Paul Roberts

Gizzard.

No man, I'm serious. And to cover the basics here, I'd need an UL spin too.

For me: M spin, MH spin, MH casting. But I'd also want a M casting.

I routinely put a boat -a float tube- on small waters -"ponds". Fishing from the shoreline is just too limiting in terms of approach and presentation angles and overall coverage.

It may sound like it's getting complicated (even possibly expensive) but if you talk to your local managers, you may be surprised how helpful they might be. I've always found managers willing -even excited- to talk fish and fisheries. No, they won't run a survey for you, those are expensive in man-hours. But they may have worthwhile advice. Inexpensive water quality tests that could give you a basic idea of fertility, or experienced explanations of habitat needs of, and possible interactions between, different species. And, again, get familiar with the Pond Boss site; Lotsa expertise and experience built up there. And, people there will be thrilled of those big 'gills you've got.

The Dr has it right, by definition. And, as he mentions, there are waters that could be called either. I can't see calling an 80ft deep "pond" a "lake", esp if I can throw a stone across it. Fish yeeter, sounds you're describing a small lake.

Markings do look alike to me. Although second image is poor, but if you blow both up side by side, you'd probably be able to be more sure. I'll say one thing for sure: One's a much better photographer than the other though. I mention that bc I guess I'm still rankled at the photos a photography-challenged buddy used to take of me and my catches. I'd check lighting, background, and composition. He'd just whack away as if the camera was supposed to do all that. That was 30 years ago. Guess I'm not entirely over it.

Thanks, Goose52, for such a great write up of the work being done on your waters. Very interesting.

Yes! I fish small waters (3 to 40acres) so it can't be helped. Tends to make me careful with "my" fish.

Once upon a time I used marabou most, hair second. I tied my own and still think if I were left with one material to catch fish with, it would be marabou. One of my favorites was a marabou jig with a small pork strip. In the 80's "living rubber" became the rage and it caught bass. I originally used it sans trailer! Imagine that! I soon went to pork and have always used pork since. Nothing moves like prepared pork, except marabou. What marabou lacks is bulk -that pressure wake that hair, rubber, and pork can roll out behind the bait. I think that's one of the reasons jigs can be such good big fish baits.

Awesome.

I always have a designated jig rod, or two -always. Did I mention, ALWAYS? I go to hair when water gets below 50F.

I used to fish the "midget" Hula Popper -with a single ~#10 treble- on UL years ago. Has a lot of fun catching a lot of "midget" bass on it. Arbogast also made the "Fly Rod" Hula Popper, with a ~#4 single hook. Hook size, as well as lure weight, are the most important considerations.

Yeah, I hesitated, then added that. Excellent point! OK, I'm a little bored this morning.

That's where I learned to trust swivels too: those BIG salmonids on the BIG lakes. They can tell you all you need to know about where the weak links are. I'll spin ye' a little yarn: A while back I worked at a big tackle shop on Lake Ontario. A couple southern guys came in who'd driven up to have a go at the salmon fishing. They dropped some bass-sized casting reels on the counter and said, "Put some new line on 'em would you, son?" I looked at those little reels and said, "8lb?" He looked at me kinda funny and said, "14." I looked back at him kinda funny, and said, "You probably want 200 yards on there. 10?". They looked at each other, and one said, "14." The other, eyeing me, wheels turning, said, "Put 14 on one, and... (pause)...10 on the other." A couple days later they were back. One reel was clean empty. I could still feel the events on that boat still smoldering off their worn fishing coats. I didn't ask -didn't have to- but I wondered how many times they saw the knot at the bottom of those spools that day. "Put 10 on em... (pause)... and 8 on the other."

Don't know where you live, but lots of 1 to 1-1/2lbers sounds pretty normal to me (if you are providing accurate weights). Those aren't stunted fish -esp if you are in the north. Just sounds like good recruitment to me. And it has some large ones (the frustrating part of having super clear water ). It can grow a full range of bluegill sizes (a good sign). Signs of poor growth in bass would be thin bodies and large heads. Be careful comparing your water with those you read about in the south. It does look as though the bass habitat (shallow with cover) is limited: Your map shows a relatively small area of shallows- maybe a quarter of the pond. However, I can't tell how much shoreline shelf there is around the quarry. If there is some shelf space with cover some bass habitat could exist there too -that might be enhanced in some way. One thing is likely: With the depth of the majority of that quarry, and surrounding trees blocking wind, the deep areas may thermocline and remain cold, excluding bass altogether. You might look into (via experienced sources) the addition of a more open water forage species like shad, or possibly golden shiners. However, establishing functional populations can be a challenge, esp with lots of established species in there already. And beware that introducing shad could impact (compete with) the bluegills. Lotsa pond owners work very hard to grow bluegills like you have there. Still, that's a mighty big water body to "manage", esp for a single angler. If you want to try managing, I'd start by talking with your local biologists, and getting to know the PondBoss site. I certainly wouldn't just start dumping new species in. Trying to tip things in favor of bass growth may potentially affect other things like competition or direct predation of young bass, affecting recruitment. Big bass are rare. And there are real reasons why that is. Much of it has to do with having enough quality food produced (or provided), both available and vulnerable, for each size class of bass in that water. There are a myriad of things that can bite into that: available habitat (water quality, temperatures, cover, sheer amount available) for all species and sizes involved, as well as competition, and direct predation. At this point none of us know what's "wrong" in there, if anything. Any real such work would start by surveying what's there to begin with, with real numbers to work from.

Too small an image. I do see "spot" in the face though. Can't tell though. There are even hybrids out there too.

I've always used a ball-bearing swivel on spoons. They make small strong ones nowadays.

I suspect trolling

Thanks, Goose52. I found this pdf, and it too uses the pinched tail on measurements: http://fisheries.tamu.edu/files/2013/09/Relative-Weight-An-Easy-to-Measure-Index-of-Fish-Condition.pdf The standard weights/length in this table appear a bit high to me. But then again they are to represent fish "growing rapidly with plenty of food", which in my experience is relatively rare in "the wild", if we consider all bass waters, not just the really good ones. Tom, I measure similar to the way you do. Many angler's interest is to determine legal size, or "bragging" size: stretching as much length out of a fish as possible: usually squeezed tail and pulled out lower jaw. Measuring "standard" like a biologist (closed mouth to end of body -"caudal peduncle") eliminates the most anomalies, like long or eroded tails, or protruding lower jaws. But it doesn't help an angler looking for a "legal" or "tournament legal" fish. I took to measuring top jaw to open tail, which is pretty consistent and is a reasonable compromise. I suppose if I switched to measuring to the lower jaw -makes sense- I could add a 1/4" or so to each bass I've caught. Kinda like that idea.

Yeah, the 66mm is about 1/2oz and is my favorite. Great for burning, yo-yoing, and ripping. The 55mm was a bit light and unstable for faster retrieves, but just right for very shallow uses, esp in early spring. Odd that they only appear to make the XH's now. I'm wondering if there's a dispute or legal agreement with Sebile. If they reintroduce the 66 in 1/2oz I'll try the new incarnation. Again, the design looked the same.

Goose52, Very cool what you're doing. What are relative weights? How calculated? Thanks.

^^^

No, I'm not direct aging. This info comes from data collected by state agencies throughout the north, from conversations with managers here, and from my own observations following year classes and some recaptures. Fish, as I know you know, are extremely variable in growth potential. (Stating this for the wider audience). A given bass could gain anything from 0 to 3lbs/yr depending on growth season and sheer amount of food it can catch. Most bass, in most waters, do not gain such high rates simply bc they cannot catch enough food. Waters with high growth rates, much less sustained high growth rates, are rare in the wild. Of course those are the waters that attract anglers. People who successfully manage private trophy bass fisheries come to realize how much forage is required to grow bass, and how carefully population size-structure must be managed. This stuff is simply rare in the wild.

That's excellent growth. In the wild -in most unmanaged waters- here in the north, bass don't have the consistent opportunity for such growth. In my ponds the YOY bass (age 0) go into winter at 2 to 3 inches in length, double that over second summer, then gain about 1-1/2" to 2" per yr after. An 18er is on average about 8yrs old. This is, apparently, not out of the ordinary.