Team9nine

Yes - have had some pretty good days with it, though I tend to throw the shallower diving jerkbaits more frequently on most of my waters. -T9

Yep - Palomar... -T9

Ned Rig flat out catches fish. You can use a weedless jighead, and some do, but part of the philosophy behind the presentation is to bypass obvious bass cover that most all other anglers fish, and instead focus on open "nothing looking" water that others bypass, as well as fishing rocky banks and edges of sparser weed growth. Open hook jigheads work fine in those areas. For more specifics on "how," check out Ned's page (Midwest Finesse) over at In-Fisherman, or some of the many videos now out there on YouTube. -T9

Have Pflueger's, Daiwa's, Okuma's, and several Shimano's, but my favorite would have to be the Shimano Stradic Ci4. A couple of my Daiwa's are a close 2nd though... -T9

Yep - still got it, though I don't use it any more. Doubt it was the first bass I ever caught, since I fished farm ponds and pits a lot, but it was the first artificial lure I purchased and caught a bass on from a large reservoir that I intentionally went to bass fish. Young enough that I still had to ride my bike to the lake to fish since I couldn't drive, so that would put it about 1980. I always remember thinking if only the pros I read about in the magazines would come to my lake and fish, they'd see the stuff they talk about doesn't work - then I caught a bass on this Mann's Hackleback Craw, and it all went downhill from there - LOL. -T9

Simple - start one way and let the fish tell you what they prefer. Generally speaking, I'll use a trailer when I want more bulk (warmer water, stained water, low light, etc.) or a slower fall rate. I tend to not use a trailer if I'm fishing deeper water, clearer water, colder water, or need a faster retrieve cadence. Also, I tend to use a trailer more for largemouth, but not so much for spots or smallies. Nothing is set in stone though. Let the fish tell you the answer to that question out on the water. If you're not getting bit one way, try the other. -T9

There is a lot of variability between different brands of rods and reels as pertains to size, power, and action, but in most cases, if you start with a medium/fast action rod and a 2000-2500 sized reel, you'll be just fine for the majority of you hair jig fishing. As to length, I tend to stick with something between 6' to 6'6" in most cases because I feel I have more control of the bait/action with the slightly shorter rod, though there are those who like longer. -T9

Never have fished plastics very much over the years, but when I do in those conditions, the nod always goes to the old Gatortail worms and good ole' lizards. I didn't want a giant bait, but I did want something with some presence in the water that would create a bit more disturbance than normal. Some of the newer type plastics fit those requirements pretty well now days, too. -T9

Just like I never set any fishing goals at the beginning of the year, I also don't make any New Year's fishing resolutions either. I do usually end up focusing my fishing efforts on one or two things every year, but I just let whatever those things turn out to be develop on their own. Usually by early spring there is something that has caught my attention. If not, I just go fishing anyway and don't worry about it. -T9

Eagle Creek has always run in cycles. I've pretty much fished it all of my life. It was pretty good just a few years back, and also in the late 90s, but seems like it's back in a bit of a slump. Who knows though, next year it could be back on fire. Still some nice quality bass in that lake, you just have to work for them at times. Best thing to do is catch that lake when the water is down, which doesn't happen too frequently. Back in 1991 it dropped almost 12' below normal pool, and that year I walked almost the entire lake shoreline taking pictures of everything that is normally underwater. Then again in 2000 it sank a bit over 10' low. Most recent was a 7.5' drop in March 2009. A lot of those old stumps and rock foundations are still there to this day. -T9

The original video has been removed from the looks of it (I'm assuming, unless it's my work computer filters), but the article details and results still stand. How far can Elite Series Pro Skeet Reese cast? http://tomleogrande.com/aa/FeatureArticle.asp?SelectValue=AA%20Tech%20Video%20-%20Crankbait%20Casting%20Tests -T9

Yep - It's all about the basic physical properties inherent in each line type. Seems like some believe that only certain brands of fluoro are made as low stretch lines, but that's not the case. For every stretchy mono someone mentions, you can name a fluorocarbon line that will stretch more. Likewise, for every low stretch fluorocarbon line someone uses as an example, you could easily name a monofilament that will have less stretch than their fluoro example. It's not the brand, it's the properties - and it's certainly not the "stretch" that makes those two line types unique. -T9

Show me one set of data that supports that theory and I'll gladly reconsider my position, as I've never seen it. At this point, I just consider that explanation another of the many myths perpetuated about fluorocarbon. I've carried out my own tests in that regard and have not seen this happen with any sample I tested. It doesn't matter whether you test it with 1 ounce of force or several pounds of force, the mono and the fluoro basically stretch the same. The only difference I've seen in the data is that with fluorocarbon, you go from an elastic state to a plastic state with roughly half the force required vs. nylon monos, which is where I think people get this "controlled stretch" idea from. -T9

My recommendation is to not get too caught up in the concept of stretch vs. sensitivity - it's pretty much oversold. If you want to focus more on something, look at tension. To your main point, I use some of the more expensive heavier pound test fluorocarbons, and sensitivity doesn't drop off at all. It couldn't, because the material composition of the line is still the same regardless of pound test. That is where you see the real differences, not in the fact that one line stretches 3% less (just an example) than another. Fluorocarbon will always be more sensitive than mono/copoly based lines because of its greater density, not amount of stretch. Its modulus of elasticity (resistance to stretch) is actually nearly the same as nylon. Superlines, on the other hand, are more sensitive than either (when taut) because their modulus of elasticity is 30-50 times greater than fluoro or mono/copoly. You are actually dealing with displacement as opposed to transfer of energy. You simply can't change that, making regular nylon line something it isn't, because it's still made up of, and therefor limited by, the properties of the various nylon polymers that go into it. -T9

"Ned Rig" and a hair jig...but neither is in a "panic" box - they're year round staples. -T9

In his book, Murphy stated: Buck Perry had a very similar philosophy - get there early and plan to stay all day, because you simply don't know when the fish will move. That's good enough for me. -T9

Doesn't matter what units your scale weighs in. You're the one who brought up significant digits, stating the more SD's the more accurate. My point, which was only an example, not an assumption, was that it didn't matter how many significant digits your scale has, that in no way means it is accurate when you actually weigh something on it. And yes, things can go out of calibration with mechanical scales at times, which is why you should check and recalibrate your scale as needed. However, there are a lot more things that can go wrong with a digital scale when compared to a quality mechanical spring scale. I've got 7 years worth of use with my Chatillon (spring scale) so far, and it's still reading at a very acceptable level of accuracy. My Rapala digital is starting to drift after less than two seasons. -T9

What? Just because your digital scale reads out to three decimal places doesn't mean it is anywhere close to accurate when I plop a fish on it. If it has no bias and has been certified/calibrated against known weights then it would likely be so versus a mechanical scale, but that is an assumption until proven otherwise. For example, If your digital scale with 3 places after the decimal point always reads a quarter pound light/heavy (for whatever reason), then my certified mechanical scale, accurate to just single ounces, will always be more accurate. Reword to "potentially more accurate" and I'll buy that statement. Don't confuse accuracy with precision. -T9

All scales are just instruments, and the more accurate they claim to be (or try to be), the more "touchy" they can be when it comes to maintaining that level of accuracy and calibration. For example, things like the current temperature, extremes of heat or cold during storage or use, dust, dirt, moisture/relative humidity, vibrations (e.g., weighing a flopping fish in a boat on the water), shaking, dropping, operating near other electronic equipment (cell phones, cordless phones, computers, etc.), wind or air currents, and others, can all have an affect on the accuracy of any given reading. I keep two in the boat with me at all times. One is a Chatillon scale (as already shown) that was certified by the IGFA for exactness confirmation, and the other a Rapala touch screen digital for convenience. I also check each against a set of certified weights periodically. The Rapala tends to drift slightly because it tries to maintain accuracy to hundredths of a pound, while the Chatillon doesn't have any issues because it is accurate to ounces. -T9

Since Mission Viejo sounds like it has been killed off (I fished there with Troy Folkestad), my next in line would also be Matt Allen at the lake of his choice -T9

Fluorocarbon on mid or deep diving crankbaits. On shallow running baits (squarebills, etc.) it doesn't matter as much. I'll often use a mix of either line depending upon what is set up at the time. -T9

Because it's priced cheap and very forgiving. Use it or mono as you'd like depending on brand or properties, but it's not a substitute for braid or fluoro in applications where the unique properties of those two line types are considered critical. -T9

While everyone probably has their own style and preference, technically, the good old fashion spool control cap is best for skipping. This is due to the fact that it's braking force is stable and constant, and especially effective at the lowest spool speeds, where the other two systems are less effective. The most unstable part of skipping is the sudden deceleration of the bait (and then necessarily the spool) after hitting the water. Next best would be magnetic, because magnetic braking is pretty much directly proportional to spool speed, though it tends to overbrake at low spool speeds. Centrifugal braking would help the least, since it is proportional to the square of the spool speed and is largely ineffective at slow spool speeds. -T9

Awesome catch there - both of them. And from the looks of it, that is a Coppernose gill. They are a distinct sub-species of bluegill, similar to the way the Florida bass is a subspecies of largemouth (the northern being the other). See here: http://www.pondking.com/tag/coppernose-bluegill Nice job! -T9

Yep ^^^ These guys take their match tourneys as serious as any competitive bass angler does, probably more so. In fact, there is a world match fishing competition every year, where each country sends their own team to represent and compete. Check this report out from the 2014 event: http://www.matchangler.com/international/world-champs/413-holland-rise-england-fall.html -T9