Tomcat

Of all the walleye outfitters in western Quebec, how did you happen to find out about these two in particular? Did you visit their booths at a fishing show?

I'd recommend that you look at buying two rods and two reels for the kind of fishing you mentioned. For trolling crankbaits and the like, regardless the rod you use, you should mount a line counter reel on it (e.g. a Daiwa SG27 LCA) and spool it with 14/6 crystal Fireline. You should also get yourself a copy of Precision Trolling 8th Edition - see http://www.precisionangling.com/ This trolling bible provides the dive curves for most crankbaits (amount of line out to achieve specified depths). As an example of an acceptable rod (IMHO) I use a Bob Izumi signature series Shimano rod (model IZC70M). Which rod you use is your particular choice - I just provided my choice. For bottom bouncing, I'd suggest you follow Roy's advice and use a level wind reel mounted on just about any rod you already have that has a little backbone but at the same time has a medium fast tip (again my preference). The rule of thumb for bottom bouncing is 1 ounce for every 10 feet of depth you are fishing. However, chances are that you will never require more than 3 ounces and most times you will require 1.5 to 2 ounces for bottom bouncing walleyes in Quebec lakes in the summer. I happen to use a very old Penn 109 spooled with 14 pound mono for my bottom bouncing. In both cases, you don't need to spend a pile of money on the rods (to buy sensitivity). You'd be far wiser spending your dollars on good reels that will in most cases last your entire fishing lifetime.

Thanks for sharing the positive news!

I just don't see the requirement to be wearing an inflatable PFDs (to be legal) as a negative. Indeed, isn't that the whole point - to actually be wearing your PFD? For over 30 years, I always had a PFD with me in the boat. Problem was - my PFD was never on!! My rationale for not wearing my PFD was it was uncomfortable, too warm and restricted my fishing motions. I'm truly thankful that an emergency situation never occurred where I would have had to test my ability to get to my PFD, if indeed I could have got to it at all. If an old dog like me can change his ways, anyone can.

I finally bit the bullet after 30 years of fishing with my PFD somewhere in the boat but not on me. Last summer, I purchased an automatically inflatable PFD made by Mustang. Its the Auto Hydrostatic model 3153. I made a decision that I would try to wear it at all times on the water while on a 1 week walleye trip. Keeping it on was a no brainer - I hardly knew I had it on. It was easy to put on, light weight, comfortable to wear and didn't impact my fishing movements at all. These auto inflatable PFDs are so comfortable to wear that one of my fishing partners reminded me in our cabin one evening that I still was wearing my PFD. To test that the bladder was completely air tight after I purchased it, I manually inflated the PFD and left it overnight. Full inflation required less than 6 full breaths. The full inflation in less than 6 full breaths is kind of nice to know in case there is ever a malfunction of the auto-inflate device. While these auto inflatable PFDs may appear to be costly, most of us spend more on life insurance premiums - every year. Its my understanding that there were some problems in the past with torrential rain or wave splash resulting in unwanted or unrequired inflation of some auto inflate PFDs. Apparently, that fault has been resolved. The Auto Hydrostatic Mustang model 3153 that I purchased is activated by a completely different mechanism - submersion in 4 inches or more of water activates the inflation device.

Here's a copy of the email response I received today about the lack of an on-line exhibitor list for the 2007 show: We are currently working on 07 exhibitor list for the web. We have over 40 new exhibitors. I hope to have the 07 exhibitor list on the web no later than Feb.7/07. Preferably sooner.

Good morning Lew: Here's another reference that may be worth looking at: http://www.jollyannsales.com/navionics.htm

If you're buying a sonar unit to help fish walleye, then target separation is an important capability of any potential sonar unit because walleye can sometimes be "belly to the bottom". Target separation is more easily accomplished with more vertical pixels. Consider a fishing depth setting of 0-60 feet. 60 feet equates to 720 inches. If you were to buy a sonar unit with 480 vertical pixels, then dividing 720 by 480, each vertical pixel represents 1.5 inches. Alternatively, if you were to purchase a sonar unit with 160 vertical pixels, then each vertical pixel represents 4.5 inches. To separately display two targets, you need at least one blank pixel between them. Lets consider one target to be the bottom and the second target to be a walleye close to bottom. For a unit with 160 vertical pixels, that means there is 4.5 inches between the bottom and the first available displayable target above bottom. There could easily be walleye "belly to the bottom" within that 4.5 inches and a sonar unit with 160 vertical pixels wouldn’t show them – unless the unit had a zoom capability (e.g. 2X or 4X). Many guys run a split screen with a top-to-bottom view on one side and a 4X zoom on the other. Another important consideration is the Peak to Peak power of sonar units. Cheaper sonar units have, for example, 800 watts. If you’re a walleye fisherman and you fish soft bottom flats for your walleye, 800 watts isn’t adequate power to provide you adequate target separation. 800 watts isn't adequate power to provide good signal return from soft bottoms. Consequently, establish your requirements for a sonar unit before you set a budget. Then go shopping. I realize everyone has constraints on how much they can spend but IMHO, there's no point in spending dollars at all if the acquired sonar unit can't provide the performance you require or want. I believe the minimum requirements for a capable sonar unit are 320 vertical pixels and 2400 watts of power. If you can afford to spend more money than the minimum requirements cost, go for it - you won't be sorry. For instance, most guys who have opted to spend extra dollars for colour sonar units rave about them. Good luck.

We have a week long walleye trip planned for next August to a very secluded area where there is no access to electricity. We've been researching various power sources to run spotlights (returning to camp in darkness) or other equipment (like a 12 volt electric filleting knife). Although I don't have any problems filleting walleye with a non electric fillet knife, I'm interested in looking at options. I read elsewhere that a portable jump start/power supply was used successfully for a week as the only power source for a 12 volt filleting knife. Research on portable jump start/power supplies indicates that many contain a 20 amp hour battery. Consequently, why not simply take a 20 amp hour deep cycle battery to power a 12 volt filleting knife rather than a portable jump start/power supply? To facilitate responses, here's an example of a portable jump start/power supply that weighs less than 25 lbs. It contains a 19 amp hour battery. http://www.tylertool.com/blackanddecker44.html Thanks in advance.

Can anyone recommend web sites that provide information on new vehicle prices in Canada? In the USA, there are sites like http://www.edmunds.com/ or http://www.carsdirect.com/home or http://www.kbb.com/ Thanks in advance.

Thanks Wayne. Your web reference was one I didn't have. I have perused the How to Import a Vehicle into Canada - see http://www.riv.ca/english/html/how_to_import.html. Within this reference there is a list of admissable vehicles. Jay

Just wondering whether anyone has already researched the pros and cons of importing a new vehicle (for example an SUV) from the USA. I compared MSRPs on the Ford USA website with MSRPs on the Ford Canada website using the build and price feature. MSRP differentials approach $10,000 Cdn on similarly equipped SUVs. I'll be telephoning the Registrar of Imported Vehicles on Monday for information. Thanks in advance.

I've owned my 6 cylinder 4.0 litre Ford Explorer XLT 4 X 4 since 1991. Its been sprayed every year with RustCheck and has its original paint. Highway mileage has routinely been 24/25 mpg. Although I only have 170,000 km on this vehicle, maintenance costs have been acceptable. I have no reasons to recommend not buying a Ford Explorer. However, if I were buying another one, and I wanted to use it as a tow vehicle, I would opt for an 8 cylinder.

Geez - adding an avatar was quick and easy. Thanks guys!