Kayaks or sort of.
 

The Spring issue of Northwest Fly Fishing had a two coulum add for these
things.
http://www.mokai.com/index.htm
According to the add you can move up and down the stream get out and fish ..
blah blah blah.
It does have an advantage in that you can keep your beer inside (looks like
there's room for a cooler) and if you get drunk you won't fall off like you
would on a jet-ski.
What would you do if one passed you on the way upstream??
Jiust cast at it? Is a wrist rocket ethical?

Kayaks or sort of.
 

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 02:06:14 GMT, "B J Conner"
wrote:

The Spring issue of Northwest Fly Fishing had a two coulum add for these
things.
http://www.mokai.com/index.htm
According to the add you can move up and down the stream get out and fish ..
blah blah blah.
It does have an advantage in that you can keep your beer inside (looks like
there's room for a cooler) and if you get drunk you won't fall off like you
would on a jet-ski.
What would you do if one passed you on the way upstream??
Jiust cast at it? Is a wrist rocket ethical?



If they weren't totally illegal on my two favorite rivers, I'd love to
have one. Not that I'm guessing I could afford one...

Wrist rocket is probably regarded as some sort of assault, but it'd be
less traceable than a casting line.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Kayaks or sort of.
 

It does have an advantage in that you can keep your beer inside (looks like
there's room for a cooler) and if you get drunk you won't fall off like you
would on a jet-ski.

I have the video for these things (free from the site) Its $2999 US.
They show a guy standing up, with the boat faced upstream and the thing
throttled to keep him in one place. The guy is fly fishing. I,
personally, would not try this. On the other hand, I see this as an
excellent tool for waters like the Chesapeake and some of its tribs
(i.e. the tribs are called rivers but on the Chesapeake, the turn into
huge back-bays). The 6 hp Honda engine will run for 8 hours on 3
gallons of gas (their claim) and the whole thing weighs 100 lbs. The
engine is supposed to be very quiet (which is all relative).
You could have a great day chasing stripers in a boat that you can put
on your truck or suv roof rack. On bigger rivers like the Columbia and
the Missouri, this could be a lot of fun chasing salmon or smallies.
Now we need to combine this with the pedal mechanism in the Hobie
Outcast and you'ld have the perfect, one-man flyfishing boat. Engine
off, paddle around and fish, engine on, move from hole to hole. This
would be great in the Baltimore inner harbour (great striper fishing),
where you need some extra speed to keep you from becoming a speed bump
for the tankers.
Its intriguing. If anyone would like, send me one and I'll put it
through its paces for a year or two.
Frank Reid

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Frank Reid" wrote in message

Its intriguing. If anyone would like, send me one and I'll put it
through its paces for a year or two.
Frank Reid

There's a pretty obvious joke in there somewhere. I'll leave it to Choc or
Vang to add some suitable imagery.

bruce h

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
When are they usually in the harbor ? I was there
a few months ago, looked around and didn't see any-
thing. I did see a few people fishing but they
weren't having any luck.

There's ship traffic in the outer harbor area most of the time. It's not
exactly rush hour, maybe a dozen a day, but having spent a lot of time
sailing out there, I do know you have to keep an eye out. Those suckers can
actually sneak up on you (and they're faster than they look). Most of the
traffic is containers or auto carriers who don't get much inside the Francis
S. Key bridge bound for the Dundalk or Seagirt Marine Terminals. There are
a few smaller frieght terminals closer to Ft. McHenry & the Inner Harbor;
but overall, ship traffic is less frequent the closer in you get.

Flyfishing in the harbor area (which I'll define as anything upriver of the
aforementioned bridge) is, I'm told, surprisingly good for stripers
(Clousers, deceivers, etc.). If you have a boat, a depthsounder, & decent
charts, you can fish the deep dropoffs adjacent to shallow feeding areas,
even right alongside an industrial facility (sometimes as a result of
dreding a slip). No personal experience there, but I do hear credible
stories. The bankside bait fishermen do okay with white perch, catfish,
eels, & other stuff. I wouldn't eat anything that comes out of that water,
though.

Joe F.

Kayaks or sort of.
 

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:19:11 -0800, "bruiser"
wrote:


"Frank Reid" wrote in message

Its intriguing. If anyone would like, send me one and I'll put it
through its paces for a year or two.
Frank Reid

There's a pretty obvious joke in there somewhere. I'll leave it to Choc or
Vang to add some suitable imagery.

Joke? Hell, this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

/daytripper
(Sorry Frank. Nothing personal, but an opportunity is an opportunity ;-)

Kayaks or sort of.
 

daytripper writes(of Reid's kayak idea)

this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

are you suggesting that someone would be gullible enough to underwrite such a
policy?? Cripes! I figure his wife has to take out special riders on the
policy to get homeowner's coverage.
At any rate, should Frank like to motor his way through Penn's in May, I will
wait for the inevitable, down by the whirlpool behind the Sportsman's Club,
rope in hand. I feel an obligation to be ready to rescue the guy, just to hear
the story afterward!! Should he take it out on the inner harbor, they could
probably charge extra for the window seats at Phillips, just for the
entertainment value.
Tom
P.S. Man, if we could pony up for a couple of these puppies, we could have
river races replace the Orange Caddis rodeo at Penn's. Imagine the fun, the
challenge of zipping up and down stream around the various submerged objects:
rocks, logs,
Dave LaCourse and suchg!!!!

Kayaks or sort of.
 

this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

are you suggesting that someone would be gullible enough to underwrite
such a
policy?? Cripes! I figure his wife has to take out special riders on the
policy to get homeowner's coverage.
At any rate, should Frank like to motor his way through Penn's in May, I
will
wait for the inevitable, down by the whirlpool behind the Sportsman's
Club,
rope in hand. I feel an obligation to be ready to rescue the guy, just to
hear
the story afterward!! Should he take it out on the inner harbor, they
could
probably charge extra for the window seats at Phillips, just for the
entertainment value.

SPLORK!

MAAAAA! They're makin' fun of me again. Facts is facts, who better to test
out the unsinkable? A boatload of passengers on the Titanic who's families
have their own stable of high-dollar barristers or me?
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 07:19:11 -0800, "bruiser"

wrote:
Joke? Hell, this is a sure-bet financial gold mine a' happening!

We pool some money, buy a really fat policy, and wait for the inevitable!

/daytripper
(Sorry Frank. Nothing personal, but an opportunity is an opportunity ;-)

Hmm...not so far from the truth. My father drowned out of a boat almost
exactly this size two years ago. He believed the advertising that showed
someone standing up and fishing in it, and although he was afraid of the
water, he didn't have a life jacket and when he stood up to test the
stability (he was seen from shore), the boat shot out from under him and he
went in. Took 10 days to find his body.

Check out the similarity of these two pictures. One if from this 'Mokai'
boat, the other is from the boat dad drowned out of.

http://www.mokai.com/gallery.htm (bottom row, third picture in)
http://www.seaeagle.com/motormount/SE6.asp (picture in top right, as they
rotate through).

Neither guy has a life jacket, both are stand-up casting, both are in
ludicrously tiny boats. Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

--riverman
(My apologies for bringing in the sober side of this.)

Kayaks or sort of.
 

In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Kayaks or sort of.
 

riverman wrote:
...
Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

John Edwards is gonna be lookin' for work after tonight. I hear tell
he's damn good at that sort of thing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
om...
In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

With all due commiseration for Myron's loss, it is hard for me to understand
how any normal adult can be unaware of the inherent danger in standing up in
small watercraft, regardless of what a manufacturer may claim for a product.
It is particularly difficult for me to grasp why anyone who is afraid of
water (and thus, presumably, a poor swimmer at best) would do so without a
PFD.

I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards? Well, yes, of course they do. And they are right.....to a
certain extent. Some dangers are not so obvious. Others are unmistakable.
In fact, most of the things that kill people or cause grievous bodily harm
are not mysterious secrets.

If anyone can find a way to suck a few million dollars out of McDonalds,
Microsoft, GE, Phillip Morris, GM, etc., I say more power to 'em. It
appears that the majority of Americans agree with this stance, and there can
be no doubt that many a jury has. But no one should labor under the
misapprehension that winning a damage award necessarily validates a specific
grievance from a moral point of view.

Wolfgang

Kayaks or sort of.
 

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:19:17 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
news:020320042219395749%lazarus@stonecurlewfilms. com...
In article , riverman
wrote:

Anyone want to sponsor me in a lawsuit, I'll split
it 50-50. If this advertising isn't negligent, not much is.

I'm shocked. "Wicked" is the word - in the old sense. Really, really
bad.

With all due commiseration for Myron's loss, it is hard for me to understand
how any normal adult can be unaware of the inherent danger in standing up in
small watercraft, regardless of what a manufacturer may claim for a product.
It is particularly difficult for me to grasp why anyone who is afraid of
water (and thus, presumably, a poor swimmer at best) would do so without a
PFD.

I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards? Well, yes, of course they do. And they are right.....to a
certain extent. Some dangers are not so obvious. Others are unmistakable.
In fact, most of the things that kill people or cause grievous bodily harm
are not mysterious secrets.

If anyone can find a way to suck a few million dollars out of McDonalds,
Microsoft, GE, Phillip Morris, GM, etc., I say more power to 'em. It
appears that the majority of Americans agree with this stance, and there can
be no doubt that many a jury has. But no one should labor under the
misapprehension that winning a damage award necessarily validates a specific
grievance from a moral point of view.

Wolfgang


The last product I designed has a 3v coin cell battery, about the size of a
stack of three US quarters. We had to put a label over the battery with the
international "do not eat this" pictograph - otherwise we had to include the
moral equivalent of an EIS in 16 different languages...

/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer ;-)

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"daytripper" wrote in message
...


/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer ;-)

WARNING!: Skittles and beer have been shown to be deleterious to laboratory
animals.

Wolfgang
and they ain't atkins friendly, neither. :(

Kayaks or sort of.
 

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:36:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"daytripper" wrote in message
.. .


/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer ;-)

WARNING!: Skittles and beer have been shown to be deleterious to laboratory
animals.

Wolfgang
and they ain't atkins friendly, neither. :(

Well, of course! A bunch of soused lab rats that can't reset the pins are
likely to get all surly, start gnawing on staff and have to be put down...

/daytripper (happens all the time ;-)

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:36:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"daytripper" wrote in message
.. .


/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer
;-)

WARNING!: Skittles and beer have been shown to be deleterious to
laboratory
animals.

Wolfgang
and they ain't atkins friendly, neither. :(

Well, of course! A bunch of soused lab rats that can't reset the pins are
likely to get all surly,

It ain't so much the intoxication as it is the morning
after.......surly?......sheesh! :(

start gnawing on staff and have to be put down...

I guillotined six of 'em this afternoon.

/daytripper (happens all the time ;-)

Well, actually, about once a week, on average. :)

Wolfgang
long about the time ya yank the brain out, it's pretty obvious who gets the
best laugh.

Kayaks or sort of.
 

I use to take care of some Charles River rats. They were second generation
cesarian delivered rats, After the first experiment they were to be
disposed of. Some we took to a snake farm where they made treats for
rattle snakes the size of stove pipes.
We tested several batches to find out if rats can swim without there
wiskers, Have you ever tried it??

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 19:36:37 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"daytripper" wrote in message
.. .


/daytripper (pre-emptive engineering: it ain't all skittles and beer
;-)

WARNING!: Skittles and beer have been shown to be deleterious to
laboratory
animals.

Wolfgang
and they ain't atkins friendly, neither. :(

Well, of course! A bunch of soused lab rats that can't reset the pins
are
likely to get all surly,

It ain't so much the intoxication as it is the morning
after.......surly?......sheesh! :(

start gnawing on staff and have to be put down...

I guillotined six of 'em this afternoon.

/daytripper (happens all the time ;-)

Well, actually, about once a week, on average. :)

Wolfgang
long about the time ya yank the brain out, it's pretty obvious who gets
the
best laugh.

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...


I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I
don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards?

I agree with your assessment, except for one important detail. SeaEagle in
particular specifically advertised that their boats were so safe that you
could stand up in them and fish without fear of falling overboard. Its one
thing to assume that the public knows more than it does. Its another to
actually misrepresent something to enhance sales. If they merely showed the
pictures and said nothing about it, that would be a different matter. This
is probably the difference between the two advertisements.

--riverman

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"B J Conner" wrote in message
...
I use to take care of some Charles River rats. They were second
generation
cesarian delivered rats, After the first experiment they were to be
disposed of. Some we took to a snake farm where they made treats for
rattle snakes the size of stove pipes.
We tested several batches to find out if rats can swim without there
wiskers, Have you ever tried it??

Nope. Why were you interested in whether or not they could swim without
their whiskers?

Wolfgang

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...


I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I
don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some
interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are
inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe
that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals, wading
in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list of
other hazards?

I agree with your assessment, except for one important detail. SeaEagle in
particular specifically advertised that their boats were so safe that you
could stand up in them and fish without fear of falling overboard. Its
one
thing to assume that the public knows more than it does. Its another to
actually misrepresent something to enhance sales. If they merely showed
the
pictures and said nothing about it, that would be a different matter. This
is probably the difference between the two advertisements.

Yep, that IS an important detail. And, as I said, I don't have a problem
with your family suing the manufacturers of the boat. Nor, for that matter,
do I have any illusions about what my opinions on the matter should be worth
to you. However, callous as it may sound under the circumstances, if I were
afraid of water and a poor swimmer I don't think I would have put their
claims to the test. For anyone with a personal connection to this event,
even a connection as tenuous as a cyber friendship, it is of course a
tragedy, one of countless such tragedies that occur all over the world every
day. Obviously, the vast majority of us have no connection whatsoever
(beyond a shared humanity) with most such events. When we ARE connected, I
think it is instructive to ponder on how we react to similar situations when
we are not.

Wolfgang

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...


I don't doubt that some sort of legal action might be undertaken
successfully against the manufacturers and/or whoever else may be
responsible for portraying such an activity as being safe. Frankly, I
don't
have much of a problem with it either. But it does raise some
interesting
ethical and common sense issues. Just how much responsibility should
manufacturers or promoters of products and activities that are
inherently
unsafe, to one degree or another, assume? Does anyone really believe
that
adults need to be warned about the risks associated with sky diving,
smoking, hot coffee, pyrotechnics, running across flaming coals,
wading
in
streams, guns, electricity, hypothermia, or a virtually endless list
of
other hazards?

I agree with your assessment, except for one important detail. SeaEagle
in
particular specifically advertised that their boats were so safe that
you
could stand up in them and fish without fear of falling overboard. Its
one
thing to assume that the public knows more than it does. Its another to
actually misrepresent something to enhance sales. If they merely showed
the
pictures and said nothing about it, that would be a different matter.
This
is probably the difference between the two advertisements.

Yep, that IS an important detail. And, as I said, I don't have a problem
with your family suing the manufacturers of the boat. Nor, for that
matter,
do I have any illusions about what my opinions on the matter should be
worth
to you. However, callous as it may sound under the circumstances, if I
were
afraid of water and a poor swimmer I don't think I would have put their
claims to the test. For anyone with a personal connection to this event,
even a connection as tenuous as a cyber friendship, it is of course a
tragedy, one of countless such tragedies that occur all over the world
every
day. Obviously, the vast majority of us have no connection whatsoever
(beyond a shared humanity) with most such events. When we ARE connected,
I
think it is instructive to ponder on how we react to similar situations
when
we are not.

Well and delicately worded, Wolfie, and for the record, (strange as it
seems), your opinions actually do matter to me. And my family and I decided
not to sue the manufacturer because of your specific reasons: dad had a
large responsibility to be accountable for himself. If I didn't have so much
experience in boats, I might not be so acutely aware of the share of
responsiblity that he had.

I contacted the owner directly, and got him to promise to make changes to
his website: all passengers in rapidly moving boats must have PFDs on, all
children in any boats must have PFDs on, no fishermen are standing and
casting in small boats unless the boat is grounded, and a large safety
message is linked to his page outlining that self-responsibility boatowners
have. He adhered to our agreement for about a year, then slowly started
slipping the old pictures back in....

--riverman

Kayaks or sort of.
 

Worked with a couple of PHDs psychologist ( check the spelling on
that) that said they could not. It turned out to be true. The rats
need the whiskers to know where there nose is. If they don't know it
goes under water more and they drown. These were big fat dumb white
rats, never had the chance to test it on whild rats.



"Wolfgang" wrote in message ...
"B J Conner" wrote in message
...
I use to take care of some Charles River rats. They were second
generation
cesarian delivered rats, After the first experiment they were to be
disposed of. Some we took to a snake farm where they made treats for
rattle snakes the size of stove pipes.
We tested several batches to find out if rats can swim without there
wiskers, Have you ever tried it??

Nope. Why were you interested in whether or not they could swim without
their whiskers?

Wolfgang

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"riverman" wrote in message
...

...I contacted the owner directly, and got him to promise to make changes
to
his website: all passengers in rapidly moving boats must have PFDs on, all
children in any boats must have PFDs on, no fishermen are standing and
casting in small boats unless the boat is grounded, and a large safety
message is linked to his page outlining that self-responsibility
boatowners
have. He adhered to our agreement for about a year, then slowly started
slipping the old pictures back in....

Ah, there was another chapter! Well, that changes the story considerably, I
think. One hopes to read in the epilogue that the ******* was gutted.

Wolfgang

Kayaks or sort of.
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"riverman" wrote in message
...

...I contacted the owner directly, and got him to promise to make
changes
to
his website: all passengers in rapidly moving boats must have PFDs on,
all
children in any boats must have PFDs on, no fishermen are standing and
casting in small boats unless the boat is grounded, and a large safety
message is linked to his page outlining that self-responsibility
boatowners
have. He adhered to our agreement for about a year, then slowly started
slipping the old pictures back in....

Ah, there was another chapter! Well, that changes the story considerably,
I
think. One hopes to read in the epilogue that the ******* was gutted.

Wolfgang


Yup, which brings me to my original query...

--riverman