Industry Ethics Opinion

[4peace1piece]

Thought provoking - Presented without further comment:

Link

OPINION: Fly Fishing “Brand Ambassadors” + Social Media - What Might They Be Doing to Your Fishery?

 

[littledavid123]

Great article

I don't care one lick for these showboats, never watch their films or read the articles. More importantly it's why I never post where I fish anymore as the last thing I want is my hard to find good fishing waters overwhelmed by these go-pro boys.

Dave

 

[flytie09]

I've pretty much stopped taking pictures of my fish. Primarily because I fish alone, secondly how many pictures of you with a fish do you honestly need and lastly I realize it's not easy to get "that shot"....

I'm out for the experience, the memories, the smells and sights. There are some I've posted to this site....but they are random once every 5 years if I'm lucky. I use them more to tell a story. A picture occasionally is nice...but it's not a necessity. I'm definitely not seeking out free gear or social media rep.

That's me.....back on track.....I see too many of these hero shots in progress and it is bothersome. In order to get that shot....the fish is held out of the water for a long time. I've seen it. Flopped around in a net, on the rocks and in and out of the water (if the fish is lucky). It's dead I tell myself......and it is an unsettling event to watch.

We as a community should ask that the tackle manufacturers and magazine editors (and ourselves) fully vet the source of these pictures, to not reward with perks and accolades to minimize the "hero shots" and challenge what a responsible picture should look like. Keep them wet all day long.....and I'm on board.

The article kind of attacks Mr Duke pretty hard. Did he deserve it? You can be the judge of that.
The message the writer was trying to portray definitely could have been done in a different manner. But I get where he's coming from.

I can say this...it is commendable that as anglers that we can discuss and challenge the entire "hero shot" social media culture and what is "acceptable". 50 years ago...we would all have our fingers buried in bleeding gills or grasping our full stringers with ear to ear grins. I think we've all been there if we've been around long enough. We've come a long way.

 

[Ard]

I've tried to make my position clear for years, I don't like the hype. We've had some movie makers join and post their buck nasty rubbish here and I would have banned them soon as I saw their show but too many were commenting and liking so I left them fade away on their own.

15,708 posts and 115 bolg entries here as well as another 45 or so on my own website and somehow I've managed to never mention the rivers and creeks I fish by name. Like Dave I don't watch the videos, I watched buck nasty rubbish for a couple minutes because I'm a moderator here that's the only reason. I've never clicked a like on a picture of a spawning brown trout being squeezed by some fish pervert and I don't 'Like' pictures of people holding fish out of the water. I don't care who likes me or not but I fish because I enjoy myself while doing it not to create some level of fame for myself. I could be a Brand Spokesman, a Pro Staffer etc. heck I've even been ask if I'd be interested in such. The only thing I did that was different was to be a presenter at our Alaska Spey Clave and I just tried to teach people how to be more efficient at fishing I wasn't there to promote myself or my tiny business.

I do not buy the magazines and can't stand the Fly Fish Alaska one!

 

[el jefe]

In defense of so-called "hero shots"...

I actually enjoy the fish porn. I love seeing the beautiful colors on the fish that other people catch. I cannot possibly catch in a lifetime such a stunning variety of the species. Especially trout, whose sides are nature's art to me. I don't take pictures of the fish I catch, mostly because (a) I typically don't have a camera with me, and (b) I don't think about it or care about taking my own. I guess maybe I truly am into fish porn, because I like just looking at other people's pictures.

The gentleman's article left me a little uneasy, in his attack on the fisherman. I don't think the author's point is far off the mark, necessarily, but I naturally cringe from the articles that are diktats about ethics, particularly when they take such a personal turn. In fact, I think the article lost some of its force in the personalized way it was written. Was this the same guy that wrote about Donald Trump's orange hair from back in the 1970s, when he ostensibly guided the man, when Donald Trump didn't even have orange hair? Seems a bit similar in its regal air. I'm not even sure what the relevance of the trip to the library and posting the citations added in support of his initial point, a point which became more unclear the further the article ran.

Let's keep in mind, folks, that these are just fish. I want to preserve the resource as much as the next guy, but there comes a point when the sermons from the mount become a bit too strident for me.

 

[0bie]

An angler who doesn't bother buying a license ought not to be angling- I hope his privileges are revoked, especially after reading this article about Wyoming Game and Fish's budget woes.

A guide who doesn't bother buying a license, or respecting game laws, shouldn't be a guide- and I hope the Colorado outfitter's agency sees fit to rescind those privileges.

A magazine editor who doesn't bother doing due diligence shouldn't bother being a magazine editor, and I hope this incident burns American Angler enough that they'll exercise said due diligence in the future. I hope this guy is blackballed from pro-deals, and I hope it's a teachable moment for everyone- "the industry" and sportsmen alike.


BUT....

I think targeting fish on redds is lame. I think grip-n-grins are lame. I'm also not going to expend a tremendous amount of energy worrying about what other people do if it has negligible impact on my enjoyment of a resource. And fact is, trout don't guard their redds. They build 'em, they do the deed, and they leave. Whatever happens to the adult after eggs are in the gravel doesn't have much (if any) impact on survival of those eggs.

Every adult fish is going to try and spawn every year. Spawning requires a series of behavioral and physiological changes occurring over time- the two minutes a fish spends spawning is only the culmination of events which have been happening days and weeks prior. If you're targeting trophy fish during their spawning season- you're targeting spawners. They may not be in the act right this instant- but they will be tomorrow, or a week from now, and whatever energy they expend pouncing on your streamer or fighting your fly rod is energy they could've expended building redds, maintaining territories, or courting others.

Is a greenie catching fish on a redd having more or less of an impact than the guide carting sports down the river five days a week? I don't know the answer, I just don't think it's as cut and dried as we like to believe. Maybe I'm too cynical, but it's interesting a guide paid $500/day (plus gratuity) penned an op-ed lamenting how people exploit fisheries. Part of me wonders if they're both symptomatic of a hyper-competitive worldview that places personal gain over the health of fisheries.

 

[zjory]

In defense of so-called "hero shots"...

I actually enjoy the fish porn. I love seeing the beautiful colors on the fish that other people catch. I cannot possibly catch in a lifetime such a stunning variety of the species. Especially trout, whose sides are nature's art to me. I don't take pictures of the fish I catch, mostly because (a) I typically don't have a camera with me, and (b) I don't think about it or care about taking my own. I guess maybe I truly am into fish porn, because I like just looking at other people's pictures.

The gentleman's article left me a little uneasy, in his attack on the fisherman. I don't think the author's point is far off the mark, necessarily, but I naturally cringe from the articles that are diktats about ethics, particularly when they take such a personal turn. In fact, I think the article lost some of its force in the personalized way it was written. Was this the same guy that wrote about Donald Trump's orange hair from back in the 1970s, when he ostensibly guided the man, when Donald Trump didn't even have orange hair? Seems a bit similar in its regal air. I'm not even sure what the relevance of the trip to the library and posting the citations added in support of his initial point, a point which became more unclear the further the article ran.

Let's keep in mind, folks, that these are just fish. I want to preserve the resource as much as the next guy, but there comes a point when the sermons from the mount become a bit too strident for me.

Sums up the majority of my thoughts. After reading the article, I was put off by how personal and condescending it was. I think that we often preach treating fish with more of a white glove than is necessary. Fishing redds is an obvious no no and can do some real damage to the ecosystem, but I think the whole keep them wet campaign is an overreaction to the hero shot. They drop fingerlings from a plane to stock alpine lakes and the survival rate is over 90%, holding a mature fish out of water for 20 seconds is not going to kill it.

I have a young son I’m teaching to fish and it’s important to me learns about conservation and has good waters to fish in 30 years, but I still handle and take pictures of the fish I catch and often post them to my Instagram account. I’m confident it’s not killing fish or destroying habitat when I do so. I’m pretty careful about giving away secret locations, but I see no problem with posting good pictures of good fish as long as I send them back.

I’ll tell you what does need more attention - walk a full net back. Crazy how much trash I see on the river.

 

[ddb]

I'm all for catch and release, efficient landing of fish, and avoiding hens on the redds but...

I dropped out of TU long ago mainly because I saw the activists in my local club going hard over on native fish, stream reconstruction,
and environmental causes at the expense of actually fly fishing. They were drifting toward fish watching when I checked out.

This article smacks of that proclivity IMO.

ddb

 

[karstopo]

Seems like every human interest area is prone to puritanical type impulses whether it be religion, politics, science and even fly fishing. People get into a competition on how closely they follow the dogma of the day and usually some witches get burned...

 

[clsmith131]

I understand where the writer is coming from, but he went over the top, and entered into some wormy, stalker territory. To me it takes away from his credibility. This is the first I've heard of the writer and the guide, but I can already tell you I hate them both. I hate the guide for being an obvious DB, from the way he strikes that fake pose, displaying his T&T and his Hatch, as if his whole life has been tailored to serve as some sort of demented social media campaign for popularity-- to the fact that he's exploiting natural resources unethically for a living...DB. And I hate the writer and his type, the social justice warriors of the world who weaponize media to get their attention needs met...Garbage. If you have a problem with someone you obviously know and see periodically, man up and say it to his face. Don't go out and push for laws and regulations, there's already too much government in my life. Have a positive influence on your environment by confronting him face to face. Maybe you can may him think about his actions and their consequences before he commits the offense. The writer and the subject in this case are part of the problem, not the solution. These two probably have a lot in common and run in the same circles.

 

[coho52]

While I don't disagree with what should have been the thrust of the opinion piece, i.e., commercial considerations often drive poor behaviors, the intensity of the attack on a private individual who was not provided an opportunity to respond was troubling. I think the author should have contacted the sponsoring companies and American Angler and raised his concerns.

I would agree with those who observed they hold both in disdain. Unfortunately, in this social media age, irreparable damage may have been done to both of them.

 

[mikechell]

Again ... someone writes an article blaming a specific segment of the population for the woes of the world. In this case, people looking to make some money from their love of fishing. You know what I see, in the pictures of people holding up a nice fish? I see a person holding a nice fish ... and, usually, an empty landscape behind them.
Some lament the decline in new anglers coming into the sport ...
Some of those same people then lament newer anglers coming into the sport ... if they're taking pictures of the fish?

The way I see it ... this is just another problem that boils down to ALL problems in the World.
There's just too damn many people.

 

[weiliwen]

I guess I didn't have the problem with the author's take on this that some others who have posted did. I didn't view this as "stalkerish" but as investigative reporting. He uncovered more malfeasance than just fishing over redds.

I would like to hear from Patrick Duke; a response from him would have made this article more fair. I doubt he'll respond anywhere.

I've seen my share of angler-celebrities, and even one or two guides, whose ethics were more than questionable. These folks are, let's face it, role models, and they have a responsibility to behave as such.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[weiliwen]

...I think the author should have contacted the sponsoring companies and American Angler and raised his concerns.

He did contact the editor of the magazine the picture was in; that was mentioned in the opinion piece.

 

[ia_trouter]

Fish and Game regulations are all we can hope for. The "hero shot" mentality is here to stay for a good long while.

 

[left field]

If Patrick Duke crossed a state line, didn't buy a non-resident license and shot a buck on posted public property where no hunting was allowed, just for a pic of the rack, would people say "they're just deer"?

Assming that everything in that article is true, I have no issue with what the writer is saying and how he's saying it.

Much like the Montana Wild situation, people who illegally exploit the resource for financial gain (or internet glory) should be fined and punished as much as the law allows.

 

[flyminded]

I understand and support the sentiment of the piece ...the personal outing of another individual I’m not so comfortable with .... but if one goes out of their way to be seen as an ambassador and has pro sponsorship (whatever that really is in fly fishing, beyond steep discounts) .... perhaps having a license and not fishing in closed sections of water would seem to be the least one should expect. But hey the worlds “hero’s” are always showing themselves to be less than as presented to us, one way or another, so why are we surprised.

 

[cpowell]

Wow, a topic that has never been discussed. It's all blah and white noise. I got Googaned by a boat guide yesterday and the river was void of people. I just get out and leave because I fish a lot and it's better to just move on then worry over others silliness...But this is what you get when you monetize. Money makes everyone act differently. Everyone...I would bet even Ard. Now his client thinks it's totally acceptable to float up on a wade angler and anchor in the hole he is fishing. Not suggesting this towards Ard or any others who hate to see what's happening. Just good old human nature.

We have a funny dichotomy in our world on just about every topic and the toxic vitriol about someone's hero shot is akin to the same feeling you might have that someone legally and ethically took a picture and gets bombarded, or ignored.

We are responsible for what has occurred. It is our industry, we are the keepers of the house and we are the direct result. Ard feels like his way is the most ethical, I think it's kind of boring and my kids and family and most, prefer the picture to contain more than just a mundane shot. Although I do like some of Ards and others shots very much, but just like grip and grins, there is a limit you can be entertained with.

I still think these pics are way better than some fish laying in a net or your hands that are still touching water...It is quite hypocritical imho. You're doing all of the same things just not lifting the fish for taking a pic. That is really the same as saying I really like cake but it is unhealthy so I only ate 90% of the piece and so I am healthy.

Can you tell if I am grinning or not...but I do have a grip.

Again, I reiterate, maybe it's time we stop allowing guiding on public waters...Or maybe we have to shrink the popularity of the sport. The article is clearly written because he has hurt feelings. Dude, you make a living off of a public resource and for some reason the Fish and Game laughs at us when we try to get a regulation or two in place on such things as grip and grins and spawners.

Face it, most folks are just pissed they didn't get it themselves. Money ruins everything.

 

[left field]

There are two issues here.

The first is the targetting of spawning fish which is, for the most part, an ethical issue. The second is poaching and not having the proper licenses to fish or be on the water.

The guide who wrote the article is making an ethical and legal living from the resource; the one he's calling out isn't. That guy is exploiting a public resource unethically (fishing redds) and illegally (unlicensed fishing of closed sections of a stream).

The authors point is that in this case he believes that these illegal and unethical acts stem from the pursuit of social media fame and the money that comes with that fame.

 

[weiliwen]

The article is clearly written because he has hurt feelings.

My feelings are hurt too - is it wrong that the author's feelings are hurt by guy who earns fame and money by celebrating illegal and unethical activities? I don't think this is just jealousy or any such thing - his beef with the guy is legitimate.