Funny article

[nboucher]

Great discussion.

Avid, it's sad that the stay-close-to-nature approach is considered an old geezer approach. It needs to come back, big time, if the natural world we all love is going to survive in any self-perpetuating way . . .

As far as the gadgets are concerned, I think each angler has to have a personal ethics, and each of us modifies them to suit our own needs and beliefs. Left to my own devices, I'm a purity and simplicity kind of guy, but that doesn't mean I won't hitch along for a day with a gadget geek, if the opportunity comes up. FC is right: sometimes the gadgets actually become the end in themselves rather than the fishing.

The climbing world has gone through these debates big time. Back in the 1950s, ascending Everest took hundreds of porters and Sherpas and oxygen tanks. Here in the U.S., climbers would screw various devices permanently into the rock to provide rope support. Then the backlash set in and light, swift climbing was the rule, and people actually starting removing those old pitons and stuff. That reached its peak when Everest was climbed by one man solo. Now if you have enough money, you can literally be dragged to the top of Everest without any experience.

The point is we each have to decide which style angler we want to be, where that line is.

[JT Bagwell]

Avid,

For a second I thought you were talking about an Inside Line article I did a couple of years ago.  lol I was like hey wait a minute. Then I realized that I

never mentioned the underwater camera. For the most part, unless the water is very clear, the camera won't be of much help anyway.

JT Bagwell

[senile1]

you had said > The next thing you know, they'll be selling perfect electronic shad replicas that have all the movements and sounds of a school of shad without any effort on the part of the angler <

So what would you say about the times (and their have been several) when I put on an actual, live Shad, and still couldn't get bit ?????

Just curious,

Fish

PS, I have said this before, but personally speaking, when I fish live bait, I put as much effort and 'work on my part' with it, as I do when I fish an artificial lure (or even more so, when compared to a simple cast and retrieve lure, such as a swimbait)...... and furthermore, I believe that the guys that do not fish live bait this way, will never be as successful with it, as they could be.

So what kind of work would you put into an electronic bait that moves and makes the sounds of a baitfish.  If this is your argument and you are comparing live bait to a hypothetical electronic bait that would require no input from the angler, then it would seem, by implication, you are saying that live bait doesn't require any input on your part either.  And I know you don't believe that, because of your P.S. and other posts you have made about live bait.  It would appear that you are contradicting yourself, or you are saying that the hypothetical electronic lure that I mentioned would require some type of input from the angler just the same.  Just remember, I was trying to describe a hypothetical bait that requires no angler input whatsoever.  My point is that, eventually, we can go too far with all of the aids we are providing for anglers, at least for me.  This may not apply to you, and that's fine.  There is no right or wrong opinion here.  

[Matt Fly]

You didn't hear about the biosonix this year.     It was widely advertised last year and KVD'S 3 wins in a roll.

I think that competitive events have put a hold on most of the so called Toys.

I know lots of guys with 3000.00 units on their boats and they don't know how to take advantage of the technology.

As long as someone is buying the products, they'll keep making them and it doesn't matter whether you fish for money or pleasure.

You can have a stock car, that doesn't make you a nascar driver.

Matt.