Paul Roberts

Unless it is very shallow and receives over-nutrified run-off (say from lawn or agricultural fertilizers or raw sewage) and gets really hot in summer, then Yes, it will "survive" -no fish kills that is. But survive and thrive are two different things. My guess is you are wondering if it will thrive. Many ponds survive with bass only -the primary forage being small bass, but growth is dependent on bass hatch success. What allows small prey fishes like bass and bluegill to survive (beyond whims of weather) is cover. If there is no cover whatsoever -like a swimming pool- then the bass may eat themselves out of house and home. If the pond is not spanking new, there may be some bigger bass too. A pond I fished years ago was known as 'dink pond' by local kids. When we started fishing it gave up hordes of 8-10"ers, but also a 4, 5-1/4, 6, and 7lber. Lots of ponds show gaps in the size structure, or commonly, a wall. Ponds are less apt to "balance" out simply bc they are small and easily impacted -less "stable"; Lotsa work and know-how is often required by pond managers to keep them consistently producing quality fish. But most of us can't actively manage our fishing waters. And state fisheries people can't be everywhere. We anglers take what nature dishes out. Many of the ponds I follow run in boom-n-bust cycles dependent on weather (winterkills being a big player) and hatch success. I see a good hatch year I follow the pond, tracking growth to see what happens. I try to get a bead on which ponds are in place for a boom and which ones have been busted (and set up for a coming boom). While I'm reminiscing, there was another pond... A new pond, nearly a swimming pool with precious little cover. It was stocked with golden shiners then LM. The shiners got a head start and there was a good population of very large ones (for NY GSers) -up to a foot long. Those shiners spawned in groups forming "daisy-chains" -like tarpon- which required an accurate cast with a tiny jig on UL to the edge of the chain to get a take. It sure was fun. But the bass were all little, recently stocked, and I moved away before I got to see what happened when the bass got big enough to start into those larger shiners. Always wondered what happened there. Pond cover complexity didn't bode well beyond the initial gorging that probably happened, but I was long gone by then. Still wonder about it.

Bass commonly return to spawn in the same area, and even the same exact nest spot, provided conditions are conducive. In fact, the "reason" they do this is bc successful sites produce young. Poor sites don't. In the fish sciences world this is called "site fidelity". As to identifying individuals, bass (and other fish) tend to have consistent markings. I've ID'd bass and trout this way. So... catch him, take a photo of one side. Catch him again next year, photo, and compare. Here's an example of a LM I caught a year apart along the same bank:

I've kept a written hand-written journal since 1977. On the water I use a small pad of paper for sketches and a digital voice recorder for data and comments.

Location at very least is helpful.

Ignore it. Concentrate on the seasonal window you are in. Find active fish. Don't miss the weigh in.

There is a LOT of info out there on this, but it’s not readily accessible by the general public. I’m working on bridging that gap. Wish me luck; it’s no small task. This topic gets discussed every year about this time. It’s worth searching back for pre-spawn discussions. Here are a couple from the archives: http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/77208-the-spawn-how-long-does-it-go-on-for/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/81078-triggers-for-pre-spawnspawn/

Looks like, in this particular case, Merriam-Webster has it covered: ledge : a narrow, flat surface that sticks out from a wall : a flat rock surface that sticks out from a cliff phototex had it right:

Those bass may be cued by photoperiod alone. In some fully tropical waters that never drop below 75F, introduced largemouth's have been known to have extended spawning periods with spawns initiated by water level increases. But I wouldn't extrapolate either to the rest of the planet. In 99.999999% of bass waters, temperature is the cue. Apparently, spawning seasons stretch longer the further south you go, and shorter as you go north. I'm guessing that there are water temperature changes in those springs too, however slight. Bass are, apparently (according to Keith Jones -I haven't found the original research), sensitive to temperature changes of 0.1 degree C. Regardless, without a floor, the bass populations don't have that restriction. They conform to what works -a cue- and it probably coincides with food production in a very few waters in which temperature change is limited. Photoperiod may wind up acting alone in such a case. I know at least one 1955 paper on Silver Springs says so, but I'm not up on the latest there.

I call that a shelf! Folks, its there an "offishal" definition?

Here's my present understanding... Photoperiod and temperature are related of course. But there's lots more to it. That's like saying, “bass spawn in spring”. True, but waters across the same latitude can spawn at different times. Even ponds one next to the other can do so. Water source, depth, and sun incidence, and weather are the primary factors that affect spawn timing because they control heating. Heat is what counts, and all waters gain heat a bit differently due to environmental particulars. Bass spawns get delayed some years. Temperature is the “master” environmental factor for fish; it’s the best measure of spawn timing there is. One reason the ~60F thing holds up year after year is because 55F is the floor for bass eggs, where significant mortality occurs essentially culling a lot of nests that were placed too early, in the wrong place, or by whims of weather. Flowers, again, tell us it's spring, even early, mid, or late spring. But, individuals vary and blooming tends to occur across weeks. If you plan to watch the … choke cherries, say… then pick one individual, and hope it doesn’t get chopped down. Even then, likely what you’ll find is that the circumstances that affect blooming in choke cherries are not lock-step with what happens with bass, or hummingbirds for that matter. Would be nice if things were simple, but they’re not. The best thing about time on the water is you get to keep your finger on the pulse. It’s a moving target. Photoperiod keeps things lock-step to a certain degree, but not enough to fish by. Otherwise, all we’d need is a regular old calendar to plan all our future trips. And we know how that pans out.

Wow! I guess I know why it went viral. If ya don't care, then.... why care?? No apologies from me. I think it’s pretty neat. I originally saw it as gold/white. But I can see it as blue/black by blocking out the background. I now can see it either way. When I showed my son the image, I first blocked out all but a small section and he can only see it as blue/black. That would have made no intuitive sense, if I hadn't fiddled with the image ... which seems to disturb some people. Go figure. Many fish brains are “visual brains” –bass in particular– with nearly half the mass (and the retinas) involved in visual processing, and they have “pre-programs” in place too. Some of them have been studied and are even directly applicable in fishing. True, we don’t know whether “blue” means anything at all to bass, but I suspect it does in certain circumstances: http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/148002-florida-bass-with-blue-color-on-lower-jaw/ Again, no apologies from me. Cool topic Smokinal.

What this nicely shows is that lighting (direct, reflected, and background) alters how "color" is "perceived". Everything we, and fish, "perceive" goes through the brain filter. The brain is what "sees" and brains go through a lot of evolutionarily honed mental gymnastics to provide something useful out of the chaos careening around us at any one moment. Same is true for all our senses. Each lineage and species within, is sensitive to different things commensurate with their lifestyle. And each individual within a species varies at some level too. The proper question is not "What color is it?" but "How visible is it and does it match the "search image" the given creature is responsive to given the particular lighting at that moment. There are things known (and plenty unknown) about the limitations of visual capabilities of many species, and some work has been done in largemouth bass too.

A ledge is something you wouldn't want to step off of if -sans water- you were walking. We called them "drop offs".

Ditto. But add a thermometer and access to weather trends and that would be me. It's best if you don't have a job.

I Googled it a bit and typically had to weed through the "new toy reviews" to find a couple people that had actually used them; one guy even tested his. And both found their units gave inconsistent results in field conditions, due to beam reflectance one thought. Might want to do a few searches yourself before you lay down your money.

Ya might want to just print this baby. It's pretty long and dense. Lakes aren't simple -esp ones like Ronkonkoma. There's some history, and the lake's ecology, worth knowing. Fun map. As mentioned though, most hydro maps are rough sketches at best. And things change over the decades. What’s really missing from such maps however are the ecological realities that make or break any given spot on the map. That kind of intel comes through prior research, on the water observations, and in the fishing. From a quick search I see there is TONS of helpful info out there on this popular lake. So, using some of what’s out there and an ecological approach, what kind of things might we be looking for on Lake Ronkonkoma? How might we make use of that map? I try to think of structure “functionally”: What might those structures offer the bass, and for bass prey? Where are the seasonal habitats located? Where is the food produced? What and where are the limitations that might help narrow things down? If I can, I try to rule out as much water as possible at the outset, using info and observations on key habitat parameters: light, temperature, oxygen, substrate, cover, and prey species. Again, such info comes from researching the lake ahead of time, educated guesswork, scouting, and no small amount of fishing. Ruling out water may seem risky but then again, we can’t be everywhere (unless maybe you are a true-to-form Spoonplugger, and there aren’t that many of those around anymore.) Often the first thing I do is take a temperature profile which tells me where in the season I’m at and if there is a thermocline. I lower a thermometer to the bottom of the area and if it’s close to the surface temp I’m good that far down. If there is a big temp change I’ll measure progressively shallower until I find the temperature break. I may be able to rule out an entire layer that way. I try to get an idea of where the majority of food production lies in a given water body, and how deep it goes. In most bass lakes the majority of production comes from rooted vegetation, secondarily from phytoplankton in open water, and lastly benthically (on and in bottom substrate). But every water is a bit different. What’s shared by all is the fact that light kicks off the food chain, so it’s the lake’s upper layer –the photic zone– that produces the vast majority of the food. That’s what those shallower flats –the “food shelves”– are all about, functionally. Lakes that lack vegetation –“swimming pools” like Ronkonkoma, apparently– very likely have food chains driven by pelagic plankton in open water. What this means is that many young fishes (potential bass prey) may live away from shorelines, and often suspended. In general, pelagic based fisheries can be tough fishing bc it’s not the usual bass habitat, they are not so well adapted to it, being more effective hunters in and around cover. Bass populations may be smaller (unless the pelagic prey is appropriate sized shad in adequate numbers) and there are fewer “bassy-looking” places for anglers to cast to. Lack of rooted vegetation and pelagic production can make away-from-shore structures all the more important to bass, but this is usually in conjunction with an abundance of pelagic prey that bass can efficiently capture, such as shad. The presence of cover helps bass out a lot regardless, largemouths in particular. Smallmouths are better at pelagic hunting however and apparently smallies are doing well in the lake. Shoreline cover such as vegetation, deadfallen wood, and manmade cover such as docks, seawalls, ramps, etc… likely attract bass in Ronkom but if there’s little of it, there will be little cover oriented prey to go around. Mature bass that live off the shallow cover –and there are certainly some– are in the position of having to move some distance to reach stable sanctuary water. This is certainly true from a seasonal perspective bc winter habitat is unlikely to be very near shallow cover. Movements away from shallow prey-filled cover out to or over deeper water may need to occur for periods of time if cover is too shallow for bass due to high water temps, forage availability/vulnerability, or fishing pressure. Ronkonkoma has white perch, yellow perch, and bluegill, all three of which are known to be able to make livings in open water. In Ronkonkoma, stunted white perch have come to dominate the lake’s open water and are the reason the DEC introduced walleyes there, which are more efficient open water predators than either bass species are and better able to crop down the white perch. From what I read, apparently they’ve done so, but the walleyes are not large, leaving a sizable population of 4 to 6 inch white perch, just outside the gape limit of the walleyes, and most bass. White perch are probably difficult prey to capture and handle period, apparently having evolved effective anti-predator capabilities, being open water schooling species with large eyes, deep bodies, and formidable spines. It would take a large bass or walleye, or a muskie, to tackle the hordes of bigger white perch out there. When fisheries people start stocking walleyes it’s often a tip-off that the lake has pelagic prey that the bass aren’t making good use of. This can be an indication that the lake has lost vegetation or other cover where bass do best. It sheds some light on Ronkomkoma’s current potential as a bass water -at least with both numbers and quality. This may not mean that bass do not feed away from shoreline cover. The potential for peri-pelagic activity is worth being aware of though when you run out of weed beds to explore. You might even find some jerkbait or even topwater action well away from shorelines (if water remains clear). The bass will be most likely be concentrated around structure elements and/or where the schools of offshore prey fish are. Something to be aware of is that the low light of evening can bring nektonic (motile) zooplankton up from the depths to feed on phytoplankton and smaller zooplankton. Prey fishes will intercept these and bass, or walleyes, may be right with them. The benthic (bottom) contribution to the food chain I’ll mention because of the excess fertility issues in Ronkonkoma and the mention of oxygen deficits reported by DEC. There are a group of aquatic insects –Chironomid midges– that as larvae can thrive in enormous numbers in the bottom ooze of over-nutrified lakes, even down into “anoxic” depths. All insect-eating fishes –prey fishes for bass– relish them. They can be sucked from bottom ooze as larvae, and/or intercepted as the pupae rise to the surface to emerge in droves. If you see rises all over the surface, even out in lake-center, it is likely to midges. Midges are usually a spring and late autumn emergence. Another thing I want to know when exploring a lake is how deep major food production occurs. Water clarity, bc of light penetration, gives us an idea of how deep the photosynthesis that drives the food chain can occur. And outer weedline depth is a good general indicator for depth of the majority of primary food chain production in bass lakes, vegetation being essentially sensitive solar collectors. How sensitive depends on the plant species and each vary in max depth they can survive. Zooplankton that feeds on the phytoplankton tend to live deeper than phytoplankton in waters with fish predators, hanging where light is diminished enough not to be easy prey to fishes. As said above, at dusk they may rise up to feed on phytoplankton nearer the surface. The fish are aware of this and larger predators too. Break your water down, in layers: shallows, mid, deep. Choose one that’s (keeping season in mind) and start homing in on the details. Get to know where the winter habitat is, the spawning substrate is, and where vegetation beds are. I’d suggest printing and coloring copies of the map which allows you to visualize potentially important layers and have certain features within the layers “pop out”. Try different depth ranges and update them with recent lake info. I went ahead and broke the map down to shallow (<10ft), mid (10-16ft), and deep (>16ft). I chose these numbers bc it was easy to do on the map, outer weedlines have been recorded at ~10ft, and bc the summer thermocline is suggested at the ~15ft level (or deeper) as per DEC comments about 02 levels. As others commented, such an oxycline likely occurs during a window of time –most likely summer. This being a “kettle lake” (small and deep), it probably sets up early (winter chilled water never actually heating in deep places with less wind mixing than a flatter lake might get). Depending on nutrient load it is possible that some years the depths could have 02 issues for a long period. This was probably the case prior to the pollution clean-up efforts that began in earnest the 1980’s. The lake sits in a suburban area so it gets overfertilized during run-off events. Algal blooms follow, blocking light, killing plankton and vegetation, which in turn contribute to bacterial growth and subsequent 02 depletion in the depths. Here’s a screen shot from Google Earth I found, that caught one of the issues faced by Ronkonkoma managers: The rise in the goose population has added to lake fertility and algal growth: Probably what has saved this lake (beside people taking steps) is the relatively infertile substrate composed mostly of glacial outwash: sand, gravel, clay, and silt, Long Island being essentially a giant glacial moraine. Bedded in permeable substrate, the lake is groundwater fed. Lake levels have varied as much as eight feet between highs and lows. A good way to start looking at lake structure is simply looking for areas with the most irregularities, identifying the food shelves, and then the breaklines (drop-offs), then the breaks (cover mostly). From what I could gather, it’s got a pretty clean bottom. So you’ll likely have to look close for irregularities that might serve as breaks. With such a clean bottom over so much of it, anything may attract fish. However, despite once having once been dubbed “The Dead Sea” by local anglers, Ronkonkoma’s vegetation is reportedly making a comeback with increased clarity as algal blooms are kept in check. DEC has added “stump reefs” as habitat enhancement, and angler groups have added xmas trees. So… sans sonar, I’d get to know where the winter habitat is, the spawning substrate is, and where the veges grow. As of 2001, weedlines were reported to go to 10ft. It’s likely better now, and I read that Hydrilla has found its way there which, if it takes, can grow deeper than most types of vegetation. In 2013, Hydrilla was reported as deep as 12ft. The most common weed mentioned was Elodea, which can grow to depths of 17ft, survives the winter, and starts growing early in the spring. Gee! An all in one weed! The N end of the lake might be a good place to look as it is fed by an extensive marsh which likely deposits richer soil and pioneering plant parts. I’d also be scouting deeper too, away from the weeds, as there’s plenty of interesting “shelving” in the photic zone out there and some interesting flats and breaklines. The job is to find the breaklines and then the breaks. Small things can matter –a hole, bump, rock, xmas tree, a stump reef, or just a substrate change. Or, a school of perch –which itself is probably relating to something –substrate perhaps, zooplankton, or midges. Think season, think layers, think structure, think breaks, think prey. Do get a sonar unit, even a simple one. Again, lotsa info out there on Ronkonkoma…here’s a smattering: Map of 2002 DEC placed stump reefs. Look for updates: http://www.lakerhs.org/rhs/images/Lake%20Ronkonkoma%20Presentation%2008-30-2006.pdf http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/fshanrpt2001.pdf Lake Ronkonkoma Aquatic Plant Survey With the help of a student from Sachem High School, Region 1 Fisheries staff conducted a semi-quantitative survey of submerged aquatic vegetation in Lake Ronkonkoma. The last comprehensive vegetation survey was completed in 1938. Submerged plants were collected at 61 locations around the lake using a grappling hook attached to a nylon rope. Fifty out of the 61 sites contained some submerged vegetation. However, vegetation was nearly absent in water depths exceeding 10 feet. Five species of submerged plants were collected and several other species were observed during the survey. Western waterweed (Elodea nuttallii) was the dominant plant species. Other plants collected during the survey included macroscopic algae of the genus Nitella and three different species of pondweeds of the genus Potamogeton. Results support anecdotal observations by anglers that the weed beds are beginning to recover in the lake. Continued expansion of this vital habitat should result in better fishing. http://www.lakerhs.org/rhs/images/Lake%20Ronkonkoma%20Clean%20Lakes%20Study%20-%201986.pdf http://www.lakerhs.org/rhs/images/Lake%20Ronkonkoma%20Presentation%2008-30-2006.pdf http://www.nybass.com/archive/index.php/t-38366.html : [quote] … Lake Ronkonkoma was a fertile lake back in the 60's and on into the early to mid 70's. Milfoil, pond weed and Lilly Pads were the primary vegitation, I believe. Run off from housing communities and commercial enterprises over the years decimated the vegitation leaving the lake by 1980 devoid of vegiatation of any kind. Over the the next 10 years efforts were made to restore some sort of vegitation without success. What was once an outsatnding bass fishing lake was turned into a barren wasteland and used as 'lake X' by the DEC with experimental stockings of Hybrid Stripers, Tiger Musky and lastly Walleye. The Hybrids didnt take, the Tiger Musky are gone and the verdict is still out on the Walleye. Long Island Bassmasters collected old Xmas trees and in conjunction with the DEC planted them in areas around the lake hoping to create fish holding structure for the dwindling bass populations. Individuals from a local club took it upon themselves to stock smallmouth bass taken from the Hudson River in the mid 80's. This was a HUGE success and the smallmouth population has thrived, with numbers of 4lb+ fish being taken each year. The DEC now concedes, all-beit reluctantly that the lake harbors a thriving smallmouth population. While this 'mid-nite' run stocking was successful, its something I dont reccomend or condone. Largemouth populations were supplimented with stockings done by the Long Island Bassmasters in concert with the DEC. This has been a big help. However, there still was not any vegiatation in the lake. All methods were attempted, Approved and otherwise but nothing worked. Now comes a report that Hydrilla has been found in the lake. This is the first I have heard of it and I will snoop around a bit. …

I'm in a similar place, but much of my gear is from the 70's and 80's! I upgrade rods mostly, but am still throwing a lot of the old stuff. Hey, the lures are new as far as the bass are concerned.

Yes, that is a good intro to oxygen in aquatic systems. Oxygen in many bass waters varies a lot more than most anglers seem to be aware of. It certainly surprised me and I didn't pay much heed to it, beyond the basics, for some time. While the variability in DO in many waters may be news to many anglers, it's not news to the bass, they having evolved to handle variable and often quite low oxygen levels. On the whole most bass waters, the majority of the time, have ample DO. Critical seasonal times tend to be winter (in the north) and mid-summer. The broad range given by Keith Jones is correct but doesn't help much in our fishing. At 1.5ppm water is nearly anoxic and at 24ppm it is supersaturated with oxygen -both conditions can and do occur in our bass waters -sometimes in the same water body over the course of the season. 24hr changes can be quite drastic too. Although bass can survive across a broad range of DO, they may not be terribly happy in certain places and times and it undoubtedly affects their location, position, and/or their willingness to bite. The idea of a "preferred" concentration for bass appears to have little support, beyond saying they do best above 5ppm. Some studies have shown bass will move out of nearly anoxic areas (~2ppm being the most frequently cited number) while other studies have shown bass not moving out but becoming inactive. Some populations are known to move/migrate to better DO conditions but many do not. It appears that populations that survive regular anoxia have developed the necessary survival behaviors over time and not as a short term decision –indicating that some bass populations may not have an inherent protocol in place to back up low DO alarm bells. This is a concern for managers because the potential for rapid DO depletion increases with human development (from fertility and siltation during runoff events) and DO depletion has been a cause of population extinctions before we got wise to curbing such pollution. There's a fair amount known about oxygen in freshwater systems, the effects on bass in laboratory settings, and even some in natural/wild settings. But knowing when it's happening to your fish requires educated guessing. Knowing the possibilities is certainly helpful. The intro provided by flipn4bass is a good but very preliminary beginning

I think yugrac may be in a boat and asking about fishing the shallows from inshore out vs off shore in. It depends... Boats, shadows, flash, noise, water movement, (as well as footsteps on the bank) can spook or put wary fish off. Dense cover can hide some of this, or at least make the fish feel more secure -although they may move deeper into the cover than they might have been otherwise. I suppose the more exposed the area, the more apt I am to keep my distance, although lures dropping in hard can spook fish too, and sometimes this can draw fish. Sky and water conditions weigh in enormously: Sun angle, clouds and/or some chop can allow you to move in, or fish more aggressively. Under brilliant blue fish can be a LOT easier to spook. Accuracy matters. If they are tight to shore, or tight to dense cover -where accuracy really counts- I may have to move in to cast, pitch or flip.Heck, I've even bow-n-arrow casted in places. Some places with specific targets may require a closer more direct approach. Less discrete spots -like a long weed edge, a ledge or cut, may be better fished parallel. Also where I expect fish to be matters. I don't often overlook the second breakline to get at the first. Outer weed edges, the first drop-off, can often hold larger fish than the shoreline or inside weed edge. Potentially lots to consider and each spot and time can be different. You just have to weigh the factors as you become aware of them.

I've wondered about those too. Could be time savers. But...they also could be just adding another clunky electronic gizmo that requires batteries. How about durability and do they require calibration? I'd read IR thermometers don't work well on reflective surfaces, which may mean the angle they strike at the water may matter a great deal. I see they've come way down in price however. If I were to try one out, I'd first test it for accuracy in multiple places, angles, and distances with a regular thermometer. Afterwords, do let us know yours worked out.

Normally, a lake that deep shouldn't suffer winterkill. Although it might in shallower areas with lots of vegetation that do not get refreshed by exchange with the main basin or river flow. You're pretty far north, but near the big lake I see -not in the UP. I'm glad you included the image. Seeing all the development around the lake it probably receives plenty of nutrient and silt runoff -unless maybe there is an influential lake association active. Such runoff could shift BOD (biological oxygen demand) to decomposers (bacteria) and cause oxygen deficiencies beneath the ice, but probably only -again- in shallow stagnant areas. The waters in my area that are at risk of winterkill are small shallow and heavily vegetated. But, I'm south of you. The further north you go, the colder, snowier, and longer the winters. Waters need to be deeper, and cleaner, to support good fish popns over time. I'm guessing your lake is not getting winterkilled but you might have areas with low oxygen and may need to keep looking. Might want to ask your regional fisheries biologists. They might have a good handle on things there. Good luck with it. Sure is nice having a place so close to home.

I've wrestled with that one too. I think the answer is that depth and speed are primary controls, but speed also acts as a trigger too. I think it comes from the fact that depth and speed are interrelated. If you are a jig fisher, you'll understand where that comes from. Lure weight/buoyancy, line diameter, and lure design all play a role in depth achieved at what speed. Buck Perry was all about being meticulously methodological, and controls were critical -the starting point. Now, his system was based on trolling spoonplugs and I've never so much as tied one on much less trolled them meticulously. While small changes in speed may not help achieve much more depth with many lipped plugs, they may with all metal spoonplugs. Like with a jig, speed would sure matter with a jigging spoon or bladebait in terms of achieving depth. Maybe someone with spoonplug experience will pipe in. Depth and speed were considered the primary controls. This does not mean that speed, like size and action, aren't triggers too. That's my stab at it.

How about a lipless? A good one is the Sebile FlattShad in the 1/4oz size. I've used the smallest size Cordell Gay Blade and it works great, but, is a pretty small bait. Fine for smallies though.

4lbs? 20"? Try a river! Guess what we call "creeks" are different. Look forward to your exploits. I sure have loved creek (and river) smallie fishing.

I had a S African fishing partner for a while. He took his fishing very seriously and called himself a "Kingfisher". Do you know the term? And... he was darn good. Had the knack if you know what I mean. We had some pretty exciting trips together including a great winter steelheading trip in which I had to keep hiking him out to the car to warm his uninsulated toes. A huge low pressure system had descended and it was absolutely silent. Giant snowflakes were just wafting down. You could hear each snowflake landing. We had the river entirely to ourselves and it was full of fresh chromers. It was magical. At one point, Brahm said "It is just SO beautiful. But my feet are SO cold!" We drove home in a heck of a blizzard in 4WD with the right tires. Cars were off the road all over, stuck in ditches. It was exciting, but I was younger then! Brahm was taken by the wild frigid scene outside as we barreled through the storm and he asked... "What ... what do the animals do out there??" And no sooner had he said it when a winter white weasel ran across the road in front of the car. Brahm caught his first steelhead with me, a pretty 7lb buck wearing spawning colors, and after he beached it he scooped it up and kissed it right on the snout, and said with utter reverence: "This is the happiest day of my life". Brahm breathed a lot of life into that word "Kingfisher" and I'd share a beat with him any day.