tjm

Since the acorn is just a nut/seed and the nutrients are what makes the plant grow, the nutrients would be there as long as the shell is intact. Any of the white oak family (includes post oak) will be favored over any of the red oak family for the nuts because the white oaks have so much less tannin in them. Burr oak would be highest favored of our native trees, I think, not only less tannin, but large nuts. A 1-ounce serving of raw acorns provides you with: 110 calories 1.74 grams of protein 6.8 grams of fat 0 grams of cholesterol 11.5 grams of carbohydrates 11.62 milligrams of calcium 0.22 milligrams of iron 17.58 milligrams of magnesium 22.40 milligrams of phosphorus 152.81 milligrams of potassium‌ Acorns also provide six vitamins, 18 amino acids, and eight minerals. Shell them first and leach them multiple times until the water is no longer brown to remove the tannins. Then dry and store, use over a few months.

It's a crap shoot, 10 days ago was nice and 10 days from now will be nice. Pick any day and study the historical weather on that date and it will have been from one extreme to the other. Seems cold was easier back when it just froze once (before Thanksgiving) and stayed frozen until spring, but I was so much younger back then that youth might have been a factor. I recall driving through snow to fly fish streams edged with ice in the minus temps. Wade deep on those days to keep most of the body in the above freezing water. Remote places, alone, long before cell phones or satellite trackers. I've gotten soft over just a few decades.

One of these years you guys will schedule this on a pretty weekend with shirtsleeve weather and I'll show up, kept thinking this would be the year with the hot winter we've had until now. But then someone ordered in this cold white stuff and negative numbers.

Well it depends more on the result you want, 2# test is both less visible and more supple than #3 or larger. So, back about 50 years ago I spent a New England summer in testing whether or not line size mattered to trout. Within 30 minutes of my home there I had a choice of 20-30 trout streams and "ponds" up to ~300 acres and for my testing picked a spot in a spring fed pond with the out flow over an old mill dam where I could observe the trout in 2-5' of clear and relatively still water while presenting visible live baits on various sized hooks and lines ranging from 1/2# test to 20# test in nylon monofilament. I spent 3-4 hours each on 20-30 different days between March and September feeding these trout and I kept two lines with bait in front of them that whole time, with lines having as much difference as from 10# to 20# as little difference as from 1# to 3/4#. I used lines like Stren yellow, Trilene green, and Ande clear in the sizes 4# and up or in the tests that were available and whatever tippet material I could get in the lower test sizes, probably mostly Mason. 50+ years and a handful of miles down the roads, I no longer have any notes and the tests weren't exactly scientific to begin with, but, I was convinced beyond a doubt that trout are not affected by seeing either heavy line or large hooks. I also was convinced that more supple lines, as well as smaller hooks allow the bait/lure/fly to move more naturally or react to the water movement more naturally and that fish would always pick the lighter line of two because of this more natural movement but they would readily take baits on 20# test in any color if that was all that was presented to them. So line size is a compromise where if the bait/lure/fly is small enough or light enough that motion or reaction to the water's movement matters a lighter more supple line will attract more trout and a stouter line will result in fewer break offs. For me this usually 8# test for stream bass and 5# test for trout, and material marketed for tippet (such as Rio Powerflex et al.) is almost always stronger for the same degree of suppleness in the smaller sizes. I use Chameleon and Trilene green in diameters larger than 0.008" where the observable difference in suppleness to test isn't great enough to matter. It was also noted in my testing that 18" of very light line could be spliced to very heavy line and have the same effect on bait and fish as very light line on the reel. What this would mean to me as a spin fisher at the time the testing was done was that I could keep the 6# Stren or 8# Ande on my reels and tie on a step down leader similar to a fly leader to present the bait on 2# or 3/4# test. It's been a couple (3?) of decades since I used spinning rods to any extent, but back then I thought that 6# was my best compromise for casting versus tangling versus breaking off, and most of the time it was light enough for the lures used.

Any fly shop will have tippet material down to 8X/0.003" diameter which is typically 1.5# test. It will be in 30 yard spools because fly fishers normally only use ~2' of it at a time spliced to some heavier line. but if you need more than 30 yards for a single cast, you need heavier line too. Since I fly fish rather than spin fish, I can't speak to the need for such fine line when spin fishing, but it has been several years since I used any for trout, even when fly fishing, simply because I don't use flies small enough to benefit from the extra limpness/suppleness of the small diameter. I most often use 5X/0.006"/5# test tippet (2# test in Maxima) for flies #16 and larger with only occasionally dropping to 6X/0.005"/3.4# tippet (2# Maxima) in very slow water. However the first two places that I looked on line both have Maxima Ultragreen spinning line in stock- https://www.fishusa.com/Maxima-Ultragreen-Monofilament-Line_2/?sku=205250 and https://www.fishusa.com/Maxima-Ultragreen-Monofilament-Line_2/?sku=205250

But that would not defy the international laws! No fun in that.

I thought you said it was the state?

Differences of opinion; the several <$20 lines that I bought a couple years ago to use on grass sure surprised me in how well they cast and they catch fish too. On the other hand, the $130 Rio line I bought last spring was a total disappointment that I resold at $90 after very little use. Lines that I prefer are still about $70-80. If I were buying a new rod it would be in the $7-900 range of fiberglass. Or much higher in bamboo.

Aside from the fact that the thread is a few years past shelf life, this resurrection post is a cut and past of the OP post from 12-20-2020 I think Profesioneat is is funny or what?

I think the salt water fishing is free in Missouri and Arkansas? Real questions? This is where you find all the special rules and laws for Missouri in simple language- https://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/3csr/3csr.asp

I've long thought it funny that Americans insist on dropping the French "u" from words like colour and honour yet insist on keeping it in gouge and gauge. We certainly have a peculiar language.

any stocking in the 1800s wasn't by train

For future, here is a list of Fenwick dates (that someone else compiled and y'all should save)- A--1960-61 B--1961-62 C--1962-63 - first Feralites previously back to '55 they used Sizematic aluminum ferrules with the O-rings D--1963-64 E--1964-65 F--1965-66 G--1966-67 H--1967-68 I--1968-69 J--1969-70 K--1971-73 Used for two years. The transition from two to three digit model numbers occurred at this time. Early HMG rods had a separate series of numbers starting with 00001 L--1973-74 M--1974-75 N--1975-76 O apparently not used (too hard to tell from a zero?) P--1976-77 Q apparently not used R--1977-78 S--1978-79 T--1979-80 U--1980-81 Serial numbering ended

The three digit model number "805" places it between 1972-1988 when they became Woodstream, it tells us it's length is 8'0" and it's rated as a 5wt. The letter "M" in the serial number dates it's production to the 1974-75 manufacturing year which was approximately Aug '74-July '75. Give or take. From the accounts of former workers that I've read they weren't exact on dates. Still Fenwick is one of the best documented of the production fiberglass rods. Quite a few users say their FF805s are 6wts, other users disagree, saying theirs are just as rated. on the other hand I have a couple of Fenwicks that I down line one weight from the rating, so take the line rating as a suggestion and experiment. I think the resin used changed from batch to batch and the rods from any one run might be different from the run before or the run after. In the Fenwick line I prefer the two digit models made from '63-'71. You'll have fun fishing that rod if you keep the casts under ~50'. One caution, and it applies to all glass to glass ferules, if you roll cast a lot check that ferrule about every 10-15 casts, because the torque of roll casting does twist them loose. I recommend the canning paraffin (or candle) be rubbed on the male ferrule per Fenwick's instruction until it's coated in wax then rubbed off with a clean cloth or paper towel until just a slight film of wax remains, barely enough for lubrication. I usually have birthday cake candle in a vest pocket for this, because it seems to help keep those joints together. I have an FF807 about the same age that I'd sell and an FF75 and FF85 a little older that don't get much use that I should sell. With something like two dozen fly rods I surely don't need all of them.

I imagine a lot of that kind of stuff was contracted for prior to the war's end and if the contract was for 1,000,000 widgets and if with war over there was no need for widgets, the contracts still got filled and delivered. It's why lots of surplus was still available into the '80s. We would have hard time doing that kind of supply work today.