Private Water Fly Fishing

[FarmerDave]

rrt wrote:
I finally got around to the whole video. As some of you suggested, it was soporific.

Naa, I think this was only the second occurrence of soporific. The rest of us just said it make us sleepy. 😛

 

[JackM]

In high school, there was a medication affectionately known as a "sopor," though most of the folks that messed with it thought they were called "soapers." I guess they felt like they got soaped when they took them.

Anyhow, when I learned later that certain such medications were known as soporifics, I also discovered the term's origin. That was back in college, and I think I have used that term twice since then. It's usage here was apt.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Just don't drop the soap to often. oops soporific GG :roll: :lol:

 

[WhiskeyRiver]

Maybe I should have explained myself a little better but seeing how I have a low SAT score I think I’ve earned a free pass here. First I harbor no ill-will towards anyone who has been fortunate enough to become financially secure thru their hard and honorable work ethics. Hell I’m for capitalism as much as the next guy so if a person has the means and wants to hire a outfitter to fish some pristine water, great!

My beef started with the word “idiot’s” instead of a better word say… misinformed members, then came the bass grip picture and the quotes. Again being a Capitalist these folks have every right to start a business and I support land owners rights. Where I find fault with SOME pay to play clubs (include hunting here also) lie mainly with their advertising. Statements saying, that their love and passion of the outdoors lead them to becoming a steward of nature and would like to share their dream with us. No, they got a idea, developed a business plan, with the number on goal to make money and were able to legally purchase the necessary property, to make said money, what comes after that is secondary.

There are many reputable pay to play outfits, difference being they let nature manage the habitat. They are not out there creating a false ecosystem with pellet fed pigs. Over stocking a section of river plus artificial feeding isn’t being a steward it’s being a capitalist wanting to make a buck. I do not know Mr. Macri but understand he’s a pretty smart guy and has done a lot of good. However some on this board and other forums threw Mr. Humphries and Mr. Kreh under the bus simply through association with the Becks and Beaver. So I’m not sure where this leaves Mr. Macri legacy in some eyes.

Sorry for the rant I’m going fishing now.

 

[Foxgap239]

WhiskeyRiver wrote:
Maybe I should have explained myself a little better but seeing how I have a low SAT score I think I’ve earned a free pass here.

WR, don't worry about your low SAT score. I'm still hoping to become smarter than the trout I fish for. I think you are probably ahead of me, hell I have a hard time just spelling SAT!

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
In high school, there was a medication affectionately known as a "sopor," though most of the folks that messed with it thought they were called "soapers." I guess they felt like they got soaped when they took them.

Anyhow, when I learned later that certain such medications were known as soporifics, I also discovered the term's origin. That was back in college, and I think I have used that term twice since then. It's usage here was apt.

Sure it was apt. I just can't imagine it being a word that would normally pop up in most peoples daily vocabulary.

I'm only joking around.

 

[JackM]

As I noted, I've used it twice in 30 years, so... and I play a wordsmith on the internet, so.... n'at.

 

[FarmerDave]

I wasn't talking about you. In fact, if you did use the word here, then it was one of the 50 or so posts that I didn't read.

Saw someone (Will?) use it early on, then rrt and I believe both parties have a sense of humor.

Besides, it is just as much of a joke about me and my hillbilly vocabulary.

Was going to make a couple lawyer and writer wisecracks, but decided not to.;-)

 

[JackM]

I think we're talking past one another, Dave, I understood your humor. I guess I was just agreeing that it is an unusual word to see used nowadays and was very precisely used in this instance. Do not mind me.

 

[djs12354]

The civility in this thread is totally uncalled for!

:lol:

 

[rrt]

1. Maybe it was sophomoric or pretentious (moronic?) of me to use soporific.
2. I think I am one of those who doesn't give Humphreys a pass, since he made so much money from average Joes. I know that Kreh did, too, and though I won't buy any of his stuff, I am reluctant to say anything negative about him, since he put his life on the line in the WWII, being involved in Battle of the Bulge during that war.

 

[JackM]

I never met any of them to my knowledge. If so, we exchanged pleasantries. Or, at least I thought we did. If I were as famous as some of these guys, I guess I'd want some privacy too. But, I bet they still fish some open waters as well.

 

[wbranch]

Wild Trout wrote;

"Actually, they achieved this with the introduction of the brown trout in the 1800s."

That may have contributed to the demise of the native brook trout but believe me the brook trout, in the Catskills, was already in serious decline due to the clear cutting all over those mountains, running logs down the rivers, and contaminating them with run-off from the tannic acid factories all up and down that corridor. There is even a pool on the Beaverkill called "The Acid Factory Pool". Brown trout were introduced to supplant, and augment, the decimated brook trout fishery. If brown trout hadn't been stocked those rivers would be devoid of all but a few wild brookies in the tribs and the native suckers and chubs. Hey but a nice chub is fun to catch!

 

[JackM]

wbranch, I wonder, though, for the sake of argument, what would have been the result if they had only moved some native brook char about to redistribute the wildlife? I mean, one has to wonder, no?

 

[wildtrout2]

Charles Lose's book "The Vanishing Trout" tells the story quite well. Probably my favorite fishing book.

 

[Greenweenie1]

Whiskey, you made some good points and I agree, there are some clubs that are solely about making money under the false pretense of conservation. They successfully convince the masses that because there are 200 5lb trout per 100 yards of stream they are doing a great job managing the resource when in reality it is nothing more than dumping in 5000 5lb fish per week that the members are paying for. I agree, that is major league BS.

However, this situation is not one of those, yet many on this forum immediately lumped the club and macri as one of those with ZERO knowledge about the club or Marci -it is not a pellet fed operation lining the pockets of the owners and macri's association should not in anyway diminish his scientific expertise. That is my grip with people on this forum, they spout out baseless opinions and spread total misinformation as "facts" on so many subjects it is sickening so maybe totally misinformed is a better term than idiot (i will concede it is less offensive and more professional term) but I think you understand what I am saying.

 

[pcray1231]

Greenweenie, I'm not sure if you were talking to me. But my point of view is that the club cannot be considered a "conservation" effort. It wouldn't matter if they were all wild, and the excellent fishery is solely the result of making it the best trout habitat on Earth.

But the same point of view also says that it's not anti-conservation either. It doesn't matter if he dumped growth hormones in the stream, so long as they don't affect anyone else's property.

It's simply neither. It's private land. It's not a public resource. Not a feather in his cap, nor a reason to condemn the guy. And in no way whatsoever contributes to or detracts from his good deeds outside of this project.

 

[Greenweenie1]

I think the difference is when you have beaver's club charging a small fortune to be a member and specifically targeting the very well off folks, it becomes obvious that someone like lefty is being paid to endorse the place for the sole purpose of making more money for beaver. I don't fault beaver or lefty but i do understand the "false advertising" by hiring a very credible figure like lefty to go on record and sing the praises of the club - it adds legitamacy to it. The reality is Lefty isn't stupid and he knows exactly what the fishing is all about and he has no day to day involvement with the club yet he whores his reputation to cast the illusion that it's the best water he's ever fished for the sole purpose of convincing more folks fork over tons of money to beaver. If 2 people join based on lefty's endorsement, it was money well spent by beaver. I get they are both trying to make a living but I can definitely see where lefty could be viewed as selling out. Beaver is a business man and the hiring of lefty and the husband/wife duo is great marketing on his part.

The difference here is you are comparing 2 totally different club models and macri's involvement is completely different than lefty's.

 

[Greenweenie1]

Pcray, no, not addressed to you. I think we have differences in what we believe is the definition of "conservation.". You define conservation as conserving resource for public enjoyment whereas i define conservation as conserving a resource for the benefit of preserving the resource whether the public can or cannot use it. Not saying you are wrong but we define conservation differently.

 

[Squaretail]

I dont know, they dont seem like a Beaver situation. But a profit is being made.
And conservation...the definition to me would be protecting whats there. They are in fact stocking fish in water where I caught wild fish.
I cant take away what Genes done to help waters, and waters that I fish. But its not solely for his love of the fish. It doesnt really bother me but Macri's made money at both the club and at Big Spring.
Good for him.