As you know, the Norfork River has fallen on hard times. Though it once produced a world record brown trout (two decades ago) and still enjoys a national reputation as a blue ribbon trout fishery, it is, in reality, a glimmer of its former glory. It has been ravaged by devastating siltation caused by an irresponsible contractor. Then it was hit with a hundred year flood that scoured its river bed and destabilized its banks. Each year in August and September it suffers low oxygen levels that result in significant fish kills. The most renown of its three public accesses (McClellans) has been closed severely limiting river access. Despite all of these maladies, it still receives an inordinate amount of fishing pressure (three times as much as any other trout stream in Arkansas). It is relentlessly poached and it simply cannot support the level of harvest it is now receiving.
You have before you two options concerning the future of Norfork River fishery.
Option 1 is to increase the size of the Catch and Release section to two and seven tenths miles. This is a bold step but one that has the best interest of the fishery at heart and is supported by science. This is the result of the two and a half years of work by literally hundreds of people. The Trout Management plan for the Norfork River was a complicated program. Public meetings were held that were managed by an independent consulting firm. Attendees were assured that any new regulations would be based on science not political back room deals. The number one goal expressed by the attendees was a desire for larger fish. The biologists went to work and quickly realized that they needed more data. Two studies were commissioned and undertaken by a PhD from the University of Arkansas.
Several plans were considered and presented to the advisory committee (made up of guides, outfitters, land owners and other concerned shareholders) for comment. The various plans included making the entire Norfork River Catch and Release and creating a large Catch and Release section on the White River downstream from the confluence. The plans were also discussed with affected businesses in the area and a compromise was reached (option 1). It was agreed to by all stake holders and had the full support of the biologists, consultants, the advisory committee and the PhD from the University of Arkansas.
Option 2 is the same as option 1 except that the bottom section would be eliminated (the section from the Ackerman access down to River Ridge Inn). This option has a very different history.
As reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, it was a result of a private meeting with Commissioners Ron Pierce and Ron Duncan and AGFC employees Mike Armstrong and David Goad with two trout dock operators (one of whom is Ron Pierces neighbor) that were concerned with the inability to take fish in the new Catch and Release section when there were inclement conditions on the adjacent White River. This meeting was a flagrant violation of the states sunshine law. This requires that any meeting with two or more members to discuss any business that could come before the commission for action be open to the public. In case of an emergency they should notify the media. It should be noted that any regulation that came out of that meeting (option 2) could be challenged legally.
The main argument for the change is that if the involved dock owners clients could not take fish in the Catch and Release section they would lose business. I find this hard to believe, when I think of Rim Shoals Trout Dock which is located in the middle of a Catch and Release area. The owners, Gary and Paula Flipin run a successful and growing business. They serve both bait and fly fishers and have the respect of both. There is no financial or scientific data to support the contention that revenue would be lost if Option 1 were to be implemented.
Professional guides in the area do not agree with option 2. Forty of them have signed a petition favoring option 1 because they feel that it will be best for the fishery. They feel that what is best for the fishery will benefit them in the long run.
Wade fishermen are opposed to the elimination of the bottom section because this water is accessible from the Ackerman access. The rest of the increase in Catch and Release section is far up stream and accessible only by boat. Therefore option 2 will not result in any accessible water for wade fishermen. This is a key point, because this is one of the most heavily fished areas in Arkansas.
The real problem that most anglers have with this situation is that we love the Norfork and we just want to do what is best for the fishery. What is best for the fishery will be best for the businesses that make their living on it. What we are tired of is business as usual, where back room political deals, for the benefit of buddies, trump science and hard work. All of the participants that participated in the Trout Management Plan expect you to do the right thing. Make decisions based on what is best for the fishery not what your neighbor thinks is best for him.
