tyrius.

Not necessarily true. If it's a small pond one or two anglers who fish it regularly can put more pressure on it than a lot of lakes. Growing up my dad got us permission to fish a tiny farm pond. We'd catch fish ALL day. If we didn't catch one within 5 casts something was wrong. The reason that happened was that the pond was GROSSLY overpopulated and the fish were basically constantly starving. They'd hit anything you threw at them. We caught hundreds of fish (likely the same fish multiple times) but never really anything over 12 inches. My current favorite place to fish is a public pond. If the conditions are right I can light them up, but there are days where I only catch one or two. No one really ever fishes it though. My PB came from that pond and the reason I am able to catch larger fish there is that it is not overpopulated. I've seen a few people taking fish from the second pond. The first we weren't allowed to keep a single fish. So, even though the first pond is strictly catch and release no large bass exist there (we fished it a ton so if there were big ones in there we likely would have caught one once or least hooked into one). Given the choice now, I'd fish the second pond over the first everytime. Catching dinks all day is boring. If the record is for the largest bass caught in a defined geographical area then what is the logic in restricting that record to only certain bodies of water in that geographical area?

Color is too complicated to worry me much past green, brown, or black. Just think how long it will take to dial in the correct color and then what if there is another shade that would produce even better? Are you going to stop fishing what is working to gamble on what may or may not work 1% more? Will green pumpkin with red flakes be better than black flakes or purple or a mix, what if instead of green pumpkin they prefer watermellon with orange flakes? Too many combinations to be able to ever know that you're using the perfect color, by the time you've tried them all the day is done or weather pattern changed or more fish moved in or a thousand other variables. Color matters, but you will typically just luck into using the exact right color so I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Bed fishing isn't just about putting your lure in the bed. Some fish won't bite no matter what you do. So the first step is determining if a fish is catchable or not. Second you have to work the fish to get it ready to strike. Some people throw a lure in without a hook. Then once you have the fish ready to strike they throw the "catch" lure. I only fish from shore so don't have much bed fishing experience and I truly suck at it. I just know enough to know what I don't know. You know?

x2. too many people get caught up in what others are doing, and forget to just enjoy the experience. Exactly the point of my original post. Fish how you want to fish and don't worry about anyone else. Seems like you agree with me then.

Good luck with that.

really?

Great, another "My way is better than your's" thread. : Just go out and fish how you want to fish and be done with it.

Thanks for the advice guys. Looks like I'll wait for a sit on top deal.

Bass are not known for being picky eaters. If it moves or if they've seen it move they'll eat it. A jig really looks nothing like a crayfish in the water just like a crankbait doesn't really resemble a baitfish. Bass eat them because they are aggressive feeders that can pretty much be coaxed into eating anything. If you don't believe me, then ask the people who fish a c-rig a lot and have experienced fish biting the weight. That weight looks like a rock, but fish will strike it.

Bass feed more effectively on days with wind and/or cloud cover. The less light that penetrates the surface the greater the bass's advantage over it's prey, as the prey can not see the bass as well. Chop on the water also makes it more difficult for the bass to effectively "see" your spinnerbait or buzzbait.

If you want something better than the Citica then buy the next reel up in the line up. You'll spend more money upgrading than you will just buying the stock reel. That said, you've gotta be pretty picky not to be satisfied with the citica. Me thinks that you think about things too much.

If you're just hauling the rods you can drive pretty much anything. I had a Nissan Altima that carried my gear around just fine. fold the back seats down and the rods go through the trunk into the car. No problems. I have 6'6" rods, but had tons of room. 7'6" ones would've fit easy.

Agreed, this doesn't make a lot of sense. It may have to do with a requirement that in order to pay the party has to be primarily (greater than 50%) responsible. Seems odd to me that even if a safety device is feasible that the manufacturer would be anything more than SLIGHTLY responsible. These people were definately old enough that they should have known what they were doing. Who backs up to pick up a skier anyways?

Because this is one single case with one single claimant. The claimant can not sue a manufacturer that did not even make the product that injured them. Any other manufacturer can not be responsible for the injury due to the fact that they nor their product was involved. And, as a caveat, I'm not really saying that the decision in this case is correct. I'm just pointing out that it is possible that the decision is correct. It isn't something that can be dismissed out of hand. I also do not know anything about how a safety device would even work or if it's even feasible to install.

Not my logic and also not my point. From the article. Apparently devices exist that would have prevented this injury. The reason behind those devices not being used would be central to the case. With only a single article to go off of it's impossible to tell if that device would have worked, would have been cost effective, etc. but it is possible so the case can not be dismissed out of hand. That's not relevant.

They won't make it to Northern IL for a while yet.

and to add to the above, BPS has a 12 foot sit on top kayak for $480. Are sit on tops better/worse/it depends than sit ins? Will I likely end up with both?

So, Dick's is currently having a huge sale on a couple of sit in kayaks. There's a 10 footer for sale for $330 and a 12 footer for sale for $500. The 12 footer has a much bigger cockpit, but I didn't feel cramped in the 10 footer (I'm not a big guy). Is the added length worth $170? The 12 footer had slightly better features (paddle holder already installed, better designed rear storage). Oh, and this would be my first kayak and would be primarily fishing on a small river or small lake/ponds. thanks!!!

If you say so.... 8-) : Go to your room kids! Sheesh, I hate it when I have to treat grown men like children.

At least for one side of the argument I do agree with you though that this topic never ends well. I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in continuing the discussion.

Agreed, if a safety device can be installed with little to no extra effort or loss of performance then it should be installed. You don't see circulating fans without guards anymore. The guard does not detract from the effectiveness of the fan. The crux of the case is going to center around how the safety device would have worked. For those of you who compare it to the Mcdonalds coffee case you may be exactly correct. McDonald's knowingly sold coffee that was significantly hotter than other restaraunts, so hot that it basically vaporized peoples skin (3rd degree burns). It was proven that they knew this and that they knew the risks and they decided that it was cost effective to pay medical damages. Their decision was based on the fact that if they sold it that hot they would have to give out less free refills so the money they saved on the free refills more than made up for the money they spent paying medical damages. So, they knowingly sold an unsafe product. Why shouldn't they be punished for that? If this case is the same then the same standard would apply. We'll never know that from a simple article though. If not, then the verdict will be tossed on appeal and no one will ever hear about it being overturned.

The evidence exists if you would just do a simple search for it or if you would just post this "empirical evidence" supporting your opinion then the matter would be cleared up in no time.

First time I saw that message I was wondering what in the H I did to get banned!!!

Keep on believing. Nothing is going to convince you otherwise so I'm not going to bother.

Sounds like it's just based on feelings. Concerns are not the same as evidence. Of course it's a viable management option! That's like saying the sky is blue or bass swim in the water. The real question should be "does angling have a negative impact on overall fish populations?". Real world situations prove that moderate/managed angling even during the spawn will not have a significant detrimental impact. To determine this simply compare one state that has a season with another that doesn't. Say Wisconsin/Michigan vs Illinois or NY vs any of those neighboring states. There is no marked decrease in fish populations in the states that do not have a season vs those that do.