So what's up with everybody bagging on STS, the RT/paint issue aside. Give me a break. Go subscribe to National Geo. or Scientific American if you want your mag precisely edited. Sure, they make editing goofs at STS and sometimes it raises a stink from the humorless. I suppose it could have a little something to do with the editor also being a steelhead and salmon junkie.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I was nearly getting a woodrow reading Herzog's article on the 30 lb'ers and seeing the accompanying photos. That's some great sh!t, and you're not getting it from Field & Stream. If you wanted to edit STS to death, you could. But STS is a magazine that publishes articles from guys like us, as well as established outdoor writers. Do you want a magazine that turns its nose up at you because you're not Bill Herzog? (sorry, Bill ). Of course Zog and Vedder and Ramsey and those legendary guys get top billing because they're good writers as well as skilled fishermen. But I also want to hear from skilled anglers who may not be Ernest Hemmingway.

You can bag on STS if you want, just don't try swiping mine before I get a chance to read it. If you're all wound up about editing, call Nick up and complain. I'm going to call him up and tell him his magazine kicks a$$ on anything else out there, and that anybody complaining just isn't catching enough fish. I think STS is a pretty good read for 20 bucks a year. I enjoy it as much now as when I was scouring STS for tips, hints, and gear info.