Image by karlo via Flickr
I recently read an article by a local fishing personality, Chad LaChance. The article appeared in both the local paper and online at a popular fishing website. He also filmed an episode of his TV show there. Chad divulged one of my favorite places to fish. It's my favorite because (1) not a lot of people fish there (although it is fairly popular hiking destination), and (2) because the fishing is good. You don't often get to fish for larger greenback cutthroat trout. I know it's a public place and I don't own it and can't stop people from going there (however, there are several large man eating bears, water moccasins, and a homicidal mad man resembling Ted Kaczynski, so travel there at your own risk).
My beef is this: Did he really need to name the place? I mean you can write an article, blog, and film a TV show without naming the lake and it wouldn't hurt the intent of the article. The place named was a high mountain lake. High mountain lakes are pretty delicate. The fish there have a very short growing and spawning season, since the lake is ice free for about 3 months of the year. The lake is fairly easy to get to (assuming you can walk at altitude without dying) and the accessible land around it is small. A large number of people constantly going there will make an impact. One only needs to go to the neighborhood lake, pond, or stream to see what a large number of people will do to an area.
Chad's article is a good article for this time of year, reminding fishermen that there are some beautiful places to go in the high country. But, please don't name them. Maybe the article won't foster any damage to this lake. But, my point is that people who write about fishing (myself included) have a responsibility to judge the impact of their material.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 23, 2009
at Thursday, July 23, 2009
and is filed under
rant
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.