craigdritchie

Even more reason to go catch your own. It's pretty scary when lab scientists can't even identify a fish by comparing genetic samples against "the most comprehensive database that has ever been constructed." Good grief! As someone who really believes you are what you eat, that's truly alarming. I think I may go walleye fishing this weekend.

I heard it on the Stern show too and just had to look it up - it's hard to turn away from a train wreck. The drummer's face is just priceless, as he realizes he's on national TV, and will probably never get a woman again.

I'm still in a state of disbelief. Louis, my apologies to your dog.

Lots of serious thoughts this week as we commemorate Remembrance Day and think about Canadians presently in Afghanistan ......... so this might be a good time for a chuckle. This is Yoko Ono and the Plastic Ono Band performing on the Jimmy Fallon show last week. Yoko may have her strengths, but singing definitely isn't one of them. Click the link and let the horror begin:

Both fish are brown trout. Fish are no different than humans, in that there can be considerable variation in their physical appearance. Some are thicker, some are thinner, some have more or less pigmentation (aka skin colouration), and where some people may have minor differences in their eye colour, trout may have minor differences in their spotting patterns. You see two guys standing side-by-side fishing, and one's short, fat and bald while his buddy is tall, skinny and hairy as a Golden Retriever. Guess what? They're both the same species. Same deal with these two fish. Just one is a little hairier than the other one. Dave's point is also well taken. There is clearly an age difference between those two fish. For what it's worth, the most fool-proof way to tell a brown from an Atlantic is to look inside its mouth. Atlantic salmon always have a thin, pointy tongue that looks almost spear-like, where browns always have a flat, squared tongue that looks more like a thumb nail with teeth on it. Things like colour, shape and spotting patterns are highly variable. The tongue is not.

Very pretty fishie. Problem is, my friend, now you're hooked.

Pretty fishies. Pretty reel. I feel a couple of "professional development" days in my future.

Just watch you don't go too light on the reel. I recently played with a prototype carbon reel that was hanging on an 11-1/2 foot IMX, and it made the rod feel awfully tip-heavy. Unless you fish exclusively with 9-foot rods, you need some weight in the reel to balance the stick.

Steelhead and browns are even more receptive to lures than chinooks are. If you're casting off a pier or fishing a huge, deep river like the Niagara, spoons and Rapalas work well. So do spinners and Flatfish. Try fishing piers by casting a no. 3 or 4 Mepps, or a F7 Flatfish with a couple of big split shot about 18 inches up the line. Or, fish with bait either on bottom or under a float (roe, a worm, or a three-inch emerald shiner). They all work. In the rivers, stick with drifiting with a float, or tossing spinners, as per Bill M's advice. You don't absolutely need to use roe bags. People tie loose roe into bags because it's difficult to impale the eggs on the hook otherwise - like chicken eggs, once you puncture that protective outer cover the liquid insides run right out and you have nothing left. You can treat the eggs to make them more rubbery, so they will hold on a hook, and there are all sorts of ways to do this. Do a google search on curing roe and you'll find lots of info. Tying them into bags is the simplest and most convenient way to fish them, however. That's why everyone does it. By the way, check your PM.

Hit a deer coming into Guelph a few years ago, driving a three-month-old Ford Ranger. Folded up the front end to the tune of $7,000. Of course, the deer did not have insurance.

Hi Rob, Niagara and Port D are both pretty challenging waters to try and fish with flies. If you're new to trout fishing, you might want to forget about the streamers and try drifting roe or emerald shiners along bottom instead. You'll have a better chance of success as you get the feel for it. Simplest rig is a small hook (#10 or #12 works fine) and enough weight you're bumping bottom now and then without constantly getting hung up. Position the weight about 18 inches up the line from the hook, and don't worry about any snaps, swivels or leaders. Six pound mono or eight pound mono will work perfectly. If you're getting snagged on bottom constantly, try using a three-way swivel about 18 inches up the line from the hook. Hang a short length of line (maybe six to eight inches) off the third swivel eye, and crimp the weight on there instead of on your main line. When you get stuck, give a smooth pull and you'll strip the weight off the hanging line. You'll need to replace the missing weights, but it saves having to re-tie the whole works. At least that will get you started. Good luck.

You really are killing me, dude

No guff. Our kids will have definitely some issues on their hands.

Bigugli - The vast majority of ex-military stuff is sunk in pretty deep water, intentionally out of the reach of recreational divers, and thus less of a potential liability to those who sunk it. Kickingfrog - It's not just NYC. The beautiful city of Victoria, BC, does not have a sewage treatment plant. The city's sewage goes directly - and untreated - into Juan de Fuca Strait. In fact, the 300,000 people who live in Victoria and its suburbs dump 34 million gallons of raw sewage into the ocean every single day. Vancouver dumps raw sewage too. So much for the image of BC being full of hard-core environmentalists. Lew - sinking an old military ship definitely has an effect on the environment. But so does cutting it up for scrap. At the end of the day, does it do less damage to sink it, or generate x-amount of energy (and pollution) to cut it up? And, will it cost more to cut it up than it's worth as scrap metal? I suspect the answer varies on a case-by-case basis, which may be why some vessels are sunk and others are not.

You can read a review of it here: Greys Berwick Review The Berwick is a nice reel, but I wouldn't get too hung up on the lifetime warranty. There isn't a whole lot to a centrepin to begin with, and even less that would be covered under a warranty repair anyway. Warranty won't cover bearings wearing out or damage from dropping it ... there isn't much else to go wrong. Unless you fish mainly small creeks, you might consider a slightly larger reel in the 4-1/2 inch range. The extra diameter doesn't add much weight, yet it greatly increases line pickup, which can be a big plus if you fish medium-large rivers.

Take a walk down the ship canal piers in May and you'll see pods of absolutely enormous carp swimming around. I have no idea what they would weigh, but some of them are big enough you could ride them.

Different tools for different jobs. I use centrepins or baitcasting outfits or spinning rigs, depending where and when. My own observations ... 1. I didn't think I would ever get that stupid Wallace cast down. Then one day it just started to work. Don't know why, it just did. Neither distance or line twist have been a problem since. 2. Nothing beats a 'pin when fishing dead-slow currents, since it takes so little inertia to get that big spool rolling. Baitcasters work fine in stronger currents, and I love mine in big water like the Niagara. But in dead-slow flows, the 'pin rules. 3. Drag on a good baitcasting reel (Calcutta) or a really good spinning reel (Daiwa Whisker) makes it almost impossible to lose a fish. That said, I don't lose too many on the 'pin either - at least not to finger drag. Usually, I find another way to mess it up. 4. Sometimes fish want hardware, and you're screwed if all you have with you is a 'pin. I always have a spinning reel in the back of my vest. You never know. 5. If you want a fast retrieve, try batting a five-inch 'pin. Even a baitcaster with a 7:1 retrieve can't keep up when its little spool is only an inch-and-a-half in diameter. 6. I can twist ice off my centrepin pretty easily. Can't say the same of a spinning reel, or worse yet, a baitcaster. Once the line guide on a casting reel begins to plug with ice, you're in for tough sledding. I've tried spraying my Calcuttas with Pam and all sorts of other stuff, but in cold weather they drive me nuts. Even after saying all that, if I could own only one reel for all my steelhead fishing, it would still be a Whisker - hands down. Dave - I smiled when I read about your old Shakespeare. Now there's good times! I wonder if I can find my ancient Zebco 44?

I have an ancient nine-foot HMG I sometimes use in small, brush-filled ditches - sometimes for steelies, sometimes for resident browns. I prefer longer rods, so this one definitely feels weird after fishing bigger waters with a 13+, but in the little creeks it works absolutely great. It's a different kind of fun.

I don't see a lot of criticism leveled at biologists. I do, however, see a lot of criticism aimed at MNR bureaucrats and policy advisors. In many cases, that criticism is completely justified. We often hear that MNR has a responsibility to protect our resources, but it also has an equal responsibility to the people of Ontario. My opinion is that MNR bureaucrats have consistently dropped the ball where serving public interest is concerned. The long-term result has been a steady decrease in license sales, and even less money for biologists and conservation officers to do their work. Fishing and hunting issues are now largely irrelevant to most people who live in Ontario. So, funding for them will only become harder to obtain in the future. The only way MNR will ever have more money for resource projects will be if enough people feel it's important to fund them. Until the politicos in Queens Park understand this, and start actually marketing our outdoors, not much is going to change. I feel badly for the field staff (biologists and COs) who really do care, and who understand better than anyone that their biggest challenge is dealing with a complete lack of backbone and political will at Queen's Park.

Adding the boat as a rider to your house policy works, but check to make sure that any claims related to the boat won't impact the main (house) policy. Depending how things are set up, that could be the case. If you want to get a separate policy just for the boat, it is best to deal with a broker that specializes in boat insurance. There are several in Ontario - Robertson & Robertson, Marine Experts and Northstar are all well known, dependable boat insurance brokers in southern Ontario. You can Google the contact info. It isn't just hull coverage you need, you will want liability coverage as well. It will save your bacon if you damage someone else's property, and protect you against legal costs and other expenses. Regardless of what you do, make sure your policy provides replacement coverage. If the policy provides pro-rated actual value coverage, which factors in depreciation, you will be screwed if anything goes wrong. For example, say you hit a rock and need a new lower unit. The new lower unit costs $2,000. Your used lower unit is valued at $800 after depreciation. They give you $800, and you're on your own for the $1,200 difference. When you hear people say they were screwed over by their insurance company, this is usually why. If you get replacement cost insurance, you get a new lower unit. Period. No fooling around. Cost difference between the two types of coverage is minimal .... a few bucks each year. Totally worth the upgrade.

I went to the main store in Nebraska once. Holy cow! You know you're in deep when they hand you a map of the place as you enter.

Canadadude: You don't need a TV fishing show to be able to fish on private land. Just drive around and knock on a few doors. If you're polite and reasonable, you might be surprised at the access you can get just by asking nicely. Even better, ask the landowner if you can repay their kindness by helping out with some work around the property. It might mean you give up a Saturday or two over the summer, but in return you get some prime water all to yourself. Sweet deal, I say. Terry: Not doubting that's what you may have been told - I'm just saying don't believe everything you hear. I've seen people lie through their teeth about stuff like that so many times I've lost count. I don't know why people feel the need to Bull like that .... I really don't get it at all. Whatever.

I've fished Beauchene with Bob many times, and find that very, very difficult to believe.

TV show hosts are not allowed to fish in closed seasons, in sanctuaries, or for out-of-season fish just because they have a TV program. Period. In the past Ontario has issued permits to some TV show hosts so they could shoot educational programming. However, the criteria for these permits are very specific. TV fishing shows are not normally considered 'educational programming' - especially when the show exists as a for-profit enterprise. Following the Henry and Italo fiasco of the early 90s, these permits are now almost impossible to get. The truth of the matter is, if the TV show host knows how to fish, they don't need to shoot in sanctuaries or during closed seasons to begin with. I shot a pile of steelhead episodes with Bob Izumi for the Real Fishing Show over a span of about 12 years, and all were shot during regular open season. One segment was shot on private land (a farm I had access to), and the other 10 or 12 segments were shot on public stretches of well-known rivers anyone can go to. Of course, we could do that because Bob knows how to catch fish. I can't say that for every TV show host I've met. I have held a couple of scientific collection permits over the years, and they are very specific as to where and when you can fish. They have nothing to do with filming a TV show.

The biggest difference between then and now is that 25 years ago, Bronte Creek had about twice as much water in it as it does today. So the pools were all MUCH larger and deeper, and there were many more of them. Even the shallow riffles were deep enough to hold fish all day long, and there was no shortage of deep undercuts and runs where you could always find unmolested steelhead and browns. Today, most of the smaller pools are long gone, and the bigger pools that do remain are nowhere near as large or as deep as they used to be. Those undercuts and runs that always held steelhead don't exist anymore either. Now they're all silted in. By building all those subdivisions in north Burlington, Waterdown and beyond, land developers have lowered the water table and cut the amount of water flowing into Bronte Creek by half. The river current isn't strong enough to clean sediment out of the pools anymore, so it just piles up and the pools slowly fill in. Back in the 70s, even a light rain shower would send chinook charging upriver all the way to Lowville. Today, even after a torrential downpour there's so little water in the creek that they barely make it to the QEW. The end result of all this is that where you might have had maybe 20 or 30 spots to fish over a given kilometre of river back then, today, you have maybe only four or five. Sure, there were heavy crowds fishing Bronte back in the 70s - there were just as many people as today - but because there were so many more spots to fish you could always find a place to drift. With more water in the creek, fish - and anglers - could spread out. But it's no longer like that. Now, fish and fishermen are all crammed into a few shallow spots. So the fish are pretty much permanently spooked. That makes it really hard to catch them. You know what? I can say exactly the same thing for pretty much every single stream that flows into Lake Ontario. They all used to be much better places to fish than they are now, mainly because they were bigger and deeper, with more consistent water levels and thus many more spots that would hold fish. Thank you, urban sprawl. I have lots of old Bronte and Credit photos, mainly colour slides and b&w prints. I'll see if I can find time to scan some just for fun.