Off on a tangent.....

[DaveKile]

I've avoided even mentioning the name for this very reason, and I'm not about to start speaking on behalf of something when I don't have the right to. The only reason it's come up is because other people have suggested there's something nefarious going on. I can assure you there's not.

What you see is that several people feel the same way about something, and some may have joined organizations that share that perspective. That's all. Part of that is because for a long time on this forum people suggested to me that people who share my opinions should form or join an organization so that we might have a better chance of petitioning PFBC.

I've been a member of TU for about the past 20 years. Should we associate TU here with no evidence, as well? I don't appreciate being called out personally on this stuff dating back to the first few people who felt it was fine to call me out by my name here. Frankly, it's a bit surprising to see such alarm over derailment vs. lying, accusing members of things with zero evidence, personal insults, and "doxing" forum members. I'm curious if the outrage would be the other way around if the tables were turned.

The general feeling by many in the forum is that several people have decided to make their personal agendas be widely know through out all parts of the forums and threads. Many threads having nothing to do with the native species agenda are getting hijacked again and again with this topic.

I try to be open to all views and the more reading I do the more I see. Having spent the last three days reading about 4,000 posts by a handful of people on the site I would agree with the vocal members here in this thread about the issues.

As shared already by afishinado:
• Everyone should make an effort to keep threads on-subject rather than trying push the conversation in another direction.
• And anyone who feels strongly about any FFing related subject should start another thread and not try to force feed their info or opinions in an unrelated thread.
• If any member tries to steer the thread in another direction, just ignore that post and move on with the subject at hand.

I'll add, be aware if you do have a specific topic like fly tying or conservation keep them in the appropriate forums. Deliberate derailing and disrupting in the forum is not gonna fly.

Thank you all for comments and feedback directed to me and the site. I think everyone can fit in here and we all need to just continue to listen to the issues and do better, including me. Keep them coming if you want.

 

[Tom1980]

'

Agree

I don't mind reading posts on native/wild trout. It is educational.
I don't like the aggressive words, constantly bashing the agencies, organizations or people to push his agenda this site.

In my opinion it screams non inclusion and is hostile.
People have different views and opinions that should be respected.

This is a fly fishing site.
There are fly fishing only areas too.

You realize if a bunch of bait or spin fisherman made accounts and posted up threads on spin fishing tactics, gear, best bait etc, they would get deleted.

Your post sounds like a political bile that has been thrown up via main stream media.

A fly fishing site, in of itself, is non inclusive to anything not fly fishing.


Not everything needs to be included in everything, all the time, much like the discussion of derailing threads all the time.

Not everyone agrees with what those agencies are doing, how they do them and why they do them. Those individuals shouldn't be forced to keep quiet or watch "aggressive speech "so the all inclusive crowd continues to have a Linus blanket.

Peoples difference of opinions or views need not to be respected, just the individual. I do not need to respect another persons view or opinion, especially if it isn't a respectable one to begin with. I only need to respect the individuals right to have it and voice it.

 

[JimKennedy]

This is simply not true and defamatory. I've been on this forum since it was created (under a different username prior to 06). I've been talking about the same issues since that time. Well, except for back when the evil empire was one of the primary topics here.

Derailing a thread is one thing. Blatant defamation and slander are something entirely else.

Neither illegal nor immoral acts are explicitly stated or implied in thetroutangler’s post, so no defamation.

It is neither illegal nor unethical to use a message board to increase traffic to another website.

It might be frowned upon by folks on this thread, but so is fishing with sewn minnows (confessions: my favorite way to fish with minnows).

I’m in favor of a more cordial approach all around. No need to call out the a-holes like me. We know we are.

 

[krayfish2]

I’ve been a member since 2011 or 2012 or so. In that time there’s been two more “major” issues I’ve seen the forum have to deal with. The rest have just been isolated to an individual poster or thread, and were relatively transient in nature. Normal online forum type stuff. The two broader issues were/are:

1. Spot Burning. I think that was handled pretty well. You had the same group of folks waiting with pitchforks any time someone (usually a relatively new, excited FFer) mentioned a stream name. One small suburban Philadelphia limestone influenced wild Brown Trout stream, in particular. It got to the point where it seemed like guys were just waiting for someone to post a stream name so they could tee them up. It wasn’t fun, and led to a lot of new FFers being turned off. The tone was set (and enforced) by the moderators, and the issue quickly resolved itself. If you choose to post a stream name, that’s ok. If you choose not to post a stream name, that’s ok. In neither scenario should you be chastised for it.

2. The scenario we are faced with now. I think overall, the board reaction has been more negative this time. Though that may just be through the lens of passing time also. I don’t know. The answer this time is easy. Talk about native vs. invasive management in threads allocated for its discussion, and BOTH sides respect that. If you don’t want to read or talk about that subject, just don’t click on those threads and definitely don’t go looking for trouble in them. If you do want to talk about those topics, just don’t do it in the thread where everyone is happily talking about the Spring hatches on Penns, or whatever. And outside of the conservation/management based threads, lose the inflammatory “invasive” rhetoric every time Brown Trout are mentioned. (I know it’s factual, and not intended to be inflammatory, but right or wrong, it is perceived that way and serves as the spark for the fire. That’s obvious at this point.) There’s too much of a knowledge base on this forum (on both sides of the native/invasive debate) to be losing posters over not respecting one another’s opinions and differences.

Edit: 3. Politics in the OT forum. I forgot about that. But not gonna talk about it, haha. Place is definitely better without it.

#4 - fishing during the spawn or near redds 😁😂

 

[silverfox]

Since we're sharing our perspectives on this, I might as well throw mine in the pool.

I think the characterization that "every thread" gets hijacked is a mischaracterization. There are plenty of threads here that have nothing to do with "controversial subjects."

What I see happening quite a bit is that a few board members like to goad folks into responding by making snide remarks that they know full well will elicit a response. Then a response happens, and here we are.

 

[krayfish2]

In the event it continues to be an issue however, I’ll go ahead now and nominate krayfish as “Special Master” for determining when a “derailment” has occurred and the outing of a Gemmie blue line (with accompanying recipe) is warranted.😜

This is magical. Please make it happen! Tell me I didn't buy this crown and scepter for nothing. 🤣.

Whatta ya say Dave 😁? Lmao

 

[silverfox]

Neither illegal nor immoral acts are explicitly stated or implied in thetroutangler’s post, so no defamation.

It is neither illegal nor unethical to use a message board to increase traffic to another website.

It might be frowned upon by folks on this thread, but so is fishing with sewn minnows (confessions: my favorite way to fish with minnows).

I’m in favor of a more cordial approach all around. No need to call out the a-holes like me. We know we are.

Making false statements with the intent of harming someone's reputation is slander. You don't have to say someone did something illegal or immoral for it to be slanderous/libelous.

I can't go around saying "Jack's Roofing Company" did a terrible job on my roof when I've never used Jack's Roofing Company before.

This ain't some legal case though. It's just crazy that someone would make some brazen remark like that and it goes unchecked, or even slightly endorsed by the forum owner.

 

[Bamboozle]

#4 - fishing during the spawn or near redds 😁😂

#5 - It's summer, it's hot; give 'em a break.

 

[riverwhy]

I don't mean to be critical here, but I think the thing that went unnoticed by owner Dave Kile, the moderators, and probably all but one of the members here, is that the main perp and his sidekick perp, for nearly the last two years, were only using this website to advertise and increase the membership in their organization. A quick peruse of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Native Fish Coalition website reveals that their membership has jumped a whopping fifty percent -- that's 50% -- in just under two years! That's right, they went from having two members to having three members.

It must be 51%. I just joined. Thanks for promoting the site!

 

[Swattie87]

Since we're sharing our perspectives on this, I might as well throw mine in the pool.

I think the characterization that "every thread" gets hijacked is a mischaracterization. There are plenty of threads here that have nothing to do with "controversial subjects."

What I see happening quite a bit is that a few board members like to goad folks into responding by making snide remarks that they know full well will elicit a response. Then a response happens, and here we are.

You’re right. Every is not accurate, or fair.
I try not to use that specific term, but sometimes I miss that I’ve used it. It certainly can seem like every thread at times, but I agree, it’s not.

Given the commentary in this thread, I think “too many” threads, would be a fair and accurate description. I’m not sure what the delineation for “too many” is, but it’s been too many.

 

[PennKev]

What I see happening quite a bit is that a few board members like to goad folks into responding by making snide remarks that they know full well will elicit a response. Then a response happens, and here we are.

You are correct. We see this everytime someone takes the time to post "invasive, non-native brown trout" instead of just "brown trout."

There is no reason to be so verbose other than to be abbrasive. We knew browns are both invasive and non native long ago. Repeating it over and over, as has been the case recently, is not a way to educate, but rather agitate.

Attempts to trigger a response don't have to be blatant or obvious.

 

[jifigz]

Not everyone agrees with what those agencies are doing, how they do them and why they do them. Those individuals shouldn't be forced to keep quiet or watch "aggressive speech "so the all inclusive crowd continues to have a Linus blanket.

Peoples difference of opinions or views need not to be respected, just the individual. I do not need to respect another persons view or opinion, especially if it isn't a respectable one to begin with. I only need to respect the individuals right to have it and voice it.

No one has stated that we must agree with what the PFBC or any other government agencies are doing. What I am asking or hoping for, and I think what many here want, is that if we are discussing the increasing range of northern snakeheads or a favorite smallmouth fly pattern that somehow that discussion doesn't turn into how stocking trout is going to bankrupt the PFBC as evidenced by the Smeal College of Business study or how in ten years we will adopt a "Snakeheads Unlimited." These are okay comments to make at times, however they are pulled into so many threads where they don't belong. The same regurgitated crap was pulled into so many threads where it didn't belong. These were not small asides that lasted a few posts long, these were full on crash, flame, and burn derailments.

Yes, not all threads get hijacked by this material, but I would bet at least 50% have. After not being here for a couple of months and logging in just the other day for the first time, it was blatantly obvious that the forum was still regurgitating the same old CRAP and immediately I was turned off by it. There was a lack of respect for each other that was still occurring.

There were belligerents on both sides. Tim Murphy actually said it right quite a few months ago so I will give him credit where credit is due. I don't remember the exact user it was directed to, the exact thread it was from, or his exact language, but this will be pretty darn close to the original author's enlightening work. It went something like this: "For chrissakes, give it a rest."

Boy, now ain't that some sagacious advice.

 

[poopdeck]

Who comes to a forum devoted to communication and hits the ignore button????? Sometimes a thread becomes nothing but a constant rehashing or restating of the same thing and needs to be sent in a different direction because the same point has been made ad nauseam. Not to change the subject, but Ive been wondering what everybody did with their leftovers from thanksgiving? Anybody else make a gobbler pizza?

 

[silverfox]

You’re right. Every is not accurate, or fair.
I try not to use that specific term, but sometimes I miss that I’ve used it. It certainly can seem like every thread at times, but I agree, it’s not.

Given the commentary in this thread, I think “too many” threads, would be a fair and accurate description. I’m not sure what the delineation for “too many” is, but it’s been too many.

I suspect the "lastest posts" feature is probably driving a lot of this. Threads with a lot of action keep showing up there while there are plenty of other threads to look at if it's not your thing. So I think the controversial topics get amplified and it looks like it's worse than it is.

 

[silverfox]

You are correct. We see this everytime someone takes the time to post "invasive, non-native brown trout" instead of just "brown trout."

There is no reason to be so verbose other than to be abbrasive. We knew browns are both invasive and non native long ago. Repeating it over and over, as has been the case recently, is not a way to educate, but rather agitate.

Attempts to trigger a response don't have to be blatant or obvious.

To be fair, I think that trend is becoming more and more mainstream. I just noticed Chris Hunt used "invasive trout" in a very recent article in Hatch magazine. I see it a lot in journal articles etc. too.

(first paragraph)

Group sues to block plan to save Yellowstone cutthroat trout by relocating them

Sometimes the enemy of good isn’t evil. Sometimes the enemy of good is perfect. This may be the case on Buffalo Creek, a wild trout stream that runs through the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness of southern Montana before crossing into Yellowstone National Park. Buffalo Creek is a tributary of...

www.hatchmag.com

 

[krayfish2]

What if Chris Hunt referred to squares as circles? Would you blindly follow the trend?

 

[joebamboo]

Seems like Sticks got the message, one more to go!

 

[jifigz]

To be fair, I think that trend is becoming more and more mainstream. I just noticed Chris Hunt used "invasive trout" in a very recent article in Hatch magazine. I see it a lot in journal articles etc. too.

(first paragraph)

Group sues to block plan to save Yellowstone cutthroat trout by relocating them

Sometimes the enemy of good isn’t evil. Sometimes the enemy of good is perfect. This may be the case on Buffalo Creek, a wild trout stream that runs through the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness of southern Montana before crossing into Yellowstone National Park. Buffalo Creek is a tributary of...

www.hatchmag.com

I think there is a huge difference there. In such an article as the one you posted (which I just spent a few moments to read) the term is used to enlighten the reader that the trout species is not-native to the watershed, something your average reader not familiar with an area might not know. After all, I bet a lot of Eastern anglers are unaware of where the rainbows range begins, which drainages are inhabited but cutthroats, and where the bull trout's last remaining refuges are. On this forum where 99.9% of us know that brookies are native and browns and rainbows are not, it is done with a different sort of intent: to be used as rhetoric and antagonistic. I could be wrong here, but that is how it always felt to me.

I can use this as an example: When you write an editorial article you want to inform the reader as if they did not know anything about the topic. This is often helpful, after all, hardly anyone here in central PA can tell me what fish are and are not native to the Susky drainage. The constant repetitive utterances here by certain people of "invasive and non-native brown trout" always came across as aggressive, especially after the 100,00th time, and definitely no longer informative.

 

[silverfox]

I think there is a huge difference there. In such an article as the one you posted (which I just spent a few moments to read) the term is used to enlighten the reader that the trout species is not-native to the watershed, something your average reader not familiar with an area might not know. After all, I bet a lot of Eastern anglers are unaware of where the rainbows range begins, which drainages are inhabited but cutthroats, and where the bull trout's last remaining refuges are. On this forum where 99.9% of us know that brookies are native and browns and rainbows are not, it is done with a different sort of intent: to be used as rhetoric and antagonistic. I could be wrong here, but that is how it always felt to me.

I can use this as an example: When you write an editorial article you want to inform the reader as if they did not know anything about the topic. This is often helpful, after all, hardly anyone here in central PA can tell me what fish are and are not native to the Susky drainage. The constant repetitive utterances here by certain people of "invasive and non-native brown trout" always came across as aggressive, especially after the 100,00th time, and definitely no longer informative.

True. Good point. It sure gets folks riled up.

 

[jifigz]

True. Good point. It sure gets folks riled up.

Lol. You could say that again. I will say it seems there is a lot more attention paid to fish species that for a long time were not valued in our society, especially those fish usually referred to as "rough fish."