3wt

I think you are in fact allowed to target black bass for C&R out of season, whereas there is no snag and release season. So if you're out of season snagging, even without a stringer you're not within the law. Please correct me on the bass thing, but in my way of seeing this, targeting smallmouth out of season and taking a picture then releasing is different than snagging. Isn't this kind of like a hunt and release argument? There's a reason some techniques can support legal C&R. And I think it's clear that plexlove is using a loophole to snag paddlefish out of season. Exactly what he's accused of, but thinks he can get off with a technicality. Good for you if you stick it to the government. But the as Tim points out try to give a rip about the fish, not just what you can get away with. I tried to not get the wrong impression of your intent, but you've made it clear that you were really having a good time snagging whatever. The story in my opinion is poorly written conservation rules. We used to have a recurring discussion on what a "fly" meant for fly only trout areas. People wanted to use the "any synthetic material tied to a hook" to allow soft rubber tied to a hook to be legal...when it's one of the main materials being banned. Or the "single point hook" issue - people wanted to tie multi-hook flies and claim it was a dropper rig - essentially two flies. What a bunch of junk. Because you can deconstruct the poorly written rules to get away with whatever you want, well then you should. I really wish the rules and regs were written more clearly. Who's writing these things anyway? Wasn't there an issue last deer season with guys suing about running deer with dogs, using some loophole? Can we get the freakin' regs straight so poachers who want to poach and get away with it can just not have an argument to make?

So two good points: when do incidental catches cease to be incidental and what is an immediate release? I would tend to say that "no longer than three minutes" for a picture is too long for immediate - if it's out of the water. For a trout that could be death. I don't think the intent of immediate is to prevent you from taking a picture, but that's a lot of time. If I was the judge I'd think you were a guy gigging for paddlefish and using the gar thing as your "out." Still not accusing you, but it looks real bad to me.

Just keep in mind no bait above cedar grove. And you can't keep anything <18" which probably means you can't keep anything. If you do float and fish from baptist make sure you learn and teach the kids how to catch, land, handle and release trout quickly and safely. It's alot different than handling most fish. The scouts should create a catch and release badge...unless that already exists.

Gotta say that if you snagged one or two without moving on knowing that you were getting paddlefish...that looks really bad. Once you accidentally catch a fish with a technique you aren't really able to claim ignorance of their presence. Also note that they didn't ticket you after one, two, or even three. I think an argument could be made that they employed unusual restraint, and that you didn't employ good common sense to protect yourself. Look, the question is of intent. You could always go out snagging for paddlefish, get caught and claim you were after gar. How are the officers supposed to know the difference? When intent is the question, it's always a subjective matter since nobody can get inside your head. Not to be accusatory, but I think you've got an uphill battle. The judge is not going to see it your way. It does bring up a good question about accidentally taking fish out of season. At what point is it not accidental? I think a judge will say that after multiple accidents in the same area taking pictures of what your accidentally catching makes this no accident. But good luck.

I could be thinking of the 8' vs. the 8'6", but there is also a 9. I said 9 because you mentioned taneycomo and I think the length would serve you well there. If your more like me and spend the majority of your time in parks or on current, small-medium stream up to the upper meremac, then go 8' or 8'6". Honestly I can't remember which one my brother got a couple years ago, but after casting, he went with the longer of the two. I'm pretty sure it's the 8'6" now that I think about it. I definitely agree that 8' give you a little easier time in real tight range and cover, and I would tend to go shorter when possible, but I fish a 7'9" 3wt and have to fight when I'm mainly throwing streamers...but I'm willing to put up with it. If you nymph a lot, length helps. On bigger open water length helps. Ultimately if you go 8'6" you probably won't be sorry. But cast both and I think you'll notice some difference. Don't buy without casting. Cortland is a classic, and it has it's devotees. I think in the east they tend to be more traditional and I'd expect to see a lot of Orvis stuff with cortland line on it. It does have it's fans around this board too. I've fished SA and RIO in comparable tapers, and I like the rio grand over sa gpx. I'd go with the slightly overweighted varieties for the Pro rods. They're not laser fast, but I think they like the extra weight. RIO and SA both have the high floating tip, which is a great feature. Trout Commander - do you like the trout taper line for all around? I thought it was better suited for slower action rods or when you're really focussing on delicate presentation. Just curious if it turns over a #8 weighted wooly on a fast rod very well.

I agree. Go Pro and you'll actually be upgrading. A real upgrade would be splurging on some quality line. If you go cheap on the line you'll be sorry - although some here will disagree, I would say cast rio gold or grand or sa gpx or the new version w/dimples against cheap line...you'll know the difference. Good line also floats right for a long time and lasts a long time. Spend $60 on the line w/ the pro and you'll be happy - I'd go RIO Grand WF 4wt and either 8'6" or 9' 4wt 4pce TFO Pro. Another thing to keep in mind is that you'll need a rod case. I'd get a cabelas combo case they're pretty cheap.

I've never gotten a warm fuzzy feeling for basspro branded stuff...but maybe I haven't given them a chance recently. Gotta say that trying to upgrade w/ $200 is a little tough. You can upgrade a little, but without finding a great deal you're not stepping up too much. Go 4wt. I think it's ideal for parks and maybe just a little undersized for taney. If you're more often in the parks go 4. Best bang for your buck is usually going to cabelas and combo-ing a rod w/ one of their reels. They throw the line in for free essentially and it used to be si gpx. If you stay ~$200 go TFO one series for $109 and a cheapish reel. Or go up to $250 and get the TFO pro series and RLS reel - both are a pretty good step up from the base. here's a link: http://www.cabelas.com/product/Fishing/Fly-Fishing/Fly-Fishing-Rod-Reel-Combos%7C/pc/104793480/c/104721480/sc/105571980/Temple-Fork-Outfitters174-Lefty-Kreh-Professional-SeriesCabelas-RLS-Fly-Combo/711166.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Ffishing-fly-fishing-fly-fishing-rod-reel-combos%2F_%2FN-1102570%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_105571980%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%253Bcat104793480%253Bcat104721480&WTz_l=SBC%3Bcat104793480%3Bcat104721480%3Bcat105571980 I'd get it at the store though. They used to combo just about anything, so talk to them in the store. I really wouldn't waste money upgrading with only $200. You won't be into an outfit that will make you happy for more that a couple years.

In the few sandy/gravelly spots it usually shifts around. But it is mostly chunky rock so it's pretty stable. I'm usually more concerned when there's several years without a good washout. It tends to let things fill in too much. I have notices that in the immediate year after a big washout that some of the insect populations is slow. I think it's because the vegetation that the nymphs cling to gets washed out. But should right itself in a season or so. Rivers should be dymanic. When they used to dredge a lot at Montauk, there were always the old reliable holes. These days the river has a greater variety of waters to fish, and you may not always have your "spot," there will be many other spots to discover. It really does get boring if you run out of fish to discover.

I agree that the real battle is over entitlements. It does seem silly to cut across the board, but it's the political game that you have to play to get work done. I think the federal feeding trough model of pork spending we have embraced has made our bed for us for a long time. We won't ever be able to do what it right because we know it's right. We'll have to throw somebody a bone, even if it doesn't make sense with what we're really trying to accomplish.

As much as I like most of the conservation programs, the cuts probably need to go deeper. One of the sad things about wasteful government spending is that we know where most of the cuts need to be, but in the sake of political correctness it has to be done across the board. Wouldn't want andybody to say "how can you take away my free stuff and still fund saving a forest in then middle of nowhere." That being said, I think if things are forced to run leaner we can get a lot of service for a lot less money. Maybe some of these programs will learn to provide more for less.

I'm not really buying the national security thing still. The days of ma and pa farms are essentially over. Maybe we don't like that fact, but it's the way it is. The chance of a drought killing a corporate farm is much lower than a family farm. I think people like the subsidies because of nastolgia for the past, rather than for a real food security issue. I don't think the government needs to prop up any group over another - that's antithetical to equality. If one farm goes out of business, it will be made up for, and I think we'd be surprised at the negative impace this kind of meddling has in the market.

Tim, You nailed my opinion on it. If these are all valid ideas, why are we hiding them in pork that everybody's afraid to vote against?? I think you'ld have a wider support for a comprehensive conservation bill than the bohemoth that is the current farm bill. Seperate the good from the bad...maybe line item veto isn't a bad thing.

I'm not really against funding conservation efforts. Just that teh farm bill as has been pointed out, is wrought with dirty givaways that we can't and shouldn't afford. Let the meritous measures stand on their own two feet, and gut the farm bill of the nonsense. Just my opinion. I just can't in good conscience defend the farm bill just for conservation's sake. I don't really care if it's republicans or democrats profitting, it should end.

Why don't we advocate getting anything worthwhile out of the travesty called the "farm-bill" and let them stand on their merit, rather than porking them in with one of the golden calves of corporate welfare.

Doable if the water is not too low (gavin's the river level guru for the current around here...just do what he says.) If it's kayaks I'd say always doable. The Blue ribbon area goes pretty quick, you're on teh right track as far as spending a lot of time out of the boat. To get the most bang for your buck I'd recommend getting to ashley creek tough to miss, it's below baptist, so you can spend a good part of day 1 floating and fishing that far. Get to ashley, find the big sandbar, set up camp and plan on spending the rest of the day fishing up and down around there. Same theing for the next morning, then hit the boats, you won't get too far before the fishing slows up and you'll be in some wider slackish water heading to cedar grove. If you have two nights, do the same, but stop at the first big gravel bar down from baptist (on the right.) You'll have some nice wadeable water up and down from there, then do night 2 at ashley. Most around here say that the area near ashley creek is the best fishing, and is a little more remote for wadein, so it's less pressured. I'd focus on the blue ribbon because of traffic. Flies - globalls if you have to. Mohair leeches and buggers are good. In June, trico's rule the morning. Little little black or even gray mayflies might fool some - this is one of the toughest hatches to work with, but you should be able to fool a few fish. Maybe some lighter PMD looking mayflies at dusk. June's a bit early, but I wouldn't be afraid of chucking a hopper or stimulator. Soft hackles work. San Juan worms work. Some folks swear by stonefly nymphs - wounldn't guess it due to lack of actual stoneflies, but if you're used to the eleven point you probably have some to try. The current is known for it's caddis flies, but it's kind of the wrong season in june. Still, they can suprise you so have some olive or tan elk hair or other style ready - smallish, like a 16. It's good water for a 3-5 wt. I go with 6x leaders almost exclusively, and 6x tippet. If you do the trico thing, be prepared to drop to 7x. Some may say 5x if the waters off color, which it will only be if it recently rained heavy that time of year. I've never needed to go quite that heavy. The browns like the bigger stuff, so if that's part of the draw, think streamers near or after dusk. Some say you'll have more browns than rainbows, but I never have experienced that. The browns seem much less active in the daytime than the rainbows. It's a great river but don't let it frustrate you. June's a tough time of year. Don't get discouraged if you get skunked.

I vote tfo + lamson. It's tough to get in much cheaper while getting something that you won't want to upgrade from in a couple of years. And I'd say 4wt for trout unless you spend a lot of time in bigger tailwater like taney. Then go 5 - I'll get some flack for this, but 6wt it too much for typical trout. I get the impression that the 6wt thing is a carry over from 20+ years ago when rods were very different and you needed the weight of the line because the rods weren't fast. Don't skimp on the line. If you can go to cabelas and get the rod and reel together the bundle usually throws in good line for essentially free. It used to be SA GPX. I'm not sure if that's still the case. $50-$60 is not that big deal. Line will be the first thing you'll want to upgrade if you get a cheap brand (there are exceptions). I say you can't go wrong with RIO. In general I think most of us would be of the mindset that you don't get much for your money with orvis. Not that they don't have good stuff, just apples to apples with other brands you're going to pay more.

Very doubtful on both counts. You can't be negligent with your patent and expect it to hold up. This is the very reason that Monsanto can't go easy on the litle guy and then turn around and sue big time offenders. A patent claim would not be the same as them saying they own all fish that might have their gene. It would mean that anybody breeding fish would have to not use their genes, and if they were found to have the gene then it would have to be investigated to whetehr they did it intentionally, or allowed it to be done negligently. Since nobody is producing wild fish none of this should ever apply. But I'm no lawyer, this is all just my understanding.

ehh, not the way it works. Trying to compare this to the issues with monsanto is not apples to apples. If the owner of the patent allows it's patented material to escape, it's on them or the person they sold it to that allowed the escape. That's not what happened with monsanto. You have to realize that despite the alleged story of the defendant in the monsanto case(Percy Schmeiser), the judge found that he inentiionaly planted seeds illegally. If it had been determined that monsanto did not do their due dilligence to keep prevent the spread of the modified genetic material this would be a different story. I know that this farmer has been the poster boy of monsanto's abuse, but the facts as determined by the canadian court and supreme court found that he did it on purpose or should have known what he was doing. The genetic material is and should be a patented product.

If the FDA is charged with overseeing the environmental impact then I don't disagree that they should be the ones petitioned. That shouldn't be the case but if it is, then that's the messed up system in place. We do disagree that the FDA should be swayed by public opinion. Safety is not a fickle concept and public opinion is. Is that what the FDA is being asked to approve or the plan for sale to the US that involves the panama farm, or any possible sale of eggs? That would make a difference.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_40/b4197021491547.htm I guess you should withdraw your name from the list then. Fishfarm to be in Panama. Multiple other citations available if you google it.

No, I'm not a geneticist. I am a biochemical process engineer and don't nor have I ever worked in any kind of food industry. I have been against the anti-GMO crowd because people with an agenda want to demonize the concept of GMO as food without sound basis (it's dangerous, it's infected with viruses, you don't know what it's made of etc.) These are the things we should take to the FDA, and I really do think asking them to overstep will errode their calling and credibility. I just am left wondering what point you are arguing. The prolifertion of the GMO or their genetic material, or other ecological concers that should be considered. OR, is it the safety of GM salmon as a foodstuff. I still say that the FDA should not listen to public opinion or political pressure. Maybe deep pockets buy politician and affect policy. But the FDA should be above that garbage. The food is either scientifically safe or not. If it's safe then we move on to the next argument with the applicable agency. They won't fail to address arguments, but they can address them as being beyond their scope. Maybe the USDA is a better option if the concern is infiltration of an existing food animal population. That sounds closer. Shouldn't there be some way to get this slowed down with environmental impact studies? This surely seems more legit than many studies that have been affective in the past? I guess that's the EPA though. And I do question TU on this one. I think they have the right idea, but like many environmental organizations, they're willing to do what it takes to move their agenda. Even if it's not quite on the intellectually honest side. Are they really concerened that GM salmon is dangerous? I doubt it. If there was a way to do it where none could ever be released TU wouldn't be concerned. Their agenda is the wild salmon population. Now for a dose of reality - isn't it true that the plan that is being approved includes raising the fish in Panama in an inland farm? So once more is this about the real environmental concern or fearmongering of a "frankenfish."

I'm just put off that TU is going to the FDA with an environmental problem. It's like trying to fail a person's house inspection via the fire inspection when what you don't like is the architecture. They're taking a dishonest approach to the issue because I suppose they think the ends justify the means. The FDA is charged with making sure food and drugs are safe. If we ask them to interfere in conservation and environmental concerns then we are erroding their legitimacy as an agency of food and drug safety. Next time any ruling comes out that a drug company doens't like, they'll probably file suit to say that the FDA wasn't acting from a drug safety stand point, and they'll cite this. In any case, this won't chang anything anyway. Sign away at the petition, but my understanding is that the FDA does what they do and petitions won't and shouldn't sway their opinion - remember it's supposed to be based on safety. They also don't have the budget or staff to do what they are supposed to do much less venture into environmetalism.' Bottom line is that you're barking up the wrong tree and signing your name to one thing but really mean another. If the ends justify the means than have at it. I'm not wasting my time.

you could probably use a hair stacker too.

Good point. Not exactly the same, but I was more trying to point out that prague powder is a cure like the morton line of cures, and not a spice or simple color preservative. They both serve the same purpose in curing meat, but are not exactly the same, or interchangeable quantity for quantity.

Pink salt (prague powder) is not a spice but a cure - just colored so you don't get it mixed up with table salt. I think it's table salt, sodium nitrite and some other stuff. Same stuff as Morton tender quick, different ratios, so you have to follow their own instructions. nitrites also do help preserve color, but the real point is to avoid giving yourself botulism. I'm not sure about exactly what's in the sugar cure. Gavin: I'd just make sure you keep it cold when your curing, smoke it for a minimal amount of time, and freeze it, and keep it frozen until you're gonna cook it. Botulism can survive the salt and smoke but not nitrites. The process of smoking for a long time at <140 deg F could get the botulism going, and once it makes the toxins, further freezing and heating won't help you. This is all the same reason you can't just make up a canning recipe and hope for the best. Botulism is a tough bug to kill, and can live through some harsh treatments. Experimenting is fun, but get don't experiment with the cure amounts - or the salt amount if there's no nitrite in your brine. And I think most folks would smoke bacon for more like 1 hr. I'm not sure you get much flavor more from a long cold smoke, especially since the smoke shouldn't be your cure (you're not going to dryness with bacon) and you're exponentially multiplying your chances for...well death.