R
RunWithSasquatch
but that doesn't make it right to close it for recreation.
it doesn't matter if its a trophy trout fishery or how many divisions BLM has,,its BS it doesn't just affect fishermen or guides,,it affects everyone,what about the guy who just wants to take his son down the river for a float,or the rafters who use this section for recreation?you can't just lump it all into fishing and say well this is good for it cause its too hot over there in the summer to fish.and if its too hot to fish over there why not close down the entire river why just this section that the majority of recreation users use?
you could say the same for just about any central oregon river getting too hot in the summer to fish.but that doesn't make it right to close it for recreation.
Let met get this straight, you're ok with closing bodies of water off from anyone who doesn't use a particular type of lure, and be damned if "what about the guy who just wants to take his son down the river <to cast a spinner>"
But since this affects your ability to enjoy nature in a way you want to, you're suddenly feeling all righteously upset? (Not quoting you) "Life isn't fair get over it!" :naughty:
The rule changes don't sound good to me either, but it's always funny to see people who've been previously happy about taking away other's opportunity to enjoy nature for their own benefit, up in arms when their opportunity to enjoy nature is being taken for someone else's benefit. My how the wheel turns...
bigsteel;157580why not close down the entire river why just this section that the majority of recreation users use?[/QUOTE said:Well because this stretch is being over-used/abused. Why continue abusing it? Why not limit use to prevent the negative impact caused by high-traffic use so it can remain a pristine river? Do some research to see what high-traffic use can have on a river, because obviously you have not. If this article had been on a change to fly only on the John Day I bet you'd have been all for it and you'd say it's whats best for the fishies, well so is restricting use.
oops.... apparently we were both covering the same angle... at the same time..
hey jay dont put words in my mouth,what does fly only have to do with anything,why dont you read the thread i started it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FISHING IM TALKING ABOUT RAFTING,,,what does an article on RAFTING have to do with fly fishing.there you go again putting words in peoples mouths....with your logic the wilson,and all your favorite coastal rivers would be d3eemed HIGH TRAFFIC would they not?why not limit the amount of people on your famous wilson river or the trask or the kilches..i think you should do some research on high traffic areas and its not in the middle of nowhere on the john day,,its right in your own backyard jay.Well because this stretch is being over-used/abused. Why continue abusing it? Why not limit use to prevent the negative impact caused by high-traffic use so it can remain a pristine river? Do some research to see what high-traffic use can have on a river, because obviously you have not. If this article had been on a change to fly only on the John Day I bet you'd have been all for it and you'd say it's whats best for the fishies, well so is restricting use.
I don't believe Bigsteel has ever been one to push "fly only" he is simply a fan of the catch and release order.. my post also sounded like it may have corner him into the wrong box-
I dont care about fly only,,see thats wherim sick of getting picked out by,,,i am for catch and release catcyh and release..
yes, I dragged it into the fishing end... its what applies to me, which is what most of us address, the obvious attempt here by the fed is to eliminate the need to spend money on camp sites, medical attention, concrete EPA approved $hitters that would be helo lifted in, improved boat launches and yada yada yada... so in the end the boat limit really will just keep out the lesser intense rafters.. many will float it anyway, as by the second year there will probably be no enforcement around up there anyway- whenever the Fed makes a move that is being sold as enviromental protection... you can usally spot the real angle if you look hard enough- their own study proved several hundred thousand dollars worth of improvements for waste managment and access would be required to protect the river from this volume of use... so the best move of a broke goverment to do is restrict travel... which is free.. if a single person on here so much as mentions the lost revenue could purchase the $hitters I will f*****g have a mental break down.... concrete $hitters are the death of an area, if the do one improvement to the JD to attract more escalades and pavatti drifters with girls who need a special spot to crap I will personally destroy them-
10%-20% is not enough, I imagine that most dont realize the over use problem that existed on that river