Misty IV

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 ]

I contacted my neighbor and these are the links he provided. LORA has some of the best information available on the impacts of BV7. http://www.loranet.org/ http://www.STOPplanBV7.com One thing to keep in mind is that the increased average level of the Lake means that all those streams, creeks, and even river mouths will need active, annual dredging to REMAIN NAVIGABLE. The individuals pushing BV7 (ie. politicians) DON'T CARE and/or ARE OBLIVIOUS TO THIS BASIC THREAT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMIES AND LIVELIHOODS. They live nowhere near the lake and have absolutely NO idea what they are proposing on us, let alone the impending damage to the shoreline and communities should BV7 go through. All they see is a "boost" to their political career. The Leveler/LORA group out around Rochester is the best disseminator of "untainted", sober, anti-BV7 info. Congresswoman Buerkle IS THE ONLY POLITICIAN THAT IS NOT ON THE FENCE RIGHT NOW, OR FOR BV7 OUTRIGHT. BOTH should be contacted by all of us. Buerkle is fighting for her political life and is THE ONLY ONE on our side so far. SHE needs our support. Mexico Bay used to have 100-200 feet of gently sloping "sandy" beach before 1958DD's effects manifested themselves. My family and at least 60 others, have been on our stretch of the shore since the 1920's; i.e. long before development of the St. Lawrence system. Point being that the shoreline WAS BROUGHT TO US, and hundreds of other properties, business and private, by 1958DD. I wasn't around yet for that change of shoreline and my aunts and uncles only remember the battles to save structures through a child's eyes. The "transparency" deficiency comes about because of complexity of these issues and lack of "layman's" terms being out there. The media has not been out front thus far, except on the St. Lawrence where the priorities are decidedly very different. Unfortunately apathy, and the "head-in-the-sand" strategy/attitude of many stakeholders compounds the lack of "public education" out there, and blunts any impact we can have on the debate. Essentially the River people DO NOT have to adapt and repair property due to storm surges coming across the 180 mile fetch of the Lake. All man-made defenses, and natural, have developed over time in response to the existing 1958DD. ANY increase in the "storage" of water on Lake Ontario effects us directly, and the regular exceeding of the current 247.3 ft. level (upper limit) during the Spring storm season has been particularly destructive/damaging to our stretch of shore. What we've seen over the last 30 years has been a regular pattern of the Spring freshet being trapped in the marsh areas inland from the shore. The "trapping" has been done by storm surges pushing cobble and debris into the majority of outlets to the Lake. The "mechanix" of the flushing going on along the Eastern Shore, at least Mexico Bay, is different than what the River deals with. Flooding/high water from the inland/backside of our properties definitely contributes to the mix of problems we face. Blowouts do occur, but the vast majority are caused by manual opening of seasonal barriers; technically not legal (NYSDEC) without permission. The impression many of us have is that the IJC/Frank Bevacqua COMPLETELY minimize or discount the effect(s) of storm surges on top of their "average" Lake level increases. IJC doctrine/attitude was exemplified last month when Congresswoman Buerkle asked Frank Bevacqua who was representing our stakeholder group; his response, "No one". This simple answer says it all from my viewpoint. Not only as taxpaying citizens are we not "at the table", realistically we have been thrown under the bus. The key presently, is the March thru May period of natural runoff/inflow and "manipulations" of the River dams. We are always in the top of, or over the 1958DD range for the worst weather on the Lake each year. Putting regular 4-8 foot storm waves on top of Lake levels, present and future is very discouraging. Further compounding this entire issue is the LACK of Constitutionally (USA & NY) guaranteed protections for personal/private property. There are NO provisions for meaningful Mitigation, nor ANY Compensation monies planned for. There are 100's of properties vulnerable to proposed changes, and the effects personally, Town & County (assessments & tax revenues), and on leisure industry (boating, sports fishing access), will be locally crushing. There are no provisions for increased, regular dredging of outlets to the Lake either. I obtained a good amount of this information from my neighbor at the lake who also resides in Oswego. He has been attending many of the meetings, including managing to get into meetings that were supposed to be "hush-hush" to the public. Imagine the IJC's suprise when a secret meeting was suddenly flooded by citizens asking questions and demanding answers. Below is the Public Information Session Schedule: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Cornwall, Ontario 7:30 PM Ontario Power Generation Visitors Centre 2500B Second Street West Wednesday, May 16, 2012 Montréal, Québec 7:00 PM Jardin Botanique de Montréal, Auditorium 4101, rue Sherbrooke Est Thursday, May 17, 2012 Sorel Tracy, Québec 7:00 PM Auberge de la Rive 465 chemin de la Rive Tuesday, May 22, 2012 Hamilton, Ontario 7:00 PM Royal Botanical Gardens, Auditorium B 680 Plains Road West Wednesday, May 23, 2012 Belleville, Ontario 7:00 PM The Banquet Centre, Emerald Room 1 Alhambra Square Thursday, May 24, 2012 Kingston, Ontario 7:00 PM City Hall, Memorial Hall 216 Ontario Street Tuesday, May 29, 2012 Massena, New York 7:00 PM Louisville Volunteer Fire Department 14818 State Highway 37 Wednesday, May 30, 2012 Clayton, New York 7:00 PM Clayton Opera House 405 Riverside Drive Thursday, May 31, 2012 Oswego, New York 7:00 PM Campus Center Auditorium SUNY Oswego, 7060 Route 104 Tuesday, June 5, 2012 Olcott, New York 7:00 PM Olcott Fire Company 1691 Lockport-Olcott Road Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Hilton, New York 7:00 PM Quest Elementary School Auditorium 225 West Avenue Thursday, June 7, 2012 Williamson, New York 7:00 PM Williamson High School Auditorium 5891 Route 21

I believe that same storm was the one that destroyed the sand dunes at Sandy Pond, as well, at the Jefferson & Oswego County lines.

My neighbor at the lake and I have been watching this very closely. I will get the actual link from him later today and post it. The other concern here is that ALL the properties along the lakeshore have designed and built their buildings, homes, marinas, etc., around the 1958 plan. A change to the new plan would have those massive waves we see during a gale-force storm coming over break walls, stone rip-rap and literally destroying properties. Preliminary estimates are in the billions EACH year!! We had waves hitting our break wall earlier this spring, and that was with the lake level being down. Imagine raising that level - the water will be in our living rooms, showrooms, parking lots, etc. But, I will get the link and links to additional information this evening and post them here. [ Post made via Android ]

I'm buying a set of his 4' Single Planer Plus' this season. Saw his products at a show and my crew was begging me to do the upgrade. Gotta keep them happy, too!!

I agree with mbm on the fixed downrigger bases. I thought about doing the tracks for the 'riggers, but chose not to. I have the Traxtech system on my Islander for the rod holders, net holders, etc, but went with their 6" raised mounts for the Cannons. Very happy with the end result!

That is one beautiful boat!! As others have said, it looks brand new. Sure she will serve you well for a very long time!

Beautiful boat!! Best of luck with her!!

Sticking to the eastern shore. Oswego is already seeing large kings!

Nice job and congrats on your first King! Plenty more out there to make you smile again!

Nice report! If the kings are here in these numbers and sizes already, I can't wait for the fall. My crew is already betting someone will find that 45+ pounder before the season is over. Of course, we hope it is one of us!!!

Nice report. Glad the kings are here!

Nice job!!!

I don't have to ask - they offer it without me saying a thing. There are a few guys who want to come out with us this year who have never been trolling. They're creek & pond fishermen. I've already told them the cost of a license and the cost to enter the derbies, tournaments, etc. They've offered to chip-in. Hope they do it without me having to ask. Just seems the right thing to do when on someone else's boat, especially with the cost of fuel these days. My crew and I split the food costs, as well.