In a message dated 12/27/00 9:29:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, scaramouche@tvo.org writes: << First in mud was "Bullwagga" >> Hi George, The Bullwagga! By gar George, that's the same anchor that did very well in sand too! So now I've got a real conundrum. Will I sleep soundly knowing we're stuck to the bottom, or will all that ugliness keep me awake? What, is there some sort of natural law that causes the effectiveness of an anchor to be inversely proportional to its looks? <<it was -17 C here last night and the water is verrry hard.>> Why don't you pitch it all next winter George? Come on down and see us. Cheers, Paul

PBrowne900@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 12/27/00 9:29:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, >scaramouche@tvo.org writes: > ><< First in mud was "Bullwagga" >> George lied! Re-reading the article (Dec.'99) it appears the CQR got top honours in mud and Spade and Bullwagga shared second place. Sorry, must have something to do with frozen braincells. BTW I actually called up the Practical-sailor.com website and found that back articles contain little more info than the headlines and no pictures. Since I don't have web access from my computer, I had to go to a Cybercaf to find that out. Since Cybercafs charge quite dearly, I won't be doing this too often :-) FWIW I would still love to get my hands on a Bullwagga, ugly or not. One or two summers ago I helped tying up a boat in our marina which had a strange looking contraption sitting on the foredeck (there was no way to hang it below the bowsprit). When I questioned the skipper he declared this to be the best darn anchor in his opinion and announced it's called a "Bullwagga", after the lake which is named after the Bullwagga mountain in upstate New York.... Cheers, George