Team9nine

As stated, it all goes back to Dee Thomas' 1975 Bull Shoals dominant victory using the technique with a long rod. Ray and Harold got a lot of complaints and evaluated everything, then implemented the 8' rule the following year (1976) in the interest of "equity" among competitors. Most smaller circuits tend to set their rules based on what the national circuits do, especially affiliated clubs and organizations. -T9

...Or simply recommend everyone to pick up and read a copy of "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches" over the winter. Saves a lot of typing, and covers the subject more thoroughly than any forum posts could. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak... -T9

Answering this question depends a lot on how you interpret the terms. "Big" isn't necessarily a giant, and "average" isn't always dinks. On most of my waters, big would be approaching 5 lbs., and average would be between 1lb.-2lb. Also, "a lot" hasn't been defined. Regardless, count my vote in the minority, but I'm after quantity. I go fishing to catch fish, and lots of them, 50 bass a day or more. I consider anything much less than 8-10 bass an hour as slow. Granted, if I'm only going to catch 2 bass a day I would love for them to be 5 pounders (big), but 2 fish a day would make for an awefully boring time on the water to me. -T9

As you've seen, like every other line, some people think it's great, and others can't stand it. Throw me in the latter category like David (above) and others. I tried 2 different spools for nearly 6 months and had more unexplained breakoffs in that time than all other lines I've ever fished, combined...finally pulled off all the line and also tossed the remainder of the spools - problem solved. Not saying it's not the greatest line for some, but it will never make it onto a reel I own again. Just not worth trying to figure out the problem when so many other great lines are out there that I've never had issues with. And for the record to reflect that I'm not just a P-Line "hater", I've never had any problem with the several spools of CXX I've tried over the years, from 6# to 17#, or the spool of P-Line (100%) fluorocarbon. They've all been good to me. -T9

Probably just in your head, though it is possible on that small of a boat that by shifting the trolling motor weight to the front of the boat, you might have created a bit more drag by making it a bit nose heavy in the front now. If you can get your hands on a handheld GPS unit you could find out for sure. Sounds like you switched it right. Just undo the small screw under the head where the handle is and rotate 180 degrees, then replace screw and retighten. Hand and motor should now both be facing the same way, and as you mentioned, forward will = forward, etc. Did that with a MK for 5 years myself until I finally upgraded to a standard bow mount motor. -T9

Well, since we're still discussing this... 'No' -T9

Ditto - soft plastics are so over rated anyway

^^^ What he said... ^^^

Use them both. Have a couple reels spooled with 832 right now, and several more with PP. Both work fine - can't go wrong with either. However, I lean toward PP overall. Haven't been able to completely put a finger on it, but something about the way 832 handles/fishes that I just haven't got comfortable with yet. Might just be me... And color is irrelevant in most cases. Use whatever you prefer; something bright if you're a line watcher, or something smoke, red or green if not. In most instances, the fish could care less. -T9

Here's a comparison of the two in question. I've fished them both and done well on each. Very similar, yet some differences. -T9

skeletor - the point I failed to make clearly about crossed lines was in reference to the double line that initially goes around the split ring and forms the base of the knot, not the later crossover that you mention. Very easy to get sloppy with that part and doom the knot to failure before even starting. As for testing, again, it seems to depend on line brand. In your example, they stated the line brand used as "unnamed", yet in later reviews and tests with specific fluorocarbon lines such as in the links below, you'll see the Palomar was the superior knot in strength by several percentage points. http://www.tackletour.com/reviewsugoifc.html http://www.tackletour.com/reviewtrilenefc.html All I can state is that after trying several different knots over many years of fluoro use, I've gone back to and settled on the Palomar (which I've always used for everything else) without regret. The couple percentage points difference give or take with all these knots probably amount to little in the real world as opposed to the lab. On the pitzen knot, I haven't seen any specific numbers recently in head-to-head testing, but I believe it ties easier and cleaner than the San Diego jam, and therefor seems to be at least as good, if not better in most cases. Again, just opinion at this point. I know several people who do recommend it, and some that think they're tying the san diego but actually aren't (instead tying the pitzen) because they don't actually run the line through loop formed at the bottom. -T9

Testing I've seen has shown that different fluoro line brands sometimes perform better/worse with certain knots, but overall, all the common knots are fairly equivalent when averaged out. The stuff about a Palomar knot being a bad knot for fluoro is myth. Like any other knot, if tied properly (no crossed lines, etc.), there are no issues most of the time. In some cases, it even tests out as the superior knot with certain fluoro brands. It's the one I've chosen to use for the past several years. Pick a good common knot (San Diego Jam, Pitzen, Improved Clinch, Trilene, Uni, Palomar), learn how to tie it well, and as already suggested numerous times, lubricate and pull slowly and you shouldn't have any issues...unless you simply got a bad spool of line - it does happen from time to time. -T9

JMHO, but if you're breaking P-Line CXX in 4 lbs. on the hookset, it's not a line issue, it's a setup issue. Is your rod truly an UL rated rod, or are you just referring to it as such? That's about the thickest 4lb. line on the market. Anything else will probably just break easier or more often. Make sure you retie as often as necessary, and may have to tone down on your hookset a bit...or jump up to 6# line and see if the problem goes away. -T9

I'll be the oddball but when I'm dragging, which is usually a football head jig, I keep the rod low, about parallel to the water and drag off to the side, perhaps like you might move a Carolina rig. I prefer to keep a lower rod/line angle because I want that jig to stay down on the bottom contacting as much as possible - oh, and I rarely use the reel, I move the jig with the rod slowly sweeping. With rod tip up, I think it can be too easy to accidently lift the jig more than desired at times. -T9

Oops - Heritage Lake, Indiana is also a private lake, and one of it's subdivisions is called "Gettysburg." Also has a great white bass run in the spring...and BR clumps Indiana in with the "northeast" reports. What are the odds? Guess I won't be able to help then Sorry - LOL Good luck though... -T9

Here's mine from a few years back. Still fishing out of it http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/21369-yet-another-jon-boat-make-over/ -T9

I live there - and have a boat can't promise, but might be able to pull something off for a couple hours... -T9

Check the moon phase around the pre-spawn/spawn time to get an idea of if/when the bass or gills might be moving to beds (full/new moon), but otherwise never pay attention any other time. -T9

Is trolling cheating? - No, unless you're in a tournament. Otherwise as has been mentioned, fishing is about catching fish, so if it works in your situation, why not try it? Not as "easy" as some might think if done right. -T9

x2 - Kept logs for years and years back in "the day" in a 3x5 card file organizer ala Rick Clunn lake sectioning, etc.. Now I just do the above, but even then, not every year. -T9

This pretty much sums it up for me. It just seems wrong to fish a traditional bass jig without a trailer, but it certainly isn't an absolute. I have a friend who fishes with me from time to time and will refuse to use a trailer with his jig just to prove a point...and to irritate me He does catch bass that way, though I think overall it is much less effective in most cases. Hair jigs - 50/50 split between a trailer or sans. -T9

Another one to throw into the mix that fits your parameters is the Daiwa Exceler. I have a 3000 series that has a nice wide spool and a super smooth drag. Believe the going rate is about $80 online new. Been very happy with mine, and I use it a lot for fishing weightless floating worms in spring.

I think a lot of it is personal preference. I've got a 6'10" Loomis Shakyhead rod that is very nice, and is probabaly about as long as I'd personally want to fish with on my waters, but I've also caught a heck of a lot of fish using the technique with the previously mentioned 6'3" Daiwa length. In clearer waters where longer casts might be necessary, the longer rod might have the advantage. In more stained waters or where you might be making shorter casts around cover options or just shorter casts in general since the fish might not be as spooky, the shorter rod seems to work fine. -T9

Not to belabor the points, but in the interest of clarification and further discussion, since it's hard to discuss a topic if only one side of the issue is being expounded upon, I offer the following: You miss the point with the data in question. First, it wasn't generated by the author of the post in quesion, so he had no control over the methodology used. It was a very high end test though using Instron-like machine that tested 5 lines, 4 of which were monos. The point that was trying to be made was to disprove the argument many make that, 'OK, maybe fluoro stretches as much, but it somehow stretches differently than mono. It stretches less than mono with light force applied'. It doesn't matter which curve you would have selected of the 4 monos tested, they all stretched equal or less for a given force than the fluoro sample. The fact that the company that did the testing didn't/couldn't mention brand names doesn't change the outcome. The othe point to be made is that you have to be very careful in making blanket statements about monos/copolys versus fluorocarbons, because there are so many differences among brands. If you took the time to read through all the mentioned fluoro articles on the site in question, you'd see that the density/sensitivity issue was addressed. It is one of the few places I've seen that does mention it, as it largely gets overlooked by most as you said.

LOL - Skeletor6, you completely misinterpreted the intent of the articles, as well as the specifics behind them. You are trying to hold them to a higher standard than the message they were meant to convey. And the guy who wrote them actually loves fluorocarbon line, especially the Toray brand products and InvisX has it's place as well. -T9