Fishing Rhino

I did click on the pictures. These old eyes can make out what appears to be the base of the mount against the step, with the cable hanging down, with the transducer torn away. I have an 898. Its transducer mounted in the same place that yours was, to the right of the intakes and drains. I had mine too low at first, and all it did was to trip up, but nothing tore from the boat as yours did. What part broke? There is the steel mount, which is adjustable up and down, the plastic piece which attaches to the mount, that can trip should the transducer hit an obstruction, and the transducer, which attaches to the plastic trip piece. Only a small portion of the bottom of the transducer should be lower than the bottom of the hull. About half of mine is slightly below and about half is higher than the bottom of the boat. Set that way, it will read the depth at speeds of about forty mph. Faster than that, air gets forced under the hull, which disrupts the transmission and receiving of bottom echoes. Reading the bottom at high speeds is not important to me. Boats with jack plates often have the transducers mounted on the transom. As soon as a boat with a stepped hull gets on plane, the transducer is out of the water, rendering it useless.

Ripping off? Does it pull the screws out, or is it tripping up? The pictures are too dark to see the mounting bracket. If it's tripping up, my first guess would be that it is too low.

In almost every type of use for silicone, you will have better results if you do not screw it down tightly when you first mount an object, or use it to fill/seal screw holes. When you do, you squeeze out most of the sealant. You should just snug the screws down slightly, then let the silicone set up overnight or for a couple of days if you have the time. Once set, the silicone will not squeeze out. It will then compress, making a watertight seal, rather than squeezing out. When you squeeze it out, rather than letting it set, all you have is a thin film of silicone, which is just slightly better than not using it at all.

Navplanner2. It has every lake, pond, river and the coastal waters of the continental U.S. that is on their Hotmaps premium chips. Not every pond or lake is on the program, and only a small percent of those in the program are in detailed high definition. The program cannot be used in place of the Hotmaps chips, but it will interface with them. You can find the program for about 130 bucks including delivery.

Didn't your mother keep wondering how she was "losing" her garter belts?

That sounds like me, at least on some of the ponds I fish. I'm told I fish plastics faster than what is recommended. On some ponds, it's the only way you can fish plastics, unless you want to get hung up.........on every cast. As soon as the bait hits the water, I flip the bail and give the bait a twitch, then retrieve. It's the only way to keep the bait from wedging into the rocks. The water at the edge of the Purple Loosestrife is a foot and a half to two feet deep, but the rocks are only a few inches below the surface. The fish hang in pockets between rocks. If you allow it to drop into the rocks, you'll get hung up. Use topwater baits you say. You could. I've tried them, but the plastics fished just below the surface produce more and better fish on average. To make matters worse, when I fish wacky rigged worms, I use a Jackall Wacky jig head, usually the 3/32 ounce version, and retrieve it fast enough to keep it just below the surface, slowing it down a bit as it gets into deeper water. I use six pound fluoro, and check the line every time I catch a fish. It gets interesting when you hook a good fish, and feel the line dragging over the tops of the rocks. The thing that makes it possible to use such light line is that there are very few places where a fish can wrap a line around a rock. They can dive into a pocket, but have nowhere to go but up from there. The bottom is as rocky as riprap, but the stones do not have the sharp broken edges of riprap. Hook a fish, and they generally make a break for the open water, away from the stones. If they do get in a pocket, I run my canoe up to them, then lift them from the pocket, and the fight resumes. This has me tending to retrieve the bait faster than necessary in other places. If I'm not getting hits, I'll vary the retrieve, from very slow, to fairly fast. Most of my retrieves are a series of twitches, each moving the bait very slightly. The bait is moved with the rod, not by cranking the reel. It's like pumping the bait. Move it toward you, then take up the slack when the rod is moved toward the bait. No matter what bait, or technique you use, mix it up, vary your retrieve, until the fish tell you what they want. Do not fall into the trap of thinking there is one best way to work any particular bait, and doggedly sticking to what you always do.

That's a difficult question since you don't state what you have been trying, and where you've been fishing. By where, I don't mean the name of the pond/lake/river. I mean where on that particular body of water. Are you fishing close to the shore, in deeper water, rocky bottom, etc. If you want help, you've got to fill in the blanks.

Or, Super glue/Crazy glue the tag end to the line. Take your pick. One more thing, don't forget to fan out the bristles of the weed guard on the jig.

Hey! That has the makings of a winning television show. They take the big bucks, and head west, living their swamp lifestyle among the rich and famous. Pet alligators in the cement pond and all. The possibilites are endless. Whatta ya think?

That damages more tissue. If done according to the illustrations posted earlier, the hook pops free with no further damage. There is no need to cut off the eye, or force the hook through more gullet tissue to expose the point and the barb.

Is the fishing in Jersey better when the grass is growing, or when it's dormant? I've just started mowing the lawn and the bite is on. When it's cut for the last time, the fishing around here is about done, unless you're into ice fishing. Are you sure you hate mowing the lawn?

It's tough to beat the coffee can, or small paint pot filled with concrete. Chain won't pull out of the concrete, or an eye bolt with a large washer between a couple of nuts works well. These have been around for decades if not a century.

Still no sign of beds being prepared, but they are storming the shallows. Caught a ton of 'em today, and every one of them was right against the bank, or shallow rock formations. Caught eight alongside one small dock. Don't know how many I caught total, but it was considerable for four hours of fishing from six to ten this morning.

I watched it once. My favorite swamp person is the Swamp Man on the Ax Men program. He plays the part of the backwoods hick very well. Torn off sleeves, torn edges on his shorts that were apparently regular pants with the leg torn off above the knee, his loyal dog Willie, or is it Willy, and his sordid assortment of hick helpers are all part of the image. One thing gives him away. His hair. It is always neatly trimmed. Coming in second as interesting characters are the competitors dragging logs from the bottom of the river in Florida. They look, and act like a bunch of hicks. They are anything but their television personnas, or is it personnae.

Weight and mass are two different animals. Mass is constant. Weight varies. On the moon an object weighs 1/6th (I think) of what it does on earth. A gallon jug full of water is buoyant if the water in the jug is the same as the water in which the jug is immersed. I suppose it depends on the type of plastic, but I've seen gallon jugs full of water at the surface. Disregarding the plastic, the water is weightless. Any object's weight is reduced by the weight of the water it displaces. Question What is the difference between mass and weight? Asked by: Eddo Answer Mass is a measure of how much matter an object has. Weight is a measure of how strongly gravity pulls on that matter. Thus if you were to travel to the moon your weight would change because the pull of gravity is weaker there than on Earth but, your mass would stay the same because you are still made up of the same amount of matter. Answered by: A. Godbehere, High School Student, Port Perry Imagine yourself out is space away from any gravitational field, with a bowling ball in your hands. Let it go and it just floats in front of you. Without gravity, it has no weight. Now grab it again and shake it back and forth. That resistance to being moved is inertia, and mass measures how much inertia an object has. Inertia does NOT depend on gravity. Mass is determined only by the amount of matter contained in an object. Any two masses exert a mutual attractive force on each other. The amount of that force is weight. A one kilogram mass on the Earth's surface results in 2.2 pounds of force between the mass and the Earth, so we say the mass weighs 2.2 pounds. That same one kilogram mass on the Moon, because of the Moon's lower mass, results in only about 1/3 pounds of mutual force. Just remember that the weight of an object depends on where it is, while its mass stays the same. Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A., Part-time Physics Instructor

In my favorite pond, small and shallow, the surface temp was about 62 last Sunday. Where I put in, there are some trees that lean out over the pond. It's very easy to lean on one of these and watch the activity in the shallows. I saw four pair of bass, leisurely cruising into the shallows and back out. Sometimes they hugged the bottom, other times they suspended just below the surface, and cruised there. Other times they just hung out along the edge of a grass patch in maybe twenty inches of water. Not only did I witness the bass, but they were sharing the territory with some very large bluegills, nearly rubbing shoulders with them. Neither species paid the slightest attention to the other. I saw no prepared beds, but the fish seemed to be reacting to the spawning urge, even if it's only the pre-spawn ritual. I'll plead ignorance to what they are actually doing, but these are my observations. When I did start fishing, most of the fish were caught tight to the beach, in as little as a foot of water. While those I observed appeared to be a bit lethargic in their activity, they were definitely in a biting mood.

Let's forget the dollar cost of getting this site up and running, and keeping it running. For the sake of argument, let's say it cost nothing. What about the hours it takes to get a site up and running, and keeping it running. The countless hours chasing down and fixing glitches. I'd hazard a guess, and that's all it is, a guess, that at minimum wage, the hours of labor put into creating and running a web site would far exceed the dollar cost of running it. My take is that Glenn, or anyone else for that matter that runs a web site/forum, does not need to answer to anyone, whether they make a nickel or a million dollars. It costs nothing to join and participate. No one forces anyone to be a member. There is a saying, "You get what you pay for." If someone pays nothing, and gets nothing out of it, there is nothing to complain about. If you get two cents worth of advice or learning, you are ahead of the game. One more thought. Seniority counts for nothing. What various members contribute, be it their first, or their thousandth post is what this forum is about. Participation, and contribution, not to mention civility, oops, I just mentioned it, are golden.

You'll get no argument from me that a Bass Cat, a Ranger, a Triton, an Allison a (fill in the blank) are better boats than Nitros. But, are they better values? That is the question. A Chevrolet will get you from coast to coast. A Cadillac will get you from coast to coast. The Ford, or Dodge afficianados can substitute Dodge or Ford for Chevy and Chrysler or Lincoln for Caddy. Most would not argue that upscale makes will get you from A to B more comfortably with nicer ameneties to boot. The question each buyer has to decide is, is the added cost worth it to them? I hear folks say they will be fishing less, and/or staying closer to home because of the price of gas. If the owners of the better boats that voice that had the extra ten, fifteen or twenty thousand in their wallet, the price of fuel might not impact their fishing at all. I could have gotten a "better boat" than my Nitro, but I preferred to put the money saved into things that are more likely to put more fish in the boat, such as better electronics. This you can be sure of. If Kevin Van Dam thought he would catch more fish out of a different boat, he would fish from it. I know, I know, BPS pays KVD big bucks to tout their products. KVD is no fool however. He knows the KVD "brand" only has its value because of his ability to catch fish. He's certainly not going to use any product that dimishes his chances of catching fish, no matter how slightly it impacts his production. Fishing can be done from the bank, waders, float tubes, jons, etc., on up to the full blown, top dollar bass boats. Get a boat you can afford to use on a regular basis, not one that requires you to save a few bucks for a few weeks to put fuel in it. I'd sooner have a boat I can use more often, than one that sits in the garage because the price of fuel has reached four bucks per gallon, and likely to get higher. Ten thousand dollars will get you 2500 gallons of fuel. That's a lot of fishing days.

This technique works every time. I've used it countless times now, and it has never failed to remove the hook effortlessly. But, as far as I am concerned, needle nose pliers and straight nose hemastats suck. The curved nose hemastats work much better. Insert them between the first and second gills near the body, bent tip facing the fish. With needle nose or straight pliers you need to flare the gill plate and the gills to position them to turn the hook. Not so with the bent nose hemastats. Plus the hemastats are smoother with no sharp edges that can scrape delicate gill tissues. As a rule, you need to determine which side is best for inserting the tool to rotate the hook. If you are having problems, try the other side.

This Bass Hunter: This canoe: Or this Z7 Or maybe this canoe:

To test if it's ready for sanding, give it a quick wipe with acetone on a paper towel or rag. It's not uncommon for repairs such as this to have parts that tend to feel gummy. Usually acetone cleans off the gummy residue, leaving a clean dry surface to be finished. Give it a wipe, then feel the surface. If it feels solid, you're probably good to go. Try lightly sanding an area. Epoxy isn't quite as hard/brittle as fiberglass resin. It will plug the paper more quickly. Are you going to paint over the repair, or are you going to sand then buff to a gloss? If it's the latter, use wet or dry paper, no coarser than 600 grit. Start with the 600, and finish with 1000 or 1200 grit. Use plenty of water, and rinse the area frequently. One bit of grit between the sandpaper and the surface can ruin your work. The finer paper you use, the less buffing you'll need.

I have an Eagle Cuda portable sounder, powered by 8 AA batteries which last for hours and hours. It was less than a hundred bucks. It does fine in a small pond, but had the one posted by BassininVT been available, I would have opted for that. My favorite pond which I fish in my canoe has several brush piles, mostly sunken Christmas trees. I have stumbled across several of them, and the GPS would be invaluable to record them for future reference rather than relying on ranges from landmarks.

Suicidenemesis, my reply was meant for Bass Thumb. I should have quoted his post. You finished your job, and I doubt you'll have a problem. Below certain temps, the stuff will eventually cure, but low temps may also affect the bond.

Which version of Marine Tex are you using? Quick set takes one hour to cure. The regular Marine Tex takes 24 hours to full cure at a constant 72 degrees, longer if it's cooler. The info before was taken from tneir web site. CURE TIME: 24 hours at a constant temperature of 72F. Lower temperatures will create longer cure times. It is not recommended to apply the product in temperatures below 55F.

This is impossible. It cannot happen. The entire TVA was built for flood control. Well, that wasn't the only reason, but it was one of the primary purposes. Let's understand this, or try to. Could be one of Bassclary's philosophies. We control floods, by flooding low lying towns and communities. The inhabitants then move to higher grounds, some of which are now being, or about to be flooded. Makes sense to me. Communities which never would have been flooded under anything less than forty days and forty nights of torrential rain pouring down and fountains of the deep opening will now be flooded, thanks to the TVA. It's a futile effort for man to attempt to control nature. Already, the ocean is reclaiming that marvel of modern engineering, The man made Palm Islands off the coast of Dubai. The TVA project may be worth it for making navigation possible, and creating millions of acres of fish habitat, but flood control? Not! At least not under the current weather conditions.