Team9nine

Great reference J Francho - thanks. RichZ is an adamant back reeler. They show it on the second half of the show ("Chico and the Man - Part 2"), available online. -T9

I've got one of the dropshot models in spinning, and other than being just a tad tip-heavy, I've had no issues with it and use it regularly. So far, so good. Enjoy - -T9

Do whichever you are more comfortable with. Personally, I backreel all the time with spinning. I also "thumb bar" with baitcasters instead of using the drag. Always done it, and have complete confidence with both techniques. To me, it's all about my comfort level of control and feel. -T9

The Auburn group never came up with a definitive conclusion. A new group has now taken up the research, so we'll see if they can come up with anything. To the best of my knowledge, and from all the biologists and researchers I've spoken with, there is still no published studies stating a specific cause, so any conclusions drawn at this point would need to be taken as speculation. Some waters it is very prevalent in, and some waters it is almost non-existent, even within the same area of a given state. I've got pictures of bass I've caught going back to the late 80s showing these marks, so it has been around for quite a while. One would also need to come up with an explanation of why this appears to be almost completely relegated to the LMB/SMB. In some of the waters I fish where it is very prevalent, I have never caught a white bass, crappie, bluegill, or catfish that had these markings to the best of my recollection. Seems very odd that if it was a water born pollution-based cause that it would only affect a single species to this degree. -T9

If you want higher visibility, go with yellow or white. Red is actually one of the tougher colors to see in many light and wave conditions. Kind of surprised me when I first threw it. About equal to green in that regard. -T9

I keep it pretty simple - mostly just a few colors of Cache Custom Lures 4" Diamond Back Worm. Seems to work everywhere around here. Not a dominant tactic around here, so options don't need to be too fancy. -T9

Don't own many BPS lures for the most part, but I do have to admit, their discontinued Stud Fry was absolutely one of the best plastics I've ever thrown on the lakes around here. Definitely a "must-have" in these parts - all the best local tourney sticks threw them. I know they were very popular down in Texas, too. Bought a huge supply when I found out they were being discontinued. -T9

Yep - old school Castaics is what I use. Still, in my mind, one of the best design ideas ever put on a reel. -T9

I'd like to add a couple comments to the discussion while we're still on the subject of Spoonplugging. They are in reference to two of the most common (what I would term) misunderstandings, that being the Perry/Lowrance/depthfinder relationship and why no trolling in bass tournaments. I've researched it a bit since I get to be a bit of a historian when it comes to bass fishing. The first one about Perry helping invent the depthfinder. I think a lot of this confusion comes from the relative timing of, and similar location to when both Spoonplugging and the Lowrance Lo-K-Tor first came on the scene in a very public way (media coverage). However, Ron Lindner interviewed Carl Lowrance back in 1977 for In'Fisherman magazine to verify what Ron and he had already discussed previously on the subject, and basically asked him for clarification. Here is Carl's response. Ron Lindner: You once mentioned that Perry's structural theories tied in with your own thinking. Could you elaborate? Carl Lowrance: "I met Perry about three years after I was selling Lo-K-Tors. I could read structure by that time and could see fish. When I first started building the instruments, I immediately bought three full sets of scuba gear and our own compressor...But that's how we came up with most of our theories - actually looking at the fish eyeball to eyeball. So I knew and learned of structure fishing before I ever heard of Buck Perry." Ron Lindner: But after you met Perry, you began using his terminology, didn't you? Carl Lowrance: "Yes, I picked it up. I wasn't really pushing hard for structure but I learned very early in the game. If I was going to fish for smallmouth bass or walleye, I hunted some structure. This is even more true for largemouth bass. You know, not many people know this, but I originally built the Lo-K-Tor for suspended fish such as crappie, white bass and channel cats... This, by the way, is where the words "fish Lo-K-Tor" developed. I trademarked that back in 1957 and have used it ever since. Structure was a later outgrowth. We learned that bass hang around structure and we already knew walleye did and it just grew like Topsie." As an aside, perhaps part of the reason for the confusion is that I have read newspaper accounts of his on water exploits that clearly document Buck using one of the portable locator units at least as far back as the mid 1960s, and that jives nicely with Carl's mentioning of meeting Buck a few years after he started selling the units. Also, I think many early sports editors also passed along the idea in those same stories that he must have helped invent it since in many parts of the country, people hadn't seen the units used yet. But like everything else, he simply viewed the depthfinder as just another "aid," and not a substitute for his process and methodology, which was developed long before Carl Lowrance ever invented the thing to begin with (1957). On the subject of why no trolling allowed in tourneys. While I can't speak for all tourneys, I do know that Harold Sharp, BASS's original tournament director who worked extremely closely with Ray Scott on the many rules and regulations over the early years has stated that while they considered allowing trolling in their events, it ultimately came down to that technique not fitting into their format, that being one where every angler fished for himself against every other angler. To insure fairness and minimize cheating, individual anglers were randomly paired to the same boat for a day of competition. As such, they couldn't see how it would be fair to both anglers if they allowed trolling. For example, what if one angler wanted to troll while the other wanted to cast? What if one guy had proper trolling equipment and the other didn't bring any? How fair would it be to allow one guy to run their line a hundred feet down and back behind the boat while the other guy might try and cast? So to keep equality, and perhaps to keep tournament fishing a somewhat cast-for-cast, head-to-head competition, with everybody on a level playing field, they decided against allowing it. Obviously I can't swear that either of these two men were telling the truth, but I can't see any reason why they would, and their explanations makes a lot more sense than some of the more outrageous personal or animosity based reasons you hear tossed about. -T9

With all due respect, and since this is just my opinion (LOL - had to play with Hoot's current post), I believe the above statements are misleading, if not just incorrect.. There are now several studies showing that leaving the hook in a deeply hooked fish and removing the line is as good or better than trying to remove it. Even state resource agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Game & Fish Commission as just one example, have this recommendation to cut the line and leave the hook in for best results on their website. They reference two studies, one with trout and another with bass, supporting their recommendation. I previously posted in this thread the results of a third study showing it made no difference whether you left the hook in or removed using the illustrated technique shown. I believe whichever tactic used (leave in or remove) that will seem to do the least amount of damage to your caught fish is the right course of action most times. -T9

This is all old ground from TT forum. Multiple ways for companies to skin the same cat. Just because one company chose to hold prices on a particular model doesn't mean anything in regards to why the other didn't. Multiple reasons why this could be so from a business standpoint. If it really bugs you so much, just e-mail Daiwa and ask them - maybe you'll get your answer. -T9

My response was to address his general question of why a JDM/enthusiast reel like the Steez cost 3-4X your typical outfit. As I know you're well aware, that reels actual $150 price increase (intro'ed 2006 Japan, 2008 US @ $450 - Now $600) has been pretty well documented to be attributed to the drop of the Yen to the US Dollar. From 2006 - Dec. 2012, the Yen lost 36% to the dollar while the Steez has risen 34% in price. They've simply kept pace with the decline to maintain profit margins. Only in the last year has the Yen started to recover about half that value. Fortunately, Japanese inflation has been completely flat, otherwise they'd probably be charging more by now. -T9

The answer of what makes a certain reel worth that kind of money is the same as what makes anything (cars, cameras, antique lures, etc., etc.) valuable. It's things like the precision workmanship and incredibly tight tolerances that go into the design and building of the item (think Lexus vs. Cavalier), the cost and labor of certain rare or difficult to manufacture materials used in the product, the overall rarity of the item (mass produced vs. only a few, hard to obtain, poor or limited distribution channels, etc. - look at how much anglers paid for early Shad Raps, Chatterbaits or A-rigs when they first caught on but weren't widely available), the cost of new and innovative technology incorporated into the item though not yet in widespread use (think of how much we used to pay for calculators and the first computers compared to what you get for the money now), the overall demand for such items (highly sought in Japan where they are manufactured - good old economic supply and demand), as well as the personal value someone attributes to owning such a piece. As eBay has proven, the ultimate value of anything is only how much someone else is willing to pay for it. Enjoy using such a fine reel, or keep it in the box and save it as 'new' so it retains value. Either way, it really has little to do with catching fish. For a better idea of this particular reels features and what makes it special, see Tackle Tours review from 2006 when they first got their hands on one: http://www.tackletour.com/reviewdaiwasteez.html -T9

Don't have the book right in front of me to see context, but short answer is yes, "free running, bottom bumping" and "walking lures" terminology are likely referring to the same thing. Beside the spoonplug, many of the diving baits such as hellbenders, bombers, and more recently DT-Series of baits, etc. would all fall in this category and have been used successfully by many spoonpluggers over the years. General guideline was in "deep" water, always fish the bottom, and these baits allowed for that, some better than others. Was kind of a big misconception, but even Buck stated, "you can 'Spoonplug' with any lure," so long as it will accomplish the necessary tasks. Lures are just tools, including the spoonplug. The one he designed just happened to be the most precise and specific one (tool) for covering all aspects of presentation (troll, cast, fast, slow, shallow, deep, etc.). -T9

I understand, just pointing out that it doesn't matter in terms of whether that fish will survive or not, only whether you'll get your hook back a little easier. The original poster did state, "Does anybody really have any accurate information other than just an opinion, or hearsay." -T9

Gone both ways with equal success on my waters, so whatever floats your boat. For me it's often whichever way I happen to be "lined" on a particular day or outfit. If it's working for you, why change? Good arguments can be made in favor of either setup. -T9

While a lot of anglers pass along the link from the first page as the best way to remove a hook, a scientific study back in 2010 compared that technique against others and found no advantage in terms of survival. It also found that bass frequently ended up expelling deep hooks automatically when left in with an inch or less of line as in the show being cited, though such hooks likely don't dissolve as suggested by the angler. Here are some notes from that study. The 2010 study took a scientific look at several common hook removal methods. What made the study so interesting was the intentional inclusion of the "through the gills" removal technique made popular by a Ralph Manns piece back in 2002 in In-Fisherman magazine and revisited again by Doug Stange some years later. The study authors even went so far as to use the exact same hook style in their testing as was done in the original publication piece. The study techniques involved a control set of fish that were hooked in the oral cavity ("in the mouth" but not deep) as well as the deeply hooked fish that were given 4 treatment types: barbless method - through the mouth with hemostats standard method - through the mouth with hemostats through the gill method- the IF technique with hemostats hook in method - left the hook in the mouth with 1" or less of cut line attached After all the testing was complete, fish were placed back into ponds and checked in both the summer and the fall for feeding and growth. Results included: Hook removal method has no influence on survival of deeply hooked largemouth bass angled using these gear types. The authors found no evidence that deeply hooked largemouth bass suffer reduced growth compared with fish hooked in the oral cavity or among deeply hooked fish subjected to various hook removal techniques. No method for removal of deep hooks in largemouth bass was found to be advantageous in terms of growth or survival. Necropsies of eight surviving fish that originally had hooks left in revealed that all of the fish had shed their hooks by the end of the experiment. Although air exposure varied among treatments (ave. 8-60 sec.), these patterns were not consistent with measures of feeding recovery, suggesting that the observed periods of air exposure had little negative effects.

Those are all good points, Tom. To clarify, when I said "the way I fish," I should add that most of my braid fishing is done with finesse tactics - some might say ultra-finesse, though I don't classify it that way. My experience is based on catching thousands of bass every year, over half of which are with braid/fluoro outfits, as well as nearly all my crappie jigging outfits (another thousand fish/yr or so), and after having tested both (leadered and leaderless braid). So, I guess I would push back with: 1. - Doesn't matter how neutral braid becomes underwater after sinking. When trying to fish something like a small 1/32-oz or 1/16-oz. jighead or split shot rig along the bottom, and especially deep, you will notice a difference between the fluorocarbon leadered and non-leadered use of braid, especially if that leader is in the 4'-7' range or greater. It is also for this reason that some of the best finesse bass pros recommend going straight fluorocarbon when fishing deep water. The extra density does make a difference at times, though perhaps not near as much when using standard sized tackle and baits. 2. - Most guys will not generate 5lbs of force at the knot unless trying to pull their baits out of a snag, or a major hookset with heavier equipment; never an issue with finesse. If you get snagged and simply start "bow stringing" your line to get unstuck, you'll easily benefit from the stretch factor without ever reaching the point of plasticity you mention. 3. - As for abrasion, while it certainly depends on brand and formulation, there's not too many people that will tell you braid is better for fishing rocks and rocky bottoms. And while no line is cut resistant, testing done by Tackle Tour comparing fluorocarbon to their baseline monofilament showed that when wet, mono lost 50% of it's abrasion resistance and became less abrasion resistant than every fluorocarbon tested. As for zebra/quagga's, most all the guys I've spoken with or read about who fish the northern Great Lakes area (home) where they (mussels) are abundant, have all switched to using a fluorocarbon leader with their braid because braid alone cuts much faster when fishing in those conditions. 4. - I agree that if you are pretty settled on a particular bait for a particular outfit and don't need to change throughout the day, straight braid is better. This is probably more likely if you bring a whole bunch of outfits with you every trip. My hunch though is, I tend to think that most people are a bit more likely to change and retie lures more frequently than we think, whether to fish a different colored bait or to switch lure types completely, especially if they're not getting bit. If you use something like a Palomar and change baits frequently over the course of a slow day, you could easily lose several feet of braided line per day. 5. - Super Glue is alright if you like having one more thing to do every time you retie, and you are good at not gluing your fingers together. 6. - I agree. As we've seen by posts here, some anglers need/want the psychological benefit, some don't. Whatever seems to help you catch the most fish is what you should be doing. On my waters, tying straight to braid, no matter the color, rarely if ever, makes any difference to the fish. -T9

Regularly, no, but occasionally, yes. Like any other technique, there are times and places when it excels. Most all of the well known big bass chasers from out west have used trolling methods to help catch some of their biggest bass. -T9

Why would anyone use mono or FC line, braid is smaller in diameter, stronger, last longer, doesn't twist. The answer is anglers believe bass are line shy and mono or FC will improve the size and number of bass they can catch. Tom Can only speak for myself and the way I fish, but the answer is simply because the advantages of using a fluorocarbon leader with braid outweigh the advantages of tying braid straight to my bait IMO. Obviously doesn't apply in all scenarios, but in enough to change my behavior. 1. Fluorocarbon, due to it’s density, provides a little extra weight at the end of the line to help baits stay down against the inherent tendency of the superlines, which are lighter density and actually float. This is more an issue when finesse fishing with small, lightweight baits. 2. The leader material also provides an inherent amount of stretch, which provides two benefits. The first is that it cushions the direct pressure of the almost no-stretch properties of the superline, which allows for better playing ability with big bass and small hooks, as well as overzealous hook sets. More importantly though, it allows you to use a traditional bow-and-arrow snap to free lures that get hung in rocks or limbs. This is a largely overlooked concept. 3. Fluorocarbon is a very tough material, and so a leader of fluorocarbon holds up well to constant fishing around things like rocks and mussels, cover areas that most anglers tend to believe are a weakness for superlines. 4. A leader also saves main line. I can start with a four to seven foot fluorocarbon leader and fish all day, retying as necessary and never get into my superline mainline until it’s time to replace the entire leader. This helps save and maintain the original length of superline spooled on your reel. You can easily fish an entire year or two on a single spool of superline as long as you don’t lose enough of it from retying. 5. With many finesse baits and lighter superlines, the thin diameter superline can actually get caught in or slip out through the hook eye in many cases. Using a leader of thicker material prevents this from happening. 6. And finally, yes, for anglers who are concerned about line visibility, a leader does help mentally in clear water situations. That psychological element can be very important to the angler and the way he fishes, whether it's a meaningless exercise as far as the fish are concerned or not.

I didn't see "all of the above" as an option I've used them all with equal success on my waters. Anymore, I move more and more toward the brighter colors (neon lime, yellow, chartreuse) for their added visibility benefit. About the only time I go low vis now days is where I don't need to see where or what my line is doing, such as when frogging. -T9

The best answer I've seen on this question came from a Bassmaster interview with Rick Clunn back in 2010. -T9

No cool fishing designed plates here in Indiana, so I just go with a personal plate reflecting the "nick" I use on all fishing forums: TM9NINE Have had it for over 10 years now. -T9

I agree that it's all prety much personal preference. If you need to see your line, use something bright (white, yellow or chart.). If not, use red, smoke or green. I've fished them all, often side by side, and have never seen it make a difference on my waters. Until YOUR fish show otherwise, start with whatever color inspires the most confidence in you. -T9

One need only go to the "Green Book" to get the correct context from Buck Perry himself: As a follow-up, Buck's good friend, noted Chicago Tribune author Tom McNally, interviewed Buck on the specific topic of how the term "structure" has been so "distorted" over the years. From that interview, the following excerpt: To discuss the concept of 'structure' with the/an understanding other than what has been stated above is to do so out of context and as defined by someone's elses own interpretation of the term/concept, IMHO. -T9