Golfisher

Not suitable for one of those delicate, stealthy reconnaissance missions, I presume.

I second Rick's welcome as another ice-fishing wimp.

Got on the PP bandwagon last year, from all the effusive praise that it was getting from the board members here, and the only regret I have is that I didn't get on the bandwagon sooner. Great stuff.

Any progress so far? Most people I know release all the carp they catch, but I also know some people who eat them, and those who do insist that they are great. As for me, I have never tried, and I have no intention to try either, but then again I had never eaten any freshwater fish until last year, so who knows what might happen. If you do decide to try them, you should stay away from larger ones, given the level of accumulated toxins.

Good stuff!!

Either way, we get screwed.

Why the hell does any of us need to buy more reels, more rods, more lures, and more of everything when all we need is just a bamboo pole and a hook tipped with some worm? Sure you can catch carp without gong Euro, but then you won't hear the sweet sound of the bite alarm going off. You may not care for that sound, nor see any point in it, but I, along with Tony and others on this board, do dig this stuff: different strokes for different people.

We are just not worthy. Thanks a bunch for yet another great report.

There indeed are better days ahead. It's gonna hit 18 C tomorrow, and that alone is enough to make me giggle like a girl, fish or no fish!

The consensus view IS precisely what I said, that climate change is not only real but also anthropogenic. Read the Science article yourself, and then tell me that there is no scientific consensus on the role of human activities on climate change: "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. References and Notes A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003). See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003). American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003). See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions. 10.1126/science.1103618 So there you have it: not a single blip among the nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed studies explicitly rejecting the consensus view on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. But I suppose you know better than all these scientists.

Thanks for the report; for the desk-bound saps, it's always good to fish vacariously, even when getting skunked.

Hmm.... let's see, 2,500 scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London, and the Royal Society of Canada, all saying that global climate change is real and something has to be done. And these scientists, all with impeccable academic credentials, are being called "pseudo-scientists" by a handful of people funded by Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute, who can hardly get a publication in any serious scientific journals--but they'll be more than happy to give a small chat at the Fraser Institute, for a handsome fee, of course. Am I the only one to see something wrong here? The journal Science, one of the most respected and prestigious scientific journals in the world, analyzed nearly a thousand peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a SINGLE study that disagreed with the consensus. You be the judge: 928 studies saying climate change is real and human beings are constributing to it, 0 study saying it's not real. Yet some people will still choose to side with the guys who get as much respect as the flat-earth society in the scientific community, and take a step further to say that climate change is nothing more than a swindle--indeed, go as far as to cast doubt on the credentials of the scientists who have been eating and breathing this stuff for as long as they remember, and call their work "crap." One thing clear is that the petroleum industry's propaganda machine has been extremely effective, given how so many people seem to be convinced that 928 studies are wrong while zero study is all the evidence they need.

How is Seaguar for main line as opposed to leader? Casts better than Vanish, I hope? I don't mean to hijack Mike's thread, but I'd like to hear fluoro recommendations for main line.

Mike, given your profession and the time of the year, shouldn't you have been counting beans this afternoon rather than venturing out to test your new gear? Welcome to OFC.

Mike, What's the leader for? If it's for toothy creatures like pike and muskie, Berkely Vanish is no good. Actually, Vanish is good for nothing--it's brittle, it breaks easily, and it's just all around aweful... worst line ever. A 25 yd spool of Seaguar may not seem that long, but it will give you plenty of leaders. My pike leaders range from 8 to 16 inches; there are 900 inches in 25 yards; and assuming an average length of 12 inches for a leader, that means I can get 75 leaders out of a single 25 yd spool. Even if I make longer leaders, say 2 ft, I can still get 37 leaders out of the spool. I used to buy pre-made fluoro leaders, costing around 8 to 10 bucks each. It's no brainer; go with Seaguar. Vanish will give you nothing but trouble.

Some good stuff here!

Hey Photoz, how are you doing with that itch, now that the open season is just around the corner? Have you been out yet?

Fish on Line carry carp stuff and they will order for you if what you are looking for isn't in stock. The store is on Jane, slightly north of Lawrence. I've ordered some stuff from the states as well, from this store: http://www.wackerbaits.com You'll find a lot more stuff there, and the service has been great (I had to return a bite alarm once, and encountered no hassle). Some more on-line carping stores: http://www.carpanglersgroup.com/carplinks.html

That does it. I'm quitting my job to get some piking in before the season closes!

Very nice indeed!

Yeah, that's it Irishfield. So my memory hasn't failed me then. Looks simple enough; I think I can make one without too much trouble. Thanks for posting the picture.

Thanks guys for the replies. I'm gonna try to make one for myself, but if it's too much trouble, I now know that I can just buy one.

I remember seeing ages ago someone posting pictures of a home-made, transducer-mounting device for a portable sonar. I vaguely recall it had some type of clamp and a metal extension. It might have been posted by Irishfield, but I could be wrong. Anyways, it would be quite helpful if I could see that picture again, as I just bought a portable finder (went with Eagle FishEasy245ds) and I am looking for a non-suction cup solution to mount the transducer. I don't think the suction cup is going to hold that reliably. Thanks.

Do a google search and you will find enough stuff on the pros and cons of different types of reels to answer any questions you might have. But for a short answer, spinning is simple and easy to cast, but more difficult to control casting accuracy; baitcasting is a bit trickier to master, but works great once you get a handle; and spin casting, well, I think it's mostly for kids. LOL. I am pretty ignorant when it comes to tackle myself, but I thinking spinning is a good start, and then move on to a more sophisticated (and generally more expensive) baitcasting setup. As for actual reels to recommend, you gotta give us some idea in terms of your budget. Asking for a recommended reel without saying what your budget is like asking for a car recommendation without any idea of how much money you are willing to spend.

JB's Fishing Depot has great service; it comes highly recommended by many members here. Might be a bit out of your way, as it's near Kipling and 401 (24 Ronson Dr., to be exact). Fish on Line might be closer to you, and this store does carry live bait. It's on Jane St., slightly north of Lawrence.