Steve

well, you won't find much info on the search, as many people don't do what you are looking to do... however, have no worries, I do.... When I was reading your post from the top, immediately I had a couple rods in my mind...until I read the bottom, and you said the word muskie. That really limits your options. I have a St Croix Premiere (read, not expensive) Heavy Action Spinning rod that is 3/4 ounce to 2 ounce. Dad had used it slop bass fishing. It would control a "kawartha" or other sub 45" muskie. If you truly think your going to find muskies even bigger than that, you can get into a Shimano Compre Muskie Spinning Rod. But those things are super stiff and wouldn't work for anything else you suggested above. To be honest, I use a great G Loomis IMX 4 power spinning rod (844 model). It would do everything you suggested EXCEPT the muskie part. For that I would suggest the St Croix Premiere Heavy Action rod (that model also has an extra heavy spinning rod....another broomstick). For reels you going to want to get into a 4000 sized reel. I use the 4000 Shimano Ci4's for a lot of uses. For your use, I'd go with a 50lbs braid. Fill'er up and your good to go. Hope this helps. Don't let folks tell you a spinning outfit cannot be used for your purpose. You just have ensure your using the right spinning rod.

clarkson is pure garbage. he'll continue to be pure garbage. he had one decent season prior to going with the Leafs. Go through his past and show me a second good season he had. good ridden.

core player? who? did I miss something?

that's fine. they have tons of money to pay a couple extra salaries. i mean we paid for owen nolan to fish, we paid for komisarek to sit on his arse, we paid for tucker ... well, you get the idea.

well, he's on long term right now, so no cap hit currently. if he comes back, than it essentially is a switch - crapson for horton (i mean, how can horton be any worse). but as long as he's on the long term, his contract isn't on our cap.

clarkson is fugging gone!!!!! oh joy oh joy. aweseom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Have a look at the link I provided earlier in this thread. It is from tackletour. There are over 700 people who responded to the question "what hand do you reel with". The pole currently it sits at 58% Left and 42% Right. I believe it is a misconception that there are more people who reel with their right than their left. When I worked at a tackle shop for 3 years we sold more left handed bait casters than right.

interesting stats on the weights. no wonder I don't see the weight savings between a 5 ounce reel and a 7 ounce reel (bass reels). i would never have guessed the 500 tekota and 600 tekota weigh what they do. I can only imagine what my tekota 700 and 800 weighs loaded with 300' and 400' sections of copper, lol. 70 ounces, lol.

not really into ice fishing, but sweet largie in your avatar!!

cardiff's are pure junk. watched two fall apart (literally) one cold December Quinte trip.

ahhh, ok raf, makes sense. i'm used to feeling like the 500 is small, likely cause I have a million 600 tekota's, as well as a few 700's and one 800. those are big! 6500 c3 was a great beginner reel for me. but like was already said on here, DO NOT buy a c4. it won't reel in the bait, never mind a muskie, lol.

why not buy a new tekota 500 and use that. it'll handle everything a muskie can throw at it, including the largest muskie baits. its about $240. you didn't even mention it in all your options (which are all very good btw). just curious why you wouldn't suggest a tekota? (yes, I understand the common tekota's ones around here are line counters, but you can certainly still cast with a line counter). if you're going to be fishing into "freezing season", which many muskie anglers do, stay away from Okuma. They don't like the cold ... at all.

12 year old boxer. wow. don't hear many of those!

when it was looked into further, the majority of anglers who cast with their right hand, switching the rod into their left hand, and then reeling with their right hand, started using baitcasters when left handed baitcasters weren't available. simply put, they learned to cast and reel with their right hand because there weren't many alternate options available. those who are right handed, and started using baitcasters when left handed options were available, more often then not use a left handed baitcaster and cast with their dominant right arm.

Have a look at this thread. http://forums.tackletour.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=29932 703 anglers have responded to date. Now, this is tackletour, a lot of tackle junkies...so the data may be skewed against the "average angler". However, with that said, 58% of anglers reel with their left hand....

how many years since Ottawa won the cup ---- errr, oh wait, nevermind.

congrats Casey Ashley!!!

before sponsors ruled the water, the bassmaster classic had much better rules. the contestants didn't know what lake they were going to until up in the air, on the way to the lake. each contestant used the exact same boat and motor. each contestant used the exact same amount of weight of tackle. there was no prefishing there was no "buying guide info" from locals who are allowed to fish while the contestants are not. but today, sponsors need to be shown. they need to make their money. as such, the anglers are slaves to the sponsors. oh well, still fun to watch.....

i'm assuming you are talking ice out, early spring time?

one things I find funny is all the "real" fans rip on the business folks cause we aren't real fans. last game I was at, the box I was in, didn't contain any boo's, nor did we cheer for them to lose. that appears only from the "real" fans. something to think about. I watched the Leafs last night, hoping to see them win, wanting them to score that last goal to tie things up.... The so called "real" fans are often the further from the real fans.

funny, but remarkably accurate. pro bass fishing IS nascar on water. right down to the silly "uniforms" and wrapped boats. i thought the the article was very good.

its possible. However, the design of an insurance policy is to act as a stand alone contract. There are many words clearly defined in your insurance policy already. if the intent of the policy was to define a "roadway" as per the definition in the HTA, I think the policy would define it specifically. either way, gotta love the clarity of an insurance policy

so I'm a geek. I had to take this one step further. So if your "in motion" your not covered by comp if you go through the ice (at my company). Next step was to read the fine print on the collision coverage. The best I can derive is, if you "hit" something that causes you to go through the ice (ie, a pressure crack), your collision coverage from my company would respond. Or so it reads. However, it appears that if you go through the ice, but not as a result of a collision with an object on or in a "roadway", your not covered under your collision coverage. Now, my companies policy does not define a "roadway" in the policy (as far as I could see). BUT, your company might. If your company defines a roadway specifically, you might lose this coverage option. I'm quite sure if a policy defined a "roadway" that definition would not include driving on a frozen water body. I know I didn't provide any concrete answers. That wasn't my intent. My intent was to show how important it is to get your questions and answers (using scenarios like I have described above) in writing.....

ok, so I just read my companies auto comprehensive form. at my company, if you are driving and go through the ice - your comprehensive coverage will not respond. if the vehicle is parked, and goes through the ice, and you have comprehensive coverage - you will be covered. I'm not naming my company as I don't want anyone who is insured with us to take my word as gospel. My point is, you see how easy it is to get a detail confused. One person could say, I'm insured with ABC Insurance Inc (my company for example) and I'm covered on the ice. Another person could say, hey, I'm Insured with them, and think they are covered as well. Well the second person was driving on the ice, go through, and not be covered, while the first was parked, and then in turn, covered. fun eh!

What you meant to say is, all risk coverage is called all risk coverage for a reason. However, "broad form / all risk" coverage actually means everything is covered to start, but then exclusions are presented to reduce the broad form, all risk coverage. The other option is called "named perils coverage". In this case, only perils that are "named" are covered, nothing else. Broad form / all risk coverage sounds nice, until you read the list of exclusions. Although Broad form / all risk coverage does provide more coverage than "named perils" coverage, I believe Named Perils coverage is easier to understand. Named Peril form of coverage doesn't contain a million exclusions and does not require a lawyer to figure out the intent of the exclusions. If the peril is listed, you are covered for it. Not, "you are covered for everything" - except what is excluded, which is what broad form / all risk coverage is.