Thanks for the insight Gooose and Aunty. I didn't get into those threads about new members coming in here with expectations of having their questions automatically answered. I thought Gooose and some others were talking about sharing philosophy in general. If some people have registered and come across as demandive of info, then I agree they deserve what they are likely to get - not much.

ET, about that "3000 members". It's a misconception. Like the other fishing BBs, there are not nearly that many actual members, and only a fraction of which are regularly active. All registrations on these sites are kept as an accumulated record of membership, when in reality many of them have come and are long gone; and many have multiple monikers. You can often recognize an alternate moniker by a very low number of total posts, and primarily used to flame or discredit someone anonymously. If you looked at the top of the BB everytime you logged in you would see the same 'scores' of people all the time - not 'hundreds' of people, let alone 'thousands'. As for accumulated site hits for these BBs, they are quite misleading. They sound like thousands are checking in everyday. Not even a fraction of that. A high percentage of the scores of people logging in everyday do so many many times per day. This is noted by website activity tracking services as "unique" accessor numbers per day or period - a much more reliable indicator; but those aren't usually posted like the misleading hit numbers are. That's why fishing reports on these type of sites aren't really adding significant numbers of fishers to areas reported about; as some contend. The newspaper's fishing reports, particularly the Oregonian and Seattle papers, reach a much larger audience and can add some pressure to hot spots on occassion. ... Just a little reality check, to put this discussion into a more accurate perspective.