The more i think about the Smith!

[Fire-Fly]

Fly4u, Thank you.  B.J., I think your motto is " 3 cheers for me and to H*ll with everybody else".

Glad to know my opinion means little, I'm sure  i'm the only one who wants to keep the spec regs.

jis 3 cheering!

[5xTippett]

B.J., It is not that your opinion does not matter.  It's just that Scott's matters a heck of a lot more. 

[troutrus]

Fly4u, Thank you.  B.J., I think your motto is " 3 cheers for me and to H*ll with everybody else".

Glad to know my opinion means little, I'm sure  i'm the only one who wants to keep the spec regs.

jis 3 cheering!

BJ,
Considering that you live up there and most likely fish it about as much as anyone, I would hope that your opinion would be valued. I will agree with you that spec regs is a prettier, quieter, more enjoyable section of the river to fish, and that aspect of serenity will be missed as it gets more crowded. As it gets more crowded it will likely become more littered, etc. and will lose some of the aesthetic value that it currently holds for some of us. One reason I would guess that that section is being opened to bait is that the fisheries department is attempting to reduce the number of trout in that section and might figure that opening it to all users will more effectively accomplish that objective. Seems like most of the fly fishermen that currently utilize that section would be reluctant to harvest the small trout. My experience with Scott Smith has been that he is open to listening to concerns from all user groups and individuals, even if their ideas might not directly coincide with his. I would encourage you to discuss your concerns with him. I can assure you that he will not demean or insult you as a number of the folks on this board choose to do just because you don't agree with them.

[Fire-Fly]

Actually for all my "friends " here, i talked to Scott today and voiced my concerns. One of which would be increased litter in the spec regs area resulting in landowners posting the land. But none the less Scott said that the state didnt care one way or the other that keeping the artificial lures regulation was a not a biological problem and the state could go either way.
I went back and read my post and not once did i say NOT to support the slot limit, all i wanted was to keep the spec regs a single hook artificial lure only section.

[22midge]

Well I lied when I said no more post.............first off BJ if your so greedy and think of only yourself then for the record I'm not you friend and never will be but here is the point I'm trying to make so you dont hide behind smoke and mirrors talking to Scott.
  1. 30 miles of change why do you think its fair to ask to keep 3 miles for your personal get away.
  2. you say your afraid of littering and landowners posting--how are they going to get the litter --walking down the tracks with bags full
  3. you say no biological reason ...that was never mentioned
what would you think if the local fishermen ask for 5 miles of river bait fishing only no fly rods or artificial lures.Better yet how would you answer a bait fisherman that asks why should you get to keep the 3 miles of spec-regs and why he cant fish there.Like I said before --yes I would like to have the whole river spec-regs but I can not agree with showing special use for only a few when so many are ask to change .I can see why they think we are a bunch of elite slobs.

[Fire-Fly]

Well I lied when I said no more post.............first off BJ if your so greedy and think of only yourself then for the record I'm not you friend and never will be but here is the point I'm trying to make so you dont hide behind smoke and mirrors talking to Scott.
  1. 30 miles of change why do you think its fair to ask to keep 3 miles for your personal get away.
  2. you say your afraid of littering and landowners posting--how are they going to get the litter --walking down the tracks with bags full
  3. you say no biological reason ...that was never mentioned
what would you think if the local fishermen ask for 5 miles of river bait fishing only no fly rods or artificial lures.Better yet how would you answer a bait fisherman that asks why should you get to keep the 3 miles of spec-regs and why he cant fish there.Like I said before --yes I would like to have the whole river spec-regs but I can not agree with showing special use for only a few when so many are ask to change .I can see why they think we are a bunch of elite slobs.

I guess shame on me for having an opinion the river, i never once asked ANY of you to back my opinion. It was mine alone, but seems that you cant take an opinion of your own unless it coincides with a few on here. The spec regs have been there for years and to ask to keep it is being an elite snob? Geez peewee, thats good stuff there! I HAVE a concern about some of the changes. IS THAT ALRIGHT WITH EVERYONE. If not please let me know and i'll be sure to change my opinion to fit whoever.
And fyi, if it came down to it i would give up the spec regs to implement changes on the river. Never once did i disagree with the new regulations. But i'll be sure next time to clear my opinions with a few on here before i go crazy and think for myself. ::)

[Fire-Fly]

Well I lied when I said no more post.............first off BJ if your so greedy and think of only yourself then for the record I'm not you friend and never will be but here is the point I'm trying to make so you dont hide behind smoke and mirrors talking to Scott.
  1. 30 miles of change why do you think its fair to ask to keep 3 miles for your personal get away.
  2. you say your afraid of littering and landowners posting--how are they going to get the litter --walking down the tracks with bags full
  3. you say no biological reason ...that was never mentioned
what would you think if the local fishermen ask for 5 miles of river bait fishing only no fly rods or artificial lures.Better yet how would you answer a bait fisherman that asks why should you get to keep the 3 miles of spec-regs and why he cant fish there.Like I said before --yes I would like to have the whole river spec-regs but I can not agree with showing special use for only a few when so many are ask to change .I can see why they think we are a bunch of elite slobs.

Peewee if me having an opinion of my own about something i enjoy upsets you to where you dont want to return to TU meetings and dont consider me a friend then we were never friends. As for your reasons, all i asked was to KEEP the artificial lures regulation ,not enforce more changes. And yes i have run into the landowners along the spec regs as they were walking there property years back who were looking for people poaching on there land, so yes they MIGHT not like the increased traffic IF it increased. And as for the baitfisherman getting 5 miles of river for themselves I would say good for them if they stood up together for something that they wanted and beleived in. Thats why i joined TU was to make a difference in a river i loved and enjoyed . I've spent over 2 years trying to run the chapter, with only the help of Al and a couple others while there are hundreds that fish the Smith, Time from my family, taking time from work, missing school to make the meetings, planning meetings, trying to arrange fundraisers, classes, make programs, doing all i could to get a better fishery. But if my opinions about something i love make me a bad person then I'll tell you what, so that i dont disgrace the Smith river TU with my presence when i get off here I'll be sending my resignation in as Smith river TU VP. You are free to attend peewee. I'm DONE.

[22midge]

wow BJ you just don't get it ............people has tried for years to get something done to help the river.Now the VDGIF stands behind those that have carried on the fight(YOU INCLUDED).I see alot of problems with the slot limits and enforcement of the new regulations--enforcement  is something I got 30 years of stories to tell but we keep trying .We win a few and lose a bunch. Your opinion is not the problem but when you stand in the front row and say you can not see how it will work you offer those that want it to fail an opportunity to say  why change??When you ask for change from so many its like politics you take what you can get and work to improve it but dont stand and give those that oppose it the chance to destroy the effort.I just cant see asking so many people to change their way of fishing and then trying to keep something from them.Oh yea as far as TU-- I gave up a lifetime membership a few years back when TU national spent millions to make the decal and its image more contemporary   you know how much work could have been done with that much money??If the effort fails do you think the VDGIF will come back to help again?You keep the VP Job--you don't need me IM just an ole woreout fisherman that has seen a few battles lost because it didn't stand together in front of the enemy.Now I'm done

[Al]

OK guys, this has gone on long enough o-o  We are all wrong when we let these differences of opinion end up in personal attacks.

If DGIF can get the proposal through and keep the Spec Reg the way it currently is I think most of us would be very happy but they decided to word the draft proposal to essentially do away with the Spec Reg so as to garner broader support. I thought Scott Smith did a good job of explaining that at the March 18th meeting.

BTW BJ you left early and did not see all the slides or hear the presention - perhaps you would have a different view if you had. Most of us likely agree that saving the Spec Reg would be nice but we understand that would be viewed by many as trying to "have our cake and eat it too" and the proposal would fail. In any case, BJ is entitled to his view and opinion.

"Giving up on TU or never attending a meeting again" is exactly what we and  the fishery does not want or need. We need folks who have a passion for the fishery and are willing to put some "sweat equity" into it. BJ is one of those guys.

Most of you know me as one of the faces of the SRTU. We have struggled to make our voices heard and although it may look like we are on life support at times, we have had a positive impact. Many of you probably don't remember when Philpott Dam decided to change the generation announcement daily and sometimes hourly - we fixed that! We helped with the VA Tech / DGIF study and showed our displeasure when the findings did not result in changes at the dam. We orchestrated two "standing room only" pubic meetings which helped energize local support for the river. We have representation on the COE Philpott 216 study.  We stand behind and help with the local Trout In the Classroom project which until recently was the largest TIC project in the nation. We are now working with DGIF on this proposed regulation change. 

My suggestion to all is that you visit the DGIF website  http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/regulations/issues2010/details.asp?id=2

Read the proposal carefully and follow the instructions on how to make a comment. If you have already made a comment you can go back and make additional remarks (I have gone back twice and may again to stress the enforcement issue)

[Al]

At the risk of stirring the pot one more time - which is definitely not my intention, I am going to cut and paste the key paragraphs of an email sent to me by Scott Smith, DGIF fisheries biologist concerning his rational for writing the proposed change to the Smith River regulations (I have his permission to do this)

"When I wrote up the new regulation proposal (10-24" protected slot limit), I purposely set it up without any gear restrictions (single-hook artificial areas).  I did this for two primary reasons, outlined below.

1.)  Enforcement - By having the exact same fishing regulations on the entire 30+ miles of river, enforcement of the regulations becomes easier.  You get much better compliance when folks understand the regulations.  The more complicated the regulations, the more people you find that either don't know the regs, or think that they know them (but are wrong).  If the whole stretch of river has exactly the same regulations, you tend to get much better compliance.  Also, if regulations are too complex, then you can run into issues in the legal system when cases are prosecuted.  If a judge or Commonwealth's Attorney have trouble understanding the regulations, they are much less likely to prosecute violators.  So, it makes a great deal of sense from an enforcement standpoint to have the same rules for the whole river.

2.)  Acceptance of the Slot Limit - I also think that we will get better acceptance of the proposed slot limit among all angling groups if we do not restrict some of them.  The folks that tend to release all the trout they get will probably not have issues with the slot limit.  Those that like to keep fish to eat may have some issues.  It is my thinking, that anglers that like to use bait and/or spinning lures will be more accepting of the slot limit if they think that they are getting something in return for having to throw back 12" brown trout.  What they will be getting will be 3 additional miles of river to fish with bait or Rapala's.  I'm not sure that this is an "even trade" for folks that like to keep fish and fish with bait, but it is something.  If we keep the 3 mile single-hook section intact, I am concerned that there will be much more opposition to the slot limit.

The way I see it, 30 miles is more important than 3 miles.  However you feel about the regulation proposal, we would like to get as much input as possible.  The easiest way to do this is on our website at

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/regulations/issues2010/details.asp?id=2

We want to hear from everybody, whatever your opinions might be.  We all want to do whatever we can to improve the Smith River fishery.  I think that this slot limit will help a bit.  It won't work miracles, but any improvements (however small) that we can do right now are worth the effort.  It won't matter whether the 3 mile "special regs" section stays as a single-hook artificial stretch of river or not, so long as we get the improved length limit.  If you want us to keep the gear restriction, we want to hear from you.  If you don't want it, we want to hear from you.  If you love or hate the slot limit, we want to hear from you.  There aren't any wrong opinions here, we just want to hear yours.  As I said, if there's no opposition to the slot limit, but lots to doing away with the gear restriction, then we'll put that back in our proposal.  There's still lots of time for tweaking.  I am just doing everything that I can ahead of time to try and get the slot limit passed.  That's the part of all this that's really important from the trout's perspective.


There you have it, straight from the guy who we pay to give us his best opinion  from the biological standpoint and from years of experience of getting rule changes passed and put into effect.

[Shane]

Remember too to educate people that this slot limit only applies to Brown Trout. A put and take angler can still bonk a 12" Rainbow if it so pleases him.

This is an important distinction and these regulations to some degree hinge on the results of a survey that concluded that about 95% of all anglers can correctly make that distinction.


S

[rjs123]

I not sure how much weight the online survey will carry in the decision to make this law but if it means a lot how are they letting people know about it?  Hoping they wander upon it on the web site isnt going to help much.

The reason I say this is I met a guy who was spin fishing on the river today and he didn't know anything about it.  We started talking about the river and I told him about the new slot limit proposal.  He is strictly catch and release and will go on the web site now that he knows about it and voice his opinion.

[dossphoto]

There has been a little buzz on Bill Cochran's, Outdoor section in the Roanoke Times recently.

http://www.roanoke.com/outdoors/billcochran/wb/240976

[rjs123]

I just went to the DGIF web site to look at the page that is asking for input on the new slot limit.

I couldnt find it!  I spent around 5 minutes looking and couldnt find it anywhere. I know its there I saw it and sent in my comments right after it went up.

Why isnt there a link to it on the FISHING section?  As a matter of fact, why is Henry County and/or The Smith River not even listed on the FISHING page.  It will be difficult to attract tourism if people cant find it.  If you had to to depend on the web site you wouldnt even know there was a Smith River. I know the info is there but you have to be dig really deep, to find it, if you can at that.  Ive only found it through Google searches.  Either someone has over looked this, or they dont care.

Edit: I FINALLY found the link on the top of the main page.  I still think they need a link on the fishing page too.  Would only make sense.