Shops newsletters, reports and... hotspotting?

I’ve always been a bit skeptical as to the impact of so-called “Hot-Spotting”, no matter how the information made its way into the minds of humans who want to fish. Although we always encourage new-comers to the sport, embrace exposing youth to the sport and celebrate angling success; it appears we are collectively loath to share so called “hot spots”. Unfortunately, hot spots have been shared ad-infinitum for as long as human have communicated information via print and via our current digital age. I fish an extremely popular “hot spot” river every season, a river notorious for crowded conditions. I get 9-10 trips to this river every season and usually find the river abandoned. When I do find it crowded, I know when and where to go to where it is not crowded.

It’s been 50+ years since the titles displayed below (750+ pages) were published. Probably a bit dated but “hot-spotting” no less. Information is the life-blood of any society and we currently live in an era overflowing with information. Yet, despite all that information, I find it extremely easy to find quality angling undisturbed by those who think where I fish is a “hot-spot”,
IMG_0974.jpeg
IMG_0978.jpeg
IMG_0975.jpeg
IMG_0979.jpeg
 
Sounds like I need to move to Montana :).
 
The amount of traffic on the Hwy 2 creeks and rivers literally exploded after one fly shop started guiding and openly discussing the area online. When you are talking about rivers close to the metro sprawl in todays day and age, I think they should keep it over the counter and not blast it out in newsletters. The thing about putting people on those little rivers, whether or not the fishing is even truly good, is that the fishing kinda goes to hell when there are Subarus in every pullout and people hiking up and down stretches that were previously empty. Those same people also discover the joys of discovery after being gifted a starting point, and suddenly show up in all kinds of places. Whether any of that is truly bad or good, it makes a noticeable difference and I think fly shops should be aware of the impact they are making, especially in the form of a newsletter. I don’t think it’s working for anyone to just blast it over email.

You should have to buy a 3wt at full retail to get a blue line by name, not simply click “subscribe.”

My $.02
 
Peyton00 said:
View attachment 118767
Long before OMJ was born, they were spreading the news.
Click to expand...
But distribution of the news was limited to a local area for those that paid for it by car/bike every day. The internet, blogs, social media and newsletters are the total opposite.
 
Last edited:
Mike Cline said:
I’ve always been a bit skeptical as to the impact of so-called “Hot-Spotting”, no matter how the information made its way into the minds of humans who want to fish. Although we always encourage new-comers to the sport, embrace exposing youth to the sport and celebrate angling success; it appears we are collectively loath to share so called “hot spots”. Unfortunately, hot spots have been shared ad-infinitum for as long as human have communicated information via print and via our current digital age. I fish an extremely popular “hot spot” river every season, a river notorious for crowded conditions. I get 9-10 trips to this river every season and usually find the river abandoned. When I do find it crowded, I know when and where to go to where it is not crowded.

It’s been 50+ years since the titles displayed below (750+ pages) were published. Probably a bit dated but “hot-spotting” no less. Information is the life-blood of any society and we currently live in an era overflowing with information. Yet, despite all that information, I find it extremely easy to find quality angling undisturbed by those who think where I fish is a “hot-spot”,
View attachment 118755
View attachment 118757
View attachment 118756
View attachment 118758
Click to expand...
Mike,
I've never actually advocated for never naming any rivers. I fully support naming and reporting on the larger, well known rivers, lakes and systems. It benefits fly shops, guides as well as anglers, new, old, experienced and beginners. Rivers like The Deschutes, The Crooked, The Madison, The Missouri etc. There's so much information about these rivers and lakes coming out week in and week out that benefits the new angler that there's no need to name the tributaries of the tributaries that I'm referring to. This is by no means depriving the new generation of anglers opportunities or gate keeping kids from getting into the sport. And in fact, I believe it will teach them to be better anglers by having to get out and explore the areas for themselves and learn what makes a good (name your species) stream. At the very least it may get them into shops to ask for help (which again, is also what I'm advocating for). Sure, I understand you may find these rivers abandoned, but none of these rivers I'm specifically talking about can be kayaked backwards ;). And if you're referring to any of the above type rivers as your "so-called hot spot rivers," they're apples to oranges.

With all this being, I do think you're purposely being a devils advocate by saying "I’ve always been a bit skeptical as to the impact of so-called “Hot-Spotting”" Because in almost all your reports you attempt to with hold the name, or at the very least hide it behind a clever (albeit obvious) pseudonym. If you were as skeptical as you say you are, you'd be out there telling us where all you go-to spots are ;).

So again, I'll ask the question that @Josh asked in another thread (I'm going to beat this quote to death, I'm sorry). Is the report any less compelling without the river named? And if it isn't why include it? And if you NEED it to be named (as a reader), ask your self "Is needing the name to complete the story important or am I just being lazy and want my research handed to me on a silver platter?."

tim
 
Abbé Faria hot-spotted Monte Cristo to Edmond Dantès, but it's treasure was squandered on revenge against Danglars, Fernand, and Villefort.

 
mcswny said:
Mike,
I've never actually advocated for never naming any rivers. I fully support naming and reporting on the larger, well known rivers, lakes and systems. It benefits fly shops, guides as well as anglers, new, old, experienced and beginners. Rivers like The Deschutes, The Crooked, The Madison, The Missouri etc. There's so much information about these rivers and lakes coming out week in and week out that benefits the new angler that there's no need to name the tributaries of the tributaries that I'm referring to. This is by no means depriving the new generation of anglers opportunities or gate keeping kids from getting into the sport. And in fact, I believe it will teach them to be better anglers by having to get out and explore the areas for themselves and learn what makes a good (name your species) stream. At the very least it may get them into shops to ask for help (which again, is also what I'm advocating for). Sure, I understand you may find these rivers abandoned, but none of these rivers I'm specifically talking about can be kayaked backwards ;). And if you're referring to any of the above type rivers as your "so-called hot spot rivers," they're apples to oranges.

With all this being, I do think you're purposely being a devils advocate by saying "I’ve always been a bit skeptical as to the impact of so-called “Hot-Spotting”" Because in almost all your reports you attempt to with hold the name, or at the very least hide it behind a clever (albeit obvious) pseudonym. If you were as skeptical as you say you are, you'd be out there telling us where all you go-to spots are ;).

So again, I'll ask the question that @Josh asked in another thread (I'm going to beat this quote to death, I'm sorry). Is the report any less compelling without the river named? And if it isn't why include it? And if you NEED it to be named (as a reader), ask your self "Is needing the name to complete the story important or am I just being lazy and want my research handed to me on a silver platter?."

tim
Click to expand...
Although I truly remain skeptical of the purported impact of so-called hot-spotting, there is a logical reason I refrain to a large extent from doing so in my posts. Simply put I am just complying with Forum norms. Over the years I’ve read too many posts in this and other forums where some poor contributor gets flamed for naming a locale they had the good fortune to connect with some fish. I might characterize the impact of hot-spotting as being far closer to Taboos/Superstitions than to Reality. I may be wrong, but that’s my take.

Assessing the impact of hot-spotting is complicated by the sheer magnitude of potential hot-spots. A quick search of the USGS database on geographic names revealed these somewhat large numbers. I’d provide links but that would be Mega-hot-spotting. For each named stream or lake, geo-coordinates are provided with a display on a Topo map. Streams have both source and mouth geo-coordinates. No stream or lake is hard to find. (Whether they are viable fisheries is not included as that is probably in a state database somewhere), but surely some of them are worthy of hot-spot status.

Washington: Streams-6382, Lakes-3004
Oregon: Streams-12,154, Lakes-2003
Idaho: Streams-9246, Lakes-1319
Montana: Streams-9615, Lakes-2100
 
I think I have this book lying around some place...found some gems in it for sure! Then again, that combined with some calls to the local fish and wildlife office, and one can get far more information than from a "fly shop that fishes" could ever hope to provide.

1718975429462.png

That said, I could see your frustration because there are a ton of small streams that just can't handle all that much pressure.
 
and than there's irony, or is it hypocrisy...a decade back a friend and I had quite the day on King's, just the two of us on the bend of a river that to reach required us to get out and push my power Magnum over the gravel shallows, hooking up with a half dozen chrome bright thicksters with sea lice still on them
So that night, still buzzing on the day, my friend posted a single picture on FB of him holding up a husky King with a featureless riverbank behind him..and the following day got a face to face verbal thrashing from another friend for 'hot spotting', a friend who has authored many fly shop blog articles on what, where and how on several other rivers...the exception being the one we had scored on, as that river is his personal 'Private Idaho' for which even a vague picture is an offense of the highest order.
 
Calling @Dustin Bise... He will clear everything up.
 
Mike Cline said:
Although I truly remain skeptical of the purported impact of so-called hot-spotting, there is a logical reason I refrain to a large extent from doing so in my posts. Simply put I am just complying with Forum norms. Over the years I’ve read too many posts in this and other forums where some poor contributor gets flamed for naming a locale they had the good fortune to connect with some fish. I might characterize the impact of hot-spotting as being far closer to Taboos/Superstitions than to Reality. I may be wrong, but that’s my take.

Assessing the impact of hot-spotting is complicated by the sheer magnitude of potential hot-spots. A quick search of the USGS database on geographic names revealed these somewhat large numbers. I’d provide links but that would be Mega-hot-spotting. For each named stream or lake, geo-coordinates are provided with a display on a Topo map. Streams have both source and mouth geo-coordinates. No stream or lake is hard to find. (Whether they are viable fisheries is not included as that is probably in a state database somewhere), but surely some of them are worthy of hot-spot status.

Washington: Streams-6382, Lakes-3004
Oregon: Streams-12,154, Lakes-2003
Idaho: Streams-9246, Lakes-1319
Montana: Streams-9615, Lakes-2100
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm not sure what you're point is by saying this,

Washington: Streams-6382, Lakes-3004
Oregon: Streams-12,154, Lakes-2003
Idaho: Streams-9246, Lakes-1319
Montana: Streams-9615, Lakes-2100

I'm not asking Shops to not send out a list of 12,154 streams. I understand USGS lists all the streams with coordinates but thats not the point. It's irrelevant at best and disingenuous at worst. If you sent all 12k streams to a subscriber list of 1k, evenly spaced you have 12 anglers per stream. But if you send 1 stream to 1k subscribers you potentially have 1k subscribers to that one stream. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that is happening or will happen, but that is the possibility. And is that worth it? To sell a couple extra chubbys? I'm asking them to not send out 1 stream each week, that then sees increased (subjective) pressure. And with that being said I understand that effects of hotspotting are subjective: increased foot traffic, garbage, noise, quality of fish going down, et all. Our perspective on how rivers and streams are will always be different and I'm not immune to that. While you may not see the effects, I already have this year (in my specific region). I've never seen so many people fish these drainages that this shop posts about in the many years I've fished them. @Creatch’r has also posted a pretty specific example of his experience with shops posting names. Unfortunately I do not live in the Northern Rockies where trout streams are plentiful. And unfortunately I didn't have the fortune to fish in the good ole' days. These are my good ole days now, and I hope to not pine for these days in 20 years.
 
Last edited:
mcswny said:
Mike, I'm not sure what you're point is by saying this,

Washington: Streams-6382, Lakes-3004
Oregon: Streams-12,154, Lakes-2003
Idaho: Streams-9246, Lakes-1319
Montana: Streams-9615, Lakes-2100

I'm not asking Shops to not send out a list of 12,154 streams. I understand USGS lists all the streams with coordinates but thats not the point. It's irrelevant at best and disingenuous at worst. If you sent all 12k streams to a subscriber list of 1k, evenly spaced you have 12 anglers per stream. But if you send 1 stream to 1k subscribers you potentially have 1k subscribers to that one stream. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that is happening or will happen, but that is the possibility. And is that worth it? To sell a couple extra chubbys? I'm asking them to not send out 1 stream each week, that then sees increased (subjective) pressure. And with that being said I understand that effects of hotspotting are subjective: increased foot traffic, garbage, noise quality of fish going down, et all. Our perspective on how rivers and streams are will always be different and I'm not immune to that. While you may not see the effects, I already have this year (in my specific region). I've never seen so many people fish these drainages that this shop posts about in the many years I've fished them. @Creatch’r has also posted a pretty specific example of his experience with shops posting names. Unfortunately I do not live in the Northern Rockies where trout streams are plentiful. And unfortunately I didn't have the fortune to fish in the good ole' days. These are my good ole days now, and I hope to not pine for these days in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what @mcswny said (I couldn't have said it better).
 
mcswny said:
Rivers like The Deschutes, The Crooked, The Madison, The Missouri etc. There's so much information about these rivers and lakes coming out week in and week out that benefits the new angler that there's no need to name the tributaries of the tributaries that I'm referring to.
Click to expand...

This is the crux of it IMHO. There’s a huge difference between the Yellowstone and the little blue lines located nearby large population centers. When shops talk about small streams I think the best practice is just to call them small streams. E.g., “The west side North Cascades small streams are dropping into shape nicely. The water is still cold so don’t hesitate to drop a Frenchie or Pheasant Tail nymph off the back of your Chubby. Our fly bins of foam attractors and small nymphs are full up and we are ready to make recommendations when you come in! Hope to see you soon! Get out there and fish, the local trout are hungry.”
 
Matt B said:
This is the crux of it IMHO. There’s a huge difference between the Yellowstone and the little blue lines located nearby large population centers. When shops talk about small streams I think the best practice is just to call them small streams. E.g., “The west side North Cascades small streams are dropping into shape nicely. The water is still cold so don’t hesitate to drop a Frenchie or Pheasant Tail nymph off the back of your Chubby. Our fly bins of foam attractors and small nymphs are full up and we are ready to make recommendations when you come in! Hope to see you soon! Get out there and fish, the local trout are hungry.”
Click to expand...
IMHO your HO is spot on ;)
Although, Evan may have an issue with your grammar.
 
Could ya'll imagine what would happen if @Billy posted the coordinates of his bass ponds? Half of PNWFF would be there in a heart beat. I sure as shit would drive out there from Portland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top