Question:
My own opinion is that the future of the sport lies in lotteries or tickets for limited access to the most popular waters, and encouraging fishermen to spread their days over a diversity of waters, and to limit their days fishing if need be. Right now, I don’t think people really fish too often, just that they concentrate those days on the few well-publicized "gold medal" waters…
I whole heartedly support limited access. I don’t know how the change the pattern of high concentration on a few select waters in any other way. Willi
Response:
….what was the guy thinking when he did this? I hadn’t heard a single word about it till you posted this. Now, I might look it up. What were you thinking? I did think about this and hesitated about posting. However, the stream has been discussed on ROFF in the past, the RMN has a circulation of over half a million readers who live in proximity to the stream, the stream is not and never will be a destination water, etc. etc.
O.K., so you aren’t worried about ME coming to fish there. It’s only the residents of Denver and it’s immediate environs that you wish to EXCLUDE in this particular instance; only anyone who is likely to want to go there. And this comes to us from a man just coming down off a week long rant about the exclusionary atmosphere in ROFF. The same man, by the way, who thinks it is a good idea to exclude human beings altogether from certain areas. So, we are all required to be nice to the newbies and tell them everything they need to know about HOW to fish, but not let anyone know about Willi’s favorite spots in Colorado. And I’ll bet a shiny new nickel that anytime someone tells you about a SECRET stream you make a point of staying away from it in order to keep the pressure down, right? You sir, are a monumental hypocrite.
Response:
My own opinion is that the future of the sport lies in lotteries or tickets for limited access to the most popular waters, and encouraging fishermen to spread their days over a diversity of waters, and to limit their days fishing if need be. Right now, I don’t think people really fish too often, just that they concentrate those days on the few well-publicized "gold medal" waters… I whole heartedly support limited access. I don’t know how the change the pattern of high concentration on a few select waters in any other way.
Publicize less popular waters? I think if Colorado were actually worried about it, the first step would be to stop publicizing the "gold-medal" waters. Since they continue, I have trouble believing that they find the crowding to be as big a problem as those here on ROFF do. - Ken
Response:
I whole heartedly support limited access.
What about a minimum age requirement, say 50? Give the youngsters something to look forward to. — Charlie…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ….what was the guy thinking when he did this? I hadn’t heard a single word about it till you posted this. Now, I might look it up. What were you thinking? I did think about this and hesitated about posting. However, the stream has been discussed on ROFF in the past, the RMN has a circulation of over half a million readers who live in proximity to the stream, the stream is not and never will be a destination water, etc. etc. O.K., so you aren’t worried about ME coming to fish there. It’s only the residents of Denver and it’s immediate environs that you wish to EXCLUDE in this particular instance; only anyone who is likely to want to go there. And this comes to us from a man just coming down off a week long rant about the exclusionary atmosphere in ROFF. The same man, by the way, who thinks it is a good idea to exclude human beings altogether from certain areas. So, we are all required to be nice to the newbies and tell them everything they need to know about HOW to fish, but not let anyone know about Willi’s favorite spots in Colorado. And I’ll bet a shiny new nickel that anytime someone tells you about a SECRET stream you make a point of staying away from it in order to keep the pressure down, right? You sir, are a monumental hypocrite.
Isn’t that the mantra of all the hypocrites here? "I want less crowds…all the rest of you stop fishing" Hey, I’m as selfish as the next person, but at least I admit it. – Ken
Response:
I whole heartedly support limited access. What about a minimum age requirement, say 50? Give the youngsters something to look forward to. — Charlie…
Sounds like a good idea Charlie except the minimum age for the prime spots should be 70.
Ernie
Response:
Sounds like a good idea Charlie except the minimum age for the prime spots should be 70.
Let’s implement it gradually so that is true in about 18yrs<g. — Charlie…
Response:
I really like that idea a bunch! I whole heartedly support limited access. What about a minimum age requirement, say 50? Give the youngsters something to look forward to.
Harry Mason www.troutflies.com
Response:
Isn’t that the mantra of all the hypocrites here? "I want less crowds…all the rest of you stop fishing" Hey, I’m as selfish as the next person, but at least I admit it. – Ken
Absolutely. It’s highly ironic that everyone professes to want to promote the sport while at the same time decrying the numbers of people found on the water. The jealous secrecy attached to particular hallowed favorite waters is especially telling. I’m not fond of encountering crowds on the waters I fish either, but it’s easy enough to find something secluded. As for the health of the waters themselves, individual bodies only remain popular so long as there are sufficient numbers of fish to maintain a high level of interest; not many people are going to stay for long on a stream with no fish in it. So, a favorite stream gets written up in a magazine. Everybody goes there and pretty soon all the fish are dead. Everybody stops going. A few years later the stream has recovered and in the meantime everybody is busy doing the same thing to another. Or, thousands of people converge on a stream, the stream maintains high fish populations and life goes merrily on. Anyone TRULY interested in reducing fishing pressure on their favorite streams (or any other for that matter) should immediately do three things: 1. Stop fishing NOW! 2. Stay OFF this news group. 3. Encourage anyone who plans to stay in ROFF to roast EVERY newbie who comes along.
Response:
<< .. I did email the guy with my opinions about it, but what was the guy thinking when he did this?
I have been dealing with the same thing here in Spokane. The local outdoor writer, who by the way happens to be an old time fly fisher, has taken to talking non stop about the blue ribbon lakes up in my hometown area. He is vague when he talks about his own favorite waters but brags up these alpine lakes to no end. As a result, there were over 200 fly fisherman on my favorite lake this opening weekend when two years ago there were only 40 people. Mike
Response:
Maybe the guy was thinking that responsibility for stream-use management belongs to the DWR.
He could have made this point without naming the stream itself. I also don’t think that was his slant. He is pretty much of the opinion that C&R is THE solution to all of Colorado’s problems. The numerous public meetings he mentioned that are scheduled to discuss upcoming regs for a number of our waters should be well attended, hotly debated affairs. Willi
Response:
but what was the guy thinking when he did this? He was thinking about selling newspapers.
About two years ago, Fly Fisherman magazine did an issue with two articles on small trout streams, located only minutes away from Los Angeles and Phoenix. I wonder how many fish were left a month or so after they hit the newsstands. If you scan through the back issues of FFM from the early ’80’s onward, you notice that practically every issue mentions the Bighorn River — at first with titles like "America’s Greatest Trout River," but they start turning into "Over-crowding on the Bighorn." I have yet to see any sort of mea culpa or any other sign of self-consciousness from the editorial staff though. Kevin
Response:
….what was the guy thinking when he did this? I hadn’t heard a single word about it till you posted this. Now, I might look it up. What were you thinking?
I did think about this and hesitated about posting. However, the stream has been discussed on ROFF in the past, the RMN has a circulation of over half a million readers who live in proximity to the stream, the stream is not and never will be a destination water, etc. etc. Willi
Response:
he wasn’t thinking, at all. this brings to the forefront my primary concern regarding the present and future state of this sport. there are too damn many people who fish, and those who do fish, fish too often.
The situation here in Colorado is that although there have been fewer licenses sold over the last few years, but there are now many more fly fishermen who fish many more days per year. The result is historically high pressure on our streams and rivers. anyone who exposes a fragile resource such as the one willi describes should be banned from fishing for a substantial time, after a severe ass whipping. and yeah, this is the primary reason why i don’t get enthused over making certain that the sensibilities of newbies are massaged. there’s a gracious plenty of us out there as it is.
Although I definitely DON’T think that’s an excuse for being an asshole toward people, I agree that we don’t need more people fishing the streams and rivers. We are in a unique position, in that with most endeavors, if there is more interest, more facilities can be built to accommodate them. You can’t build a trout stream. Willi
Response:
… I did email the guy with my opinions about it, but what was the guy thinking when he did this?
Outdoor writers have to walk a fine line between being vague and therefore irrelevant to their readers and "spilling the beans" so to speak and perhaps harming the spots they write about. I basically agree it’s a bad idea to publicize places that are best left well enough alone but I do have some sympathy for the dilemma outdoor writers face too. — Ken Fortenberry
Response:
….what was the guy thinking when he did this?
I hadn’t heard a single word about it till you posted this. Now, I might look it up. What were you thinking?
Response:
there are too damn many people who fish, and those who do fish, fish too often.
Hey speak for yourself Mr. "I live only a few short hours away from heaven on Earth" Harrison. The only fishing I’m doing these days is in my dreams. But in heartfelt agreement on the punishment due that writer. —- Wayne Knight Expert in creating tailing loops and windknots Otherwise Fishless in Kansas Before you buy.
Response:
but what was the guy thinking when he did this?
He was thinking about selling newspapers. — visit my web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~royalwulff/ something bogus to avoid spam)
Response:
he wasn’t thinking, at all. this brings to the forefront my primary concern regarding the present and future state of this sport. there are too damn many people who fish, and those who do fish, fish too often. anyone who exposes a fragile resource such as the one willi describes should be banned from fishing for a substantial time, after a severe ass whipping. and yeah, this is the primary reason why i don’t get enthused over making certain that the sensibilities of newbies are massaged. there’s a gracious plenty of us out there as it is.
Yeah!! You tell it. Anyone who wasn’t fishing pre-1974 (chosen so that I just barely meet the requirement) shouldn’t be allowed on the water at all. And all you who do meet that requirement can’t take your kids with to even let them see the water. It’s a special club dontcha know. Hey, here’s a thought, since it’s all you boomers out there that are causing the crowds, why don’t we just regulate you all off the water?
It’d get rid of the crowds… - Ken
Response:
The point is that this is a small stream that can’t sustain a great deal of pressure. It could be easily fished out and even with C&R, crowds are totally inappropriate on such a small stream. Denver has a large population of fishermen. I did email the guy with my opinions about it, but what was the guy thinking when he did this? Willi
he wasn’t thinking, at all. this brings to the forefront my primary concern regarding the present and future state of this sport. there are too damn many people who fish, and those who do fish, fish too often. anyone who exposes a fragile resource such as the one willi describes should be banned from fishing for a substantial time, after a severe ass whipping. and yeah, this is the primary reason why i don’t get enthused over making certain that the sensibilities of newbies are massaged. there’s a gracious plenty of us out there as it is. wayno
Response:
The point is that this is a small stream that can’t sustain a great deal of pressure. It could be easily fished out and even with C&R, crowds are totally inappropriate on such a small stream. Denver has a large population of fishermen. I did email the guy with my opinions about it, but what was the guy thinking when he did this?
Maybe the guy was thinking that responsibility for stream-use management belongs to the DWR. –Steve
Response:
In the Rocky Mountain News today, there is an article by Ed Dentry discussing fishing on a small stream in the foothills of Denver. The stream actually runs through some of Denver’s suburbs. The article was about how the stream was ignored by fishermen on their way to more distant waters and that some of the landowners in the area were attempted to put C&R regs on the stream. It’s been 15 years since I lived in the Denver area, but when I did, this stream was my local favorite. It was VERY lightly fished and held some nice fish, especially in the urban sections. A guy who has posted trip reports to ROFF about the stream, lives in an apartment right next to it and echoes my memories of it. The point is that this is a small stream that can’t sustain a great deal of pressure. It could be easily fished out and even with C&R, crowds are totally inappropriate on such a small stream. Denver has a large population of fishermen. I did email the guy with my opinions about it, but what was the guy thinking when he did this? Willi
