massive wave if the dam collapsed. Of course, every individual person will put different weights on these pro- and con- factors, leading to a different determination of whether or not dams are good or bad. -Paul

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers?

I can’t speak for all paddlers.  In my case, the reason why my first thought is "Whoa!" when someone speaks of damming a river is that the history of human intervention with the environment is full of unintended consequences.  When we dam a river, we change things, in a big way.  We can’t always anticipate exactly what will result.   — ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::         "I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart                 for the joys of the multitude"

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers?

It’s no fun to paddle a rapid which is under water, nor is it any fun to paddle a rapid which is completely dry.  Old timers can tell you about rapids which used to be fun and runnable which are now either submerged behind a dam, or downstream of a dam which diverts the water to someplace else. I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.

Some paddlers are more interested in paddling than in the generation, distribution, and consumption of ever increasing amounts of electric power.  Whitewater paddle craft use no electricity, and I’ve known a few boaters who have gone months at a time without using it either (e.g., living from the back of a pickup truck.) Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.

First of all, the "locality" affected by some dams can be *HUGE*.  The Three Gorges dam in China will permanently innundate 150,000 acres and force the relocation of 1.4 million people.  Besides the land that’s flooded, who knows how much additional impact will be caused by the displaced people, by the construction project, by the turning of almost four hundred miles of flowing river into a stagnant lake and, by the changes in the way the river banks will be used down stream (the main reason they’re building it is for flood control.) Secondly (and sadly), some paddlers are not interested in preserving ecosystems other than the ones that they happen to paddle through. [Dams] provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity.

Now  *THAT*  *IS*  *ARROGANT*!  Dams do not *MAKE* water.  Do you think the Gauley would dry up if someone took the Summersville Dam away?  The Gauley would still run, but it would run on God’s schedule instead of the Army Corps of Engineers’s schedule.  You might just as well tell us to praise the Federal Government for givings us money for schools and highways and whatever when all they are really doing is grudgingly returning a few of the dollars that they took from our pockets in the first place. — Foo! FWIW:  The Three Gorges dam will provide between 15,000 and 20,000        megawatts of electric power — about ten times the output of a        typical coal-fired power station.

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against damming rivers?

I live in Northern California and we are faced with the possible loss of several species of Salmon and Steelhead.  Much (but certainly not all) of that is due to the deleterious effects of dams.  Dams stop or hinder migration, physically harm fish who are washed through generating facilities, and alter the water temperature and oxygen levels. In other cases, dams are objectionable because they have flooded incredibly beautiful valleys.  Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon are prime examples.  I seriously doubt that these would be built today. I don’t think that anyone but the most rabid of us are against all dams. Some are certainly necessary and appropriate.  There was a period in our history where nature was a thing to be conquered and where dams were built for dubious reasons such as "We can." or "Lets put people to work." or perhaps even "My supporters want it."  We need to careful consider removing these inappropriate dams. Hetch Hetchy in California is perhaps the most egregious example.  A valley equivalent to Yosemite Valley is under water and closed to most public uses. The water from it goes to farmers and could easily be stored in Don Pedro Reservoir which is below it. Randy Hodges

Response:

Rather than give an inadequate response (my first inclination was to say merely that there’s miles of runnable water under them thar resevoirs! which is true by the way) I would direct you to <americanrivers.org I think that aside from the recreational and commercial opportunities that dams obfuscate, we as paddlers have become by proxy guardians of the continuuity of running water by way of our identification with it and our love of it. There are lots of ecological, communal and scientific horrors that dams bring (many veiled by the relatively short term advantages of things like Las Vegas), especially old, deteriorating, no-longer-even-arguable-useful ones, but I think it boils down to a general belief that rivers are meant to flow and when you stop them up you’re flying in the face of mama nature and that hardly ever leads, in the end, to good. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.  Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.  This makes it easier to determine which ecosystems will be affected and if that impact is worth the benifits of the dam. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity. I can understand frustration and anger with certain companies(like TVA) that are unwilling to work with us, but not the overall resentment of dams themselves. What do you all think? -k_thomas

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers?

<snip why dams are so great What do you all think?

well I think that … wait a second, there’s a brite and shiny piece of metal inside this morsel… and, hey, that’s connected to some almost invisible kind of thread.  I’d better go back to the safety of the weeds. Dave ‘looked like a juicy leech for a second there’ P

Response:

Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.  Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.  This makes it easier to determine which ecosystems will be affected and if that impact is worth the benifits of the dam. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity. I can understand frustration and anger with certain companies(like TVA) that are unwilling to work with us, but not the overall resentment of dams themselves. What do you all think? -k_thomas

Response:

I’ve wondered this about myself. The two stretches of water I regret most in my life of not having run are Glen Canyon and Ripogenous Gorge, both beneath reservoirs. But both stretches of river *below* the dams are runnable primarily because the dams are there.  Yet, I still feel that I’d rather the river was wild and often unrunnable than tamed and runnable. I suppose its because I spend much more time than the average flatlander ON the river, so I get to feel and see all the multitude of interactions between the elements of a riparian community. The presence of a dam imbalances that so much, upstream, at-site and downstream, that it seems abominable. I don’t see dams primarily as ‘power-generating stations’ any more than I see a wooded hillside as ‘iron ore’ or a pollution belching city as ‘economic opportunity’. riverman – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.  Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.  This makes it easier to determine which ecosystems will be affected and if that impact is worth the benifits of the dam. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity. I can understand frustration and anger with certain companies(like TVA) that are unwilling to work with us, but not the overall resentment of dams themselves. What do you all think? -k_thomas

Response:

I think overall anything changed in this world from its natural state is not good.  I know as an outdoor person I enjoy the beauty of nature in its natural state. Why don’t they spend more time and money on other forms of energy like Solar?  Would this not solve many problems like high oil, gas, electric costs?  As well as reduce pollution and other effects on the environment. Just my thoughts. Rgds – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why are paddlers most often against daming rivers? I honestly don’t understand why.  Seems to me, it is the cleanest and cheapest way to generate electricity on a large scale.  Furhter, the environmental impact is generally more localized than any other form of power generation.  This makes it easier to determine which ecosystems will be affected and if that impact is worth the benifits of the dam. They provide drinking water and a myriad of recreation opportunites (often times including whitewater releases) in addition to the electricity. I can understand frustration and anger with certain companies(like TVA) that are unwilling to work with us, but not the overall resentment of dams themselves. What do you all think? -k_thomas

Response:

Question:

Hello All: I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been lurking thru all the posts for the last couple of months and you guys have some great info.  Thank you!  I’m relatively new to flyfishing and recently took guided "on river" lessons on the Deschutes (handy because I live in Portland).  Wow!  Great experience.  With the guides, it was like a fast forward course in nymphing.  A great start.  I’m now looking to upgrade my gear, and am looking at a Sage 590 DS2 or a St Croix Legend or Imperial.  Also looking to pick up a pair of Orvis Clearwater Breathables (I like the 4 year warranty).  Anyhow, I just wanted to let everyone know I appreciate your posts, and maybe as I get some more experience, I can add to the board.   Scott

Response:

I’ve been lurking thru all the posts for the last couple of months

Congratulations on coming out of the shadows!  You have taken a big step and are now eligible to be Fortenberry fodder! Keep at the learning (it actually never stops).  At least you are into the fun part now.   Good luck and keep us posted. Warren X#-[

Trout Dwellers Unite! Western Conclave Guru For info: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/sp_ROFF_people/wclave/wclave.html

Response:

Anyhow, I just wanted to let everyone know I appreciate your posts, and maybe as I get some more experience, I can add to the board. Scott

Welcome to the group.  It’s always nice to see a new nickname.  BTW, there’s no need to wait until you have experience to start adding to the board.  Most ROFFians aren’t the type to refrain from giving advice just because they don’t know what they’re talking about. — Levi "So long, and thanks for all the fish."

Response:

Welcome Scott from another ROFF newcomer.  I still consider myself a flyfishing beginner and as such I find a lot of the info here invaluable.  I’ve never taken a guided flyfishing trip but I would like to try one soon (maybe Spring 2001). I’m sure you’ve already seen this here a hundred times but….be sure to cast any rod before you buy.  Some shops will let you take them out on the stream and fish them for a few days without having to commit. One thing that has been a great source for me is an annual Flyfishing and Outdoors show held in my state (usually in January).  Every manufacturer you can dream of attends with their full line of gear in tow.  They will gladly rig up any rod/reel combo you like for a test drive on the indoor casting pool.  If they have anything like that near you I highly recommend attending even if it means a days drive and a stay over at a local hotel…it’s that good. Next spring I’ll be in need of new waders too…the Orvis Breathables are appealing.  Keep us posted on the gear front. Regards and tight lines! Natty

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello All: I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been lurking thru all the posts for the last couple of months and you guys have some great info.  Thank you! I’m relatively new to flyfishing and recently took guided "on river" lessons on the Deschutes (handy because I live in Portland).  Wow!  Great experience.  With the guides, it was like a fast forward course in nymphing.  A great start.  I’m now looking to upgrade my gear, and am looking at a Sage 590 DS2 or a St Croix Legend or Imperial.  Also looking to pick up a pair of Orvis Clearwater Breathables (I like the 4 year warranty).  Anyhow, I just wanted to let everyone know I appreciate your posts, and maybe as I get some more experience, I can add to the board. Scott

Response:

Jeezus H. Christ man, are you crazy!  Run far, run fast, before Wolfie and Forty get back. Best of luck and welcome to cyber hell! Opie  **Panhandling for a better tomorrow!**

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello All: I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been lurking thru all the posts for the last couple of months and you guys have some great info.  Thank you!  I’m relatively new to flyfishing and recently took guided "on river" lessons on the Deschutes (handy because I live in Portland).  Wow!  Great experience. With the guides, it was like a fast forward course in nymphing.  A great start. I’m now looking to upgrade my gear, and am looking at a Sage 590 DS2 or a St Croix Legend or Imperial.  Also looking to pick up a pair of Orvis Clearwater Breathables (I like the 4 year warranty).  Anyhow, I just wanted to let everyone know I appreciate your posts, and maybe as I get some more experience, I can add to the board. Scott

Response:

Hello All: I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been lurking thru all the posts for the last couple of months and you guys have some great info.  Thank you!  I’m relatively new to flyfishing and recently took guided "on river" lessons on the Deschutes (handy because I live in Portland).  Wow!  Great experience.  

Lucky bastard. With the guides, it was like a fast forward course in nymphing.  A great start.  I’m now looking to upgrade my gear, and am looking at a Sage 590 DS2 or a St Croix Legend or Imperial.  

Don’t know the St. Croix rods. I’ve got a DS2 5wt, and love it. There is a membership fee, though…was Wolfgang managing that? Vegetables aren’t food. Vegetables are what the food eats.

Response:

Question:

I may be attending a convention in Mesa, Arizona the last week in March and would like to know if there are any public spots for fly fishing close to Mesa?  If I can’t take my gear, how about areas close by that I could just wander around in?  Haven’t ever been to the southwest and would like to see more than just manicured parks.  Thanks for any information you can provide. Larry We give dogs love we can spare, time we can spare, and room we can spare.  In return, dogs give us their all.  It

Question:

    Has anyone out there in cyber space had any experience fishing in Alaska. What I am looking for is a place that has a lodge setting. All I want do do is fish, not camp , cook , or clean. I have had a lot of experience doing this in Canada. But the fishing has to be great. If you have a recommandation please give a address and Tele #.  Thanks — Posted via Talkway – http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything ™.

Response:

I have fished out of one lodge for 3 or 4 trips now. They are a budget deal. Accomodations are spartan but quite adequate. Anything with hot showers and a warm bed is great at the end of a long, rainy day on the stream. The owners are good people and the travel arrangements are very easy as they are located right on the airport, about 30′ from the Alaska Airlines terminal. Fishing is drive out and vehicles are part of the package. Fly out is available and we did have to use it last year as the fishing got slow. One guided day is part of our package. You can do it on your own after that or buy more guide time. If you are not using a guide you clean your own fish. We go in early Sept. for Silvers (Coho), fish the streams on foot using fly rods with a baitcaster rigged with spoons as backup. Seldom use the baitcaster anymore but always take it. If you would like more info I can email a sheet I did for others.

Response:

Question:

Ross, I had the same type of problem and I bought a C&R net with a small bungee cord that has a magnet at either end.  One end is attached to the D ring of my vest in the back and the other to the net.  The magnets keep the net nice and high on my back and out of the way.  When I pull on the net, the magnet releases and allows me to have a long line to net the fish. I don’t go fishing for trout anymore without it.  It is one of the best accessories I own.  I don’t use it on smaller fish and I have run across some larger fish that just didn’t fit, but for mid-size trout, I highly recommend it. Rooster – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The most obvious alternative seems to be to use a catch and release net, and herein lies my question.  When fishing alone on a river, how do you use the net and where/how do you carry it while fishing?  I’ve seen fishermen on TV with the nets hanging from the back of their vests, presumably on a retractable line.  Is that the best approach?  Is it easy to access when needed?What is the risk of breaking the rod tip if you have to hold the rod up high to bring the fish in the net?

Response:

Hi Ross, As Darin said in his post I too go without a net when fishing the waters around the Seattle area. Depending on the size of the fish I will usually not even touch the fish with my hands if possible. The reason I can do this is a nifty little tool called a Ketchum-Release designed by a fellow up in BC. So long as you use a barbless hook you can use this tool to slide over the line and then down over the fly. Usually with a simple twist or jerk of your wrist you can remove the fly and the fish is off and running. If you have done this with sufficient water under the fish and the fish hasn’t been played too long you won’t even have to touch the fish. If this fish is showing signs of being overly tired you should try to gently hold in gentle current it without EVER removing it from the water. Every second you have it out of the water reduces the fishes chances of recovery drastically. I also try to never release a fish that is visibly bleeding. If it is then it either goes to the eagles who often are nearby watching every move or if regulations permit I’ll take it home to the smoker (Having said that I might have killed all of ten fish in the last 5 years). The Ketchum-Release has got to be one of my all time favorite fly fishing tools. Just make sure you tie it onto your vest as they sink! Gary Disclaimer– I have nothing to do with the company that makes the Ketchum-Release I just like the tool! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to fine tune my landing of medium size trout to minimize harm to the fish. I typically fish in coastal British Columbia rivers, which are prone to rocky shores (at least where I fish) and my normal method of landing fish involves beaching it then releasing it.  What I notice however is that often the fish will thrash about on the rocks while I’m in the process of beaching it until I pick the fish up to remove the hook and release it back in the water.  I can’t believe that having the fish roll around and hit the rocks (even if its only for a few seconds) can be all that helpful to its survival, so I am trying to find a better approach. The most obvious alternative seems to be to use a catch and release net, and herein lies my question.  When fishing alone on a river, how do you use the net and where/how do you carry it while fishing?  I’ve seen fishermen on TV with the nets hanging from the back of their vests, presumably on a retractable line.  Is that the best approach?  Is it easy to access when needed?What is the risk of breaking the rod tip if you have to hold the rod up high to bring the fish in the net? Can anyone share their experiences and recommendations in beaching fish in similar situations, are nets the solution? Sorry if these are dumb questions, any ideas or experience would be appreciated. Ross

Response:

I once saw Houston bow fishing for gar and other "rough fish".  He was shooting the fish, bringing them in, and then throwing them back in the water.  Couldn’t call that c&r at all, more like release and kill.  He stated that doing this was "good for conservation" since the gar kill sport fish.  I guess it’s a miracle that the largemouth made it this far, without J. Houston to protect them from the bad ol’ gar. David Burnside Since my Jimmy Houston rant a while back, I’ve had occasion to see him a few more times still doing exactly the same shit.   I don’t usually watch these shows, so maybe the others are just as bad, but that guy is appalling. It’s unfathomable to me how his mistreatment of the fish he catches continues to pass for sport and entertainment

Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

certainly.  The wet fish gets on dry sand/rock and the protective mucus on it are removed as when people grab fish with dry hands.  The fish becomes infected, etc. and later dies.

For a while now I’ve been a bit sceptical about the ‘dry hands -removes the mucous – gets infected – fish dies’ theory. I think that fish are probably perfectly able to replace a bit of slime that gets rubbed off locally. What about the abrasion that occurs ‘naturally’ in the animal’s life, e.g., when cutting redds? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating handling with dry hands or dragging up on a gravel beach those fish intended for release, its just that I question a bit of angling lore that’s been repeated so often that everyone now believes it without challenge. As a matter of interest: the carp and pike specimen hunters in Britain take their ‘releasing’ very seriously. Most fisheries stipulate the use of special padded unhooking mats (that have to be of a minimum size) and weighing slings made of soft, non-abrasive material. There are also purpose-made antibiotic/fungicidal preparations on the market for anglers to apply to hook puncture wounds and other injuries on the fish, prior to release.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For a while now I’ve been a bit sceptical about the ‘dry hands -removes the mucous – gets infected – fish dies’ theory. I think that fish are probably perfectly able to replace a bit of slime that gets rubbed off locally. What about the abrasion that occurs ‘naturally’ in the animal’s life, e.g., when cutting redds? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating handling with dry hands or dragging up on a gravel beach those fish intended for release, its just that I question a bit of angling lore that’s been repeated so often that everyone now believes it without challenge. As a matter of interest: the carp and pike specimen hunters in Britain take their ‘releasing’ very seriously. Most fisheries stipulate the use of special padded unhooking mats (that have to be of a minimum size) and weighing slings made of soft, non-abrasive material. There are also purpose-made antibiotic/fungicidal preparations on the market for anglers to apply to hook puncture wounds and other injuries on the fish, prior to release.

Tony, I to have heard the lore. I always wet my hands, not so much from the lore, but from practical experience as a youth. Down the street from where I was raised in Miami, old man Roberts had a fish farm. His business was importing tropical fish from around the world and selling them to pet shops so that hobbyists could have fish in their tanks. Occasionally, his son John and I would go out and help net & pick fish for the orders being shipped out. The old mans #1 rule was, "wet your hands and keep them wet". The reason being that it protected the fishes mucous which allowed the fish to arrive at their destination in healthy condition without ich growing all over them. I don’t have any scientific basis for any of this, just experience. The old man would usually reward us with a dollar or so and a dime or two for the soda machine. I think the one thing that has changed since the early 60’s that I really miss the most, is the ice-cold 6oz. Coca-Cola’s that would noisily clank down mechanical innards to the dispenser when you put that dime in the slot and depressed the cast iron handle. waldo — Ezflyfish.com http://www.ezflyfish.com BRBG http://www.abebooks.com/home/BLUEBOOKS P.O. Box 5112  Banner Elk, NC 28604 (828)963-5001

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For a while now I’ve been a bit sceptical about the ‘dry hands -removes the mucous – gets infected – fish dies’ theory. I think that fish are probably perfectly able to replace a bit of slime that gets rubbed off locally. What about the abrasion that occurs ‘naturally’ in the animal’s life, e.g., when cutting redds? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating handling with dry hands or dragging up on a gravel beach those fish intended for release, its just that I question a bit of angling lore that’s been repeated so often that everyone now believes it without challenge. As a matter of interest: the carp and pike specimen hunters in Britain take their ‘releasing’ very seriously. Most fisheries stipulate the use of special padded unhooking mats (that have to be of a minimum size) and weighing slings made of soft, non-abrasive material. There are also purpose-made antibiotic/fungicidal preparations on the market for anglers to apply to hook puncture wounds and other injuries on the fish, prior to release. Tony, I to have heard the lore. I always wet my hands, not so much from the lore, but from practical experience as a youth. Down the street from where I was raised in Miami, old man Roberts had a fish farm. His business was importing tropical fish from around the world and selling them to pet shops so that hobbyists could have fish in their tanks. Occasionally, his son John and I would go out and help net & pick fish for the orders being shipped out. The old mans #1 rule was, "wet your hands and keep them wet". The reason being that it protected the fishes mucous which allowed the fish to arrive at their destination in healthy condition without ich growing all over them. I don’t have any scientific basis for any of this, just experience. The old man would usually reward us with a dollar or so and a dime or two for the soda machine. I think the one thing that has changed since the early 60’s that I really miss the most, is the ice-cold 6oz. Coca-Cola’s that would noisily clank down mechanical innards to the dispenser when you put that dime in the slot and depressed the cast iron handle. waldo — Ezflyfish.com http://www.ezflyfish.com BRBG http://www.abebooks.com/home/BLUEBOOKS P.O. Box 5112  Banner Elk, NC 28604 (828)963-5001

_______  What a fond description of old memories!   — Mr. G.   http://www.gink.com/html  Fly Fisherman’s Chat Site   "Flyfisherman’s Camp Fires Burning" http://www.gink.com http://www.rodbuilding.com http://www.xink.com

Question:

I was noticing that someone posted a question earlier in this newsgroup asking if there were any books illustrating the lifecycles of flies in certain parts of the US at various times of the year.  I am also looking for info on a good beginning FF setup.  Therefore, if anyone has some good book suggestions on how to choose the right fly depending on where you are and what you’re fishing for as well as any books/catalogs that describe FF equipment and techniques, please post them. Thanks in advance, The Iceburg

Response:

FlyFishing for Dummies is pretty damn good and as simple as things get. Tim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was noticing that someone posted a question earlier in this newsgroup asking if there were any books illustrating the lifecycles of flies in certain parts of the US at various times of the year.  I am also looking for info on a good beginning FF setup.  Therefore, if anyone has some good book suggestions on how to choose the right fly depending on where you are and what you’re fishing for as well as any books/catalogs that describe FF equipment and techniques, please post them. Thanks in advance, The Iceburg

Response:

Question:

Here in ROFF I have learned the following: Trolling a fly from a float tube is not flyfishing Using a strike indicator is almost flyfishing Using more than one fly is really flyfishing Presenting dry flies upstream is the only true flyfishing Eating trout is OK (and tasty) Eating trout is not OK, but perch taste better anyway Tailwaters are bad Tailwaters are fabulous Tim is a funny guy Ralph really likes Tim Many people want to flyfish Colorado needs hatcheries Hatcheries ultimately hurt anadromous species It ain’t the way it used to be And I agree with all of these things……. JE

Response:

Here in ROFF I have learned the following: Tim is a funny guy Ralph really likes Tim

like him? I absolutley adore the big neurotic lug! Ralph H remove "take_this_out" for email reply

Response:

Question:

: I came across something at the Americas for Medical Progress web site you                        <clip<clip<clip : has since been taken over by animal "rights" types. : For more info, see http://www.ampef.org/hsus.htm : "The HSUS bankrolled ballot initiatives in six states in the fall of : 1996, ostensibly aimed at hunters in Oregon, California, Washington : state, Michigan, Idaho and Massachusetts. The real goal behind each : campaign is to remove wildlife and habitat policies from the professional : stewardship of state wildlife managers. : Americans for Medical Progress, the key national research advocacy group : that monitors the animal rights agenda, predicted the HSUS ballot          <clip<clip<clip : and laboratory animal issues and other issues that are appropriate" in the : future."… There was an initiative here in Michigan this last election dealing with the taking of bear over bait or with hounds.  The initiative would have banned both practices. When I found out what was  behind this initiative, it became clear to me it was nothing more than an anti-hunting measure.  The person behind getting it on the ballot claimed it would help bear hunting because it would license more hunters to get the same harvest.  Well, it would also have banned bear hunting during anytime in which baiting for any other specie was allowed. Since we have a deer season that runs from October first to the end of of December, there wouldn’t really be any time to have a bear season. There were a couple of other issues that indicated to me that this whole thing was vacant of anything substantive and was just an anti-hunting measure. Fortunately, it was defeated *SOUNDLY* and another measure passed that gives wildlife management to the professionals. PETA and apparently HSUS supported the initiative. Kind regards, Steve Kernosky Michigan Tech University

Response:

My decision not to hunt is based solely on the fact that it doesn’t really appeal to me.  I don’t view hunting as any worse or better than fishing which I love.  I voted in favor of this initiative just as I would vote to prohibit snagging of fish if it weren’t already illegal.

In my view of the universe, the achilles heel of this legislation is in the fact that it takes "wildlife management" out of the hands of the professionals (ie. Departments of Fish and Game/Wildlife [admittedly an arguable statement, but certainly not improved upon by asking Joe/ Jane-weaned-on-Disney-Classics to take up this responsibility]).  Why do we believe that Fish and Game managers allow detrimental (some would claim "cruel’) practices to continue despite convincing evidence "that even a layman can understand"?  Could it be that the issue is more complex than we appreciate?  Let the wildlife management community do their job.  We should be able to make input into the decision making process.  But, let’s not take the decision making out of the hands of the trained professionals until they give us cause. Clearly, with 27 ballot initiatives on the Oregon ballet this year, the initiative process is being abused.  I always ask myself– "Is this a matter that requires a change to the state constitution, with all the attendant costs, to address the issue?"   The answer is usually, "No". I guess it goes back to the thread about big government vs. individual responsibility.  But, in reverse!  Now were talking about big government (ie. the voting owners of the government) trying to dictate how the little wildlife management community (probably a government agency working with state schools) carries out its responsibilities. Life is weird when you’re left-handed! Charley

Response:

First of all, I actually read the initiative.  Unfortunately I don’t have a copy here in front of me, so this is from memory.  One of the local papers had an editorial slamming the initiative because it didn’t "Outlaw" the practices, just made them illegal for common folk. The text of the initiative stated (not a quote, but the gist) that Wildlife agents or their assigns could use bait or hounds to hunt down and kill problem bears.  Read "bears that are annoying people".  Sort of gives the lie to the idea that the practices are just tooooo barbaric and unfair. It stated that bait could be used to attract bears for "research purposes," whatever that means.  (But I thought that we didn’t want the bears to get used to people feeding them…) Anyone who has ever hunted bear in Western Washington brush knows that the traditional method of controlling bear numbers (sport hunting) just went out the window.  Incidental kills simply will not keep pace with population growth.  Ain’t no way you’re going to be able to target an area and reduce the bear population without resorting to bait and/or hounds. Well, maybe poisoned poodles……no wait, that’s bait…… Of course we could mount a multimillion dollar campaign to supply the bruins with condoms. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – OK.  I’ve no clue why, but I’ll take the bait.  The initiative made it illegal to take bears using bait and/or hounds. Would you care to tell us where in the hell "Govt. agents", "researchers", and "AR Activists" are using bait and/or hounds to kill bears?  Further, if you can actually cite a real and documented example, then tell us when and why it happened. -tgades

Response:

For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  

In Colorado, we can no longer hunt spring bears, unless they’re gay. TimW (Stolen from a cartoon which lampooned the Amendment 2 passing the popular vote)

Response:

     < snip "The HSUS bankrolled ballot initiatives in six states in the fall of 1996, ostensibly aimed at hunters in Oregon, California, Washington state, Michigan, Idaho and Massachusetts.

Hi Jim, The Washington State initiative is the only one I know about.  It only prohibits bear baiting and hound hunting for cougars.  I don’t hunt but "some of my best friends . . .".  Many hunters supported the initiative but the anti crowd used wild and false statements (along the lines of "they wanna take away your right to hunt, they wanna take away your way of life") in their attempt to defeat the initiative.  Fortunately, the public saw through their BS and passed it. My decision not to hunt is based solely on the fact that it doesn’t really appeal to me.  I don’t view hunting as any worse or better than fishing which I love.  I voted in favor of this initiative just as I would vote to prohibit snagging of fish if it weren’t already illegal. August Kristoferson Watercolor Fish Art http://www.eskimo.com/~augustk

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Newsgroups: alt.fishing,rec.outdoors.fishing,rec.outdoors.fishing.fly    Organization: AM Construction   In fact, the initiative did not outlaw baiting or hound hunting for   bear.  It just made it illegal for sport hunters to use these   techniques.  It’s perfectly OK for govt. employees and "researchers" and   presumably AR activists to use bait to attract bears.     Govt. agents are still allowed to use bait and hounds to kill bears.     Seems like it’s only cruel and barbaric to use hounds or bait if you do   it for sport, and it generates revenues.   Steve

OK.  I’ve no clue why, but I’ll take the bait.  The initiative made it illegal to take bears using bait and/or hounds.   Would you care to tell us where in the hell "Govt. agents", "researchers", and "AR Activists" are using bait and/or hounds to kill bears?  Further, if you can actually cite a real and documented example, then tell us when and why it happened. -tgades

Response:

For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations. In Colorado, we can no longer hunt spring bears, unless they’re gay. TimW (Stolen from a cartoon which lampooned the Amendment 2 passing the popular vote)

And don’t get caught with a trap. I hear that the next election, they are going after using hooks on fish. Paul

Response:

In fact, the initiative did not outlaw baiting or hound hunting for bear.  It just made it illegal for sport hunters to use these techniques.  It’s perfectly OK for govt. employees and "researchers" and presumably AR activists to use bait to attract bears.   Govt. agents are still allowed to use bait and hounds to kill bears.   Seems like it’s only cruel and barbaric to use hounds or bait if you do it for sport, and it generates revenues. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   I came across something at the Americas for Medical Progress web site you   might find interesting. BTW, HSUS is an acronym for the Humane Society of   the United States. It used to be an animal welfare organization but it   has since been taken over by animal "rights" types.   For more info, see http://www.ampef.org/hsus.htm   "The HSUS bankrolled ballot initiatives in six states in the fall of   1996, ostensibly aimed at hunters in Oregon, California, Washington   state, Michigan, Idaho and Massachusetts. The real goal behind each   campaign is to remove wildlife and habitat policies from the professional   stewardship of state wildlife managers. For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  It was hardly a radical animal rights initiative as is implied above.  THe Oregon initiative was an attempt to reverse an earlier decision to outlaw the practice in that state.  It failed. cheers,         -tgades

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  It was hardly a radical animal rights initiative as is implied above.  THe Oregon initiative was an attempt to reverse an earlier decision to outlaw the practice in that state.  It failed. cheers,       -tgades tgades, Where have you been? Any animal rights initiative is RADICAL! It’s a well-known fact among sportsmen that the ARA’s modus operandi is "divide and conquer". They attack minorities (bear-baiters, Salmon snaggers) within the hunting and fishing sports, hoping that other hunters/fishers won’t care because it’s not "their" type of hunting/fishing. Attitudes like yours ensure that the ARA’s tactics work! Todd

The other method they use is to create paranoia through undercover fanatical defenders of the insane under the guise of "I’m just sticking up for the minorities no matter how ludicress it sounds". Scully and Mulder will expose your devious plot.  You don’t fool me! Mike

Response:

For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  It was hardly a radical animal rights initiative as is implied above.  THe Oregon initiative was an attempt to reverse an earlier decision to outlaw the practice in that state.  It failed. cheers,    -tgades

tgades, Where have you been? Any animal rights initiative is RADICAL! It’s a well-known fact among sportsmen that the ARA’s modus operandi is "divide and conquer". They attack minorities (bear-baiters, Salmon snaggers) within the hunting and fishing sports, hoping that other hunters/fishers won’t care because it’s not "their" type of hunting/fishing. Attitudes like yours ensure that the ARA’s tactics work! Todd

Response:

  I came across something at the Americas for Medical Progress web site you   might find interesting. BTW, HSUS is an acronym for the Humane Society of   the United States. It used to be an animal welfare organization but it   has since been taken over by animal "rights" types.   For more info, see http://www.ampef.org/hsus.htm   "The HSUS bankrolled ballot initiatives in six states in the fall of   1996, ostensibly aimed at hunters in Oregon, California, Washington   state, Michigan, Idaho and Massachusetts. The real goal behind each   campaign is to remove wildlife and habitat policies from the professional   stewardship of state wildlife managers.

For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  It was hardly a radical animal rights initiative as is implied above.  THe Oregon initiative was an attempt to reverse an earlier decision to outlaw the practice in that state.  It failed. cheers,         -tgades

Response:

For what it is worth.  THe initiative in WA (which passed handily) was primarily to outlaw the practice of bear baiting – a practice already illegal in all but a couple of the states with viable bear populations.  It was hardly a radical animal rights initiative as is implied above.  THe Oregon initiative was an attempt to reverse an earlier decision to outlaw the practice in that state.  It failed. cheers,    -tgades

You might want to re-read the the ballot question carefully. Question 1 in Massachusetts was advertised to outlaw the use of spring traps in the state. At the End of the lengthy ballot question it also read that the laws are to be changed to allow non sportsman(AKA ARA’s) to serve on the board that governs hunting and fishing in this state. Unfortunatly all the TV ads showed thirty year old footage of animals including household pets caught in the traps with no mention of the second part of the question and question 1 passed by a 3-2 margin. Hopefully this can be changed before the ARA’s take over the board and try to ban hunting and fishing in this state.(Don’t think it can’t happen!!)

Response:

Question:

Try the AMI Rec Net at: http://www.aminews.com/ami Centralized source for outdoor news and info. Several fly fishing pages linked. Looking for good stats and other pages on fly fishing. Enjoy, Rob Brown Webmaster

Response:

: Here is a listing I maintain on the Missouri Flyfishing Page of other : flyfishing links: : State or Regional Flyfishing Pages : Arizona : California : Colorado : Montana : Oregon This has shamed me.  Nothing in Idaho.  But will it motivate me?  I’ve been thinking of listing all the rivers in Idaho I know of which offer at least 5 miles of good trout water.  The barrier to my action has been that the list is over 150 in number.  Just the larger streams, nothing small.  So…would anyone out there be interested in this type of info?  I’m usually against these types of lists.  All it does is add to the crowds, but perhaps I’m wrong.  Advice? Rick — T. Rick Fletcher   –   http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry  |  That’s Idaho, not Iowa.    |  These University of Idaho               |  Upper Left Hand Corner.    |  opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343             |  No, I don’t grow potatoes. |  are mine.  

Response:

i just got www access and would like the www sites of any fly or not fly fishing pages.  email or post in reply please. –

Response:

i just got www access and would like the www sites of any fly or not fly fishing pages.  email or post in reply please. –

The Virtual Flyshop: http://rmii.com/~flyshop/flyshop.html Enjoy! — Mike Tucker- The Virtual Flyshop, The Complete Resource              Web Page:  http://rmii.com/~flyshop/flyshop.html              Tel. 970-498-8779   FAX 970-491-2585 If you try 970 and it doesn’t work use 303.  Leave it to US WEST to change our area code and not tell the rest of the world……

Response:

Question:

Fished with Capt. Ron Rebeck of Backcountry Charters in Florida. Ron holds the 1994 world record Ladyfish title on fly. We caught literally a hundred or more Ladyfish, Reds, and Large Jacks. We weighed several of "my" Ladyfish for possible titles. Many fish "just" short. What a thrill. All on fly. They have a toll free no. 1-800-932-REEL(9335). This guy is the best guide I have ever fished with. Hope you try him out…enjoy!

Response:

Fished with Capt. Ron Rebeck of Backcountry Charters in Florida. Ron holds the 1994 world record Ladyfish title on fly. We caught literally a hundred or more Ladyfish, Reds, and Large Jacks. We weighed several of "my" Ladyfish for possible titles. Many fish "just" short. What a thrill. All on fly. They have a toll free no. 1-800-932-REEL(9335). This guy is the best guide I have ever fished with. Hope you try him out…enjoy!

Where were you fishing out of and how big is this world record ladyfish.  I lived and fished in SW Florida for quite a few years and always enjoyed catching ladyfish.  They fight as spectacularly as most anything. tight lines

Response: