"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Tom Nakashima wrote:
where I'll be packing in, I'll be fishing for natural brookies. ...

Naturally reproducing, I'll give you, but brook trout
are non-natives, some say trash fish, in the Sierras.

Brookies aren't native to the Sierras?!! :(

Well......dang.

Wolfgang
who, till now, had never given much credence to the old saw that one
learns something every day.
Yes, you are correct Wolfgang, and what I should have said is after their
initial stock back in 1928-1938 (and correct me if those dates are off),
the brook trout where I'll be fishing are natural reproducers.
Trash fish? I suppose if you want to call them that. When I first caught
them, I had mistaken them for the golden trout, because of their
reddish/golden color, but should have known because of the lower altitude.
I do like the taste of the pink meat, very pleasant.
-tom

"Willi" wrote in message
...

Your setup is cool. I think even I could backpack with a setup like
that. Like you said, my backpack empty weighs almost as much as all your
gear does. Something to think about. i think your minimalistic approach is
perfect for a short trip.

Willi


Thanks, actually how this all started was when I was carrying big loads.
Then by elimination, knowing the equipment was there if I needed it, I began
testing to see what I could get by with and keeping mental notes.
I remember one trip years ago, pitching my tent but not using it, just
laying my sleeping bag on the ground cloth viewing the stars at night.
Before I knew it, lights out and woke up the next morning with dew on my
face, it felt good.

I was at the market last night and noticed they have tuna in a pouch. I was
thinking of not bringing a stove and fuel this trip.

Hiking with a lightweight pack is awesome. One of my friends said to me last
year, "I don't see how you can hike with such a light pack", and I
responded; "I don't see how you can hike with such a heavy pack." But to
each their own. I personally don't knock anyone's equipment...there are no
rules as far as what a person wants to bring.
-tom

"Guyz-N-Flyz" wrote in message
...


Great lookin' stuff Tom. Once I get my back issues straightened out, I
plan to do some extended campin' trips by my lonesome. I bought a good
deal of high priced stuff for a trip to the UP with Wolfgang, Asadi, and
Peter Charles, in April of 2001. Unfortunately, my father decided to end
his life a couple of weeks before I was set to go, so no go.

Anyway, I purchased a Mountain Hardware "Trinity" tent. Which is supposed
to be a two-person model, but the other person would have to be the size
of an action figure to make it useable as a two-person tent. I still like
it though, as it is light-weight and easy to set-up and take down. Is
your bivy sac much larger than my tent--if you are familiar with the
"Trinity? that is"

I purchased a Primos "Himalayan" stove. I like it cause it utilizes
virtually any fuel source known to man, except ground crickets?

Got a PUR "Hiker" water microfilter.

A Thermarest self-inflating pad.

I bought a Slumberjack combo sleepy bag that is good to -30 degrees, if
you use both of the bags.

And finally, I purchased a Eureka back pack that you could fit an African
elephant in--7600 cubic inches. Unfortunately, I try to fit way too much
stuff into it!

What size backpack--in cubic inches--would you recommend to defeat my
maximalist tendencies?

Oh yeah, I CAN'T do without the Thermarest pad (back issues, ya know),

Mark

Looks like you have great gear, I also have the PUR Hiker water
microfilter, works like a charm and one of my best friends out in the
wilderness.

The best way to see what pack size you may need is to first see what you
need to bring. I tested my gear over the years and made the decision this
is what I need. Then I went down to REI and stuffed everything into one of
their lightweight packs. The employees there are very nice and didn't mind
me walking around the store with my gear in their bag. I couldn't believe
how comfortable lightweight was, you don't need all these padded straps or
lumbar systems.You should try it, with no obligations to make a purchase
I bought my pack on a clearance sale for $19.99, I even think it was used.
-tom

Tom Nakashima wrote:

Yes, you are correct Wolfgang, and what I should have said is after their
initial stock back in 1928-1938 (and correct me if those dates are off),
the brook trout where I'll be fishing are natural reproducers.
Trash fish? I suppose if you want to call them that. When I first caught
them, I had mistaken them for the golden trout, because of their
reddish/golden color, but should have known because of the lower altitude.
I do like the taste of the pink meat, very pleasant.

Some say the best way to preserve native fish is to remove
the exotics. In the Smokies the situation is reversed, that
is the brookies are native and rainbows are exotics or trash
fish.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating? I
don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike on
the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is just
letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another way is
gutting them alive.
Comments?
-tom

Tom Nakashima wrote:
I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating? I
don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike on
the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is just
letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another way is
gutting them alive.
Comments?

I bonk them on the head immediately then put them in
an arctic creel. They'll keep quite a while if you keep
them cool so there's no need to gut them right away. I
don't like to let them die slowly of suffocation.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 7/8/05 11:06 AM, in article , "Tom
Nakashima" wrote:

I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating? I
don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike on
the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is just
letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another way is
gutting them alive.
Comments?

I do it much less often than others 'round here, but I've found that
whacking them, even hard, isn't always the most expeditious way to off a
fish. Best is to have your knife handy and eviscerate immediately. Quick
and effective.


Bill

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Tom Nakashima wrote:
I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating?
I don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike
on the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is
just letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another
way is gutting them alive.
Comments?

I bonk them on the head immediately then put them in
an arctic creel. They'll keep quite a while if you keep
them cool so there's no need to gut them right away. I
don't like to let them die slowly of suffocation.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Sounds good Ken,
-tom

On 7/8/05 11:13 AM, in article
, "Ken Fortenberry"
wrote:

Tom Nakashima wrote:
I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating? I
don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike on
the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is just
letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another way is
gutting them alive.
Comments?

I bonk them on the head immediately then put them in
an arctic creel. They'll keep quite a while if you keep
them cool so there's no need to gut them right away.

I've got nothing to base this on, but it seems to me they keep quite a while
in the arctic creel regardless of if they are gutted or not.

I
don't like to let them die slowly of suffocation.

Ditto, and when last I offed a fish, I smacked it but good on the head,
twice, and it persisted in flopping around (not that this meant it was alive
necessarily). Time before that I had a knife handy so slit-slit-scoop and I
*know* he was dead.

FWIW, I have a hard time killing brookies. In fact I don't think I have
ever done so. They're just too pretty. Silly me, but there you have it.
Only trout I've killed have been stocked rainbows.

Bill

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:13:59 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Nakashima wrote:
I plan to eat what I catch and release the other brook trout, but my
question is; how is the best way to kill the fish that I will be eating? I
don't mean to be cruel to the fish in anyway. I've heard that a strike on
the head is one method, then gutting them right away. The other is just
letting them suffocate by keeping them out of the water. Another way is
gutting them alive.
Comments?

I bonk them on the head immediately then put them in
an arctic creel. They'll keep quite a while if you keep
them cool so there's no need to gut them right away. I
don't like to let them die slowly of suffocation.

Nor should you - for more than the obvious reason: prolonged stress releases
all kinds of enzymes that can ruin the flavor and texture of the fish. Better
to whack 'em soonest and then deal with keeping the meat cool.

To that end, a light canvas pouch soaked in water works about as well as
anything without an ice pack in it...

/daytripper