The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

Dave LaCourse wrote:
rw asks:


Just how much "disposable" income do you have?



You first. (?)

You're the one who brought it up.

But since you ask, I have no income that I consider "disposable." I
dislike the term. Any "excess" income I have, beyond what I need for
ordinary living expenses (which are modest by the standards of a rich
man like you) goes right into investments, mostly for my children's
future. If I want to take a fishing trip, or buy my daughter a car, or
buy a camper for my truck, or buy real estate, or donate to charity,
I'll just do it without considering it as "disposing" of income. Aside
from the fishing trips, all those examples are what I consider to be
cost-effective spending. I carry no debt (which does wonders for my
piece of mind), and I consider buying something for the purpose of
impressing someone else as one of the most reliable signs of poor character.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:51:22 GMT, "B J Conner"
wrote:


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/11/2...es/26FISH.html

I like the part where they call $75,000 up front and $5,000
a year a "modest investment."

And what's up with Lefty ? I thought he was one of us !

--
Ken Fortenberry

It's just a preview of the future under the neo-con oligarchy. If anyone
voted for Bush and his gang of thieves you don't have a bitch coming.
Someday when they have privatized the national forest and sold all the
best
rivers to Browning and his ilk the western clave will have to held in a
city
park in Spokane or somewhere similar. Your children and grandchildren
can
set around the fire and tell tales of how good it use to be in grandpas
day.
As I have said before save all those articles on fly-fishing for Carp.
The
income that most roffians seem to have will evolve them out or trout
fishing.
If one wants to sample the future now, I think he cold do so by taking a
trout fishing holiday to the UK.

Well, Beej, you are a loony, but at least you are a hypocrite,
too...whatsamatter, are you afraid someone is gonna rip that tit out of
your mouth?

The Pickle Panderer
...oh, don't completely panic - I mean the public one, not the
Sarge's...

I ain't worried about the tit in my mouth. I'm tired of paying for the two
in yours. I'm tired of conservative chickenhawks buying their way into the
texas air guard while the PWT kids do the dirty work and in the course of it
suffer ****ty pickles with their chow.

rw writes:

But since you ask, I have no income that I consider "disposable." I
dislike the term. Any "excess" income I have, beyond what I need for
ordinary living expenses (which are modest by the standards of a rich
man like you) goes right into investments, mostly for my children's
future.

I've already taken care of my children, and their children. Joanne and I live
in a modest home and have no debt.

If I want to take a fishing trip, or buy my daughter a car, or
buy a camper for my truck, or buy real estate, or donate to charity,
I'll just do it without considering it as "disposing" of income.

As do I, but it is disposable income, income that you do not need, income that
you could save or spend

Aside
from the fishing trips, all those examples are what I consider to be
cost-effective spending. I carry no debt (which does wonders for my
piece of mind), and I consider buying something for the purpose of
impressing someone else as one of the most reliable signs of poor character.

Hmmm. I can't remember buying something to impress anyone except me. Oh,
you're speaking of my car. Well, it is as much of an investment as anything
else. It will hold its value compared to other autos, and I will enjoy it
while I still can. So far, no tickets, but I did have to use two "get out of
jail free" cards. Gotta love those Mass and Vermont State Troopers.

Jon Cook writes:

Willi & Sue wrote:

Bush does support privatization of public lands and managing them in

Where did you learn that?

Seriously.

This issue came up on ROFF during the 2000 election, and it was
shown to be wrong then. You might be right, but I'd sure like to
see a citation.

Jon.


You'll believe it Jon when the sky falls on you. Just wait.

wrote:


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,

Maybe because "we" own it; maybe because of historic precedence; maybe
because at least in CO, the DOW budget is so strong that the pols want
to put it into the general budget to use some of its funds for other
purposes; maybe because it's like our public schools that "we" also own;
maybe because most of us also pay taxes; maybe because the majority of
taxpayers are in favor of it etc etc etc

But more to the point, IMO, why do YOU feel "you/they" should be able to
make a profit from "my/our" public lands? (Which from past discussions I
KNOW you are in favor of unless you've changed your mind)


b) feel that the Republican party is somehow involved with interfering
with "a)," above.

Because many Republicans, including the Pres, support a "best and
highest use" management program for our public lands. I'm sure there are
few Dems that do but I'm unaware of who they would be.

Willi

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Willi & Sue wrote:


Bush does support privatization of public lands and managing them in


Where did you learn that?

Seriously.

This issue came up on ROFF during the 2000 election, and it was
shown to be wrong then.


I don't think so.


You might be right, but I'd sure like to
see a citation.

Jon.

I can't show you a direct quote from him. Few politicians are making
public statements concerning this because their views are unpopular with
the voters. What I can show you is the background of the person he
appointed to lead the Department of the Interior, Gale Norton. If he
didn't agree with her positions, why would he appointment and retain her?

Norton is a founder, and serves/served on the advisory committee, of the
Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates and is/was on the board
of the Independence Institute. Check out the positions taken by these
organizations and decide for yourself.

Willi

slenon wrote:
DAve LaCourse:

Like I've said, it isn't government that is the problem, but US, you, me,
and a
million others that want to fish.


And by extension, that create many of the problems facing the nation today,
education, health care, employment, immigration, transportation,

A generation that should have taken heed to the ZPG theory failed to listen.
We popped out kids on an assembly line basis and taught them to become far
more voracious consumers than we ever were. If one TV in the house was
adequate, one in every room was better. Any kid who did not receive a car
for his/her 16th birthday could almost sue for child abuse in some
communities. Now it is politically incorrect to question anyone's need or
right to reproduce; even at the extreme of requiring fertility clinics.

Malthus was correct.



The last time I looked, factoring out immigration, the US has a negative
(essentially zero) population growth.

Willi

Charlie Choc wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:15:47 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

What the GOP wants to do is change the definition of navigable
from canoe at highest water to six hundred foot tow barge full
of iron ore at lowest water. (Or something like that. ;-)

FWIW, that's basically the definition of navigable in GA - the water must be
able to handle heavy barge traffic to be deemed navigable.

This is good background:

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-public.htm

and an interpretation (with a decided point of view):

http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-who-owns.htm

Many states, where access based on public ownership of the streambed had
been long established by tradition/custom or a collection of state rulings
over the years, are in the process of being forced to review what is
considered navigable. Sometimes the pressure is from "the public"
(fishermen, kayakers, etc.) asserting their right to access. More often,
the pressure is from landowners (in Oregon now, this means timber
companies, ranchers, real estate developers) insisting that the public's
ownership of the streambed is dependent upon an assessment and declaration
of navigability.

JR

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Jon Cook writes:


Willi & Sue wrote:


Bush does support privatization of public lands and managing them in

Where did you learn that?

Seriously.

This issue came up on ROFF during the 2000 election, and it was
shown to be wrong then. You might be right, but I'd sure like to
see a citation.

Jon.



You'll believe it Jon when the sky falls on you. Just wait.


I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm just trying to pass on inform
that I've gathered which I think would be of interest to fly fishermen
that value our public lands. Read about the two organizations that
Norton is involved with and/or founded that I referred to in my response
to Jon's post. The pols don't have enough popular support, AT THIS TIME,
to make any sweeping changes but the number of politicians that support
this approach to our public lands has grown considerably over the last
ten years or so. Although it is mainly Repubs and Libertarians that take
these positions, it is the position that I'm against not the Party(s).
People that value our public lands need to be aware of the growing
popularity of this position. That's all I'm trying to do.

Willi

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:55:32 -0800, JR wrote:

Many states, where access based on public ownership of the streambed had
been long established by tradition/custom or a collection of state rulings
over the years, are in the process of being forced to review what is
considered navigable.

Georgia is fairly specific as to what is navigable. Here's the statute:
http://www.lawskills.com/code/ga/44/8/5/ AFAIK, none of the trout waters in GA
meet this criteria.
--
Charlie...
http://66.156.89.242 - photos
http://66.156.89.242/roff