Jump to content


we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Ice9

  • Rank
    Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family
  • Birthday 11/01/1960

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Plymouth, MN
  1. Ice9


    I just read a story on acorn and hickory nut production on the east coast, and I'm curious: has anyone noticed a change in acorn crops this year? ice
  2. Ice9

    Jetski rental?

    I'd like to rent one, then give it the finger. I can get the satisfaction without the risk. ice
  3. Unproth always posts such interesting things. ice
  4. Thanks, Bob. More: how fast do boatwakes go? They seem to go at about the same speed. Not logical. ice
  5. I'm in favor of speed and efficiency on a ramp, but remember that launching a boat is dangerous. Lots can go wrong. Often it's because of stupidity or carelessness, but speed and haste will increase your risk. I've known several very experienced boaters who have made damaging or dangerous mistakes on a boatramp (including me--hopped out of the car and it popped back into reverse the other morning--lucky I didn't get squashed against the dock or dip the whole rig.) Just because there's a lineup or pressure to get going doesn't mean you should lock your brains in the trunk. ice
  6. Thanks for taking the energy to write it up. The combination of prose and picture was very entertaining. I've been meaning to get up that way... ice
  7. interesting post. Experience suggests that a boat slowing down throws a bigger wake than one zinging past on a plane. But I'm not so sure. Physics was a long time ago but I think the boat going faster adds more energy to the water and therefore creates a bigger wake. I think being on a plane and therefore higher on the water surface doesn't matter. The wake disturbance may be more spread out, or take the form of more wave forms, or even travel faster. I don't know. Any science types out there care to weigh in? As for politeness, it counts. As a small boater, I always appreciate the gesture of the slow-down, and I'd say that I appreciate it even if it doesn't create less of a wake. On the other hand, as long as they don't run me down I feel blessed. ice
  8. BW, where in West Virginia are you fishing? A reservoir? Second the other opinions on how to go. If you're using electronics, it's also important to make a good choice of an area to fish (and a time to fish.) Once you make a careful choice, you have to be confident--even if you have no cause to be yet. Slow troll that crawler harness, and I'd go with just a single hook lindy-style rig with a 3/4 ounce weight at least, so you can get a real sense of the difference between bottom contact and a bite. If the lake is like the ones I know in WV, you should be getting all kinds of hits from catfish, bass, panfish, and walleyes, so you're probably going too fast. Even if you're allowed to use two rods, you should perfect this technique with one, and not just because it's tought to properly react to a bite if you're not holding the rod. To catch walleyes consistently you have to be able to tune in to their behavior which ranges more widely than most fish. ice
  9. Aquajoe--drop me a line when it's time to go try the Zumbro, or others, down that way. I'm in Plymouth and also want to try as many smallie streams as I can. I have a good boat for it, too. Anybody who is connected to the smallie alliance, either the down there one or the up here one, please publish connection info. I couldn't make the meeting and want to be involved, and Crazy4 was evidently only visiting to publicize the meeting up in EP because I haven't heard from him. ice [email protected]
  10. Crazy--if you're still with us--send me an e-mail at [email protected] I wasn't able to make the meeting and want to be involved. ice
  11. Ice9

    Simple Oar Question

    I carry a motor in case I break an oar. ice
  12. actually the meeting isn't to talk. We're planning to crash the Walleyes For America Forever meeting in Chanhaska and throw down on them with Ugly Stiks and crawler inflators. Then we're going to retake some smallie turf out at a certain lake out by Willmar. And don't try to stop us. Last walleye guy who tried to infiltrate our ranks wound up bound and gagged with stringers and left in the Shower Curtain section of the Edina Bed, Bath and Beyond. Even the DNR anti-gang task force knows better than to mess with the SA. You'll know us by our chopped '52 Buicks, embroidered satin jackets, and chartreuse buzzbaits. Word ice9 ---------------------- "Cheese it, it's the DNR!"
  13. Score one for Swimmer. I had no idea. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html We should all pick them instead of buying them, I suppose, just to do our part to slow them down. Though at half a mile every hundred years, they couldn't be much slower. ice
  14. The whole DNR mission is a tough one for enforcement. I think that any changes should be made with the aim of simplifying the enforcement process and raising the profile of the agency. They have to split hairs all the time. What are you fishing for--whether that big spinnerbait is a crappie presentation or something else. Why can't we fish differently if we have the same bag limit? slots, culls, knock, no-knock, all of that. It's tough enough. A lot of the regulations don't make obvious sense. The Minnesota reg book is the thickest one I ever saw. I think that a lot of the violation comes from the perception of the difficulty of enforcement, and the thinness of that enforcement. You know the old saying, there's never a cop around when you need one? That goes double for a CO. Makes it frustrating to follow the rules when you're surrounded by people who are doing what they want and rarely getting checked. Also makes you careless, and I've often found myself in violation unintentionally for details--forgot to hang the tag on the shelter. Left my wallet in the cabin. When the CO finally does walk up on me one day, I won't be surprised if I take home a ticket even though I observe the fundamentals of the law very scrupulously. So I say simplify the rules, enforce them thoroughly, give the cops lots of authority to make judgement calls, hire lots of cops, focus on violations that damage the quality of the experience for the law-abiding, don't go overboard on enforcement and fine because deterrence doesn't work well. Fine the same, maybe less, but suspend privileges more. two lines summer and winter would seem to make sense. ice
  15. It is not legal. This has been extensively discussed in other threads. Even if the creek runs through a single owner's property, being in or on the water or within the natural high water mark is legal in this state and most other states, with some weird exceptions. Landowners have no right to expel you from the water or the verge of the lake/high water mark, which is usually construed as a narrow walkable fringe. That does not sit well with most landowners, and legal or not you'd probably not want to tangle with one because these laws (or, more accurately, lack of laws) are counterintuitive. Landowners tend to figure that they own the lake. Many paid premium prices for lots on lakes with no public access so they would not have to share the water. Many landowner associations actively violate the rights of citizens, and some even publish incorrect information in their association documents; lawsuits have been lost by landowners in these cases. In fact docks are not exclusively private property in Minnesota; once in the water they're a kind of easement, which in fact protects landowners from liability in the case of injuries by boaters. That doesn't mean you should wander around on peoples' docks, of course. Again, this is not known, liked, or acknowledged by landowners who might naturally be expected to yeall or threaten first, which can spoil your day whether you are right or wrong. Best approach is usually to seek permission. Also, "navigable" has been defined by courts very broadly. Even a trickle of a creek counts. Of course, the key is access. You are guilty if you park and/or walk on private property, but once on the water you are legal. I don't know the lake you describe, but if you can move from a public right-of-way (which most state- or county-maintained roads are) to the water or creekbank to the lake surface then you're within your rights to do so. As for the fence, I'd leave it alone since there are also liberal laws to permit farmers to control their livestock, and even if the landowner in question has no livestock you're in a very troublesome area if you tamper with the fence. In Virginia where I fished and guided a lot there are odd laws and even odder people. I fished often on a small stream called Craig Creek in Botetourt County, a terrific little smallie stream about the size of the Rum up around Milaca. One day we floated the river in a whitewater raft, adn were confronted by a farmer while afloat on a pool. He pointed a shotgun at us and demanded that we travel upstream off of his property. IT took a while but he finally let us move on (downstream) with some nasty threats. The next day, on a different stretch of water two miles downstream, the same guy and another man stretched barbed wire across the river at a sharp bend below a curve, clearly intended to do us harm and not for "livestock." Luckily we had boat handling skill enough to stay off the obstacle and avoid getting shredded long enough to cut the wire and pass on. Oddly enough, it later developed that the man was within his rights to order us off his property (but not to use force or set a dangerous trap.) Several farmers had another guide arrested for float-fishing the Jackson River, not far from Craig Creek, on the grounds that they owned both banks of the river and therefore the ground under it (and presumably the fish in it, though they were State stocked, state maintained, and state regulated.) They asserted in open court that the Navigable Waterway laws did not apply to them because their property rights dated back to land grants made by English monarchs in the 1600's. The Virginia Supreme Court bought this bizarre reasoning and the $50 fine assessed against the guide, Chuck Kraft of Charlottesville, was upheld. (States maintain property laws so the decision was not reviewable by the US Supreme Court or, I suppose, the High Court of Great Britain.) Other so-called King's Grant cases have been lost and won in North Carolina, Maryland, and New York. Happily, that legal strategy won't work in Minnesota. So the analysis is that you probably have the right to access the lake, but should recognize that doing so might not be the best choice. ice
  • Create New...