Misty IV

That would be one heck of a drift bag if someone caught that. How'd you lose that?

I agree this is a great topic of discussion!! The lake has been fairly kind to me over the years, but the 1st week in July this year was, by far, my most expensive trip. Lost a Shark weight, at least (5) flasher & fly combos, about 200' of copper, complete spool of coated downrigger cable, (2) dual rod holders on my Cannons cracked (which almost lost me 4 downrigger rods), main engine issues because of ethanol, and the Navionics card in the GPS/Chartplotter went south. I was ready to throw in the towel and park the boat by Thursday and not use it the rest of the week. But, calm waters in the morning and the desire to be out on the lake overpowered my anger, so with the exception of the Navionics card, everything was replaced and I put more hours on the boat. Once the itch is in your blood, it's very hard to not fish. I'm not going to mention the total bill in parts and repairs for that week. LOL.

I stopped at Jon's a few weeks ago to buy some gear for the LSRC and happened to see the boat. It will be a very solid Lake Ontario fishing boat for a lucky someone. Hopefully someone snags her up while the fishing is still good!!

I was thinking Lighthouse Marina, as well. Also give Mike's Marina a call, too. When I was up 2 weeks ago, there were a few slips open and not being used.

Awesome video! Always nice to see what is happening down below the boat when the sharks strike

I've used all the major brands and they all work fine. As mentioned above, antenna height is crutial. If you can afford it, I strongly suggest purchasing a handheld VHF radio, as well. The fixed-mount unit is great...until you lose all power, your 12 volt battery dies, etc. If you lose all power, you can't use the fixed-mount to call for help. Having the handheld as a back-up unit can save your life if things go wrong. Granted, they do not have the range of a fixed-mount unit, but they do get out. Ask anyone who has been on my boat and they will tell you I am very safety oriented and sometimes I go overboard with things, but I'd rather spend a little extra to ensure all my passengers are safe. Just my $0.02.

I won't be back up to the boat for another two weeks, so having my brother who is up there this week on vacation check things out for me. Is there a particular brand of parts I should avoid or stay away from? I've looked online at the various parts and there are so many manufacturers of marine caps, rotors, etc. Should I stick to genuine Quicksilver/Mercury Marine/MerCruiser parts or am I safe with the others, like Sierra? Some of the names I've seen around a lot are made in China and I'm very uneasy about using that stuff.

Thanks for the replies. Hoping it is something simple, like cap & rotor. Lakebound, the last time I was up when the problem started initially, yes, engine simply died. Found water in the filter after changing it. Ran beautifully after the new filter was put on. This ethanol fuel is drving me up the wall. Bowhunter, I was thinking the same thing, as well, with the idle setting. When it is running fine, it idles great, right around 650rpm. When this issue starts up, it'll drop to 500 and will surge up to 1000 then back down to 650, then starts misfiring, etc. Real PITA when you're trying to maintain a steady trolling speed...

Was that the fish they bought to the LSR Challenge weigh-in? It was a beauty up close!!

2 bbl carburetor model [ Post made via Android ]

The last time I was up, I ran the tank down to almost 1/8 full. I didn't have an opportunity to fill it back up before I left to come home. I filled it up Friday afternoon with fresh gas at the R&R One Stop in Port Ontario. I did add Marine Sta-Bil to the tank before refilling the tank. When I started it initially at the launch Saturday morning, it ran fine, idled perfectly. It was after a few hours on the water that the idle problem appeared. I thought vapor lock may be a cause, but I don't think that would account for the missing and surging RPM's at times. Maybe I got a bad tank of gas from there?

This past weekend while fishing the LSR Challenge, my main engine started running rough while trolling. Under power above 1000rpm, it seems to run fine, but anything below that, it simply will not idle and sounds like it's not running on all cylinders, almost like a misfire. Two weekends ago when I was up, I had a similar issue and ended up changing the water/fuel filter and the idle problem disappeared. I find it hard to believe that over the course of sitting for two weeks, the problem could be back that fast. I'm thinking ignition problem. The engine was replaced in 2005 by the original owner with a Jasper remanufactured unit a few months before I bought the boat. Engine has a little over 200hrs on it. Spark plugs, wires, rotor, cap are on my list. Any other thoughts on what may be causing this idling issue? Thanks in advance for all replies!

Agree with Fish Hunter, don't try to launch a very big boat at Pine Grove, plus if you go to Mexico you'll get to start your day off talking to Bonnie! She is a funny lady Yeah, she had me laughing hard a few weekends ago!!

Thanks for the replies. The Tekota 600LC is the reel I'm going with. I've personally been using the Eagle Claw SF400-A rods as downrigger rods for close to 20 years and love them! Thought I'd stick with a name that works, but happily looking at all the suggestions so far.

Sure if you call around to some of the marinas and explain your situation to them, they'd be happy to suggest someone nearby.

I STRONGLY suggest having (2) radios onboard, especially if you're out on the lake. One fixed-mount and one handheld. If you happen to lose all power on the boat and can't call for help on the fixed-mount, with the handheld as a backup, you have a chance of reaching someone. Without it, you're in a bit of a dilema. I was recently boarded by the USCG and they did a full check of everything on the boat. At the end of the inspection, the Chief Officer handed me the paperwork and told me he hasn't seen a boat as well equipped as mine in awhile and that I actually was a bit overkill on items. After explaining my reasoning to him, he fully agreed it's better to have too much than not enough. Personally, I'd rather spend the extra money to ensure my crew, guests and myself are protected and covered should the poo-poo hit the fan in a hurry. Just my $0.02.

I just did a Google search and it came back with 17 welders in Wilson, 40+ near Olcott.

Nice report!!

I'm looking to change-up things this year and am looking for suggestions on a good 9' dipsey rod. The 10' is just too big to store in my forward cabin so looking at the 9' size. Already have the reels picked out. Suggestions, recommendations? I don't necessarily need a roller guide model, but something I can add the Twilly Tip to. Eagle Claw, Daiwa, Shimano, Penn, Okuma, whatever. Bring on the suggestions! Thanks in advance for the input!!

I know we can't tell the fleas to stay away...we have to deal with them every year. An inexpensive trick I have found to get fleas off our lines is simple Velcro. I go to Home Depot and get a box of the industrial grade stuff and carry it on the boat. Wrap the Velcro around the line as you are reeling in and the fleas will get hooked to the Velcro as they pass over it. The Cortland Flea Flicker line in 30# has worked well for us over the years, but once the fleas get bad, even the FF has its limitations. Give the Velcro a try.

Jammer, it's nice to see the public and property owners showing up for these meetings. I got another email from someone that also said the representation from the IJC was very poor at the meeting and that the Commissioners failed to show up, yet public turnout was close to 500. Questions were being asked and the IJC "reps" just stood there with a "deer in the headlights" look. They couldn't answer the questions being asked. Frank Bevacqua appeared totally lost.

The following is an open letter submitted to the IJC Commissioners at the latest public meeting in Olcott on 6/5/12. I received this through my contact in Oswego and have simply copied and pasted the letter below: ************************************************************************ OPEN LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMISSION We regret the need to be openly critical of the International Joint Commission and the working group involved with water level Plan BV7. We shall start by saying that, in our opinion, you are all very bad at your jobs. After $20,000,000.00 spent between 2000-2006 and untold millions since, you are trying to force-feed the property owners along the south shore of Lake Ontario a plan that is even more damaging than the plan, known as Plan B+, that was not approved a few years ago. You expect us to swallow between $4 and $5 million dollars in annual damages, the vast majority to occur in the United States, in New York State and on Lake Ontario. Those are your figures, not ours. Our figures would reflect damages from three or more times higher than your $4.5 million yearly average. If BV7 is the best plan you can formulate, then perhaps you should all step down and let someone else have a crack at it- someone who can be more objective, or someone who is willing to treat all parties equally. Not only are you bad at your jobs, but you also insult, demean and disregard us. Where are the commissioners at these informational meetings? Why isn’t the water-level issue important enough for them to hear our concerns first-hand? Why are we not talking directly to the BV7 decision-makers? Aren’t our homes, our sewer and water systems, our tax base, our communities, our way of life, our property values, important enough to have the Commissioners hear our side of the issue first-hand? The IJC Commissioners and their staffs are not royalty. You are public servants. The absence of the Commissioners speaks volumes! On a path to ethical bankruptcy, your working group is attempting to remove the promise of damage mitigation by saying that the grossly underestimated $4.5 million in annual BV7 damages is not damage at all, but rather a “reduction in benefits†that the system has provided to south shore riparians over the years. This “sleight of hand†would be similar to saying that, as you have had ten fingers your whole life, cutting off three of them would not be a problem, but just a reduction in the benefits of that having ten fingers provides. It is notable that other interest groups, who will feel no pain from this plan, have seen much larger benefits from regulation than have south shore riparians and will receive even greater benefits under this plan. You cannot produce power without a dam and you cannot sell that power at cut-rate prices to keep businesses open and employ people in the North Country without the dam and regulated water levels. It is essential to observe the benefit that the Great Lakes shipping industry and its employees, steel mills, grain producers and manufacturing plants have received from regulated water levels. Extremism is present when one group perceives their interests to be so important that hurting another group is, not only acceptable, but even a part of the plan. Plan BV7 has been crafted by environmental extremists who appear to have reeled in the IJC, hook, line and sinker. They are proposing a solution that may not work, to a problem that may not exist. They appear to pronounce that anyone who does not support Plan BV7 is an enemy of the environment in need of a dose of “benefit reduction†as punishment! It might take an average eighth grader only an hour or so on Google to find enough contradiction within environmental points purporting to support Plan BV7 make one question their accuracy. The IJC’s own experts initially said high water helped the wetlands, yet now they are positive that low water is the answer. Such contradictions do not in gender confidence. BV7 is claimed to help the Muskrat population by increasing it by nearly 160%, yet one might observe that the DEC has a no bag limit on muskrat trapping. With a license, one can trap as many as one wants. In fact, a DEC employee was quoted earlier this year in the Watertown Daily News as saying, “…the nice thing about them (muskrats) is that they are easy to catch and there are plenty of them.†Is it water levels or over-hunting that is the problem? Also, the cattails so many feel the need to eliminate are a primary source of food to muskrats. BV7 is supposed to help solve the declining population problem of the Black Tern. Googling that problem, one may find that the Black Terns declining population in New York is actually a shifting of their migration pattern in North America. Regulated water levels are mentioned as a possible reason, but no more clearly than recreational boat wakes causing Black Tern nests to be destroyed. Environmentalists claim that 64,000 acres of wetlands have been lost by the current regulation plan. Yet, one might ask how many acres of new wetlands were created when the dam flooded vast sections of the St. Lawrence River Valley. Maybe we haven’t lost any wetlands at all. May be there has just been a reduction in wetland benefits. Now one must ask how many miles of shoreline, both private and public, will be lost under BV7. None of the environmentalists are saying anything about the St Lawrence River EPA Superfund sites caused by Alcoa, General Motors and Reynolds Aluminum. Not much has been said about the PCBs, Dioxins, Mirex and Mercury coming into the lake from the Black River, Oswego River and Genesee River. Indeed, 85% of our water supply from the Niagara River flows past the Love Canal and the old Hooker chemical sites. It might be that the radioactive materials leaking into the lake from nuclear waste sites near Toronto are the reasons that people are catching less Northern Pike? We do not claim to be experts, but all this pollution might be having a negative effect on fish, wildlife and wetlands. Amidst all such contention, what do we want you to do? We want you to keep your promises of a balanced approach, with no disproportional damages and no unmitigated damages. A balanced approach is not a plan that places 95% of the damages in the United States, in New York State and on Lake Ontario’s south shore. We want the IJC to stop letting extreme environmentalism rule this process. We want the IJC to stop fostering an atmosphere that pits interest groups against one another. We want you to go back to a transparent process that includes representation from among property owners along on Lake Ontario’s shores ponds and bays, recreational boaters and businesses. Unlike some, we do not want any interest to be damaged. We want to live, work and play in, on and along the lake and river that is safe, healthy and preserved for future generations. The role of government should not be to harm the very citizens it is charged to protect. WE WANT YOU TO COME BACK TO US WITH A PLAN THAT HURTS NO ONE!

If you go to the LORA website, one of the pictures shows a group of people standing in the inlet to Sodus Bay in the early 1900's when the water levels were allowed to fluctuate. There is NO water in the inlet and the base of Sodus light is clearly visible. [ Post made via Android ]

That is correct. [ Post made via Android ]

A big misconception I am seeing is how people interpret the 18" higher level. This does NOT mean the water will be 18" further up the beach or boat ramps. It means 18" vertically higher than the lake sits now. This may, from a visual standpoint, not seem like a huge deal, but take that new height and follow the line horizontally to the shore. This is where the water will be on a CALM day. Add in gale-force 50+ mph winds and those 5+ foot waves rolling in and you quickly see the concern of catastrophic property damage happening. Earlier this spring, we had waves rolling in during a major storm and were hitting our storm wall - something we very rarely see. If the lake were 18" higher, those waves would be crashing on my front lawn and water would flow through my living room, kitchen and out the back door. The same storm this spring had waves going OVER the rip-rap barrier at the Salmon River inlet [ Post made via Android ]