rrt wrote:
Oh, my, here I go.
....4. I wish this stuff didn't make me mad -- but it still does, esp since there does not seem to be anything anyone can do to change the s/b-k/t people's minds/attitudes....
Why is that? If you have the rational and clearly superior point of view, how come you cannot convince others? Do you think this is their fault or yours? Obviously the former, but I suspect that it may have something to do with:
(a) lack of proof that internet and other sources of information harm streams in general. Sure you can find the anecdotal evidence of a section of private water being posted because of increase traffic from an internet post, but
(b) how can anyone prove that increased traffic was not the result of, for instance:
(i) a nice day to fish;
(ii) an expected hatch;
(iii) word of mouth "outing" of the stream or the hatch commencement; and
(c) to the extent a stream becomes more crowded, likewise an angler becomes more educated, gains options on where to go (not just Spring or "the Breeches,)" experiences something new and magical. Some of us see this latter effect as not only a balance to the extra angler on a previously unknown water, but as a shifting the needle further toward the good by:
(i) spreading anglers out (that is, removing pressure from some other water);
(ii) having more anglers "interested" in the water, to care for it and advocate for it when it faces threats [Consider: "Let's run the drain down this ravine and into the creek." "But, what about the fish?" "Oh, don't worry about it, nobody fishes there."];
(iii) being more of a selfless act in that it shares information, rather than a typically selfish act that keeps information close to the vest to preserve the interest in the "in the know" angler having a relatively greater amount of solitude on the water.
I honestly think both sides have reasons to hold onto their opinion on this topic. I think it is good that we periodically re-exam our position.
