Team9nine

Looks like yours are Corbicula or Asian clam. Still an invasive, but very common and widespread. We have them in most reservoirs here. Not the same as zebras or quaggas.

Agreed - Indiana has very little restrictions in this area. Ontario, where I think you are, you’ll have issues with legally transporting live fish. That said, I, too, kept bass, crappie and bullhead I caught in an aquarium as a kid/teenager without issue. They came from a pond and were released back into the same pond after a spell, but it was neat watching them for a while. The feeding bill for minnows got a little steep, quick - lol.

What line test is the 1/4 oz rigged speed craw on? On the same pound test, the heavier bait stills falls faster. If two baits are the same weight, but on heavier and lighter test lines, the lighter test bait falls faster.

Don't overthink this. Some of this is just "the way it is" or "history." If you look back at jig heads and worm hooks in the 60s and 70s, you'll see that about 99% of all worm hooks were what we now call "cross eye" or "flat eye," while jigheads were nearly all vertical eye alignment. Much of this has carried on today as "tradition," but manufacturers and marketers have also arguably taken advantage of today's ability to make about anything you want. For example, look at the jig listings on TW or similar and you see about as many flat eye jigs as you do vertical eye. In the big scheme of things, eye alignment probably doesn't play too much of a role, at least when compared to things like head shape and design, or line tie angle. You'll find plenty of people saying one is more weedless than another, etc., but you don't find consensus. The one argument that seems to hold up and is somewhat agreed upon is that flat eye alignment is likely more preferential for leverage and good hook penetration. This is because the line knot tends to stay in the center of the tie much more often on a flat eye jig when compared to a vertical eye connection, which tends to move around and float more based upon the angle of pressure it receives, or where someone actually places it. As for ball head vs some other head design, the original marketed shakey head was a ball head. Like skirted jigs, other head designs came about likely because of preference or marketing - probably a little of both.

Never been any love for the Tokyo rig here - just disdain LMAO I would agree with the wacky/swimming options listed above, and could see where a light dropshot might work since you have leader length adjustability.

I usually try one or two new things (baits, etc.) each year, either because they catch my eye, or because one of a handful of people whose opinion I respect recommended it, but I'm no tackle fanboy. I'll only buy a couple to try of whatever until I see if I like them, or if they fit in with the rest of my stuff. Many times it's simply a new option of a bait I already have and throw. I'd guess 90% plus of my fishing is with limited proven stuff. Most days I restrict my options, only fishing how I want to catch them, and with a handful of tackle that I bring.

Unfortunately, it happens. I've had a couple friends who totally quit tourney fishing after a few bad draws. One was so bad he had him drop him off at the ramp part way through the day, and he left. I tend to think the bad draws are a minority of anglers, but you'll find them on both sides (boater & co-angler).

LOL - It's actually Dave Lefebre, Elite Series angler...but yes, A-Jay "may have a problem," too, from his posted pictures...

Glenn and Ike cover it on the second question of the day: Some pros use the highest end gear, but a lot don't. If they're being paid to promote and move product, they'll move a lot more gear that is priced so the average angler can afford it then they will top of the line high dollar stuff, which has limited sales potential. As such, that's what they tend to use and throw in tourneys; stuff in the $100-$300 range. But I have to ask - did Glenn use to live in Alabama?

Bad idea...very, very bad idea Learn each one separately. They are both great presentations, just not when combined together...IMHO

I'll be curious to hear your results. We can speculate, but first hand experience is a pretty strong determiner. Nothing like in-the-field data.

The above excerpts pretty much sum it all up for me ^^ The thing everyone has left out of the discussion is the biology and mechanics of feeding. If you've ever felt a tap or know you had a hit, but there was nothing there when you swung (we all have), you'll understand. A bass tried to "eat" your bait, but the "relationship" between bait and bass was off. Bass adjust their feeding technique and mechanics based upon prey type from previous experience. The lightest weight you can get away with and still accomplish a proper presentation for cover/substrate, with good enough feel/feedback, combined with acceptable triggering speed is probably the best weight to use. The fun is in figuring out just what weight that is at any given time

Odds and ends - line, terminal tackle, jigs, jigheads, lipless, soft plastics, swimbait, etc.

Lol - This video just showed up in my feed. It appears he just uploaded it yesterday. Seems appropriate - maybe the timing is suspicious, but again, maybe he's one of Glenn's anonymous pros who has been reading and laughing at all of us on this thread

Laughing along with you @A-Jay, not at you - honest ?

Go!! As a bank angler, half the fun IMO is checking out a new location and trying to figure it out. Never a waste of time in my book, even if you blank. You still learned something, and the more spots you have in your rotation, the more fish you’ll likely catch over the course of a year. There’s always the possibility the new lake is better than the old.

Just kicked back and being entertained by everyone’s sorta’ kinda’ detailed “wing it” methodology on this thread. Never had to deal with this as a backreeler ? Trying to learn...lol

It’s a weird game of physics I haven’t completely broken down and analyzed yet. Fluoro, being heavier/denser on the spool will require greater startup effort, but once the spool is rotating, would have greater inertia or momentum for the same spool speed. But with casting, it’s the bait and it’s weight trying to pull the line off the reel and cover a certain amount of distance before running out of energy. Would seem to be harder to keep fluoro suspended and coming off the spool for the same amount of casting effort. That said, I’ve never had much issue casting things like #6 Shad Raps on my fluoro outfits when properly set up. I’m still leaning toward toss up between the two types.

So now it gets interesting...likely comes down to suppleness and line diameter. You could go with a class rated line like Tectan which will actually break at 6 pounds but be thinner and likely throw further than traditionally rated 6 pound lines (if distance is the biggest factor in your situation). Your other option would be the thinner standard 6 pound lines like XL or similar. The 6 pound rated softer fluorocarbons like InvizX and Tatsu will be thinner than those, but you have the increased linear density which might offset any casting advantage gained by diameter. Tough choice, and I can't recall any testing I've seen comparing casting distance of fluoros to nylons. If I had to choose, my first shot would be the fluoros (InvizX or Tatsu 6#) based on the ultraclear water (refractive index), better sensitivity and smaller diameter.

Sounds like you're walking a fine line. Gliss and Nanofil are technically not braids, but the same could be said for Fireline (fused, not braided). Of those 3, I'd go Fireline because of questionable characteristics in the lightest pound tests of the other two. It won't throw as far as Gliss/Nanofil, but 6# Fireline should throw a lot further than any nylon/copoly also rated at 6# because of the diameter difference.

Stretch is just one property that needs to be considered among many. Personally, when you get to the levels of stretch seen with monos and copolys, I'm not convinced a little less stretch makes an appreciable difference. Anyone can actually prestretch their own line (nylons) and get decreased line stretch going forward if they choose to. XT is also larger diameter in nearly all rated tests than BG, so you have to be comparing apples to apples to make sure any comparison is valid. Lol - I figure I'm entitled to a couple topwater bites this year after my years of dedication to fluoro Ten of my 12 casting outfits will still be running fluoro, so that's a good track record in favor of it.

Yes, it is...

I've always operated on 'standards' and 'controls' given my background. When it comes to "mono," Big Game is one of those to me. Anything in its category gets compared to it, and I don't change unless there is a real good case that can be made for change. Back in "the day," I never came across a reason to change from it. Needless to say, I still think that highly of it. There is a lot to be said for having intimate familarity with a given product due to years and years of use, which many people never really achieve because they are constantly trying the newest "stuff" looking for the next best thing. InvizX is great stuff, another "standard" or "control" in my book. I've used it A LOT over the past 10 years. Just remember that mono and fluoro are rated differently. If you purchase your line by using diameter as your guide, you'll be a lot better off (and a lot happier) in the long run. Too many people overlook this, IMHO.

Just depends. Some are and some aren't. I don't think anyone is using any real low end gear, more like standard $100-$300 pieces of equipment like the typical serious bass angler might buy, but a few guys run higher end or JDM type stuff.

Before I went all fluoro, I was all Big Game for about 20 years. Not surprisingly, the two outfits I spooled up are with 15# Big Game; one for topwaters, and one for squarebills and other misc. precision casting.