arcane montana query

Most of it is on the rez, except for maybe the last 40 miles before it
reaches the Yellowstone. Living and fishing in MT my entire life
(Billings), I never got into the Bighorn fishing thing.

As Bob stated, it's a warmwater fishing environment. Though the trout
get big, they often act sluggish and unhealthy, and if you were to eat a
fish from the waters, the meat is applesauce-mushy and tastes funny due
to water temp.

If you find yourself in that area, I'd suggest driving a couple of
hours west and fishing the cool, clear mountain streams where even the
smaller trout battle like champs. Not to mention the scenery is MUCH
better. Many areas on the 2 Bighorns are treeless plains and miserably
hot. But if you like touristy stuff...there you go.

All that said....Custer died for your sins.

On Jun 28, 8:08 pm, (Dave S) wrote:
Most of it is on the rez, except for maybe the last 40 miles before it
reaches the Yellowstone. Living and fishing in MT my entire life
(Billings), I never got into the Bighorn fishing thing.

well, i didn't ask about the bighorn. my inquiry concerned the little
big horn, and was limited to the two or three miles which flow through
the custer battlefield.



As Bob stated, it's a warmwater fishing environment. Though the trout
get big, they often act sluggish and unhealthy, and if you were to eat a
fish from the waters, the meat is applesauce-mushy and tastes funny due
to water temp.

If you find yourself in that area, I'd suggest driving a couple of
hours west and fishing the cool, clear mountain streams where even the
smaller trout battle like champs. Not to mention the scenery is MUCH
better. Many areas on the 2 Bighorns are treeless plains and miserably
hot. But if you like touristy stuff...there you go.

it was miserably hot the only time i fished the madison, and it was
still amazing. again, for the limited purposes of my inquiry, i am
not concerned about the quality of the scenery. i was simply
interested in a very small, even unique, piece of historically
significant water. now, have you ever fished there, or do you know
anyone who has?

btw, you don't know me, but i can promise you i am not "touristy". i
consider the ground that makes up the custer battlefield to be a very
significant part of the history of a people for whom i have a great
deal of respect.

All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:


All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,
R

I'm afraid Wayne missed the point on the Custer quip. I didn't just
make that one up...the phrase has been around longer than us.

Custer was killed taking land.....oh nevermind.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:11:21 -0600, (Dave S) wrote:

I'm afraid Wayne missed the point on the Custer quip. I didn't just
make that one up...the phrase has been around longer than us.

Custer was killed taking land.....oh nevermind.

Um, OK. FWIW, I don't consider Custer or the "Battle of Little Big
Horn" (or whatever one wishes to call it) to be particularly significant
from a objective military or "historic" perspective - a coupla
hundred-plus US troopers and, depending on who one cites, 30 or 40 to a
coupla hundred "Indians" were killed in what was, from a military
perspective, a cluster****. The importance of it is, IMO, a created
myth.

Generally speaking, while Custer made what hindsight proved to be some
pre-campaign/battle mistakes (refusing Gatlings and light artillery,
etc. - likely somewhat due to arrogance, but not completely so), he
performed pretty well - he just got out"gunned," overrun by numbers, and
depending on who one chooses to believe, had a couple of iffy
subordinates who didn't perform too well.

And the weapons used came into play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

IAC, I'm still of the opinion, "On any given Sunday..."

TC,
R

wrote in message And the weapons used came into
play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

Indian Joe asks ---saw arched arrows killing Scots in "braveheart" but
have never read of indian attack from behind a hill-- would enjoy knowing
where you read of this.Once at a pow-wow saw a drunk blind old squaw send
her arrow after the moon--but she missed

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:20:55 -0400, "Joe McIntosh"
wrote:


wrote in message And the weapons used came into
play. The troopers had single-shots and
sidearms, while the "Indians" had a fair number of repeating rifles, and
by happenstance, the "Indian" bows turned out to be at least as useful
as the guns (you can arch arrows into the enemy - rifles of any kind
don't make very good mortars).

Indian Joe asks ---saw arched arrows killing Scots in "braveheart" but
have never read of indian attack from behind a hill-- would enjoy knowing
where you read of this.Once at a pow-wow saw a drunk blind old squaw send
her arrow after the moon--but she missed

It really isn't "attack from behind a hill" situation. It's more of a
rifle being pretty much line-of-sight and an arrow being able to arc
over trees, ridges, etc. Obviously, I wasn't at the battle, but I've
read source material that relates that the "Indians" said they sent a
fair number of arrows into the columns as they traveled the ridges and
ravines as well as into the tree groves the troopers were attempting to
use as cover, and more at the "last stand" area, where rifle fire would
have been much less effective. There is evidence of such, but it is
somewhat tainted by no clear picture of when or from where the arrows
were fired. Some were obviously close-range "coup de grace"-type wounds,
but others were not, bolstering the "volley" statements.

IAC, accounts are all over the board - remember that a fair number of
the troopers with Reno and Benteen survived (those not with Custer's
columns) and the Crow scouts that Custer released gave their accounts as
well as the "Indian" accounts. None are really all-encompassing (and
really, they could not be) and there is quite a bit of conflicting
information. Add that to the after-the-battle accounts of the troopers
and what they state they found, and it's pretty hard to get a definitive
picture. The battle was not simply a "last stand" on a hilltop ala some
depictions, it was a fight spread out over several miles involving
several columns under three (sub)commands and over 1000 "Indians" of
various groups.

You might wish to reference some of the "Indian" accounts of the battle,
as well as the various reports from the US sources.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:


All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

See, that's precisely the sort of profundity we have all come to expect of
you, and which lies at the root of the degree of respect in which you are
held here.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,

I suppose that whether or not you actually have something to say will
forever remain a mystery......and that's o.k. The only thing that saves you
from being entirely uninteresting (and, barely, at that) is that you ALWAYS
go to such great lengths to say nothing......and then pretend to believe
that no one will ever notice......and THAT is funny.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

On Jun 29, 6:00 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:44:28 -0700, "
wrote:

All that said....Custer died for your sins.

no, bud, custer died because he was an arrogant yankee dumbass.

wayno

Um, well, maybe, but to many military minds, Custer died because, well,
he didn't win the battle that particular day.

See, that's precisely the sort of profundity we have all come to expect of
you, and which lies at the root of the degree of respect in which you are
held here.

FWIW, there is lots of stuff all over the board as to who did what,
when, and how, but a number of (rational) military strategists are of
the opinion that Custer performed pretty well under the
circumstances...obviously, so did the "Indians"...and neither team had
any particular moral superiority...

Hey, any given Sunday....,

I suppose that whether or not you actually have something to say will
forever remain a mystery......and that's o.k. The only thing that saves you
from being entirely uninteresting (and, barely, at that) is that you ALWAYS
go to such great lengths to say nothing......and then pretend to believe
that no one will ever notice......and THAT is funny.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

As one of our more articulate members you must know a term that
defines ignorance in quanatative terms. Something like a MH ( a Milli-
Helen - the amount of beauty required to launch one ship).
Maby a MCB ( Milli- CrowBar). A thousand MCBs mean your as ignorant
as a three year old crow bar.
I know I am semi-literate but were I as ignorant as some people I
would hang myself or run for office.

"BJ Conner" wrote in message
oups.com...

...you must know a term that
defines ignorance in quanatative terms.

Nope, as far as I know, none yet exists. Odd. The need is certainly there.

Something like a MH ( a Milli-
Helen - the amount of beauty required to launch one ship).
Maby a MCB ( Milli- CrowBar). A thousand MCBs mean your as ignorant
as a three year old crow bar.

Yeah, I like that!

I know I am semi-literate but were I as ignorant as some people I
would hang myself or run for office.

The former would likely end in failure. The latter, if history is any
guide, eventually leads to "Elder Statesman" status.

Wolfgang