reevesr1

But isn't a streamer really just a lure? Most often weighted, at least around here. So the only true fly fishing, I guess, is with a dry, emerger, or regular wet fly on unweighted floating line. I'd rather fish a dry as well. When it is working there is nothing in fishing that is better. Don't find streamer fishing any funner than nypmphs, but maybe that's because it is so similar to the fishing I've done my whole life, just with a shorter cast and much less effective. Particularly without a barb (just to make some reference to the original topic).

Hydro, The "assumption of intent" line wasn't in the least directed at you. I was just answering your line about the method of study. Sorry if you thought I was taking a shot. That shot was aimed very squarely at others. I could argue the yahoo lines, because I think that anything that equates fishing style with yahooness misses the point (or at least misses my point). But may just be defensive on my part because I still very happily employ some of the techniques used by these yahoos. And I can assure you that in many of the places I fish there is absolutely nothing easy about it. And I haven't spin fished flowing water because I've found fly fishing more effective. And in some ways easier. Just can't cast as far! And this isn't directed at you either...... Threads like this remind me that while I really like fly fishing, or maybe I should say fishing with a fly rod, I find some fly fishermen amazingly annoying.

Total hijack time. I've read Haig-Brown as well and enjoy him. I do find him a bit on the superior side however. Could be just me!

Wait a minute, you mean there are spin fishermen just as conservationally minded as the enlightened members of this board? Surely that cannot be? If that is true, just who are we supposed to feel superior to? This is a troubling development. I'm going to have to find a fly fishing magazine to read so I can rediscover just why us fly fishermen are superior. I know, I'll go re-read some Haig-Brown. He'll make me feel superior again. Fishin is fishin folks. Anyone who thinks one method is superior to another needs to give their heads a shake.

Very damn little, 'cept they are funner to catch on the fly rod.

I certainly have not read the studies in detail, but from the one's I've skimmed the fish handling and hook removal were all done by the same people. You could only study the differences if the people were the same. I would submit that the "yahoos" you are talking about would handle the fish poorly regardless of barb, barbless, treble, single. If your goal is for the fish to survive above all else (that is after you've stressed him out from catching him), then if the studies are correct, the type of hook is not all that relevant. If you don't care that much whether the fish survives, or do care but don't know how to handle the fish, then I would say the same thing about hook type. If your handling skills suck, or just not yet developed, then type of hook probably does not matter either. Anytime this subject comes up, there seems to be an assumption of intent. I think that in the majority of cases, there is no evil intent, just lack of knowledge. Or I choose to believe that. Makes me overall happier to try (and certainly not always succeed) to assume the best. I'm correct more often

Agree with most of above. One thing I will say, as an ex-member of a tipping industry- if there are many guides not claiming their income today and this system results in them having to claim, guide rates will undoubtedly go up. As I'm sure Brian will tell you, it's hard enough to feed your family on a guide income today. May not be an issue to some, but it will price some people out of the market resulting in fewer potential customers.

Happy birthday you fish hugger you.

I thought cutbow as well. But whatever, gorgeous fish.

Not silly at all. Economy of scale is the reason. Way, way more barbed hooks are made lowering the cost per unit. Another interesting aspect in all this is if you do some research, it is easy to find that many of the studies conducted show no change in mortality of barbed vs. barbless. In fact, some studies show an increase in mortality of barbless treble hooks vs barbed-though the study stated the difference (3% vs 4%) was statistically meaningless in the sample size. The most curious was that dual treble hook Rapala's showed 0 mortality. The studies stated that even with the increased handling time, there was no change in mortality for any hook type -single or treble barbed vs barbed. The only big (huge actually) change was when bait was studied. Very high mortality rates when the hook was swallowed. The conclusion of the study I read (actually a compilation of studies) said issue of barbed vs barbless is more a social issue than a mortality issue. Even though the barb does not seem to increase mortality, I would think in a catch a release river it probably does increase non-mortal hook damage. But as far as I know there is no study to support that. Hence the term social issue.

Better to call them all morons and question their breeding. Barely any fish left in the Bow due to this infestation of barbed chucking morons. I only hooked 15 or so in two hours yesterday. The river has been lost I tell you.

I believe that reports of water overuse are overblown. I refuse to be Suzikiized. Or is it Gored?

Happy Birthday. Hope you get to dance with some fish.

Logo sucks. My theorem is the next one should involve a triangle. Or is that a bit square(d)?

Just like every other team's fans everywhere.

Keep your emoticons to yourself evil neo-con moderator.

Booo. Welcome back Ryan.

neo-con.

Nah, that was just metaphorical. I think myopic was the last straw!

Bump. Don't let those pesky moderators stop us!!

WTF is 3 hours from Lafayette? New Orleans? Texas? The Gulf? Did you guys travel by pirogue? If so, did everyone speak bad French, cuz they would have been true Bayou folk.

So the earth has cooled the last 11 years (or maybe the mean surface temp has cooled while the "earth-including atmosphere, land, water, et al has warmed, depending on the study). And if you believe one of the mind numbing number of articles linked here, this cooling was caused by the Pacific something or other. My question would be is this cooling in line with a typical Pacific thingy? Has it been somewhat mitigated by the amount of CO2? Probably tough to answer because of variances in the strength of the Pacific whatchamacallit. But my strong suspicion is that to say "look, the earth has cooled the last 11 yrs" and tout that as proof GW has been discredited is a bit of a stretch. A couple of other things that I always question. The statement that "the vast amount of money spent on GW could have been spent on world hunger." Really? Explain the logic of this to me please. Is there a history of the world spending vast sums of money on Global Hunger (or insert other worthy cause here) which has stopped recently? The thought that money that goes to GW mitigation would have otherwise gone to (insert worthy cause) is a more than a bit suspect. To me, this is like when people use questionable safety concerns to stop whatever project they want stopped. The concerns are not real, but are convenient devices to sway opinion. There is also a tendency to use short term variations to refute models which are, I think, constructed to estimate long term changes. "It was cold this year" in no way lessens my belief in a model that says temps will tend up for the next 50 (or whatever) years. There will always be variability. It's the trend the is the concern. Now, I will say that an 11 yr cooling is more than a short term variation. If the model is constructed to predict temps on a decade like scale and is shown invalid over a decade, that is cause for questions. But it does not mean the entire model, or it's long term conclusions, are suddenly invalid. And PLEASE do not explain to me how if we can't predict the weather tomorrow we can't predict it years from now. I can't tell you how many people will die today in Calgary with any amount of accuracy. But I bet with a little research I can make a fairly sound guess on how many will die in the next 10 years. My inability to predict short term in no way impacts my ability to predict long term. This is a very simple illustration of a much more complex system, but the underlying premise is the same. This probably seems as if I'm coming down on the GW side. Not really. I don't have the intelligence, or maybe expertise is a better word, to decide one way or the other. But I don't buy the idea that this is being crammed down my throat by ruthless individuals only interested in personal gain. I think most of them are well meaning, dedicated people doing what they think is right. Same could be said of most of the deniers. I'm still at the same place I was before. If the models truly are wrong and GW does not exist, they will be discredited and the scientific community will eventually accept that. Might be a naive view on my part, but I'm ok with that. In the meantime, figuring out ways to limit production and increase storage of CO2 don't sound like a bad thing to me. Finally, to the view that this topic is tired, well maybe. But this is page 3 and 50 some odd posts. A lot of posturing by both sides, but a lot of interest too. Not a bad thing either, probably.

As I lived in Southern Louisiana > the required 7 yrs, I guess I'm a coonass. I can confidently say things like "I ain't gunna do dat, no" and "you wanna come ovah home fo' a little while?" I'm not sure if it is a lifetime designation or the statute of limitations runs out after some period of time. I moved from just outside of NO about 33 yrs ago.

Now that we seem to be getting into the "my scientist is better than your scientist" season, I'd like to help everyone with some definition of terms: Fair and reasoned scientific research: Research that confirms the views of the poster Junk or vodoo science: Research that does not confirm the views of the poster Reasonable warnings to general public Warnings from scientific community or informed spokeperson warning the general public of dangers of some possible upcoming event...confirming the views of the poster Fear mongering Warnings from scientific community or informed spokeperson warning the general public of dangers of some possible upcoming event...refuting the views of the poster Reasonable and impartial debate Debating with people who believe the same thing you do Arguing with morons Shouting your views at people who do not believe the same as you I suppose rational debate is theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.

Some cynicism is certainly healthy (pun intended), and doing all the things you mentioned in your last sentence are great guides to good health. But it would be wise to remember that while the human body may have been designed to heal, medical advances,including flu vaccines) have raised our life expectancy toi levels far beyond just a few generations ago. Periodically people die because they are wearing a seat belt. But it would be foolish to not wear a sea belt for that reason. Far, far more lives are saved. Same thing for flu vaccines. Taco-how was that for serious? No sarcasm anywhere!