tjm

Nice that they all had help, it's more exciting when done alone. It's been a while since I hung out on trapping forums but the guys out west always seemed to release several lions each year. My release board was a full 1/2 sheet with handles on my side and my "hog catcher" a little longer, but both are items that every trapper should have. I never figured out how to release skunks. I have found most trapped fox asleep with not much sign of struggle. Lots of sets could be remade in minutes, simply because the various critters did not struggle very much. Feral cats and feral dogs do struggle more than most critters, but they are feral invasives ... I have released many dogs with no injury and without much hassle. I have always thought it inhumane to allow dogs to roam free, and years ago many dogs were dumped here in the country when their people got tired of taking care of them, something that seems to have stopped in recent years fotunatly. There is actually an international agreement on humane trapping standards. All 50 states participate in setting the best management standards for trapping, unlike hound/bird dog hunting or fishing. Almost every single fish I've caught fought and struggled throughout the entire time. Nothing is as inhumane as catch and release fishing. Except eating bacon. I'm always amazed at people opposed to use of petroleum, for all it's environmental side effects, advocating wearing petroleum derived clothing rather than sustainable fur and wool, but those are the people that most often offer up that or use of fur or wool is inhumane. I attribute that to watching too much Disney with all that anthropomorphism. I'll reserve my humaneness for humans.

I think one often overlooked things that scare fish in very clear or relatively shallow water is shadows that move. And although I advocate heavier line/leaders for the ability to horse a fish in when C&R fishing, I will admit that fatter lines have bigger shadows. Sometimes the angle of approach/presentation or angle of sun can cause the moving shadow of the line on the stream/lake bottom to spook a fish just as the shadow of a predatory bird would. When I did my experiments in still water the line was fairly motionless and the presentation angle put any shadow between the baits and myself rather than between the bait and the fish. It was only years later that this occurred to me as a factor. Personally I don't think that even with 1/100th ounce jigs that 8-10# line is stiff enough to steer or to hinder the movement, but I'm not seeing it from a trout's viewpoint either. I've long fished unweighted flies down to #18 on 5X-5# and moving up to 3X-8# with #12 or larger flies, and I don't think it hurt my numbers. But I must admit that it's possible that I would have caught more if I had used lighter line. I only asked because I see the 2# as an unnecessary handicap, having broken off many more trout on 4# than I have bass on the same line. I know a fellow that used to always fish bass and white bass with ultralight crappie rigs, broke dozens of those little rods, when I asked him why he kept using the UL gear he said it just made the fish feel bigger. Others have answered that "so and so" told them light lines were required. The answer given above of anecdotally, you just seem to catch about ~1/3'' more fish with the smaller line is an excellent reply, you are convinced by your experience that it is worthwhile just as @Al Agnew is convinced by his experience; both by the way, anecdotal. I'm convinced by my experiments, which since they were not conducted in a laboratory by trained biologists are also kinda anecdotal. Staying in the anecdotal, some years ago at a time when I fished RRSP 50-100 days per year, I arrived at the idea that every time I used 6X-3# I lost (by guesstimate) ~1/3 of the fish I hooked and when using 7X-~2#, I guessed the number of break-offs to be nearly half. I wish I had kept actual count and done some switching of tippet using the same flies, so that I could be more sure of my beliefs. After writing this I may just have to buy a spool of 7X and try that next summer.

The call to the sheriff may have come after the facebook fans told them that they had admitted to a crime, but if he signed a statement there would be no reason to bring in any other evidence. Have to guess that cooperating and admitting guilt got him a better deal, maybe?

Lighter line does allow the bait or lure to react to currents and rod/line manipulation more freely, because of it's greater limpness, although new line regardless of weight is usually more limp than old line and some brands are much more limp in the same weight than other brands are. An example of that is Maxima Chameleon vs Maxima Ultragreen; Chameleon is 2-3 times stiffer than Ultragreen in the same weight test, and although I prefer Chameleon for building fly leaders just because of that stiffness, I would chose Ultragreen for spin fishing just because of it's greater limpness. I've seen a guy catch lots of trout using 8# test and I've seen a ~12# carp landed on 3# test using an ultralight rod/reel, so I'm always curious about the reasons for such choices. Back east I once watched a group of college kids limit out on opening day trout in a small lake using salt water gear and stripper/bluefish lures. Anything can work and I would like to know why that's true. I've found the 5-6# line to be a good compromise for the way I fish, mostly, and it usually allows me to put enough pressure on the fish to end the fight quickly when releasing the fish; I have the idea that extended fighting stresses the fish too much. If targeting stream bass I do up my tippets to 8#-12# to adjust for the heavier currents and sunken wood. You are 100% correct, we never know if the the change we made was the difference or if it was only because the sun moved a little bit and changed the lighting underwater. I've often attributed it to the earth shifting slightly on it's axis.

I did fairly extensive line testing once long ago, every nylon mono weight from 20# down to 3/4# test, using small baits and very large nightcrawers in very clear still water and stocked RBT, my conclusion was that the fish don't associate the line with the bait at all. But stiffer lines do restrict bait movement and that can affect the fish's perception of it as live food. At the time I was using lots of <2# test, the 9X was ~1/2#, 8X 3/4#, 7X 1# and those have more than double the strength now. After a full summer of spending several hours a couple times a week with those fish, I convinced myself to use stronger leaders. But I'm also convinced that if someone has confidence in a system that that system will always seem to perform better for them. It works for you and that's what matters.

So, it's been decades since I used anything but a fly rod for bass of trout, and I don't recall ever using less than 4# on a spinning rig,, 6# Stren was my standard trout line, back then; my usual tippet on fly is ~5# test, so explain to me the the need for 2#? Not trying to say that it's not needed, just that I don't understand why it would be.

Dogs actually kill about 13,000 people every year. I posted this back on page three; but insects and snails pose a bigger threat than any big cat and cougars aren't even in the top twenty. Your best chance of getting killed is by a mosquito followed by another human. Elephants kill more people than I would have imagined. Reckon we should start shooting those dangerous Humans on sight just to eliminate the possibility that one of them might in the future kill someone you know? If we do do you reckon we ought to then brag about it on FB? I'm thinking the guy is not being prosecuted so much for killing the cat as he is for being stupid. I'll add that although lightning isn't an animal it is pretty high on the danger list, globally, lightning kills or injures about 250,000 people annually,

aah, sorry to confuse; I didn't think of an exact location as important given the size of a lion's home range (100-400 sq.mi.) and the distances they can travel. I seem to recall one in Utah reported as moving ~75 miles over either 12 or 24 hour period, back in the '60s. It made the paper as a chronic livestock killer. This lion must have traveled 400-500 miles or more from where it was ear tagged.

Iron County is what the earlier reports said. Somewhere on the first few pages of this thread you should find a link to the FaceBook page where he bragged.

I might buy synthetics and hooks online or mail-order but the majority of my flies are natural materials, and feathers, furs, hair, straw etc. need to seen in person. I even buy gadgets and paraphernalia I don't need and likely won't use along with random flies that I don't tie and rarely fish, when I pass through a 'new to me' shop, knowing that those items help keep the doors open. Some shops use eBay to boost their sales, and when the last two shops in this area close, that will be my first place to look.

Might be down to location if several have failed. Not at or near a fly fishing destination. Or it might be down to not selling stuff that has a high turnover most big/successful fly shops seem to sell more clothing than fly fishing/tying stuff. I was only in there once with my son, and bought nothing. Son has bought several things from them though. I have accumulated more FF & FT stuff than I'll ever use but I still hate to see those shops disappear. Most of what I've bought over the past 30 years has been at Tim's near RRSP, as well stocked a fly shop as one could want. Though I suspect most of his business may be in spinning stuff. But I know that he will retire one of these days and likely that shop will close.

That young couple that bought it a couple years ago isn't going to keep it?

I think you'll have a better, higher, fence if the boards are staked on edge, and I'd open the funnel angle (~120`-140` rather than the <90` that you have) some to take in more area; but yeah that's the idea. When the animal comes to the fence it will turn and follow it as long as the angle to it's chosen direction travel isn't too abrupt. Much as we would when encountering a bluff. The cage seems like a break in the fence. So, you need the funnel to open in the direction of the den, or from where you think they are coming. And the longer the fence is the greater the chance of an crossing the path of travel. That said, this is just theory to me. I've not trapped armadillos myself, although I have had several online discussions of it with people that did it for pay.

That's a good way, they seem pretty easy to funnel; and if you can fit a wood bottom to the cage/box trap they will scent the wood and other armadillos will enter it with less suspicion. I'd trap them if their fur was worth more.

Yep she'll get a lot better at driving too with no practice and no experience.

Is there a fur buyer near you? The last one near me died a few years ago and no new ones. I can recall when I had a choice of 15-30 buyers within easy driving distance. On armadillos, there must be a couple dozen within 300 yards of the house and during the drought they were foraging nearly all day long.

It's where most red fox live these days to avoid the coyotes.

I know one local guy that I'm sure doesn't tamper with his honey nor feed sugar, if he's still alive, it's been a couple years. And I'm sure most don't; but my point was that crooks are everywhere and like politicians they will tell lies when questioned and an average person wouldn't think to ask questions nor even know what to ask. Those guys in the link were fooling experts and even some of the lab tests.

I've had some local honey gifted to me that I suspect wouldn't pass lab tests, but since the second time with covid, my taste and smell are not what they used to be, so maybe I'm wrong, but, truthfully buying directly from the beekeeper doesn't really insure the honey is pure. If beekeepers are adulterating honey, then beekeepers are adulterating honey. Some crooks are local, actually all crooks are local where they live.

I used 4# nylon mono for all spin fishing for years and years, but tend more towards 8# these days for very occasional use those rods get. That said the target matters and the bait size too, where large fish are the main target heavier line is called for, imo. My choice of 4# in the past had more to do with line suppleness and casting distance for fish under three pounds with fairly small lures. 20# line would have no doubt caught just as many fish.

But the wind is forecast to be only 2-3mph, and with 30% cloud cover it could be worse. And it's to be above 40F by elevenish. Although based on the number of fish in Hickory Creek and the belief that the two creeks are stocked at the same time, I'm not sure they have even stocked since June. I'll put tackle in the car this evening, but there's no guarantee that I'll be up early enough to make that meeting. I'm usually more of an afternoon/evening/nighttime angler. If I don't get there I'll look for a detailed report on number and size of fish encountered by all.

The fish don't care about air temps and the water is never colder than 32F, even under ice.

+10F a lot in my younger days and -10-20F a number of times, as long as you wade deep the water will be warmer than the air; problem is that when its quite cold the the line and the guides ice up unless you keep the fly rod in the water while making the retrieves. I get too cold long before the trout do, and these days rarely get out below ~40F. But in streams 8# or 5# is small enough, for most stuff, I only go smaller than 5# when the flies are smaller than #18, 8# for #12 and larger. And in summer I have caught trout in still water using 20# test with bait. They see the line even as small as 1# test, but the average trout can't reason that the line is attached to the hook, just as they can't reason that the exposed hook in a fly is not part of an insect. trout brain is reported to be very small and they don't have books to explain these things to them. I've caught the same fish two or three times in an hour to believe that they learn from experience either, although it's possible that they can be conditioned over time to react negatively to certain stimuli, it doesn't happen often in my experience. What happens IMO is that smaller line is more supple meaning that the lure/fly/bait is less restrained and moves more naturally in the water.

viscous /vĭs′kəs/ adjective 1. Having relatively high resistance to flow. 2. Viscid; sticky. 3. Adhesive or sticky, and having a ropy or glutinous consistency; viscid; glutinous; clammy; tenacious. "a viscous juice" Similar: viscid glutinous clammy tenacious

Hard to say, the web sources say that it's German dating from the 14th century Bavaria, perhaps a confectioner. In the US since 1683. One of them was kinda important in developing IT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._R._Licklider