Spot Burning...Gim me a break

I wouldn't be happy if one of my little trickles gets blown up, if someone is smart they'll get to know people on the board and what regions they all live in, what kind of fishing they do etc. and pm them for information.

I've had various people pm me and vice versa not only asking about a stream but also relating to a stream or topic they do not want broadcast on the forum.

I totally agree with you that with the smaller streams one should be careful not to shed so much light on them.

However I feel like this topic is out of control and is become redundant.

It just seems to me that the idea not to burn the smallest of gems for all to see should be common sense and we shouldn't have to argue about it, go ahead and call it selfish people, but I believe it is more than just being selfish. I know I care about the wild trout, and the fact that they only live in certain places, but what about Joe the Plumber, or Randy the roofer, there are people out there that love trout fishing almost as much as they like Shlitz and freshly poached trout, they don't give a crap. I copied a post that hit the nail on the head the other day I'll have to find it.

I do believe, as I stated that most people on here are not spot burning, but as I said "most people", and I try to discount a post if it is a "burner" instead of blowing it up more by posting "how dare you spot burn this stream", which only draws more attention to it.

I for one occassionally post reports on stocked streams, but when it comes to smaller, more fragile streams I might post about them but not name them, even if it is because I don't want to see anyone there.

I just think in the past week there have been like 4 threads on spot burning and I know that I can't control what information people are going to put on here.
 

Attachments

  • Wild rainbow.jpg
    Wild rainbow.jpg
    813.3 KB · Views: 4
Thank you to the following: CM, FD, JayL!, Afish. WT2 pretty much insists that the selling out of vulnerable places will continue, and that's a shame. Jack M. obviously cares about the fish and the places, and his ability to work with words can nearly pull you to his position unless you think things through clearly. But, I've got to add that I think Jack seems to be about the only one who takes his position who really does care about the fish and the places, though I think he's wrong. Anyhow, I'll leave you with this thought: until Allen G. Eastby's sellout article in 1979 (?) in F&S, Spring Creek was "under the radar" as one guy stated, and you had lots of elbow room. People had pretty much abandoned the stream b/c of the chemicals' leading to the no-kill regs. After Eastby and later others, whew!
Also, those who insist there are no secret spots left haven't fished very long, though b/c of k/t these places are certainly fewer and farther between than they were when I was younger.
Whaddaya'll think -- are donny b and the members of the evil empire enjoying this?
Amen?
 
Rich,

You forgot...

"NO REBUTTAL!"

:lol:
 
Chill Bro!

If you don't wanna share the name of the stream you fish so be it. The words out PA has wild trout streams and people are gonna fish um.....The more friends a streams like Spring, Penns, or my favorite the Upper Delaware have the better. It a selfish thing we all get it you just want all the good spots to your self.......well tuff luck cause you cant have um.
 
Nobody's disputing that, and nobody is trying to take ownership of a stream.

The question is whether it's right to advertise them on the internet.

And many of these streams have the protection they need, regardless of whether anglers fish them. To compare them to a place like penns or the D shows that you're missing the point. This discussion is about small wild trout streams. I, personally, am only discussing those streams close to population centers. They are frankly too crowded to effectively fish once they are advertised.
 
I hardly ever name names.

I think taking the position that if someone mentions a stream name, means they dont care about the resource is a load. Just my opinion.
 
Alpabuck wrote:
Chill Bro!

If you don't wanna share the name of the stream you fish so be it. The words out PA has wild trout streams and people are gonna fish um.....The more friends a streams like Spring, Penns, or my favorite the Upper Delaware have the better. It a selfish thing we all get it you just want all the good spots to your self.......well tuff luck cause you cant have um.
Click to expand...

Those kind of statements really crack me up.

Oh yes, feel the love. teh more the merrier. Lets love it to death.

Is if selfish if I chose not to spoon feed a tiny lesser known stream on a public forum? Of course. Try telling us something a little less obvious. But it is equally selfish to expect me to spoon feed the same.

What's funny is there seems to be more complaining, or at least more intense complaiing about not giving enough info than there is about people giving out too much info in this very public forum.

I often help people out, but if it gets too specific or involves a lesser known stream, I use PM. A nice feature liked by most and probably hated by lurkers and those that want to know what everyone else knows without working for it.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
I hardly ever name names.

I think taking the position that if someone mentions a stream name, means they dont care about the resource is a load. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'll buy that. Haven't personally seen it, cept for maybe very tiny streams, but I'll agree that if I had, I'd agree.
 
What tiny stream have a named except for a few?

I think i have only named about 4 in the past 4 years. Of those 4, a few had a threat. One still does and no one from this board (except 3 that I have shown it to) goes to that stream which surprises the hell out of me.

I might be miss reading what you wrote, I hardly got any sleep and now im getting ready for work. The baby just wouldnt let me do much today :lol:

If we are talking about small wild trout streams near population centers and not stocked or special reg area streams........then Valley cant be spot burnt.
 
The biggist example of spot burning look at the steelhead up in erie. The internet exploded that hole scene and made it into a circus.

I admitt I'm awful closed mouthed when it comes to shareing stream knowledge. I figured I put the time in lookin at the maps sat. photo's and the leg work to find the fish people can do the same. The guys that I talkin fishin' with would rather get a root canal than give you 1 stream they brookie fish at. And we fish most of the same creeks.

The problem with people is they just want it right now. They don't want to work to find fishin spots. Thats my biggest prob.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
What tiny stream have a named except for a few?

I think i have only named about 4 in the past 4 years. Of those 4, a few had a threat. One still does and no one from this board (except 3 that I have shown it to) goes to that stream which surprises the hell out of me.

If we are talking about small wild trout streams near population centers and not stocked or special reg area streams........then Valley cant be spot burnt.
Click to expand...

Sal, if that is directed at my last response, I wasn't pointing a finger at anybody. I even specifically said I didn't see it. Just letting you know. But I suspect it wasn't a result of my response.

I personally don't feel that Valley would be a spot burn. Mazybe 200 years ago, but now? And from what I have seen on here from you ... if you did mention one that I would normally consider questionable, I would assume it was for a good reason (like you stated). and i certainly would not jump on you in the public forum for it. I may respond by PM though, and I would be respectful in my response.

crying about spot burning on a public site just draws more attention to the spot being burned.

I don't typically consider streams near urban centers as spot burning either, but and respect that other's might. I just don't fiosh those streams. Just being seen fishing there is in a way, a spot burn (if you consider talking about it as being one). People see you fishing there and "hey, there's fish in there!"

That is why on some streams I fish (or used to fish), I never park near the stream and while fishing it I stay away from the road where I might be seen.
 
FarmerDave wrote:
What's funny is there seems to be more complaining, or at least more intense complaiing about not giving enough info than there is about people giving out too much info in this very public forum.
Click to expand...

Huh? I think you are delusional. No one has ever been compelled, cajoled or made to feel ashamed, or accused of slaughter of innocent trouts for not giving up information. Ever. Without a doubt, this issue arises only from people whining when their secret stream has been mentioned. Debates and disagreements are fun, but turning reality on its head in service of one's point of view is, well, FOX-like, to say the least.
 
alpha i wont beat you up too bad, but i think you should read some of the posts in the thread, based on your statement i think you're kind of missing the point, big time. (noone is talking about streams such as the ones you mentioned, they arent really at issue) Andddd i am on the fence about the big D i fish it insessently(however you spell that) and much is made of temps, but alot of the people complaining about flows are the ones who 1. have been flooded out, or 2. have a stake and a need to drift it... that place believe it or not, would do without half the anglers that fish it...(from a selfish standpoint) and up there sal's thinking holds true, 10 percent of the people catch 90 percent of the fish....the rest just get in the way
 
Anyhow, I'll leave you with this thought: until Allen G. Eastby's sellout article in 1979 (?) in F&S, Spring Creek was "under the radar" as one guy stated, and you had lots of elbow room. People had pretty much abandoned the stream b/c of the chemicals' leading to the no-kill regs.
Click to expand...

And if it hadn't been publicized, would the PFBC later bought a significant part of it? If not, how much of it would be currently posted? What would be happening to the canyon section right now? How much more development would have occurred on its banks without concern for water quality? How bout the acid rock disaster at skytop, would we have put as much effort at solving that, or would rainwater just been allowed to run right over top the pyrite for eternity? With the new highway, would the settling ponds been implemented? Would the hatcheries have as strict of effluent restrictions? Would TU have done as much quality work to protect the stream? Would pollution and siltation regulations been as strict?

Spring Creek has been, and still is under assault. The area is just growing too fast. I don't know if angler concerns will be enough to save the stream long-term. But you can bet we're well better off than we would be without those efforts. I'm not totally on the opposite side as you, but if you're pointing at Spring Creek, I'm not sure I know of any stream thats benefitted more due to having friends than that one. If Spring Creek is our "worst-case" scenario, well, sign me up! To me it's the poster child for the benefits of a stream having friends.

Had it remained under the radar, it would have died under the radar. I realize it might not be as good a situation as it once was, and I can sympathize with the old-timers that are saddened by these developments. But these developments are the lesser of evils, those same people would be saddened even more if they could see what Spring Creek would have become without powerful allies. And if Spring Creek had died, all those people on its banks would add to those on the banks of Penns, Fishing, and the LJR.
 
Agreed. I think it's silly to worry about discussing spring creek.

Then again, there area areas of spring creek that I won't post about, but that's because I'm happy with most of the crowds going to benner.

But honestly, when I go to spring creek, I expect crowds.
 
The answer to K&T, to me, really boils down to whether the stream is in danger or not. If, for instance, the entire watershed is in public hands, carries HQ water designation, and is in no direct danger, then more harm will be done than good by publicizing it.

But many streams face significant threats, especially from development in their watersheds. Those streams need to be discussed, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT ARE UNDER THE RADAR. We need to let people know how valuable they really are.

Yes, publicization brings negatives (crowds). But I'd rather have a crowded good stream than a lonely ruined one.
 
A lonely ruined one?

Believe it or not there are many streams in this state which are in excellent condition, have great fish populations, and are protected, yet they are unstocked, unfished, and thankfully a few of them are still hidden from certain people who think they'd rather be on a "crowded good stream".

In the case of very small wild trout streams, the chain of events is more like this;

Excellent lonely stream

crowded stream

lonely ruined stream

If I decided to make a trip to a certain wild brookie stream including a beaver dam or two, come back and post a full report,
with multiple pictures of beautiful wild brook trout ranging from 9 - 14 inches in length, giving a full description of my awesome trip including it's location and stream name I garauntee you within a year maybe two or three there would be only chubs and 6-8 inch brook trout left.

Basically it would be just like the other brook trout streams you read about on here. Lots of small sardine like brookies.

There are, in my own humble oppinion, a small handful of streams that have virtually no fishing pressure, and it is because of this that there are larger fish. I know where one or two are, and if I didn't keep my mouth shut they wouldn't be there.

I'll talk about your clarks, breeches, codorus, letort, manada, stony, big spring, green spring, spring, penns, tully, LL, LJ, frankie, tuncannock, wylusing, lackawanna, pine, casselman, conewago, etc. etc. all day long, those arent' even close to being hidden jems. I'm talkin' about streams that just don't get fished, historically haven't really ever been fished, and have never been mentioned on here. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of kinda known streams to fish why lead the circus act up my great little lonely gem.
 
JakesLeakyWaders wrote:

I'll talk about your clarks, breeches, codorus, letort, manada, stony, big spring, green spring, spring, penns, tully, LL, LJ, frankie, tuncannock, wylusing, lackawanna, pine, casselman, conewago, etc. etc. all day long, ....
Click to expand...

See, this is what kills me and strikes me as a naked hypocrisy. You will out streams that YOU think aren't hidden gems or can handle the pressure, or are already crowded and well-known and couldn't care less how it effects anglers who fish these waters, but if YOUR stream gets mentioned, you expect others to feel bad about it. I have more respect for a position that is against naming any stream, big, small, wild, stocked, known or relatively unknown, than the position that says it is AOK to talk about any stream but the one YOU would like to fish in relative solitude.

And one more thing now that my dander is raised:

These "well-known" streams are "well-known" for a reason. They are some of our best streams in terms of fish populations, hatches, access and aesthetic charm. I would like to see a few less people on each of them and if that means having those people move to other streams because they have learned that the other stream provides pleasant recreation, then so be it.
 
That's your preference.

Luckily, there appears to be a majority that adhere to a code of silence about smaller, less trafficked wild streams. I see no problem with informing unknowing anglers about that, and backlash for breaking a cultural norm within such a dedicated group of enthusiasts is to be expected. It seems to be a natural part of FF culture, and IMO, is to be embraced despite any supposed logical inconsistency.

I'd like to have less crowding on the big time streams too, but not at the expense of losing the ability to find solitude on lesser known but only marginally less productive streams. My stance is that productivity is a function of lower angler traffic, so it's not an issue of increasing pressure while preserving the experience. Spreading the pressure equates to the demise of the unique experience that these streams provide.

And as I've said (and even named names), this line of thought also applies to lesser known parts of more heavily used streams.
 
Jay, then why with all the pressure and constant "outing" does Spring Creek still give up and contain so many damn fish?

And may I ask you, how many practices and behaviors have you EVER made this comment about:

"It... is to be embraced despite any supposed logical inconsistency."

Belief in God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top