Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 23 »


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
No, but if you pay attention long enough on this thread you'll see everynow and then a stream hits a nerve with someone. Sometimes its me, sometimes its GW, there are a bunch of other members who have no expressed dislpleasure with ramifications of their reports.

Its not what i deem sensitive. You can certainly put my face on it and make me the bad guy. But I believe it has been said over and over again what qualifies, some of the other mods have also alluded to which sort of streams we are referring to.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:08


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 907
Offline
Quote:
There is no better data than boots in the water on stream observation.


Well, maybe except for actual scientific, verifiable and repeatable surveys/data collection. None of which square with your and GW's claims that the stream has been 'ruined' based upon your oh so scientifically sound fly rod surveys.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:13


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
As for your green drake example, the reality is once the drakes start hatching on Penns it’s going to be crowded – always has and always will. But if the drakes generally don’t start hatching until the last week of May, first week of June, and for some strange reason they start early on May 15th and nobody is there except you, to come on here and announce, “Guess what everyone, the drakes started early this year, I was there today and nobody else was there and what a hatch and I caught 15.” Guaranteed the stream is going to be crowded on May 16th due to that report. Now I don’t blame that report for the sustained pressure once the hatch starts but in this instance you bet that report would cause the stream to be crowded on May 16.

The upper Delaware is a good example. There are daily stream reports by the fly shops but they don’t say, “The Hendrickson hatch was pretty much confined to the Fishes Eddy stretch of the EB and the Lordville section of the main branch.” If they said that what do you think would happen? Those sections would be crowded the next day. What they say is the lower half of the EB has better opportunity for hatch or they simply say hendricksons are hatching on the EB and main stem and leave it at that.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:15


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
Tomi, The habitat surely is worse where it was fine, the fish numbers are the same. So they dont refute what we are saying either.


Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:16


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
I was personally with them when they shocked the stream and did the surveys. I could hold your hand and show you fish and tell you their name. The FISHING is worse, the STREAM has almost the same number of fish, spare a few that have since been poached since all the attention.

For the 300th time the habitat downstream of the restoration which held TONS AND TONS OF FISH AND wow WAS not surveyed by the PFBC (this is a stretch that actually held the MOST fish) is not silted in since the restoration. Many of the fishes overhead cover areas have been cut away by anglers frustrated they can't get at the fish. In short it is a mess.
Yes I have caught alot more fish on that stream than you and Yes i know alot more about it. So yes my opinion of it is alot better than yours.

Sorry its reality.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:18


Re: The Spotburning Thread
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
See, we reached the crux, I think. There is no consensus on what streams or stream section could or should be mentioned. People who have been "stung" by an apparent spot-burn tend to define the line between streams the mention of which do not sting and streams the mention of which do sting.

I mostly hate when things are said about a WELL KNOWN stream I intended to fish. I have never worried about, nor created a fuss by responding to a thread mentioning my little-known waters.

The popular streams are better for a reason. If every stream would be exposed, you will still see a crowd on ****'* on June 1, even if publication of it's name had been forboden under Federal Law.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:22
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
Jack for the umpteenth time I think the suggestions are 1. stream reports members only. 2. when in doubt (see your above post) leave the name out and pm it if you must. Show some taste and common sense. That's all. Noone is advocating that people stop fishing.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:28


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
Additionally your assertion that "the popular streams are a better for a reason" is wrong. They may have been at one time "better" and in some cases they may indeed be better. But you can't paint them all that way. A stream where I have to work harder for a big fish but i can be by myself is better than a stream where i can easily land two dozen and i see 15 other anglers.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:29


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 10290
Offline
Quote:

BMarx wrote:

For the 300th time the habitat downstream of the restoration which held TONS AND TONS OF FISH AND wow WAS not surveyed by the PFBC (this is a stretch that actually held the MOST fish) is not silted in since the restoration. Many of the fishes overhead cover areas have been cut away by anglers frustrated they can't get at the fish. In short it is a mess.

Sorry its reality.


295 < 300 imo

no rebuttal to refutiate

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:30


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
That number was a guesstimation!

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:31


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2006/10/18 15:46
From Patterson twp, Pa (Beaver Falls)
Posts: 6482
Offline
I just hope we as a site can be wary about this whole issue. I don't want this being fisherie.com. Now that place is ridiculous when it comes to heck you get for spot burning, or having an opinion.

Thanks again to the moderators for keeping good tabs on making this "Your favorite place out of the water"!

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:44
_________________
www.risenfly.com




Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
Tomitrout, being on the stream 400+ times for probably over 4000 hours of on stream experience from 2006 to 2010 fishing the entire 1 mile section has much more credibility than performing some one-off electroshocking on a handpicked 50 yard section. I showed you in a previous post why, through actual mathematics, the data can be misleading so stop with your whining about needing scientific data.

Once again, I ask you and others (who continually refuse to answer this question), how much stream side experience did you have on that stream outside the ditch from 2006 to 2010?

As BMarx points out, the stream was NEVER surveyed in the lower half and that’s the section that held the highest numbers of fish and also the biggest fish. Now the lower half has a fraction of the fish that were once there. Some moved into the ATW section and were harvested, some died from siltation, and some moved upstream into the 200 yard sections of previously barren stream that now hold downstream transplants. So all the scientific data that you wish to reply on shows is that a previously barren 200 yard section of stream got better and that’s it – you can’t extrapolate that “scientific data” to the entire stream because the stream is a dynamic ecosystem and surveying one discrete spot doesn’t apply to anything other than that spot; however OBSERVATION FROM 4000+ hours of on stream experience clearly indicates the rest of the stream has declined. Dozens of holes that were 4-5 feet deep and held 30+ trout have been silted to maybe 2 feet deep and no longer hold trout. Runs that held dozens and dozens or young of year trout have been silted and no longer hold trout. But my observations are useless because it doesn’t jive with what you want to believe.

In all honestly I wouldn’t get into an argument with you on the Letort and if you came on here and said your observations are different that what the PFBC or TU data is saying and you wanted to dispute their data, I would believe you 100% over the “scientific data” because you’ve got sufficient experience on that stream to make educated observations. You’re obviously not stupid and you do have good success on the Letort so you obviously know what you are doing and know that stream very well, much better than I. So what if I carefully selected a few non-productive spots on the Letort to electroshock in the section you fish and the scientific data comes back and says there are few fish but your experience shows there are a lot of fish because you see them and catch them, I guess by your argument you are wrong because your observations and not scientific data.

That is the point.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 13:48


Re: The Spotburning Thread
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
GW, I have avoided the BS debating because I have only fished it a few times. But, I think you over-estimate the effectiveness of fly rod surveys of streams, whether 4000 hours or 40,000. Either that or you are just an amazing angler because I think less than about 20% of stream-resident trout show themselves in any way to an observing eye or probing feather and fur imitation.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 14:02
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: The Spotburning Thread

Joined:
2011/12/23 16:42
From The Iron Islands
Posts: 348
Offline
Jack,
If they don't survey the section, they don't survey the fish. The guys said they get many of the fish but certainly don't get them all. Again I was with them twice when they did it. The bigger fish they didn't get and a few they saw and didn't bother trying to get.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 14:13


Re: The Spotburning Thread
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22222
Offline
They have extrapolation methods that are fairly accurate and "industry" approved. Why do no fisheries management agencies simply send out 10 amazing fly anglers to do the surveys? They could find two crews right here, I bet.

Posted on: 2012/2/7 14:16
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank



« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 23 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com