Fishnwire

You totally missunderstood me. I'm saying one can undertake the act of fishing, without the need to place fish in a livewell.

I'm sorry, but now you're just saying stupid stuff. It's not about a "fishes pain". It's about having a picture that is universally appealing to most anglers. The picture of the TWO anglers each holding their own SINGLE fish is perfect.

I try to minimize the amount I stress my catch...keeping a big bass in a livewell for any length of time just to get a "double fist" picture is not necassary and totally avoidable. You CAN fish and not stess fish in a livewell, you CAN'T fish without hooking the fish's mouth. Sorry, your comparisson is not valid. And as I mentioned in my original post (for anyone who bothered to actually read it before flying off the handle) I'm not refering to those standing at a tournament weigh-in station. C'mon now!

So the only way that you can "share the experience" is to hold more than one fish at the same time? Talk about brilliance. Let's try this again. How often to you see pictures taken by professionals or appearing in high-quality fishing literature of dead or dying fish? Not too often, because the pictures appear more appealing when the subject appears healthy. Often after the picture of a healthy fish is taken it is the harvested...which is totally fine...but the picture of the dead fish in your sink will not look as nice as if you had taken it boatside. It is not crazy to assume that if someone is holding two fish at the same time, they're not too concerned with releasing either...because if they were, they'd have done so before landing a second fish. I never implyed rules or regs were being broken. If you want to take a picture of yourself doing something that a decent percentage of anglers find somewhat distasteful, feel free. You are entitled to harvest within the regs and I am entitled to think that holding up two trophy smallies for a picture is not a good look.

OK...calm down folks...go back and read my posts...I never indicated people shouldn't keep fish within their legal limits, I'm just saying that TO ME, the look of multiple trophy fish being held by the same angler is a bit of a turn-off, and I just wondered if anyone felt the same. As far as not fishing enough...my wife would have a different opinion. I'm certainly secure enough in my fishing abilities that I don't feel the need to "stage" a picture to prove that I've caught more than one nice fish in the same day. At my camp behind Sudbury I've often landed half a dozen smallies all over 18 inches before breakfast. Big deal. Hey feel free to keep whichever fish you are legally entitled to do so. I'm just saying that some anglers, such as myself, find photographic evidence of killing (or unnecassarily stressing) multiple trophy-sized catches unappealing. That's all I'm saying. Gee, I guess I had better go join P3TA because of my crazy "whack-job" beliefs. The fact that several posters felt the need to post pictures in an immature, failed attempt to antagonize anyone who feels the way I do speaks volumes about what kind of people take such photos.

Actually, if you look at the previous 8 years in the states under Bush...there is a lot of evidence that proves (or at least indicates) tax cuts do NOT stimulate the economy...far from it. The effect of tax increases/decreases on an ecomony is far from a "simple fact of economics"...but has been a matter of fierce debate since the concept of taxation was originally conceived. That said, any form of sales tax is the amongst the most regressive form of taxation available...meaning the less money you make, the higher percentage of tax based on income that you pay. As usual, the middle class will bear the burden of this tax, while the rich will get away relatively unscathed. If you want to fix the ecomony, you've got to invert that formula. Why not make the rich pay? They can afford it.

Where do I start? By "double-header" you must mean you and your partner catching a fish at the same time, because there is no realistic, legal situation in which a single angler could land two trophy-sized smallies at the same time. I've never felt the need to take a picture of me with a fish someone else caught...and I still wouldn't even if my partner caught his at the same time I caught mine. Holding up a fish in a photo generally indicates something along the lines of, "Hey check it out, I caught this!" Why would you hold up someone else's fish for a photo? I'm aware that livewells exist...just as I'm sure we're all aware that keeping fish in a livewell stresses them and (generally speaking) the longer fish are kept there, the more the survival rate goes down. Keeping a healthy fish (which you don't plan on harvesting) in a livewell for any real length of time, just so you can get a picture with both hands full, is cruel and unnecessary.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I probably will because I've seen examples of this here on these boards. Anyway, doesn't anyone else feel that having a picture of yourself holding up two trophy sized smallmouths is a really bad look? Unless your standing at the weigh-in table of a live-release tournament, the fact that you are holding two fish at the same time is evidence that you slaughtered not one, but two prime breeding adults...and why? Do you really need to harvest that much fish in one day? You're in all likelyhood not planning on having both specimens mounted, so why keep both? A picture of an angler holding up a single fish on shore or in his boat doesn't scream out the fact that the guy is a fish-hog...holding up two does. Smallmouth bass over 18 inches rarely make good table fare...and the law of averages tells us we'll almost certainly put a couple a decent eaters in the boat in the time it takes us to land two trophies...I just don't get it. While I'm at it, pictures of guys holding up (obviously) dead fish in their driveways, kitchens or garages also leaves me decidedly unimpressed...but that's just me.

Unions, and the benefits enjoyed by their members, didn't come into existence on their own. People fought (and died) to get what we have today. The eight-hour work day, the forty-hour work week, the right to refuse unsafe work, paid vacation, and just about every other labour law that protects working people...all because of unionism. And before somebody dusts off "unions have outlived their usefulness" (the age-old mantra of all anti-unionists) keep in mind that big business would like nothing more than to claw back everything we've fought for the first chance they get. There's a lot wrong with unions...but the only thing worse than belonging to a union, is NOT belonging to a union.

Learning to effectively use slip-floats will completely change the way you fish. I cannot understate how amazingly versatile and downright useful a proper slip-float system can be. Also...I'll never get tired of watching a float go down. Seeing it disappear beneath the water is like poetry in motion.

I lived just outside of Toronto (Mississauga) for over five years, and I was homesick for Sudbury the whole time. I always knew that living down there was only temporary for me and that I'd come home some day. If I was still living down there I'm pretty sure I'd have blown my brains out by now. Anyone ever hear of Capreol? It's just outside of Sudbury. There are endless miles of bush roads and quad trails back there. I wish I was there right now.

When I read the opening post, I wondered how long it would take before someone hijacked the thread for some good old fashion union-bashing. It's surprising how many people are eager to defend the owning class and blame working people every chance they get. Why though? What does top execs giving themselves performance bonuses they don't deserve have to do with working people fighting to maintain their standard of living?

Does the worm and hook stay off the bottom?

Northhunter has the right idea...I like the look of your rigs. The only thing I might change is doing away with a second hook. If you're just using a small minnow, why bother with it?

Thanks snowball. It's all there.

My Mother-in-law was watching curling last weekend and I told her the same thing. If I was playing I'd lose it, I'd snap and I'd tell the guy to settle down and stop yelling at me. I'm busting my ass out there trying to sweep or whatever, and some guy is screaming at me that I'm not doing it hard enough? No thanks. I get plenty of that at work, I don't need it when I'm playing some game. Sorry, but I don't care about the Leafs or any other team. They don't care about me. It is way too cold and has been that way for way too long. The snow is going to take forever to melt at this rate. I hate it. You hit two out of three totally out of the park. Nice job!

Thanks Chris, there's a ton of cool info there...but I don't see exactly what I'm looking for. I don't mean an Erie-Dearie, or any kind of spinner with a stiff wire shaft. I'm after the type that guys usually use for walleye, with a slip sinker or possibly a bottom bouncer...often trolled. It is made up of some kind of limp shaft material, usually some sort of tough mono, onto which beads, an in-line spinner blade and sometimes a small coloured float are strung, after which a (usually) single octopus (or simular style) hook is tied. Usually a barrel swivel is tied at the opposite end, and away you go. I've always heard them refered to as "go-getters" up here in Sudbury. The last two years I've bought them, already assembled, but have noticed I can buy all the individual components and make them myself.

I want to start making my own go-getters...seems pretty simple, but maybe there's more to it than I'm thinking. When I say "go-getter" (possibly a Northern term?) I mean an arrangement simular to a worm harness, but with beads and an in-line spinner, and usually a single hook. Anyone know a site or on-line article with tips and info on selecting materials and tying go-getters? Thanx

I like these for my go-getters...should be good for your worm harnesses. http://www.tacklebuddy.com/tacklebuddy.htm They are hollow so I put my steel leaders inside them...you might have to double them over in the container, but it's wide enough that they won't kink. They'll bend a bit, but most lures you need a big leader with are heavy enough to straighten 'em out in the water anyway. The diameter of the thing is pretty small, so depending on your harness material, they might want to coil when you take them off the holder, but my go-getters always lose their memory after a minute or two of trolling. The small diameter is a big asset when your looking for a place in your bag to store it, believe me.

The last time I hooked into a big pike from a canoe I had my partner paddle to shore, got out and landed her there. I got wet feet, but I didn't tip the canoe or lose the fish. Not always practical if there's no where decent to shore the boat though. I find a cradle is nice if your in a stable boat which is low to the water and you've got a good partner. Like the other guys mentioned, out of a canoe a good conventional rubber net is probably the way to go. Most of the one's I've seen have a handle that shortens up for transport. I've never got the hang of landing a good sized pike or really big walleye by hand, glove or not, but I NEVER reach for the net if I'm boating a bass...I have come to believe that anything other than a performing an un-assisted "lip-lock" is almost like cheating. More fun that way, and less harmful to the fish's protective slime. If you buy a baitcaster you will be disappointed with any outfit you buy which costs less than about $250. I have a few "el-cheapo" Canadian Tire spinning rigs that I use and like quite a bit. However, I have never picked up a cheap (or even mid-range) bait reel that was worth having. For some reason unless you're willing to lay out somewhere around $200 JUST FOR THE REEL, you'll find you won't like it. It won't cast very far, very accurately and without birdnesting. You'll hate that peice of junk, because that's what it will be.

If the economy totally collapsed and you didn't have a job, and totally lost your current way of life...had to provide a way of just basically staying alive...stay warm and not starve to death; How many of you could live "off the grid" so to speak? For example, I have a camp way in the northern Ontario bush I currently use for recreational purposes. I could go there if I lost my home in the city. The stove is wood fueled and the small building well insulated. I wouldn't freeze to death over the winter, but might have a hard time feeding my family during those months. Nonetheless, I think I could eek out some kind of existence up there, for the most part, independent of the outside world. As things appear to get worse and worse every day, I think about this more and more. I don't really think it will get that bad, but I am thinking. Has anyone else considered a similar type of "exit strategy"?

I wouldn't have kept it. You guys?

The real reason the rules surrounding sale of fuel are so strict is because the big oil and gas companies want it that way. They don't want anybody to be able to sell gas, then they might have to compete on price. They want owning/operation of fuel depots to be out of the reach of anyone other than established giants. They make billions, so they'll always be able to afford to play the game...average joes like your friend the marina owner on the other hand can't keep up and are squeezed out. That's capitalism in the 21st century for you.

I'm thinking of buying the Suzuki 2.5 hp 4 stroke. Anyone ever use one?

Not cool. Seriously though, I caught a pike (only about 6 lbs) that had what appeared to be a loon chick in it.