Trolling the ship channel?
 

In our years in Ohio and Colorado, we developed some precision trolling techniques that are very effective on freshwater trout and walleye. Doing some fall cleaning today, I see a lot of gear that we have not really figured out how to use effectively in Louisiana. The basic idea is that we can control depth and distance from the boat and simultaneously troll 6-8 lines out at depths from 5-25 feet deep.

We simply adjust the depth to where we're marking fish (or bait) on the sonar and then switch over to the lures that are working. We experienced tremendous success with technique (6+ fish per hour) on trout in Colorado and Walleye in Lake Erie, as well as doing ok on bass in some freshwater reservoirs. We know folks get similar techniques to work well in Florida ship channels and deeper areas, but we're wondering if this might work in the Calcasieu ship channel.

Thoughts? Ideas? Experiences?

It works on Lake P for big trout, this is what I've read. Seems to be a dying art.

And this doesn't seem like much of a "competition with the fish"

They had some guys that trolled the Mr. Go for specks and did well. Have to be really patient. I don't see why it wouldnt work on the there.

They catch a lot of fish on lake p doing this. Several articles have been written on it also.

:rolleyes:

Wow! A purported libertarian criticizing another angler's view of fair chase!

We've trolled a spread of lures around many, many days and only boated a few fish, but when it works, it can work very well.

In Colorado, the fly fishermen all thought they were the bees knees and looked down on those who soaked power bait or caught fish trolling.

In Ohio, the bow hunters all looked down on the cross bow hunters, and the flintlock guys all looked down on the in-line muzzleloading hunters.

I thought maybe I had escaped such elitist folly among sportsmen in Louisiana, but now such nonsense is being spouted by a libertarian.

You elitist about your brand of weed too?

The elitest here is you, "trolling" a thread about a tournament series you don't know anything about. It was perfect timing.

Watch your mouth accusing me of smoking pot, you arrogant, over educated, self righteous troll. Defending a common sense right does not make me a user of what I'm defending, just like calling you out here about trolling doesn't mean I am against the fishing method.

I didn't look down on you for trolling, I actually trolled the other day. But, I did look down on the fact that you spoke of how much you look down on a tournament by poking out your chest and saying your "challenge is with the fish". Then, within a few minutes post a request for advice on the laziest fishing method known to man, with the exception of sleeping in a hammock with bells on a rod tip.

oh boy.


*popcorn*

L O L

can i have me somma dat ?? Eat, eat, pass ??

When I wrote:

My contest is with the fish, not with the other fishermen.

I was just pointing out my personal view and motive for fishing, not taking a dig at anyone else's. Folks can have all the contests they want about catching the most and the biggest. Such things just don't catch my personal interest. I don't look down on contests among fishermen any more than I look down on peanut butter sandwiches.

There are a lot more lazy techniques than trolling: explosives, electrofishing, rotenone, gill nets, trawling, etc. etc. Each has its place and purpose, and where legal I offer no criticism.

Liberty is about the freedom to make things harder for yourself if you want it to be harder. But being disrespectful of fishing techniques because they are perceived as too easy is just a way to divide the sporting community. Only PETA wins.

I was disrespectful?

Maybe go back through this very short thread and see who was actually disrespectful.

Stop acting like you were voicing your opinion for the sake of nobleman and free speech throughout the western land. Your comment shortly after the tourney dates were posted was clearly an act of arrogance, and that made the libertarian in me fume.

If you've grown used to losing competitions all your life, don't justify it by trying to impose your holier than thou concepts on those that love to beat the hell out of the next guy in a good competition.

You don't need advice on trolling, you did a great job on the Louisiana Saltwater Series thread...

From trolling to weed in 6 comments. Lol.
Just goes to show you how strong weed is these days. It addles the mind of people who don't use it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Popcorn spilled !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ITs funny you say this when not to long ago you bad mouthed guides who always fish out the same boat launch or marina . It seems as though you called them lazy and not a wise choice . Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and stop the bashing as well.

Thank you guys!!! Lol This thread is good stuff!!! I don't need to turn on my tv!! I love the passion though!!

Free market. I also recommend Hondas over Fords, Savage rifles over Remington, Berger bullets over Sierra, Nissan outboards over Mercs, Aluminum boats over fiberglass, Shimano reels over Penn. Ford need to improve reliability, Remington needs to start making decent barrels again, etc., etc.

I've had better experience with guides willing to go to the fish rather than guides who always fish out of the same port. If you offer a product or service to the public, you should man up and accept feedback and recommendations from the public without feeling "bashed."

And speaking of a lazy way to fish, to me the easiest way to fish is to hire a guide, much easier than trolling the ship channel. Certainly, it should be legal and it is fair chase, but it is the easiest way to bring home a cooler full of fish.

We troll alot in the bayou. We'll let out line till we bump bottom then reel up till it stops. We'll have that one under our leg and then throw lures with another rod. Works great.

Hey Breambuster, that was a good tip. Thanks.

Well Mathgeek your right everyone has their own opinion. And my opinion is your a douche bag troll.

Cereal question here...


Mathgeek, you seem to offer quite a few quips aimed at Libertarians based on only the libertarian standpoint in regards to cannabis.

I would have guessed / thought that in most regards you would generally agree with the libertarian platform (let's leave whether they are a viable option or not out of the discussion for now)....

I think i speak for most on here when i say that we understand that your not a fan of cannabis legalization / decrim... but what about all their other platform positions.

ie... http://www.lp.org/platform

Also... I bet the trolling would work quite well. I could certainly imagine that it might make a very effective method for finding concentrations of fish.

Also... Nissan over merc.... uhhhhhh YAMAHA?

everyone's allowed an opinion. just because we disagree doesn't make any of us any more right or wrong.

Also.. just wanted to note the irony...


A post asking questions about trolling... end's up being a poo flinging match discussing internet trolls....

Where the hell is "W"

:P

It's nice to know I've challenged your thinking on some issues.

You should get out (of your comfort zone) more often.

Couldn't have said if better myself!!!

For many years I thought my only differences with libertarians were suicide, drugs, porn, gambling and abortion.

Since Sept 11, I've also realized that I am uncomfortable with the degree of isolation many libertarians advocate in foreign policy. I do think that the US should be much less interventionist in foreign wars and avoid being the world's policeman. But when US soil is attacked, or US citizens, we need to put a hurt on the bad people. I also feel strongly that we need to live up to duly passed treaties and international obligations that we have duly incurred. Even if they were a bad idea, backing out on duly incurred treaty obligations is a worse idea. In these cases, we should look for a mutually agreeable way to disentangle ourselves from international messes.

I have also grown to be a convinced federalist. Just because I believe something is a "good idea" or a "bad idea" for government to be involved with; I feel even more strongly about keeping the proper separation between the Constitutional roles of federal and state powers. As a resident of Louisiana, for example, I shouldn't strong arm the federal government for my "good idea" policy changes at the federal level if the matter at hand is not a proper federal power, and I shouldn't exert undue influence on policy issues in other states. It's OK for 50 states to have 50 different state level drug laws, driver's license requirements, drinking ages, etc. The Libertarian party platform almost demands uniformity of laws in different states.

I wouldn't mind too much if the feds got out of the drug game, but the US really needs to extract itself from some duly passed international treaties first, as well as (at the Federal level) get out of welfare, health care and higher education. Legalizing drugs would be much more tenable if the federal government would let abusers crash and burn (per a libertarian philosophy). Legalizing drugs while providing a "safety net" for drug abusers sounds like a step toward libertarian policies, but in the end will yield a bigger and more controlling government.

It is interesting to me that libertarians usually are making public policy pushes for the most egregious parts of their overall platform. Rather than less taxes and smaller government, 2nd amendment rights, and reduced regulation on businesses, they tout stuff like drug legalization, gambling, and pornography. Some even tout gay marriage.

Gambling is a great example where "legalization" increases rather than decreases government control and involvement. I fear drugs will likely turn out the same way.

Everybody gets a trophy

Usually a good idea to base policy on science and not fear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is so fawking gay .... troll deez nuts

As a scientist and an American, I disagree. We live in a Constitutional republic with a democratic republican process.

We do not live in a scientocracy, nor would I ever recommend it.

Science can and should inform public policy, but public policy should be based on the will of the people, within Constitutional boundaries.

When the people are smart enough to see through scientific shams like global warming, their will should dominate.

If the good people of Louisiana and their Legislature remain convinced that the pro-cannabis material is pseudoscience, then their will should dominate.

Or would you favor a federal imposition forcing the legalization of cannabis based on science?

I am not doing this again with you. Each his own. 56% of Louisiana agrees with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leave it to Pox lol...

Maybe, maybe not. Thank God we don't change Louisiana laws based on ACLU polls of 636 people.

At the only poll that matters (electing legislators), the people of Louisiana overwhelmingly disagree with you.

Although it's true that the LP certainly has pushed some agenda's via social networking that are popular with younger voters.

They have in my opinion been quite steadfast in pushing less taxes, less government, 2nd amendment rights, and reduced business (handouts / regulations / bailouts etc) and taking a laissez faire approach to business. (ie.. no catering to special interests etc,)

I guess what i am trying to nail down here.. is on voting day, do you choose to align yourself with a particular party who's ideal's you endorse. Or do you take the "lesser" of two evils route.

As i am asking you for an answer, i will provide you with mine first (as it's only fair of me to do so).... I choose to vote for a party who's ideals i endorse to the greatest extent, and no longer choose the "lesser" of two evils route.

As far as the continuing discussion about cannabis your exceedingly aware of the enourmous scientific body of evidence supporting why legalization / decrim is the right way to go. You choose to still take a stance opposing it.... fair enough you have the right to make that choice. So no hard feeling on that matter.

Overwhelming public sentiment favors legalization / decrim it's not even discussionable anymore.

If you get real serious about it you can take a marker and mark your line so you know how much is out and can keep track of what length/depth they're biting best at. Also when you catch one. Troll up enough to let out enough line to get you where were before turning around. Make another pass through where you caught the first one. If you pick up another you can just stop and throw lures now that you know there is a school therr. Its easy to cover alot of water by trolling and then casting. We normally troll along the ledge. One on each aide of the boat. One on the shallow drop and one in the deeper drop. Then cast towards the bank.

Neither. I vote for the candidate I like the most. It's a balance of trust, character, and policy issues. Not all policies are equally important to me.

I've occasionally voted for democrats when their policies and character are more to my liking, but those days are probably over.

I see myself easily voting more for third party candidates than Republicans over the next 20 years, especially at the national level. However, I expect I'll vote for a lot more Constitution Party candidates than Libertarian Party candidates.

Or should I abandon my principles and vote Libertarian because they are the only viable third party?

Absolutely not.. stick by your guns!!! I am actually glad to hear that you intend to vote with your conscience.. we need more... not less of that.

Geek. You need to go have a drink,smoke a joint and get some *****. Live a little.

I really like Ron Paul. If the LP can find a man like him who is pro-life and deeply appreciates (and can elucidate) the important distinctions between state and federal powers, he would likely have my vote in 2016 and beyond.

As it is now, my biggest concern with the LP is that they will allow federal power to grow in ways that impose "libertarian" principles on the states where they can get congressional support or foolish fiats from the federal courts.

Ron Paul staunchly opposed that kind of folly and abuse of federal power.

Most other libertarian candidates are not so principled.

.
 

.

You guys are AWESOME LMAO

My wife and I are enjoying our 25th year of marital bliss, and we enjoy a bottle of wine now and then. I make my living solving math and science problems that other people can't and (even if it were legal), there is no way I would impair my moral and scientific judgment by smoking weed, nor would I impair my mathematical abilities. Middle age is hard enough on my mathematical and scientific abilities, and I killed too many brain cells in college.

As an educator, I also need to set a positive example for students everywhere. Physics, Chemistry, and Calculus are hard enough without chemical interference. As a parent, I need to set a positive example for my children. The US will need some home grown scientists and engineers in the next generation.

Life is pretty fun without smoking weed. I've got a smokin' hot wife, beautiful and brilliant children, and a great career. I have no idea what smoking weed feels like, but I doubt it can compare to homeschooling my children, a relaxing evening at home with my wife, or screaming drags catching one bull red after another.

I think you should have a closer look at Gary Johson, It's candidates like him who not only espouse "less government" but actually acted on those thoughts and did it when he was a gov. That's the type of person that we should be looking to. IMO.

This thread is useless without w's two cents. It won't be long i can guarantee ya of that.

Gary Johnson advocates the ongoing legalization of the murder of unborn children. Ron Paul is pro-life.

Under his "leadership" the LP has abandoned the key recognition of the importance of federalism and separation of state from federal powers. It certainly appears that Johnson would advocate for the feds running roughshod over state powers and rights if they can successfully force states to implement "libertarian" policies regardless of the desires of those state legislatures.

Ron Paul was clear that recreational drug use is bad, but the federal government should not criminalize it any more than other unhealthy behaviors. Gary Johnson, in contrast, is an actual dope smoking hippie type. It is one thing to support the candidacy of a man whose preferred policies allow marijuana use. It is another to support a man whose judgment is impaired by drug use. It's the difference between voting for a health guru who thinks that the government banning trans fats is absurd and voting for Gov. Chris Christie.

I am also uncomfortable with the way Gary Johnson's first marriage ended. If a man can't be trusted to keep the most sacred vows to his wife, how can he be trusted to be faithful to his oath of office? Ron Paul's faithfulness in marriage gains the trust of voters in a much more convincing manner.

Ron is pro life but doesn't care if you want an abortion. Gary Johnson USED weed instead of narcotic pain killers to treat back pain from a accident. Yeah. He's terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 party system is a sham and a man of your education does the public a disservice even playing along. We all know this is a joke. People jump on social issues and let that affect how they vote.
" I mean this guy is awesome he could save the country but ........ He doesn't believe in Jesus or he is pro choice and I hear he doesn't care what gay folks do in private.... What what what. Deal breaker "

I find that crazy that we forego the country for social issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mathgeek and his walls of text...