Sk8man

P.S. I forgot to add that one positive offshoot of the reduction in the alewives is that the perch population should improve noticibly as the alewives often decimate the perch spawn/eggs.

I suggested it a while back on here and also made the suggestion to the DEC. After listening to my fellow fishermen I am content to let the one rainbow rule stand. I still have my concerns from a catch and release standpoint but if there is truly a problem with the proliferation of the rainbow population in Seneca as suggested I heartily endorse the limit.....lets go awhile and see if things improve. My sense of it is that it isn't fishing pressure that is at the crux of the problem it is the Zebras, Quaggas and Spiney Fleas taking out the phytoplankton base and it is and will be affecting all species (albeit it differentially) as time goes on (the rainbow smelt are essentially history and alwives are close behind). My prediction is that lakers and Browns will fare better than other trout as it goes along because they have a more varied diet, and this goes for the pike and bass as well.

I have to admit that I'm only PARTIALLY jealous Matt....I can get along without those Plattsburg winters :>) Good luck going after those little green son of a guns :>)

My hunch is that inthe Finger lakes region it will be mid to late January (if at all) and then probably only the shallower lakes (e.g. Honeoye) but.....I have all my gear ready if I'm wrong! :>)

A couple things - The channel at the north end of Canandaigua Lake is at the moment only barely 2 ft. in some places. I had to perch on the bow of my buddy's 19 ft Penn Yan today with the lower unit tilted all the way up to safely make it to the lake and back. Secondly, is the fact that the DEC is checking folks out at the launch ramp (which is a good thing). The small aluminum boat ahead of us returning tonight was ticketed (as they should have been) for only having one life jacket (not sure whether anyone was wearing it) for two people. The water temperature was 44 degrees today. If that boat had ever capsized at least one of those dudes would have been "history".

We are kind of a desperate bunch aren't we?

I forgot to add that yes it has been and is a US Naval testing/research barge.

Very interestying stuff. I can vouch for the fact that nuclear weapons weapons were stored at the Depot. I guarded many of them first hand at Ramstein Germany from 1964-1967 when they were transported there by Army personnel from the Depot. I was a USAF Air Policeman then and used to do everything from escorting the C-124's and C-130's that contained the nuclear bombs to maintaining the gate of the storage area where they were kept at Ramstein. I have visually seen at close hand those weapons (even inside them) and once one of the techs showed me the complex fusing system that allowed them to go off nuclear (they would go off conventionally if everything wasn't set up right). The Army guys used to keep me up on what was happening in my hometown (Geneva) etc. I used to laugh back then at newspaper accounts from the Geneva Times newspaper that my mom would send me indicating that the rumors of nuclear weapons at the Depot were false :>) It was also rumored at that time (the 60's) that the Army had stored huge barrels of chemicals and RADIOACTIVE material in caverns under the lake..... hope it is untrue or inaccurate in light of your comments....pretty scary... At present the salt caverns are according to accounts I've read being used to store natural gas or propane in massive quantities. This isn't a great situation either....

Yes I too remember the stories of the big lakers out near the barge that divers had seen and we marked plenty of them down over 300 ft suspended though in exactly 500 ft of water. That is the depth that the barge is anchored at. Once while pulling seth green rigs out there we were approached by a tender from the barge (17ft Montauk Boston whaler) and he commanded us to shut off our little 4 horse kicker saying that they were doing acoustic (sonar type) testing and that it was picking us up. I said how far away would we have to be not to interfere and he said at the extreme north end of the lake. We were out from Dresden so I was pretty shocked and amazed ( a good 16 miles). We complied and about a half hour later he signaled us we could continue on. That was about 1980 and the technplogy then was sure primitive compared to the present day but you can imagine what they are into nowadays. When my sone was about 7 or 8 I was running three rigs with 12 leaders each (aloowed back then) and we snagged up two rigs on the cables of the barge. My son tried to grab one of the rigs and it nearly pulled him overboard. The 80 pound wire didn't have much give but finally snapped. I figured we got off easy losing 20 Suttons and bead chains cable etc....anyway you brought back some Seneca memories AC :>)

2 colors on Daiwa 47Hs with 20 lb. Big Game mono for backing (very strong, resilient, tough exterior for abrasion resistence) and a short 5 ft. 10-17 lb test flurocarbon leader with solid ring ball bearing swivel at the end. I run them off downriggers as SWR in late Spring and Summer and by themselves in the early Spring and Fall.

Hey Ray lookin at that first pic ....did you have any trouble reeling him in and netting him? :>)

Dave, Over the years when I have fished the lakers on Seneca at the north end in the shallows (March and April especially) a good number of the large lakers (8 pounds up) have had small perch and sunfish as well as shiners in their stomach contents. They are "oportunists" in every sense of the word :>)

I think the piston moving "in" after you've made adjustment may suggest that rolmops is right- faulty piston, seal, or fluid level. If it turns out that it is in fact something to do with the mount itself perhaps a "shim" of some sort might help orient it vertically.

I guess some folks would think that pulling copper is defined as a wire with a "jerk" at each end.... but ...there is nothing to compare to that familiar klink klink along the bottom followed by a "thunk" or "thud" (depending on the size of the fish)and then all hell breaking loose :>) The slime referred to by AC was the result of phosphates primarily in wash detergents back in the 50's and 60's which served a "biolimiting" factor for the vegetation. In the late 60's and 70's they pretty much stopped using it in the detergents and the problem pretty much corrected itself. Unfortunately, today's problems such as introduced invasive species (.e.g. spiny fleas, Zebra mussels and Quagga mussels) are not so easily dealt with. AC's note is a pleasant reminder of the simpler times and the inherent beauty and elegance of the "less is more" principle. Sometimes I think we get too tangled up in our electronics and fancy tackle and forget how to actually "fish" :>) ...but it is all fun! We are indeed very lucky to live in such close proximity to beautiful bodies of water like these that are second to none in terms of the scenery and variety of things to do.

Amen Sean :>)

I was kinda puzzled at first when I saw the dude winding the reel backwards/upside down.....of course I'm right handed :>) Good going on the fishing and on the report. Sure makes me wish I hadn't put my boat away :>)

The RAM mount itself shouldn't have anything to do with interference per se. The critical factor in mounting any depth finder is keeping it away from sources of interference e.g. ignition, other electronics that may be poorly shielded etc. Most of the RAM mounts are quite adjustable and there are a number of base configurations so that positioning them has a lot of options. The problem comes when you have a "cramped" space near all your other stuff and that is the ONLY option for placement....but that is an issue for ANY mount. If you are stuck with such a placement issue you might want to look at increasing the shielding on the unit itself (eg. wrapped cable shielding for electrical devices) and wrap the cable (s) of your new depth finder and see if that solves the problem.

I think it is instructive that we had this conversation about the daily limit issues etc. so that we are all on the same page. Sometimes the wording on the DEC syllabus leaves a bit to be desired in the way of "detail' :>) I remember back a while when that wording allowed folks to run 15 lures with single hooks per rod on the seth green rigs :>) Les

I do stand corrected on the earlier mention of Cayuga I had meant to say Keuka but didn't catch it sorry about that! :>)

Before anynone gets too carried away by the numbers above it should be noted that the actual number of diary cooperators was drastically different (much larger number) back in the "hayday" noted above so the total number of fish reflects that situation. (In fact, DEC is pretty "hard up" for diary keepers on Canandaigua nowadays) so if you are to do any data comparison this needs to be taken into consideration or the data is virtually meaningless when looking at "totals". The diaries also calculate hours it takes to catch a legal sized fish and although this data is usually "estimated" by fishermen it can be constructive to factor this into the equation because when the numbers of fish are way down the hours it takes to catch one usually goes up significantly and from my standpoint this does not seem to be happening on Canandaigua. I guess I'm not going to "beat a dead horse" any longer...I've tried to indicate my concerns here on the forum(mainly aimed at catch and release issues) and to the DEC and that is sufficient....I'll abide by the regulations in any case and be supportive of the wishes and judgment of my fellow fishermen and the DEC. I have no intention of "fighting" the issue just wanted to make my views known.

Good qualification regarding the combination rule FLX. You have a valid point regarding the decreased fishing pressure on trout in Caandaigua as well. Many of us used to fish Canandaigua at night at the south end in particular back in the 60's 70's and 80's and caught a large amount of big rainbows and browns. I don't know of anyone that does that anymore. There are many differences among these Finger Lakes, and the ups and downs in population cycles of trout as well as the other species of fish. I kept the DEC diaries for over 15 years for Seneca, Keuka and Canandaigua and much has really changed over the years since that point and not necessarily in a good way. There has been considerable degradation of the habitat both in the lakes and their tributaries (e.g. Zebras, Quaggas, Fleas etc., pollution sources, and natural events such as high water "washouts" creating spawning problems for rainbows and to a lesser extent browns in the Fall with low water conditions. There has for many years also been a siltation problem in Seneca and problems with the major spawning of Rainbows in Catherines Creek so fishing pressure in and of itself is only a (still unknown degree) part of the problem. The lampreys on Cayuga are also a significant probelm for all the trout ad Landlocks there. I believe that the absence of much of the phytoplankton species base in these lakes is also raising havoc with everything above it in the food chain including trout and this is directly a result of the introduction of non-native organisms such as the Zebras etc. The rainbow smelt that once inhabited Seneca and Canandaigua are virtually gone and the humongous sawbelly populations reaching for a quarter of a mile in length and for 80 ft in the water column that I used to see are in large part history now for the same reason. The one rainbow limit may make a difference at some point in Seneca and Cayuga but I for one am not convinced that it will impact the Canandaigua fishery in any meaningful way in lieu of these other things going on that I have mentioned.

Here is the person to contact: Webster Pearsall Region 8 Fisheries Manager [email protected] 585-226-5339 I feel the same way but for other reasons. Have a look at my earlier post last month. Some of the difficulty we face is this: Canandaigua seems to have a healthier (from a numbers? standpoint) population of native rainbows while Seneca and Cayuga seem to be having problems with the rainbow population at least according to some of the guys on the forum. Much of their concern seems to center around tributary fishing results and they may have a point there. I've had good luck with the rainbows right through this year on Seneca and Canandaigua....but I specifically target them much of the year (along with browns and on the lakes only) and may be fishing a little differently than many fishermen do with more general strategies. Again, Canandaigua seems to be a bit different in that regard, and DEC is probably trying to keep that part at least consistent on the Finger lakes in general. I still think that the rule should be THREE rainbows to be in line with the rule on Landlocks and it would allow for more leeway in catch and release of potentially injured fish. Right now as it stands if you have already kept one whether to eat or because they went belly up and didn't "make it" you have to leave any additional rainbow that doesn't make it for the sea gulls (and most are way too big for them).

I've used them forever and they work great!