Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 8 9 10 (11) 12 13 14 »


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 10290
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Tom, I agree with your reasons. And for some of those reasons, it should not surprise anyone that a fly fishermen is MORE likely to get involved than a spin or bait guy. It's not praise or a cut on either group. It's just how it shakes out. Both groups have a number of good, knowledgable guys who are likely to get involved. Both have a few selfish a-holes who refuse to get involved even though they know better. And both have those who are too inexperienced to understand, or lack the time/money to help. The overrepresentation of fly fishermen and under-representation of spin/bait fishermen in conservation is expected due to only the relative abundance of the last category, not the former two.

But, that ignores the fact that spin/bait fishermen still outnumber fly fishermen 10 to 1. So even if spin/bait fishermen should be underrepresented compared to their overall abundance, they should still be pretty well represented. And they are. When you look at conservancies, watershed associations, and the like, they are well represented and they do indeed get into conservation efforts. Just not via TU.

The fact that TU guys are saying, "oh, we have a spin fisher in our chapter", is proof enough. They should be a sizable % of the chapter, if not the majority. They're out there. They do care. They do get involved. It's just that, for whatever reason, TU isn't their chosen path. And it absolutely does stem from the impression that TU is a fly fishing club. I'm not saying the impression is true, I'm just saying it exists. And both sides give it lip service. TU claims to welcome non-fly fishermen. Non-fly fishermen claim not to oppose TU. And they aren't lies. But neither side goes to much effort to bridge the gap.


Pat,
I have listened to your endless dribble about the conservancies versus TU efforts for a long time. You lived in Berks County for quite some time and I never ran into you at any of the TU meetings, Berks Conservancy Meetings or Berks County Conservation District meetings and I was at most of them. I did not see you out there with any of the stream improvement projects on the many varied streams of Berks County. I would challenge you to look at the salaries, grant writing costs, overhead and expenses of these organizations that your propose give such great bang for the buck and advise me why it is that you feel that the average conservancy is of greater value. I mean I assume you put some time and effort into some organization somewhere. Look at the % of money going directly to conservation versus overhead and fund raising. Last, I would suggest that you look at the official position of the largest conservation and land trust organization in eastern PA and note that the vast majority of the streams located on these lands, which are held for the public, are posted against fishing.


Posted on: 2013/2/8 21:40


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 10290
Offline
Quote:

mike_richardson wrote:
Or is TU targeting the members who on average spend the most money on fishing gear, thus putting more money in the club. ;)


I'm sorry, somewhere in all your illogically strung together sentences I think you mentioned that you did not universally #censor# on TU. Do you need to me to individually pull up each and every single one of your TU slams and create a new thread? One where you can step in and scream LOOK AT ME I CREATED MORE DRAMA!

So how is Lacy?

Posted on: 2013/2/8 21:42


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2012/10/24 19:22
From Da 'Berg, PA
Posts: 1516
Offline
Quote:

BradFromPotter wrote:

So you have been to Scottish salmon rivers?



yeah the Spey at Grantown, and the Ness.

caught nothing both times -my Dad used to work for BP at the Nigg Oil terminal north of Inverness.

the only salmon we saw were in the fish ladder windows at Pilochry on the Tummel on the way home...

Posted on: 2013/2/8 21:45
_________________
nowhere is so sweet, as the bosom of the vale where the bright waters meet.


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
Jdaddy ok you support tu, which is about coldwater conservation, not just fishing. You mention that you have even worked on tu projects to protect streams where you can't fish. Imho that's a good thing.

Since you support conservation and not just fishing, why not be more positive about land preservation groups, which permanently protect habitat from development, but may not allow fishing? (Instead of suggesting that people look in to the "salaries, overhead, expenses" of typical land preservation groups?)

Posted on: 2013/2/9 5:59


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2010/5/1 9:10
From NE OH
Posts: 1288
Offline
Quote:

geebee wrote:
yes elitism does exist.

go to any scottish salmon river. full of a-holes.


Watch it there buddy. We've earned that elitism. When you can stand in a river in a kilt and catch salmon all day with a 13' spey rod....you'll feel pretty special too (typed in with my best Scot accent)

Posted on: 2013/2/9 6:05
_________________
"You don't need 7x. All right, 7x...now you're just being stupid. That's ridiculous. You know what else...throw away the 6x, because that's garbage too." -Hank Patterson


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2007/6/19 21:49
From Lancaster County
Posts: 1522
Offline
Quote:

jdaddy wrote:
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Tom, I agree with your reasons. And for some of those reasons, it should not surprise anyone that a fly fishermen is MORE likely to get involved than a spin or bait guy. It's not praise or a cut on either group. It's just how it shakes out. Both groups have a number of good, knowledgable guys who are likely to get involved. Both have a few selfish a-holes who refuse to get involved even though they know better. And both have those who are too inexperienced to understand, or lack the time/money to help. The overrepresentation of fly fishermen and under-representation of spin/bait fishermen in conservation is expected due to only the relative abundance of the last category, not the former two.

But, that ignores the fact that spin/bait fishermen still outnumber fly fishermen 10 to 1. So even if spin/bait fishermen should be underrepresented compared to their overall abundance, they should still be pretty well represented. And they are. When you look at conservancies, watershed associations, and the like, they are well represented and they do indeed get into conservation efforts. Just not via TU.

The fact that TU guys are saying, "oh, we have a spin fisher in our chapter", is proof enough. They should be a sizable % of the chapter, if not the majority. They're out there. They do care. They do get involved. It's just that, for whatever reason, TU isn't their chosen path. And it absolutely does stem from the impression that TU is a fly fishing club. I'm not saying the impression is true, I'm just saying it exists. And both sides give it lip service. TU claims to welcome non-fly fishermen. Non-fly fishermen claim not to oppose TU. And they aren't lies. But neither side goes to much effort to bridge the gap.


Pat,
I have listened to your endless dribble about the conservancies versus TU efforts for a long time. You lived in Berks County for quite some time and I never ran into you at any of the TU meetings, Berks Conservancy Meetings or Berks County Conservation District meetings and I was at most of them. I did not see you out there with any of the stream improvement projects on the many varied streams of Berks County. I would challenge you to look at the salaries, grant writing costs, overhead and expenses of these organizations that your propose give such great bang for the buck and advise me why it is that you feel that the average conservancy is of greater value. I mean I assume you put some time and effort into some organization somewhere. Look at the % of money going directly to conservation versus overhead and fund raising. Last, I would suggest that you look at the official position of the largest conservation and land trust organization in eastern PA and note that the vast majority of the streams located on these lands, which are held for the public, are posted against fishing.



The operable word in all of these wintertime debates is "versus". For debate value, we keep placing entities or ideologies in competition with each other. Stocked vs. wild. Elitism vs. commoner. Bait vs. fly vs. spin. TU vs. land conservancy.

The reality is there is room for all viewpoints. And contrary to how one viewpoint may view another viewpoint, the viewpoints are often NOT mutually exclusive. For instance, TU is about coldwater conservation, but that conservation is going to have a whole lot longer effect if its done on a stream where the land in the drainage is preserved. I don't see TU buying a lot of land; I do see conservancies buying a lot of land. I don't see conservancies doing a lot to enhance stream habitat, but I do see TU having the potential to partner with conservancies to do that.

If a stream is enhanced and is on conservancy lands, and even if fishing is prohibited there (which I personally don't like, because, selfishly, I'm a fisherman), the fish still benefit from the stream habitat improvement and the land preservation efforts. Thankfully, our local conservancy only has a handful of properties where fishing is prohibited (I suspect because of deed restrictions at the time of land gifting). But there's open water above and below the one property they own, so that little stretch becomes a bit of a sanctuary for the fish, or at least thats how I view it. I'm not sure who the Eastern conservancy is that prohibits fishing; as a land owner, they have the right to do so, which trumps my right to feeling entitled to fish their streams.

Regarding the thousands of stream miles in the state that are fishable for trout, I find it amazing that groups take positions on the fraction of a percent that they can't fish via a mechanism of their preference. Get over it. Life isn't fair and we don't always get our desires. I guess its the old grass is greener on the other side view; its that which one doesn't have that is more desirable, simply because one doesn't have it. Be thankful for the 99.8% of waters that ARE fishable. Fly fisher people and bait fisher people are generally not a threat to stream habitat loss; the artificial divisions created by the "versus" mentality are a real threat to our ability to put a common front against real threats to stream habitat loss.

Posted on: 2013/2/9 8:41


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7037
Offline
Quote:

salmonoid wrote:

The operable word in all of these wintertime debates is "versus". For debate value, we keep placing entities or ideologies in competition with each other. Stocked vs. wild. Elitism vs. commoner. Bait vs. fly vs. spin. TU vs. land conservancy.

The reality is there is room for all viewpoints. And contrary to how one viewpoint may view another viewpoint, the viewpoints are often NOT mutually exclusive. For instance, TU is about coldwater conservation, but that conservation is going to have a whole lot longer effect if its done on a stream where the land in the drainage is preserved. I don't see TU buying a lot of land; I do see conservancies buying a lot of land. I don't see conservancies doing a lot to enhance stream habitat, but I do see TU having the potential to partner with conservancies to do that.

If a stream is enhanced and is on conservancy lands, and even if fishing is prohibited there (which I personally don't like, because, selfishly, I'm a fisherman), the fish still benefit from the stream habitat improvement and the land preservation efforts. Thankfully, our local conservancy only has a handful of properties where fishing is prohibited (I suspect because of deed restrictions at the time of land gifting). But there's open water above and below the one property they own, so that little stretch becomes a bit of a sanctuary for the fish, or at least thats how I view it. I'm not sure who the Eastern conservancy is that prohibits fishing; as a land owner, they have the right to do so, which trumps my right to feeling entitled to fish their streams.

Regarding the thousands of stream miles in the state that are fishable for trout, I find it amazing that groups take positions on the fraction of a percent that they can't fish via a mechanism of their preference. Get over it. Life isn't fair and we don't always get our desires. I guess its the old grass is greener on the other side view; its that which one doesn't have that is more desirable, simply because one doesn't have it. Be thankful for the 99.8% of waters that ARE fishable. Fly fisher people and bait fisher people are generally not a threat to stream habitat loss; the artificial divisions created by the "versus" mentality are a real threat to our ability to put a common front against real threats to stream habitat loss.


There is Iron in your words of life.

This "elitism" claim boils down to a progression of complexity. We all start out on tri-cycles and training wheels. The easiest way to teach a young'un to fish is with a closed face, casting rod. It keeps the line in the water more and increases the chance of catching. Bait also increases these chances. Typical progression moves to spin tackle and lures and then to Flyfishing. Each more complex and difficult to master. How far you move through the progression demonstrates your curiosity and desire to try new things and reach for more challenging goals. These traits generally spill over into other portions of your life including your charity and volunteerism contributions.

Those trout anglers not willing to explore fly fishing for whatever reason generally find themselves associated with put and take clubs. Its a good fit but make no mistake, it demonstrates the challenge has stopped for these anglers. They are caught in an endless cycle of put and take. Feathering their nests for each season and dropping the activity when it appears the results don't support the effort.

Those anglers that pushed themselves to not only try flyfishing but struggled with success, seek advice, lessons and other research to improve, think differently. The pursuit drives them, their desire for more and more information leads to knowledge and data about abundance in their quarry. Some find TU to learn to flyfish cuz thats where the flyfishers are. But the flyfishers are there because by and large they understand there is more to this thing than putting fish in and taking them out. Habitat improvement and access are their progressive goals on improving their passion. Most who join TU to learn to flyfish don't have the vision or desire to put their time into those goals but usually understand and appreciate those that do so they hold onto membership but do not invest their time. Very, very few TU members are not fishermen, very very few are spin fishermen, this is no accident. Cold water conservation is not a instant reward endeavor. You have to have the intellectual curiosity to learn and vision and desire to pursue these goals. This is the way TU/flyfishermen feather their nests.

Thats why there is division. The short term, immediate reward camp puts less thought and effort into their passion. They are invested in the seasonal renewal through stocking and removing trout.

Conversely, the long term thinkers and doers in TU feel invested in the natural reproduction of their passion. Their result takes much more effort and protection from harvest to be successful. Often their results are not tangible. In addition their efforts can be diminished by the short term, immediate return crowd.

The two groups can and do overlap in interest level and effort. Many flyfishermen like to catch fish, the put and take clubs make trout yearly and it can be hard to resist. Drawing the lines between the two becomes the challenge. The line is in a different place for every person. Some anglers, "the most elite" cannot waver on their passion to protect wild trout because of their investment or understanding of those others who sacrificed to produce these results.

These are the "two sides" in the war of trout. They are tangible groups with names and manifestos. They have investment, goals and product produced. They are easy to find, define and attack. But there is another angle in this angling war...the guerrilla fishermen. These are the anglers who have the intellectual curiosity to research the best spots, use them and invest nothing for their reward.

These "users" are in both camps. Flyfishers and spin fishers. Elitists and inferiors. You know who you are...just know this, your experiences are enhanced by the efforts of someone else. To me these are the elitists, those entitled to all the spoils with very little toil on their part.

I have respect for the first two groups....not so much for the third.

There that ought to push a few pages.


Posted on: 2013/2/9 9:26

Edited by Maurice on 2013/2/9 10:34:21
Edited by Maurice on 2013/2/9 10:37:08
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
Right the trout don't care what group helped the habitat.

For ex some old private fishing clubs have done a lot to protect watersheds ... Even if I can't fish on their land its a good thing. And maybe I can find another part of the improved watershed where I can fish.

Posted on: 2013/2/9 9:53


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6167
Offline
Many TU members are also members of conservancies. At least that is the case here in Centre County.

The main conservancy here is Clearwater Conservancy. The main founder of Clearwater, the guy who got it going, was a Spring Creek TU member, and several other of the early members were TU members also.


Posted on: 2013/2/9 10:26


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
Also, EPCAMR surveyed streams formerly owned by coal interests last year in a joint project with A TU chapter; the streams now belong to a conservancy.

Posted on: 2013/2/9 14:01


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/5/26 8:36
From York & Starlight, PA
Posts: 581
Offline
Sasquatch wrote;

"I will say this. When it comes to my own personal fishing, I'm a snob. If I can't catch it on a fly rod, I don't want to catch it. I'm 100% FFing only."

I wouldn't consider that mind set being snobbish. You have just elected to fish with the tackle you enjoy the most what does that have to do with being a snob?

Posted on: 2013/2/9 15:33
_________________
Fly fisher for fifty years.


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2012/3/22 8:26
From Couldn't Care Less
Posts: 5521
Offline
Quote:
Mtbrookie wrote:

Among fishermen, trout fishermen in particular, there seems to be an underlying sentiment that fly fishermen consider themselves elite compared to other methods of fishing. Is there a sound basis for this or is it mostly nothing more than misguided perception? Based on my own personal observations I'd tend to say it's more myth than reality.


Haven't even read 1 full page of this 11 page thread but from my personal experience, I will say myth.

Whether here or just a random guy on the stream looking to give advice, I have yet to meet a FF I would consider elitist ... and I despise elitists from all walks of life and can spot them pretty easily after a few minutes of convo.

That said; I'm sure if I went fly fishing with Dick Cheney or Ted Turner on his 100's of thousands of acres owned out west ... I would say reality!

Posted on: 2013/2/9 17:39
_________________
There are no evil thoughts except one, the refusal to think


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2006/12/28 18:12
From Lansdale,Pa
Posts: 80
Offline
Jason S,I fish in and out of the park,headwaters to mouth,except between Rt 23 and the old RR bridge which is closed to fishing.

Posted on: 2013/2/9 18:14


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13453
Offline
Jdaddy,

For the years I lived in Berks, I was a member of Tulpehocken Chapter of TU. I made 3 or 4 meetings total, over several years, mainly because I had a repeated, ongoing commitment that feel on the same evening as the meetings. So I only went when there was a date change or cancellation on the other obligation. I am now a member of the Valley Forge chapter, but don't make those meetings either.

I've never danced around the fact that I'm not, nor have I ever been, heavily involved with TU. A paying member, and I support what they do, read the newsletters to keep up to date. But that's about it.

As far as non-profits in general, by far the one I've put the most time and money into is the United Way of Berks Cty. I realize that's not conservation, but it's important to me. I have been heavily involved in it.

As for conservancies, I am a current member of WPC and have also been, at various times, a member of Clearwater. There was a time when I was more involved but lately time constraints (work and family) have taken their toll both on my fishing time and all non-profit work. So it's kind of like TU these days, I give money but not much time, though the money is more than I give to TU. I would like to, and plan to, get to a point where I can get back into it more than I am. When the kid gets old enough, I suppose, to get him involved in conservation.

Quote:
I would challenge you to look at the salaries, grant writing costs, overhead and expenses of these organizations that your propose give such great bang for the buck and advise me why it is that you feel that the average conservancy is of greater value.


It's really very simple. Long term, I think development is the greatest threat to watersheds, and preserving more undeveloped area in those watersheds the best way to protect them. The issues that TU addresses are natural side effects to development. To me it's prevention vs. cure. Not to diss either. But my heart lies on the prevention side. Trying to cure specific threats is akin to playing whackamole. Knock one down and another pops up. But undeveloped land prevents many of those problems (not all, I know), and my enjoyment of such resources lies not just in fishing, but also hunting, hiking, etc. as well.

Posted on: 2013/2/11 9:08


Re: The Elitist Fly Fisherman....Reality or Myth?

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
Great work is done by many groups. But the history of AMD in PA streams suggests that habitat preservation (by conservancies, private clubs, the state) may sometimes be good, and it fixing later may be difficult.

Posted on: 2013/2/11 9:17

Edited by k-bob on 2013/2/11 9:47:24



« 1 ... 8 9 10 (11) 12 13 14 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
2 Comments





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com