A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com.

Page: < 12345 > Showing page 4 of 5
Author
Grendel
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1675
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/10/30 21:39:21
  • Location: Between Heaven and Hell
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 19:53:09 (permalink)
Pete,

I totally agree with you on this point.  One thing I learned from this site and its moderators, it is totally subjective and without clear guidelines as to what constitutes "spot burning."  Even when instituting the "new" policy, a moderator was in clear violation, but when called out on it, he stated, "I did not see it that way."  Wonderful eh?
 
Reminds me of the U.S Supreme Court Justice who did not have the ability to define pornography.  However, he was quick to add that he could tell what porn was or was not if he saw it.  Sort of akin to this "spot burning" policy.

This site has seriously gone down the tubes in the past few years with such subjective interpretations.  A "good 'ol boys club" it has become.  So many of the past "regulars" have moved on as a result.

As the Taoists say, "too many rules, laws, and regulations undermine fundamental aspects of right and wrong."  This site is headed there quickly.

I expect to be banned from the site now...I can live with that.

Now... I am done forever.

Doc
post edited by Grendel - 2008/10/20 20:25:39

The strength of a person isn't measured by the muscle in their arm or how tall they stand, but rather, by the amount of knowledge and area of versatility they can cover. CM ~ 1987

Not a fan of Burgh teams. Get over it...
#91
walcat01
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 391
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/05/18 20:43:07
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 20:07:13 (permalink)
Amen to that! This site used to be a real joy but has turned to crap by the moderators and owner. They just won't control the real ****s on here and that along with the crybabies have ruined it. They just don't know how to mind their own business but want to be the Gods on the streams by making their own laws by telling people not to keep fish when they are legally caught. Spot burning my butt! I'll help anyone I choose to help.
#92
*commander*
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2647
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 20:51:08 (permalink)
you should thank the mods and owner. this is probably the only place you have to drown your sorrows , call people names, and make some loot on the side. it must be true what they say, pimpin aint easy.

i'd miss you but im sure very few would mind if you didnt let the door hit you on the way out.

be thankful. youd have been a memory long ago. i still think youre a great old , though.
post edited by *commander* - 2008/10/20 21:33:40
#93
Dan
Administrator
  • Total Posts : 92
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2000/06/23 12:56:35
  • Location: Fairview, PA
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 21:46:48 (permalink)
If anyone has a better definition of a policy on spot burning they would like to suggest, which they believe would be more easily and objectively applied, please let us know. We are open to revising the wording of the policy if it is causing difficulty or confusion. 
#94
PaWolfman
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 214
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2008/05/19 09:06:32
  • Location: Greensburg, Pennsylvania
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 21:56:02 (permalink)
I am overall new on this site and I personally don't care either way when it comes to spot burning. It's not for me but I don't care. The problem with a rule like this is there is a huge grey area and only problems can come out of it. One person may think something is spot burning and another may not. You may even have different mods that see it different. I just don't see this rule working out with such a big grey area and you may lose some good people because of it.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.-Thomas Jefferson
#95
*commander*
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2647
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 21:59:35 (permalink)
if youre giving out $100's for free someone will complain they want it in $50's. no matter the situation, you will NEVVVVVER please everyone.
#96
Deerslayir
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 175
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/07/10 22:34:12
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 22:18:15 (permalink)
The PBFC  stock almost all these fish whoever thinks they are entitled to their own section of the stream is crazy. Spot burning?? This is a stream that is 6-12 feet wide with thousands of fish in most areas? Secret spots? This is comical its a shame the people at FISH USA even had to get into this. Arent people thankful enough to have a site like this? Like Stillhead said it seems very selfish, people should be happy to lend a hand and help someone else out. I know everyone was an expert born with tons of knowledge and found all the good spots themselves without any help. I think there should be an apology to FISH USA for this whole ordeal, maybe one day when FISH USA had enough the poeple who whined will be happy there will be no place to communicate, share info, and develop friendships. Really sad, think of the big picture guys
#97
chrisrowboat
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 688
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/07/04 11:18:09
  • Location: Erie county
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 22:34:21 (permalink)
Dan,
Integrity either do it or don't 100%.
It is that simple.
Open water to fish, is all that the fishermen wants, lets keep it that way.
There are more than a few people and organizations that pushed for the Erie stamp, most will never ask for recognition nor want it.
 
All,
I'm done... 100%
Chrisrowboat  

Proud to have been a FOT/
I've been out fishing.
Clean your gear/
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/cleanyourgear.htm



#98
rapala11
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 6218
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/03/05 21:53:36
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 23:10:19 (permalink)
 i really don't wish to get into this discussion, but i would like a clarification of this policy.  are we just talking the tribs or all bodies of water?  ex...can i say i hit walleyes off of tuttle point at pymatuning in ten feet of water?  again, since i fish up there once or twice a year (i fish ohio mostly), i cannot post that i fished manchester hole and hooked three, correct?

Joined: 10/8/2003


#99
genieman77
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2534
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 23:21:36 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Deerslayir
people should be happy to lend a hand and help someone else out.


they do every day on the creeks.
They do every day thru e-mail, PM and phone
They also help out in other ways.
Like stream clean ups, and improvements.

It's funny how so many show up after a glowing report, but mention a stream clean up or bank project  and  only a handful of guys show up.

You just might get a TON of info if you actually showed up to one of the project works or clean ups.


..L.T.A.


egg sac
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 517
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2000/10/02 22:33:36
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/20 23:48:31 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dan

If anyone has a better definition of a policy on spot burning they would like to suggest, which they believe would be more easily and objectively applied, please let us know. We are open to revising the wording of the policy if it is causing difficulty or confusion. 




Dan,

In my opion it would not be that hard to define spot buring. just state any and all areas that are not open to the public buy being state owned,land easiments or basicaly held in public trust by townships ect would be spot burning. This would keep any and all private lands banded from being mentioned reguardless weather the landower alows access or not. with this type policy the mouth allthe land esments and or newly state owned lands could be mentioned as well as all state lakes ect. thier is nothing wrong with saying hey thier are fish in the streams or some fish have made it to the middle upper areas of the streams as this will not say put 50 cars at one spot because of a post. just keep the specific araes and private areas off limits and all would be well.







Am realy sick of the people crying we are greedy because we do not want many areas ever mentioned. Are these people realy this blind not to see how bad the internet has caused overcrowding. I have witnessed it so so many times. I have been at a spot with few to no people one day it gets mentioned next day after a post goes up what was 1-4 cars becomes 20-50+ cars seen it every time never fails. I know if I was a landowner I would be seriously upset that now their is a ton of load mouthed out for themselfs slobs invading my land heck if these upset landowners had the knowledge the invations was caused from this site basicaly telling people to go thier they could possibly have grounds for a lawsuit. so to all those calling us people suporting the spot burning rule greedy ,go ask all the landowers if they would mind you advertizing thier land open to fish on the internet bet you would get a ton of hell no's and more postings. get a grip people you have zero rights to advertize other peoples private property. a spot buring policy is not greed its common sence sorry so many of you out thier have none or will reject it for your own person greed thinking everything should be open to you and we should spoon feed you to death. Thier are no real secret spots out thier anymore but many areas would never get as pressured because the average person is so darn lazy they will not take the time to drive or walk to find fish by themselfs. I can care less if thier is someone fishing each and every hole on every stream every day I just do not want to see anymore postings and lost stream areas because people open up thier big mouths and invite the masses on private land they have no right to do so on....
post edited by egg sac - 2008/10/20 23:56:21

SO MANY FISH SO LITTLE TIME.
WHY ARE ALL THE PLACES I HAVE YET 2 FISH SO FAR AWAY?
Stillhead
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1887
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/12/19 23:03:01
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 05:54:05 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Deerslayir

Like Stillhead said it seems very selfish, people should be happy to lend a hand and help someone else out. I know everyone was an expert born with tons of knowledge and found all the good spots themselves without any help. 



Not trying to start a war with you or anyone else, just wanted to clear this up.  I think you misunderstood my post earlier.

I was calling MackJ motives selfish. He is against the spot burning rules.

I'm in support of the spot burning rules 100% and think they were about 10 years too late. It has nothing to do with me being selfish. I'll get mine,doesn't matter if you tell every fisherman on this planet, the gps coordinates of every fish in our tribs.  It will only matter when posted signs go up. I guess some on here haven't been around to see them. How about the sign on upper elk a couple years ago that read "sorry, there are just too many of you".  There is plenty of info. around and plenty of helpfull tackle shops to lead guys in the right direction without needing bragging posts on the internet to send 100 people to someone's backyard.

I agreee with Eggy's post above mine. 
post edited by Stillhead - 2008/10/21 06:02:01
Dan
Administrator
  • Total Posts : 92
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2000/06/23 12:56:35
  • Location: Fairview, PA
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 07:58:30 (permalink)
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.
post edited by Dan - 2008/10/21 08:01:36
rapala11
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 6218
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/03/05 21:53:36
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 08:19:45 (permalink)
 i really don't wish to get into this discussion, but i would like a clarification of this policy.  are we just talking the tribs or all bodies of water?  ex...can i say i hit walleyes off of tuttle point at pymatuning in ten feet of water? 

Joined: 10/8/2003


SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 08:21:38 (permalink)
Everyone is so quick to think of the angling community when someone speaks of spot burning .. like it's some fishermans' secret.  It's about the landowners folks.  Any private property should not be allowed to be discussed on this site, no matter how public it may seem.  If the state doesn't own it, then it gets refered to as upper Walnut, middle Elk, etc...   If we want to mention small streams like seven or twelve mile, and the Sisters' decide to put up the signs, we've got ourselves to blame.  Why not ask them?  You care if we discuss your property on a public website that gets thousands of viewers a day?  Infact, why is this up to the fisherman anyway?  Why not go ask 10 landowners at random if they care we promote their land.  Go with the majority decision.  I think we know the outcome.  If ALL landowners knew about this site and what goes on here, and how many people are freaks about steelhead, they'd all ask their property to not be mentioned here.  Anyone want to post their address here?  Got anything in demand on your property appealing as steelhead?  Put yourselves in their shoes.
 
I'd hope to see a few addresses of the folks "for" spot burning.  Post 'em up !!

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 08:24:32 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dan

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.

 
 
MackJ .. are you taking notes?
 
 
 

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
Grendel
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1675
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/10/30 21:39:21
  • Location: Between Heaven and Hell
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 08:58:34 (permalink)
***NOTE***  Sorry Chris and Glenn - this was an offer I could not refuse

To those who offered support via PM - thank you very much.  Your kind words mean a lot to me. Slainte Mhath!

Dan,

The following is simply food for thought.  Take it for what is worth coming from a "simple man."  You asked for some suggestions, so I am here to do my part.

1.  Get a book on Policy.  There are several out there on the market regarding generating and establishing these wonderful little things.  I would strongly recommend Patton and Sawicki's book on basic policy analysis.  If I remember correctly, there are 6 basic steps to policy analysis.  The first step being the most important in my book.  From the top of my head, the authors suggest policy analysists clarify, define, and detail the problem.  I know there is some general idea of what fishing posts are doing to fishing, and you even included some email or phone conversations, but these little incidents do not suffice in satisfying the criteria.  Get some REAL data and bring it back to us to establish the necessity of this policy.  Go do some asking on the streams, calculate numbers, record conversations.  In other words, show us more than phantom snippets.  I am not inclined to put a lot of faith into folk who would encourage others to purchase uninsured vanguard accounts.  Would you?  I bet you a bottle of water that the data you collect would not suggest what you believe to be real.

2. This goes with the first suggestion.  Once a policy is violated, that violation becomes the new policy.  The fishable portion of Seven Mile is private property period.  There is no more discussion needed.  Since you and your staff made your new decision, it is now ok to spot burn private property.  Understand this pont?  I will give you an example.  I have an attendance policy built into my course syllabi.  The policy simple suggests that anyone who has more than 3 unexcused abscences during the course of the semester, will have one point reduced from their final grade.  Pretty simple right?  Well, let us say for example that there is a female student that has violated the policy, however, because she has nice ta-ta's, and likes to show them a little in class, I decide not to reduce her final grade.  What is the policy now?

Similarly, your policy on offensive language and such: get rid of those emoticons that suggest foul language and lewd behavior.  By including those as options in posts, you are in a sense saying it is still ok to use them.  I do not think it is good to have little yellow men humping each other on a fishing site?  I guess there might be some into that, but I take offense to that.  PC turned into a monster in the late 80's and early 90's.  Everyone was offending everyone.

3.  Teach your moderators the essence of the rule of law.  Just in case you do not know this, it suggests that no one is above the law, and those who are empowered to enforce the law, must abide by it as well.  If they cannot do it, get rid of them and start all over.  I do not respond well to "I do not see it that way."  If I called this person a mo88er f88ker, I do not see it as offensive.  So who is correct?

4.  I would get rid of the policy as you have it.  It ain't working and there really has not been many violations in the past that would suffice as spot burning.  I see the current policy as smoke and mirrors more than anything else.

5.  Finally, here is a simple little plan if you and your staff insist on having some policy.  When reporting fishing on public forums fishing it is recommended that such reporting be limited to:

Stream fished - by proper name - you have the stream maps and they are all listed.  If you want something to remain really sacred, take that stream off the listing.
Location - designated by lower, middle, and upper - not too specific - not overly vague - just right
Stream condition - excellent, good, fair, poor.

As an example - Fished upper 20-mile today.  There was good flow and color to the stream with plenty of action.

Now, how difficult was that?

Doc
post edited by Grendel - 2008/10/21 09:43:03

The strength of a person isn't measured by the muscle in their arm or how tall they stand, but rather, by the amount of knowledge and area of versatility they can cover. CM ~ 1987

Not a fan of Burgh teams. Get over it...
Dan
Administrator
  • Total Posts : 92
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2000/06/23 12:56:35
  • Location: Fairview, PA
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 10:45:33 (permalink)
Doc -

With all due respect, if what you propose in paragraph 5 is fine: "Fished upper 20-mile today.  There was good flow and color to the stream with plenty of action", then why is the following not fine?

"Fished lower 7-mile today.  There was good flow and color to the stream with plenty of action."

As you say, "The fishable portion of Seven Mile is private property period." As far as I know, the upper portion of 20 mile in PA is also private property.

Maybe I am just dense, but what is the basis for distinguishing the lower section of 7 mile from the upper section of 20 mile?

With respect to rapala11's comment, since Pymatuning Lake is public waters, the policy would not apply to that lake. It would only apply to areas located on private property, which would include streams and shorelines of waters other than Lake Erie or other navigable waters where the public has the right to fish.
Grendel
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1675
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/10/30 21:39:21
  • Location: Between Heaven and Hell
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 10:51:36 (permalink)
Dan,

There is no difference under the policy I proposed.  Since both streams are "officially" listed on the stream maps section of the site, they can be "generally" discussed on fishing reports.  Under the current "policy" (the one that has spawned this discussion), any report on private waters would be in violation.  By the by, the majority of streams are on private property.  Hence, the majority of posts would be in violation.  You have a real columdrum here - lol.
 
One last thing, I knew about 7-mile even before joining this site many moons ago.  So I realy have a problem in accepting that "the internet killed the steelhead fishing."

How things are worded mean a ton of difference.

Off to class.

Doc
post edited by Grendel - 2008/10/21 10:54:54

The strength of a person isn't measured by the muscle in their arm or how tall they stand, but rather, by the amount of knowledge and area of versatility they can cover. CM ~ 1987

Not a fan of Burgh teams. Get over it...
MackJ
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 522
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2007/10/25 14:06:09
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 10:57:02 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: Dan

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.


MackJ .. are you taking notes?



How much do you know about how that situation arose?  Was the landowner a registered and regular reader of this site or did one of the anti-spot-burning crowd alert him or her about the alleged "problem?"  Can every bit of additional traffic that the location experienced be related to a post on this Board?  Did no part of it occur by word-of-mouth, PM or e-mail?  Were the people who complained about the spot being mentioned equally responsible for heavy angling usage by (a) protesting too loudly; (b) telling a few of their select fishing pals about it; (c) returning to the property to enjoy the fishing themselves?  How did the first person know about the land in question?  In other words, did the landowner invite one person or did he/she open the land to public fishing by removing No Trespass signs?  How did that first, second, third, etc. person learn about the landowner's generosity?  Can you be certain that the same mechanism did not result in whatever amount of increased traffic occurred, rather than blaming it all on a message board post? 

These are just a few of the unanswered questions about these anecdotal "proofs" that message board or stream report posts identifying private land cause a large influx of unruly anglers to the exclusion of all other areas of the several creeks that are open to fishing by landowner generosity.  If you or anyone else can answer these questions honestly and by first-hand information, I will be glad to start "taking notes."
post edited by MackJ - 2008/10/21 10:58:55
D-nymph
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 6701
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 11:12:32 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dan

Doc -

With all due respect, if what you propose in paragraph 5 is fine: "Fished upper 20-mile today.  There was good flow and color to the stream with plenty of action", then why is the following not fine?

"Fished lower 7-mile today.  There was good flow and color to the stream with plenty of action."

As you say, "The fishable portion of Seven Mile is private property period." As far as I know, the upper portion of 20 mile in PA is also private property.

Maybe I am just dense, but what is the basis for distinguishing the lower section of 7 mile from the upper section of 20 mile? 



 
You are definitely not dense, you are totally accurate.  Grendel is not nearly as on target as he thinks he is.
 
If I may, I also agree with eggsac's version.
 
These places are ok be it, Erie CO, Ohio, down state, NY, or where-ever: 
- State/township/federally owned access points on rivers, streams & lakes.  (examples:  Yough Dam outflow, federally owned, Walnut Access, Mercyhurst Easement on Elk, etc).
- Special regulations waters, DHALO, Trophy Trout, DHFFO streams, etc.
- All State/federally owned lakes and reservoirs.
- All Navigable Rivers when fished from a boat.  (EX:  Floated Allegheny from Kennerdell to Emlenton)
 
These places are not ok:
- Private property on streams, rivers, lakes, ponds.  Simply, privately owned property, all of it!
 
There are other websites where you simply can not mention private property, some not even stream names of any sort.  There are simply too many guys with fragile egos that feel the need to boast and brag of their fishing prowess on the internet.
 
In order for this to be effective, moderators have to be thick skinned, and not be afraid of criticisms they will receive.  Moderators have to be knowledgable.  They have to be vigilant if a policy like this is to work.  They will receive cries of "my free speech rights are being violated, and that's garbage.  This is fish usa's website, they can regulate whatever they want to regulate.
 
One thing I will agree with Grendel about is getting rid of the emoticons with cursing in them and suggestive action.  It doesn't offend me, you have to work pretty hard to offend me.  I just think ithey're not necessary, and their presence can be interpreted as hypocritical in a way.
 
This is Dan's website, which many enjoy and have for a long time.  I thank him for being as nice as he has been for so long.  I feel a spot burning policy, with the extreme popularity of Fish Erie.com is now a necessity.  Five, six, seven years ago, it wasn't, but things change.
 
Thanks
 
 
 
 
egg sac
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 517
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2000/10/02 22:33:36
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 13:38:02 (permalink)
Dan,

one more thing to add with some of the land easments on the stream you could acualy say upper elk( rick road), lower elk( access) and middle elk(girard boro park area) as thier are state/boro owned land or esments in them areas and not violate the policy at all. with this in mind if someone said they fished upper elk without mentioning any specipic spot they would not truely violate the policy at all for the simple fact of the essment thier.if what the pa fish commision site shows we have 8 spots open to the public on elk so far and as long as one did not state a specific spot the should not be in any violation of the policy.As for Walnut creek thier are essments on it as well lower and middle araes but the upper area has none so any mention of the upper walnut would be in violation of policy but lower and middle would not be as long as no specic spot was mentioned.lower crooked has 3 araes as well.

I think if you redid the spot burning policy to look like this.


These places are ok to mention
-----------------------------
- State/township/federally owned access points on rivers, streams & lakes. (examples: Easements/state owned lands/boro lands on Elk, walnut, crooked 20 mile,and list then all, pymaytuning lake conneautlake, herford manor all navitable rivers/creeks like yough,french, allegany etc).
- Special regulations waters, DHALO, Trophy Trout, DHFFO streams, etc.
- All State/federally owned lakes and reservoirs.
- All Navigable Rivers when fished from a boat. (EX: Floated Allegheny from Kennerdell to Emlenton)

These places are not ok:
- Private property on streams, rivers, lakes, ponds. Simply, privately owned property, all of it!


if it was explained like this the policy would be very good and thier would be no need for interipitaion at all as it would have its guide lines all ready established without being to long or to restrictive.


And yes I took part of it from D-Nymph just modified it a bit.

SO MANY FISH SO LITTLE TIME.
WHY ARE ALL THE PLACES I HAVE YET 2 FISH SO FAR AWAY?
Grendel
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1675
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/10/30 21:39:21
  • Location: Between Heaven and Hell
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 13:43:04 (permalink)
I think that if this site, and its administrators are truely interested in preserving landowner respect, then they would eliminate the Reports Page altogether.  That is the ONLY solution that lends itself to no interpretation.  That is what I would do if i owned the site.  But then again, I own a set.
 
<POOF>
 
Doc

The strength of a person isn't measured by the muscle in their arm or how tall they stand, but rather, by the amount of knowledge and area of versatility they can cover. CM ~ 1987

Not a fan of Burgh teams. Get over it...
MackJ
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 522
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2007/10/25 14:06:09
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 13:50:47 (permalink)
This whole website exists to promote the fishery.  Without stream reports, the whole thing would be a waste of FishUSA's time.  While they might deny it now, eliminating reporting on fishing successes and fishing conditions is bad for business-- period.
D-nymph
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 6701
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 14:06:07 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Grendel


Now... I am done forever.

Doc

 
I think that if this site, and its administrators are truely interested in preserving landowner respect, then they would eliminate the Reports Page altogether.  That is the ONLY solution that lends itself to no interpretation.  That is what I would do if i owned the site.  But then again, I own a set.

<POOF>

Doc

 
Done forever?
 
genieman77
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2534
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 14:43:01 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: MackJ

These are just a few of the unanswered questions about these anecdotal "proofs" that message board or stream report posts identifying private land cause a large influx of unruly anglers to the exclusion of all other areas of the several creeks that are open to fishing by landowner generosity.  If you or anyone else can answer these questions honestly and by first-hand information, I will be glad to start "taking notes."


Mack, I'll ask again, how often do fish the Erie tribs for steel?
I kind of curious how long you've been fishing for them too

if you want to take to "notes", drive to the mouth Raccoon creek one day.
Then post a report that there are hundreds of fish there.
Go back the next day and look.

Do the same for Elk.
Go look around Whitman's bridge, then report you wacked TONS of fish.
Go back the next morning and have a peak at the parking lot

am I suggesting the word doesn't get out?
Of coarse not.
What I'm telling you is, a report can cause an explosion over night that doesn't ordinarily happen.
and as has been mentioned before by others and me, it's not just the increase of apples knockers, it's the shear volume of us good and bad.
...........................................................................................


Dan, I've always loved this site. I haven't frequented any other fishing site in years and years.
This one is tops in my book.
I've always appreciated the freedom of speech you've afforded us here.
You've shown tremendous tolerance over the years.
Thank you!

My suggestions may seem draconian, but if I was the King, I'd dump  public posts on the reports page all together in regards to "trib" steelie fishing.
Just a note of creek conditions is all that's needed.

I'd strictly limit what locations are mentioned in posts on the forums as well.
Even "general" locations mentioning fish where abouts would be taboo if I were King


..L.T.A.

SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 15:07:07 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: MackJ

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: Dan

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.


MackJ .. are you taking notes?



How much do you know about how that situation arose?  Was the landowner a registered and regular reader of this site or did one of the anti-spot-burning crowd alert him or her about the alleged "problem?"  Can every bit of additional traffic that the location experienced be related to a post on this Board?  Did no part of it occur by word-of-mouth, PM or e-mail?  Were the people who complained about the spot being mentioned equally responsible for heavy angling usage by (a) protesting too loudly; (b) telling a few of their select fishing pals about it; (c) returning to the property to enjoy the fishing themselves?  How did the first person know about the land in question?  In other words, did the landowner invite one person or did he/she open the land to public fishing by removing No Trespass signs?  How did that first, second, third, etc. person learn about the landowner's generosity?  Can you be certain that the same mechanism did not result in whatever amount of increased traffic occurred, rather than blaming it all on a message board post? 

These are just a few of the unanswered questions about these anecdotal "proofs" that message board or stream report posts identifying private land cause a large influx of unruly anglers to the exclusion of all other areas of the several creeks that are open to fishing by landowner generosity.  If you or anyone else can answer these questions honestly and by first-hand information, I will be glad to start "taking notes."

 
As in the past, you're ignoring the facts.  Not surprising.  I've told you about numerous cases before.  I'll leave you with a short one (one I stated before but you didn't address).   I went to PSU Behrend.  Numerous times, in computer labs I've seen students looking at the reports page on this site, calling up a friend, and stating spot X is Y, let's go fishing.  I made a friend by walking up to someone at school while they were on fisherie.  He was looking at the reports page.  We had two classes together that semester and often worked in groups.  He watched that page religiously and went fishing accordingly.   Sometimes state water, sometimes private, sometimes by himself, and sometimes with others.   Whatever the case, you won't listen ..  I've come to expect that. 

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
D-nymph
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 6701
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 15:14:54 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: SilverKype

As in the past, you're ignoring the facts.  Not surprising.  I've told you about numerous cases before.  I'll leave you with a short one (one I stated before but you didn't address).   I went to PSU Behrend.  Numerous times, in computer labs I've seen students looking at the reports page on this site, calling up a friend, and stating spot X is Y, let's go fishing.  I made a friend by walking up to someone at school while they were on fisherie.  He was looking at the reports page.  We had two classes together that semester and often worked in groups.  He watched that page religiously and went fishing accordingly.   Sometimes state water, sometimes private, sometimes by himself, and sometimes with others.   Whatever the case, you won't listen ..  I've come to expect that. 

 
Mack will call your post "anecdotal".
 
This site has 21,625 members, well, 21,624 since Grendel has promised to retire.  And at any one time you can log on and see that there are X number of registered users, and usually X x 3 unregistered usuers browsing.  That's a heck of alot of people browsing the site.
MackJ
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 522
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2007/10/25 14:06:09
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 15:24:47 (permalink)
I fished a section of the creek that was crowded and it was never mentioned on this board.  Do you have an explanation for that?  I also fished a section that had been highlighted here many of times and there was plenty of room for a dozen more anglers.  Your evidence from Beherend is unconvincing.  So you ran into a couple people who followed the reports to decide where to fish.  Do you know where they planned to fish before they read the report?  If they followed the report, were there a few less people at the place they otherwise would have fished?  Fishing reports don't create anglers from thin air.  Maybe it does draw some people out when they hear conditions are good, but otherwise, if such reports have any effect, they have a very minor effect in moving anglers from one part of the creek to another or from one stream to another.  I have been steelhead fishing for about 6-7 years, going a couple times a year and steadily increasing.  One thing that has increased my enjoyment is having more options on where I can fish.  I don't think I learned of a single spot by reading about it on this board, which I have visited for as long as I've been steelhead fishing.  I learn these other spots by exploring and also by being helped by other steelhead anglers.  The angler maps available here at Fish USA have helped me to find areas to fish as well.  In my opinion, the protests at the mention of a stream location do more to interest the lurking report chaser than does the post itself. 
genieman77
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2534
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: A new policy that will be enforced on Fisherie.com. 2008/10/21 15:42:08 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: MackJ

  I have been steelhead fishing for about 6-7 years, going a couple times a year and steadily increasing.


Thanks Mack
There's no doubt in my mind you're a good duud.
and I'll bet my bottom dollar your "speculation" of what you "think" happens on the creeks ,  will change 180 degrees if you're fortunate enough to increase you trips to 1 or 2 pr week

Hope to see you at the clean up next month.
PM me if you're interested in fishing that morning

..L.T.A.
Page: < 12345 > Showing page 4 of 5
Jump to: