Team9nine

I have to admit, part of me gets bummed out by the advances in technology we've seen, specifically mapping and SI/DI. This is because prior to these technologies, I think it's fair to say that 80-90% of anglers were really lost when it came to offshore fishing. As mentioned above, most simply couldn't make that mental picture in their head of what was down there and how it all laid out based on what their flasher or LCR was showing them. Even when you took people out there and tried to explain exactly what you were fishing, how it laid out and where to cast, most still didn't get it. Thanks to the technology available, it's like a whole new world has been opened up for most of these guys. Guys who would have never in their life considered dropping $1500 bucks on a finder purchased them without hesitation. The ability to now "see" a picture of what is down there as opposed to "imagining" what is down there made all the difference IMO. One good thing though (in my view) is that most of these guys are still "cover oriented." I used to refer to them as the "look, I found a tree" crowd. Most still don't have an understanding of the entire picture, that relationship between structure, breaks, breaklines and deep water that Buck so drilled into some of our heads. The other thing I believe is that while the technology has undoubtedly increased the ability and effectiveness of the average angler, it has actually made the "old school" guys who could do it all with flashers and paper graphs already, downright scary. I know I can now map and understand a small lake (<1500 acres) in a single day. Buck always said the guys who learned Spoonplugging without the use of electronics always turned out to be the best - because they had to be. They didn't have the benefits of technological aids. I think you can make that same argument to some degree today. -T9

Not terribly surprising if you study and understand Buck. It's not that he didn't "embrace" sonar as he built and used his own units (needle) before Lowrance developed their small affordable (and portable) freshwater flasher units in the late 1950s. And in later years you sometimes saw him with a commercially produced flasher. But he regarded them as "aids" to help you check things out on occasion, not to have your head buried in one or to spend all your time looking for fish. He believed the best tool was what was between your ears, and that when combined with what your Spoonplug was telling you, you'd learn more about your lake trolling and casting and following procedures than you would just driving around with your face glued to a box...and eventually you still had to put a lure downstairs sooner or later to actually catch a fish and give you that final interpretation. Things we seem to take for granted these days like side-imaging and such didn't come out until the mid 2000s, the year he passed at the age of 90. All that said, many of his "assistants/instructors" did use them regularly to more quickly help define specific structure situations. -T9

Mepps, Blue Fox Flash, and BPS Lazer Eye

Central Indiana - all lakes ice free down here. Had a friend up north who had to break ice to get out on the water last week up by Ft. Wayne. Water up there running 38-40.

Glenn hasn't added that one yet to the list of words needing to be filtered out Morphology - morphology - morphology!!! I've never heard of them crossing before. Usually have to be very close on the family tree so to speak...nearly the same twig So black and white crappie might hybridize, but neither would likely cross with say bluegill or bass which are in the same family.

In-Fish link above has the right info. Originally a larger-smallie cross, but has become a widespread term covering several crosses now, most commonly the smallie-spotted one mentioned. That is typically the one you see in pictures from the Ozarks. While most people speculate based on looks as to whether a fish is a meanmouth or not, the only true way to tell is by genetic testing. This is due to the variation in morphology of basses normally seen in nature across a range of habitats. -T9

Yep, definitely sucks to be you right now Hope you get them dialed in better, soon -T9

Sounds like you just need more practice until you get the hang of it. There are some cases where a hook can be sharpened or used enough that you can no longer get a good angle for further sharpening, in which case you have to replace that hook, but otherwise, sharpening should help. Personally though, I rarely use the channel slot on my files, instead making a pass underneath and to each side of the hook, and then one more straight over the top to get a slightly more angular "bite" (vs. conical). When done, it shouldn't slide on your fingernail surface, it should stick. -T9

Poe's 300 for most of that range, and a Poe's 400 for the deeper edge. DT-10s and 12s are a decent modern bait, as are the RC DD's -T9

This time of year, sometime after lunch until an hour or so before dark, but it's all good - they usually don't start biting until I get there -T9

My goal this year is the same as last, and that is to not set any goals. So far, it's looking pretty likely I'll accomplish it

The answer would seem to depend on what your intentions are (the way you fish), and how well you know your local waters. To expand on that, if you are a tourney guy and going to be going to a variety of different waters, then you likely will need a little of everything covering all depth ranges. On the other hand, if you just fish locally on just a few waters most of the time, then you can likely get by with just a couple key depth ranges to start. I know for around here on our rivers and flatland lakes, you have to have a good set of shallow cranks (0-5') along with a good set of divers in the 8-12' range. That is because you'll either be fishing shallow cover along the bank, or fishing the breakline off points and flats, and on most of our waters, that is predominantly that 8-12 range. So I'd build that set first, then add a few others here and there as needed. -T9

Speaking of Mark - from the BF coverage of his second win at Travis: He came back down lake where he caught a 4-pounder off one of his deep spots that anchored his 11-09 bag on day 1. “About noon, after trying to make it work all morning, I left with those little fish and I knew I was in trouble if I didn’t put something together,” he said. “It was my instinct to trust my gut and run away from it. “I stopped on a deep place I’d found in practice and caught that 4 on my first throw. That told me I needed to regroup and what I needed to do for the rest of the tournament.”

If we're talking bass fishing, then another vote here for the plastic worm. If we're talking in general, then I'd choose the leadhead jig.

I've never been a big fan of "gut feeling." I blame a childhood watching Star Trek for that - lol. Spock was it for me, and as you probably know, he used "logic" and not "emotion" to make decisions. In science, "gut feeling" is also referred to as "emotion-focused decision making." If you follow the research, especially in the area of AI, then you know there are a lot of studies which support "intuition-based" decision making (basically considered to be the same thing as gut feelings) as equal to or even better than traditional logic based decision making. However, you might have also seen the rise in the power of "big data," which is beginning to swing decision making power back into the hands of 'logic.' You see this with computers like 'Watson' and 'Deep Blue,' or some of the learning based computer medical devices now being tested. To get this back on fishing, my personal favorite professional has always been Rick Clunn, primarily because he was the first to push the idea of intuitive based decision making in the bass world. But more recently, I developed a lot of respect for Shin Fukae because he is the equivalent of "big data" out on the water, and his record reflects that as a compelling challenger to intuition. So in the end, I certainly use experience to help drive decisions, but don't have any great stories about "gut feelings" to share....well, except for that one tourney I won a boat in -T9

Have it all and more - and read it all over and over again every year. Buck said if your tools (lures, rod, reel, line, etc.) will allow you to do what needs to be done out on the water, then you didn't need to buy his. There is a ton of basic, solid knowledge packed into all the books you mention. It is money well spent IMO, and there is nothing "hard sell" about it, especially when compared to much of what is being written and promoted these days. -T9

Fish here are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing, just a bit more active than normal. Photoperiod (shorter days) will keep most everything in check despite the warm temps. Bass only develop one clutch of eggs a year, and they take time to develop. If all the bass ran to the bank and nested at the first signs of warm weather, most year classes would be wiped out and fishing would suffer. Granted, a continued warm winter/spring might push things up 10 days or so before usual, but I don't expect anything beyond that. They'll be more cold weather to set things straight soon enough. Just enjoy the early bonus fishing while we've got it. -T9

Wal-Mart is no longer the title sponsor of FLW, and the word was they'd have a dramatically reduced presence on Tour this year, so not surprising they're scaling back the fishing section, IMO. As for Wal-Mart in general, they built a store and stocked it with merchandise. They didn't force anyone to go there and shop. You don't buy, they don't make money. People chose to go buy there instead of supporting smaller existing operators. They made their mind up that cheaper prices was worth more to them than supporting local business. Blame your neighbors, not the store...again, just MHO. I buy almost nothing from their fishing dept, myself. -T9

Thanks - that would explain it, and makes much more sense. My misread. I would have to believe margins on private brands would be much greater than marking up "name" brands and reselling in most cases. -T9

That wouldn't seem to make much sense. Why sell anything if you don't make a cent off it? It would also contradict their private presentation to investors back in November in which they touted their 50% profit margins, which they claimed were much better than either Apple or Alibaba (both in the 30s). In that report, they credited their own strong national brand products as being a big reason for those margins. Are you suggesting they use baits as a "loss leader" and try and make those margins elsewhere in the product line? Just really curious... -T9

Yep, well aware of his past. Really a shame, but the whole muskie world record quest seemed to have a bad effect on a lot of the players at the time. The issue (true WR muskie) still hasn't been resolved in most peoples minds, the the credibility of a lot of people and organizations have been called into question because of it. A very sordid story. -T9

Personally, I'd go straight fluoro in that example... -T9

This topic reminded me of a great quote from Len Hartman, at one time considered to be one of the top muskie anglers in the country, and who manufactured his own plugs: "If you are thinking of going into the lure business let me set you straight. There is very little profit in a single lure. It is a volume business. My Muskie bug sold to the consumer for $3.00. Sounds like a lot of money. Advertising cost $2,000 for a single two inch add in three different outdoor publications. Cost of 10,00 lures; $7,200. UPS delivery on these lures $165. Add to this 12 cents Federal excise tax on each lure in those days. Cost of plastic box to ship it in 8 cents each. Shipping individual lures 22 cents each. So when I sold it to consumers directly, I made 81 cents. Jobbers you sold on a 50% - 10% and 2% and waited well over the thirty days to collect your money and they still took the 2% for cash over thirty days. You made close to a half dollar per lure and hoped you would eventually get your money. So you see its a tough game to go into, and Muskie lures are limited to less than 5% of all the fishermen. Now bass lures are different. 95% of the fishermen fish bass at some time or another and bass lures sell. But here again the profit per lure will come under 25 cents. If you are considering the lure business better have enough money to carry you until sales start coming in. Even with all the publicity we had created in the Muskie world, we couldn't realize a profit and had to eat many of our lures we couldn't sell and sold to discount houses to get our money back." Len Hartman, 2000

Absolutely no plans at this point to add another rod to the arsenal - I have plenty. Might consider a new reel before long though -T9

I'm as guilty as anyone in this regard, but it stems from my deep appreciation and respect for the history and pioneers of our sport (Ned rig is literally the modern day reincarnation of the Beetle/Beetle Spin developed by Chuck Woods), as well as my growing cynicism with today's media culture....and maybe a little because I'm turning into a cranky old man Get off my lawn! See, there you go again taking a slap at history The great Charlie Brewer and his original slider system - so simple yet so complex. With a pair of side cutters you could just trim off fractions of lead at a time from his heads to get exact depth and speed control of your worm - even if that turned out to be 1/9 oz. Just kidding, of course. It is kind of sad how the old simple techniques have become overlooked these days, though. -T9