Scofield DWR Netting

[cdbrc]

Six or seven trips to Scofield this summer, (I have a senior pass so don't pay a fee eash time darn ) and only 5 CHUBS ..... That's depressing where do I go to get CHUBS for the berry? I have got close to 200 fish on those trips and a good amount ,close to half were in the slot. Healthy fish also. Alot of 2 pounders, some not a lot, ,4 lbs and one on the scale at 5 #. I have found where you fish and with what makes the difference between 13 or 16 plus fish. While 2 1/2 inch tubes tipped with chub, if you can find them, works every time. We made the decision to go to Scofield rather than the berry twice. Got about the same poundage in both places. Appreciate what we have and take the kids.
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote Dog-lover]When you differ from FIshrmn's opinion it's unfair to actually use facts!
Well done Bob.[/quote][size 4][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]My most humble apologies. What was I thinking? I will endeavor to tread lightly in the future. [][/#][/font][/size]
[signature]

[catchinon]

"That's depressing where do I go to get CHUBS for the berry?"

Below the dam in Lower Fish Creek. Maybe you already knew that and were making a rhetorical point.
[signature]

[Northman]

What makes a good trout fishery or any fishery? Well for starters when enough people like the overall experience enough to book a stay at the fishery. If the fishing is so good at Scofield why is the State Park a ghost town? Why is the gas station/camp ground at Scofield up for sale? There are a lot of us that have fished the Hell out of Scofield in the past that have now been reduced to just checking in fishing the reservoir to see if things are improving. Maybe there isn't a large population up there but I would like to see that area thrive again. If you haven't fished there since the 70's and don't intend on fishing there... maybe you should consider stepping off your soap box.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote dubob]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I doubt seriously that the loss of fishing opportunities at one single fishing lake will have ANY measurable impact on the total number of fishing licenses sold. And we are talking about just one fishing lake - Scofield. People that fish will just fish elsewhere. They will NOT stop fishing just because a lake they fished has turned sour.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[/quote]

I don't know of any way to verify whether your conclusion is correct or not, but I have a strong hunch that there are a lot of folks, who previously purchased fishing licenses, that have quit purchasing them because of the decline of Scofield over several years. It wasn't that long ago that Scofield was Utah's second most popular fishery. [url "http://www.utahfishinginfo.com/utahlakes/scofield.php"]Link[/url] You or I will pick up and go fish another body of water if catching at one body of water declines, but not everyone has that same mind set. [url "http://www.utahfishinginfo.com/utahlakes/scofield.php"][#000000][size 3] [/size][/#000000][/url]
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote Northman]What makes a good trout fishery or any fishery? Well for starters when enough people like the overall experience enough to book a stay at the fishery. If the fishing is so good at Scofield why is the State Park a ghost town? Why is the gas station/camp ground at Scofield up for sale? There are a lot of us that have fished the Hell out of Scofield in the past that have now been reduced to just checking in fishing the reservoir to see if things are improving. Maybe there isn't a large population up there but I would like to see that area thrive again. If you haven't fished there since the 70's and don't intend on fishing there... maybe you should consider stepping off your soap box.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]And maybe you should do some honest to goodness research for facts about the place. As I already said, I talked on the phone with the State Park and was told the State Park is anything but a ghost town. The TOWN of Scofield is fast becoming a ghost town if not already there, but the State Park is alive and well. I don't go to Scofield for a very simple reason; it's too far to travel to catch trout. There are dozens of local lakes within an hours drive that will produce a limit of rainbow trout any day of the week. And I certainly don't need to drive that far to catch wipers or tiger muskies since I live in Weber County. The reason I get on a soap box is because folks tend to let their emotions get in the way of the facts. You know, the State Park hasn't become a ghost town, and there isn't any measurable economic impact to Carbon County due to a reduction in over trout size at Scofield Reservoir. And lets not forget that the latest DWR Netting analysis indicates that the overall fishery is improving with the addition of a couple of new fish species. So yeah, I think its important to get on the box and report the truth rather than preach my opinion as gospel. If you, or anybody else can present some hard data that proves what I've said so far is in any way false, I will gladly admit to my error and apologize to one and all.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote kentofnsl]I don't know of any way to verify whether your conclusion is correct or not, but I have a strong hunch that there are a lot of folks, who previously purchased fishing licenses, that have quit purchasing them because of the decline of Scofield over several years.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Kent, you and I will just have to respectfully disagree on that. I personally know several hundred people that fish and I have never heard of anybody that stopped fishing because one body of water had a decline in fish or stopped producing fish altogether. I'm sure it's a possibility, but I also firmly believe it's not probable. But as you say, it would be hard to verify one way or the other due to a paucity of data. Take care and tight lines to you.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[Northman]

So when I physically go up to Scofield and look over at very empty State park and a handful of boats on the water I shouldn't believe my lying eyes? [laugh][shocked] Dude, you have no idea what a thriving Scofield looks like. Just because a government agent said it does not make it a fact. Don't you think if there were good numbers of large Wiper and Tiger Muskie in the reservoir it would be showing increased fishing pressure? (more people showing up to fish it). Sure, there are some impressive fish showing up in the gill nets (there always are). What we are waiting for is impressive fish to be on the end of our lines that reflect what that incredible body of water is capable of producing. Believe what you want. I will continue to believe what my lying eyes see.

If you walked into a empty warehouse would you be satisfied to just look around to determine it was empty? Or would you need someone to show you some hard data?
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote dubob][quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]For some reason, I can't think of a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. Please tell me what those costs are. I'm being serious; I can't think of a single cost. Who would bear that cost?[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]


It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?

but, here it is again from the USFWS:

[quote "Better Fishing Through Management"]
Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fish­ing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.[/quote]

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf


In the case of Scofield, with estimates given in this thread:
For every dollar spent on rotenone ($1.3M) anglers gained $$32 - $105 (* 1.3M = $41.6M - $136.5M) worth of fishing.

On lakes stocked but not treated (Scofield) the gain was only $10 - $15 (*1.3M = $13M - $19.5M).

Net loss to anglers rotenone vs no-rotenone = $28.6M - $117M.

I think a cost of $1.3M for a rotenone treatment is insignificant compared to what it most likely cost us to NOT treat it.





But you guys can just keep ignoring this stuff and look forward to an [eventual] bright outlook.
[signature]

[catchinon]

I just read the source paper you provided to support your opinion. Very informative, though it cut no new ground. My problem with it is that I can't ascertain it's epistemological basis. I don't understand how you can put a monetary value on fishing, especially on a particular water. How does a person gain or lose any money from fishing? Can't they simply go to another place to fish anyway? I can see that a monetary impact could be had to the local economy, but not to individuals. I am not attacking you or others who think like you; I just want to understand how they came up with their data. And fwiw, I "voted" for rotenone treatment before the DWR formulated their plan. Now, I can't do anything about it but "cry over spilt milk."
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

Your a smart guy PBH, so you will have to admit that an estimate is just that, an estimate and it does not mean it is correct, even at the wide range you quoted. IMO these estimates come from general figures and there is no way to have an exact estimate for what the dollar amount lose could be for a, more out of the way, lake like Scofield. Now if you were talking about Strawberry, then I'd agree totally but not Scofield. Just for a minute let's try and figure out where this $41.6M - $136.5M worth of fishing would come from or go to, that would have been lost because the lake wasn't poisoned. It wasn't the town of Scofield because there just isn't enough business there to generate that kind of revenue, what about the gas station that was mentioned, possible but even at the lower rate that is a lot of gas. What about the state park at Scofield, not sure if even Strawberry generates $41.6 M in 10 year. Unless you talk to the Parks folks to find out how much they were taking in before, when Scofield was in its heyday, compared to now, there is no way to know. Point is, I think you are over valuing the amount of revenue one lake like Scofield can generate. I'm not saying that by putting off using rotenone that there wasn't a cost associated with it but at this point you are crying over spilled milk and there is nothing you can do about it. What could have or should have happened doesn't really matter now, so why do you guys keep beating a dead horse, what is done is done, there are no do overs. What we do know is that the DNR has chosen a different path and is commented to seeing it through. The lake is showing improvement and there is a good chance of the lake returning to its glory days. I think we can all agree that is a good thing, no matter what method was used to get there and even if it has not happened as quick as some would hope.
[signature]

[PBH]

Wiper -- it was asked, so I gave. I didn't make those numbers up. They have been published by the USFWS -- a trustworthy source put on paper, not a verbal recollection.

Nobody said those dollar numbers were the equivalent of a dollar-in-hand to be spent by a local concession. Those estimates were dollars "worth of fishing". That could be money spent at a local gas station, a boat registration, tackle at Cabelas, worms from the local worm stand, or even a boat purchase. Or, those dollars could even be enjoyment, satisfaction, hours spent fishing at Scofield vs the alternative (NBA game, video games, hunting, hiking photography). Quality.

Regardless, those are high numbers -- and the USFWS published them to show that using rotenone is a fiscally sound strategy. The cost of using rotenone may be high, but the cost of NOT using rotenone may be higher!

You mentioned that the lake "is showing improvement". That's something that we can argue. So far, the only thing the DWR has shown us are wipers and tiger muskies. What they did not show us from either spring or fall is anything trout. We do not know what condition or shape the trout are in. We don't know "K" factor prior to stocking of trout, or "K" factor from spring sampling. That alone would tell a story -- good or bad. I'm hoping it's good.

With the amount of food in Scofield, it is very obvious that we should see something in the way of wipers and tiger musky. It should also be noted that the wipers being stocked are larger than most wiper stocking elsewhere in the state - this would be a strategy to help mitigate lake elevation (higher than any other wiper lakes anywhere) and to help with competition with chubs. But, stocking larger fish always comes at a dollar cost -- again, a cost directly attributed to not using rotenone.

I'm not crying over spilled milk. I'm actually very hopeful, and even excited to see quality wipers and tiger musky already showing up - much sooner than anticipated by anyone. That's great! But I'm also skeptical and critical -- where are the trout numbers? Why aren't they saying anything about the trout? Wasn't this whole plan (utilizing sterile hybrids to control rough fish) supposed to benefit the trout? What about chub numbers? Where are they? Hopefully those young-of-the-year chubs will be on the decline over the next couple years.

Done deal? You make it sound as if the plan is set in stone, and cannot change. If anything, we all know things change. Rotenone was just recently approved for use in Yellowstone National Park. Things change. At this point, I hope that the future for Scofield is bright. But things change, and often do. Never say never -- there may come a point where the option to use rotenone may still come. Hopefully not. That would be something to spill milk, and then cry over.
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

Fishing Dollars are simple spent at a different location when the fishing gets poor. The folks that enjoy fishing don't stop spending or stop fishing because any one destination looses it's luster. Scofield already holds the Utah record for Rotenone treatments, trying something different may actually provide a different result.
Kind of a smoke and mirrors study and conclusion that any dollars are actually lost. That would be my Estimate!
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Dog-lover]Fishing Dollars are simple spent at a different location when the fishing gets poor. [/quote]

Exactly!!

so, how much has Scofield lost over the last 20+ years?


[quote Dog-lover]Scofield already holds the Utah record for Rotenone treatments, trying something different may actually provide a different result.[/quote]

Again, spot on!

So, instead of a rotenone treatment followed by stocking only trout, the plan this time would have included stocking wipers and tiger musky. The difference with this approach is that you stock a bunch of predators to curb the opportunity for chubs to reestablish. The benefit of this approach is that you end up with wipers, tiger musky, and trout all in that zone of maximum growth rates -- so they all grow really fast . The beauty is that you don't have to wait.


that's ok. We'll just keep having this discussion, and continue waiting for Scofield. It's going to happen -- Scofield will return to a quality fishery. It's just a matter of time...
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote PBH][quote dubob][quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote]For some reason, I can't think of a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. Please tell me what those costs are. I'm being serious; I can't think of a single cost. Who would bear that cost?[/quote]


It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?

but, here it is again from the USFWS:

[quote "Better Fishing Through Management"]
Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?
It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fish­ing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.[/quote]

[url "https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/federalassistance/native_trout/rotenonebro.pdf"]https://www.fws.gov/...rout/rotenonebro.pdf[/url]


In the case of Scofield, with estimates given in this thread:
For every dollar spent on rotenone ($1.3M) anglers gained $$32 - $105 (* 1.3M = $41.6M - $136.5M) worth of fishing.

On lakes stocked but not treated (Scofield) the gain was only $10 - $15 (*1.3M = $13M - $19.5M).

Net loss to anglers rotenone vs no-rotenone = $28.6M - $117M.

I think a cost of $1.3M for a rotenone treatment is insignificant compared to what it most likely cost us to NOT treat it.





But you guys can just keep ignoring this stuff and look forward to an [eventual] bright outlook.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Okay, first things first. Thank you PBH for responding.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Second, I have not seen that report before. So again, thank you for the link. But just to be clear, the report is NOT a USFWS product. They obtained the report from the American Fisheries Society (AFS), Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee, Task Force on Fishery Chemicals. The document was made possible with funds provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I take umbrage at your assumption that “It has been posted before -- I doubt any of you, including Bob will read it this time -- why would you?” Of course I’ll read it. I’m always interested in getting to the truth of any matter. And here are just a few of the takeaway’s I got from reading the document.[/size][/#800000][/font][quote AFS] State and Federal resource agencies are entrusted with the task of maintaining healthy aquatic environments, protecting our bodies of water from misuse, and balancing the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities. Since the likelihood of creating new water areas is very low, agencies in charge of fishery resources must manage existing resources to assure that the environment continues to thrive and to ensure that our fisheries are not depleted.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]While you and others may disagree, I think the Utah DWR is doing an excellent job of [/size][/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]balancing the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[quote AFS]It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishing. On trout lakes that were stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15. [/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I agree with Curtis on this; they are just estimates, not hard fast figures based on quantifiable data. The model of estimation is not shown or explained. And how did the AFS determine “$32 to $105 worth of fishing?” Exactly what does that mean? Can you define that? I don’t have a clue what point they are trying to make. Are they putting a monetary value on the fish being caught and/or kept? Is it size or weight based? Please explain or point me to a document that explains how a value worth of fishing can be determined in dollars.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]And with either method, there is a net gain in value worth of fishing (whatever that is). And yes, I’m positive that the higher return is better than the lower return. But I’m not turning my nose up at a 1,000 to 1,500 % return on the investment of stocking only. And please don’t forget that the DWR is doing their very best to “balance the demands made by navigation, commercial, residential, recreational, and environmental activities.”[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]From the Scofield Reservoir Advisory Committee (SRAC) Report (July 2017), we have this: [/size][/#800000][/font][quote SRAC] When the Advisory Committee first met, they identified the need to reduce and control the Utah chub population, and unanimously agreed it was the most limiting factor in developing a quality fishery at Scofield Reservoir. The Committee identified two methods for reducing Utah chub biomass: biological control and a rotenone treatment. After a lengthy and careful discussion, a majority decision was reached to initiate a fisheries management strategy utilizing the biological controls laid out in this plan. As described in the previous section, a rotenone treatment is being planned and will be initiated if the Goals and Objectives of this plan are not reached. [/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]And the folks that made that majority decision were [/size][/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]individuals representing varying interests, constituency groups, and angling types.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]So, the bottom line for me is this – you still haven’t provided me with a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. You’ve provided some estimates of differing GAINS associated with differing treatment options, but I don’t believe you explained any costs or economic impact that will adversely impact Carbon County.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[Browntrout]

I thing for sure - when the river below Scofield was struggling and should have been catch and release only - what did the Price DWR office do? Kept the 4 fish limit.
Then a few years later - no fish 2 miles down from Scofield. Once a fantastic river fishery totally mis-managed and in the toilet.
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote Browntrout]I thing for sure - when the river below Scofield was struggling and should have been catch and release only - what did the Price DWR office do? Kept the 4 fish limit.
Then a few years later - no fish 2 miles down from Scofield. Once a fantastic river fishery totally mis-managed and in the toilet.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I'm not sure/don't know if a regional office has the authority to do that. I placed a call to the Northern Regional Office and left a voice mail to have the Aquatics Manager (Chris Penne) call me back. I don't want to take a position on that without getting some factual information on the DWR process for individual closure/restriction measures.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]If a regional office does have that level of authority, I will then contact the Price office and ask them why they didn't see fit to add some restrictions to the Price River below Scofield Reservoir. There just may be other factors in play that the DWR has no control over that would make increased restrictions meaningless. IMHO, it is always better to deal with an issue after you get all of the factual information that you can surrounding an issue.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I will follow up on this and let all y'all know what I find out.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3][][/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[riverdog]

[quote Browntrout]I thing for sure - when the river below Scofield was struggling and should have been catch and release only - what did the Price DWR office do? Kept the 4 fish limit.
Then a few years later - no fish 2 miles down from Scofield. Once a fantastic river fishery totally mis-managed and in the toilet.[/quote]
They might as well have removed the limit on number of trout you could keep the outcome would have been the same. No sense of limiting fish when drought, extremely low water releases and water temps were going to kill most trout except a few of the smallest ones.
Price River like a handful of the small streams in the general area is capable of holding over 1000 trout per mile when water conditions remain optimum for a few years in a row. Per CFS of water these are more productive streams than the Green but are far more vulnerable to drought. Thinning the trout under good conditions removes the bottleneck where many grow to 15-16 inches in 2 years but relatively few reach 18-20 in the next year or 2. When all fish over 6 inches are likely to die, it doesn't matter what DWR does other than buy water rights for a minimum instream flow.
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote Browntrout]I thing for sure - when the river below Scofield was struggling and should have been catch and release only - what did the Price DWR office do? Kept the 4 fish limit.
Then a few years later - no fish 2 miles down from Scofield. Once a fantastic river fishery totally mis-managed and in the toilet.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]In the interest of getting the facts on this issue, I contacted Chris Penne, the Northern Regions Aquatics Manager and asked him if a DWR Regional Office has the authority to change fish limits as specified in the Guidebook. The short answer is: “No; Regional Offices do NOT have that authority.”
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]If a Regional Office staff member/employee decides that a change is indicated, the data indicating the change along with a recommendation is compiled and submitted to the RAC. It is discussed at the appropriate RAC meeting and then forwarded to the Wildlife Board along with the RAC and Regional Office recommendations. The Wildlife Board considers the recommendation and approves or disapproves the recommended change based on the results of all of the inputs.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I have never fished the Price River or Scofield Reservoir. I don’t ever plan to do so in the future. So, I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I can only assume from what you and others have said on this thread that IF there was problem with the Price River fishery in the past and nothing was done about it, then a couple of things could have happened. Was the Price Regional Office even aware that there was a perceived problem with the fishery? If no, then they wouldn’t have made a recommendation to fix it by lowering the limit or restrict it to C&R only. If they were aware, did they investigate and make a recommendation to the RAC? If a recommendation was made to the RAC, did the RAC put it on their agenda and have a discussion with input from all interested parties? After assembling all the inputs, did they, in turn, make a recommendation to the Wildlife Board supporting the Regional Office recommendation?[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]It is NOT a simple process folks. It is governed by State approved rules & regulations and must go through the process before ANY changes can be made. I honestly don’t know what happened regarding the supposed decline in the Price River fishery years ago. And I honestly, I will not lose any sleep over it. And since you happened to feel that the appropriate action wasn’t taken, I can only assume that the Regional Office wasn’t aware there was a problem, or they knew about it and submitted a recommendation that got shot down somewhere in the State required process.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. [cool][/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[fishskibum]

i dont see it
i dont know any of these give up fishing because a body of water isnt producing
i dont know many people who give up skiing on those years were not bless with at or above average snowfall or if one resort experiances changes
i started fishing scofield in the late 90's after the bomber hard fighting og tripliod bows all
got hooked and cooked for a lake filled with head shaking lame fighting slot cutties
and american land and leisure hired people i dont want to give money too
and cause the tigger troots are cools


its a pretty setting and at the time staffed with friendlier more knowledable empoyees
same with my reasons for going to currant creek instead of the berry
some people only measure their fishing experiances in catch rates, of the fish that they want to catch
nttiawwi
but im stoked on the route they dnr took
a high alpine lake thats gots troots wipers and i aint gotta spend my thousands of casts for my muskalunge with the pineview extenention power peeps playing the awful music to loud with way too much thunder bass
the old guy and the dog in the drifty listening to jj cale throwing flies will be having a better fishing experiance reguardless if he gits em
and ill probably stop and buy coffee gas smokes and beverages at the gas station
much like i used to
[signature]