Jonny

Typical gas company crap. Price per bbl drops - you get a cent or two off per liter at the pumps. Price per bbl rises - you get whacked by a big increase. Even big gov't can't tackle big business (i.e. oil companies). Not that they mostly even want to try.

I sent a "letter to the editor" of the North Bay Nugget, virtually identical to my lead-off post. They published it today, mostly intact. I don't know why they think they have to edit a letter to the editor. They published one critical comment about the MNR but took out two other passages that were critical.

Nice lookin' piece of precision hardware. Kind of has an understated Rolls Royce look to it. Will you take $5.50 for it? (Maybe the decimal's in the wrong place.)

I posted one thread complaining about the cormorants on Nipissing. I figured I should post another more positive one. Last summer my wife and I were trolling the Goose Islands on Lake Nipissing and when we came around a point, we saw a large bird perched on a granite boulder. We reeled in and I let the boat drift toward shore. Now the bird didn't let us get as close as it looks - the picture is taken with a digital camera with a 12X optical zoom - but we got within about 40 or 50 yards of it before it lifted. A friend had told me that he had seen a golden eagle around occasionally, but this was the first we saw of it, and what a good look we had. That's one BIG bird. Has anyone else seen one around? I take it there aren't too many of them in Ontario. The only other time I've seen them is way, way up above the peaks when I was fishing the Kananaskis for cutthroat.

In your member profile you can view pics you've uploaded and you can also see how many times they've been downloaded by others. That pic I uploaded of the Mennonite fishing buggies... almost 500 dowloads. Guys must have liked it! This board is great for ease of use. You can see a lot of work went into it!

Well it is Southern Ontario, and not that far from Toronto and other heavy populations. The good news is that a lot of weekend cottagers don't fish much. And if there's a prohibition on docks and "improvements" within 100+ feet of the shoreline, maybe some of the aesthetic quality will be preserved. I guess owners of these properties would need the services of two marinas - one on the shore and one on the island. I suppose that if you can afford the price of a lot, afford to build on it and afford the taxes, you can afford the slip fees.

Don't feel like you're stuck. You can always sell that baitcaster to garry2rs for $5.50. http://www.ofncommunity.com/forums/index.p...40&start=40 Seriously, though, now that you've got it, I'll bet you will make it work for certain kinds of fishing. Don't expect it to do everything a spinning reel does, but it will do certain things very well... and a few better than a spinning reel. Failing all else, it should make an excellent trolling reel.

Beware. Just like in fishing itself, getting it doesn't necessarily mean you can keep it.

Too bad you can't string 'em all on at once. A bass would be like a kid in a candy store!

Government studies tend to have a political component, that's why we take them with a grain of salt, no matter what is being studied. And this study looks only at the Great Lakes. That is a limiting factor as well. We have no idea of what the impact is on a lake like Nipissing which has a different makeup and which already has heavy pressure on it. I would welcome at least a study, government or not, but total inaction is not welcome.

Probably not, as I haven't made the comparison myself in any meaningful way where I would stake what I say on it, because my spinning reels are loaded with 14 lb at the maximum. The 20 lb I mentioned I clearly qualified with a disadvantage, and I don't use it. To quote myself: In case you haven't noticed, this thread is all about personal experience, from both sides. Unless of course if you think that someone with a preference for baitcasters states only facts and someone with a preference for spinning reels states only conjecture. You don't believe when I tell you that I've casted for hundreds of hours with a spinning reel and not noticed line twist degrading performance? Fine. You can believe I was lying just so I could make a point. You're not reading, you're projecting. I've already made two things clear - 1) Spinning reels have a line twist problem when used for trolling with certain baits 2) A certain amount of line twist, though it might be present from casting, is not detrimental to performance. Using a baitcaster isn't rocket science. If you're a fisherman you don't have much problem using a baitcaster. I don't believe I've ever stated that a spinning reel is better than a baitcaster, but a thread like this certainly flushes out those who think a baitcaster is sine qua non and is somehow elite equipment. Like this very comment, implying that someone with a preference for a spinning reel (for most fishing) is somehow incompetent.

No, experience doesn't lie, like I just explained above. Some line twist happens on spinning reels, granted (I already did), but line twist is a non-issue in spinning reels used for casting because whatever twist is there is unnoticeable. Spinning reels aren't popular for casting for nothing. You fish them with 50 lb braid!? Now that's specialized fishing! Akin to me using 50 lb steel line on my #47 Penn Mariner to horse those lake trout up from the depths. As I've already pointed out, it doesn't suffer. If it did happen, spinning reels would rightly be shunned. In actual practice, a spinning reel works fine, cast after cast.

I was using the video feature on my digital camera (Olympus 550 - 12x optical zoom) to record some ducks feeding under our bird feeder by the shore when I saw a string of cormorants winging by about a half mile out to go fishing further down the bay. I turned the camera on them. Last night I took another look at the video on my laptop and slowed it down so I could count. 750 cormorants in that one flock, and it's early in the year! In late August it will be more like about 1500.

I get out plenty, thanks. I don't need to do a "test". My test is what works, and I can fish with the same line all summer - some still fishing, some drifting, a lot of casting - and I don't have to worry about twist. If the line has a little twist in it, it's so minor as to be unnoticeable. The place where twist is a nuisance is with trolling baits that will twist the line (i.e. lures and spoons, but not with Rapalas and the like), but I use level-wind for that. I don't think you've fished consistently with a spinning reel if you think that casting causes a problem with line twist. When I was a teenager I fished with probably an intensity I've never matched, shore-fishing stretches of the Vermillion River for pike and bass, usually with cheap Canadian Tire imitations of Daredevils because I could afford to lose a few. Those suckers will twist up the line on a spinning reel so badly if you use them for trolling that I bet nothing can match them. But I would cast all day with them, day after day, hundreds of casts a day, and I didn't have a problem. If I had had line twist it would have robbed me of casting distance (REALLY important if you're shore-fishing). So no, I don't buy the line twist argument one bit, except for trolling with certain types of bait. Yes, I'm aware of that. But go figure, I've used a couple of spincasters that can cast like hell. They shouldn't, but they do. Smooth and LONG. I have no idea why. The baitcaster manufacturers can see you coming. It's the mystique thing. Premium price for "premium" gear. But no, it's also likely that it's more expensive to produce a good baitcaster than it is to produce a good spinning reel, because of the disadvantage in physics that has to be overcome. The line flows freely off a spinning reel, without the spool moving, so it's only the diameter of the spool and the design of the lip of the spool, and how full it is of line, that determine how the line slips off the reel. In a baitcaster, the spool has to rotate at a precise speed because if it goes too slow it will drag on the bait and cut your distance, and if it goes too fast you'll end up with a nice backlash. The spinning reel is just a simpler, more efficient design.

Cudz you mention "pulling power"... I can't see this being "advantage baitcaster". If I want pulling power with a spinning reel, I can use a slightly heavier line (i.e. 14 lb test) and a slightly heavier, shorter rod. Then set the drag at the heavy end and I can pull to turn a fish or get it out of cover as well as a baitcaster could. Both are limited by how much strain you can put on the line. What test of line are you talking about for pulling power on a baitcaster? You can horse a fish, yes, but the heavier you go in test, the more you sacrifice in casting performance with either type of reel. I can (and have) put 20 lb in a spinning reel, and I can pull the boat with it when I get snagged! But I lose distance. And speed (bait in to bait out)... I think you probably have a point there, if a few seconds per cast is important, but I just don't see myself emulating the tourney fishermen to whom whipping the water is a necessity. I tend to fish with less frenzy because I'm out for recreation, not to win a prize. *** I've been thinking more about the idea that baitcasters can throw more accurately. I wonder if it boils down to baitcasters tending to go with heavier baits. You can throw a heavier bait more accurately than a light bait... but that holds true for a spinning reel as well. Those one-pound baits that some guys are talking about? I'd never cast for any length of time with one of those. Them's trollin' baits, son, on a levelwind and a stiff rod. You could very well be right, Charles. I used to catch some largemouth in weedy areas like Marsh Bay (near the mouth of the French), but I don't get there any more. The north side of the lake has less of that sheltered water, but I'm sure there must be a few largemouth here. I moved here just a few years ago and I've avoided spots like that because they're just so chock full of rocky shoals. But I've got a few ideas about places to try along the shore if I can winkle myself in there with my 2 HP kicker.

I actually asked the question primarily to see if there was anything behind the mystique. I see that there are a couple of things, but considering most of the fishing I do, I don't see changing things too much, except giving my baitcaster a little more of a look in certain situations. I don't get line twist. I either use my baitcaster or Penn for trolling, and that's the only thing where line twist has ever been an issue for me, and only with certain kinds of terminal tackle. You can see by your offer how overpriced a lot of casting reels actually are. Just kidding, really. If you like 'em, buy 'em. One of the slickest casters I ever had was a spincast. Now there's a whole other story!

Osprey and kingfishers and mergansers, fine. Thousands of invasive cormorants, no.

Once they've done their part to decimate the stock, they can move on. Those of us who live on this lake or depend on it for livelihood, can't. If a study has been done on Nipissing cormorants to see what they eat, I haven't heard about it. My gut feeling is that the ones I am seeing are feasting mainly on perch and other small fish, including some small pickerel, but whether they're going for small game or non-game classified fish, they can't help but have an impact in the numbers that there are. To simply assume that they are a non-issue, as the MNR does, I think is a reprehensible head-in-the-sand approach. These birds have the potential to be able to undo all the conservation measures that have been taken. Why are we not hearing anything proactive from the MNR? I did read the entire report, thanks. I maintain some considerable skepticism about the conclusions, and their applicability to this lake. What would I like to see? A determined effort to spray the eggs of nesting cormorants (they're bloody well easy to find!), an effort lasting 3 to 5 years, only necessary during the nesting season of course. I'm not so sure about the efficacy of shooting them by means of organized culls. I don't think you could get rid of enough of them, but perhaps I'm wrong. I know that if they start nesting on the beautiful islands near us and turning them into stinking wastelands, I'll be screaming bloody murder. I expect to have to do that any spring now.

The stuff about less tumbling of the bait, and splashless entry (if you think that in a particular situation you'd rahter go with not spooking fish than with getting their attention), makes sense, but precisely because there is more drag to casting than to spinning. The baitcasting reel has an initial inertia to overcome, and the speed of the spool determines how fast the line will go out. But that, if you think about it, makes a baitcasting reel less likely to give you as long a cast as a spinning reel, contrary to some of what I'm reading here.

OK, but what do most baitcasters do? The standard models come with right-hand crank, don't they, even though most people are right-handed? Some baitcasting reel don't come in left-hand models, and you pay extra on a lot of reels to get left-hand crank. So unless I'm mistaken, most right-handers will cast with the right hand and then switch the rod to the left hand for retrieve. Doesn't make any sense. That's like calling a trout fisherman who fishes with worms a bigot, when it's the fly fishermen who are the ones with "attitude". Of course a levelwind is better for heavy gear. I wouldn't claim it wasn't. You're right that certain things have certain uses, but even the term "baitcaster" puts an implied limit on what we're actually talking about - using a reel to cast for fish. As far as "feel" is concerned, it's probably impossible to have better feel with a good baitcaster than a good spinning reel, or vice versa. All your reel does is take up line; if you think about it, it's the quality and weight of the rod that gives you "feel", wouldn't you say? "Friction on retrieve is waaaay higher" - I'd be interested to know what you think would cause that. The friction of the line coming in through the guides should be the same. You think the line passing over a roller on the bail of a spinning reel makes for "way" more friction? I've been casting all my life. Yeah, I can put it where I want it almost all the time. Can't you? Now that's something that makes sense. I mentioned it primarily because there were a couple of comments about the bail on a spinning reel being a nuisance. Anyone who fishes a lot with a baitcaster is sure to be proficient despite the switch, or the necessity for a two-handed cast. Anyone who fishes a lot with a spinning reel is sure to find that opening the bail is second nature. I wouldn't argue that a spinning reel is better than a baitcaster but I'm skeptical that a baitcaster is better than a spinning reel. I think a good portion of it is just mystique. But yes, of course there are situations which call for a level-wind (not necessarily a baitcaster), and there may be a few particular ways in particular situations where a baitcaster might be preferred (i.e. "pitching"), just like a spinning reel might be for others. I've never intentionally targeted largemouth. We have very few in Northeastern Ontario. But I can cast into a small open spot in lily pads, or hit just at the edge of the branches of a fallen tree or a beaver house. I love using my Ambassador to troll (14 lb test) but not because I think it's better, just because it's different. And for heavier trolling I like using my Penn 209. For the rest I think my spinning reels are fine, and it would be very hard to out-do them, having more to do with the proficiency of the person using the equipment rather than the equipment itself.

I've fished with spinning reels all my life, and baitcasters here and there, and I have to say that CLofchik says a lot of things that I would say. Distance - just not possible for a well-matched baitcaster combo to outcast a well-matched spinning outfit for just about all of the casting possibilities. CLofchik mentioned why. Accuracy - Defnitely no more accurate than a spinning reel combo in good, practiced hands. Casting control with finger on the spool - not necessary when you can already cast accurately. Line compatibility - yes baitcasters can take heavier line, that's what makes them good trolling reels. For the normal 6 to 14 lb. test for casting, that's a moot point. Thumb on the spool for extra drag - why? To "turn" a big fish? You'll turn him when he gets tired, and he'll tire faster if your drag is set well. Mess with a well-set drag and PING, there goes your line. Quick slack for light-biting fish - with a spinning reel, you fish with an open bail and hold the line againat the rod handle with your index finger. Instant slack. Line feel - you can pinch the line between thumb and index on a spinning reel too. Still fishing or drifting - toss up. It's nice to fish with something different once in a while, so a baitcaster can be nice. Disadvantage - every time you put your rod down, it turns upside down. On the other hand, the weight on a spinning outfit is where it shoud natually be, on the bottom of the rod. Ease of use - Here's a thing that's got me wondering. Me being a lefty, I find a baitcaster perfect for me because I handle the rod with my left hand and crank with the right. But what about right-handers? Baitcasters virtually all crank with the right hand, as far as I know. Do right-handers actually retrieve with the left hand holding the rod, and cast with the right hand??? If that's so, that's a HUGE drawback, having to change hands for every cast and retrieve. Cost - baitcast manufacturers obviously see you coming. Mystique - I guess baitcasters win hands-down.

You might not have heard of the worst of it (or the best of it). The cormorants on Nipissing and the Great Lakes are double-crested cormorants. I read an article recently where there's concern among some locals about the disappearance of a small population of dc cormorants in Maine. Apparently, there, dc cormorants are rare, although very common elsewhere. The reason for their dwindling number? The resurgence of bald eagles! The eagles feed on their chicks. Maybe we should encourage a breeding population of bald eagles in this neck of the woods! We do all sorts of things to alter, adjust, improve, enhance and protect the environment and its benefits to us. Stocking of lakes, anyone? How about the spraying of spruce budworm that devastate the aesthetic and commercial possibilities of forests? Or the campaign to get rid of those pesky pine bark beetle invaders that are cutting huge swaths through BC forests? The "hands off" approach is not somehow the golden objective. We have our needs too, and they are not necessarily incompatible with nature as a whole. We can manage resources and we also know enough to create or maintain a balance that suits us in some small ways. Getting rid of cormorants on Nipissing is a no-brainer. The balance that we painstakingly created between sport fishing, native fishing (which takes well over half of the catch in Nipissing), and sustainability of the resource, is in danger of being upset by proliferating cormorants. The lake was fine when there were none, it would be fine without them again, and more suited to our recreational use. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. All wildlife is not sacrosanct. ------------------------------ EDIT - correction. The article I found some time ago mentioned dc cormorants as being rare in Maine. I searched this again, and it's great cormorants which are rare there, although common elsewhere. Bald eagles are predators of both. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/enviro...les_N.htm?imw=Y

I really dislike these "man is the worst animal" arguments. They're an excuse for doing nothing when something needs to be done. We change the natural world when we want to. We do it all the time. In a lot of cases the change is either questionable or downright bad for the environment. That's the basis for your attitude, and I wouldn't say that generally it's a poor attitude; I have that same attitude myself --- most of the time. But in cases like this, getting rid of a geographic population of a part of a proliferating species is not bad, or even questionable. Like I said, the balance of nature on Nipissing, and I daresay other places in the Great Lakes area, was fine without cormorants. If they degrade the environment, which they do, and if they compete for resources with us, which they do, and if they are an invasive species, which they are, there's absolutely nothing wrong with us doing something about it. Nothing will be affected (except in a positive way) but the cormorants. Our use and enjoyment of the environment and its resources, within sustainablity guidelines, is a fact and will not change. The presence of cormorants doesn't have to be a fact.

Think "fish duck" (i.e. merganser). Ever try one of those? I have. Once.

When I was a kid, I was taught to fish with a spinning reel, and I still can't see an advantage to using a baitcaster (levelwind). Is there a baitcaster out there that can top a spinning reel for distance, for example? I remember the days in the 50's when my Mom, who liked a levelwind for trolling, would try once in a while to cast with it and end up with some beautiful backlash birdnests. I know they're much better now, but I still can't warm up to a baitcaster for casting. I have a nice Abu-Garcia Ambassador and use it for trolling.