NitroMusky

just seeing those again gets me mad all over again...not only did he keep out of season but kept two...which is over the limit even IN season! [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

+1 [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Larry I will send mine +1 'player to be named later' when I get off the ice tomorrow. given the interest im sure it will be a full fiield but hopefully others are already thinking muskies despite these frigid temps and will send soon as well. [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

zach my understanding is that depending on the year and water temps muskies could still be spawning into june, so I think there might be a better chance at an early season C+R than moving up the opener, if spawing is to be protected. im not for icefishing muskies, (seen too much potential for non-muskie panfishers to accidentally catch and harvest out of spite for them eating the panfish) so I wouldn't want an open season on the ice in any stuation. not sure if that could be excluded?? I cant dig out my earlier post on details of cowanesque from my mobile but that lake is no further a drive than waneta... just gotta pay the PA $$...there are a few others just a bit further too. first thaw and im there! [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think its a great idea (as you may have noted from my comment on Larrys original post), and he did a great job of trying to propel it forward through a well supported argument but it looks like moot topic. I will be heading to PA the first sign of soft water. [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

excellent! those 40s are sweet. where were you? 'daks?? [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

we don't tie anything direct in muskie fishing 100 flouro leader is almost impossible to tie correctly in the shop let alone on the water- and damn expensive to cut off and re-tie. I tend not to use more than 1 swivel on the whole set up tho. typically on the line itself away from the lure for the reason of action you mentioned. bucktails: verrry large blades (and sometimes 2) a couple inches in diameter andor length can make the whole lure 'corkscrew' through the water. I think it has to do with the force of large blade against the clevise not allowing it to spin freely on the wire. the wire itself also has a larger diameter along with the larger (longer) clevise, which I imagine creates more area for friction resistance. [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I haven't seen the article yet but I started doing the same thing late last year on all but my trolling rods. gotta say that I really like it. just be extra careful to have the leader out past the rod tip when casting or you will get bad crimp in the leader or I imagine possibly a birdsnest if the knot is poorly tied. [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

nice job...better than a sharp stick in the eye I know where you're talking about: Lost pond, but I've always heard 1/2 Moon referred to as Round pond. I got a lunker bass outta there a couple years back. Anyways, Quaker is at the far south end of the park and not very close to any roads, which is partly why I think it gets little attention/pressure. its a good size though-about as big as Deep pond... [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

anyone ever tried quaker pond back in the woods there? always wondered about this one while back there hiking but seems one the ice would be the only way to access it with all the vegetation around the edges. seen a bunch of minnows while crossing the stream there so it could be a good untapped spot. [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

great show good to see you demonstrating your photographic prowess via the 'scenery' pics too

you don't say whether its a exterior mounted ducer or through-hull. i've been having a similar interrmittant problem with my 595, but I figured it was just the paint on the interior of the 'glass delaminating a bit as I can see it flaking in some other spots. tried all different settings (including defaults ) but no better. also, my ducer is about 7-8 years old now

good point... hadn't thought about that...it seems to me that the dipsies have enough pull to make the effect of line drag somewhat neglegible tho....but I do see that the resistance of the dipsy itself will pull the line so that the 'triangle' is no longer perpendicular to the boat. And this is a function of the speed as well. so...at least we know what the max potential spread is... good catch and thanks for keeping me on my toes! NM

(282.84 x 2 )+ the width of your boat @ 100 ft down to be exact seriously, just go to this site and punch in how many ft out as the hypotenuse (side c, aka 300') and ft down (side a, aka 100') to get the 282.84 (side b). http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

Xd-sounds like you get the procedure down, but for others I posted the procedure for the LCs here last year viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9596 also, those who know of Tani prolly already know this, but either the carbontex (best power) or extreme smoothies (best progression) are a great upgrade on any of these reels with the felt washers. either way, the progression is SOO much better and worth the few bucks if you're taking it apart anyway, besides those felt ones wear out over time anyway, not so much with these upgrades

nice. I knew there are some good fish in those waters, but I rarely had any luck there. great job

Haha Ray, I know its all in good jest…I worry less, (OK not at all) about the folks here, but unfortunately a few bad apples do exist (apparently on Waneta ) Glen, I'm not undermining the opinions here, just don't project them to represent a broader set of opinions outside this forum. Particularly, any data used with legislators to support the argument must be very solid. My point is simply this: In reading this thread, it appears that while walleyemagic has done a yeoman’s job of spearheading this change and many benefits to the state and local fishing/tourism industry have been identified, much of the discussion comes across as a thinly veiled or overt attempt to further a self-serving agenda by fishermen to increase their personal catch rates. Hear me out…as I know that’s not the case. But if the contingent here would like to make this change happen and give it the best chance of succeeding, then a concerted coalition needs to come together (preferably through or supported by a NY fishing commerce group). This group must not be formed to push through the 3 rod rule directly (and be seen has having an agenda), but for addressing some issue which legislators can identify with and get behind. I would suggest that this coalition prepare a ‘report’ and make the case something like this: -Present an issue (e.g. lower fishing tourism) -Show how it affects us all AND is relevant to legislators: (negative impact on the NYS economy and tax and DEC revenue, resulting in lower stocking rates which creates a vicious downward spiral on tourism– or something like that) -Identify a solution and discuss those alternative which were ruled out or less attractive: (3 rod rule vs alternatives) -Demonstrate how this solution can remedy the root of the problem: (better angling success for these tourists drawing repeat visits, resulting in better DEC revenues and stocking, yielding a better quality fishery and reversal of the downward tourism/fishing spiral) Brainstorm additional benefits to the state: (the marketing of such a change in tourism promotion in NYS and elsewhere) Now here is where it gets tricky… -Preemptively identify and discuss ALL objections (flaming our legislators wont work ). Think about the issue like our legislators would. Keep in mind that they will consider the direct financial aspects (including mundane things like having to reprint the regs) as well as a layman’s perceptions of impact on the fishery. Some of these objections could have no basis in reality, but what would they know, they’re legislators not fishermen. Take a note of the objections raised in this thread and present solid data and projections to support your hypothesis. -Be prepared to address the skeptics perceiving this as fishermens’ veiled attempt to simply increase their take-home rates. This is best through a solid research and analysis/projections. If some of these objections have even a shred of potential truth, be prepared to discuss how the legislation should be fine tuned or limited in order to minimize the objections - or risk this unwanted perception. Remember, you will not likely have an opportunity to weigh in and address objections as they arise, as it’s a lot different behind closed doors than the transparency and instant communication of the internet. So the document has to stand on its own and tie back to issues (economic) that are relevant to our representatives in Albany. Good luck…

Haha, Touche Ray! I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole on this, but since you called me on it...Reality is that I do know a bit more than a hair about survey research. I'm not suggesting the conclusion is wrong (or right) only that the approach is such that its not representative of anything. While I agree that us LOU loyalists are the only ones that matter, the reality is: In addition to internet biases in general, any focused internet forum attracts participants who are much more actively engaged on the topic/sport than the rest, thus imparting more bias. within that, its further skewed to users who visit more frequently. Add onto it that the poll was a passive one rather than activly soliciting responses, and you introduce the potential to unequally attact 'voters' from each side of the issue. Lastly, the question still exists whether it should be among a survey of ALL NYS residents, since the *potential* financial impacts of increased stocking and tourism dollars affect everyone. Give'em the facts and let them decide. Again, not saying the conclusion is wrong only that we know almost nuthin with any certainty. Ray, c'mon lets not twist words...mortality rate of kept fish is 100%, mortality rate of fish in general is whatever the natural rate is, while the rate of mortality of C+R is somewhere in between. They average out to a total mortality rate for the fishery as a whole, which in turn affects the total fish population (and in cases of stocked fish: the stocking requirements). All else constant, (more fish caught) = (more fish kept and released) = (higher mortality); however significant or insignificant the impacts may be. I'm not suggesting the magnitude of the actual impact, only acknowledging that the impact exists.

Yikes! right or wrong, I have to say that this 'justification' for the 3 rod rule is frightening . In reading this, a couple things strike me: 1-proponents appear to be looking for justifications/excuses to hide behind as a means to push through this law. this appearance is bolstered when potential consequences are rather thouroughly dismissed and data points are taken out of context to support this position. 2-There are some very altruistic rationales/benefits suggested (increasing the Lk O/NYS tourism, help the disadvantaged single angler) as well as some self-serving ones (e.g. help me to find the pattern faster, help me catch fish on a slow day). Rather than simply trying to throw justifications at it, find a singular issue (or two) to rally behind, and look at how the 3 rod rule could be applied to help solve it. But be sure to find a way to apply this rule with surgical precision as a means to support that goal AND be willing to acknowledge and propose ways to offset any unintended negative consequences. Don’t just say there are fewer fishermen today and conclude its OK for everyone to runthe extra lines…if the 3 rod rule works to increase tourism and fishing as some hope, then the future # of fish taken WILL go up. The DEC has to manage the fishery #s overall, and the rods/man is part of that equation and balance. Create an estimate of how much it will increase fishing days, how much it will decrease fish populations and determine if in fact it will negatively impact the DEC’s management goals. Then provide proof that it won't or propose a compromise solution it will. to this end, it strikes me that the 3 rod rule would benefit skilled anglers the most and minimally benefit the unskilled who need the most help. For the skilled: It will raise the frequency of limit-catches and result in more frequent C+R releases (and higher mortality). It will indeed have some benefit the unskilled, but dragging 2 or 3 (or 5) lures where there are no fish is still a 0 result. I’m all for helping people catch more fish, especially if it might help the industry and tourism, but PLEASE at least acknowledge the unintended consequence: this will likely increase the average take/trip and C+R mortality numbers- it CERTAINLY will not lower them! Why not consider some of the compromises proposed? 1-It strikes me as fair trade to keep less per trip but catch them more consistently. Many guys here purport to be C+R anyway so why would it matter if the limit is lower? 2-If the goal is to help the single angler, howabout the 3-rod rule be limited to the first 1-2 anglers per boat and 2 thereafter or better yet limit to boats with 1 or 2 anglers. afterall, most here state that they woudln't run 3 and don't even always run 2/man with more than a few anglers anyway, so it wouldn't affect them in those situations anyway. As for the ‘poll’ I would NOT put any credence in any passive polls put up on a site like this. Totally skewed result. I will leave it at that. sorry if this construed as as a 'flame' but if eveyone orgainized and agreed on an issue and balanced solution with unbiased supporting data, this would have a much stronger base of support. NM

Ahh good memory Lance! except I was heading for home and you were putting in. Dont be so modest on the skillz I ran across some of your pics when I was first starting out and searching archives for some insight on Chaut. I was seriously considering hitting Butler on Saturday- there are a few seminars I'd love to hear there, but since most of those are saturday but RedOctober (the one I really want) is sunday I'm going to pass. My wife would kill me if I stayed over on Valentines weekend. she looses me enough to fishing in-season. time to pay it forward Brad

I should've clarified, that this was a world record for tiger taken through the ice but the only NYS records list I've seen is what I believe is the all-tackle record. I've not seen nor heard that it hasn't held up, but I've then again i've not seen any official list of ice fishing records, only the 'general' records. I imagine this would fall into a 'line class record' of some sort? your question sparked my curiosity, so I tried the IGFA website, but they only have the all tackle records available to non-members.

hey Lance welcome aboard! good to see you here! (you may recall we crossed paths at chaut a few years back and on M-1st) glad to have another bona fide tournament winner and chautauqua expert 'round here to 'talk shop' with and hopefully give sage advice to us novices. so...was it in fact the ready eddy model you were fishing in the sept tx? NM [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

...and thanks again GAMBLER for bringing this incident to more people's attention! [ Post made via Mobile Device ]

nice job Sean I hoped that's what you meant. I agree this has to stop and am glad someone took the initiative. if we fishermen don't 'police' ourselves then it will never end-DEC can't be everywhere at once but as long as folks know the guy in the next boat or hut could be someone who gives a damn, then fear of the unknown could motivate better behavior by the rest. WTG! [ Post made via Mobile Device ]