2 questions for you.

[arvey 154]

how long have we been known as the thunder bay district not the cities name but the district?

with all todays tech. does it make anglers better or just in catching fish easier?

al

[scandiman 114]

Not sure on the first question's answer, but I would say that technology makes catching fish easier as opposed to anglers better. I know guys that can outfish the average angler (with technology) without the use of technology 9 times out of 10.

[SherpaJ 45]

I have no idea about the first question but the second question is more of a philosophical debate....just like the chicken or the egg?

[Lyle Reiner 174]

Not sure about the first..

Electronics are just another tool to open up a lake to an angler. Although I don't believe they make you a better angler, because you still need to catch them without the electronics. But they do help you pinpoint where they are, a lot less time is wasted, and a lot less anglers are lost on a lake. They increase safety and open lakes to the general public.

You still need to catch them with a rod and reel, so no electronics do not make you a better fisherman. They make you a more informed in your decision on where to fish.

I'll add a question, do quality rods and reels make you a better angler?

[arvey 154]

I hobby collect old fishing stuff and I have a couple of regulation guides from the 50's and in there they refer to thunder bay district. I would venture to guess it was way before that time period maybe when they first started imposing regs.

I don't think high end rods and reels really help that much. a Mitchel 300 was used by many anglers and caught a lot of fish. I have a couple in my collection and they're still a pretty good reel .

[Snowball 75]

Thunder Bay District was created in 1871 by provincial statute from the western half of Algoma District, named after a large bay on the north shore of Lake Superior. Its northern and western boundaries were uncertain until Ontario's right to Northwestern Ontario was determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.^[4] Until about 1902 it was often called Algoma West from the name of the provincial constituency established in 1885.

Source: Wikipedia

Regards,

Snowball

[toma-hawk 44]

I have an old Mitchell 300 that must be 45 yrs. old still use it on my ice fishing rod for lake trout still works very good. Have 2 seperate spools one large and one small in original cases also.Im not so sure if the equipment make a fisherman, or is it the skill and understanding of the fish that the fisherman or fisherwoman angles for, that makes the difference.I tend to believe in the latter,the more you know about the fish and its habitat makes the difference.

Rick

[toma-hawk 44]

All that being said in my last post,I must say I sure like a power ice auger and my marcum flasher along when I go ice fishing. Lol

Rick

[Bear 77]

FYI

Lots of parts are still avail;ble for the Mitchell Reels, should you every need to repair them.

Bear

[Some Old Guy 968]

The Thunder Bay portion has been answered by snowball.

As for electronics. They let you know if there are any fish around. If there isn't then for sure you ain't catching any!

If it makes it any easier to catch? You still have to figure them out but at least you know there are fish there.

Roger.

[johnr 47]

10 percent of the fishermen still catch 90 percent of the fish. Technology, I believe has really helped the 10 percent "dial in" to fish habits and habitat which I think has improved the catch of targeted fish and species. I don't think technology has advanced to the point of understanding fish behavior, seasonal migrations, diet preferences etc. as quickly as the ability to locate yourself in high percentage areas and apply many more techniques. There are more avid fishermen trying to crack that 10 percent today and that competition I believe is triggering the technology explosion. To answer your question, I am not one of the ten percent and technology has helped me catch more fish when the fish "aren't biting". I don't think I catch more fish but I think I have fewer fishless days because of technology. Side bar to that...If I put a lure or bait on my guests rod [one of mine] and tell them to cast, let out line and then troll over structure with my sonar, keeping the bait in the strike zone at a speed to enhance the lure presentation they will most certainly tell me when they catch a fish that technology is way over rated and that I spend way too much time and money on something so easy!

[Trevor Zimak 171]

I have to disagree! Firstly, high end rods absolutely make you a better fisherman! No question! We as a society basically judge how good someone is based on their results. Whether they bring in limits all the time, simply catch a lot of fish, or how well they do in tournaments.

So... will high end rods/reels and better electronics make you catch more fish... most of us would agree. For example, you are going to feel a lot more bites using a Loomis NRX over an Ugly Stick. I can tell you whether my lure is hitting rocks, sand or weeds with these rods and know exactly when a fish hits it. I can fish lighter jigs and still feel everything with a high end rod. However, the reel is not as important, but you still want a good reel because they generally have better drag systems and cast further. In any case, all of the above = more fish in the boat which equals better tournament finishes.

As for electronics, well... I think enough has been said above that pretty much sums it up. But between side imaging and 360 imaging I can say hands, that two of tournaments I won last year were because of this technology! Now, does that make me a better fisherman? Well... if we want to get into a philosophical debate here on critical thinking well... let's consider the case of inductive reasoning on the matter:

Consider the premise:

Lyle and Ryan caught zero fish day one of GWC,

Therefore, Lyle and Ryan are not going to win the tournament!

This argument is most certainly not true because Lyle and Ryan may be so lucky that not one of the other 114 teams caught any fish either. But this is quite unlikely to happen. However, if you believe that the premise is true, you may accept the conclusion to be true. Consequently, the conclusion that they are not going to win is highly likely given that the premise is true.

Here is another example:

Lyle and Ryan have 18 graphs on their boat

Lyle and Ryan are both blind and quadriplegics

Therefore, they will catch no fish!

Again, it is not logically impossible for Lyle and Ryan to really catch zero fish, but if the premises are true it is unlikely to happen (catching fish that is). So... even though the two above arguments are not valid, we could still regard them as good ones. Why? Well... what is special about them is that they are inductively strong arguments... meaning... the conclusion is highly likely to be true given that the premises are true. With an inductively strong argument, although the premises do not logically entail the conclusion, they provide strong inductive support for it.

Consider the final premise:

Roger has two brand new Humminbird ONIX units

He is using all brand new G-Loomis NRX rods

Therefore, he will find fish faster and catch more fish

Similarly, it is not logically impossible that this equipment will guarantee better results, but given that the premise is likely valid, it is also likely true that that result is true.

[Lyle Reiner 174]

Trevor you forgot one extremely important variable... we use THE BEST electronics...and the best rods...loomis is all I run and Lowrance is the best hands down. You know this

[Trevor Zimak 171]

Trevor you forgot one extremely important variable... we use THE BEST electronics...and the best rods...loomis is all I run and Lowrance is the best hands down. You know this

This now leads us to consider the process of deduction: A deductive argument is a premise that is proposed by the arguer to be deductively valid (as above) to provide such a guarantee of truth of the conclusion (as Lyle has done) that the argument's premise (assumptions) are true.

This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are proposed to give such a strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be logically impossible for the conclusion to be false. So, an argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called deductively valid. If a valid argument has a true premise(s), then the argument is said to be sound!

However, in this case, Even though Lyle and Ryan have "the best electronics... and the best rods" the premise that they catch more fish is and in past practice has been FALSE.

The only logical explanation here is: "WHAAAATT HAPPENED!!!"

[Pro fisherman-Stud Muffin 420]

So my worst 2 day bag in gtown is 1.7 lbs less than your worst. That was my second time fishing that Lake . You going on what 8-9 years??

Not bad actually.

Ah the Internet. ...it never forgets

[Trevor Zimak 171]

Finished 3rd first time on the lake... Tag you're it!

Just in case anybody is wondering Lyle, Ryan, and I are all good buddies... and this is just all just in fun

[Gone8to1248 158]

This now leads us to consider the process of deduction: A deductive argument is a premise that is proposed by the arguer to be deductively valid (as above) to provide such a guarantee of truth of the conclusion (as Lyle has done) that the argument's premise (assumptions) are true.

This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are proposed to give such a strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be logically impossible for the conclusion to be false. So, an argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called deductively valid. If a valid argument has a true premise(s), then the argument is said to be sound!

However, in this case, Even though Lyle and Ryan have "the best electronics... and the best rods" the premise that they catch more fish is and in past practice has been FALSE.

The only logical explanation here is: "WHAAAATT HAPPENED!!!"

Is that the same thing as "If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance then Baffle them with Bull$hit?

[ribneck 14]

Lol if a guy was blind I don't think he could drive a boat so therefore there is no argument

[ribneck 14]

But I don't think there is a real answer to the original question it could go either way there are arguments for both sides

[Trevor Zimak 171]

Lol if a guy was blind I don't think he could drive a boat so therefore there is no argument

Did I say anything about driving the boat?? Read the post again.... maybe they have a guide?

[ribneck 14]

You also never said Ryan and Lyle are out with their guide so if your gonna use an example don't forget the little details