Sk8man

As far as bottom coverage goes this may help illuminate that particular issue: http://www.airmartechnology.com/bottom-calculator.html It may be worth mentioning that the transducer is an important component; but only half of the total equation. The unit being used, its capabilities, and how it is adjusted accounts for the other half. An additional factor in the bottom clarity (and target from bottom discrimination) is the type of bottom itself and the signal power of the unit (e.g. signal strength returning from the bottom) which is related to the type of bottom and structure as well. A CHIRP unit should give you increased resolution and better discrimination of target and bottom separation and discrimination between targets, but it needs to be properly adjusted and fine tuned (e.g. sensitivity,etc.) to get the best result regardless of transducer. To get the most from the unit and the transducer it has to be properly matched and located as well. Even a standard unit transducer can excel in some cases when these factors are properly set. Airmars are top notch transdducers. It is unclear what exactly is meant by "deep water" as some may think 100 ft is deep water while my fishing buddy thinks that 600 is where we start fishing in his boat

If you really want it done right get an acrylic cover custom fitted to your boat by John Mann of Sodus Bay Canvas at Sodus Point. Keep it waterproofed by using the outdoor version Scotchguard periodically. Place an extendable pole inside the boat if stored outside so snow will slide off it and then cover it with a tarp secured by bungi cords. It will last many years and keep your boat in perfect shape. Tarps by themselves are OK for temporary situations but over winter high wind can rip them and/or rip the grommets out of them in high wind combined with adverse weather exposing your boat interior. It is worth spending money at the outset not having to worry and protecting your substantial investment.

The shark fin type. PM me if you have and are interested in selling them. Thanks.

Ready or Knot makes a good point. It really does depend on how you intend to use it and what features are actually necessary (not necessarily desired as a lot of stuff ends up not being used). If only a fish finder is sought Furuno is day in day out year after year dependable and is the way to go. If you fish for multi-species in addition to trolling for trout a such as walleye etc. and use mapping extensively the combination units made by Humminbird, Garmin, and Lowrance etc. offer more sophisticated charting features which can be pricey and some enticing but seldom actually used by many folks (e.g. down or side imaging etc). So regardless of the unit selected it should fit your actual specific fishing needs and is worth the time to think it through and do your homework researching it rather than relying on other folks opinions (although they can be helpful information-wise). Another aspect worthy of consideration is the American belief that "size matters" . In reality "bigger is not always better" despite the enticing quality of it. *Advanced selection of the space available for locating the unit selected is critical and the ability to clearly see the display (especially in bright sunlight) and not have the unit interfere with other important things such as the steering wheel

Nice job on the video as usual. There are some take-aways from it about Lakers and their habits too if close attention to it

Just an FYI but some legacy (older) computer operating systems do not support Webex (e.g. Windows XP)

It sounds good but unfortunately we aren't the ones controlling things in the decision making process. There is certainly an "unevenness" in the various lakes involved. For example with Canandaigua Lake I think the decision was more based on keeping things consistent among the lakes rather than any actual shortage of rainbows. Seneca on the other hand may be a different animal and especially so with the stocking of an additional variety to supplement the existing population which appeared to be struggling. The DEC claims that the Angler Diary data is important in the decision making process but there are inherent problems with the data collection and interpretation process in addition to diminished sample size itself (e.g. fewer reporters) as it may not truly be a representative sample for a variety of reasons. When you have a small sample of fishermen submitting the data that are primarily trolling, browns are going to be underrepresented in the results because in the Fingers trolling may not be nearly as productive as some other techniques (e.g. still fishing with live bait which isn't done as frequently anymore), and is quite different than fishing them on Lake O for example for much of the year. Sometimes the data is greatly skewed by a given reporter who allegedly accounts for a large part of the data totals for a given species and presents a question in my mind about the veracity of the data and subsequent interpretation. In short I don't think anyone at present has a real accurate handle on the situation for the Finger Lakes.