NJ Steelhead?

[dcabarle]

TN,

When I want a day of fishing, I drive up and back to the upper Delaware and I wade it. Window down on the ride home with a large, black coffee from the Hancock McDonald's. But a day on the water on the upper D for those that hire a guide is $395. If you bring a buddy, you pay half that. If no buddy, you cover that entire cost. Our private water is $280/person, so a single person not fishing with someone else can save a few bucks and doesn't have to add 4 or 5 hours in drive time. Again, private water is not for everyone and that is fine. But there are a lot of anglers more than happy to fish private waters or to join private clubs and fish private waters. I know of not one single NJ private club without a significant waiting list, so the demand is much higher than you might think. Even when I could afford those clubs before working for TU, I was not interested. But I see their benefits to some anglers. The great thing about our sport is that it is not one-size-fits-all. To each his own.

and if Macdonalds is opened on your way home than you're not fishing long and hard enough. thought you were a heavyweight.

 

[Trout Nazi]

and if Macdonalds is opened on your way home than you're not fishing long and hard enough. thought you were a heavyweight.

There were times that I was hallucinating I was so tired, after 14hrs of wading on those super windy days, taking a break only to piss. I need to start staying the night, or break bad and get into meth.

 

[Lonewolve]

For the record, I take no offense to any of the posts. Nobody is forcing anyone to fish the private water. We get more public water guide trips than we do private water trips, but both remain very popular for different reasons. Our guides are fully insured through the shop. The Inn and Shannon's are two different businesses. The Inn does a good wedding business as well as corporate retreats and traditional B&B stays. As far as NJ guides not "being certified", neither are PA or NY guides. They just get to pay a fee (tax) to hang out their shingles. Surprising that NJ doesn't force the same on us here, but paying a fee doesn't make a good guide. It just makes a poor guide

Not true Rusty, Pa has requirements. CPR requirements,Boating safety provosions ,regardless if you use a boat, and Proof of Current Insurance Coverage. I know this to be factual. I have friends that currently guide.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

and if Macdonalds is opened on your way home than you're not fishing long and hard enough. thought you were a heavyweight.

I lied about the coffee. But not about the open window! Coffee makes me too jumpy if I drink it at night, but I can stay awake even when exhausted while driving. Being a sales guy that drove between 55,000 and 65,000 miles a year in a company car taught me a thing or two about tricks to stay awake when tired.

Not true Rusty, Pa has requirements. CPR requirements,Boating safety provosions ,regardless if you use a boat, and Proof of Current Insurance Coverage. I know this to be factual. I have friends that currently guide.

I meant in the way of going through a formal guide school and getting certified. I should have been more clear. But even guide school doesn't mean you're a better guide than someone else. We all know good guides and we all know bad guides or guides that can only go out on the water with certain personalities but not with everyone. I'm CPR certified and have to be, but not by state rules, just by our insurance carrier.

 

[lightenup]

I have never used a guide, and I may never, even at the cost of not catching anything on new water...
I find, and it is just me....searching new water and finding places is half the fun, and when you are successful it is very rewarding....beyond that, I am one cheap S.O.B. and won't spend the money...

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I have never used a guide, and I may never, even at the cost of not catching anything on new water...
I find, and it is just me....searching new water and finding places is half the fun, and when you are successful it is very rewarding....beyond that, I am one cheap S.O.B. and won't spend the money...

So if you break down and hire me for our private water, I shouldn't be surprised when you stiff me on the tip? :crap:

 

[lightenup]

So if you break down and hire me for our private water, I shouldn't be surprised when you stiff me on the tip? :crap:

Don't worry Rusty, if I was hiring a guide it wouldn't be you....:rofl:

 

[Trouser Trout]

Good points, but the state owns the water as well as the fish and game, regardless of who stocked fish or game onto a private property. That doesn't mean the public has access to fish and game on private lands, it only means that the state alone regulates the taking of the game. As for Farm Bill dollars currently being earmarked only for private lands, you can thank your Congressmen for that snafu. We like to see those funds closer to 40% public and 60% private like most past Farm Bills had in them. Since everything in Washington DC is on a continuing resolution with regard to these large funding bills, I don't see the current situation changing anytime soon. I was on Capital Hill all day yesterday lobbying members of Congress from both sides and they all agreed. Lastly, while I understand that some are upset that public funds via grants like we obtain from US Fish & Wildlife Service, NFWF, or Farm Bill funds get used on private properties, when we do these restoration projects, they positively impact those rivers and streams downstream as well. They improve the overall health of the river, and often that carries over to public lands outside of the private lands. Since far more lands along our rivers are privately owned than publicly owned, it makes sense that a lot of projects are going to occur on private lands, some of which the public cannot access. But that doesn't mean the public gets no benefits from the project.

Thanks Rusty, but if someone or entity takes public money they should be forced to allow public access. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Thanks Rusty, but if someone or entity takes public money they should be forced to allow public access. Pretty simple concept.

So we shouldn't work with a farmer to get his cows out of a stream on his private land because they are destroying the banks and adding sediment and fecal coliform to the stream unless they are willing to let you fish that stream once we're done restoring it?

 

[Trouser Trout]

So we shouldn't work with a farmer to get his cows out of a stream on his private land because they are destroying the banks and adding sediment and fecal coliform to the stream unless they are willing to let you fish that stream once we're done restoring it?

Well, how many laws is he breaking by polluting the stream? If he continues to pollute the stream, his rights to the stream should be condemned and it should be repaired with my money and i should be allowed to use it.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Well, how many laws is he breaking by polluting the stream? If he continues to pollute the stream, his rights to the stream should be condemned and it should be repaired with my money and i should be allowed to use it.

He's breaking no laws. And he can't afford the fencing, the native plants to be planted within the exclosure, the stream bank and bed restoration, nor the time to do it all if he could afford it. Yet those cows are screwing up your river.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

What about the dam owner that allows us to remove his dam but then doesn't allow public access? We've greatly improved drinking water quality, fish habitat, fish passage, etc. and we did it with public tax dollars via competitive grants. Should we not do those projects because you cannot fish that water?

You know I'm not defensive, just forcing you to think about where you stand on this. I've had to wrestle with these and other concerns for many years and I know what works best for the ecosystem, even if it sometimes means we don't gain public access through our protection and restoration efforts.

 

[Trouser Trout]

What about the dam owner that allows us to remove his dam but then doesn't allow public access? We've greatly improved drinking water quality, fish habitat, fish passage, etc. and we did it with public tax dollars via competitive grants. Should we not do those projects because you cannot fish that water?

You know I'm not defensive, just forcing you to think about where you stand on this. I've had to wrestle with these and other concerns for many years and I know what works best for the ecosystem, even if it sometimes means we don't gain public access through our protection and restoration efforts.

I understand what your point is. Public money for private use is by no means a total loss. So if my septic goes bad I should expect mother government to come fix it for me because I am in the Wallkill River Basin and it may interfere with the water quality.

 

[Johnny Utah]

I lied about the coffee. But not about the open window! Coffee makes me too jumpy if I drink it at night, but I can stay awake even when exhausted while driving. Being a sales guy that drove between 55,000 and 65,000 miles a year in a company car taught me a thing or two about tricks to stay awake when tired

 

[Johnny Utah]

I understand what your point is. Public money for private use is by no means a total loss. So if my septic goes bad I should expect mother government to come fix it for me because I am in the Wallkill River Basin and it may interfere with the water quality.

Brother TT, why so serious?

 

[Trouser Trout]

Brother TT, why so serious?

LOL... Because we are a country that is trillions of dollars in debt yet everyone on the public dole has a rational excuse as to why they need the government pork, yet bitches that we are trillions of dollars in debt.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I understand what your point is. Public money for private use is by no means a total loss. So if my septic goes bad I should expect mother government to come fix it for me because I am in the Wallkill River Basin and it may interfere with the water quality.

Not in that case because septic systems are regulated and you would be breaking the law and responsible fully for damage and repair. Now if you lobby for and are successful in getting laws passed that say cows can't stand in our streams or all obsolete dams must be removed or you can't cut down native vegetation along our rivers and streams, etc., then we can place the ownership of these projects directly on the shoulders of the landowners.

In the meantime, the funds we access for these projects come through the 5 year Farm Bill and are a tiny fraction of that bill's appropriation. It has and will always have strong bi-partisan support. It allows organizations like TU to compete for the grants and to leverage non-federal matching dollars to complete on the ground projects of benefit to fish, wildlife and plants as well as water quality. If you want to trim fat from the Farm Bill, go after things like corn subsidies for ethanol to name just one. That's in there.

I'm all for trimming federal bloat, but the reality is that a small portion of our tax dollars go to the better good. IMO, these are some of those tax dollars that benefit us and don't just cause larger government. In fact, the agencies that administer Farm Bill funds have shrunk in size each of the last 3 years while other governmental agencies continue to grow like money is falling out of the skies.

 

[Johnny Utah]

They must have a different weather channel then we do, I never get caught out in money storms.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

They must have a different weather channel then we do, I never get caught out in money storms.

You need only take a trip to DC like I did earlier this week. It really is raining money in that town. Everywhere you go is a new government building and new roads leading to those buildings under construction. And in front of most of these projects are signs that say: "This project brought to you by the Stimulus Bill" or whatever name they gave that massive porkulus bill. They can barely keep up with the massive growth in government in that town. It was the same last time I was there about 18 months ago.

 

[sheisty]

Full day of fishing for me 5 years ago = Go to RV start on the boat launch closest to rangers cove and fish all the way to the rocks that separate the swimming area from the main reservoir, and turn around and do the same on the way back.

Now a days a full day is I pick a area, and start on one river and hike and fish it, and maybe another all in the same day. Reasonably close to home, all sorts of quality fish, only expense is time and gas. Try fishing one river from head waters to the end if possibly, you will be amazed at what you find.

 

[Crackerjack]

Looks like a good size fish to me def in the 20" range stop hating guys ur just mad u can't catch em like that. Handling of the fish needs much improvement though.