RRN Online Volume 312

May 25 '02

Volume 312

Fishing Lines Fishing At Shumula

The first fishing reel I ever owned was a gift from my uncle, Earl Carter. It was one he had used and felt would be a good one for me to learn the technique of bait casting. I believe it was a Pflueger reel, but since I tossed it years ago, I’m no longer certain. The rod, manufactured by Bristol, was unusual in that it was entirely metal except for a cork wrapped handle. I’m sure I didn’t have the only one made, but I’ve never seen another one like it. Through the years, I've managed to keep the metal rod, though it's most often found in a utility room with other rods in need of repair.

The basic principle of the bait casting reel has not changed in the fifty years I’ve been a fisherman. One still uses his or her thumb to control the release of line from the spool as the lure is cast. Too much thumb pressure prevents the lure from being cast as far as desired, but too little pressure often results in a backlash where the line overruns the spool and makes a tangled mess that is difficult to untangle.

My first fishing reel used braided fishing line. A few years later, plastic monofilament line was introduced to anglers, and monafilament has dominated the fishing line industry ever since. However, about three or four years ago, a new braided line was developed that offered superior strength in a diameter rivaling the thinness of monofilament line. One manufacturer produces two or more grades of braided line under the brand names, SpiderWire Fusion and SpiderLine.

I’ve since begun to use the braided line, preferring it to monofilament. My problem with braided line is not so much with it being different from what I’ve used for years as it is in finding the right brand of braided line. This year, as I prepared to assemble extra lures and bought new fishing line for a spring fishing trip, I managed to purchase the wrong line. It was not as expensive as I had remembered, but I paid a heavy price in lost lures and fish.

Twenty-pound test line should not break when fighting a three-pound bass. Neither should it break while attempting to loosen a snagged fishing lure from a tree branch. On Friday, the biggest fish that I had strike my fishing lure was able to break it easily, taking my last devils horse lure with it. Earlier, I had lost a similar lure to a smaller fish that also broke my line.

I’ve had a number of persons ask about our fishing trip to Alabama. Several folks have expressed amazement that we caught approximately five hundred bass between one and six pounds and released all of them.

My daughter exclaimed, "You could have fed them to everyone at the July 27^th cookout and had fish left over, and you wouldn’t have to buy any."

In explaining to others, that I didn’t really need a mess of fish, several informed me I could have given them some of the fish.

The property owners had first asked us to release all we caught, but they later said we could keep the small fish. Yet, I maintain that sport-fishermen can have a great time catching fish and returning them to the water as soon as they are caught.

Thursday afternoon's fishing was definitely the best I've experienced in a long time. I fished with Lee Gordon while Jim Hess and Gordon Sansing teamed in another boat. Lee had told me to bring plenty of plastic worms, which I did, but I don't like to fish with worms. I'd rather use crankbaits or spinner baits. So, while Lee caught fish after fish with a worm, I persisted in using a new spinner bait. I did not catch as many fish as Lee, but I didn't lag far behind.

Since it appeared the fish weren't particular about the lure type, I decided to try my hand at a top-water bait. For me, fishing for bass using top-water lures is the ultimate fishing experience, especially if the bass are hitting the surface lures. There's an excitement in seeing a bass attack a lure on the surface or in watching it come out of the water and dive headlong onto the lure. It's an excitement unmatched by other bass fishing methods.

I selected a Devils Horse top-water lure and began catching fish almost immediately. Within the hour, Lee switched from using a worm to fishing with a top-water lure, too. We didn’t catch a fish on every cast, but there were plenty of strikes to make things interesting. In the closing hours of the afternoon we snatched a dozen bass each weighing two or more pounds from a hole approximately ten feet in diameter, all within about a ten-minute timeframe.

In all the years I've fished, I don't recall a more exciting afternoon of fishing.

Both Friday and Saturday were good fishing days, but neither was comparable to Thursday afternoon. On Friday, we swapped fishing partners with Jim and Lee fishing in one boat and Gordon and me in the other. Our intent was to share Lee, but somehow Gordon and I forgot about the exchange program and fished together the remainder of the week.

As a team, Gordon and I did very well. He caught fish with worms and crankbaits and I caught fish with spinner baits and top-water baits.

At our lunch break from fishing on Friday, we drove from the lake to the nearby country home of Toxey & Diane Haas. They were concerned that four men fishing on their property might possibly need a bathroom and had told Lee the house would be available. Lee advised the generous owners that guys could make do in the wilderness but that we might enjoy eating lunch on the spacious front porch with porch swing and cane wrapped rockers.

Gordon and I were the first to enter the house to wash our hands before eating. Once inside I took a left turn and found a bathroom at the north end of the house. After washing up, it occurred to me that a large house must have more than one bath, so I searched for it and found it not more than ten feet from the front door. Exiting the second bathroom, I began to walk toward the front door, when something sprang out directly in front of me. Having just spent the prior night in a "haunted" house, I was still a little edgy.

It took a few seconds for me to absorb what was happening. The creature-like being blocking my path to the front door writhed and screamed in a ghostly manner and would have passed for human except for the oversized headpiece shaped like a baseball with cutouts for eyes and mouth. In the dimly lit hallway, Gordon Sansing, had some fun at my expense. About the time I recognized him in his garb, he erupted in laughter and stopped his scary act. He later explained he had found the mask while searching for a bathroom and had put it on and leaped onto the front porch in a attempt to startle Lee and Jim. According to Gordon, those two suggested he scare me. Well, it almost worked.

From a fishing perspective, the afternoon was fun filled. Gordon and I set a new team record, boating four consecutive doubles. A double is when two fishermen both have a fish on-line at the same time and both get their fish into the boat. In times of good fishing, that's not uncommon, but to have a double happen consecutively four times with no singles between the doubles is significant.

We fished until just past noon on Saturday before departing our separate ways. The fishing was poorest Saturday, of the three days we were there, and a change in the weather probably had more to do with that fact than did any sore jaws the fish may have had from the prior two days. Yet, even though the fish were less active Saturday, the morning was not disappointing as we continued to have fun fishing.

I've tried to put into perspective the enjoyment we shared, but it's not been an easy task. Perhaps, I stated it best in summing up my impressions to Lee Gordon on our first afternoon at Shumula, "If there are fishing lakes in Heaven do you think it's possible for the fishing to be better?"

Carter Castro & Bush Playing Politics

Generally speaking, I have been very pleased with the George W. Bush presidency. In my view, he handled the September 11 crisis admirably, though efforts to eradicate Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network have been less than entirely successful. However, I knew any military action to counter terrorism would be a protracted struggle and not something that would be speedily resolved.

Former President Jimmy Carter recently visited Cuba. We were told he became the first U. S. president, past or sitting, to visit Cuba since before WWII. The former president issued an appeal to both the United States and Cuba to embrace reform in their present relationship. As most individuals know, the U.S. imposed a trade embargo against Cuba slightly more than forty years ago.

As I understand it, we did so to force Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, to allow free elections in Cuba and to convince him of his error in establishing a communist form of government. In a state televised speech, on Cuban soil, the former U.S. President, speaking in Spanish, asked Cuba’s leader to free all political prisoners, guarantee free elections, and in general lay the foundation for Cuba to move toward a democratic form of government. Our former president also called upon the United States to lift the trade embargo as a good will gesture toward more normal relations with Cuba.

It seemed a fair deal to me. President Bush was less excited and publicly expressed that the present embargo would continue. I admit that I’m neither a student of politics nor diplomacy, but I’ve learned a thing or two about dealing with people who are disagreeable. I also know if there is a problem to be solved and if one proposed solution doesn’t work it’s okay to try another one.

President Bush is smart enough to realize when a forty-year old embargo has done little to effect the desired change it’s then time to try another solution. That he chooses to continue the embargo leads me to conclude that common sense got in the way of politics and politics won. Instead of working with the olive branch extended to Castro by former President Carter, President Bush has trampled it.

If it is our goal to establish a democratic society in Cuba and to resume normal trade relations, then we have failed miserable, again. If it is President Bush’s goal, by maintaining the embargo, to help his brother win the support of Cuban nationals living in Florida thus insuring the governorship of Florida remains Republican, perhaps he will be successful in this regard. However, the greater good for both Cuba and the U.S. may not be served by this action.

The Land Of Israel A Question Of Ownership

Powell Prewett passed along the following article, and since problems with a lasting peace in the Middle East seem endless, I thought some readers might find this interesting.

The lengthy article, written by Dr. David R. Reagan will be continued in the next issue of RRN.

"To whom does it belong? The answer is really very simple. God gave the land of Israel to Abraham (Genesis 17:8) and to his descendants through Isaac (Genesis 26:2-5) and Jacob (Genesis 28:1-4,13-14).

That means the land belongs to the descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. In other words, the land belongs to the children of Israel, referred to in the New Testament as the Jews (Romans 1:16).

Some immediately protest this claim by arguing that the Abrahamic Covenant has been abrogated either by the Cross or by the disobedience of the Jews. But the Bible clearly teaches that the Abrahamic Covenant is an everlasting one that is in effect (Genesis 17:7; 1 Chronicles 16:17-18; Psalm 105:8-11; and Romans 9:4).

As to the effect of the Jew's rejection of Jesus, Paul specifically addresses his question in Romans 3. He asks a rhetorical question: "What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?" For almost two thousand years the Church has answered this question with a resounding, Yes! But Paul answers it differently. He says, "May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar. . ."(Romans 3:1-4).

Further, Paul states in Romans 11 that the disobedience of the Jews has not nullified the promises of God to them, "for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29).God's promises are going to be fulfilled to a believing remnant (Romans 9: 27). In fact, in Romans 9:4, Paul specifically states that God's promises to the Jews are still valid.

Two Land Covenants - What most people do not know is that there are two Old Testament covenants pertaining to the land of Israel. The Abrahamic Covenant gives the title of the land to the Jews in perpetuity. A later covenant, the Mosaic Land Covenant -- or Canaan Covenant -- of Deuteronomy 28-30 defines the conditions for possession and enjoyment of the land.

This latter covenant is often referred to as the "Palestinian Covenant," but that is a misnomer, for the land was never called Palestine until after the second Jewish revolt in 132 - 135 A.D. At that time the Romans dubbed it "Palestine" to erase the memory of its Jewish heritage and to insult the Jews, for Palestine is the Latin word for Philistine, the ancient enemy of Israel.

Let me illustrate the role and relationship of these two covenants with a modern day example. Let's say you buy a car for a child of yours and put the title in the child's name. But you explain to the child that there are conditions for using the car -- such as no speeding. And you warn your child that a speeding ticket will result in the loss of the privilege of driving the car for a period of two weeks. If the child gets a ticket and you lock the car up in the garage for two weeks, the car still belongs to the child because the child's name is on the title. But the child has temporarily lost possession of the vehicle.

In like manner, the Abrahamic Covenant (about 2,000 B.C.) gave the title of the land to the Jews for eternity. The Canaan Covenant (about 1250 B.C.) defined the terms for possession and use of the land. Title and possession are not the same thing. The Jews have lost possession of the land from time to time, but they have never lost their God-given title.

The Canaan Covenant - The Land Covenant promised that Israel would become the prime nation of the world if the Jews were obedient to God (Deuteronomy 28:1,13). But the covenant warned that many curses would befall the people if they were disobedient (Deuteronomy 28:15-37), including exile from the land (Deuteronomy 28:38-57). The covenant warned further that if temporary exile did not restore the Jews to obedience, they would suffer worldwide dispersion and persecution (Deuteronomy 28:58-68). But nowhere are they told that their disobedience would lead to a loss of their title to the land.

In fact, the Land Covenant ends in chapter 30 with a prophecy and a promise that a day will come -- after the Jews have experienced the curses of the covenant -- when the Lord will restore them to their land once again:

The Lord will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. -- Deuteronomy 30:3-5

For almost 1900 years the Jews wandered among the nations and suffered severe persecution, just as prophesied in Deuteronomy 28. During that time, their land became desolate as prophesied in Deuteronomy 29. But in this century, God has re-gathered them from the four corners of the earth, re-established them in their land, and transformed their land from wilderness to milk and honey -- as prophesied in Deuteronomy 30.

The only prophecy left to be fulfilled in the Land Covenant is the spiritual salvation of the gathered remnant (Deuteronomy 30:6-8). That will occur soon when they repent and accept Yeshua as their Messiah.

The Abrahamic and Land Covenants make it clear that the Jewish people have both the right to the land of Israel and the right to be back in it today.

The Arab Covenant - Where does this leave the Arabs? As descendants of Abraham's son, Ishmael, they too have a promise, but it is not a land promise. The covenant God made with Ishmael had to do with the number of his descendants. Ishmael was promised that his descendants would be "multiplied exceedingly" (Genesis 17:20).

God has faithfully kept His promise to the descendants of Ishmael. Today there are 21 Arab states with a combined population of 175 million Arabs. There is only one Jewish state with a population of 5 million. The Arab states contain 5.3 million square miles of oil rich land. Israel has only 8 thousand square miles of land with no major oil reserves that have been discovered. That's a population ratio of 43 to 1 and a land ratio of 662 to 1!

The Palestinian Claim - But what about the Palestinian people? Don't they deserve a state? Keep in mind first of all that a Palestinian state never existed prior to this century. From 70 A.D. to 1948 the geographical area known as Palestine was never an independent state nor did the Arabs residing there have any consciousness of themselves as a separate nation of people. They regarded themselves as Syrians. Also, keep in mind that Jerusalem has never served as the capital of any Arab nation, whereas it has been considered the capital of the Jewish people since 1000 B.C.

Also noteworthy is the fact that when the West Bank and Gaza were under Jordanian autonomy from 1948 to 1967, there was not any effort to create a separate Palestinian state. The PLO was formed during that time, not for the purpose of creating a Palestinian State, but rather for the purpose of exterminating the Jewish State.

Equally important is the fact that a Palestinian state already exists -- and it is four times larger than Israel! The Palestinian state is Jordan. In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British originally promised all of the Palestinian Mandate to the Jews as a national homeland. But in 1922 they broke that promise by using 77% of the Mandate to create the Arab state of Jordan. Today that state's population is 75% Palestinian."

To be continued…

Bodock Beau Rest Park Annoyance

Cell phones are changing our lives more than most of us realize. Do you realize we can talk to anyone almost anywhere at almost anytime of the day or night? In restaurants, theaters, and community gatherings, cell phones are particularly annoying for some of us, and the more courteous among us turn them off. Others don't seem to care who they disturb or where they use a cell phone. Consider the following case in point.

Rest Park Annoyance

I was traveling down the interstate when I had to make a pit stop at a Rest Park.

The first toilet stall was occupied, so I went into the second one. I was no sooner seated than I heard a voice from the next stall say, "Hi, how are you doing?"

Well, I am not the type to chat with strangers and especially under those conditions, and I really don't know quite what possessed me, but I answered, "Not bad."

And the stranger said, "And, what are you up to?"

Talk about your dumb questions! I was really beginning to think this was too weird!

So I said, "Well, just like you I am driving South"

Then, I heard the stranger get all upset and say, "Look, I'll call you right back, there is some idiot in the next stall answering all the questions I am asking you. Bye!"

Submitted by Bob Jackson

Construction Workers

This is a heart warming story about the bond formed between a little girl and some construction workers. This makes you want to believe in the goodness of people and believe there is hope for the human race.

A young family moved into a house next door to a vacant lot. One day a construction crew turned up to start building a house on the empty lot. The young family's 6-year-old daughter naturally took an interest in all the activity going on next door and started talking with the workers. She hung around and eventually the construction
crew, gems-in-the-rough, all of them, more or less adopted her as a kind of project mascot. They chatted with her, let her sit with them while they had coffee and lunch breaks, and gave her little jobs to do here and there to make her feel important. At the end of the first week they even presented her with a pay envelope containing a dollar.

The little girl took this home to her mother who said all the appropriate words of admiration and suggested that they take the dollar pay she had received to the bank the next day to start a savings account. When they got to the bank the teller was equally impressed with the story and asked the little girl how she had come by her very own pay check at such a young age.

The little girl proudly replied, "I've been working with a crew building a house all week."

"My goodness gracious," said the teller, "and will you be working on the house again this week, too?"

She replied "I will if those useless sons of bitches at the lumber yard ever bring us any drywall that's worth a s_ _ _."

Contributed by Kenneth Gaillard

Home