Team9nine

These same anglers are also the ones who will use "cover" and "structure" interchangeably. Short answer; you are right, they are wrong -T9

Yeah, Elaztech is highly buoyant, which is why they add salt to some of their baits (to help them sink). Some people are highly intrigued, even convinced, that the bait needs to stand up at rest. I don't put much stock in all that as I don't do much deadsticking. Same with shaky heads. Whatever gives you confidence...

That's just today's media and the influence of professional tournament angling. There's always been heavy bait users just like there has always been fans of lighter compact stuff. The media controls the message.

^^ This ^^ ....though honestly, I don't give a rat's behind whether mine float or not I don't even bother checking.

For down in the spool connections, I always just position the knot in the center of the spool with any tag ends pointed down into the spool. Eliminates any chance of snagging, and the layer lines either give me a slight bump in the spool center (which is fine, even a good thing), or more frequently the subsequent layers will split to either side of the knot (because they now have room to do so) and you'll never know it's there. -T9

I avoid uni knots - Alberto and 'J' knot here, with the occasional FG. *** or animatedknots for website how to tie info. -T9

Have some friends who've been hitting Summit and the bite has been really good. Not sure what they've been throwing, but I'd have to guess jerkbaits and/or traps.

I'll be the first to openly admit that I won't try certain baits or techniques simply because of their names. The 'chicken rig' falls in this category, as did 'Charlie's Chicken' (Charlie Ingram). Any bait with the word 'Sizzle' in it also qualifies -T9

So, we agree that there IS a difference which was my point...which then begs the question of how can they actually be same if there is a difference? It's the difference that make them - different, otherwise we'd only need one name for all these rigs -T9

You obviously haven't Googled "weightless Texas Rig" and read the 4,270 results that popped up but that's OK, it doesn't matter, because I heard Glenn is giving out participation trophies to all who contributed to this thread...

A bear's hearing is twice as good as ours, so I'd say yes, especially if he is downwind of the rig. Now, if you sprayed scent on the rig, he'd certainly smell it before he heard it. But to keep on subject, if I just took your weightless Texas rig and instead hooked it once through the middle of the worm (same hook and still weightless), is it still a Texas rig?

You can use anything you want (within reason), just realize different diameter line will change the listed capacity either up or down (more or less line needed), depending...and yellow is a fine color for braid

Don't change anything... other than how long you go without checking or retying. Your setup is fine. Chalk this one up to user error -T9

InvizX or any of the "finesse" specific labeled lines (Seaguar, Toray, etc.) -T9

Same concept - if you aren't using a mushroom head jig of some sort, you aren't fishing a Ned rig - it's just a grub at that point

You certainly don't have to use the Mojo weights, but it would seem to me that without Mojo weights, you don't really have a Mojo rig.

Buzzbaits for sure. One of the most successful big bass hunters ever used nothing but Ugly Sticks and Ugly Stick Lite rods -T9

This "ugly" rod is an original Stitchin' rod built and used by Bill Murphy himself. If you compare these pics to any of those in his book, In Pursuit of Giant Bass, it'll become apparent pretty quick. He even has a few pages on specifics relative to how he built these rods. This rod is not light weight, weighing in at 12.4 ounces. I haven't fished it yet - not certain whether I should or not On the one hand, it would be cool as hell to catch a bass stitchin' using a rod Bill himself built and used, maybe even caught DD bass with. On the other hand, the risk of anything happening to the rod out on the water scares me. I acquired the rod from Bill's family shortly after he passed away. Ultimately, I'm planning on placing it on the office wall along with one of his books (framed). -T9

I have a lot of older rods/reels, but not too much I'd consider collectible. I do have a couple though that are near and dear to me. Here's one. I'm guessing the only one who might easily identify this rod is Tom @WRB

So here's the scoop. About the same year Jason was born, Al and Ron introduced the Lindy's Tail worm (1974-75). The Genie is just the Lindy's worm brought back. On top, the new/amazing YUM Genie... and on bottom, the 1975 Lindy catalog featuring the YUM Genie Lindy's Worm (aka "Tail worm")...in particular, look and compare the 7.25" Lindy Tail at the bottom of the pic (several sizes were available). Nearly identical down to the overall size, enlarged head segment, number and spacing of body "nubs" and spade tail. The new colors are probably better though

Funny you bring that worm up. Kind of feel sorry for Jason Christie having to do those videos talking about their "new" worm and how different/special it is It's OK though, I'm sure he's paid good... -T9

Buck's guideline states, 'once or twice a day fish may become active and move toward the shallows.' Lots of support for that via John Hope's tracking data as just one example. The technicality lies in the degree of verticalness.

So you have now advanced to the Gettier Problem. Here's the way I see it. Buck developed most of his thoughts on the subject in the 1940s and 1950s, long before the advent of things like underwater cameras, tiny implantable transmitters and tracking, as well as a host of other technologies. As Ralph touches on, there are things we know now that he simply couldn't know then. But here are the keys for me. First, he was the one who pioneered most of what we call 'structure fishing' today, including much of the terminology still in use. If you (figuratively) are going to carry on a deeper discussion on the merits of what he wrote and believed, you need to have put in the time reading his material so that you understand where he was coming from and what he was saying. To argue against a position you haven't studied or tried to understand only makes your position weak. Beyond that, on the questionable stuff as mentioned by Ralph, I give Buck the benefit of the doubt by saying 'he was right for the wrong reasons.' If you follow his guidelines, you will flat out catch fish. For example, does the fact that the fish moved onto the structure horizontally instead of as vertically as Buck suggested really matter to the guy who just caught a sack full of bass? In a technical sense, yes, it's good to know, but in a practical sense, one could argue it doesn't matter. One would certainly be foolish in my eyes to discount everything Buck wrote because of these technicalities. Things such as depth and speed as the two primary controls are still the hallmark of great systems such as In-Fisherman's F+L+P=S to this day. In the end, what you make of this sport and the way you approach it or play it is up to each one of us to decide. More power to you in whatever form that takes. But to use another idiom, be careful about throwing out the baby with the bath water. -T9

I always track the return of the Robins here. Always that first day each year when they seem to just suddenly appear by the dozens out of nowhere. Back in 2008 it was Feb 28. This year March 02. Always pretty close to the same date regardless of weather.

Tell them they're obviously wrong and need to go back to fish identification class lol. Don't see how they could argue with the picture as you have living proof right in your hand. Maybe a couple others will chime in with an opinion. They might not be native to the lake, but they could have been accidentally introduced. Like Charles Barkley says, I may be wrong, but I doubt it