I have found this color combination to be particularly attractive to Pickerel. I use it freely in my pursuit of pectorial pleasure.
Oswego Lake to Sim Place ... 2009
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
I have found this color combination to be particularly attractive to Pickerel. I use it freely in my pursuit of pectorial pleasure.
I have found this color combination to be particularly attractive to Pickerel. I use it freely in my pursuit of pectorial pleasure.
Nothing like a Mepps Bob.
Jim
I wonder why JD did not jump on us as we went by? Maybe he figured we were going to meet the devil by days end anyway
Does that shell have a tag on it?
I am so glad you were able to make it Jeff. It made the trip much more interesting as usual.
Guy
You caught me, I bought that shell and hoped to fool you all, damn, i left the tag on
Just kidding of course. That is the last remaining plate of the outer shell.
I'm glad I was able to make it also. It is always a pleasure to be out with you guys.
Jeff
I think Piker was directing that fishing hole tip to me, Bob. Why don't you just stick to the pools below Bamber lake dam.:rofl:
Great shots Bob! I am sorry I missed that savannah exploration on the return trip. Finding a spring like that is always very neat. I bet that water was cold. I bet it would be safely potable at that point. I like the pic of me between the two blowdowns...it really shows the challanges of the river.
Jeff
Why you young whippersnapper!
I was fishing in the pool on the other side of Presidential Lakes dam when you were in diapers! Some of my finest times were spent fishing in that pool.
What do ya mean Tom M and I ?????
Tom, you're too old. You can't remember anything correctly.
Bob and Jeff, you are both welcome on our new found pickerel spot. If you see two guys already there argueing, that will be Tom M and I. I'll be the one sitting on the floor of the junker canoe.
Greg
Looks like you guys had a great time. Awesome pictures and great report. I would have rather been on a small river in the pines on saturday then at work.
Chris
Chris
Another video with a flaw in it from the smudge on my camera lens. This one shows Bob scouting out one of the "flower bogs" we visited. It is short and about 6MB to download.
http://teegate.njpinebarrens.com/06062009/bob.mov
Guy
http://teegate.njpinebarrens.com/06062009/bob.mov
Guy
Real nice Guy, hey remember when we had the great snowfall in the Pines this past Winter, i walked the line above Coyle Field with Lacey, there were smudges all over my lens, it's the meaning that counts.
I like the opening credit, i was expecting the MGM Lion.
Jim
http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/nj-law.htm
I just found this article about who owns the rivers in New Jersey, it is a very interesting read, i especially like rule #8.
Jim
I just found this article about who owns the rivers in New Jersey, it is a very interesting read, i especially like rule #8.
Jim
It most certainly was long before the person who own's it now, and the person before them, and at the time was not illegal.
Guy
There is probably a grandfather stipulation in effect, but, it would be interesting to test the waters (no pun intended) to see what would occur if someone would put a canoe or kayak into the reservoir which the Oswego flows through.
Jim
Laws of navigation; very complicated issue, there are fed and individual state laws, been going on for decades. Our cabin in NY was on a river; no problem for those in boats to travel thru, but no one could legally land or walk the banks or the wade the river.
I once read an opinion by canoeist and autor ben gertler.he states that the federal law on navigable rivers states that any river that a boat (any kind) can be gotten down at any time of year is considered navigable and hence cannot be barred from use by the public.the problem being that if you are busted by local authorities on a charge of tresspassing the local courts are likely to side with the taxpaying local who is whining you were tresspassing on his/her land.you would have to resort to a federal court where you would probably win your case but at the expense of more lawyer fees.then of course you could sue for your lawyer fees to be paid back.question is are you willing to go through all this to make a point? it would get the point across locally but it would help no one else outside that area. i for one would do it because i hate whiney landowners who feel they can lock down rivers they technically cannt own.
Al
Al
I see "no fishing" signs in various places along the S. branch of the Raritan near my home. Mostly wealthy landowners along there. Large preserved "farms" (most grow grass, far as I can tell) and horse operations. The ordinary high water mark test seems pretty clear to me, and by the law those signs are meaningless. I bet they scare a few folks away, though.
The high water mark works fine, the issue is legally getting to it. The same problem exits for all beaches here in NJ. The sand from the water up to the HWM is public space, above that it may be private. LBI beaches are a good example.
Those signs, if written and posted properly, are very enforcable.
From a lawyer in a similar discussion that was pretty lengthy on a Trout site for NJ.
"The whole thing turns on the legal definition of "navigability". For tidal waters and rivers carrying commercial traffic, the public has the right to access below the high water mark. The law is quite clear on this. These are obviously navigable waterways. As long as you stay below the high water mark, you're within your rights.
The problem lies in the definition of "navigability". In New Jersey, the legal concept is not well defined because there is a lack of case law. I guess the Delaware is navigable and surely the various canals are navigable since they were built for that purpose. So many have claimed that the Musky, SBR, and Pequest are non-navigable that I won't argue about them. I can't see any WTS being considered navigable. In those cases, the landowner can post and keep you out of the stream.
In other states, such as Pennsylvania, navigability is better defined -- but still a bit hazy in my view. The Pennsylvania definition seems to turn on whether there was commercial traffic on the river at some time in the past. The judges, for example, have taken testimony from historians during the trials.
Access below the high water mark has been written into state law in Montana. Although wealthy owners of Montana ranches have tried to have this changed to keep the public out of the trout streams on their property. Huey Lewis is a good example of such a land owner, a New Jersey kid who made good.
Virgina and maybe Maryland might be different in some cases also (favoring landowner rights) because of the way certain landowner privileges were granted prior to the Revolutionary war. I learned this from JeffK, and maybe he'll explain this better.
In any case, in New Jersey, the answer to your question is no in most cases because so much of our trout water is small and non-navigable by nearly all definitions. But you will find some radical white water kayakers who will claim that if you can float a kayak on it, it's navigable. Maybe, but it has to be defined through case law."
i take navigability to the extreme.I also thought no tresspassing signs on trees meant just that.do not tresspass on this tree.in other words do not climb,cut on,scrape,pee on or otherwise molest this tree.all spaces in between such trees are fair game so if you can fit between the trees with signs on them you are ok to access.
Al
Al