Private Water Fly Fishing

[GreenWeenie]

Krayfish, do you hate yourself yet? Just kidding, thanks.

 

[shortrod]

 

[pcray1231]

Actually, shortrod, if you look at history, you're wrong. The roots of conservationism, if you go back to Teddy Roosevelt and all that, very much include, as a prerequisite, public use of the resources. The origins were in the national park system, which goes out of its way to invite the public to enjoy the resource. That was its purpose. And it remains the purpose of public conservation efforts. It's front and center in the mission statements of those who manage state and national forests, parks, recreation areas, conservancies, etc.

From a public policy perspective, we are concerned with Conservation of PUBLIC RESOURCES.

Now, on private land, the landowner may be concerned with conservation of his own resources. But as a member of the public, if I am excluded from that resource, I hardly see how his decisions effect me. Unless, as stated, his decisions are affecting our resources elsewhere.

If you're more concerned about the welfare of the flora and fauna, outside of man's enjoyment of them, then it is you who need a new word. There is a word for it. Environmentalism. Which is different than conservation.

Personally, I'm much more of a conservationist than I am an environmentalist, though there is a place for both, and sometimes their goals overlap.

 

[JackM]

Semantics--- the way I use the word is correct. I think the first definition is more accurate than PC's, but his fits the common parlance better when "environmentalists" want to leave themselves room to have a negative impact on the ecosystem, however insignificant that negative impact may be.

Anglers who waive the banner of conservationism still want our "natural areas" to allow fishing--- no ATV's though!

 

[tomitrout]

I'll pick a nit..PCray, you actually need to go much further back than the establishment of National Parks as model for the definition of 'conservation' and use of resources for the greater good of the public. PA is a Commonwealth, and from my understanding of the origins of 'commonwealth', those origins/definitions trump your definition of conservation/environmentalism.

As far as I'm concerned, the water is the true resource, the trouts are secondary and the fishing opportunities are mere recreational folly. We're lucky to have the time to enjoy these pursuits. So, what exactly is Gene 'conserving' as riverkeeper on this stretch of stream? Pretty much just the fishing experience along that specific beat. What's curious to me is that this club is bounded both up and downstream by other private clubs (with much higher pricetags), and who knows what those other clubs are doing in the spirit of 'conservation'?

It's a pay to play stretch of water, it is reasonably priced in this particular case, and it's not for everybody obviously. I think if Gene was truly conserving the stream, then there would be no stocking, no habitat improvements to accomodate the larger stocked fish and the club members would be fishing for native brookies with a trophy catch being a 12"er. They would be focused on conserving the water quality and playing it as it lies, as Mother Nature dictates. But you can easily do that for free within at most a 20minute drive from these waters. And that would be a hard sell, so of course there will be claims of conservation in the marketing of this and any club, gotta give the members something to feel all warm and fuzzy about...

 

[YoughnessMonster]

There's 3 minutes of my life wasted. Boring!

 

[pcray1231]

no ATV's though

hehe. Well, I consider it a public resource if anyone can use it. I did not say there couldn't be restrictions on HOW they use it. Lots of nature preserves, for instance, don't allow fishing and hunting. And that's fine, they cater to other recreational pursuits. I have no issue with that, it's still conservation.

If ATV interests are great enough, they can leverage power to conserve land for their purposes. And they have done so.

tom, nit acknowledged. Still doesn't change the fact that the term "conservation" has historically meant preservation of resources for the greater public good, as you describe. It's only rather recently as the environmentalism movement has grown that people started using the terms interchangeably. I think it's a mistake, even if they sometimes find themselves sharing the same goals, there are indeed separate motivations there, and they also find themselves sometimes having opposite goals because of it.

And while I find it disingenuous to claim some sort of conservation angle to what Gene is doing, that doesn't mean I oppose it. If there's gonna be an amusement park regardless of what you do, I consider it noble enough to try to make it as good of an amusement park as possible while keeping the price reasonable so that the common man can afford it, if he chooses. Common man does not equal "public", though, as public implies "free". You must maintain sharp boundaries, so as not to introduce the dreaded gray areas and slippery slopes.

 

[JackM]

YoughnessMonster wrote:
There's 3 minutes of my life wasted. Boring!

On behalf of everyone who found it interesting, let me please offer our apology for wasting your time. Oh, and welcome to the Board. 😎

 

[pcray1231]

First page of Wikipedia:

Chiefly in the United States, conservation is seen as differing from environmentalism in that it aims to preserve natural resources expressly for their continued sustainable use by humans.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement

 

[JackM]

chiefly
in the US
seen as
_________
parlance

 

[pcray1231]

I'm not arguing that it's not parlance. I was defending myself against shortrod, who charged that I needed a different word. Quite the contrary, in our location (the U.S.), my usage of the term is historically accurate. And his meaning, while not wrong, is more accurately described by what we know of as environmentalism.

All we did was outline the original differences in motivation described by the two terms, even if in modern times, some people do use them interchangeably.

 

[JackM]

Like you, he is protecting his turf and fighting the commandeering of language by his opponent, particularly in this case, when doing so might influence those under the spell of parlance.

You are conserving one of two things:

1. The natural experience; or
2. The fishing experience.

Can both result from the same measures? Certainly? But using language to imply you are doing this for the benefit of "nature" when the reality is you are doing it primarily for recreation is a little dishonest, in my opinion. So abandon the ambiguities and say what we mean, rather than shrouding our meaning in concepts that serve to confuse or obfuscate, rather than enlighten.

 

[mcwillja]

This thread may have to be saved in a classic thread section. I don't mean that in a good way either.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Here is the definition of "conservation."

1. protection of valued resources: the preservation, management, and care of natural and cultural resources

2. protection from change: the keeping or protecting of something from change, loss, or damage

It doesn't say anything about whether the resource is piblic or private just that the resource is protected. So technically speaking, posting a stream and not letting anyone fish meets the true definition of conservation because it is truly proected from change, loss or damage. Keeping the stream open to public use or making it private yet fishable tehnically is not conservation.

 

[pcray1231]

I go with #1. And the public, from a policy standpoint, doesn't value private resources. It's not a public resource, thus, there is nothing for the public to concern itself with conserving.

As a person with private resources, I may place value on my resources, and be concerned with conserving them. But the public doesn't and shouldn't value my resources.

Every dictionary will have different wording. For instance, sitting here I have the "American Heritage Science Dictionary" in print. And here is it's definition, word for word.

"The protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them. Conservation is generally held to include the management of human use of natural resources for current public benefit and sustainable social and economic utilization."

 

[shortrod]

 

[pcray1231]

imply you are doing this for the benefit of "nature" when the reality is you are doing it primarily for recreation is a little dishonest, in my opinion.

Not implying anything. Quite clearly, I value fish as a public resource, period. I value forests, streams, and wildlife as public resources, period. They hold zero inherent value, their value is purely as it relates to their beneficial effect on humans, whether it be physical and mental health, or recreational opportunity.

When I have my "public" hat on, I am a defender of public resources. Yes, I also defend my private resources, but don't expect you to value those, or care whether I'm successful. We can even partner and share private resources, but if the "public" is not a partner, we shouldn't expect them to care what WE do with OUR resources.

We should manage public resources to obtain optimum benefit for humans. Not just in the short term, but in the long term, which is a mistake we too often make.

I am a conservationist, as I view conserving our public natural environment to be more beneficial to a greater number of humans over a longer time period than the alternative uses which would destroy or diminish that resource.

 

[JackM]

Sorry, the "you" was really a generic for those who support pay to play with claims of "conservation." Since your arguments are sort of supporting them, I included you in it as well. If I am incorrect, then disregard.

 

[pcray1231]

Jack, I clearly do not regard pay to play as "conservation." So in regards to what Mr. Macri is doing, I'm in agreement with others on that. It's disengenuous to claim it as a conservation effort.

The difference is that under my view, it matters not whether they stock over wild populations or not. In no way CAN a pay to play operation be considered under the banner of conservation. But nor is it "destruction" of a resource.

It's a business. That's it. The club sells an experience for profit, no different than, say, a ski lodge. After all, for a ski lodge, nature put that mountain there, no? Yet skiers still have preferences on how wide and steep the trails are cut, snow making practices, how many or fast the lifts are, etc. The stocking practices are no different than that. I would say Mr. Macri would perhaps improve his chances of attracting me as a customer if he were to not stock over wild fish. But he's free to set up his business as he chooses and I will not attack him for doing so. But nor will I give him credit for any sort of conservation effort out of it.

And it in no way sours his other achievements outside of this business endeavor, some of which indeed fall under the banner of "conservation."

 

[JackM]

That's how I view it as well. Will someone enter into the annals of PAFF History that pcray and JackM appear, at present, on this precise issue, to agree.

HeeHee, I typed "annals."