www.roanoke.com

This blog has been quiet for the past week because I've been in Bismarck, N.D. for a conference.

When I told people I was going to Bismarck for a conference the first thing they wanted to know was, "Who in their right mind holds a conference in North Dakota?" The Outdoor Writers Association of America, is who. The OWAA traditionally tries to hold conferences in areas where the outdoors are important, and that certainly holds true with Bismarck.

Contrary to the belief of my wife and a number of others, it wasn't a vacation. I spent five days in meetings, seminars and panels, and most nights with planned events. As some of you might have seen in the DGIF's Outdoor Report, I was recently elected to the OWAA's board of directors (thanks to all who have sent congratulations) so that added to my responsibilities, too.

I guess I could have found some time for blog entries on some of the happenings up there -- and I plan to touch on some of the topics. But while the stuff was of interest to me, most of it might not be for others as it was a lot of nuts and bolts-type stuff.

I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having some fun socializing in the evening with friends I get to see but once a year. One night I even broke from my non-gambling form and played some blackjack at the motel bar. They can run the games because all profits go to the local convention and visitor's bureau.

It's a small stakes game, with $1 minimum bets and $25 max bets. I started with $20 in chips and figured to play $1 and $2 bets until I ran out. Amazingly, I didn't run out. When I cashed out after two hours of playing I had $55 in chips, and I'd actually tipped the dealers some, too.

That game provided a couple surreal moments. One, two guys took a bathroom break and found the men's room closed for cleaning. So they knocked on the door and went into the women's bathroom. Well, the woman cleaning the men's room saw this and went ballistic. Next thing we know she's in there with two security guards yelling, "There they are! That's them!" Fortunately the guards, who were straight out of an episode of "Reno 911," agreed to let the perpetrators off with a warning.

Later in the game the guy sitting next to me took a drink of red wine, swallowed down the wrong pipe, coughed and blew his wine all over the dealer and our cards. Amazingly, she let him keep playing after he tipped her generously and helped wipe off the cards.

I did manage to slip in one outdoors adventure, staying an extra day to go prairie dog shooting. It was pretty interesting and I hope to do a story for the paper and post a video here when the story runs.

A couple days I put a little note up under the Quick Thoughts category about e-mail addresses on the comment form. Simply put, I modeled it after the policy in place over on The Roundtable Blog. It simply states that a valid e-mail address is required on the comment submission form.

I didn't think it was that big of deal, but a co-worker has since called it a "rant" and another guy sent in a note claiming I was stifling his 1st ammendment rights. (I think he may have been yanking my chain, but couldn't quite be sure.)

Maybe I'm being too sensitive but this has been bothering me.

I know assumed anonymity (I say "assumed" because, as most of you know, it's pretty easy to track down all but the sneakiest and smartest tech geeks in Cyberspace) is one of the appeals of the Internet. So while some people have no problem posting full names with their comments, many people want their opinions to be seen but don't want those opinions attached to their real names.

I've got no problem with that. It probably helps spur more interesting debate than we'd have if we required, as we do for letters to the editor in the newspaper, a valid name and hometown (and a phone number for verification).

That said, I promise you it's REALLY EASY to post a comment with a valid e-mail and still remain anonymous. As I wrote in the Quick Thought note, the e-mail won't be made public. It won't be accesible to spambots. Etc. Just put "Billy Bob" in the name section and that's what your comment will appear under.

I really don't care who you are. So if your regular e-mail address contains your name and you don't want me (or another site administrator) to see it, it's also REALLY EASY to create a valid e-mail account with any number of services (such as yahoo or gmail) for anonymous posting. Heck, I've done it. After the Nebraska Huskers pulled a trick play on my alma mater while leading by something like 30 points in the second half, I posed as an idiot Nebraska fan and had a lot of fun posting on Husker fan sites.

The fact is, the vast majority of posters here are totally cool with using a legit e-mail address with their comments. So this policy will affect very few people.

Now, it will \probably affect one group -- the animal rights folks who get on here from time to time. They rarely use valid e-mail addresses. I guess they don't trust me to keep the address private. Maybe they're afraid I'm going to form a posse to track them down.

I suspect the requirement will cut down on comments from them, and I have mixed feelings about that because I have to admit that those back-and-forths can be pretty entertaining.

On the other hand, some of the animal rights comments can be pretty outrageous, bordering on personal attacks. I'm not one to stifle free speech, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to at least be willing to take a little responsibility for what they're typing.

So, I guess what I'm wondering is what other folks think about it? Is the policy reasonable? If not, why not?

I could be convinced to go back to the Wild West if someone presents a compelling enough case.

While the vast majority of readers submitting comments to this blog provide valid e-mail addresses on the comment form, a few folks, for whatever reason, insist on providing fake addresses.

The deal is simple: To comment on this blog, a valid e-mail address is required.

I will conduct random checks to ensure that addresses are valid. Be assured, the address you submit on the comment form is not public, and not accessible to spam bots. It will not be used for any other purpose than verification.

Additionally, from time to time this blog touches on some topics on which we have passionate and sometimes divergent views. Debate is fun and productive. Please keep things polite and respectful. Personal attacks won't be allowed.

Obviously, libelous comments are non-starters.

Thanks to all of you for reading, and a special thanks to those of you who take time to comment.

Mark Taylor

When a storm rolled in Saturday while Sean Snyder was bass fishing on the James River, the 34-year-old fisherman from Daleville figured that weather change might get muskies moving.

He stuck with his lightweight gear (8-pound-test) but had the sense to put a steel leader on in front of the big white spinnerbait he chose. It's a good thing because this 44-inch long muskie hammered the lure and the fight was on.

Snyder plans to get the 29-pound fish mounted.

"It's going on my wall," he said.

I've heard of a couple other good muskies pulled recently from area rivers. In one case I even got a picture of another big one, but the sender swore me to secrecy regarding that catch.

Here's a shot of the 29.1-pound flathead catfish I caught Saturday night (actually, Sunday morning at 3:30 a.m.) at Smith Mountain Lake.

I can't take all the credit. My buddy Erich Faber had actually cast out my bait (a live sunfish) a while earlier after reeling it in to keep it from a marauding turtle. He also had to yell to wake me up. And then he had to net the thing. So it was a team effort.

I hope to get back to the lake soon for another catfish trip, although I'm not sure I can hack another all nighter. I'm still recovering from this one.

Saturday night was the annual catfish campout at my buddy's place on Smith Mountain Lake.

He pitches a tent on his dock in the back of the creek (on the Roanoke River) and we pretty much stay up all night fishing.

A couple hours before dark we start catching sunfish to use for bait. Then we cast them out, engage the clickers on our reels and wait.

We didn't have to wait long for action on Saturday. Unfortunately, it usually came from one of these buggers. We must have pulled in close to two dozen. It was brutal. Most managed to swallow the circle hooks so they cost us a bunch of expensive hooks.

We caught only four catfish all night and I have to believe it would have been better had these things not kept bothering our baits.

Does anyone have suggestions for keeping turtles at bay?

I realize that fishing in deeper water would probably help. And maybe we should use a float rig to give the sunfish a little more mobility.

Any other suggestions would be much appreciated.

Despite the bothersome turtles it was still a fun trip. And it actually produced my two biggest cats ever -- a 19-pound flathead and 29-pound flathead. I'll post a picture of the big cat soon.

I spent a couple of hours Tuesday on the James River with Department of Game and Inland Fisheries biologist Scott Smith and fisheries technician Cory Kovacs. They were electroshock sampling as part of their continuing efforts to monitor the fish kill situation in the James and its Jackson and Cowpasture river tributaries. Scientists have yet to determine the cause of the kills, as well as the similar kills the past five years in the Shenandoah system.

\As this picture shows, the findings Tuesday weren't pretty. About a third of the fish shocked up showed some level of illness, mostly in the form of lesions of sores. As you can see from these pictures, some were pretty nasty.

Smith and Kovacs planned to be back on the river at a different site on Wednesday and I haven't heard from them how that went.

If there is good news here, it is that what I saw Tuesday was similar to what I saw on a similar electroshocking trip this time last year. And when it was all said and done, Smith said the estimated mortality on the river last year was about 10 percent.

Considering that natural mortality is probably around 5 percent, that might not seem that bad. Certainly, it could be worse. (Mortality has been thought to hit 80 percent among some species in some sections of the Shenandoah in certain years.)

But that 10 percent adds up. Plus, there's some evidence that suggests that mortality rates may be higher in larger fish.

A lot of speculation and accusations are floating around out there about what might be causing this. Those of us who love the Cowpasture or Jackson or James want to blame someone or something. But there's still no proof. The best thing we can do is keep on top of this, making sure the groups investigating these problems stay on top of the investigation.

Is the team, at the center of which is the specially appointed Shenandoah River Fish Kill Task Force, doing everything it can to solve the mystery? Given the available resources, I think yes. I wish they had more resources, of course.

So do they.

A rock bass with a terrible lesion.

At least during Tuesday's sampling, rock bass showed a higher percentage of sickness than other gamefish species. Almost every white sucker we pulled in seemed to have lesions, although most appeared minor.

Many of the sick fish exhibited sores around their mouths. While it would seem these could come from infected hooking wounds, we couldn't find hook punctures on the fish with mouth sores. Of course, some had such bad lesions it would have been tough to tell if they'd been recently hooked.