Paul Roberts

I see. Looks similar. Pretty sure mine are Arkie's. Nice skirt on that one. I like ***'s Texas Craw color too. But the Arkie's I used were all brown. Bass ate 'em. Guess I'm more sophisticated now, having upgraded to various layered colors and nifty trailers. I bet the bass haven't changed all that much though lol. I still have a bunch of Mango's with black with red flake skirts. I hate that color but the bass don't have any such issues with 'em.

Hmmmm...it was N of the "Company Pond" -forget what company. No fence then, but we did tend to night fish it a lot lol. It's open to fishing now, last I knew, and I was shocked that it was entirely flooded from beaver activity. Used to be able to walk all around it -with cobble shorelines. Ahhhh yes...it was an Arkie -not a Stanley. Was a Stanley a "banana head"? Bah Golly! I don't remember.

Strange since we were throwing Stanley jigs back in 1972 & it was called Jig-N-Pigs Guess I started using those Stanley's about 1980 -still have a bunch. I thought I started that craze! ;D You know, I used them sans trailer (jig no pig) and they caught bass pretty well that way. If Francho drops in... This happens to be the pond just north of Bosch, about '83, before the beavers came in to it. It was very different then. Notice I wasn't wearing waders.

Can't add too much either. Except to say the Rage craw chunk is my favorite plastic skirted jig trailer. It has great action and is more durable than many other craw trailers (I hate it when claws are torn off). Add to that, Big-O is a gentlemen. As to winter: Subtle isn't necessarily always what you want in winter. Action is fine, just not much horizontal speed. Didn't think about the Rage used this way. Hmmmmm.... maybe a split Rage craw to get a single tail -a Rage grub, fished with short pumps, like a blade bait. Hmmmmm...

Congrats X3. You don't by any chance have a pic of inside the fish's mouth do you??

Congrats! And welcome.

Roger pretty much covered it. But...I've gotta gripe a little... A "jig head" is lead in various configurations molded to a hook. You can put almost anything on one. Together they are a "jig". When the "rubber-leg" material came out in the 80s it became very popular on a jig head, to the point that the most common "jig" used for bass now is skirted. Prior to 1980, the term "bass jig" referred to bucktail for the body. Now it's a skirt. But you can put anything on a jig, including worms. This is not new either, and back then they were called "jigworms". The "Shaky-head" is a jig head configured to fish a worm T-rigged or Texsposed, thus the long shank hook and various ways of holding the worm's nose. Then came the idea of getting the worm to stand up, so various lead molds were designed to get the head to stand up. Problem is, as Rolo mentions, is most worms simply fall over regardless of the head shape. What you are left with is...a jigworm. Now...if you want to go Shaky the way it's imagined (but doesn't have to be to catch the heck out of bass) -that is, standing up -then you have to use a worm that will float to begin with. Rolo offers some that will do the trick. Harrumph! Call me an old curmugeon with a burdock n his drawers. ;D

I don't think that bass learn to avoid lures. I think all bass either completely ignore, refuse, or are actually frightened by artificials most of the time. Lotsa research out there showing bass become MUCH harder to catch after gaining experience with anglers. Also, have you ever fished a pond that had never been fished? It's VERY different from one that is fished. The result is a lot more bass that "completely ignore, refuse, or are actually frightened by artificials most of the time."

Bass do learn to avoid anglers and lures. But, I'm going to suggest that the bait monkey is not your best bet. Instead, I'd say that timing is most important. There are times when bass are most vulnerable to being duped. Capitalize on the conditions, locations, and positions when bass are vulnerable. Probably the biggest factor is water and sky conditions. Take advantage of low light: time of day, clouds, chop, water color, all help -a lot. Also, there are patterns/scenarios that will develop you can recognize. They might relate to water conditions, vegetation changes, or preyfish activity. If you pay attention there are LOTS of things you can take advantage of. Keep a log and you'll see the same stuff come around again. Here are a few examples to get you thinking and watching: 1. Ponds usually have certain shorelines that offer a hunting advantage to bass. One I have made good use of is shorelines with a small (2ft) but sharp drop at shore. Bass corral 'gills here and are vulnerable to a lure. Other shorelines are too gradual in slope and 'gills can escape into water too shallow for the bass. Couple this with good lighting conditions and you will make your day right then and there. 2. In some of my ponds filamentous algae grows dense enough by early summer that it breaks free of bottom and gets blown to windward shores. At times, affected by which shoreline it blows onto and sometimes heating of immediate shallows, bluegills and bass will stack up under the algae, often times in only a foot of water. 3. By late May in some of my ponds. damselflies emerge in numbers large enough to draw mature bluegills into the vegetation beds and shoreline cover the damsels emerge from. The larger bass are in there with them. As a long-time fly-fisherman I'm pretty hip to seeing insect emergences and the effects they have on the food chain. A feeding bluegill is a distracted bluegill. Bass know this. 4. I take advantage of the bluegill spawn. There are usually crowds of bass outside 'gill colonies and they are vulnerable to an appropriate well-placed lure. Believe it, even if you can't see them. Find the biggest 'gills, you'll find the biggest bass. 5. I watch for vulnerable individuals. If I see a bass chase prey I get a lure there -immediately. Sometimes I just see a 'gill bolt into the shallows near me. That means there's an aggressive bass very close believe it and move fast. An aggressive bass is as close to a stupid bass as there is (except for maybe a naive aggressive bass). This 20" LM chased a 'gill to my feet. I didn't see the bass but the 'gill was obviously in a panic. I made a short pitch with a jerkbait and ... 6. Get to know individual bass. Some of the largest bass in my ponds have places they habitually go. This changes a bit as things change over the season, but you can get to know fish and be in position to catch them. This "Mama" (that's what I called her) used a particular weedline (edge of a slight bar) and was susceptible to certain lures under low light.

No such thing anymore, where I live. Except for fly-fishing shops, it's all chain stores. I have no loyalty. Closest thing to Mom&Pop niche stores with expertise as well as products are various online entities. ***, ***, and others are examples of such outfits that have taken on this role. I also like some manufacturers sites too.

Agree. Not to stir things up. I can see the argument that scales and conditions rarely allow for perfect accuracy. But...George Perry's scale didn't either. What we a recording are not bass, but weights via scales. All we have are imperfect scales and imperfect conditions. A "certified scale" should count. Also, does the 2oz rule apply to yellow perch and tarpon? Without knowing the details of the reasoning, I feel Kurita is due the record.

Bass fishing's different in that we don't have to produce completely artificial fish farms for them. But I do remember having access to highly managed ponds that had never been open to angling. And the bass would strike anything. You feel sorta silly after awhile. BUT...I never did have the chance to educate those fish over time lol. I had a spot on a trout river in NY my friends and I dubbed the "fish in a barrel hole". If we had to resort to fishing it we all felt a bit sheepish. It was a very last resort and mostly we didn't fish it.

I disagree. I feel like I've accomplished something more when I catch a 18" wild Brown Trout, in its natural habitat, than when I catch some genetically mutated 5 lb. Rainbow trout in a stocked pond. And trust me, the wild Brown Trout is much more challenging. I do agree that in bass fishing bigger is always better, but that isn't the case with every species. Genetically mutated in a stocked pond? Okay, well I guess I wasn't thinking about bizzare scenarios like that. The point I'm trying to make is that everything is relative. I feel like you and others who say numbers are more important are kidding yourselves. You can prove me wrong very easily. Just tell me that when you're fishing for wild brown trout you'd rather catch 12 wild brown trout in the 12-16 inch range, than you would ONE 40 inch wild brown trout at some point during the day, and thats that. Same with the steroid genetically mutated pond. If you happen to one day get the itch to go to said pond, and you can tell me you'd rather catch 13 genetically mutated 17 inch fish or ONE 49 inch genetically mutated fish, then once again, that's that and i'll believe you prefer numbers over weight. I just can't see how that's possible to want to catch numbers over a potential state record sized monster. Either way, to each his/her own and I hold nothing against you numbers guys. If there are truely any numbers guys out there. First, read the entire post. It wasn't talking about bass, but all too common artificial fish farms being passed off as quality fishing. As if pounds cure all ills, and bring satisfaction. Satisfaction varies with species, location, timing, and especially, with angler experience. I think the point of the post, as I read it (and from shared experience), as it pertains to all fishing, is that numbers of any kind don't necessarily make quality fishing. I think where this thread came from is a person who's recognizing that there's more to fishing than numbers of any sort, much less a screaming drag. This is someone who isn't going to be proud of a hand fed fish from a stocked pond where the 6 year old (or 60 yr old novice) standing next to him "accomplished" the same thing. He's more apt to talk excitedly about a 14inch wild brook trout from a little headwater crick he found, caught, and subdued. Hey, maybe he really gets onto those biggest (or even the not-so-biggest) brookies in that particular system, and learns to catch them with some regularity. He's earned that place, and is rightfully proud if it. You can imagine what a insult it would be for another angler to attempt to talk mere "pounds" in front of him -to tell him about the 4lb (hand-fed stocked) trout they caught in a pond, or the 6lb wild brookie caught (bought) in Labrador -where a travel agent and fishing guide did the vast majority of the work. If that angler can look the first in the eye and fail to recognize the latter's accomplishments, then he's not earned respect as an angler in my book. The numbers mean squat there. In my own experiences, the most satisfying fish I've found in given systems were not always the biggest. Some were more challenging than others. along this line I know a guy who has taken many large bull elk with traditional archery gear, yet his biggest challenge has been in the taking of a calf. No antlers! Imagine that! what are you gonna BRAG with?? LOL I used to fish for lake run trout on small 'cricks' with light fly-tackle, purposely targeting fish in the 14 to 18 inch range. There could be much larger trout there too. But being tethered to a 12lb trout on a 4wt wand was not all that much fun. Now, give that 12lber some running room and me a 7wt or better rod and I'm a happy guy. On the little cricks though, I wouldn't even cast to such a fish. In general we're in agreement. But I just wanted to expand on what I think the original poster brought, and something that resonates with me very much. Must be something to do with those spotted fish. As to 40inch trout and 13lb bass, I'm hearing a lot of exaggeration there. But I get your point. With bass I'll usually cast to the 20"er before the 15"er.

You have a good point! For me it's the technique, I want the biggest on the lightest spinning or fly(kings are bait and wait, not my desired way of fishing). Exactly. For me it's technique too. And all types of fish and fishing offer challenges. Beyond that,or maybe beneath it, lies my intense and unabashed love for the natural world, which I cannot find in a fish farm -going back to the original post. In keeping with the original post--You have a choice to fish: 1). A 50acre man-made pond regularly stocked with factory rainbow trout. They have warped fins and are easy to catch. They average 5lbs (22") with some reaching 12lbs (28+"). Natural foods will not maintain such a fishery, so they have to supplemented. 2). 8 miles of wild trout stream that encompasses flat meadows, forest, a canyon, and beaver ponds. The brook trout in this water average about 8" with top brookies hitting around 14". The rainbows average about 13" with top fish around 18". The browns average about 13" too, but there are some over 20" (3+lbs). There are three over 25" (6+lbs). #1 is easy to make, relatively easy to maintain, easily drawing paying "anglers" virtually guaranteed BIG fish. Don't forget your camera! In #2 novice anglers would be hard pressed to have much real success on. Success here requires knowledge, understanding, skill, and ingenuity. It's riches are just not easy to realize. Which would you find most satisfying, after the first day? After the 10th day? After that?

Lucking into a fish doesn't float my boat either -big or not. I'm into personal growth, which does not REQUIRE big fish.

I don't own any BPS rods, but I've had rods from many makers and prices that I liked. There are so many good rods out there over a wide price range. But if I had $200 to spend (and have) I would be apt to choose a name rod. $200 is an investment in my mind. $40 is just a rod -and there are decent sticks out there at the low end.

Agree with you 100%. What you describe are captive fish in a pretend fishery. Akin to antlers grown for bragging rights in a fenced hunt. A step above a computer game. The trout J Francho is showing is another thing altogether -it's neither indigenous, nor streambred (although some of those are), but its had several years in the wild, and has a complex life history pattern that has the potential to reach completion. A challenging and wonderful fishery. The alternative (the fish farm) is ...as J put it...boring. How'd you do that John! Put it in one word LOL. Luckily we don't have to be concerned with this with bass. Although we could always split hairs, and probably will. I'm something of a hair splitter -looking for both challenge and beauty in my time outdoors. That's why I've found myself trout fishing mostly with fly-tackle, and do virtually all my hunting now with primitive/traditional archery gear I've made myself. Its about satisfaction, and for me, it's just not found by the easiest, or even most effective, route.

The kind of red I'm talking about is brilliant scarlet red. Looks like you had a cloudy day on that pic though. Still it's quite different from your last pic of the uncolored one. Keep lookin' all. Would be nice to see this over a latitudinal range. Will southern fish get as red as northern fish?

Ditto. You are one of 'em Brian. Of course, you'd have to be able to stand a day with a partner asking, "But Why...!" all the time. You might then just steer me to Rick Clunn. ;D

Got the feeling it wouldn't phase him one iota. It's all marketing -that's putting a really nice spin on it. Simply lying is probably more accurate. Fishing a plain jighead is not the problem either -cool challenge. But...it's the deception that riles me. If he had tested the same color jighead WITHOUT attractant, run up some numbers on both --bed fish or not-- he'd actually have offered something of interest. But that's not likely his intention. And if he did read this and offer another "experiment", I wouldn't trust his results. His credibility is already gone in my book. I now have a good reason to remember his name.

I used the Albright for fly-fishing applications a lot -good knot. And I like the look of this "Alberto" variation -pretty nifty. Haven't tried it though. For mono to braid with conventional gear I originally used the double Uni's, but have since (couple of seasons now) found the J-Knot to be MUCH faster to tie well.

I thought that too. But smallies in many lakes under such lighting can be easier to fool, or more hot-headed, than LMs. If it really was a bed fish, that was as low as it gets. That guy would be 2inches tall in my book.

Two different kinds of professionals: -Visit on-site, on the job, (for at least a week) with certain fisheries biologists/ecologists. I've met a few in this way (telemetry, electro-fishing, gill-netting, trawling, sonar surveying, etc...) and it provided perspectives I could never have gained with a mere fishing rod. -I guess I'd be happy to observe any "old salt" angler, be it pro, guide, old timer, or young timer who's got their game together. Lotsa names out there: Rich Zaleski, Greg Mangus, ... . And there are some diver/anglers I'd love to hook up with. But, if I had to pick one angler I suppose I would spend that day with KVD and see how he decides on where he'll prioritize his time. And I have a lot of very specific questions for him that contain a lot of "whys"; mostly, "Why do you think that? -What have you seen?"

Oh...I think I get it now... 3/4oz Cleo in 8fow. Good for carp too I suppose.

Thanks Wayne. That's a nice fish too.