Stream Reports! What Stream Reports?

[TimMurphy]

Dear Maurice,

Don't we already have to be registered to post anyway?

Leave it like it is, some people are just selfish and think you are giving away the house if you give a little info about their stream.

I never understood those people anyway so if I ever offend them it ain't like I care. :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Maurice]

TimMurphy wrote:
Dear Maurice,

Don't we already have to be registered to post anyway?

Leave it like it is, some people are just selfish and think you are giving away the house if you give a little info about their stream.

I never understood those people anyway so if I ever offend them it ain't like I care. :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Well, in order to offend them you'd actually have to post a stream report. Or attack them once they did.....the choice is yours. BTW, attacks are off limits....so yeah, you'd have to post a stream report.

NEXT! :-D

 

[DaveKile]

I am glad this topic came up, because as Jack said this is one of the man reasons I got the site up. There were Stream reports before there was a message board. They are called Stream Reports not Fishing Reports! It is a great resource, just like the USGS Gages, to understand conditions of the streams in the area.

I do get bothered that many consider this Kiss and Tell. I do not. There are any numbers of other publications that share intimate details about the streams in Pennsylvania. This particular format is more timely and dynamic than most.

If I were planning to go to Yellow Creek, it would be interesting to see what was happening lately. Key word "planning", not I of "I see the sulphers are out I am not going to go to Yellow Creek now."

I am still holding on to about 10,000 old stream reports before the new site format. My goal still is to add them back into a new format to be used on the site. I have talked about it, but beyond my technical skill sets right now.

There is an incredible value in this kind of historical data. It can really capture the rich entomology of a stream. I can provide trends and be a great learning experience for everyone. Landis, Meck and others all provide important information about streams and what to expect. It is 2008 now this is how information is exchange today. When you go the CNN web site you get current timely information, nit yesterdays news.

I don’t want to hijack thread to discuss “if” there should be Stream Reports. We have them. It is more a question of what is in them and who should see them.

Please keep discussing this I would like to hear from everyone. I have been considering keeping these posts private to registered members for a while. So please keep the dialog going.

If keeping it private helps that is good, but I agree with Steve More Cowbell, I gotta have more Cowbell!!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fZOHY7Z5eaQ&hl=en&rel=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fZOHY7Z5eaQ&hl=en&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[Stevie-B]

I'll second (or is it third or fourth, I lost count) the idea of making stream reports available to registered users only. Dave, could you put some kind of time limit where if you have not posted in "X" amount of time you can't view the stream reports/off topic section? Maybe this would encourage more post and ease peoples fears of lurkers.

 

[afishinado]

Dave,

Great idea to hash out this issue. A discussion began a month or so ago, but the thread was locked. Hopefully many others will share their thoughts.

I’m a “tweener” on this subject – somewhere between post every gory detail about a stream and “loose lips sink ships.”

My main concern about posting detailed info about a stream is not knowing who is reading it. I recall you stating that for every one registered board member there are ten lurkers. I “know” nearly every registered board member, since I read 99% of everything posted here. Without hesitation, I would share info with the hundreds board members - but what about those thousands of lurkers? - Who are these guys? If you opened their fridges would you find dozens of freezer burned trout in their freezer, and styrofoam worm containers destined to be left on the banks of our streams in their refrigerator section? :-o :lol: I would be much more willing to share info if it were limited to those who contribute to the site.

I believe that posting about streams does contribute to stream crowding to some degree, but I am also a ”tweener” on this subject. First of all, crowding would be less of a problem since the reports are view by less people. Secondly, and more importantly, I wouldn’t mind sharing my fishin’ hole with other folks who care for and respect the stream and the fish. Also, I agree with the argument for posting more info about more streams would tend to spread out the pressure rather than concentrate it.

My vote is to allow stream reports to be viewed only by registered users. I will go a little further, while making it password protected to limit access only to members with a certain number of posts who stifle new membership, perhaps deleting members who do not post for a certain time period would stop most lurkers who register just to gain access to info. Just a thought.

That’s my $.02. Again, thanks Dave for all your hard work in making this site the most enjoyable place for me on the www.

 

[JackM]

The people who whine about stream reports seem to have got their way based upon the several comments, including mine, that the griping isn't worth the trouble. It's time we turn the tables. Dave, give me permission to delete replies that are in the nature of criticism of posting of information. If we don't have to deal with the negative comments, it will eliminate the problem for many.

 

[ryanh]

Wow this is cool!!

Dave apperently is a data guy as well :-D

Jack, your idea is also very good. If we establish the rule as "stream reports are for stream reports only" that would eliminate all of the current sniping. Sure some people will be ticked initially but if they want to continue to be a part of this nebulus online community they will accept the rule. That would clean things up a bit. Furthermore by removing the negativity, like you said, it would encourage more people to post.

I am for both regestered views only and more active moderation.

 

[afishinado]

Jack,

I don’t believe that censorship of those who have a certain point of view is the answer. I believe that if one disagrees with another poster on any subject, their post should not be deleted, as long as they remain respectful to the poster and other members of the board.

Also, deleting "negative" posts would not help much. While I have never sent nor received a PM about posting too much stream info, I gather that many are voicing their opinions via PMs. That’s likely the cause of the lack of stream reports in recent months. Just my opinion – please do not delete………………..:-D

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

, Dave and all,

This is a very good discussion. I was brief on my previous comments and I would like to go into more detail on the subject.

I do somewhat agree with the sediment that keeping stream reports viewed to members who post "X" number of times can make flyfishing seem like an elitist club. I dont see another way though. The users not registered will now register and continue to not contribute to the board just to see stream reports.

There isnt one single user that has posted for a number of years even months that i wouldnt share information with via pm's. Jack, afish, Maurice, troutbert, MKern, Steve98, Wmass and the list goes on and on. That tells me that if the stream reports were limited to users that have posted "X" number of times i would more than likely be willing to help them out also. So if the stream reports were only open to users that have met the criteria then we could share hatches about other streams also. Wouldnt it be nice to have historical data on small wild streams also?

Jack I hope Dave does give you permission to delete vebally aggressive posts weather it be in the stream report section or any other section. Sometimes we all can get into a nice debate, a heated debate and sometimes we all go to far. Thats when I usually apologize. The actions I saw on the Meadow Run thread were way off base. Heck when i saw all those great fish alby caught I was happy for him and gave me solice that maybe Ill get a big one sometimes soon again. So please monitor and delete any attacking posts, even if its me :-D , Im not Dave but you got my thumbs up.

The bottomline is....we all want more stream reports with out being chastized, yelled at or even insulted for posting one up. The only effective way I see to keep the information protected from those who want to harm our fisheries and yet share them with those who could use and enjoy them...........is to limit them to members that have posted "X" number of times. just my opinion

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

oh yeah dave, are we refering to stream reports as cowbells now!

 

[tomgamber]

JackM wrote:
The people who whine about stream reports seem to have got their way based upon the several comments, including mine, that the griping isn't worth the trouble. It's time we turn the tables. Dave, give me permission to delete replies that are in the nature of criticism of posting of information. If we don't have to deal with the negative comments, it will eliminate the problem for many.

Didn't it used to be that you couldn;t reply to stream reports...you could post them but there wasn't an opportunity for feedback..they were what they were...reports...Questions belonged in the "Stream Locations" thread...

I also like the idea about only registered users could post or read reports just like the off topic section..

 

[JackM]

Didn't read all the replies, but I knew I had to come back and clarify: all I suggest is that comments railing against the concept of stream reports would be prohibiited on the Stream Reports forum. Feel free to express your dissatisfaction in the General Forum or by PM, which are more easily ignored or deleted by the recipient. All I wish to know is if comments within stream reports which are nothing more than a bellyache against the report itself should be deleted. I think Dave already has granted me such authority and I think the Stream Report Rules already exclude such comments, but wanted to know if Dave would stand behind that interpretation of mine publicly.

 

[afishinado]

Sal – you changed my mind. I gave a thumbs up to the “halfway measure” of allowing stream reports to be viewed by any registered user. I agree with Sal, the perfect solution would be to allow access to stream reports to those who actively participate on the board. If that were the case I also would be willing to share more info about the “where to” not just the “how to”. There are many on this board who have vast knowledge of fly-fishing the many streams in PA. Openly sharing that info and comparing notes on a forum would be awesome, and Dave K's vison of a gathering meaningful data-base of stream reports from across the State would become a reality. I’m with ya Sal!

 

[troutbert]

The idea that now seems prevalent, is that it's OK to post about several of the most famous streams, but no other streams. That further increases the crowding on those famous streams.

Stream reports would be better if they helped people spread out, and learn new water. If they serve to further increase the concentration into a few areas, that's not a good result.

 

[littlejuniata]

Fish were slamming Sulphurs all over the rivers pools last evening, they were probably wondering where all the fishermen were?? Too much water but mostly TOO WINDY.

 

[littlejuniata]

2 Cents: Many forums are too darned fragmented, most guys hit the topic which has the most activity and ignore or don't even look at the rest, but I think you should be registered to view reports. As far as the past two weeks which should be the most active two weeks of the year, the fishing has been lousy, too cold too much water. Guys don't have anything to report!

 

[ryanh]

-No reply to stream reports. They are reports not discussions. Do that in the general forum.

-Push the uniform format!

-Only viewed by members that have posted over X times.

-X should be relatively low but more than 1 or 2. If it were too low all of the current trollers would just make a dumb post and continue to troll.

 

[JackM]

Registered Users Only sounds good (though not necessary, in my opinion); X number of posts to view sounds like a logistical site maintenance nightmare.

I like being able to reply to a report if the result of the reply is clarification of information or adding additional useful information, but think that being allowed to moderate by deleting posts that merely complain about the report having been made is an essential tool.

Again, no one will be prohibitted from discussing the usefulness or wisdom of stream reports if they want to open that topic elsewhere, but they wouldn't be permitted to do so in the forum or on a legitimate stream report thread.

 

[fly_flinger]

I'm in agreement with the others as well. Limit the access to only registered users and with more than X posts. I think RyanH is on the right track with a relatively low # of posts, but not too low. I would think 10 is a reasonable number. That way, when a new member joins, they have a little incentive to get more involved. 10 posts really isn't that many but I feel it is enough to keep a lurker from posting useless information just to reach the minimum number required to gain access to the reports.
I also like the idea of not allowing replies to a report.
I know I very much enjoy reading the reports. I actually have PM'd Sal before and told him how I like fishing vicariously thru him while sitting behind my desk at work and to continue posting.

Maybe some sort of template could be made for the reports. Something like:
-Stream Name
-Time Fished
-Hatches Observed
-Flies Used
-Water/Air Temp
-Weather Conditions
-Other Comments

Just a thought, as I really have no clue how much work it would be to set something like that up. Or if it's possible.

 

[pete41]

Why not let people do a little research?
Some people put effort into finding a nice place to fish and here comes the mob turned on by promises of``easy fishing'' from the kiss and tell faction.
Of course you could always use disinformation to find a little solitude.
``reports are coming in that the middle branch of the White Clay creek in Chester county is hot right now.Anglers are averaging two dozen releases in the 18" to 24" range of battling rainbows.Prolific hatches of San Juan Worms,Fledermaus and muddler minnows have been spotted coming off all day long."
Those of us who like a little solitude are always going to resent those who want to promote``hot spots''.Thats a given so it would be a reasonable compromise to require a little effort-log in -plus something else-