Spot Burning...Gim me a break

[jayL]

Spring creek is widely recognized as an anomaly. I don't profess to know what causes that, but people more knowledgeable than I have stated it multiple times. Honestly, the fact that there are so many other anglers on spring is a big drawback for me, and I basically only fish it when conditions suck elsewhere.

Other streams in its league are larger and more difficult to access, so the quality of the experience is preserved on them too.

And I've come to that conclusion about a few things. Society isn't always logical. If we're going to delve into that, then why bother fishing in the first place? I participate in many seemingly illogical activities for tradition's sake, among other things.

The reason? I enjoy it.

The fact remains that there are angling experiences to be had, though increasingly rare in this region, that are unsustainable if the pressure were to spread. I simply prefer to preserve those experiences. I do not hold disdain for any anglers that I happen to see on those streams, but I find it to be highly unnecessary to broadcast the details to strangers. I feel that way about streams around Philly, just as I do about streams in central PA, and even Montana. I have found that view to be consistent with what appears to be a piece of FF heritage, therefore see no need to rid myself of it.

Consider it this way:

I have two or three local favorite small pieces of water that I enjoy. Some guy down the street has two or three of his own. We can both enjoy the experience to the fullest. Tell me about his favorites, and him about mine, and we both now run the risk of running afoul of each other. Add in the 15 strangers that didn't care enough to seek those streams out, but will now do so because their curiosity outweighs the effort. The experience is compromised for all at this point. No net happiness has been gained. Frankly, if you were to enjoy the experience of this kind of stream enough, you'll find the stream without reading a report. It's like wasting your last few sips of fine bourbon on a guy that's completely satisfied with ezra. 😛 Ok, that was a bad analogy, but I couldn't resist.

Give it a try like I did. Find a nice stream that doesn't get pounded, and keep it close to your vest. You may come to an appreciation for it. It feels good, and IMO, is a great facet of our illogical sport. When it comes time to share the joy with someone you respect, it's all the more pleasurable. And really, after all of these useless words that I type, that's the point. The fact that lesser pressured streams exist is an asset to the sport. I don't see why the WWW should change our culture to the extent that it has to disappear. Finding and keeping secrets is simply enjoyable, and enriches the experiences. If there's a few people blabbing about everyone's semi-secrets for no real reason, they lose the ability to enjoy that. I feel no need to have these locations broadcast, but I would love to share the experience by helping others to find something to keep under their own hat. I have been taught to hold a profound respect for the traditions of this sport, and judicious secrecy is one of them.

 

[cmkrachen]

Jack Wrote ---

"Jay, then why with all the pressure and constant "outing" does Spring Creek still give up and contain so many damn fish? "


answer... Because you cant keep any fish the entire length!!! (and its fertile) Entire stream has been no kill for years...and years...

i think some people are still actually afraid to eat fish from it because of the chemical spill...regardless of the regulations

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Thank you Jay, I agree with you. I'm feelin' it.

Jack, I understand your logic, you want to spread out the fishing pressure, and share the wealth of our streams, I understand it, I just don't agree with 100%. However, I do agree with your logic at least as long as the stream can handle more than 2 or three anglers a week, some streams re much to small and fragile for that kind of pressure and should be obscured from the limelight.

All of the streams that I mentioned are just a small number of many streams which are well known, well spoken of, and often fished. Just because I say the aren't gems doesn't mean they aren't great, many of them are. To me, a gem is something that is hidden away.

I don't mind posting about a new stream every now and then, but nobody can expect me to give them all away. Almost all of the streams I fish have at least some fishing pressure, if I spot burn the very, very few streams I fish that have little to no pressure, I cannot look forward my solitude, and you know Jack, I have to have those very few close to my heart personal places. And yeah, it makes me feel smug, I don't feel guilty about that at all. If I find someone there someday,then so be it, I'm cool with that.

 

[JackM]

Jay, your last paragraph is a bit patronizing. In fact, I find it amusing that you and others on the side of secrecy assume wrongly that my position is not based upon experience with small streams and little known streams. I have fished my share and there are some I have never mentioned, which is my right. That right carries with it, however, the complimentary right of an individual to discuss the stream openly if he or she chooses. I don't get angry or protest, I just ignore it. Spring Creek will still be posted about 9 times more often than my little secret. And it will remain 9 times more crowded.

 

[jayL]

Just as you find my attempting to logically justify my stance annoying, I find it annoying that you are trying to make a logical argument that "spreading the pressure" is the right thing to do.

It's all a matter of preference, and I choose to promote what I feel to be an important tenet of FF culture.

I basically agree with Jake's last thought. For the thousandth time, preserving these experiences is important, and I see no problem with promoting that line of thinking. If it takes a comment to someone that I feel is recklessly promoting a stream for no reason, I have no issues making it, as is my right. I, frankly, don't care whether anyone thinks that's right.

I apologize for being patronizing, but your earlier arguments implied to me that you've never attempted to keep any secrets. You've obviously fished lesser known streams, and I didn't intend to imply that you haven't.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Jack,

this last post here sounds like your are going a new direction. Your earlier posts give me the impression that you are upset with the fact that people are not posting these small streams.

Now you say that there are several streams you fish that you do not mention on here. So why not. It sounded to me previously, that you were preaching to us to post about these lesser known places.

Now you say you have several streams you do not make mention of on here,

and that sounds almost in agreement with my stance. Like I had said, I have a limited number of streams I have kept anonymous.

I wouldn't be to bothered if I ran into someone in the future on one of these streams, though I don't feel as if they need mentioning publicly.

 

[troutslammer]

when i went to oil creek this year for the sulfurs the whole catch and release area was packed and most guys i would guess older than 65 and most said they had been fishing it for 20- 30 yrs , i forgot to ask em which forum they found it on !!! i am a firm believer in word of mouth being almost as damaging as the net too

 

[FarmerDave]

That's pretty good stuff there, Jack. ;-)

JackM wrote:

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.

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.

I don't know where the accusation part comes from other than it is the usual exageration and rhetoric from a certain political persuasion, so i will ignore that.;-)

But the part about guilt trips ans such... I don't know if anyone has been compelled, cajoled or made to feel ashamed, but the attempt has certainly been made often enough.

Accused of being selfish...

More anglers means more friends...

Etc, etc.

So, who is it that is delusional?

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.

.

If what you are saying is true (the first sentence in the second quote), and I'm not saying it isn't, then it must be originating from the stream reports section. I don't read those. But if it is originating here, probably 9 times out of 10, it starts with someone questioning why anyone would complain about spot burning. Definitely a majority...

But that wasn't even what i was talking about. I'm talking about once the discussion starts. The complaints about people being tight lipped seem to be more intense and certainly do try to play the guilt trip more than the other side.

But unlike most, I'll admit I may be a little bias on this.

The lines still crack me up.

And I never whine when one of "my secret streams" are outed. What good would it do? In fact, it would draw more unwanted attention to it. Instead, I use the PM, and give honest help while being respectful and explain why I am using the PM instead of the public forum. so far everyone has appreciated the help, and especially appreciated that i didn't share it with everyone. What was that that someone saif about only one side being selfish?

Apparently the sing along around the campfire at the Jam was rained out the night i was there. 😛 :lol:

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
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.

I like that one Pat.

It depends on the stream.

There is no single blanket statement in regards to this discussion that covers every stream although some people seem to try that every time it comes up.

 

[JackM]

Jake I invite you to re-examine every post I have ever made on this topic. I am confident you will not find me belittling anyone for keeping a secret. What you will find is:

1. That I don't think keeping secrets does anything special for the trout populations of your secret streams;

2. That keeping secrets tends to keep the better known streams more crowded than they need to be;

3. That nobody who chooses to post about any particular stream should have to worry about getting criticized for doing so just because another board member thinks that stream is secret or will be harmed by the post; and

4. That people who do share lesser known waters are doing a service to other anglers who have a limited knowledge of the availability of recreational opportunities in our Commonwealth and beyond.

I decide for myself whether to post a report on any given stream. I don't seek anyone else's permission. My categorization of streams as sensitive or not is not the same as yours. You may think posting about a certain water is OK and I may think it isn't. Other boards have tried to create rules about what can or cannot be mentioned. They all fail to accomplish anything good, in my opinion. What they do accomplish is the watering-down of the value of the board as an information source.

It is not hyperbole, I believe, to foresee that once "spot-burning" becomes a no-no, then so will hatch-burning, technique-burning, fly-pattern burning, etc. Simply put: it creates an atmosphere where anglers "in-the-know" seem to purposely be preventing other anglers from deriving the same enjoyment from the sport as the in-the-know anglers allow themselves. It has an odor of elitism if it doesn't just outright stink. Add to this some anglers thinking it is their further right to elevate this withholding of information to an ethic so that those who choose not to follow it are labeled outcasts, attention whores, anti-conservationist, or many other pejorative descriptions that frankly are insulting beyond the point of being just inaccurate.

 

[FarmerDave]

jayL wrote:
Just as you find my attempting to logically justify my stance annoying, I find it annoying that you are trying to make a logical argument that "spreading the pressure" is the right thing to do.

"Spreading the pressure" ... "redistributing the wealth"

Am I detecting a theme here? :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

I'm going to spot burn a coon hunting spot. It's my back yard.

I must be getting desperate.

 

[JackM]

FarmerDave wrote:

jayL wrote:
Just as you find my attempting to logically justify my stance annoying, I find it annoying that you are trying to make a logical argument that "spreading the pressure" is the right thing to do.

"Spreading the pressure" ... "redistributing the wealth"

Am I detecting a theme here? :-D

Yes you are. Both stem from the same philosophy about who "owns" the resources naturally occuring on this earth.

 

[FarmerDave]

I see. so wealth is naturally occuring. Where can i git me one of them thar money trees.

I'm absolutely willing to share any stream with anyone else. But I don't have to spoon feed it.;-)

 

[JackM]

We're now way off topic, but you don't need a money tree, just a few thousand acres of land. Oh, its all owned by someone else. Well, you can always be a tenant.

 

[FarmerDave]

Owned by someone else? Maybe because they paid for it?

I'll sell you mine fo rthe right price.

Do you really want to steer this in the direction of property owner rights?

And i wasn't off topic so either you have a mouse in your pocket or you are talking to yourself.

 

[cmkrachen]

AHHHH this explains everything.........!!! dave you're right, they own it cause they paid for it...
im going to button the keyboard, but suffice it to say my assumptions were correct...can smell em a mile away...

 

[pcray1231]

Well, I might have completely different political views as Jack, but there are parts I agree with him on here. I'm not quite as far in that camp as him. To his previous (very good) post:

1. That I don't think keeping secrets does anything special for the trout populations of your secret streams.

Semi-agree. I think the effect of pressure on actual fish populations is vastly overrated. But its not zero. And every stream is different. Pressure does make the fish harder to catch.

2. That keeping secrets tends to keep the better known streams more crowded than they need to be;

Yes. We do indeed overfish our famous streams, and underfish a number of other waterways. That said, there are some smaller streams that couldn't handle the pressure if they got it. And our famous streams are famous because they can handle the pressure.

4. That people who do share lesser known waters are doing a service to other anglers who have a limited knowledge of the availability of recreational opportunities in our Commonwealth and beyond.

Fully agree. I really don't care to do them a "service", it's not out of the goodness of my heart! But I do think that we have a problem where not enough anglers know that these "less than famous" fisheries even exist. That is a problem from a conservation standpoint. The more people "get around", the more they see the big picture instead of having this narrow focus on one stream. The big picture is ridiculously impressive, and makes us stronger conservationists.

Yeah, it depends on the stream. Here's some rules I follow.

1. It is definitely ok, in fact good, to discuss the less famous fisheries in general and how to find them so that people know they are out there, without actually mentioning the actual name.

2. It is a responsibility to name it if it faces an immediate threat. Where it gets tricky is deciding what constitutes a threat. For instance, I would say Spring Creek is under constant threat just for the fact of being located in a populated area that is growing very fast. Development, road building, pollution, etc. On the other hand, a recent argument on a SE limestoner where hogs were stocked in a small area, thats more questionable. I don't blame Sal as he clearly judged it as a threat. I don't blame others for crying foul either, as they judged it not a threat.

3. If there is no immediate threat, the decision on whether to name it is open for opinion. It should take into effect how much extra pressure the stream is likely to get and how much it is capable of handling, which itself is a function of size, holding water, fertility, species of fish, regulations, proximity to urban areas, ease of access, fishing "culture" of the region, who owns the land and whether its in danger of being posted, and a million other factors.

Basically, in principle I fall in Jack's camp, for much of the same reasons. But I allow that there are a million different exceptions. Posting about streams carries both good and bad effects. But if the increased pressure is likely to result in posted land, for instance, then none of those good effects will be realized anyway.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray, I agree with parts of what Jack wrote, too. Just don't tell him that.;-)

I just like to see what rhetoric he comes up with next. 😛

You pointed out a few.

Another one that I think he touched on is the fact that complaining about spot burning a specific individual stream on a public forum does no good at all.

There might be more. I don't recall.

 

[k-bob]

pcray1231 wrote:
"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."

I like this a lot. If a stream is not well known and faces no development threat, etc., then posting a fish-hero report could screw up the fishing for the guys who fish it now. I would not want to do that... just like I would not want some of my favorite streams that are not well known and not threatened to be described here in that way.

But if a stream is already well known and is on public land - slate, cedar, etc - then reports that give water temps, conditions, hatches, etc., probably help the people who already fish there.

So we just need to think about the welfare of the stream, the private landowner (if any), and the guys who fish there now in posting reports.