I respect your opinion, as everyone is entitled to one, but must also respectfully disagree with you.
If you have secret fishing spots, and you wouldn't be upset if they are posted on the Internet, then why don't you post all of them to this mailing list? Go ahead; I'm sure nobody will mind. After all, I'm sure they're on public property, and I'm sure you wouldn't mind a bit of company, would you? How about ten guys leaving their trash, wading where they shouldn't be, destroying riparian habitat, and mistreating the fish? Have you been to Rocky Ford lately? Would you like your secret spot to become like that? If so, feel free to post it here, or anywhere on the Internet. I'm not saying everyone does that, but the point is part of the reason that secret spots evolved is so that the information is passed to people that people trust, people who aren't going to do those things. Posting them up on the Internet is like writing an article in a major newspaper or magazine, sure it's public land, but no one would have known about it if there wasn't something publicly written about it. I think, perhaps I've not made myself clear and you've missed my point. I'm sure it works for Ted Turner, but frankly I don't have as much money as him, I spend all of it on fishing. As Tom even said in his reply, "I also don't want to expose any "secret" fishing spots since un-pressured water is hard to find." By posting a location on a public mailing list, you are exposing a secret spot. A better way to go about it would be to say "Does anyone know where Rattlesnake Creek is? If so, please send me a private message." I will disagree with you when you say that, "Now if someone else fishes the same spot (on public land) as I do and he/she tells others, that is his/her business." In my opinion, if someone else fishes the same spot and tells someone else PUBLICALLY, that's my business. If they tell one of they're friends, there is nothing I can, or want to do about it. The point is, there is certain information that does not need to be publicly available, and I don't feel there is anything wrong in trying to defend a "secret fishing spot" from being Regarding the gentleman's agreement on not revealing secret spots, perhaps we have two different views of what a "gentleman's agreement" is. I've read the charter, perhaps you should look up the dictionary definition for a gentleman's agreement. Actually, I'll save you the time. The American Heritage Dictionary says, "An unwritten agreement guaranteed only by the pledged word or secret understanding of the participants." Yes, of course it's not written into the charter, because a gentleman's agreement is an agreement, among gentleman, to do or not to do something. Hopefully, if I am wrong in believing that this existed, other members of the board will inform me of such. I'd like to bring up one last point; you say that forcing my will on other is incorrect, which I agree with. However, I notice that no one responded to his post with the location. I did notice that a number of people did respond and admonish him for asking. You may also notice in Tom's posting that he said, "As was pointed out to me the last time I asked about Rattlesnake I was admonished to do my own exploring and not to expect to be given any easy information." Well unless someone else would like to stand up and give away this secret, then perhaps it is the wish of the majority on the board that this secret not be given away? It's not me who's forcing my will on someone, it's the will of the people on the list who chose to respond. Ryan Davey MSN GSC Calling Fly Fishing a hobby is like calling Brain Surgery a job. - Paul Schullery -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Santangelo Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 3:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where is Rattlesnake Creek? or de facto censorship I have secret fishing spots. I don't tell anyone nor do I brag or let on about it. I think that is childish. It is like a child saying, "I have something you don't have". Now if someone else fishes the same spot (on public land) as I do and he/she tells others, that is his/her business. I may not be happy about, but if it is public land, so be it. They pay taxes like I do. (I hope) Besides that, where does one draw the line, admonishment, intimidation maybe threats of violence? Violence has been inferred on the other Washington Board. If people want something and feel others shouldn't have or share in it, then go buy it. Our system supports private property. It works for Ted Turner. Attempting to block access to a public recourse (read our tax dollars) selfish. Look at Ebey Lake. As far as a gentleman's agreement, I've been on this list for a long time. I don't remember any such agreement. Maybe Wes can correct me. Personally, I suggest you read the charter. If you don't agree with the charter, ask Wes to change it or start your own list. "... to provide a forum for the discussion of fly fishing and fly fishing-related issues in Washington, and as a means of sharing fly fishing experiences, knowledge and advice among fly fishers within the state and surrounding areas. We ask only that you be courteous to your fellow fly fishers and generous in sharing your knowledge." Remember, nobody is forcing you to say anything. I feel forcing your will on others is incorrect. Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ryan Davey Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where is Rattlesnake Creek? or de facto censorship Mike, I must, unfortunately, disagree with you. In my opinion, there are questions that should be asked, and there are questions that shouldn't be asked. When I joined this mailing list, I was under the impression that there was a gentleman's pact not to give away secret spots. Let's do a little role-play for a minute, shall we? Say you had a beautiful little creek in the desert that had some nice fish in it, and was just about unknown except to a few. Every time you went there, you had it to yourself, and that was a good thing, because such small creeks cannot take a lot of pressure. Now let's say that someone posts something about it on the Internet, and the next time you go out there, you find six other "gentlemen" on your creek, after having driven a large amount of miles. On such a small creek, you may not be able to fish at all with that many people there. Perhaps this has never happened to you. If you want to know how it feels, ask Kent Lufkin, I seem to remember something about a newspaper article and a lake. Would you sing the same tune if someone were to go and post the GPS coordinates of your favorite little hidden lake, or your favorite steelhead pool, where you used to be able to go and fish all day without seeing someone? Where the fish were large, and after that day, the fishing slowly got worse? Secret spots have been around for as long as fishing have been around, my father had them, my grandfather had them, and I hope one day my sons have them. I've spent six months finding this spot, searching through watershed maps, aerial photography, topographic maps, talking to people, driving down dead end roads, hiking miles through the desert... So yes, I as a list member have a problem with people asking questions, and specifically with people posting answers about certain creeks, because to some of us, they are "secrets". I CARE for the pertinence of certain questions, because it affects me. That IS my business. In addition, I don't believe that Tom's question was a "pertinent fly fishing question". Trying to get free information about secret desert creeks is not a pertinent fly fishing question. Tom, nothing against you personally, it's just that in my opinion, some spots, in particular sensitive ones, have to be earned. I don't believe such spots should be given out to everyone, partly because of the sensitivity of such places, and by posting it on the Internet, you are giving it out to everyone. Yes, everyone on the WaFF mailing list, and anyone who cares to view the archive on the web page. Just my 2 cents. Ryan Davey MSN GSC Calling Fly Fishing a hobby is like calling Brain Surgery a job. - Paul Schullery -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Santangelo Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where is Rattlesnake Creek? or de facto censorship Tom, It is a shame that you, and probably others, don't ask pertinent fly fishing questions because of admonishment by others on the list. There is only one participate on this list that can admonish or censor anybody as far as that is concerned. That is the list owner. Others may not care for the pertinence of a question, but that isn't their business. On second thought, they aren't afraid of your asking the question. They are afraid of somebody answering it. But, if someone wants to answer, that is their business as well. This list has gone thru this "fear of asking" tactic before. It seems to have worked. Washington Fly Fishing.com is experiencing now. I don't believe it should be so. Mike Santangelo -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of T. Lang Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 1:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Where is Rattlesnake Creek? Interesting.... I have some ideas, but I don't want to give anything away.... As was pointed out to me the last time I asked about Rattlesnake I was admonished to do my own exploring and not to expect to be given any easy information. I also don't want to expose any "secret" fishing spots since un-pressured water is hard to find. I will say, however, that my Streams Map of Washington lists about 6 Rattlesnake Creeks, and at least one of them could be a likely suspect.... provided the Creek of Lore really is named Rattlesnake. There's some other suspects, too. BTW, Ryan, what does "ROTFL" mean? Thanks, Tom _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
