Spot Burning...Gim me a break

Chaz

Chaz

Active member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
8,451
I've seen some posts lately about spot burning and frankly I don't know what some guys are thinking. The majority of anglers don't fish for wild trout, most won't go near a remote stream in the summer if they've ever seen what they look like when there's been no rain.

I fish all over the place and seldom run into another angler. Even early in the season I don't see many anglers, the lone exception is opening weekend.

So where is the spot burning? The PAradise? LL? Fishing Creek? I don't think so. On limestone streams surveys show there is very little mortality no matter how much pressure there is on brown trout. With brookies it's only slightly higher.

On freestone streams it's higher but the most threatened streams are the streams that suffer during droughts and floods. Far more fish succumb to natural events than fishing. Get over it, spot burnign is next to non-existent.
 
It's really about increased foot traffic on streams that are usually without it in many cases.

For example, the spot we fished would see a marked increase in traffic if it were publicized more, to both the detriment of anglers that enjoy fishing it in relative solitude (which I think is critical to doing well there)... as well as the landowners. Add in a lack of parking that won't annoy the landowners, and you've got reason to want something kept on the relative down-low.

There's simply no reason to post about places like that, given their proximity to large populations, and a relative lack of other decent opportunities in the area. PMs or in person? No big deal. It doesn't need to be broadcast IMO. It's well protected by various conservation orgs as well, so it's not like the publicity would bring any good.

I see it as a basic etiquette issue.
 
Yes Chaz, its about rods onthe water....for instance, if say a certain local wants to go fishin and he shows up at his favortie crik and there is a car at the first pull off, so he drives down to the next and there is another and goes to the next and finally there is no one so he hikes in and starts fishing only to find someone walking downstream toward him.

Spot burning is not about mortality so much as the selfishness of local people who don't want anyone else to fish their streams.

Look at the Lititz Run, Sal spotburned that three years ago with his pictures of big fish and it took til now for the landowners to get the sh7ts of the bait guys creeling the family pets they feed with pellets. Now the landowners are going to make it FFO.....because the Flyfishers C&R and respect the resource....Ironic isn't it. The Flyfishers popularized by posting pictures of huge trout.....so maybe the flyfishers should be banned and let the bait guys fishit....cuz they don't spotburn they burn spots.

On the other hand, Spot burning where creeling is involved could cause cropping of legal sized fish on a small fragile brook trout stream. But likly its the locals doing that too.....not the local selfish folks with their paranoia toward spotburning but the locals who have always cropped off the bigger fish year after year.

So why is it that YOU always seem to alude to these fragile limestone brook trout streams with fish measured in pounds but claim they are too fragile to mention? You know we could change the name from spotburning to giving away selfish secrets......
 
As Maurice pointed out Chaz your the one with claims to brookie streams in SEPA, several pound brookies across the state yet you feel spot burning isn't an issue. Then post some stream names for once would ya!
 
Look at the Lititz Run, Sal spotburned that three years ago with his pictures of big fish and it took til now for the landowners to get the sh7ts of the bait guys creeling the family pets they feed with pellets. Now the landowners are going to make it FFO.....because the Flyfishers C&R and respect the resource....Ironic isn't it. The Flyfishers popularized by posting pictures of huge trout.....so maybe the flyfishers should be banned and let the bait guys fishit....cuz they don't spotburn they burn spots.

Maurice your way off base and traveling outside your local knowledge area. Poaching has been a problem on Lititz Run since about 1996. There has been around 15 or more local newspaper articles on the project and the C&R area (one included a guy holding a 26 inch brown trout), hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on fixing the stream, grass root partnerships from all over working on the stream and tons and tons of volunteers. The stream is on the national showcase of watersheds. But I spot burned it? :lol: You give this forum way to much credit and power.

Moreover, if its about rods on the water, its funny that the parking area on Lititz only can fit about 3 cars and I never have a problem parking as of yet.

Also as I posted really not that long ago, most the bigger fish are gone due to a bad flood not too long ago and the fact they mostly STOPPED feeding the fish. Macro life on Lititz Run is really starting to boost. Hatches are returning, cress bugs and scuds are abundant. The 100 percent biological kill is in the past. It is now survival of the fittest and the bigger fish must forage or die. A lot are dying because they just dont know how to feed naturally. Most the fish being poached are the small ones stocked each year for the fly on the run tournament (which has been going on for 3 years). The tournament is highly published in this area. Its no secret and is more likely increasing the poaching more than my posting. Some large fish still remain, including a brown over 30+ inches long. Good luck catching him....hes far from a fool. I actually witnessed that fish try to eat a bird a few weeks ago.
Not as many people fish that stream as you think and the ones that dont follow the rules sure didnt show up there because of me.

Like me, dont like me, agree with me or not........Lititz poaching has been going on for over a decade and far before I ever posted about the stream. You may want to blame me......but your just plain wrong and people that frequent the stream know it. :)
 
Not sure what started this thread -- but, I think JayL has said things that I believe. Plus, spot burning can cause loss of access. A few years back, a landowner told me that if the name of the creek where he owned land on both sides of the stream had its name put in print again, he would post. Well, it did, and he did. Even k/t icon Chuck Meck acknowledges the detrimental results of k/t in his book Memory Rising. I'm done, or I'll get myself in trouble on this topic -- yet again.
 
Just a thought:

For every one stream that gets posted because of pressure allegedly caused by internet or print exposure, there are three dozen or more that do not get posted but are shared with other anglers. I like the tradeoff, but, like the rest of you, only when my secret stream isn't mentioned in the mix.
 
This is the third "spot burning" post started within the last day or two. I copied my post on one of the others.

Jack, I would be interested in how you respond to the last paragraph.


"My" spot, "your" spot. Huh? You may KNOW the spot, but it's not "YOURS." How about the landowner, the guy that owns it and lives there. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to landowners along a stream who have no problem allowing a few fisherman on their property. But when the place actually becomes a destination spot, and cars are parked all along the property with knocks on the door by fishermen asking permission at all times of day. I know of more than a few places on private property that the landowners have closed because of this.

If the stream is on publicly owned land, and you just have to tell everyone how great Jack's Run in Wideopen Park fishes, and how many big fish you catch there, than go ahead I guess. But if Jack's Run runs through Jack's Property, and he lives there, have a little respect for him, his family and his property and don't advertise and take advantage of his generosity.

I don't own land on the trout stream, but I do own some nice hunting land, and I know about what I speak.


[color=CC0000]I'll add this. If you fish on privately owned land, you are the guest of the landowner. Before you post the location, go up to the landowner and ask if it would be okay to post the location of their property on the Internet, and see what they say.[/color]
 
If I am on the land by special permission, I would never post the location. I have no right to extend the invitation of the landowner. Then again, if I am on the land because of a general public invitation, then I assume, rightly I believe, that the landowner means his or her invitation to be extended to any angler who wishes to enjoy the resource. In that latter case, I am at liberty to disclose the location and the fact that a general invitation exists.
 
JackM wrote:
If I am on the land by special permission, I would never post the location. I have no right to extend the invitation of the landowner. Then again, if I am on the land because of a general public invitation, then I assume, rightly I believe, that the landowner means his or her invitation to be extended to any angler who wishes to enjoy the resource. In that latter case, I am at liberty to disclose the location and the fact that a general invitation exists.

Of course you're at liberty. Nobody's refuting that.

But is it ethical? Does it makes you inconsiderate to post about the location?

I say no and yes.
 
I think its a stupid argument that could be attached to so many things we do every day...a back way to work with less traffic that eventually get crowded too, a good restaurant that it used to be easy to get into but now you have to wait a few minutes, a bar that used to be fun but is now so packed its work to get a beer...

The thing is that there are more fly fishermen as well. Heck, according to license sales there are less fishermen overall. Can't go anywhere without seeing some fool slapping a bright orange or green line on the water.

With the internet there are no secrets. You like it when it reveals something unknown that is unjust. (think politicians) But you hate it when it puts a few more fishermen on your favorite stream. Its got an upside and a down side. You have to deal with both.
 
JackM wrote:
If I am on the land by special permission, I would never post the location. I have no right to extend the invitation of the landowner. Then again, if I am on the land because of a general public invitation, then I assume, rightly I believe, that the landowner means his or her invitation to be extended to any angler who wishes to enjoy the resource. In that latter case, I am at liberty to disclose the location and the fact that a general invitation exists.

When does private land have "a general public invitation? You are a guest of the landowner when you park/fish on private land, and to me, a spot that not posted is not a general public invitation, it's a privilege granted by the landowner that can be revoked at any time if it becomes a PITA. I would expect that nearly everyone I know on this site to be respectful of private property, but there are literally thousands of lurkers that I have no idea about.

As I stated, as a landowner (hunting land), I really don't mind a few guys parking and using my land. But when having people on my land is the rule, rather than an exception, and people are knocking at your door all the time to ask permission; it becomes a burden. I've been turned away from spots I've fished for a long time because the landowner just didn't want to be bothered anymore.

LOL.....the days right before deer season is like Halloween for me in my cabin with all the knocks on the door. A real PITA.

Like I said, if you must, post about areas with public access, but I would never post anything about streams running through private land, just out of courtesy for the landowner.
 
Does it makes you inconsiderate to post about the location?

I say to whom? Other anglers that fish that stream? What if they found it through a website are they not being inconsiderate to me by being there?

The entire argument is ridiculous. What if I told someone via PM. Am i being inconsiderate then, to send another angler to a stream? What if I answered 30 PM's on the subject?

Is it inconsiderate to post about Spring Creek all the time? What about inviting people (any and everyone) to the jam? Is that inconsiderate to the anglers that were going to fish Penns during that time?

What about the PFBC ( the ultimate spot burners)? Are they not inconsiderate to put out lists naming every stream in the state with trout (stocked and wild)?

Or is it the other way around.....

Is it inconsiderate to keep good fishing to yourself?

in·con·sid·er·ate audio (nkn-sdr-t) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

1. Thoughtless of others; displaying a lack of consideration.
2. Not well considered or carefully thought out; ill-advised.


Thoughtless to others......well it takes a lot more thought, to want to share joy with people and put a post out there, than keep your mouth shut.

Either way the argument anymore is stupid. I started one thread to say, "hey look the comments about stream X (lord knows I dont want to name it) were way overstated and posting had no effect on the wild fish." And this is what happens. Interesting enough, no one seemed pleased that the fish were ok.
 
by salvelinusfontinalis on 2010/6/18 12:17:54

What about the PFBC ( the ultimate spot burners)? Are they not inconsiderate to put out lists naming every stream in the state with trout (stocked and wild)?

If the PFBC gave out 1/10 the info you can find on many of the "spot burns" we see here, I'd consider it a spot burn. They don't do much more than say "hey, in the 6 miles of stream between these two points we put trout in."


I think everyone on this site who's fished our waters for more than a decade and a half will agree that pressure has increased 10 fold on many of the streams. I also think that many of those people could easily find some correlations between increased availablity of "easy" information (like the internet) and increased angler pressure on waters that are publicized on the internet. Yeah, book have done it for decades and magazines moreso in the last couple of decades, but way more people utilize the free internet versus dropping a few bucks on a book and actually reading more than a line or two to get the same info.

Ultimately, the ones that should really be angry are the "Charlie Mecks" and "Dave Wolfes" of the world whose have been made almost obsolete by a bunch of "amatures" tying from their homes. Their books use to be the bible for many of us - I wore out a copy of Meck's book when it came out. I wonder how many are sold these days to people who aren't trying to replace their falling apart, water stained copies.
 
Sal, you think the entire argument is ridiculous because in alot of people's opinions you are on of the biggest offenders? hello??
 
Yes sal, posting about streams that seem to have the "unspoken rule" that you previously alluded to is inconsiderate.

You said yourself that it's not your usual thing to post names of those streams. Why?
 
afishinado wrote:
When does private land have "a general public invitation? You are a guest of the landowner when you park/fish on private land, and to me, a spot that not posted is not a general public invitation, it's a privilege granted by the landowner that can be revoked at any time if it becomes a PITA.

Most private lands I fish are not posted and obviously used by the public, so I consider that the landowner, knowing of public use and deciding not to post is of the very common generous sort of streamside landowner who does not mind if members of the public use the land to access or wade. A large portion of Spring Creek, for instance, is private, but is considered open to the public. No one hesitates to post about these locations, nor is there ever a complaint about it when it happens.

I recognize that the failure to post land against trespass does not constitute permission in a legal sense, but in the circumstances, one can assume there is a general invitation and I often do, as I suspect you and many others do as well.

On the consideration point being made by Jay, while revealing a location that happens to be someone's guarded secret may be inconsiderate toward that person or persons, revealing the available water to others who were unaware of it is very considerate as you have offered those other anglers a chance to fish new and exciting water.

In my opinion, the balance is struck on each individual's own perception of the alleged harm versus the alleged benefit. When it is YOUR secret place, you will tend to see the revelation as generally inconsiderate. It is a natural reaction, but not necessarily rational, unless you think that NO stream should ever be discussed publicly.

If I had to guess, there are about 10% of the complainers who think no stream should be posted about and the other 90% of the complainers only think their special waters should be kept under wraps.
 
Cm,

your just being spiteful because your big fish in a small wild stream got outed.

I almost never name stream names so why am I the biggest offender? Hello Mcfly?
Arent you happy the fish are ok? ;-)
Jay,

Im just playing devils advocate as so many do around here.

But yes, I think the entire argument is ridiculous.
 
JackM wrote:
afishinado wrote:
When does private land have "a general public invitation? You are a guest of the landowner when you park/fish on private land, and to me, a spot that not posted is not a general public invitation, it's a privilege granted by the landowner that can be revoked at any time if it becomes a PITA.

Most private lands I fish are not posted and obviously used by the public, so I consider that the landowner, knowing of public use and deciding not to post is of the very common generous sort of streamside landowner who does not mind if members of the public use the land to access or wade. A large portion of Spring Creek, for instance, is private, but is considered open to the public. No one hesitqates to post these locations, nor is there ever a complaint about it when it happens.

I recognize that the failure to post does not constitute permission in a legal sense, but in the circumstances, one can assume there is a general invitation and I often do, as I suspect you and many others do as well.

In the case of spring creek, the stream will get traffic regardless of internet posts.

In the case of a small, relatively lightly fished stream, posting the name and location would certainly increase traffic. Just look at threads that mention "under the radar" streams. Numerous people comment that they will have to check it out.

Regardless of the legal meaning of the landowner's keeping it open... they very well could because it poses them no inconvenience. I think it's the duty of the fisherman that utilize the area to prevent (or at least avoid fostering) spikes in traffic, as a simple courtesy to the landowner. For the same reasons, anglers should limit their use of the area. If a spike in traffic were to occur, I am sure certain landowners would reconsider. I know I would. For the same reasons, I don't post about landowners that have granted me access. I'd happily tell someone in a more private setting, but it's not for public consumption. This really seems like common sense/courtesy to me.

I really don't see why that's so hard to understand. This is one case where taking the conservative route just seems obvious.

If I'm throwing a party, and accepting all guests, anyone is allowed to show up. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be pissed if someone advertised it on the internet. I allowed open access under the assumption that a relatively small group would show. I am certain that this is often the case with landowners on unstocked trout streams.
 
If you are concerned about landowner reaction to greater traffic, have you ever considered staying away from your secret stream once it has been revealed? Be honest.
 
Back
Top