Northcountryman

Wow - very nice camp

Agreed, but easier said then done....

I like your plan, but I would also look at the 500m ridge thats SE of the top swamp and the ridge running N to S in the extreme NW corner of your pic. Since youre doing early season, these spots (and the ones you mentioned and pegged) all seem reasonable; later on, as the deer experience pressure, you might wanna shift your focus to the swamps, however.

Yeah , OK.

God help us- lets hope not!!

Excellent price- I wonder how long theyll last at that price, though.

A very insulting contention to make which, incidentally, likely refers to more than 2/3 of the members of the forum.

Yes, that would be more likely in today's world.

I dont believe I said anything about worrying about it currently, did I? I agree with you that no country would likely be successful in such an effort , but based on your response, are you suggesting that world domination has neever been attempted in the past? Nazi Germany & Japan in WWII; Germany WWI, etc. : Really?

I'm not convinced that they would try, but I wouldnt put it past them, either- world domination would be their motivation if they were to make such an audacious move.

Trail cams are fine IMHO and dont violate the fair chase principle , as long as theyre not being used in a manner which notifies the hunter with automatic pics/ messages so that the animal can be ambushed. An example of this would be you sitting in your kitchen and you receive notification that a nice buck just walked past your cam behind your house and you go out and blast it- is that fair or ethical? Hell no. Now, if you use youre trail cam in the traditional manner by PATTERNING the deer and then ANTICIPATE theyre appearance at a given time of day, then fine. Some may argue both uses are ethical and adhere to fair chase whereas other purists may argue that both violate it- Like avery issue there must be a cutoff and I believe that is where the line should be drawn .

I think I know what you mean. So, youre aiming further than youre actual intended target, then , as soon as it hits, you sort of mend and pull it to the sweet spot without flyline hitting the surface- is that right?

Good to hear- it definitely has a rep for being a Walleye factory. I love Oneida, should get up and fish it again, sometime.

Yeah, Ive heard that about Oneida- lots of 'Eyes, but most of the big ones caught out. I used to fish that Lake and caught a few big ones, but most were just barely legal. They stock it heavily, right?

Yes, I know what you mean as I use the Reach Cast when i'm dry flyin too, but what do you mean by "skipping"the fly to the zone? Ive never heard of that technique before and would like to try it .

Cool , what were you using- crawlers on a jig?

Cool, is it hard, btw, to float dries in that stretch with all the rocks? Id think it be draggin alot, unless your drifts are short and targeted between them- that sound about right?

Nice! Nothing till sun started to go down though , right ?

Yeah , you gotta smoke the coyotes or you aren’t gonna see a damn thing . I don’t know if it’s pics of one or several , but either way, Look pretty well fed .

Nice - cute little shits .

Ive heard the walleye fishing in Sacandage is pretty solid; any experience with that? Thanks NC Man

Well, I wouldnt characterize it as delusional, far from it , actually, but will definitely check out your link, as always. Although I disagree with you often, the discourse is invaluable and hey: you were right about the white supremacy thing back in the winter and I havent forgotten that!!

Youre surprised? And what constitutes "non-election bearing fraud" btw? When elections are as close as they have been the vast majority of cycles, how do you know what is "non-bearing election fraud" and , as you say, "real tangible, the election was stolen fraud"?. In several of the battleground states, vote differentials were VERY close; in Georgia, was under 10000 , wasnt it? Same with Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan. This past election cycle, approximately 155 million people voted, according to statistics. If, say, 1/2 of 1%, or 0.5% of those votes were fraudulent, that would constitute 775000 votes, WAY more than enough to swing the election results completely to a different outcome. As I've said repeatedly, I am NOT convinced entirely that the fraud was substantial enough to effect this outcome, but I am open to it and think it may have. The Arizona audit is approximately 50% complete as i understand it- it remains to be seen what they will determine (or not) from that effort. In regards to your assertion that believers in election fraud (most likely you mean Trumpers, but i wont go so far as to put words in your mouth) will never accept the results if no significant fraud is ultimtely found, I would say that you may be right about some; but again, as always, you tend to draw conclusions about broad segments of the populace based on your preconceived notion as to who they are and thus, how they must think . To me, the only person who definitively and conclusively will ultimately refuse to accept the results of said audits IF SIGNIFICANT FRAUD IS , INDEED DISCOVERED is you.

Wait : Don Lemons a dude . Why is he on your list ?

Nice- what are you catching the smallies on?