Dan
Posts: 270
Joined: 6/23/2000
From: Fairview, PA
Status: offline
|
Let me try to explain in more detail FishUSA’s position on this issue. I was the author of the current policy on "spot burning." Earlier this year we received several complaints directly from landowners about posts referring to specific locations on their private property, which caused substantial increases in angler traffic. At least one of these landowners was referring to lands outside of Erie County. These landowners advised us that these posts were causing them real problems, and that they were considering posting their property to angling. At about the same time, we received inquiries from forum moderators about establising a “spot burning policy” (a term I had never heard of until then). The moderators were apparently concerned that if they removed a post because it had the tendency to drive angler traffic to a specific location, some users would complaint that there was no express policy on this subject, and user would complain that the moderators were not “authorized” to remove the posts.
In response to these events, we implemented the current change to our policies. I drafted the current policy to address these issues. The intent was to give the moderators some express authority to remove posts which they believed could drive angler traffic to targeted locations which could upset landowners who were gracious enough to leave their lands open to public fishing.
All our policies are short and, to some extent, general. Our policies are just general guidelines, intended to set some limits. Our experience shows that if you have no policies and adopt an “anything goes” approach, the forums can get out of control, a few users will abuse the forums, and everyone will complain.
Our policies are general policies of conduct on our public areas. They are not penal laws the violation of which will result in your imprisonment. If you violate our policies, you may have a post removed, or even get a warning email from us. (We have banned people for really bad violations, like repeated conduct, but that rarely occurs). You won’t get dragged off to jail.
All our policies require some subjectivity. For example, what constitutes a “personal attack,” or what constitutes “lewd or vulgar” material, is subject to debate. The fact that some disagree with an interpretation is plainly evident by the constant debating of these issue on these forums. Because these are just general policies of conduct intended to provide some guidance for our users and moderators, they do require interpretation in their application to the wide variety of posts that appear on these forums.
We do not believe it should be necessary to write long, detailed policies. No matter how hard we try to make a policy specific, some will still complain we misapplied the policy or failed to apply it as they think we should. In addition, if we make the policies extensive, we will undoubtedly get visitors to complaint that they are being "overregulated." Our experience shows this to almost always be the case – if the policies are short, some complain they are not specific enough; if they are really specific, others complain they are too long and restrictive.
At least in my opinion, and of course others can and apparently do disagree, saying that someone fished on 7 Mile Creek does not violate the policy. If we conclude that it does violate the policy, what is the distinction to be drawn, and how do we re-write the policy? It is true that 7 Mile has a short section of fishable waters, on private property. This is also true of 4 Mile and 12 Mile (and almost all of 16 Mile). Do we say if the fishable section of the stream is less than x feet long, then you just cannot mention it at all? Do we just exclude any mention of 7 Mile, and if so, can you still mention 4 Mile? How would we apply this to small downstate streams?
If we prohibit all posts discussing private waters, can you no longer say you fished upper Elk or upper Walnut? Can you mention the Legion Hole or the Conrail tubes on Walnut, which are areas on private lands that are widely known? Can you even mention the name of a downstate stream that has no public waters?
As I indicated last night, if someone has a better way of articulating the policy, please let us know. Although people can be quick to criticize a policy, few offer any suggestions. I am having a difficult time drafting a policy that could be concise, while making a clear distinction between the open waters on 7 Mile, the open waters on 12 and 16 Mile, the open waters on Walnut and Elk, and the open waters on other downstate streams, small and large. Despite this, I do think it is important to have a policy that affords some flexibility to permit the removal of posts that could upset landowners who leave their lands open to public fishing.
This is not an issue that anyone needs to get over-agitated about. This board is to discuss the pleasures of angling and to help others enjoy the sport. If you think these forums would be more enjoyable if the policies were changed, please let us know either by posting with your suggestion or email us directly. We adopted this policy to attempt to improve the boards, and will are open to modifying it or its application if necessary.
< Message edited by Dan -- 10/21/2008 8:01:36 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. - 
, call people names
, and make some loot on the side
. it must be true what they say, pimpin aint easy. 
but im sure very few would mind if you didnt let the door hit you on the way out. 
, though.
