Tomcat

I had contacted the OPP to check on legality issues. Their only stipulation was that the carrier could not obscure the licence plates. Probably just an oversight that they didn't mention not obscuring turn signal and brake light operation. When I mentioned that my plate was mounted high on the back of my truck, the OPP rep added that technically speaking, the licence had to mounted at a place that was the furthest back on the vehicle. I guess I could mount the plate on the basket carrier during such trips.

I'm mulling over the notion of purchasing a Basket Carrier - see http://www.truckspring.com/basket-carriers_465.html for an example. I was wondering whether anyone has used these carriers for transporting 5 gallon containers of gas into fishing/hunting camps? Thanks in advance.

DanC: Thanks again. It was a worth a shot to see if you had any of the Quebec maps. I'm unable to follow up myself with GPS Quebec because I have a non-mapping GPS - a Garmin 76 (purchased 6 years ago). However, I'll pass along your suggestion to my colleague with the Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx.

TTT

DanC: Thanks very much for providing the comparison of the charts available from the two different sources. My colleague definitely showed some interest in the GPS Quebec product when I referred him to this thread the GPS Quebec web site. We're going to be fishing some Quebec lakes in mid August that are about 36 miles north east of Lake Kipawa (just east of the town of Temiscaming, Quebec). If at all possible, could you show us a screen shot of Lac Bay and surrounding area. The next lake to the east of Lac Bay is Lac Winawiash and the biggest lake on the outfitter's property is Trout Lake. When I went to the GPS Quebec site, selected the topo map for Abitibi-Temiscaming, and then requested the enlarged view, the lake west of Lac Bay (Lac Pierre) did not show on the that view. Do you see Lac Pierre with the GPS Quebec Abitibi-Temiscaming topo loaded into your Garmin 60CSx? Thanks in advance.

An American colleague recently purchased a Garmin 76CSx to facilitate his enjoyment of fishing Quebec lakes, particularly in the Abitibi/Temiscamingue area. However, due to the plethora of mapping chips available, he has yet to purchase any mapping software for his unit. Based on your comments about the GPS Quebec products, can you easily recommend them for his fishing use. While there are bathymetric maps available for the lakes he normally fishes, none of that information is available on a chip, not even from Navionics Hotmaps Premium. Thanks in advance.

WOW!!!! Thanks for sharing those pics.

Hats off to all three!!

Congrats to your daughter on her accomplishments. Mom and Dad look very proud in the picture. With that and all you've been through with the new acquisition, you deserve a great summer. Enjoy it!

KG My view is influenced by over 30 years at outfitter facilities. Based only what has been reported on this site, your clients enjoyed less than what was contracted for through no fault of their own. While it is indeed unfortunate that you and your enterprise endured a plethora of problems at start up, your clients shouldn't be expected to pony up full fare. Many times, a business has got to spend money to make money. This is one of those times. While your apology was most likely appreciated, it doesn't adequately address doing the right thing.

Great report and pics TJ. Thanks for sharing the Kesagami experience.

As always, an informative and interesting report accompanied with pics. Thanks for sharing.

Now that's a pretty good fishing story! Thanks for sharing it.

I gotta move to your neighbourhood!

Thanks Art for your explanation. There's lots of expertise in our OFC community and I'm thankful you shared some of yours. I finally remembered reading an article about blind areas within a sonar cone. Took me a while to find the article again - see http://www.vexilar.com/help/tips/tip006.html The vexilar article provides a plausible explanation of why my colleague could catch keeper walleye (vertically jigging while anchored) without marking any fish on his sonar. Here's a great descriptive picture from the vexilar article: The vexilar explanation: The Dead Zone is the area within the transducers cone of sound that is blind to you. The wider the beam angle the greater the possible dead zone. The sonar will mark bottom as the nearest distance it sees. If you are fishing over a slope it may see the high side of the slope, at the edge of the cone, and mark that as bottom. The fish that are hanging on the bottom in the center of the cone will be invisible to you because they are actually within the bottom signal on your depth finder.

Thanks for the picture Roy - "worth a thousand words"!!

I dare say most of us turned off Fish ID as soon as we purchased our sonar units. I've been running a Lowrance X-85 for 7 years. I've never ran it with Fish ID on. Regarding fish hugging the bottom, many times, all I've seen is a short thin line, maybe about the thickness of a pencil line, on top of the gray line (bottom). And many times, when I zoomed in 4 X, sure enough, it was a fish. However, I didn't post to argue with anyone. I'd just like a better appreciation of how I should expect a new colour sonar unit with 480 vertical pixels or more to realistically perform. Can the performance of top end sonar units match their theoretical performance?

Let's consider the worst case scenario in the situation I described (i.e. 30 feet or 360 inches of water). For a sonar unit with 320 vertical pixels, each vertical pixel represents 1.125 inches or 1 1/8 inches. There has to be one pixel between two objects to depict two objects from one another on the sonar screen. To my understanding then, for a sonar unit (with 320 vertical pixels) not to depict a walleye hugging the bottom in 30 feet of water, the walleye would need to be 1 1/8 inch or less in body depth. Consequently, at least from a theoretical perspective, his sonar unit should have been able to depict these bottom hugging keeper walleyes he was catching. In 18 feet of water, the walleyes would have to be even smaller in body depth (2/3 of an inch) not to be detected and depicted on his sonar screen. I'm left wondering whether actual sonar performance just doesn't compare with theoretical sonar performance.

A fishing colleague reported that he and his partner caught more than 100 walleye one day jigging the bottom while anchored over depressions on the river bottom in 18 to 30 feet of water. Surprisingly, he also reported that he never marked any fish on his sonar unit while they caught these fish. His sonar unit was a colour unit with 320 vertical pixels and a 20 degree cone angle. Can anyone explain why no fish were depicted on his sonar unit? He also reported that he could easily follow his dropped jig to the bottom on his sonar display. Thanks in advance.

Wayne: I'd just like to say thanks for sharing these modifciations and enhancements to your new ride with the rest of us. At least for me, it's a real education. Thanks

Your report was a sad story indeed. Sorry that you and Leah had to endure it. However, on a positive note, I'll be more able to face some difficulties myself after reading about how well you seemed to handle all those misfortunes. And although it's no solace, thanks for sharing about your new Lund. Be sure to let Lund know that there's a heck of a lot of people reading your posts.

Great report and pictures - made me feel like I was on the trip too. Thanks for sharing. One question - would you mind providing some details about your boat and motors please. Nice looking rig!

Very nice read accompanied by some great pics. Thanks for sharing!

Great report and pics. Thanks for sharing.

You might enjoy reading this comparison of fluorocarbon lines - see http://www.tackletour.com/reviewfluorocarbontest.html