Thread: Is it better to know -- or not know?

Another thread made me consider -- would it be better if we knew EVERYTHING that affected fishing to the point that it could be predicted for sure when the fish would be biting, as well as for sure when they wouldn't bite?

I'm thinking that it's better the way that it is, since the pier would be practically empty on slack days and elbow-to-elbow from dawn to dusk on chew-down days.

Technological advances may bring about the day when all of the variable are calculated to produce an index that can accurately predict what's going to be biting, with what degree of vigor, and when that bite will start and then begin to wane.

While there would be obvious advantages to knowing absolutely -- I'm thinking that it's better the way that it is, with a degree of mystery to it all. What do you all think? I thnk that the outdoor experience includes appreciating the mystery.

That's why we still call it "fishing" and not "catching" ;-)

That's why I don't use game cameras.

There needs to be a challenge and random events out of our control to make it interesting.

Honestly I sort of worry about the day when it is possible to pull up a satellite map with some sort of high res bottom imagery that shows every rock, chicken coop, and pyramid on the bottom. No doubt technology makes it easier, maybe too easy, to catch certain fish.

Originally Posted by Haywire

That's why I don't use game cameras.

There needs to be a challenge and random events out of our control to make it interesting.

I think that this is what characterizes a true outdoorsman - an appreciation for the experience and enjoying the satisfaction that comes from successfully planning a strategy.

You're right, Haywire -- The outdoor experience wouldn't be nearly as interesting if randomness weren't part of the equation.

I think that we're already seeing the effects of technological advances in commercial fishing (which, to Pier#r's point, is most certainly "catching", not "fishing"). They can locate huge schools and net them all up, leaving little for recreational fishermen!

Originally Posted by Haywire

That's why I don't use game cameras.

There needs to be a challenge and random events out of our control to make it interesting.

I quit using them (game camera's).....I see good bucks visiting,then I start head hunting,only to get skunked when they never show......meat for me only.....if antlers happen by so be it......only allowed 1 buck per season

Originally Posted by Pierless

Honestly I sort of worry about the day when it is possible to pull up a satellite map with some sort of high res bottom imagery that shows every rock, chicken coop, and pyramid on the bottom. No doubt technology makes it easier, maybe too easy, to catch certain fish.

Some years ago there was an article (fictional) in a sport fishing magazine that was about that very subject Capt Tom.
It chronicled the extravagant efforts of a futuristic tuna fleet as they vied to hunt down THE last bluefin tuna in all the world's oceans.
They had satellites, ocean pingers, sidescan sonar and heat seeking harpoons in their technological quiver and they pursued the bluefins into extinction.
All for the money!

I know this is a fishing forum, but I too have hang-ups about today's hunting technology. In my opinion today's muzzle loaders and crossbows are not forms of primitive hunting. Whether hunting or fishing, it all comes down to modern time, no one wants to enjoy the thrill of stalking, be it a big buck or a bull red. Just plug in the numbers, push the zap button, make the kill or catch and enjoy the glory, no time for acquired skill and relaxation.

Originally Posted by eym_sirius

I think that this is what characterizes a true outdoorsman - an appreciation for the experience and enjoying the satisfaction that comes from successfully planning a strategy.

You're right, Haywire -- The outdoor experience wouldn't be nearly as interesting if randomness weren't part of the equation.

I think that we're already seeing the effects of technological advances in commercial fishing (which, to Pier#r's point, is most certainly "catching", not "fishing"). They can locate huge schools and net them all up, leaving little for recreational fishermen!

That's close to being accurate. Technological advances, I believe, can show us where and when to fish for a particular specie with given parameters and conditions. But..., these informations will not be available for us recreational anglers. It will be more for scientific purposes. I would probably be better off making friends with Neptune.