People Keeping Fish Negative Posts

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Keep taking fish during the spawn and watch NJ follow suit with all the southern states and CLOSE the season.

Keeping any breeder fish with questionable stocks during the spawn is idiotic imo!

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Rocky

Keeping any breeder fish with questionable stocks during the spawn is idiotic imo!

EXACTLY.

After they drop have at it

[Inoffshoremikey]

I have to present an important issue being spoken about on the docks concerning the owner of this forum"s opening comments pertaining to this thread. As an individual who works as a consultant within social media circles, website development and modern web practices, the opening comments and declarations posted for this thread are alarming from a professional standpoint.

* This forums owner does not seem to want to allow people the option to post negative comments concerning a highly debatable subject. That is horrific in this day and age and does not comply with modern web based social standards (lucidity, clarity and honest reviews). It does not allow ignorance to be departed from ones consciousness if an individual does not bear witness to the facts presented from both sides of the issue. As we all know, both sides have pros and cons, yet, if there isn't a place within the forum to allow such a discussion, then there will not be any light spread on the subject. If you can't accept the positive along with the negative, then maybe you need someone else to manage the forum for you because the practices the owner is looking to implement is a sure way to drive memebers off of this forum and on to another one that offers a place to discuss such issues.

* Just because something is positive in one persons conceptual reality doesn't mean it is "positive" for all. When I initially read the the last thread that caused this thread to come to the surface, it was immediately clear to me that their would be problems associated with the strong views held by the members posting in that thread. However, the owner/founders response and I quote from the beginning of this thread " I've got way better things to do then baby sitting these sorts of posts." was something that I thought I would never read from any forum owner, especially one that seems to be knowledgeable on the subjects being debated. That's a major issue coming from my consulting work because it is just (basically speaking) an improper way to address members of a forum that contribute and benefit to public awareness generated though dialogue among like minded individuals (people who fish), whether positive or negative.

* In the first page of the last problematic post, the individual members mostly chose a side. Whether ecological, theological, political, or hunter/gatherer, the lines are drawn in the sand and the verbosity begins. As an owner, the proper thing to do is not address individuals as "babys", we are all adults here, so treat us like such. If people have verbal expressions that you feel are 'babyish', well maybe that is because you have chosen a side or your ability to moderate is questionable when it comes to debatable topics. An apology would be appropriate from a social media standpoint. It was a harsh way to address fellow members in a community, whether it be fishing or not.

*Resolve*. It is 2019, not 2001. Threatening individuals by revoking their privileges without providing a standard solution is unacceptable in a any modern social forum. Revoking an individuals privileges who violate the solution is completely acceptable though even though 99% of forums do not do this immediately, not sure why that is being implemented here? In turn, create a debatable topic forum like the rest or the modern world where those issues can be debated and ignorance brought to light in a place where those types of dialogues are acceptable. If those ideas and impositions are brought into a "non-debatable" forum, then the moderator or owner has and should penalize (not immediately remove) the membership from the individual. It should clearly state what is acceptable within that particular thread. This way individuals are clear on the rules and terms herein. Violations are clearly defined by the rules of the thread and violators are punished accordingly through standard guidelines everyone can read, not just the ones the owner decides are the law of the forum for the period the problem is presenting itself.

In a "non-debatable" post, if a member catches and releases, catches and keeps, catches and gives away etc, then questions and comments concerning the catch should not have debatable topics addressed to that thread. Those posts should include theology, ecology, political, and/or hunter/gatherer ideologies and opinions. This is a way to address and correct the verbosity issue members and the owner are having. Telling people "you have better things to do with your time" is a poor way to address your members who are eager to possibly learn more and wish to engage in a thread where such topics are admissible and acceptable as long as they follow the guidelines put forth in that particular thread.

Typical example: Let us say I am a beginning angler and new to NJfishing.co_m and I want to read a post from a member who caught a striped bass. As a beginner, I want to know where the angler was, what time of day it was caught, was the angler on land or on the water(boat) and what bait, lure, tactic or method etc. was used to hook and bring the fish within proximity of the angler.
The consensus is that we do not need to know what another members ideology, philosophy or opinion are concerning the following. A. Ecology. The modern or post modern conservation movement or "natural conservation" as it is called should be labeled under "debatable topics" only due to it's ideology being opposed to Hunter/gatherer school of thought. The debates the ensue are debatable and need to be categorized as such. B. Theology. I understand whole heatedly religion and theology are important to many members of our society. They deserve the right to have their practice and beliefs without imposition of others or government. However, this is neither the time or the place for one's insertion of religious based dialogue into a thread via posting doctrine or beliefs that are theologically based. Clearly this is a "debatable topic" C. Politics. You have the right to your view, and again, we understand this topic is important to you and many others who agree with you. Politics should not be allowed to be posted when trying to understand, as a beginning angler, how I should go about catching a nice striped bass that another member did whose tread I am viewing to gain insight into his methodology. This is a loaded topic and needs to be categorized under "debatable topics". D. Hunter/gatherer ideology. Whether you took the fish or not is *after* the fact of catching the fish and choosing whether or not to land it. The post should allow information exchange up until the landing of the fish within the members that post on that thread. The threads original post should be allowed to display how that member chose to experience the fish. Whether it be lost at the boat, quick release, slow release (live well), brought on board, pictured and released, or harvested for ones dietary needs should be stated as fact and nothing more than an actual historical entry into the forum. The opinions, additions, beliefs or scientific validation etc. via other members should not be allowed within a "non-debatable" thread. If so, then your membership should either be suspended for a specific amount of time or revoked ( I personally think that when the owner of this forum said immediately "revoking" one's privileges was his solution to the problematic individuals posting demonstrated terrible management and an aggressive way to treat members of this site who's opinions he found disdaining to say the least). I can tell you from experience it is always the owner's fault and not the members faults for dialogue problems in a forum. It is the owners responsibility to manage his forum correctly by providing guidelines and clear understandings of what to post where and not the other way around. Using aggressive "revoking' and judgmental "baby" tactics to moderate members is unacceptable in this day and age. Addressing issues in an appropriate manner yields more resolve than threatening to revoke memberships. It doesn't work! I have seen numerous forums get ruined by owners who can't moderate the problems they are creating by not implementing proper procedural guidelines for their members within their own forums.

I hope the owner of this forum addresses these problems in a modern way and demonstrates that he is able to resolve the issues at hand without judging individuals as being babies and threatening to revoke people's memberships who may well have very important philosophies, opinions, ideologies etc. to contribute but are not being directed properly as to where to post them. If the past dictates the present , leaving this unresolved will only bring about a new forum where these things can be discussed.

I enjoy reading these debates, they offer me a chance to learn from both sides and come to my own conclusions. Do I wish to keep reading them? Yes! Do I want to read them in the daily fishing reports? No! The consensus is that others don't want to have to read these posts either in that section of the forum. It is time the owner of this site get to work on this issue or we may loose a great contributor to this site due to he or she being a baby and wasting the owners time. Neither of these can be summed up as clear to everyone. Maybe the owner finds it clear but as a forum/web designer, social media advertising consultant and moderator myself, I find it extremely unclear and is very substandard for 2019 forum management/ownership. It surely does not follow modern compliance as far as forum management and member appreciation is concerned.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by Inoffshoremikey

I have to present an important issue being spoken about on the docks concerning the owner of this forum"s opening comments pertaining to this thread. As an individual who works as a consultant within social media circles, website development and modern web practices, the opening comments and declarations posted for this thread are alarming from a professional standpoint.

* This forums owner does not seem to want to allow people the option to post negative comments concerning a highly debatable subject. That is horrific in this day and age and does not comply with modern web based social standards (lucidity, clarity and honest reviews). It does not allow ignorance to be departed from ones consciousness if an individual does not bear witness to the facts presented from both sides of the issue. As we all know, both sides have pros and cons, yet, if there isn't a place within the forum to allow such a discussion, then there will not be any light spread on the subject. If you can't accept the positive along with the negative, then maybe you need someone else to manage the forum for you because the practices the owner is looking to implement is a sure way to drive memebers off of this forum and on to another one that offers a place to discuss such issues.

* Just because something is positive in one persons conceptual reality doesn't mean it is "positive" for all. When I initially read the the last thread that caused this thread to come to the surface, it was immediately clear to me that their would be problems associated with the strong views held by the members posting in that thread. However, the owner/founders response and I quote from the beginning of this thread " I've got way better things to do then baby sitting these sorts of posts." was something that I thought I would never read from any forum owner, especially one that seems to be knowledgeable on the subjects being debated. That's a major issue coming from my consulting work because it is just (basically speaking) an improper way to address members of a forum that contribute and benefit to public awareness generated though dialogue among like minded individuals (people who fish), whether positive or negative.

* In the first page of the last problematic post, the individual members mostly chose a side. Whether ecological, theological, political, or hunter/gatherer, the lines are drawn in the sand and the verbosity begins. As an owner, the proper thing to do is not address individuals as "babys", we are all adults here, so treat us like such. If people have verbal expressions that you feel are 'babyish', well maybe that is because you have chosen a side or your ability to moderate is questionable when it comes to debatable topics. An apology would be appropriate from a social media standpoint. It was a harsh way to address fellow members in a community, whether it be fishing or not.

*Resolve*. It is 2019, not 2001. Threatening individuals by revoking their privileges without providing a standard solution is unacceptable in a any modern social forum. Revoking an individuals privileges who violate the solution is completely acceptable though even though 99% of forums do not do this immediately, not sure why that is being implemented here? In turn, create a debatable topic forum like the rest or the modern world where those issues can be debated and ignorance brought to light in a place where those types of dialogues are acceptable. If those ideas and impositions are brought into a "non-debatable" forum, then the moderator or owner has and should penalize (not immediately remove) the membership from the individual. It should clearly state what is acceptable within that particular thread. This way individuals are clear on the rules and terms herein. Violations are clearly defined by the rules of the thread and violators are punished accordingly through standard guidelines everyone can read, not just the ones the owner decides are the law of the forum for the period the problem is presenting itself.

In a "non-debatable" post, if a member catches and releases, catches and keeps, catches and gives away etc, then questions and comments concerning the catch should not have debatable topics addressed to that thread. Those posts should include theology, ecology, political, and/or hunter/gatherer ideologies and opinions. This is a way to address and correct the verbosity issue members and the owner are having. Telling people "you have better things to do with your time" is a poor way to address your members who are eager to possibly learn more and wish to engage in a thread where such topics are admissible and acceptable as long as they follow the guidelines put forth in that particular thread.

Typical example: Let us say I am a beginning angler and new to NJfishing.co_m and I want to read a post from a member who caught a striped bass. As a beginner, I want to know where the angler was, what time of day it was caught, was the angler on land or on the water(boat) and what bait, lure, tactic or method etc. was used to hook and bring the fish within proximity of the angler.
The consensus is that we do not need to know what another members ideology, philosophy or opinion are concerning the following. A. Ecology. The modern or post modern conservation movement or "natural conservation" as it is called should be labeled under "debatable topics" only due to it's ideology being opposed to Hunter/gatherer school of thought. The debates the ensue are debatable and need to be categorized as such. B. Theology. I understand whole heatedly religion and theology are important to many members of our society. They deserve the right to have their practice and beliefs without imposition of others or government. However, this is neither the time or the place for one's insertion of religious based dialogue into a thread via posting doctrine or beliefs that are theologically based. Clearly this is a "debatable topic" C. Politics. You have the right to your view, and again, we understand this topic is important to you and many others who agree with you. Politics should not be allowed to be posted when trying to understand, as a beginning angler, how I should go about catching a nice striped bass that another member did whose tread I am viewing to gain insight into his methodology. This is a loaded topic and needs to be categorized under "debatable topics". D. Hunter/gatherer ideology. Whether you took the fish or not is *after* the fact of catching the fish and choosing whether or not to land it. The post should allow information exchange up until the landing of the fish within the members that post on that thread. The threads original post should be allowed to display how that member chose to experience the fish. Whether it be lost at the boat, quick release, slow release (live well), brought on board, pictured and released, or harvested for ones dietary needs should be stated as fact and nothing more than an actual historical entry into the forum. The opinions, additions, beliefs or scientific validation etc. via other members should not be allowed within a "non-debatable" thread. If so, then your membership should either be suspended for a specific amount of time or revoked ( I personally think that when the owner of this forum said immediately "revoking" one's privileges was his solution to the problematic individuals posting demonstrated terrible management and an aggressive way to treat members of this site who's opinions he found disdaining to say the least). I can tell you from experience it is always the owner's fault and not the members faults for dialogue problems in a forum. It is the owners responsibility to manage his forum correctly by providing guidelines and clear understandings of what to post where and not the other way around. Using aggressive "revoking' and judgmental "baby" tactics to moderate members is unacceptable in this day and age. Addressing issues in an appropriate manner yields more resolve than threatening to revoke memberships. It doesn't work! I have seen numerous forums get ruined by owners who can't moderate the problems they are creating by not implementing proper procedural guidelines for their members within their own forums.

I hope the owner of this forum addresses these problems in a modern way and demonstrates that he is able to resolve the issues at hand without judging individuals as being babies and threatening to revoke people's memberships who may well have very important philosophies, opinions, ideologies etc. to contribute but are not being directed properly as to where to post them. If the past dictates the present , leaving this unresolved will only bring about a new forum where these things can be discussed.

I enjoy reading these debates, they offer me a chance to learn from both sides and come to my own conclusions. Do I wish to keep reading them? Yes! Do I want to read them in the daily fishing reports? No! The consensus is that others don't want to have to read these posts either in that section of the forum. It is time the owner of this site get to work on this issue or we may loose a great contributor to this site due to he or she being a baby and wasting the owners time. Neither of these can be summed up as clear to everyone. Maybe the owner finds it clear but as a forum/web designer, social media advertising consultant and moderator myself, I find it extremely unclear and is very substandard for 2019 forum management/ownership. It surely does not follow modern compliance as far as forum management and member appreciation is concerned.

Let me cut to the chase here and I don't mean to be trite .... If you don't like the way I run this site then there are plenty of others to choose from. Feel free to move on and not visit here... I've run this site for 20 plus years and I think I have a pretty good handle on how to run it and what behavior is acceptable or not.

I could in fact let this forum be a free for all and allow anyone's uncensored posts stand and get much more short term traffic because of the drama... Not what I choose to, may not follow a " modern compliance" but trying to take the long term high road here and do what I feel is right...

I’m not about to spend my time cousleling people individually who in my opinion are offenders..Rather I chose to make hard and fast rules about the people’s conduct on this site on certain issues I know causes problems... If they don’t comply and persist, they are out... If you don't like my choices, no offense but please move on...

[RC.]

Originally Posted by Inoffshoremikey

I have to present an important issue being spoken about on the docks concerning the owner of this forum"s opening comments pertaining to this thread. As an individual who works as a consultant within social media circles, website development and modern web practices, the opening comments and declarations posted for this thread are alarming from a professional standpoint.

* This forums owner does not seem to want to allow people the option to post negative comments concerning a highly debatable subject. That is horrific in this day and age and does not comply with modern web based social standards (lucidity, clarity and honest reviews). It does not allow ignorance to be departed from ones consciousness if an individual does not bear witness to the facts presented from both sides of the issue. As we all know, both sides have pros and cons, yet, if there isn't a place within the forum to allow such a discussion, then there will not be any light spread on the subject. If you can't accept the positive along with the negative, then maybe you need someone else to manage the forum for you because the practices the owner is looking to implement is a sure way to drive memebers off of this forum and on to another one that offers a place to discuss such issues.

* Just because something is positive in one persons conceptual reality doesn't mean it is "positive" for all. When I initially read the the last thread that caused this thread to come to the surface, it was immediately clear to me that their would be problems associated with the strong views held by the members posting in that thread. However, the owner/founders response and I quote from the beginning of this thread " I've got way better things to do then baby sitting these sorts of posts." was something that I thought I would never read from any forum owner, especially one that seems to be knowledgeable on the subjects being debated. That's a major issue coming from my consulting work because it is just (basically speaking) an improper way to address members of a forum that contribute and benefit to public awareness generated though dialogue among like minded individuals (people who fish), whether positive or negative.

* In the first page of the last problematic post, the individual members mostly chose a side. Whether ecological, theological, political, or hunter/gatherer, the lines are drawn in the sand and the verbosity begins. As an owner, the proper thing to do is not address individuals as "babys", we are all adults here, so treat us like such. If people have verbal expressions that you feel are 'babyish', well maybe that is because you have chosen a side or your ability to moderate is questionable when it comes to debatable topics. An apology would be appropriate from a social media standpoint. It was a harsh way to address fellow members in a community, whether it be fishing or not.

*Resolve*. It is 2019, not 2001. Threatening individuals by revoking their privileges without providing a standard solution is unacceptable in a any modern social forum. Revoking an individuals privileges who violate the solution is completely acceptable though even though 99% of forums do not do this immediately, not sure why that is being implemented here? In turn, create a debatable topic forum like the rest or the modern world where those issues can be debated and ignorance brought to light in a place where those types of dialogues are acceptable. If those ideas and impositions are brought into a "non-debatable" forum, then the moderator or owner has and should penalize (not immediately remove) the membership from the individual. It should clearly state what is acceptable within that particular thread. This way individuals are clear on the rules and terms herein. Violations are clearly defined by the rules of the thread and violators are punished accordingly through standard guidelines everyone can read, not just the ones the owner decides are the law of the forum for the period the problem is presenting itself.

In a "non-debatable" post, if a member catches and releases, catches and keeps, catches and gives away etc, then questions and comments concerning the catch should not have debatable topics addressed to that thread. Those posts should include theology, ecology, political, and/or hunter/gatherer ideologies and opinions. This is a way to address and correct the verbosity issue members and the owner are having. Telling people "you have better things to do with your time" is a poor way to address your members who are eager to possibly learn more and wish to engage in a thread where such topics are admissible and acceptable as long as they follow the guidelines put forth in that particular thread.

Typical example: Let us say I am a beginning angler and new to NJfishing.co_m and I want to read a post from a member who caught a striped bass. As a beginner, I want to know where the angler was, what time of day it was caught, was the angler on land or on the water(boat) and what bait, lure, tactic or method etc. was used to hook and bring the fish within proximity of the angler.
The consensus is that we do not need to know what another members ideology, philosophy or opinion are concerning the following. A. Ecology. The modern or post modern conservation movement or "natural conservation" as it is called should be labeled under "debatable topics" only due to it's ideology being opposed to Hunter/gatherer school of thought. The debates the ensue are debatable and need to be categorized as such. B. Theology. I understand whole heatedly religion and theology are important to many members of our society. They deserve the right to have their practice and beliefs without imposition of others or government. However, this is neither the time or the place for one's insertion of religious based dialogue into a thread via posting doctrine or beliefs that are theologically based. Clearly this is a "debatable topic" C. Politics. You have the right to your view, and again, we understand this topic is important to you and many others who agree with you. Politics should not be allowed to be posted when trying to understand, as a beginning angler, how I should go about catching a nice striped bass that another member did whose tread I am viewing to gain insight into his methodology. This is a loaded topic and needs to be categorized under "debatable topics". D. Hunter/gatherer ideology. Whether you took the fish or not is *after* the fact of catching the fish and choosing whether or not to land it. The post should allow information exchange up until the landing of the fish within the members that post on that thread. The threads original post should be allowed to display how that member chose to experience the fish. Whether it be lost at the boat, quick release, slow release (live well), brought on board, pictured and released, or harvested for ones dietary needs should be stated as fact and nothing more than an actual historical entry into the forum. The opinions, additions, beliefs or scientific validation etc. via other members should not be allowed within a "non-debatable" thread. If so, then your membership should either be suspended for a specific amount of time or revoked ( I personally think that when the owner of this forum said immediately "revoking" one's privileges was his solution to the problematic individuals posting demonstrated terrible management and an aggressive way to treat members of this site who's opinions he found disdaining to say the least). I can tell you from experience it is always the owner's fault and not the members faults for dialogue problems in a forum. It is the owners responsibility to manage his forum correctly by providing guidelines and clear understandings of what to post where and not the other way around. Using aggressive "revoking' and judgmental "baby" tactics to moderate members is unacceptable in this day and age. Addressing issues in an appropriate manner yields more resolve than threatening to revoke memberships. It doesn't work! I have seen numerous forums get ruined by owners who can't moderate the problems they are creating by not implementing proper procedural guidelines for their members within their own forums.

I hope the owner of this forum addresses these problems in a modern way and demonstrates that he is able to resolve the issues at hand without judging individuals as being babies and threatening to revoke people's memberships who may well have very important philosophies, opinions, ideologies etc. to contribute but are not being directed properly as to where to post them. If the past dictates the present , leaving this unresolved will only bring about a new forum where these things can be discussed.

I enjoy reading these debates, they offer me a chance to learn from both sides and come to my own conclusions. Do I wish to keep reading them? Yes! Do I want to read them in the daily fishing reports? No! The consensus is that others don't want to have to read these posts either in that section of the forum. It is time the owner of this site get to work on this issue or we may loose a great contributor to this site due to he or she being a baby and wasting the owners time. Neither of these can be summed up as clear to everyone. Maybe the owner finds it clear but as a forum/web designer, social media advertising consultant and moderator myself, I find it extremely unclear and is very substandard for 2019 forum management/ownership. It surely does not follow modern compliance as far as forum management and member appreciation is concerned.

First, are there Cliff Notes available for this post? For a social media expert, you should realize that you lost most of us simpleton non experts somewhere in the middle... and if it must be that long, use more paragraphs so it's at least readable on a mobile device

Second, you are missing the point...there are certainly sites set up to hotly debate the injustices of the world. This is not one. Gerry set it up so we could share some local fishing reports and insight. Simple as that....It would be nice to be able to post an honest report without being harassed and for the owner not to have to constantly referee or babysit.

RC

[Charlie B]

Keep up the good work Gerry. You run this site just fine. If not it would have failed a long time ago. Let the experts start their own site if they want. I am staying here and I guess most others will too...Charlie

[Gerry Zagorski]

So here's a typical post:

- Great day of fishing yesterday, we kept our crew limit of 4 Stripers and played catch and release for the rest of the day.... (insert smiling people holding striped bass)

- Hmmm did you consider releasing those fish....

- Yeah, why keep all those fish?

- Nothing wrong with people keeping fish as long as it within their legal limits.

- You snowflake tree huggers need to get a life.

- Who you calling a snowflake?

- You neanderthals want to kill everything....


Now what we have is a bunch of people getting emotional and even with the best intentions of the original poster and responders, it quickly deteriorates to a name calling free for all....

Could we create an uncensored section of the board and allow people to debate these sorts of topics.... We could but you know what's going to happen? It will quickly turn into a cesspool and would likely spread to other parts of this site.

Believe me I've thought about this a lot... Not the sort of site I intended ours to be and I won't let it become that... Plenty of other sites around that allow this sort of behavior and it's not going to happen here on my watch..

Call me delusional, but I'd like this to be a place where everyone feels welcome, we share knowledge and support each other's passion for fishing not tear each other down.

Originally Posted by Inoffshoremikey

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"]I have to present an important issue being spoken about on the docks concerning the owner of this forum"s opening comments pertaining to this thread. As an individual who works as a consultant within social media circles, website development and modern web practices, the opening comments and declarations posted for this thread are alarming from a professional standpoint.

* This forums owner does not seem to want to allow people the option to post negative comments concerning a highly debatable subject. That is horrific in this day and age and does not comply with modern web based social standards (lucidity, clarity and honest reviews). It does not allow ignorance to be departed from ones consciousness if an individual does not bear witness to the facts presented from both sides of the issue. As we all know, both sides have pros and cons, yet, if there isn't a place within the forum to allow such a discussion, then there will not be any light spread on the subject. If you can't accept the positive along with the negative, then maybe you need someone else to manage the forum for you because the practices the owner is looking to implement is a sure way to drive members off of this forum and on to another one that offers a place to discuss such issues.

Shortening this up a bit because truthfully you lost me at "I". Your post strongly recommends allowing members the ability to express opposing positions and then you condemn the owner of the site for expressing his. Alarming perspective from a professional standpoint.

Gerry has overseen and run a great site for many years and been around while many sites have come and gone. That's not luck, it's hard work and effort which the members of the site appreciate. Like any site, it has it's share of contentious discussions which personally as long as they're discussed respectfully I view as positive.

What isn't and shouldn't be tolerated are personal attacks on members, sponsors or in the case of your post the owner of the site. You consider yourself through your commentary an expert in today's social media standards yet have no hesitation calling out the owner publicly who made all this possible. Hard to reconcile those two thoughts.

Just my opinion, today's modern standards of what is and isn't acceptable on social media have caused more controversy and harm than good. It's the definition of a double edge sword. If your comments were intended to be constructive, a call to Gerry or at minimum a pm or email would have been a more effective and thoughtful approach than the verbal equivalent of a public flogging. Again just surprised seeing that from someone supposedly skilled in social media etiquette and modern protocols and in my opinion not justified or appropriate.

[AndyS]

I wish you had been more specific in your original post. People do not mind seeing photos of big fluke, sea bass, tuna or bluefish caught.
I think people are disturbed by the taking of large STRIPED BASS full of eggs in the spring.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I hear and respect you Andy.. There is perhaps no one on this board that has an appreciation for and is a better steward of our fisheries and waterways and you lead by example.

However, let's think this through.... We know we have a very emotionally charged subject here which causes all sorts of issues and divides our community here. We also know that people, although fewer have the same issues with Blackfish and even some with Fluke so where you I draw the line.. As you know, we can't leave any grey area here and say it OK for Stripers and it's not OK for Fluke or Blackfish. It's all or none in order to maintain order here.

Also I could of done a better job explaining myself when I started this post....
I don't mean to say that people should not voice their opinions on this subject, like we're doing here... More pointedly, people should not be forcing their opinions by jumping all over someone else's post who decided to keep fish.... Think of the guy who comes here, puts up an innocent report only to be directly lectured to and the whole post starts to unwind in a name calling match... Is this guy ever going to want to visit or post here again??

If you have an opinion feel free to editorialize it in a separate post... Maybe the same guy you're trying to give advice to reads it and since it's not directed at him, it's more palatable....

Make sense??