eric1978

I like Sean Penn. He's a good actor and a major philanthropist and he's helped a lot of suffering people. If he was a neocon you'd like him, too.

So is Henry David Thoreau responsible for Chris McCandless' death?

Because we're Americans and we don't want to be inconvenienced...it's our right to do whatever we want, don't you know that? OB, what do you use to weight your flies if you're not using beads?

I could do what he does...go into the woods with a camera for 3 days and eat a few grubs and some cattails, make fire with a magnesium flint stick, and build a shelter out of twigs and moss. The question is can he survive long-term, and from what I've seen out of him, the answer is no. He simply doesn't find enough food, and I saw an episode where he couldn't get a fire started, so he had to drink tainted water and he got sick...which means he probably would have eventually died in that scenario. There was also another episode, I believe the desert island one, where he had to be rescued by his producers because he set his dumbass afloat on the ocean with a rudderless raft and a couple coconuts full of water. Yeah, quite a survivalist. Nah, that military guy would wrestle a moose or something and we'd be good. You're right though, the shoeless hippie is a little odd, but I personally dig his philosophy, even if it's a little extreme, and I'd rather be stranded with him than Les Stroud, who would try to eat my chunky butt...if I didn't kill him first because he drove me nuts with that stupid harmonica.

Les Stroud is a joke. He'd be dead in a matter of days if he was in a real survival situation. Ever notice he never finds anything but bugs and bark to eat? The guys on the new show Dual Survival know what they're doing...if I was stranded somewhere, I'd want to be with them. I used to like Bear Grylls, but his show has gone from "how to survive" to "let's see how much crazy crap I can do without dying."

If I thought the sky was falling, I wouldn't be using lead, but I still do. But suggesting that lead does no harm is just as much an exaggeration as suggesting it's a huge problem. I think we should be realistic about it from both directions. People that scream about how we're losing all our freedoms are Chicken Littles, too, if you ask me.

I posted the information below earlier on. Yes, it was a study done by the EPA, so you may not want to believe it since it is a government agency and we know nothing they say is true. I'm not suggesting some jigheads left in a massive reservoir would have any impact whatsoever, but maybe in tiny, fragile ecosystems, it could. At least that's what I think, you be the judge for yourself. Obviously it doesn't carry the impact that a toxic waste or mine tailings spill would have on a small creek, but from what I've read, lead is toxic to animals in aquatic ecosystems, to one degree or another. Perhaps in flowing bodies of water the lead PPM could never reach toxic levels...I haven't found any research that addresses that particular scenario, and I've been looking. So I'll concede that there isn't a lot of evidence available that lead is a major problem. But let's not sit here and deny that it doesn't pose some kind of threat to the environment, and that's been my only point all along. "Lead shot and lead weight can severely affect individual organisms and threaten ecosystems (WHO 1989). After three to ten days of waterfowl ingesting lead shot, the poison will reach the bloodstream and be carried to major organs, like the heart, liver and kidneys. By the 17th to 21st day the bird falls into a coma and dies. Following the ingestion of lead shot, lead toxicosis has been observed in Magpie geese, Black swans, several species of duck (including Black duck and Musk duck) and Hardhead species (OECD 1993).Organic lead is much more readily taken up by birds and fish (WHO 1989). Aquatic organisms take up inorganic lead through a transfer of lead from water and sediments; this is a relatively slow process. Organic lead is rapidly taken up by aquatic organisms from water and sediment. Aquatic animals are affected by lead at water concentrations lower than previously thought safe for wildlife. These concentrations occur often, but the impact of atmospheric lead on specific sites with high aquatic lead levels is not clear (US EPA 1986)."

Well they better do it before Nov. 2nd, because after that it's party over for the dems...or so it looks that way now. The next two years of federal government is gonna be one worthless gridlock.

No argument there, Bob. A free guided trip? Man, you might get me to pull the lever for the wrong guy talking like that!

This is the only part I'll respond to, and then I'm dropping out of this pointless merry-go-round. I am so tired of hearing the slams on environmentalists. If your favorite thing in the world is shooting darts or sitting in an office all day or playing X-Box, I could see why you might think they're a little nutty. But environmentalists fight to keep pristine nature intact (what's left of it), and as an angler and outdoor enthusiast, I support the VAST majority of the work they do. I hate to drag politics into it, but it's impossible to avoid to make this point...I think a lot of guys that bad-mouth environmentalists are just blindly towing the Republican Party line, and since the R's are in the pocket of giant corporations that save money when they pollute (the D's are in a different set of pockets), constituents are faced with the decision to break with their party or just nod their head in agreement and start chanting the talking points...even if they don't really believe it or know that it's flat out wrong. The Republican mantra is "money before anything else," and that includes the environment. So if you call yourself a Republican for one reason or two or three, next thing you know you are supporting their entire philosophy and agenda which unfortunately is terrible for our planet. (I know I'm in the minority among the demographic on this forum, so go ahead, fire away.) You say you look at both sides and make your own decisions, but I don't see any reason why sportsmen and people who love interacting with nature wouldn't be in favor of doing everything they can to "conserve" the health of the Earth. Thanks for the tip on the tungsten spinnerbaits, though. I honestly didn't know they existed. I will look into them. And an edit to address the previous poster...I find nothing of what you said offensive, Bob, and I would gladly hire you as a guide if I ever needed one on Stockton. We may not agree on many issues, but people get along quite differently when they're fishing. If I only hung out with people who I agreed with on everything, I wouldn't have anyone to hang out with.

If you tell me who you would listen to, I'll find the information for you. Problem is, I don't think you would believe anyone, because you don't want to.

I'll be sure to make all my insults adjectives instead of nouns from now on.

You're right. Trav really should apologize.

I'm more inclined to listen to scientists than you, since they know what they're talking about and you don't. They seem to think it is harmful to the environment, whether it was "invented" by "God" or not. http://www.lead.org..../lanv1n2-8.html Lead shot and lead weight can severely affect individual organisms and threaten ecosys­tems (WHO 1989). After three to ten days of waterfowl ingesting lead shot, the poison will reach the bloodstream and be carried to major organs, like the heart, liver and kidneys. By the 17th to 21st day the bird falls into a coma and dies. Following the ingestion of lead shot, lead toxicosis has been observed in Magpie geese, Black swans, several species of duck (including Black duck and Musk duck) and Hardhead species (OECD 1993).Organic lead is much more readily taken up by birds and fish (WHO 1989). Aquatic organisms take up inorganic lead through a transfer of lead from water and sediments; this is a relatively slow process. Organic lead is rapidly taken up by aquatic organisms from water and sediment. Aquatic animals are affected by lead at water concentrations lower than previously thought safe for wildlife. These concentrations occur often, but the impact of atmospheric lead on specific sites with high aquatic lead levels is not clear (US EPA 1986). Lead moves into and throughout ecosystems. Atmospheric lead is deposited in vegetation, ground and water surfaces. The chemical and physical properties of lead and the biogeochemical processes within ecosystems will influence the movement of lead through ecosystems. The metal can affect all components of the environment and can move through the ecosystem until it reaches an equilibrium. Lead accumulates in the environment, but in certain chemical environ­ments it will be transformed in such a way as to increase its solubility (e.g., the formations of lead sulfate in soils), its bioavailability or its toxicity. The effects of lead at the ecosystem level are usually seen as a form of stress (US EPA 1986). In general, there are three known ways in which lead can adversely affect ecosystems. Populations of micro-organisms may be wiped out at soil lead concentrations of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) or more, slowing the rate of decomposition of matter. Populations of plants, micro-organisms and inverte­brates may be affected by lead concentrations of 500 to 1,000 ppm, allowing more lead-tolerant populations of the same or different species to take their place. This will change the type of ecosystem present. At all am­bient atmospheric concentrations of lead, the addition of lead to vegetation and animal surfaces can prevent the normal bio­chemical process that purifies and repurifies the calcium pool in grazing animals and decomposer organisms (UNEP 1991). Tungsten. If you know where I can find some tungsten spinnerbait heads, let me know. In the same breath you say that you don't dump oil (which we take out of the earth and make stuff with it), but lead is okay (because we just take it out of the earth and make stuff with it). The Bible would also have you believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Pretty sure that isn't right. I'd be careful making scientific arguments based on a document that is so thoroughly disproved. I agree with you...our kids are going to face a lot of problems because of how we currently treat the planet, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore less looming problems...we should address them all and look into fixing them. Look, I don't think lead is a HUGE environmental problem, but the FACTS are that it DOES have a negative impact...that's a FACT. You can't deny fact simply because it isn't convenient for you, even though I know that's a common theme in our culture.

People didn't get sick of you because you posted a lot, they got sick of you because you are a know-it-all who actually knows nothing, which people find quite annoying. Oh, and it's an average of less than 5 a day, not 10-20. If you don't like what I have to say, stop reading my posts numbskull.

I bet you wouldn't like it if I hid some in your cornbread. Ask a waterfowl what it's like.

Getcherself a Curado or Citica KC. I have one of each of the new models...great reels.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not still there. It is estimated that there are still more than 50 million gallons floating around out there. From New Republic: "About one-quarter of the oil is still bobbing on the sea surface or washed ashore. Another quarter has been dispersed into microscopic droplets, either by artificial chemicals or natural processes. And another quarter has been "dissolved." All told, just 25 percent has been physically removed from the Gulf ecosystem. The rest is still lurking... somewhere. But what sorts of harm is that lingering oil doing? As the NOAA notes, answering that question will take time and a lot more research. "Consider the "dissolved" oil. This crude didn't just vanish entirely—it's still mixed in with the water. A number of marine scientists have pointed out that dissolved oil can still poison the small organisms that underpin the Gulf's food chain. As The New York Times reported last week, "The effect on sea life of the large amounts of oil that dissolved below the surface is still a mystery." Anyway, back to lead...just because it's mined from the earth doesn't mean it's okay to discard it anywhere. Plastic is made from petroleum...from the earth. You don't just throw your soda bottles in the river do you? Don't get me wrong, I use lead, but that's mainly because there is no other alternative for many of the uses involved with fishing tackle. If there was, I'd use it, even if I had to pay more. Wouldn't you?

Do you use the same rationale for the oil in the gulf? Think about it.

This is the best analogy I could come up with to defend my indefensible Shimano addiction: When you're at the grocery store, standing in the dairy isle, regular sour cream in one hand, and that tasteless, watery, fat-free crap in the other, which one do you buy? The regular stuff MIGHT make you fat and give you a heart attack one day, but it's going to be better than the alternative until it happens. Or you might buy the nasty stuff, and you'll still have your baked potato that night, but you'll be thinking the whole time...darn, I shoulda covered my spuds with premium.

Sorry, but I would support a ban on lead. It's bad for the environment, period. And if you care about fishing, you should care about the environment. Yes, it would temporarily make pouring heads and tying some flies a little problematic, but someone somewhere would quickly create an alternative metal that won't lead to birth defects in California. Might be more expensive...too bad. Paying a little extra to keep our planet clean is worth it. So get on it and make yourself a millionaire...where's your entrepreneurial spirit Mr. America? And yes, you're free shockley...but none of us should be free to pollute the world our kids have to grow up in.

I dunno. I don't think I'd wanna have to bend something on a reel right out of the box to make it work right. I'd like to buy US Reels since they're US made, I just can't seem to break my old Shimano and Loomis habits.

You might want to wait for Al to chime in before you buy the Mohawk. He'll give you some reasons why he thinks the Vagabond is better for the Ozarks...I haven't paddled either of them, so I won't speculate.

So now we'll go in that direction, eh? Okay, I'll play. I've had many, many Shimano spinning reels over the years, from mid-grade to Stella. I've had exactly one with the Shimbindo problem, a Sustain from the early 2000s, and it only happened once when I had dropped it in the river and it was completely submerged for at least 30 seconds. They are great reels otherwise, and I'll keep buying them. If it binds, I'll return it.

Yep, chain pickerel. Awesome looking fish! What'd you catch it on?