I had to get away. First choice was the EB but things began to change last night. Morning - a quick trip to Mike's Deerfield fly shop to buy more appropriate space for my flies (boxes). Then an hour relocating flies and then a trip to the lower Swift. Pulled into the PIPE lot around 10ish but had no intention of doing the usual route fishing down to the PIPE and the pool below. Said HI to Bill and WB George but kept walking.
Going upstream I switched to a size 28 CDC emerger and spied a good brown working the surface with some bows. I netted that 16 inch brown.
I had to get away and that was to get away from the crowds. The Swift still gives us that opportunity but you have to peel yourself away from the PIPE to Y POOL and vise virsa treadmill that many find themselves on. There are many very productive stretches that measure only a few yards long but are jammed with trout. I had hundreds of yards to myself and had a great day!
Go find them!!!
Kayak People - We fish the Swift and PAY for that. Our money goes into trout stocking BUT also land purchases and up keep. It also provides PUBLIC ACCESS but these guys pay NOTHING to use the river. Maybe they should. Why should we pay the freight for their usage. A yearly fee for using a kayak and/or paddled/rowed device seems reasonable to me.
Ken
23 comments:
Nice job on the brookies, Ken. The Swift River is a gem, no doubt about it. Regards, Sam
I never thought of that but a license for the use of all non powered craft drift boat/ kayak/tubes would be a fair way for all to contribute to the access of all of these great places-have it as an add-on to a fishing license or a similar/daily yearly fee. With all the trash some of these clowns leave behind its fair. I'd hope it could also pay for a few more DFW rangers.
Hope I can find you in the water some day and thank you personally for all the information that you post on the blog every week.
Thank you
Rui Machado
Bob T,
While I'm at it let's throw in the "birding" community. All anglers pay a tax on all fishing equipment purchased and that tax is earmarked for conservation and wildlife habitat. Birders spend a zillion dollars (actually I saw the figure 71 billion $ online) but no dedicated wildlife tax for them. 20 or so years ago someone floated the idea of a conservation tax on birding equipment and they went crazy. Hunters and fishers always pay the freight and get sneered at as wildlife "extractors".
Ken
In order to "sell" the tax, the state needs to earmark the funds and demonstrate a deepened commitment to conservation and improved access to waterways, game and bird habitat and improve the ability to enforce wildlife laws. Nobody loves paying more in taxes but in the current state of politics - I think fisheries and wildlife come up on the bottom of the budget priority time after time. In Western MA, if habitat and resources were properly managed the outdoors could become a prominent driver of the regional economy.
Hi Ken
Ken, you don't pay to just fish the swift river.You have a lot of good alternatives to fish other places.Get off your high horse and enjoy seeing other people enjoy the outdoors.
Anonymous
This State does a good job in securing wildlife land and securing access to it. BTW, fisheries and wildlife is USER funded. It's all earmarked! It gets no $$ from the general fund. In fact, the Romney administration tried hard to grab fish and wildlife money to throw into the general fund. It didn't work! What I suggest is that other users of public open space pay like WE do. What's wrong with that???
Ken
Hi Ken,I'm an avid reader of your blog but I have to say,the rivers are for every one not just a group of fishers who are there several days a week. The world is full of those who litter and yell fbombs at the top of their lungs.Such is life.
Anonymous (It's always Anonymous),
I do fish in other places and PAY to do it and I'm tired of users of our resources getting it all for free. They should contribute!! Get it??
Ken
Final thoughts on this,
All users of rivers and public land should contribute something. Of course "the rivers are for everyone" so everyone should pony up.
Anonymous comments will not be posted.
Ken
I'm not keen to additional taxes or fees, but you've hit the nail on the head as far as who carries the bill. I also feel a great deal of the maintenance going on around our rivers/state lands are to accommodate those who don't pay in. Granted most do pay state taxes but none of that goes to these causes.
If I had it my way i'd even amended that to include dogwalkers, who in my opinion are some of the worst violators. I hunt straight from October through March and 99% of my issues are with people walking dogs, with no orange, wherever they want, no fee associated, and feel as if they are entitled over you because what they are doing is "harmless". Last I read this is a "wildlife management area" not a dog park. They also generally have no respect for sportsman, from my encounters.
Thanks for bringing this issue front and center.
Agreed. All floaters, kayakers, whatever you want to call them, should pay. I've never seen a fly fisherman litter on a river. If you see one, then they aren't worthy of holding a fly rod.
Bryan,
I agree! Thank you!
Josh,
I agree. If they use public lands they should pay up which will help expand that land.
For some reason they think they shouldn't but that WE should continue to pay.
Ken
Fellas,
Much respect for the information on fishing and the local rivers. That being said it is a little distasteful to point fingers at the "other crowds." I'm sure there are a few in the fishing group that could work harder to care for the rivers they frequent. I believe our best bet is to model the behavior we are looking for, be courteous, and help correct when we see something that is not right. We are also stewards of the sport and may be the "other groups" only vision of what fly fishers are and we probably don't want to be seen as crotchety old people.
The last time I was on the Swift fishing below the fallen tree below the Pipe, my attempt to cast to a nice rainbow was interrupted by a young guide (AT least he appeared that way) pulling two sports and his boat around the fallen tree. His stomping around blew out the entire stretch I was attempting to cover. I raised my voice enough letting him know what I thought of his even trying to float the Swift that the sports looked a bit embarrassed as I imagine they should have been. Talk about someone who needs to pay!
25 dollars for a license is nothing, if we can pay it then they can pay it too. Everytime I go to the swift I always end up picking up trash
Lenny
Terry,
What's distasteful about having other outdoor users pay for using public land unless you are an outdoor user who doesn't pay?
They should pay. I've heard that some Audubon people buy duck stamps because of the benefits.
Ken
I also do not want any more additional taxes and fees. Where would you draw the line? If I take a walk on my town's sidewalks or road should I pay a fee? If I walk on one of the great rail trails in the state should I pay a fee? If I kayak in a public lake, now I have to pay a fee? If I take a boat ride out into the ocean, now I need to pay a fee? You guys are getting ridiculous and I honestly believe its really because you want "your" trout and the swift all to yourselves, and if there was usage fee enforced, it would keep out the non-flyfishers.
The thing about the swift is that I can thrash around in any of the key areas and 10 minutes later start catching fish again. Relax and share the river. You're starting to sound like elitist snobs which is not good for our sport..
By the way, I'm a fly fisherman and a dog walker, use the rail trails, the town forests, ponds and lakes, etc..
/marc
I've had some issues with kayakers in the past but really none over the past few years. The dozen or so I have had contact with this year (all downstream of the pipe area and "tree" pools) have all been exceptionally courteous, though I still haven't forgotten the one who tried to run me over a few years ago.
I agree that "water users" should be paying something. Maybe have to register their craft or something. My thought about this is who is going to enforce or do the checking for rules and regulation compliance? The State makes little or none of an effort to ensure fishing regulations are being maintained; they cannot even maintain an "honest" stocking program on the Swift, as we have all observed over the past few years.
Al
Marc,
Sidewalks??? Roads??? You already pay those fees through a gasoline tax and property taxes. The Ocean??? Really, try to get serious. It's NOT ABOUT TROUT BUT PAYING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS!!!!!!!!! WE (fishers and hunters) bought most of this land and it's about time that the casual users get invested. BTW, rail trails are paid for, in most part, by gasoline taxes. As a heavy user you should pay more!!
Ken
I just don't think its fair for the flyfishers to pay to fish on the rivers and have to be the ones to pick up trash left behind by those who don't. I have no problem with others using the river but when they start to take it for granted that's what grinds my gears.
Lenny
Ken ,
What can we do about these "Guides " that come down the Swift in their tubes that take up half the river. I ran into one today, he had TWO! boats. Both were they type that should be used in the Deerfield. NOT THE SWIFT! These guys are starting to P!ss me off big time. They are a real bunch of idiots. This is a wading river in these spots.Any ideas on how to stop this?
Paul N.
There are good examples we could suggest as a remedy to the recent emergence of floating guides on the Swift. I'm sure these aren't unique, but two of my favorite rivers in Oregon are the Metolius and the Deschutes rivers. Both significantly restrict guide usage. Guides are completely prohibited on the Metolius (not sure that is needed here), and anglers are not allowed to fish from watercraft on the Deschutes. I have no idea how one gets fisheries to changes rules, but it would be an interesting conversation.
Post a Comment