: Per new boards to discuss the "state of the sport"
As I said I am happy to create new sections if they move in the direction of the site's goals, and see that the thread has grown even more since I printed out the 32 page printer-freindly version a short while ago!
I am not sure I have my head around this yet, there are a few directions it seems to be going. Let's keep the dialog going on it while I catch up to the concept tonight after I wrap up a few open tasks I am working on currently.
05-05-2002, 07:40 PM
It is my belief that two boards be created dealing with flyfishing issues and philosophy, respectively.
OC started the thread on sleds, pro or con. It seems to me that there was an underlying question here which asked the question of where has flyfishing gone from a philosophical point of view.
Granted one board could be used for both but, why confuse the discussions (you may note that dialog drifted between the two points when between the individual posts AND within these posts)?[Boy that was a tough one - couldn't find a suitable substitute for the word "between". Seems somewhat redundant.] In essence, the real world issue of sleds, etc., and the abstract of individualized thought/belief. See, it's even difficult here to differentiate.
Bottom line, I believe two boards would be less confusing.
05-05-2002, 08:33 PM
reasons. First, he may well be right that the two topics are 'separate but equal.'
And as this board has major separations on "threads," if something/someone gets carried away you/Dana have the 'switch.' (Side Bar: how is Dana? Haven't seen a post from my guy in some time.) Back to my point, as blunt as two single malts can make it.:rolleyes:
The 'threads' here appear to be written by men/women displaying a high level of intelligence, experience, background, and solid grounding. (A college degree(s) does not equal intelligence; think we've all run into that.) In the run of this/Spey board how many times have the greater 'you' had to hit the 'button?' Suspect that one could count them on one hand with fingers left over.
Think it through; if it fits .... let her rip.
Philosophy and issues... are kind of everywhere and nowhere in particular. Although I am getting a little clearer on the "what", I am still struggling to understand the "why".
There is no constraint whatsoever for discussions of philosophy today... so forgive me for being a little unclear as to the need. Besides philosophies are valuable to those who seek, not those who would proclaim. And philosophies are so subjective that they may apply to only one individual.
Issues are better solved than debated. Issues appear often enough without any additional invitation.
If "issues" arose from "philosophies" well then I would be very concerned. You yourself recognize that the two were deeply intertwined in the original thread. What assurance would one have that this would not fuel that fire?
How would it differ from the civil and effective discussions we already have?
BTW - I have received requests to the contrary as well, albeit not publicly. To uphold one view is to deny another. I am not afraid to deny one side or the other, but not without complete clarity and not against the greater good.
For me it makes no difference if we have one area or two as the philosophies and issues are so intertwined they might not be ever able to be seperated. As you said these two ingrediences are everywhere and nowhere in particular. Because of that, it would be good to have a place for them where all groups that use this site come together into an important discussion on the future of fly fishing.
I'm not sure on your last statement but it sounds a bit scarry after all your site is a place to comunicate amongst flyfishermen so to uphold one view is to deny another does not sound right to me with respect to you. I fully understand that there are people out there who believe that the state of fly fishing is good but they should not have any objections to participating as we may learn much from them. I also relize that there are those out there that who do not want any discussion on the subject to protect thier own interests. To me just the thought that if there were folks out there who disagreed with the conversation why they did not participate is a bit upsetting and what does it mean to you that they send silent e-mails to voice concern when you have worked so hard to create what you have created. Anyway I hope you make the right choice as debate must take place before actions can take place. We as fly fishermen must have some sort of ethics to work with and to pass on to the new fly fishermen and women. If we don't start something soon more and more laws will be made against what fly fishermen love to do. It's already happening in the rocky mountains and how long will it be before our loved Cape Cod flats are shut down to walkers because there are too many of us.
Flytalk means a lot and a lot of different things to many, that is what makes it so good, keep up the good work Juro.
05-05-2002, 11:51 PM
Speech is civilization itself. The word, even the most contradictory word, preserves contact - it is silence which isolates.
- Thomas Mann
Pretty much sums up my feelings on debate.
05-06-2002, 11:31 AM
I would support a special site for this debate simply because it does not seem a proper fit for the PNW Steehead forum. And I will admit that sometimes I am up for the philosophical debate and sometimes I just want to talk fishing.
If this discussion was moved then it could stand on its own or fail if there was lack of interest.
FYI: I also am having a tough time getting my arms around this "movement" and where it is going. Even after rereading the lengthy thread and talking to OC on the phone, I am confused. If we are trying to codify fly fishing ethics, there might be value in the endeavor. If we are trying to rebel against the industry, technology and bringing new people into the sport, then we are all a bunch of hypocrites. And before anyone takes exception to that last remark, when a person on this board is willing to sell his equiptment to save the resource, then I will apologize for it.
Damn, need to run to a meeting. Back later.
Well said - I second those thoughts.
05-06-2002, 12:38 PM
Come, come, gentlemen. Never have I advanced the idea that a board should be established for the purpose of flaming any being - whether human or corporate. I would quickly tire of such nonsense and seek the boards unraveling personally. No, when I have a beef with corporate I take it to the CEO as directly as any private person can via mail. Surprisingly, if your tone is correct and your beef has merit, they often contact you for a discussion.
As I stated previously with regards to issues, I want the board to strive for resolutions - not REVOLUTION. I want members to be able to bring their concerns to the board where it can be addressed by others; can be seen and discussed from another's perspective. Maybe some old timer knows how to solve the issue. Maybe some younger member has been there, done that and can show the way. And maybe all we can do is discuss our concerns and shepard our cause with more foresight towards the future.
There is no denying that any such board has the undesireable ability to attract flamers. But the answer, at least to me, is not to deny debate but to set a correct tone that members must adhere to and vigorously defend as a condition of such freedom. All participants must know that there is no place in liberty for chaos.
Finally, I must profess my inability to comprehend the difficulty others have in understanding the need for a board to discuss the ethereal nature of our "sport". "To understand the future, we must understand the past", or something like that - rings as true now as it always has. It's an identity thing; just who are we and what do we as enlightened beings profess to be right and GOOD about our sport. The collective absract of our thoughts define who we are and what we hold dear and true with regards to flyfishing.
And as to WHY...because it sets the rules for our interactions with our peers. It returns civility to our pastime. It supports us.
Gotta go, my bulls loose in my orchard. Will return later...
Sinktip my good friend,
To answer some of your concerns truthfully.
Yes this about codifying ethics.
No this is not about limiting the number of new people in the sport. You know I have been a strong mentor for new fishermen for over 25 years on a one to one basis.
Do I have a concern how new people enter the sport? Yes!
Do I want to destroy the industry? No, as you know I fish with the most advanced technology and most expensive equipment made today and I enjoy being broke because of it.
Do I want to be critical of the Industry? yes, just take any fly fishing mag and read from the back cover forward.
Will I be critical of some of the goings on with we as fly fishermen? Yes, and may someones toes get steped on if we proceed? most likely, but hopefully we are grown men and women and not the total wimps that, " Angie the Fishing Godess" believes we are.
I have every bit of courage to talk about what is good in our sport as what is wrong with the sport when the occasion is present.
What is the fear my fellow fly fishermen? Need we not take a look into the mirror once in awhile to see that the bald spot is getting bigger and that we are getting a little fatter as time goes on? Yes looking in the mirrow may not stop those things from happening but the reality check is a more than helpfull in finding out where we are at.
You are right, looking in the mirror is good thing - from time to time. However, obsessively staring into one is not a healthy thing. I think that from time to time we all need to examine ourselves and our practices. A healthy discussion followed by time to reflect and ruminate on thoughts and new ideas may be worthwhile.
My trepidation with what has been proposed here is the strong liklihood for it to get out of hand. The very length and breadth, as well as the passion of the original thread bear witness to the deeply held feelings. Yes, for the most part civility was maintained - this time. No guarantees are in place for future discussions. We have a special place with this board and I for one am loathe the put a good thing in jeopardy. That is what I fear we will do if we create an "Ethics Police". Not that we should hide our heads in the sand, but rather than create a permanent "target centre" we reserve the discussion around the topic for situations as they arise - like the jet-sled thread.
If members of this board wish to look into the "Ethos of Flyfishing" then I think that it might be a good idea to take it off the open board into a chat room format. That way those who want to get into it can. Just a thought.
05-06-2002, 04:32 PM
"Ethics Police". Now there is an epithet out of the dirty tricks bag, and one sure to end any balanced discussion. I expect Juro to rubber stamp Kush's condemnation any minute.
Unlike Mr. Quixote, I know the difference between dragons and windmills. Come on Sancho, let us share a beer and crank up Clapton for a good cry.
persona non gratis
Don't for the life of me know why you would want to keep this off the board? Others I can understand but, oh well.
How can one say that it is obsessive when hardly anyone has really looked into the mirror induvidually or collectivelly. How often in all the years of fly fishing have you seen the discussion, Health of Fly Fishing Today, been brought up?
If you or anyone is worried about what could happen to flytalk then you have not given the power of flytalk the credit it is due.
Juro the man behind flytalk is a hero to all of us for what he has created here. It is why I even brought the subject up in the first place here as this site can handle it. I'm sure Juro knows full well that if he lets the discussion go on that some will even take a stab at Flytalk, most likely he knows I will. But Juro knows that it's not personal and he knows that flytalk can stand on it's own just fine if some constructive lobs are thrown that way.
This subject the health of fly fishing has not been even touched on yet, not one bit. To say the least it will be an interesting discussion and a healthy one. Just take a look at the hits on the subject, there is an interest there. Then again I may be wrong and folks are just coming over to NW Salmon&Steelhead section to see if there gonna be some type war go on.
Juro has the right to end this or go on and if he goes on he has the big button at his side, it is always the equalizer.
"Do all fly fishermen wear silk pajamas and where is Haig-Brown when you need him?"
Just the way this thread has gone should tell us something. We are approaching a realm of religion, politics, etc. - these are the things I am escaping when I am fishing.
I think we are still deficient in many ways here on FlyTalk. One of the biggest areas is our contribution to society, giving back like the Father's Day event for Big Brother Assoc. Being a national resource for helping scouts achieve their flyfishing merit badges. There is a lot of work to do, God knows I have enough on my plate as it is. I can't see the justification for this proposal in a broad sense, for the greater good.
I propose the following choices:
a) we take an anonymous vote to decide on the proposal's fate. Our poll system does not allow multiple votes per user.
b) we set up a no-holds barred chat area. This could be interesting actually; as long as it doesn't spill into the forum.
c) we add a new section of the site dedicated to free speech and editorialization by members - where we publish editorials written by members like you with a modicum of editorial control as expected for any publication. This section will not be in FlyTalk.
05-06-2002, 05:52 PM
Believing you are solicitating opinion, I'll weigh in -
a. Provided the system is chad free:devil: , suits my democratic nature. A time period of say 30 days to assure others not here due to travel, etc., have a say?
b. Entertaining. The most flame prone I would think.
c. Great for long-winded members like myself, yet for the less vocal not so desireable.
I would prefer "a". All or nothing. Let the chips fall as they may.
05-06-2002, 09:51 PM
One the subject of Sleds et al...
There are a limited number of "active participants" sharing their "perspective" (call them opinions, views, ethos, beliefs, passion or whatever) on a subject matter (however entwined it may be).
There appears to be a much larger number of "viewers".
Some viewers became active others not. (persumtion on my part here!)
Some viewers may have gained something others not. (another presumption!)
I only hope that with or without a "unique place on the board", this type of discussion on perspectives that we as members and FFshers have, will continue.
My last presumption is that the membership is "growed up" enough to determine whether they want to become active or not in any given thread.
So if I were to vote, I would suggest that we do not "need" a "Perspectives" section all on its own.
I would support one if it came to be, on subjects where I feel my "perspective" could add to the discussion and my interests.
As for Flaming, one first needs a flame orientation to start with, not to be confused with extreme passion about a topic, and, I have yet to "read" any flames on this board, having been here since inception.
A Tribute To The Membership!
Well, I guess that's more than .02!