jeb

Assuming bass, I'd go into Van Hollow and start checking the coves 1/2 way back and further in. Fish from the mouths to the back in a couple to find where the fish are. Jigs, jerkbaits, maybe A-rigs in deeper areas.

This statement is purely inflammatory. You're only looking to start a fight saying things like this. What are you, like 13 years old?

If that's the way Phil felt, he'd take down the pinned thread. And he would not close threads about it that did not get personal.

Change his position? Your thread runs directly contrary to his stated position here. He stated it again by closing the other thread. You're the one causing trouble by not only disrespecting it, but starting up again after he just killed it off. The body was not even cold yet, for crying out loud. Free speech does not apply to internet forums. You can say pretty much whatever you want on the street corner, but when you come into Phil's house, you should at least try to respect his stated position and rules. I don't mind AGW discussions at all. I mind insulting our host.

Jeez, you guys just have zero respect for Lilley. He just shoveled dirt on the face of the last thread on this yesterday, and you just can't let it go. Nice.

I agree Climate Change is a good catchall name for that branch of the religion, but it means nothing. It's like saying Seasonal Change. Seasons and climate have always changed, and always will.

The dollars are mostly flowing to the believers. That should tell you tell you something, just based on how you vilify the money in your reply. But there is a lot of information on the c02 stuff out there. This is from a quick search. I'm sure you'll find problems with it, just as I do with your religion, but here it is anyway: http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

More religous? That's an odd question. Is a protestant more religous than an methodist? I'm sure one may claim to be, but much like this discussion, there is no way to define it. Follow the money. Lots of scientist mortgage payments are being made with AGW scare money. I didn't say they were dishonest. I said they don't know what they don't know. LOL! I understand your branch of religion doesn't allow you to use common sense, but mine does. I'm sure the ancients thought exactly the same way. I'd guess that's true. Although I'd say we've already wasted a huge amount of taxpayer dollars chasing the green energy God, like the Solyndra's. Trying to push the techology before it's affordable is just not going to work. AAMOF, it has backfired on the tree huggers by making fossil fuel extraction methods like fracking affordable! But let me ask you. What are YOU doing to combat the imagined effects of AGW? Even the draconian Kyoto accord anaylsis shows it will hardly make a dent. So if you're a believer, you have to know this is not a turn off that extra light kind of problem. This is a disconnect the power from your house, stop driving any kind of elec or fossil fuel car, stop buying processed food, stop using computers/internet kind of problem. Off the grid yet, are you?

I didn't say I 100% agreed with the theory, only that it is a different take on it. But I think it's reasonable to say it could have had some impact, at least in the areas with a lot of pollution. Again, the CO2 thing is far from settled science, no matter if the pollution levels of a few decades ago impacted temps or not.

LOL! So we're just to ignore common sense, at least if it fits in with our religious views? I think the evidence of several ice ages, and some recent ones historically speaking, says your dismissal of extreme natural climate changes can be ignored. You have to be a true believer of the Church of the AGW alarmist to believe that. And you also have to ignore the fact that all the dire predictions have all been dead wrong so far. Just go look at how their poster boy Al Gore's predictions have worked out so far.

Yes, it does. CO2 is a tiny, tiny part of the overall atmosphere. There is still a lot of debate on how much it, in and of itself, has or can have any impact. Let alone how much it has really changed over millenia. There is no solid evidence that the earth is not in a normal warming trend. There is only conjecture. There is more unknown about this branch of science than known, so it's ridiculous to run around crying that the sky is falling and throwing trillions of dollars at a problem we don't have, and can't affect. Have you looked at what impact the Koyoto treaty was predicted to have over this century on temps? Almost nothing. But it would have further crippled our economy, which is why Canada recently pulled out of it. I remember reading in one article that it's possible the slightly higher warmer trend we are in can be blamed on cleaning up car exhauts, coal plants, etc. Taking all of that particulate matter out of the air allows more sunlight to penetrate. Something like that is much more believable, especially since worldwide temps have now stabilized. We were just catching up.

I disagree. I think that's just a cop out by the climate change faithful because they don't want to admit that there really is no solid evidence to support their religous believes. There are just far too many unknowns in this area of science. When they can start accurately predicting the weather for, say, 4 weeks out, I'll start to listen. Until then, it will remain glaringly obvious to me that they do not have a handle on the variables required to even begin to cyrstal ball future climate patterns. The bigger problem we have regarding our childern's future is the massive debt this country has been building the last few years.

Please re-read my post. The point is that science doesn't know it's wrong until it knows it's wrong. Science is not about consensus, it's about proving and disproving things.

How was the ramp? I heard some guys tore up some boats/trailers over there recently.

And the best scientist of the day all thought the world was flat, too. And that the stars rotated around the earth. The problem with science, and especially the weather related branches of it, is that you don't know what you don't know.

And 10,000 years ago, glaciers covered much of North America. That was not a local event either. The earth was going through wild "climate changes" before we ever came along. And will go through them again long after we're all gone.

Yes, most realize that the name of the religion has changed to the much more general "Climate Change" now. Great name for the alarmist movement, no doubt. They can call anything climate change. Dry, wet, cold, hot, whatever. The sky is falling no matter what. Brilliant.

I like how AGW alarmist are always picking out local events to show the imagined impacts of AGW, but tell us we're taking it out of context when we do the same about cooler or wetter than normal areas. I guess so. But I like to respect the board owners wishes, so always feel compelled to point out these threads are against the rules here.

Good striper! I left the house at about sunrise yesterday, and the striper boats were packed into the back of the PC cove area already. Kind of odd to see them so close together with long lines out in such skinny water, but there must be stripers in there!

Yeah, that's the only one I can think of that is right on the lake, too. Beaver Lake is beautiful and I love fishing it, but if you're planning on catching fish and the choice is between Beaver and TR, do yourself a favor and stay on TR. I live just off Beaver and we still make regular trips up to the Rock to catch more and bigger fish. Much as I hate it, TR is just a better fishery.

One was 3.5" or so, solid green. One was 1.5" or smaller, orange/green.

It was an odd day, weather-wise, as Jeff says. Not much in between too little wind and too much wind. About 5 minutes maybe? I caught one Wally on the finesse jig, too. It was sitting right in with the bass as we caught several bass on the same spot. It was a little short of legal though, so it went back in the lake with the rest of the fish.

Went out from about 3-6pm yesterday. Fished mid-lake area, larger coves. Water was a little stained, but seems to not be a lot different than before the rain. Temps about 45. The fish I caught, mostly nice K's, were full to the gills on crawfish. Puking them out on the deck kind of full. Rocky points, about 10' deep or so. Most of my fish came on jigs but I did catch a couple of the smaller STX jerk bait, too.

The scary part is there is absolutely no plan to slow that debt growth down beyond the sequester. When this house of cards collapses, it's going to be very ugly.

You've got it pretty well figured out, from the sounds of it. It's mostly a vertical presentation, but if you're around fish, casting and dragging will work, too. Like you found, the trick is to locate the fish first. Good electronics is a big help there as I can see my dropshot under the trolling motor to control the depth of it and to watch the fish react to it. Humps and the end or long underwater points are great places to look, as well as brush piles.