kickingfrog

Nice photo for scale, and two very nice brookies. However, don't ever let me catch you using one of my paddles as a cutting board.

The one with the bigger role of nickels in their purse?

Up here our football fields are 150 yards long, and 110 yards from goal post to goal post.

Birdsnests happen. Learn from them, and practice. You will get better. The other tidbit of advice I'll offer is to use a moderately heavy floating lure the first few times you make some casts. Just keep your eye on any gulls in the area if you get a birdsnests.

Infisherman did an article back in the late winter/early spring on a number of smallmouth tactic specific combos: http://www.in-fisherman.com/content/matching-rods-reels-small-mouth-tactics

I know there are a lot of people who know more about interpretation than me (and more about your brand as well) but my first thought was thermocline, but without knowing the lake or time of year I'm just spitballin'. Looking forward to what others have to say.

Can't help with the answer, but you are back to the top.

I had a bunch of them on my arctic canoe trip. Tasted great. In all fairness They were about as fresh as you could get and they were our only fresh meat for 5 weeks. My fear is that if I ever have grayling again it won't taste as good as I remember. As to the original post, I like them both. In general I like the light flavoured fish like walleye, perch, sea bass, halibut etc. more than the "meatier" fish. Doesn't mean I don't like smoked salmon, a small laker fried in the pan next to my campsite, or a deep blue piece of tuna that has just grazed the grill.

Mmmmm cloaca.

No WGSF???

Glad the trip worked out in the end.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/oxford-english-dictionary-may-soon-only-be-available-online/article1689097/ Sylvia Hui London — The Associated Press Published on Sunday, Aug. 29, 2010 9:43AM EDT Last updated on Sunday, Aug. 29, 2010 9:45AM EDT It's been in print for over a century, but in future the Oxford English Dictionary — the authoritative guide to the English language — may only be available to peruse online. Publisher Oxford University Press said Sunday that burgeoning demand for the dictionary's online version has far outpaced demand for the printed versions. By the time the lexicographers behind the dictionary finished revising and updating the latest edition — a gargantuan task that will take many more years — publishers are doubtful there will still be a market for the printed form. The online Oxford English Dictionary now gets 2 million hits a month from subscribers. The current printed edition — a hefty 20-volume, $1,165 set published in 1989 — has sold about 30,000 sets in total. “At present we are experiencing increasing demand for the online product,” a statement from the publisher said. “However a print version will certainly be considered if there is sufficient demand at the time of publication.” Nigel Portwood, chief executive of Oxford University Press, told The Sunday Times in an interview he didn't think the newest edition will be printed. “The print dictionary market is just disappearing, it is falling away by tens of percent a year,” he said. Although the comments relate primarily to the full-length dictionary, the publisher says the convenience of the electronic format is also affecting demand for its shorter dictionaries. The first instalment of the Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1884, and it kept growing for decades until the complete text went out in 1928. It was the first comprehensive English dictionary since Samuel Johnson's “A Dictionary of the English Language” published in 1755, and has since evolved to become the accepted authority on the meaning and history of words. The version users now consult — the second edition — has 291,500 entries, plus 2.4 million quotations as sources. Unlike shorter printed versions such as the single-volume Oxford Dictionary of English, it doesn't track current usage, it simply includes every single word. A team of 80 lexicographers are preparing the third edition of the dictionary, which is just under one-third complete. Oxford University Press hasn't yet given a date for when the third edition will be ready. The Oxford English Dictionary first went online in 2000, offering paying subscribers a much faster way to look up words. It's also helped the dictionary catch up with rapid semantic changes and the large numbers of new words: updates to the dictionary's online version are added every three months. In December, the online version will be relaunched to include a historical thesaurus to make cross-referencing easier.

Next time.

'Twas a beautiful evening.

I wouldn't eat a 40lb walleye... if they existed. I don't eat "big" walleye and it's not just because I feel it helps the fishery. Too much bio-magnification for me, thank you.

Some people have no clue where most of the food we eat comes from.

That's my problem I don't look cool enough while I'm fishin'... unless I've got all the fish.

I've had bull heads and drum. They both taste great, and I mostly eat only walleye and perch. The smug superiority of some people is really quite amusing, but that may have been the original goal.

The clip you're mention sounds like what another reel manufacture calls a trigger. I had a reel that had one years ago and never found it useful and it did get in the way. Reels (and most other topics) will produce a lot of strong feelings. Many of us have preferences and defend them vigorously. I feel that, assuming a store is not trying to rip you off or getting rid of old product, that you get what you pay for and that two different brands of reel that are at the same price point are going to be of similar quality. They may have different features that might make one more suitable for your fishing situation. Just about all reel manufactures make reels for just about ever price point from $30 right up to $300-$400 and beyond. Just like cars, and that isn't by accident.

He's diggin' out that belly boat from last year. ... and trying to put a small yammy on it.

Fishing lines certianly does matter to fishermen. The fish I'm not as sure about. I believe in some situations line colour/visability does matter a great deal. Clear water, preserured fish, "slower" presentations, skiny water. Some might sugest that some spieces of fish are more line shy, but I think most of that can be covered by the other situations and the time of year that the fish are being targeted. I certainly don't think line colour/ visibility is an issue 10 feet from my lure. The way I look at it, the final few inches or feet are for the fish. The rest is for me. So braid for feel or colour for line watching are my two primary concerns.

If it was me (it's not) I wouldn't be saying boo about it. Besides I'd be too busy fishin'

I think I'll save this and give it a try during one (or 2 or3) of those cold January nights... you remember those Garry? Can't hurt to have another tool in the box.

Well if I was going to be technical. A question was asked. Answered correctly multiple times, but some surplus information was misleading. BTW salmonids would include white fishes, graylings, chars and trouts.

It's not a theory. It's science. We don't have to like it, or understand it, make it correct. Should we talk brook trout or Atlantic salmon etc? The name doesn't change how they fight or taste.