aniceguy

classic video !!

come on guys if it wasnt for wfn I wouldnt have gotten my load and cut, have a perfect lawn and have all those revolutionary Billy May products, rekindle my love for Sophia Loren and remember why I hate the darn ocean..... Seriously the Canadian and bass content is pretty good.....

said it without saying it eh sinker its based on creel data, while the limit says 5 many only take 1 or 2 and a very small percentage harvest over that 5 fish equals around 35% harvest 2 fish equal 32% or so flip me your email and I ll send you a pdf on it sinker

as I sit on the FMZ for the lake and am part of the advisory matrix this is the current thing we are working on as we speak while I cant get into details its a hot topic. Just an FYI going from 5 to 2 fish decreases harvest by 2% in reality it does 0 to it other then the optics of it. If I can figure out how to post a pdf here I can post some great presentations I made to this topic The important question that needs to be asked is what recreational anglers want in a fishery as you cant really come to any concencus until that issue is resloved so what type of recreational fishery do we want to create in Zone 20 for Rainbow Trout 1. Do we want a fishery with more fish and larger average size fish ( ie a trophy fishery) 2. Do we want a fishery with smaller fish and less fish overall ( a non sustainable fishery) 3. Do we want A healthy fishery that’s self sustaining wild and not dependant on supplemental stocking ( a wild fishery) 4. Do we want a put delay and take fishery that’s dependant on continual stocking I think that through the Lake Ontario Fish Community Objectives (GLFC), and SPOF II (MNR), number 3 is already the default and it is just a matter of choosing option 1 or 2 to drive the fishery and see where it goes, as I don’t think a sustainable fishery is capable at a drop from 5 to 2. While its great optics it doesn’t support current OMNR policy and sadly they believe baby steps are needed first. At the end of the day what sort of fishery do you want as many see apples many see oranges. I will tell you 1 thing though out east the off shore fishery should have an even more restricitve limit for out of province anglers. Remember 1 thing the lake needs to be dealt with as an enitre fish community, whats done to asist 1 fish might hinder another, and as such a whole new group of stakeholders open up. GB has 3 fish on bass with fish populations that IMO are in good shape, why that reg change occured I ll never know....... imagine if Lake O went there the financial impact to say commercial netters in quinte as bass increase with by catch, the bass tournament trail and its removal from zone 20 or the alwiefe population if there is a cold winter and we stock over stock at the same time a minor bait crash happens. Its a big lake with lots of fish and even more interaction on decisions made

actually at a baseball tournament there in a few weeks and was looking forward to touring it...

cool report....you know that box of senko's is gonna haunt ya lol

the most prolific statement you have ever made on this site without adding specifics those that got out are and have gone up in the respect factor of many of the weekend warrior tournament guys...a variance order to fish for money is wrong plain and simple I dont care what when and or where. I have fished under such variance orders ( scientific capture liscences) that was a scientific purpose with a defined result in the mix but to fish it for a tournament is IMO wrong.......says a lot about those still willing to fish it knowing this, stewards and promotors of the fishery I think not...I dont see the casey cup getting a variance so it can fish early....nope not in Ontario and not by the OMNR Jp, Mercer I will buy shooters till our faces fall off at the fed cup for your decision here!!!! and Jp you know milo is good for them one of the purposes I think of the high profile bass and TV anglers is to promote the sport to a new breed of anglers, participating in an event such as the B1 exemplifies what not to do......its just an opinion here and Roy lets get this crystal clear French poutine is way better then the stuff from Ontario so ..........lol.......

GCD dunno about you but if so many big names dropped out maybe there is more to the story and read what Marc said in his post..seems like an ethics thing....dunno Knowing JP a bit I will say that he is pretty much the most generous guy out there.......he is the same guy that would drop all his rods and fish in the water before anyone else to save a sinking boat... so maybe a bit of slack here........

glad it was posted Marc

Im guessing your in a river environment, mentioning pools and such, so mini tubes, and some berkley 4 and 5 inch trout worms should work, be brazen in a zen like manner and run a leach pattern or such under a float... if your in a lake and are on a boat, its more trying to figure out if they are in 2-4 or 5-8 feet on those boulders, in which case cranks banging off the rock DT4 and 6 would be my choice line up in line with the shore and find the depth those bass are in, a tube should work well, but in that depth I would flip a jig all day long personally

pimp that ride bud a boat is better then no boat you ll be fishing while the non boater is couch surfing

Charles wanna stay on eugenia?

I think this will sum this entire topic up Selective harvest for consumption within a fishery that the overall harvest is sustainable in both numbers and size is perfectly fine. Anyone who thinks this comment is wrong needs a head shake and sadly will never understand the concept of sustainable fisheries......and simply put while its in his/her right to harvest a limit in reality has no care or consideration for the future......and will never understand......summed up I think pretty good

there is nothing wrong with comsuming a fish thats safe via a guide to consumption and overall harvest for comsumption doesnt impact the fish population. I think its a stretch to move comsumption to another species rather it should work on a lake by lake issue and determine what is sustainable, what size of the population is at risk and what size of population needs additional protection. Sadly with the FMZ process this wont occur and you ll have over harvest in some waters, pushing comsumption to additional species. The largest predator a fish has over 16 inches is man, and until sustainable use perimiters are established on a fish population education of anglers overall by anglers themselves is the best method to assist with populations at risk, fishing boards have a purpose and this one in particular due to its divergent nature serves a great purpose of educating active posters and the lurkers looking for a place to fish Saturday am.

its fixed

there are a few thesis's out there that deal with this pigmentation issue, I can dig them up on another computer typical boring read once you get past the abstract dont know if its a good tool for mark recapture and population estimates though as I think these bass are pretty plastic and will change pigmentation sooner or later

All taken from wild Credit River Steelhead and raised in the CRAA hatchery....for all to catch in the future, lots of those blue zone fish originate in the CRAA hatchery http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j46/Hair...rent=sacfry.flv

Ralph Manns wrote about it a while back this should answer it for ya The Bass Blotch Mystery In 1989, Douglas Carlson of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation reported* that largemouth bass with unusual dark blotches were present in the Hudson River Estuary. The markings were a result of an increased number of pigment cells in the skin and occurred on various body surfaces. Bass collected by biologists using electro-shocking equipment were more likely to have these blotches (23 percent) than those caught by bass anglers (11 percent), that there was no noticeable change in the frequency of these sightings between 1985 and 1988, and that biologists in other states contacted in 1986 had also seen similarly marked bass. At that time, most of the sightings were in eastern coastal areas and a few impoundments in the central and southern states. In 1994, Kathleen Skinner and other biologists at Russell Sage College* * reported several investigations into these markings. They noted that in 1985, New York biologist John Schachte found about 33 percent of Hudson River bass over 12-inches long had blotches, but that 50 percent of bass over 14 inches had them. Other studies made in that year found parasites were probably not the cause and that the bass did not show any other specific cellular pathology. Previous studies of unusual markings on other fish species related abnormal blotches to environmental contaminants, viruses, heredity, the inflammatory responses of the skin’s immune system, or changes in hormones that regulated skin pigment responses. The team noted that another study ruled out a viral cause. Unmarked bass failed to become blotched when inoculated with sera from affected bass, there were no associated skin lesions, and other fish species were not affected. Skinner’s team checked to see if the Hudson River pollutant, PCB, was a cause. They found PCBs were high in Hudson River bass, concentrations were different in male and female fish, and blotched bass contained more PCBs than unblotched bass from the same areas. But, they noted the blotches occurred in samples from areas without high PCB concentrations and in bass with the same concentrations as the unmarked control bass. They concluded that PCBs "may not be the cause of LMB black blotch syndrome." Other, as yet unstudied, chemicals might be the cause. Increased pigmentation in animal tissue is a natural defense mechanism against heavy metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, acids, and other environmental contaminants. Clearly, more study is needed to explain what is going on. Before Carson’s report was published, I’d seen a few bass with the dark blotching. Since then, the number of blotched fish has seemed to steadily increase and sightings are now common on most Texas waters I fish. I suspect there is a tie-in with the increase in catch-and-release bass fishing since the early 1980s. Carson’s observation that electrofishing produced more blotched bass than angling could be a result of learned, short-term, lure-avoidance responses by recently handled, and thus blotched, bass. The increased percentage of blotched bass in larger sizes could also be associated with catch-and-release, particularly the forced releases in waters with slot limits. I moved near a lightly-fished pond 10 years ago. At first, the fish I caught had no blotches. Since then, I’ve caught and released about 700 bass a year in this pond, many more than once. I’ve noticed that about a third now show blotching, often around the mouth. I’ve identified re-caught individuals by their marks. I’ve also caught fish with distinct and identifiable blotches at Lake Fork. Lakes with slot and special limits like Fork that force the release of many large bass seem to hold more blotched fish. Although contaminants may be associated with the blotches, I suspect that handling during catch and release and the hooking and capture process itself are at least related factors. Marks near mouths are easily attributed to lipping techniques. Those on other parts of the body are less frequent on my pond bass than on bass at Fork, but seem to be located at places where bass may have touched a boat, the ground, or have banged into cover while hooked. The lower tail and anal fins seem to be particularly vulnerable. One slot-fish at Lake Fork appeared to have the imprint of a hand across its back. The marks seem to eventually disappear, suggesting they may be part of a skin or slime repairing process. I was fish the pond less in December and early January. The fish I catch in late January seldom have blotches, but the number of blotches increases over the remainder of a year. I’ve also noted that they seem to disappear faster from smaller adult bass. The largest fish seem to hold them for at least two years. We need a scientific investigation into the possibility that these blotches are associated with capture and release. They don’t seem to harm bass in any way, and might even prove useful in the identification of individual fish or analysis of capture and release rates if anglers are a cause. I have a staggering amount of in depth technical data on blotching and bass but the one above always seemed to make the most sense having caught them and taking a better look for fin rot slime loss, or other outward signs of illness, there has been pathology on it and it usually comes back negative

come on theres nothing like the smell of 2 stroke oil in the morning lol

ahhh sadly i missed a noght of puff the magic dragon explaining how he can get his rig over 80 without a tail wind and 5knot down stream current

ohh God having met his better half trust me he won the marriage lottery!!!!!

wow that was a seriously nice read no livewell though lol perfect fishing machine there

my god when you told me about the Pike I didnt think it would be that big of a tank!!! sweet!

Im trying to figure out why you need two transducers in the back. If they are the same frequency they will not work due to noise and proximity, the new units transducer will work perfectly fine you ll need to ramp up the sensitivity, prep the surface and epoxy it in ...I just did it to my boat and works like a charm

when can I get my introductory lesson lol