Here is the response that was written and submitted to the paper by Brian Williams. Yet again our responses are going unpublished.
More at stake than just trout fishing
Should the brown trout be protected by proposed fishing regulations in the Smith River? Yes.
Should all river users be considered in any proposed changes. Absolutely.
In a recent letter to the editor, On trout proposal Monday, August 30, 2010
The writer stated: "... ; If those proposing this atrocity would walk the river, they would see the tossed away tires and household refuse that cannot be cleaned up in one Saturday of volunteers with boots and trash bags. If anyone wants a pristine trophy trout stream here, it will take a lot more than this ridiculous proposal."
I welcome all fishermen, and letter writers, to spend some time removing trash instead of just trout from the river.
The letter stated: "Local fishers should have a voice in this proposal, maybe even start a petition.
The answers to this question and others can be found on the same website that the author pulled the experts from in his original letter.
http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/regulations/comment2010/DGIF strongly encourages the public's participation in the regulation review process. Other than via the DGIF website, other methods for participating during this biennial review are:
1. Email sent to
RegComments@dgif.virginia.gov.
2. Mailed letters sent to: Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries, Attn: Policy Analyst and Regulatory Coordinator, P.O. Box 11104, Richmond VA 23230-1104
3. Public comment at a total of five Board meetings. (Public comment on the regulatory matters under review is accepted at any Board meetings held during regulatory public discussion or public comment periods.): March 2; April 20; June 8; August 17; and October 5, 2010; all are 9 AM at 4000 West Broad Street, Richmond Virginia.
4. Meetings on request. On request and subject to availability, DGIF staff will meet with constituent groups, local government officials, or other groups in local communities to address specific regulatory issues of interest.
Key elements of the regulation review and amendment process are:
* Three public comment, public discussion, or scoping periods.
o September 1 - November 30, 2009: Regulatory Issues Scoping Period. Scoping period for staff, including solicitation of public input on fishing, wildlife diversity, and boating regulatory issues.
o March 12 - May 11, 2010: Sixty-Day Regulatory Issues Public Discussion Period. Public discussion of identified regulatory issues and opportunity for the public to raise additional issues.
o July 16 - September 16, 2010: Proposed Regulations Public Comment Period. Additional meetings for receiving public input may be scheduled at appropriate locations depending on subject matter, level of public interest, and at the Board's discretion.
The letter stated: "I suspect this proposal originated among the North Carolina fly fishermen who consider us local hicks with mealworms and powerbait on small hooks beneath their purist standards."
Actually, the proposed regulations by DGIF were based on studies of the Smith River and the data collected that showed a declining population of larger fish based on creel studies and electro fishing data collected over the past 10 years. Historically the Smith River produced record trout when river conditions and available food supply to trout were different than conditions of today. The trout population has changed but the fishing pressure, especially from those who remove the larger fish, has remained. This has allowed smaller and fish to breed over the course of time further decreasing the genetic pool of larger brown trout. A fishery cannot be sustained n this way no matter how many fishing license are purchased. The simple fact of continually removing large brown trout from the breeding population will continue to decrease the average size of browns that are caught. Even the proposed regulations for the slot limit may not help without stringent enforcement, but the economic value of trying to boost the fishery far outweighs the wants or needs of a single fishermen.
The Smith River is a resource that belongs to all residents of all the counties and states it runs through. There are 44.5 miles of river alone from Philpott Dam to the confluence with the Dan in North Carolina. All stakeholders must be taken into account when making decisions regarding water usage, water quality, fisheries and other forms of recreation, and the Smith can be an economic engine for the recovery of a severely depressed region.
According to the letter: " Lower Smith stocking area is what we need to preserve for residents who buy the trout fishing license.
Should stocking trout be based solely on the use by resident fishermen who purchase trout licenses. Doesn't anyone else have a say? What about those who practice catch and release.? Do they have a stake in this as well ? What about out state fishermen who purchase a license at a far greater price; should they have more of a say than the local fisherman who buys a license ?
Resident trout fishing fees = $36. Non Resident trout fishing fees = $72
The letter also states: "The area south of Fieldale is suited to them and where I have caught Brownies in the 14- to 20-inch range."
I wonder how many of these were released to become breeding stock to produce larger fish ? It sounds like any fish bigger than 7 inches is going home to this perosns table. That is part of what the proposed regulations are trying to mitigate and therefore increase the average size for all to have an opportunity to catch. The Smith River has a reproducing population of beautiful wild brown trout. There is no reason to stock browns. Not every trout fishermen wants to catch stocked trout. Currently, the DGIF post the stocking schedule and by the second day after stocking, most of the fish are gone due to the "hawks" that follow the stocking trucks to the river...that's real sportsman like now isn't it? Is that fair to any other fishermen? Just because one buys a fishing license, does that entitle anyone to catch and keep everything they want. What about others who may not be able to spend as much time on the river but would occasionally like to catch a brown trout bigger than 7 inches but always releases everything they catch ? Do they have a say so in fishing regulations as well as the person who only wants to catch fish to eat ?
The Smith has become perceived as a played out habitat although the catch rate is one of the best on the state (based on DGIF data). Fishing pressure, polluted water run-off and riparian habitat destruction has increased the degradation of the resource but it can recover with the right regulations and habitat protection. Instead of complaining about fishing rights and regulations, why not do something to help protect the resource? I encourage all to participate in river clean-ups and stream restoration. Protect the water quality of the Smith, protect the resource. It's been abused far too long but still can make a recovery and that recovery can be one of the economic engines that help Martinsville / Henry County recover from our current woes, but apathy, shortsighted attitudes and selfishness, will only further the decline of an incredible resource that all of the residents of MHC should be proud to call their own and the preservation of the river for future generations.
Brian Williams
Smith River Chapter, Trout Unlimited
