One Angler’s Story
Here's a post from an angler's message board dated 2/2007. Its from an angler who knows something about whitewater and who isn't blinded by the Trout Unlimited rhetoric and propaganda:
*******************
Bottom line is this.....
The ban was put in place originally because every bonehead with a rubber raft was trying to float it and people were getting hurt. Those upper sections have always been considered to dangerous for the "average joe" to raft, canoe, kayak, whatever. Oddly enough, the surge in interest to "raft" the Chattooga can be blamed on the movie Deliverance which came out in 1972. This is funny because most of the whitewater scenes were filmed on the Ocoee River. So the National forest supervisor at the time in 1974 banned those sections to boating due to public safety concerns. THE BAN WAS NOT PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT FISHING. I'm not sure the state was even stocking it in the early 70's. A nice benefit to the ban was the upper sections became a great place to fish because anglers were the only ones who used the river.
Now in the early 80's the forest service did "re-word" the ban to say that the ban protected fishing, but anybody who is really familiar with the issue and the forest service really knows that the re-wording was done to give a more reasonable arguement for the ban other than public safety concerns.
One "could" make the argument that if the headwaters were such a public safety concern, then anglers nor paddlers should be allowed. All I think the re-wording really did was to incite the paddling community to really start pressuring the forest service to lift the ban.
IF some rare species of trout existed in the headwaters sections, then protection could be deemed reasonable, but there is not any, so protection is not reasonable. If the Chattooga headwaters were still the sole habitat for Georgia's ONLY native trout species, the Eastern Brook Trout, you might draw some sympathy. But considering that "WE" introduced a NON-NATIVE species and as far as the Brookies were concerned, an INVASIVE NON-NATIVE species of trout to their home waters, protecting the headwaters of the Chattooga strictly for fishing is a nice dream, but not reasonable. So no sympathy no that issue. Plus, if you had to protect a stream/river for the sake of the fish that inhabit it, you would have to ban fishing also.
This section of river runs through National Forest. This means that any tax paying citizen should have the opportunity to enjoy the area. Should there be regulations in place that protect the resource, of course, but they should not exclude any activity that has yet to prove that it causes any more habitat destruction than a bunch of anglers tromping up and down the bank and through the stream bed. I honestly look at it like this. Boaters walk up the trail once, they get in the water once, they only go by me once, they rarely touch the stream bed, and they get out only once. As anglers, we walk in and out on the trail; we climb up and down the bank a countless number of times. If we are not on the bank, we are in the stream churning up the stream bed. Now you tell me who causes the most destruction of the natural stream habitat.
People claim that the boaters spook fish, and I’m sure they do. But guess what, so do you, and a lot more than you think. I see it all the time, people in smaller streams like the headwaters of the Chattooga standing where they should be fishing. Putting fish down is not a boater issue, it’s an “I haven’t figured out when I should be in the river and when I shouldn’t” issue. And over the course of a trout season, your gonna spook more fish than a few boaters could ever spook. So once again, no sympathy on that issue either.
Now, for the “destruction of personal solitude” thing! I really like this one because it is so indicative of someone who is a little self-centered. From the honest opinnion of a trout fisherman, ANYBODY who I run into while fishing “disturbs my personal solitude”. I don’t care whether its paddlers, aliens, and most of all other fishermen. I say this because hardly none of you, except for those who have been fishing for a long time, and I mean at least 15 to 20 years of fishing observes the polite gentlemen’s rule of not invading on another’s fishing hole. I’m 37 years old, as my father will tell you, “He was fishing before he was coordinated enough to walk 10 feet without falling down”. NEVER in my life except for over the past few years (since trout fishing became the “thing” to do) have I ever seen so many people walk by me while I was fishing and jump in the next hole in front of me. That runs up there along side with kicking my dog and calling my mother names. It’s just flat out rude, and in some parts of the Midwest, it’s a shootable offense.
We are supposed to be adults. If your “personal solitude” is interrupted, do the adult thing, sit down, drink some water, eat a snack, look around at the scenery and be thankful that you are alive and physically capable of being there. More than likely, by that point any fish that have been “put down” are going to be back. And if not, get over it and go to the next hole. Or go home and sulk about it. That works every time.
The angling society has had exclusive access to the headwaters for 30 years. If they can use the resource and have just as little impact on it as angler, which I believe they can, then they should have access to it also.
TO BE CONTINUED………………..IM SURE
BoaterTalk 
