Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 217 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why is it that all of the threads pertaining to Small Water reports get closed?
Sure they get heated, but it's a valid issue. Impacts of reports are a fact. There has never been a website with this many members and viewers. If some of the seasoned fishermen consider this something that needs to be addressed, it shouldn't be swept under the rug for the sake of mouseclicks. It's no different than some of the other issues that come across this board. As unpopular as QDM is with some, it's still something that is allowed to be discussed, but not the pressures that a post might have on a watershed.
I don't get it.

I'm not trying to start something, but eventually the line has to be drawn somewhere. Public access is limited as is parking and there's only so many holes available to the public.
In a season as spotty as this one, don't be fooled that a post of limits won't draw 50% of the fishermen to that area.

Sure it's nice to read that someone had a good day on river X using speys, but it's time for the management to pull their heads out of the sand and look beyond the instant gratification of 30 replies and 500 reads. Was that the initial intent of this site? I doubt it.

A concerned Fisherman
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
I agree. I thought Thousandcasts did a great job of explaining the issue. then it got closed.

We have a legit gripe with how this is being managed. I do have some animosity when people concerned about a resource have a legit gripe and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon claiming we are whiners.

Another concerned fisherman!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,859 Posts
I have to agree that this needs to be discussed in depth. I withhold specific information from my river posting. Mainly because the rivers I fish the vast majority of the time are in the south east corner of the state, and I want to still be able too fish the spots I do without waiting in line for a parking spot and stand shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of guys whipping the water into a boilling cauldron of ineptitude with fish cowering on the bottom wearing hard hats to protect themselves from the onslaught of hardware. I can manage that just fine in my solitude, thank you.

I would hope that just once, we could have a discussion on this issue that will last more than 10 posts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
Amen, Esox. :) the problem is when this gets brought up, somebody has to post...

It's not YOUR river". read thousandcasts post. It really was a great way of saying what I am trying to....

It ain't about OUR river. It is all of OUR river. And we are trying to protect it for YOU.....US!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,269 Posts
What is the solution then? We tried the no naming policy and that did not go over so well. I remember a poll being started and it was 80% to around 20% for those in favor. I myself have thought about this at length and have yet to come up with an answer.

Do we go to a format where certain streams are unmentionable? Because a blanket policy of no naming all rivers just won't fly. Or do we leave it where it is? I asked a private question to another member the other day and i guess i will ask publically of a few of you. What threads are we seeing problems with? I went back a few pages in NW, SW, SE, and NE and saw very few threads where specifics were mentioned. Sure there were a few threads that mentioned the Clinton has fish and listed a few techniques or that the Au Sable is in ok shape..... or a few fish were caught in Hesperia, but there was not a single post that made me go "WOW" that river is on fire i should probably get over there.

Concerning steelhead i rarely mention a river name, i have mentioned tippy before and maybe the grand.... past that though i keep it quiet. I try and use as much discretion as possible. I do remeber this last fall though saying that there were a lot of salmon in the pm, but who doesn't know that?

Btw, I am going fishing this weekend and if anybody here wants to join me I will be on the ..... River. And don't worry, i won't post any reports back. :D :D That is one river i don't post on. But seriously it is an open invite, shoot me a pm if you are interested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
Mickey, protect it from what? Overfishing? Those steelhead will get stocked again and again. We aren't talking about little streams with native brookies that are sensitve to overharvest. Its just steelhead.

Full parking lots mean lots of happy fishermen doing what they love, its a good thing.;)

I agree with what Esox says, I wouldn't want to post a report on something like that and I think most of the members are smart enough to see that and do the same.

I think we would be better off just encouraging discretion, not censorship.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
I just deleted a post of two and reopened the thread in question.

Debate is welcomed and enjoyed, as long as it is kept civil. The topic in question has had a history of "going south" in a hurry.

Concerning the mention of QDM, in the past year, with some excellent work by the moderators and site administrators, that thread has turned into an excellent discussion for those who are itnerested. There have been comments made, mostly pro, but with some negative remarks, but the tenor of the talk is civil, with members respecting a differing of opinions.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Quest,

This is exactly why this needs to be discussed. We can't turn a blind eye. Eventually something needs to be done. Be it at 10000 or 20000 members. It can't go on.
Maybe base it on cfs of 1000 or less????

I'm glad to see that Paul is willing to allow us this opportunity.
BTW, Pat and I are also fishing River X this weekend..LOL Maybe we'll run into you
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,859 Posts
Whats the solution? I don't know. One thing I am certain of is that there is no solution that will make everybody happy, much less comfortable with what ever is arrived at.

I have so many mixed feelings on the subject, I am not even sure of where I stand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
We have a legit gripe with how this is being managed. I do have some animosity...
With all this animosity present, and an issue mainly beyond a single individual's, or website's , or publisher's, or word of mouth's control, why do we need to continue the debate to freshen the wounds? Inevetibly it's the name calling and personal attacks that closes the threads down.

I think the members and moderators are more aware about the issue, and now the new reports are coming in slow, with slim details and cropped photos to protect the resources, to appease the concerned people. There is more whining and complaining than reports lately it seems. Most of the concerned sportsmen have eliminated posting their reports already. Would you suggest shutting down the river forums all together, maybe all websites and publishers too?

I think we are on the right track, and most, if not all of the concerned people have had a chance to express their opinions already and a decision has been made.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Maybe base it on cfs average of 1000 or less????
Just an idea. This would include the Rifle, Rogue, Boardman and many others. It will in no way discourage reports of success and what was used, just the naming of these rivers
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,125 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Oh Tim, here we go again...LOL

I see your point. Sure these threads get out of hand, but so did the QDM forum. We got over that.
If there's a bad post, pull it. Send a warning, whatever it takes to keep it civil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,957 Posts
Originally posted by Brian S

Full parking lots mean lots of happy fishermen doing what they love, its a good thing.;)

Indeed, but I think the point is that one particular spot might get overwhelmed with pressure do to an internet post. Otherwise, those same cars might be spread out between 3 parking spots instead of crammed into one.

This is not going to be an easy fix. A specific list of acceptable river names would fix it, but getting people to agree on the rivers is another story. Also, limiting posts to just be by regions without river names would fix it since a questionable river name would not have the chance of being mentioned. However, many would call that censorship of larger rivers that can handle more pressure. I'm not suggesting either, just talking. It would be nice to come to some conclusions on this and move on.

A lot of the recent post with specific questions or posts about sensitive waters are from new members who may not know any of the history of the issues that have developed due to the growth of this membership.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Point taken Ralf. This issue, like the QDM issue stirs up emotions that are personal and heartfelt. As long as civility prevails there is no reason a topic cannot be discussed.

There is no reason to continue to express one's animosity or rage at every opportunity either. It's a personal decision and a priveledge to be part of these forums. No one is forced to read or reply to any thread.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,859 Posts
Allowing the naming of large rivers only is essentially what the policy is now. I have no problem with that. Just as long as no one mentions "My" river, the Mighty Clinton. ;) :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,997 Posts
There is no reason to continue to express one's animosity or rage at every opportunity either.
Sure, I'll take that as being directed at me, but I fail to see where I've been anything but civil in this entire debate. Read the entire post and decide if I'm being unreasonable..."Animosity" though, was not something that I expressed. Others have formed their opinions, so be it. If by using the word "rage" to describe my reaction at ONE particular example of exploitation makes me uncivil...geez.

If anything, I think that more venom has been directed at myself and others who are just as concerned about the same issue. Why? Who knows...

At this point, I really don't care to debate it any further. I was simply trying to explain that keeping people off the river is not the intent of this debate. For me, it's a concern for the resource...nothing more, nothing less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
What if there was a "Warning" msg that came up before anyone posted a new thread, kinda like the message that asks "Are you sure you want to log off?", that reminded people of the possible impact their post may make on the crowding issue? It would at least make people pause and think about how specific they want to get before posting.

This would help any new members from getting too specific and serve as a reminder for the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,778 Posts
My original post was just meant to point out the effect of just having someone see you on the river can have. Anyone can see if having 20 cars see you fishing triggers an influx of fisherman, what effect do you think a post has?

That river is not fragile and does not need to be protected, but it just points out the laziness of some people.

There are 2 types of steelheaders, the "hard core" guys that fish when and where they want regardless of fishing reports or number of fish in the river. Then there are the "Instant Gratification" types that don't want to waste their time unless they are assured to get their "sure thing".

I simply have no respect for the second type.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
With all this rage and animosity present, and an issue mainly beyond a single individual's, or website's , or publisher's, or word of mouth's control, why do we need to continue the debate to freshen the wounds? Inevetibly it's the name calling and personal attacks that closes the threads down.
My animosity stems from the inability of people who know better to undertsand the problem. Speaking of animosity, looking through this thread, I see a lot directed towards myself.

As far as the Clinton is concerned fellas, I know this is an inside joke with the moderators, but it is not a joke to me. It only takes a little common sense to understand that this is a SE stream (Esox, you stated this earlier in the thread), in a heavily populated area with a limited run at best. It is not rocket science. We have gone round and round about it, but I can tell you that most who oppose the idea dont even fish it. And from Esox's post, it seems that even he is coming around.

What about recent posts on the White as well, Quest? This is not a fishery that withstand the hit of internet exploitation? Why is the river your fishing this weekend more important than that one?

Its just steelhead.
Brian S., if this is how you feel about it, then I guess we have differing viewpoints on the resource.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
Concerning steelhead i rarely mention a river name, i have mentioned tippy before and maybe the grand.... past that though i keep it quiet.
Yeah, but what if I made a post on YOUR river....you don't OWn the river. We are all sportsman, we should share those things...

See how frustrating that is?

You keep it quiet because you know this place has an impact! What is so hard to see about that? You guys claim it doesnt but then hold out on your info. as well. Thats hypocitical..
 
1 - 20 of 217 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top