jdaddy
Active member
Well put Zen and I agree with you completely on the pressure and harvest.
Nick, I can see where you would get that impression however it is not correct. You may PM me for details.
Berks county class a info
- Thread starter Keppenbill
- Start date
Well put Zen and I agree with you completely on the pressure and harvest.
Nick, I can see where you would get that impression however it is not correct. You may PM me for details.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
I believe there was discussion about those signs on here a while back.
So once a stream like this has been "outed", what do we do?
So once a stream like this has been "outed", what do we do?
pcray1231
Well-known member
Nick, the signs are there, but illegal and not enforced. The public is allowed to be there, as the park was made with the help of state money, not purely Wyo borough money.
Wyo borough has been informed by the PFBC that it is open to fishing by the public and that it can't have the residents only rule. Their response apparantly was that they wouldn't enforce it.
To my chagrin, the PFBC seemed to leave it at that. Personally, even if they are meaningless, I think they should be forced to take the signs down.
Wyo borough has been informed by the PFBC that it is open to fishing by the public and that it can't have the residents only rule. Their response apparantly was that they wouldn't enforce it.
To my chagrin, the PFBC seemed to leave it at that. Personally, even if they are meaningless, I think they should be forced to take the signs down.
That's why Gary never strays from his home, he refuses to fish anywhere that's been "burned"....
I couldn't agree more, but if you would ask one of the pioneers of spot burning (Sal), he would disagree with you. Even though he lives in Lancaster County. I guess the people that live in Berks County and are near the stream often don't know what they are talking about.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
My personal take is, I'll never name a stream unless its already been done. I just don't want to step on anybody's toes. I readily admit 80% of the streams I've fished in the past year or so I've learned about on here, mostly from PMs. In those instances, I would NEVER broadcast that stream on the public forum, unless its already been done. In this case, I found two instances in the last year where both pcray and jdaddy named this stream (in a thread about stocking class A's and another about kid rodeos), so I just figured, "it's done". They weren't the first to name the stream on here (its hardly in either one's nature to "out" a stream that can't handle the pressure), so I'm assuming their attitude was, "It's already been outed" as well. This is where I was coming from with my question. Once its been "outed", how do we handle it on the board? Do we just throw our hands up and say, "what's done is done. We can talk about X stream openly now"?
Foxgap239
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
Unfortunately there are those on this board who would do somersaults in their underwear if no one ever named a stream again. Bottom line is, you cannot please all of the people some of the time and you can't please some people all of the time. So please yourself! You have a great common sense about you and I believe you use your best judgement but even that will not sit right with some of our brethren. Stop trying to please and be you!
Just sayin.................. :roll:
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
gfen
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 6,639
I refuse to be suckered into the endless circle jerk about this, so let this be the last post I make within this thread:
This is a stupid answer you've made.
Every time someone talks about something, it raises the priority and its awareness. Ergo, adding to it, as the third person, has increased the potential of someone noticing it by 33%, if not more since you've essentially Bumped To Top the subject if the prior two mentions were buried into the archives.
It is what it is. As I said, you may learn the lesson of your choosing and apply it as you see fit.
In this very thread, you have a confirmation from someone who lives there that two prior, buried, mentions of something have coincided with a dramatic increase of pressure, harvest, and someone explicitly mentioning that very thread. Furthermore, the person who provided the advise isn't someone who acts as a firebrand on either side of the argument, and generally speaking probably related more to the "public knowledge" side than not, at least prior to his observations.
Anyways, in a closing statement in no way related to anything useful on subject, I enjoy most of all that the people who seem to be most willing to argue and fight incessantly about this topic are the ones who complain most loudly about it.
GreenWeenie
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 697
If a stream gets named once in passing and nobody talks about it, generally it will fade away without damage. But if everyone then takes the view that since it’s been named and “outted” by someone else it’s now fair game for me to talk about all I want and it keeps getting brought up, that attention will result in an increase in pressure. That is a lame excuse for talking about a stream – someone else named it not me. Only when a stream is named for the first time in a glorifying stream report does it really result in an increase in fishing pressure.
Step one, don’t talk about streams or sections of streams or hatches on streams, whether known or unknown, that sees little fishing pressure. The less fishing pressure, the better for the trout and the habitat and selfishly, also the better for you, so don’t mention it and enjoy your peace and solitude (and you may be maintaining someone else’s peace and solitude too). And outing doesn’t necessarily mean naming a stream that hasn’t been named or isn’t known. I fish numerous streams that are known yet I fish them outside of their more popular sections or during times other than their more popular hatches and hardly see anyone else and the fishing is as good if not better that the more popular areas and times. I’d be an idiot to announce any of this on a public forum.
Step one, don’t talk about streams or sections of streams or hatches on streams, whether known or unknown, that sees little fishing pressure. The less fishing pressure, the better for the trout and the habitat and selfishly, also the better for you, so don’t mention it and enjoy your peace and solitude (and you may be maintaining someone else’s peace and solitude too). And outing doesn’t necessarily mean naming a stream that hasn’t been named or isn’t known. I fish numerous streams that are known yet I fish them outside of their more popular sections or during times other than their more popular hatches and hardly see anyone else and the fishing is as good if not better that the more popular areas and times. I’d be an idiot to announce any of this on a public forum.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
1-I'm not trying to get you into a circle jerk.
2-I agree about the nature of the person who gave the advice. Its the first time I've ever read something on this site, for either side of this debate, that made me step back and think. That is why I ask genuine questions around this subject. I'm not in the "baiting" game at all. Never have been, never will be.
3-I agree, again.
pcray1231
Well-known member
What I love about this argument is the dual sides to it. The same people who blast people for spot burning unknown streams are the very same people who complain about:
1. huge crowds on the "famous" streams.
2. the ignorant bait/spin fishermen who haven't a clue about wild trout, where they live, how to protect them, etc.
3. the PFBC's propensity to cater to the above crowd because they are the majority rather than wild trout enthusiasts who are the minority.
To me, we SHOULD spot burn, not just one stream at a time, (as that concentrates pressure), but a lot of them (to spread it out). I'd love to just list all of the streams I've found to be very good and worthwhile to fish, describing each and the best way to access them.
But, some of those were shown to me by others, and I won't betray their trust. Plus, I'd only do it if everyone else did too, as I don't want to ONLY draw attention to "my" streams.
1. huge crowds on the "famous" streams.
2. the ignorant bait/spin fishermen who haven't a clue about wild trout, where they live, how to protect them, etc.
3. the PFBC's propensity to cater to the above crowd because they are the majority rather than wild trout enthusiasts who are the minority.
To me, we SHOULD spot burn, not just one stream at a time, (as that concentrates pressure), but a lot of them (to spread it out). I'd love to just list all of the streams I've found to be very good and worthwhile to fish, describing each and the best way to access them.
But, some of those were shown to me by others, and I won't betray their trust. Plus, I'd only do it if everyone else did too, as I don't want to ONLY draw attention to "my" streams.
Foxgap239
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
As you guys all know, I'm not a supporter of the crowd that likes to rant and rave about people "outing" streams and I am especially critical of the bullying and intimidation tactics of some. That said, their message is however valid so I think the question becomes how do we make PAFF a stream resource for members who give back to the community. I mean what's the point of having a community if you can't use it as a resource but I really do get the increased pressure concern. Here's an example, I live in Philly and to drive almost anywhere with good fishing can be 2 to 3 hours away. Now I get the point of those who feel that I should learn streams on my own like they did (or say they did) but I still work full time and with limited time to fish I don't want to drive 3 hours only to find no access, no water or no fish. So I see our challenge as a community as being how do we develop a resource that doesn't require public viewing on a large scale? A members only section really doesn't solve anything because people will just become members to view it. Setting up a minimium amount of posts to view it also doesn't seem like it will work because you have long time members that just don't post a lot.
So, what do you guys feel are some constructive ideas on how to make that work? PM's have worked great for me and the info I have gotten has been appreciated but that only works if you know who to PM about what streams. Please don't post sarcastic comments as I am really trying to discuss ways to make everyone, if not happy, at least satisfied.
So, what do you guys feel are some constructive ideas on how to make that work? PM's have worked great for me and the info I have gotten has been appreciated but that only works if you know who to PM about what streams. Please don't post sarcastic comments as I am really trying to discuss ways to make everyone, if not happy, at least satisfied.
PSUFishMenace
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 733
This...There's enough decent "secret" streams just in the SE part of the state that if everyone spread out over them you'd never see another angler on Valley (except for the after-work crowd which will never go away bc of vc's location). Imagine that. it will never happen though.
You have a minority who fish several streams with little pressure and a majority who only fish one or two heavily pressured waters because that's all they are aware of. I'd be all for doing what Pat said if the rest of that minority did the same, because like he said it concentrates pressure to "burn" a handful at a time-it has to be a ton at once. License sales are declining. Wanna hold people's interest in our sport better? Give them some help on where to fish. What will be more interesting to a beginner, hiking into a scenic little stream with stupid unpressured fish or struggling time after time to catch pressured fish that have already seen ten anglers that day? Can't tell you how many friends I have back home who stopped fishing because "there's nowhere good around here, it's not worth the money."
And these streams that are supposed to be "secret"- I have yet to find a stream that has not been fished by at least one other forum member. Even ones that are no more than five feet wide.
Sorry for taking part in the "circle jerk" once more but I couldn't leave the above unsaid.
PSUFishMenace
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2009
- Messages
- 733
If you have info on enough streams (say several hundred), public viewing on a large scale wouldn't be a problem imo. There just aren't that many fishermen.
Foxgap239
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
Can't say I disagree plus I think some streams would just turn most people off as not being their type of fishing. I really have to come to believe that the real problem is the lurkers who want to take fish and not the FF'ers who C&R. But what do I know. :-?
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
I think you're right, Fox, about the problem being the lurkers. What I'm trying to get at is, how far do we let the fear of lurkers dictate what we say and don't say on this forum?
Foxgap239
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
Totally agree but I do see the other side of the argument too. We need a mechanism where we can say what we want without lurkers seeing it but still be a resource to the part of the community that shares their knowledge. It's definitely a tough balance, I don't think there is an easy answer. I like what PCray and PSU suggest but doubt you'd get enough people willing to open up like that. Then there's people like me whose spent his entire fishing life fishing certain streams and now wants to branch out and fish the little gems. I don't have anything people don't already know to share, so should I even benefit from the knowledge base. No easy answers.
