ness

When you use deception for financial gain, it's against the law. But, $200 isn't going to get too much attention, even if you've got rock-solid evidence. Like Phil said - you reap what you sow, one way or another.

I don't like it, and it wasn't brainwashing that got me there. For some reason, many smokers feel like that little bit of trash is under the limit, and it's ok to drop them where ever you are when you finish your smoke. Twist off that filter and stick it in your pocket. I'm with Fly_Guy on this one.

Cabelas has some very nice beginner's setups. You could probably find something cheaper, but if you go too cheap, you may end up with crap. I got my boys a couple setups last summer, both around $100 (give/take). I remember one rod was a Traditional II (or close), can't remember what the other was. It has a nice moderate action, and is trimmed out nicely. The reels were fine. One was plastic, the other metal.

Sounds wonderful. Thanks for sharing.

What do you guys think about the current administration's economic stimulus plans? (Just trying to steer this into a little less controversial subject).

I don't know what your threshold for pain is, but I'll tell you what I see are the advantages. First, I wear glasses and cannot wear contacts. So, I NEED prescription sunglasses. I've got a pair of Smiths copper photochromatic (lighten/darken with sunlight). They are glass, and extremely clear -- I always notice how much brighter they are than my day-to-day plastic glasses with all their micro scratches. I really like the fact that they change density. When the sun starts to fade, they lighten up and that's a real plus to me. They're not particularly dark at the other end, which I like since I'm in the shade a lot of the time. I mostly fish for trout in streams, and can't imagine being without polarized glasses. To the original poster -- it's already been said, but give Smith a call. They just replaced my frames for free, and they're about 8 years old. Free. I asked them for a case (the original case finally blew up) and they threw in a new one of those too. So, Randall -- that's what comes with the extra $$$ you spend.

I've heard stories like that about the Irish Wilderness. Supposedly, there are Leprechauns about and they love to mess with campers and take their food, especially in the spring. They're known to love toast and jam, so I'm not surprised they took the bread. Did you see any fairy rings?

I'd recommend one made of Royalex. It's a plastic laminate with a foam core. It'll slide over rocks, rather than stick to them like aluminum (usually). It's also flexible and will return to the original shape. I wrapped mine around a tree a couple years back. It snapped back with nothing but a couple wrinkles in it. They will scratch and can be cut, but they're easy to repair if you gouge one too deeply. I've got Kevlar skid plates epoxied on the bow and stern. I think it's the ideal solution for Ozark streams, where you're pretty likely to encounter rocks. My 16-1/2 foot Wenonah weighs in at something like 56 pounds. Their website has a good bit of information about canoe choice, materials and hull designs. Plus, they're excellent boats.

No. 2 son with a rare Greenback Cutthroat in Colorado No. 1 son with his first fly-caught trout -- a wild brown in CO Not big fish, but they were caught well. Great memories for them and me.

Well, first of all, we're awfully friendly folks over here in Kansas. Tolerant of other people's opinions, etc. You won't catch any grief from us, unless you come over here burning down our towns again. Then we'll kick some arse, just like we did in The War. Wolf Creek is still there. It was privately owned by KCPL (used as a cooling reservoir) up until the late nineties then it became a county lake (still used for cooling). Fishing's still good from what I hear, though I haven't been in a number of years. Wonderful fishery with good populations of small mouth, large mouth, walleye, crappie and others. I think the nuclear power plant might have something with the size of the fish.

You're spot-on, in my opinion. I read this whole thread, then went back and reread some of the original comments that sparked the trouble to try to understand the arguments a little better. I don't regularly visit this forum and never go to TR, but I do fish (mainly trout, but also bass) and practice C&R almost exclusively. Have I learned anything from this thread? Sure - I'll be more aware of spawning bass and avoid them like I do trout redds. But there was sure a lot of extraneous nonsense in the thread that didn't really add to the discussion. It's ok to be passionate about something -- in fact, it's good. But, you're far more likely to get people to understand or adopt your point of view using solid, reasoned logic and polite dialogue, rather than with a personal attack. Just sayin'.

Ahhh yes. Erica Elaniak (sp?). So often overlooked because of the trashy one. And along the Marianne line, though more obscure would be: Bailey Quarters (whatever her name was) and Markie Post. We're talking in their prime, right?

Before I go to the article, I'm gonna post a quick top ten. Now, I may not be able to convince you of this, but I would have had Closer Minnow and Pheasant tail nymph even if I hadn't read the two previous posts. Probably wouldn't have done Griffith's Gnat - just don't think about them, but I know it's a great fly. Here goes, and these are in no particular order: 1. Wooly bugger 2. Adams 3. Stimulator 4. GRHE 5. Elk hair caddis 6. Gray Wulff 7. Partridge soft hackle 8. Madame-X 9. Clouser 10. Pheasant tail nymph

A well designed hull won't need a keel, and will float in a straight line -- especially if its load is balanced properly. But you're right -- a lot of canoes perform like you suggest, especially with the bow up in the air.

I think on the majority of rods, the 2 versus 4 piece isn't a BIG difference. Especially on the high-end stuff. But, to satisfy yourself, you may want to try casting one of each. Personally, I don't have any 4-piece. Most of my rods are blanks I finished myself, so I took the easy route. Sadly, all my fishing travel happens in a car.

Today

That's interesting. Those look nearly identical to my Wenenoh. You sure they're not just hijacking the truck, and scraping off the decals?

Ohhh. I get it KIMBERLING City. I was thinking the other KC. Now this all makes more sense. )

Not familiar with RAM-X. I guess it's some super tough material? Not sure what you're really looking for in a canoe, but I'd offer the following: Look for a canoe that will paddle well for you. If you're going to be solo in it, restrict your search to solo canoes. I would suggest you avoid very wide/flat bottomed canoes that are often billed as good fishing platforms. That sense of stability is a bit of a false sense of security -- get the thing tipping, and there's no turning back beyond a point. A rounder-bottomed canoe my not feel as stable, but your margin of error is greater when you tip. Just takes a little getting used to. And a thinner profiled boat will go where you want it without as much effort on your part. Royalex is an excellent material for Ozark canoes. It's lightweight, slippery and has some give to it. You'll slide over rocks rather than stick on them, and the hull will pop back into shape. I wrapped mine around a tree a couple years ago, and it bent into a wide-V. Snapped back, and but for a couple creases in the sides, it's fine. A more brittle material wouldn't have made it. My 16-1/2 footer weighs under 60 pounds. We-no-nah's web site and catalogues used to have a really good discussion about canoe design and materials. Probably worth looking at that even if they're not in the running. Edit: Just looked, go to Wenonah/resources

I've got a U-shaped Buck's Bags Mustang that I bought many, many years ago. I think you're right about going for that U-style -- they're easier to get in and out of, more stable, and most have a back rest that make's them more comfortable. I'm not up on who's good and who's not now, but I would suggest you look them over for quality construction. You want a good, durable bladder. Check out the mechanism for holding the U open. Mine has a bar across the front, and the pockets the bar ends rest in are really tough. Some just hold the sides apart with the seat -- may not work for a heavier guy. Finally, get some good quality fins -- not the swimming pool variety -- and some straps to hold them if one falls off. I've seen Fish Cat and Outcast tubes that look really good.

I love to tube, but just don't seem to get around to it as much as I'd like. It's an extremely comfortable way to fish. To me, the key in a tube is to restrict the use to smaller areas, and not try to cover too much ground too quickly. There's a nice 5-6 acre pond I fish, and I can do the circumference in an hour or so with a leisurely kick. It's a 1/2 mile walk in, and the tube is on my back. I've never done a pontoon, so I can't speak from first-hand experience. But, it seems to me the pros are higher platform, more stable, able to cover more water, more storage. Cons are wider profile due to oars, more involved to transport and assemble, higher and wider profile means high winds push you around more, and cost. There are definitely times I wish I had one, but I've got a canoe that fills the bill on larger water, or when I want to cover ground. Plus, I only get so many toys.

Nobody gives a rip what I'm up to. (sniffle) Seriously, I can see its usefulness in some situations. It's certainly the 'hot topic' lately - I heard 4 different stories in the media today that referred to it - like it's something new. I'm too 'connected' as it is. Everyone will just have to wonder.

So....... how 'bout them Tigers? Not to change the subject, or anything.

Holy crap Trav. You're single handedly screwing up the whole evening for a lot of folks. Folks that didn't read what Phil said, that is (<-hint). I see he's signed in and undoubtedly thrilled to see what you've stirred up.