tjm

I think in a situation like the salt craw story that only that batch (which happened to be red) had some anomaly that wasn't obvious when in the hand, but triggered the fish; they had some defect that caused erratic movement, or some imbalance, or similar, and that if you had a tomato red "anything else" or even the same lure from a different production run that it would not have been any more successful than a purple or black lure.

I went over to #10 bridge yesterday and walked a bit up and talked to a few anglers, fishing from shore wasn't to productive, I guess, and wind was uncomfortable. A couple of guys taking a boat out said they had caught about 30. But as I left the bridge area there were a few hundred old carcasses piled up there and when I returned there were two new piles on top of the old. Somebody had a really good day. So, since the launch is so hard there due to low water and high gravel, how far is it to run up from Twin Bridges? and are there shoals in that stretch or is it easy to navigate?

one shade of gray over the others might be more factual, but until we talk to them and they answer we won't know. What we do know is that colors are simply not visible at all below certain depths because those wavelengths are fully absorbed by the water.

If you think color matters, then it does. Because you use your preferred color more it will catch more. And you'll also fish it in places where it has the right degree of contrast rather than in places where it is too bright or too dark, so that in those places it will perform better than other colors. And objectively color matters to a degree, although probably not as much as size and silhouette and surely not as much as presentation. All colors vary on a scale of gray and the precise tint or tone of gray that best contrasts with the background would be color dependent.

Think of color in shades of gray. Fish are ~5 times more light sensitive than we are and detect slight differences in contrast much better than we do. Also think about the changes in background "color" or shading as the available light hits it at different angles and depths. At any given water depth, as the sun angle changes, so does the distance light has to travel through the water to reach that depth. At a 45* angle the light travels ~1.4 times farther than when the sun is overhead, so that 10' deep becomes 14' on the light angle and the colors disappear sooner. Portions of the light are also reflected away from the water. Cloud cover affects how much of a certain wavelength of light even gets to the surface and how much light is at the surface affects how much of any color can penetrate at any depth, so apparent color even to us is affected in low light conditions. Look at your favorite chartreuse bucktail under UV light, LED, florescent, sunlight, and in a dark closet and you may perceive it differently s the light changes. Because some fish species have both cones and rods in their eyes, we theorize that they can see some colors and that they do not perceive color the same as the average human. It is believed that bass eyes change so that they see mostly color during periods of light and mostly black and white during periods of darkness and that at dawn and dusk their eyes transition so that there is an overlap time period. Such a change in light perception would surely affect how any color is perceived at any given time. But as colors in the background appear to change about the same as those in the lure, contrast should remain somewhat the same. Contrast must be more important then than actual hue. Truth though is that we don't really know how the fish's brain processes the colors that we think they might see. They might tell you that every thing is shades of blue.

I don't think I ever saw a movie that actually related to the book it was supposedly "based on". Books just have so much more detail and scope. I also don't think that I ever saw John Wayne act, he always just seems to play the same character. The costars always make the movie.

Not the philosopher? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Chong

In some places yes, but they made a lot of turns into "channels" where I saw no markers and ran by themselves through most of the tight water yet were kinda in a pack when they hit open water. Made me think they just had a few way-points that had to be rounded and how you got to them through the maze was "you pick".

Does make one wonder what the survival rate is? Wasn't clear if they were on a prescribed course or if each team picked their own path through the jungle. The live ballast partner took a beating in some sections.

But if a LEO or Ranger or Agent asks you for the Annual Permit on the water, you better have it. It's rare to see any enforcement, but it can happen, and in theory should happen more often.

Does that vary with depth?

Sounds like a tool better suited to research than to fishing. I have spent days walking stream banks and watching fish feed and rest and interact; then I have spent other days applying what I learned from those observations with rod and reel. Not so much time on lakes, but what you describe isn't that surprising to me.

With anglers who eat every fish they catch the fatalities can be controlled by setting limits, but with C&R there are no limits as to how many fish can be taken and released, and with something like 11-18% delayed mortality a single angler can actually kill several times the limit in a day. If the limit is 5 fish, that's all the meat angler can kill, but if the FSS C&R angler takes and releases 100 fish and 15% die from that experience, he has killed three limits of fish. Every thing that makes catching fish more efficient means higher catch numbers and consequently higher mortality.

So, do you think that it makes catching big fish easier or harder? It looks like it takes away all need for fishing knowledge and skills, but as you say I haven't tried it.

a quick web search - http://www.capefairtackle.com/bait-tackle-cape-fair-mo/ Says nothing about hours

Next step? someone needs to Bluetooth the goggles and make mint. https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/augmented-reality-glasses-livescoping/

Do you know what the materials consist of or can you get some photos?

Is that a wadable area?

Species nor method really matters when we consider catching them on the nests; it's always easier when they are are nesting, it takes less skill or knowledge when nesting, it does way more harm to the recruitment than at any other time of year. So if there is any doubt about the numbers of any given species, protect that species during spawn. Don't fly fish trout redds nor hold bass tournaments during the prespawn or spawn weeks; and no one really needs to do a five year test study to find that out. It was pretty stupid of MDC to even start that program while including the spawn months. Probably just as important (or more important, given that the agency did set that test up, showing that they had little concern about the species) was the large number of illegal "enhancements" they removed from Truman; water tanks, tractor tires, crates, culverts and so on that the angling public had placed there. Trash pit, I think was how they described the lake, and they had some notion that banning noodling would reduce the dumping.

"Hand fishing" in any place that I've been meant using only your hands. "Noodling" would be a sub-category of "handfishing". I think that if a hook and line are used, that's "hook and line" fishing.There is also "hand line" fishing. But I think use of hook with no bait most likely falls under "snagging" or "grabbing." Not sure that was ever legal for catfish. Mo. shut down their experiment with hand fishing because of egg loss when fish were taken during the spawn. If they had timed the season for after spawn, I doubt that would have been a problem, but there might have been fewer catfish taken when they aren't on the nest too.

He has the same "not enough evidence" situation that the prosecutor has; he can scream that they added the bearings, but he can't even prove that the Xray image is his fish. The bait shop squealer has set both the angler and the wardens up and he is laughing. By rights they should go back and Xray that older record fish too. And re-weigh it now to see if the old scale is still true. Imagine DPFW going house to house confiscating all the old mounts and reevaluating them with current equipment in current condition? that is essentially what they did here.

Well Momma always washed her colors separate back in the '50's and 60s' for a reason, so store bought dyed items may not be any worse now than then. Some colors were worse to bleed back then and some fabrics held color better. Levi's would bleed every time you washed them for up 10 years, red flannel was almost as bad. I never did dye much but had always considered Rit to be fairly colorfast. You can also use their Color Stay Dye Fixative to help keep commercially dyed stuff from bleeding. I asked about the major suppliers because there is one of them that I have gotten really poor quality bird skins from, stuff with meat and fat still on it and undried.

I don't buy much chartreuse yarn or hackle, nor purple panties either, is that fast fade stuff coming from major suppliers? Is Rit still available?

more than 4oz, using the weights- in https://www.outdoorlife.com/fishing/disqualified-kansas-record-crappie-stuffed-with-ball-bearings/ -3.73lb = 59.68 oz. and 4.07lb = 65.12oz - that's a difference of 5.44 oz. so how big were those two ball bearings? in the picture one looks much bigger than the other, which is another wonder, I'd think they would all be from the same bearing race. Then to start with there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the "tip" about the 3.73# fish is actually the same fish as the 4.07# fish, days weeks had past when the bait dealer read about the new record and he assumed it was the same fish. ? So I have another question about bait shop guys; do they keep a written record of everything that gets weighed? or do they just write up the things that require receipts or certifications? I think if it had been me and we determined that on my scale the fish only weighed 2lb and the record was 3lb that I would have just wiped the mess up and went back to counting worms and crickets; but apparently this guy recalls three week/month later all the details that unreported fish? It's no wonder that a prosecutor said 'not enough evidence'.