Burning Babies

I've used original Fireline for years on my spinning tackle, with a lot of success. I switched to Fireline Crystal a couple years ago, and so far, I'm finding it more durable. I like Power Pro on my baitcasters, although I usually stick with mono or copolymer on those. I had problems with breakoffs with Spiderwire Invisibraid, and Spiderwire Stealth doesn't seem to get along with the reels I'm using now (although it was fine with an Ambassador C4).

Nice fish. I need to be throwing more senkos right now.

Again, citation please? While the nesting period has been pretty clearly identified as a critical period for bass reproduction, I am not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting the prespawn period as such.

Citation, please? edit; And I think you are out of line for chastising someone for acting within their legal rights. If you have an issue with fishing for prespawn bass in New York, you should take it up with the appropriate regulatory authority. Most US states permit prespawn fishing for bass.

Yeah, I just tie a #10 treble to the jig eye with a short length of mono and a couple trilene knots.

Water sun screen Cell phone / baggie to keep it in in case I go in Rain gear Multi tool 9 mm.

No, I don't. We call those snap swivels in the US; I think Canadians do too. If someone needs to change baits quickly, and can't carry multiple rods, they are much better off with a plain snap than a snap swivel IMO. Most baits don't need the swivel, and I'd prefer to avoid unnecessary hardware encumbering my lure. Further, if you are going to use a snap, use a quality snap like a coastlock or crosslock. And if you truly need a swivel to avoid line twist, you need a ball-bearing swivel. But overall, I strongly prefer a direct knot.

I think you're way overestimating how much of the heavy lifting a quality sonar does for you. The thing is, while you find tons of great looking spots that could potentially hold fish, many (sometimes most) will be unproductive. Sometimes you can see the fish, sometimes they're obscured by the cover. Even when you find fish, there's no guarantee what species they are, or if they're feeding. While sonar opens up a much wider perspective for you on what is going on down there, it also presents you with a lot of difficult decisions to make. I'd avoid knocking things I haven't tried.

We have some older units on our boats at work. Even the bottom shelf models currently available blow them away in terms of accuracy and resolution. I had total confidence in the fish I marked with my $100 Fisheasy that I bought in 2002; I've got almost zero in the old units we work with. More importantly, I could pick up large individual tree limbs and other key habitat features with the Fisheasy.

Mortality rates for bass are usually around 50%. It typically takes northern bass around three years to reach a pound, and several times that to reach 3 lbs. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to remove a large fish to give a few small ones the slim change of replacing it. Couple that with the fact than in many reasonably pressured systems, one pounders outnumber three pounders by a factor of 10 or more, and I don't think that argument makes sense. edit: That's not to say that I have a problem with people keeping the occasional large fish. I think that harvesting fish, including occasional trophies, is an important historical component of the sport. Just don't kid yourself into thinking that taking big ones is likely to benefit the fishery.

Wow, that's quite a series of mishaps. Glad to hear you pulled it out.

Awesome fish, and great pics!

Reeeeaaaallly dangerous situation. Can't say I enjoyed it.

Al Linder: Rainy Lake smallies Kevin VanDam: My home lakes for largemouths Rick Clunn: Lake Champlain for bass

The science doesn't agree with you guys. On an individual scale, sure, a deformed, learning disabled fish could by chance make it through to trophy size. But from a fisheries management standpoint, across the thousands of fish making up a lake's population, the vast majority of big fish will share certain characteristics. Growing fast has a lot of advantages in the fish world (ability to consume larger prey, move faster to escape predators, carry more eggs); the biggest force selecting against big fish is man. Big fish don't get big by chance alone, any more than big people get big by chance. Just off the top of my head, Texas's "Share a Lunker" program is a good example of a management program that is trying to improve the genetic stock of a set of lakes to produce bigger fish.

This summer has been very cool. Even down here, water temperatures are now where near a bass's optimum metabolic level (somewhere around the mid 80's). Being cold blooded, bass's metabolism continues to increase until it surpasses that peak, forcing them to eat more. However, during mid to late summer, a couple of factors influence what the bass are doing. First, there are more prey available now than any other time of year, frequently allowing them to be very selective. And while they do feed a lot, they are able to fill their needs in a very short window of activity. Second, there are often booms in offshore baitfish populations at this time of year, which may lead a large proporiton of the bass to use deeper offshore habitat where they can intercept those large baitfish schools. That assumes prey like shad or smelt are available in they system you fish.

Yeah, I would definately add a few more categories. I started keeping a detailed log this year, with one trip entry page (describing the date, water body, general weather and water temp conditions, etc.) and a second page discussing specifics for each fish caught (depth, water temp, location specifics linked to a map, lure, retrieve, etc). I expect that in a few years, it should be very useful in anticipating seasonal patterns.

My reasons for releasing big fish, in order: Maintaining population structure Maintaining genetic stock Smaller fish taste better Fiberglass reproductions last longer I don't get bent out of shape about someone keeping an occasional big fish however.

All fish have mercury; it is deposited from the atmosphere, and works it's way up the food chain, even in clean lakes. The bigger the fish, the more mercury they bioaccumulate. Just another reason to release the big ones and keep the smaller fish for table fare. That said, the occasional big fish won't kill you. Congrats on a nice catch.

I'll pass. Linder was one of the most influential figures in my formative education as an angler, but these days, it does seem to be all about the Benjamins.

Probably about a week. This year so far, a whopping two days. I'll get a week straight next month.

Great pictures. I wish my first bass was that big.

I've got both a small file and a small stone for regular hooks. Either will provide a razor sharp point. I've also got a special file for muskie hooks made of two cylindrical files. I haven't fully mastered that one, but when I get it right, it can get points sharper than any chemically honed hook I've seen. They're ridiculous.

Actually, while widening the angle of the hook bend reduces penetration by increasing the difference between the direction that you are pulling and the direction the hook point wants to travel. That's why you see Kahle hooks, where the point is curved inward toward the eye (decreasing that difference), but no one makes hooks with the kind of obtuse angle Syn is describing. Widening the overall gap of the hook will help, however.

Agreed. Also, personal benchmarks are just as important as catching a fish of any arbitrary "trophy" size.