craigdritchie

Not sure I would want to make a habit of biting lead shot. Lead poisoning isn't as much fun as it sounds.

Note that Johnson outboards are no longer made - BRP discontinued the entire line in the fall of 2007 (see http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20080014095152ibinews.html and http://www.johnson.com/en-CA/Index.htm). I have never been able to confirm it, but have heard from several different sources that the Johnson four-strokes were in fact manufactured by Suzuki. They certainly look almost identical, inside and out. I do not know if the parts are fully interchangeable.

Desmasdon's (705/366-2581), Payne Marine (705/366-2296) and Beacon Marine (705/366-2394) all have good launch ramps.

I've seen many carp with bleeding gills. Then again, I expect the arrow may have had something to do with it.

I just read that some dude who got caught stuffing a lead weight down the throat of a bass he weighed in to a Texas bass tournament got sentenced to 15 days in jail, five years probation, a $3,000 fine and suspension of his fishing license. Turns out this bozo stuffed a one pound lead weight into his fish, which promptly sank to the bottom of the "lunker tank" where it lay on its side and was obviously having a hard time righting itself in the water. So the organizers scooped it out and found the weight. You can read the newspaper story on it here. Amazingly, he still swears he "wasn't cheating" when he stuffed the lead weight down his fish's gullet. What a buffoon. They're going to love him in prison.

A lot of new four-strokes are way lighter than old two-stroke outboards. Last fall I went to a Yamaha product launch and drove their new F70 .... it's a 70 horsepower four-stroke that is 109 pounds lighter than the engine it replaces. Think about that. I also drove their little F6 portable .... it's a fuel injected, six horsepower four-stroke that weighs a bit less than their old carburated six hp two-stroke. Amazing. On the west coast, guys are replacing the old inboard engines in their charterboats with big four-stroke outboards, mounted on transom brackets. Gary Cooper, who hosts the "Nice Fish" TV show, put a pair of 250 hp Suzuki four-strokes on the back of his 30 foot Slickcraft, and says he reduced his fuel costs by almost 75 percent (he had a pair of 350 V8s). Besides that, now the boat is also about 10 mph faster, and goes father on a tank of gas. It was obviously expensive for him to change two engines, but he says the fuel savings alone will let him get all his money back in three to four years. Honda just brought out a new 115 four-stroke. I have not driven it yet, but it's supposed to be absolutely incredible. Their old 115 was a really nice engine, so this should be something to see.

Nice motor, but you never will see another one like it again. They spew out too much crap (into the air and into the water) and have been relegated to history. That's just the way it is. I drive a lot of boats, and I'll tell you, unless you plan to hoist that engine over your head a few times every day, you won't miss it if you upgrade to a four-stroke. What you will notice right away is that you save money by not having to buy oil with every tank of gas. And, the tank of gas goes a much longer way than it ever did with the old Mariner. And, you'll never smell exhaust again. Or see that vulgar little oil slick in the water. Those are things you appreciate on a daily basis. Spec charts are fine for the sake of discussion, but in real-world use, new four-strokes blow away the old gas guzzlers every time.

Sure does, but I don't think I'd want a bag of those guys loose in my vest. It's bad enough when you accidentally drop a roe bag down your waders. Imagine one of those little guys? Yikes!

That's not true at all. Let's look at some 40 hp engines: Evinrude E-TEC 40 Two-Stroke ... 232 to 250 pounds, depending on model (see http://www.evinrude.com/en-CA/Engines/ETEC_INLINES/ETEC_40_INLINE) Suzuki DF40 Four-stroke ... 243 pounds, or basically the same weight as a two-stroke. (see http://marine.suzuki.ca/Product%20Lines/Outboard%20Motors/Products/DF40/2010/DF40.aspx) Or if you're really concerned with weight, try this: Yamaha F40 Four-stroke ... 205 pounds (see http://www.yamaha-motor.ca/products/products.php?section=td&model=3498#contentTop) You guys who think four-strokes are automatically heavier than two-strokes are living in the past. In the case of these 40s, the four-stroke is lighter, and by 30 to 45 pounds! You're right Sinker, finding a new 40hp two-stroke will be almost impossible. The choice is Evinrude - period. Every other manufacturer has gone to four-strokes, and with good reason.

In response to the private message I received questioning my sanity, I just did a quick comparison of different two-stroke and four-stroke outboards, to see which really is heavier. Since no one seems to even make a two-stroke 9.9 these days, I compared current 15 hp models. The information below comes from each manufacturer's own website (URL provided), so it should be up-to-date. YAMAHA Model: F15 Type: Four-stroke Weight: 114 pounds http://yamaha-motor.ca/products/products.php?model=3504&section=td&group=O#contentTop SUZUKI Model: DF15 Type: Four-stroke Weight: 97 pounds (manual start), or 105 pounds (electric start) http://marine.suzuki.ca/Product%20Lines/Outboard%20Motors/Products/DF15/2010/DF15.aspx HONDA Model: BF15 Type: Four-stroke Weight: 101 pounds (short-shaft) or 108 pounds (long-shaft) http://www.honda.ca/HMarine/Models/Specifications?Type=20-15HP&Model=BF15&L=E MERCURY Model: 15 Type: Four-stroke Weight: 115 pounds http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/outboards/fourstrokes/enginesetfour_specs.php?ID=67 EVINRUDE Model: E-TEC 15 HO Type: Two-stroke Weight: 177 pounds (manual tilt) or 183 pounds (power tilt) http://www.evinrude.com/en-CA/Engines/ETEC_HO/ETEC_15_HO Hmmmmm.

Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon. Very nice brook trout. Creepy crawly.

I will guarantee that the dealer who told you this is either (1) an Evinrude dealer, or (2) a sucker who has a shed full of OLD engines he's desperately looking to unload. Shop around, because you need to hear the reality from a few other dealers. Four-strokes are the future. This is why every major manufacturer out there (with the exception of Evinrude, and Merc with their OptiMax line) has stopped manufacturing two-stroke engines altogether. Oh yes - that and the fact that as of January 1, they can't sell non-DFI two-strokes to dealers any more because they don't comply with pollution laws. New regulations coming down the pipe will likely mean the end of DFI two-strokes too. New four-strokes outperform old two-strokes in every way, including power-to-weight. Yamaha introduced a bunch of new four-strokes last fall, and the majority of them are lighter in weight than an equivalent two-stroke. Oh yeah - they also use way less gas, you don't have to buy oil every time you fuel up, they don't smoke/stink, and they don't leave oil slicks in the water. If "new" two-strokes are the future, why has Evinrude lost so much market share in the last 10 years? They've gone from number two in the market to somewhere behind Honda and Suzuki ..... competing with Tohatsu for last place in outboard sales. Why? Oh ... they don't even make a four-stroke. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but guys who say they still prefer two-strokes really do need to get out there and actually drive the newer four-stroke outboards. There's just no reason to use a dinosaur, and put up with the extra operating cost and pollution any more.

It seems to be a real gray area but from what I've ever seen or read, there doesn't seem to be so much of an issue if you're floating on the water over the privately-owned land. The problem seems to be when you make physical contact with it, i.e. drop the anchor, step ashore, wade, or otherwise physically touch the property. Someone who really wants to dig into this further might want to talk with one of the canoe associations, since as you note they often paddle down rivers with private property on both banks. They might be able to provide a better insight.

Not necessarily so - property lines can (and often do) extend for a considerable distance underwater. The only way to determine the actual property line is to visit the registrar's office and check the original land title deed. MJL, you might be surprised how many deeds specifically include a chunk of lake bed (or stream bed). Canadian law is not like that of the US, which generally identifies the property line on navigable waterways as the low-water mark. Canadian properties are always defined by specific measurement. If the lot is 300 feet deep, then it's 300 feet deep, even if a chunk of that happens to lie beneath the waves. For what it's worth, plenty of guys have tried this argument to get access to sections of various trout streams, the thinking being that as long as they're in the water and don't step up on the bank, they're free and clear. Then they're shocked when they get charged with trespass. Happens every year, and guys will be charged on opening weekend this year too. Take it to the bank. Just in terms of optics, it doesn't look good to camp out in front of someone's place even if you are legally in the right to do so. There are plenty of places to fish, and there's no need for confrontation. Who needs the headache? Willow - as Terry notes, some areas of lake bed are pretty tough to wade, especially as you travel south. You might want to speak with the MNR, who can not only direct you to spots with large concentrations of fish, but suggest specific areas where you won't have to worry about your footing or face conflicts with property owners. Carp are an under-utilized species here, so they will be very receptive to helping you out. Try the district office in Aurora (905/713-7400), or the local office in Huronia (705/725-7500) as a starting point. Good luck! Lots of big carp in Simcoe.

The survey is broken down on a watershed basis, so in the case of Rice Lake it would include tributary streams that flow into it. Many of them do have populations of brook trout and brown trout. In answer to your original question, in order to be statistically valid the survey has to be totally random (i.e. you can't sign up to participate). The reason for this is to ensure the results are not skewed or influenced by any one group.

There's been a major effort to restore walleye populations in the harbour for many years, including habitat restoration work and the live transfer of adult walleye from the Bay of Quinte to form a local brood stock. There is now a limited walleye fishery in Hamilton harbour, mainly for trophy fish, but as with anything else it is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. The fish are highly migratory and spend most of the summer in Lake Ontario. But under the right conditions, trolling certain areas of the harbour at night with big stickbaits can be VERY rewarding.

I can't believe it took five pages for someone to make the Atlantic comment!

Never had a problem with my old (pre-TE) Calcutta 400s.

'Rumour' has it there's a similar bite on right now much closer to home.

It is a bit different in that the LCBO is a Crown Corporation, while MNR (which administers Ontario Parks) is a provincial ministry. Different guidelines, different rules, different opportunities. Still think you'll be better off to avoid anything public sector, but your call. Have fun with it in any case!

Apart from stuff like campsite maps, you won't find much in the way of marketing materials for Algonquin Park specifically because they don't exist. In Ontario, provincial parks are marketed together under Ontario Parks. The government doesn't allow individual parks to compete against each other, so all are marketed under the same umbrella. Are you really sure you want to do a provincial park for this project? Because Algonquin is a provincial park, any ideas you come up for your project with will involve spending public money, and that's going to mean a LOT more extra work on your end. For starters, the profs at York will want you to demonstrate that your strategy is fully compliant with existing provincial policy and planning guidelines. Ever read government policy documentation? It's brutal. But if you're being marked on this at a university level, you better have that info in your report or you'll take a hit on your final mark. You'll need to devote close to a full week of research time on policy alone. Regulatory issues are another matter. Anything you do has to conform to existing government protocols. That means yet more research time on your end. I won't even go into the hoops you'll need to jump through when it comes to budgeting. You may come up with the best marketing strategy in the world, but demonstrating that it fits within existing bureauocracy, regulations and policies will take up a huge amount of your time. If you skip this, or do an incomplete job, the prof will hang you out to dry - trust me. Why not make it easier on yourself and do your project on a privately-owned property instead? La Reserve Beauchene, in Quebec, would be a good example. Because it is privately owned, Beauchene can do things that provincial parks like Algonquin can't - like advertise, exhibit at sports shows, invite TV show hosts to film programs there, attend sports shows in the US, etc etc. You'll have way more flexibility in what you can do, and you won't have to waste mountains of time writing about how you'll get through all the red tape. Apart from that, you'll be able to find all sorts of existing marketing materials on Beauchene - try a Google search, or contact them directly. Just a suggestion .... if you go this way you can devote more time to your actual marketing plan, and less time addressing bureauocratic nonsense.

Your question shouldn't be how do you get into the fishing industry so much as why on earth would you want to?

Why touch the fish to begin with? Probably 95 percent of the fish I "land" never touch either me or the ground. I wade in a little over ankle deep, grab the line a few inches above the hook, and pop the hook out with a pair of needlenose pliers. Fish is back where it came from in a second or two, completely unharmed, and I don't have to get my hands wet. That's such a luxury when fishing in cold weather. If it's an exceptional fish and I want a quick photo, then I'll beach it. But understand there are places where it's appropriate to beach a fish, and places where it isn't. Don't drag it up on the mud, or scrape it over the sand. Usually, if you're willing to walk a few feet upstream or downstream you can find a shallow gravelly spot where you can beach it easily, and without filling its gills with silt. Pop the hook out, take your quick picture, and send it back on its merry way. If you're going to release a fish and really expect it to survive, you need to minimize your contact with it. Learning to unhook it in the water, not touching it at all, is by far the best approach.

They work okay for rainbows and browns in small creeks. Small Flatfish works much better, though.

Considering the number of people you see on the water who have a hard time telling smallmouth from sheephead, I have to wonder how many smaller muskies will wind up on chain stringers this spring. Why do I not have a good feeling about this?