Goose52

...and here's the schematic of the braking system - also from the PQ 5-Year Challenge thread(s).

Well, this is a PQ spool that shows the centrifugal brake shoes/springs. If you press the tab on the shoe all the way towards the center of the spool, it will lock in place and thus disengage that brake shoe. If you release the brake shoe, the spring holds the active shoe away from the brake drum except when there is enough centrifugal force for it to extend and engage the drum. This photo is from the PQ 5-Year Challenge thread(s)

DVT

Tagging fish can be done for a number of reasons but is probably most often used as a tool that can be used to measure/monitor the health of the fishery. On initial tagging, the fish is measured for length, it might be weighed, it's tagged, and then released. On subsequent re-captures of the tagged fish the same data points are recorded and compared to previous measurements, thus providing information about the growth rate of the fish, and in turn providing a measure of the health of the fishery. For water that is actively managed, this data might lead to fishery alterations/improvements like addition of habitat/structure, aquatic vegetation alterations, addition of forage fish, improvements in cover to protect breeding forage fish, etc., etc. A coincidence that this thread was started as just yesterday I tagged my first fish. The "aquatic consultant" that manages my local lakes asked me to volunteer to tag and recapture fish over the next several years. I have an initial quota to tag 250 LMB in each of two lakes, and tag 500 LMB in a third lake. Dang, drafted to go out and catch, and hopefully periodically re-catch, 1000 bass. It's tough work, but someone has to do it... My first tagged bass:

Thanks Dwight - and that fish was in 39 degree water... On the tripod, I thought about it and just can't see it working when fishing from the bank. I've already got the fish out of the water for hook removal, length measurement, and weighing, then a quick photo. Finding a level spot on the bank to set up a camera, aligning the camera, hitting the timer, checking the shot, etc. Too much time. Better to get the fish back in the water and forego the glamour shot. Now, from the boat, I could make up a bracket with the camera pre-angled and locked in. But, sometimes I go a number of trips in a row in the boat without catching anything photo-worthy so it sounds like too much trouble as well ! THERE's the answer! Exactly! I would say 6 to 8 pounds and could still be wrong!

Ha - it WAS a trick question! That's why I usually never participate in the "guess the weight of this fish" threads... Too hard to tell from photos. Since it's in the same weight range - here's my 5-pounder from last week. This is 5lb 13oz / 22+" - heavier than both Roger's and Dwight's fish...but looks smaller. Since I fish alone and usually have to do the 'ole fish next to the rod photo...you don't get the "magnification" effect of handheld fish...

I've placed two Shimano parts orders with Plat - no problems or issues. Both orders were placed on their parts web pages - selected the parts, went through the check out process, paid. They only order parts (in this case from Shimano) once a week so when you place your order on-line, it will be on hold until they receive the parts from Shimano and then will ship out your order. So, it could take 10 days or longer to receive your parts depending on what day you place your order...

Well, one could look at the usual telltales, is the arm bent/how far away is the fish from the body, hand size compared to fish size (fat finger syndrome), fish shape/proportion, etc. Taking all that into account, Dwight's fish is farther from his body but because of the shape of the bass certainly appears to look bigger than Roger's. I won't guess a weight however... BUT, more interestingly, Dwight's photo, to me, "flatters" the fish more than Roger's photo - the fish is closer to the camera and becomes the center of attention, rather than sharing the attention with the angler. I feel this is a better composed shot for the purposes of capturing the spirit of the fish...and I don't believe at all that Dwight had any intent to inflate the apparent size of the fish. My Dad used to do the old "hold out the fish to make it look bigger trick" and made me do it with my first nice bass 49 years ago. First, and last, time I intentionally tried to distort the size of the fish in a photo!

http://www.alweld.com

THAT's how to beat cabin fever !

The Conquest is calling you RW.......................................

Sure - line capacity primarily. "Power" is determined by gear ratio and handle length primarily with physical gear size being a secondary factor. Some LP reels can trump some round reels in those areas. Some limiting factors (for some people and presentations) are that round reels usually have limited gear ratio options (one, sometimes two ratios), they usually "palm" bigger than a LP, and often might be heavier. However, I've got round reels in the 6 and 7 ounce range (fairly light), and the 50-size Shimano round reels are a delight to palm (for me). I've seen posts by guys with large/extra-large hands who say that they prefer round reels - LPs seem too small for them. What has not yet been mentioned are the non-performance related factors. Round reels are fun, they're something different, they spice up the fishing experience, they can be elegant in form, some are of heirloom quality, and many are nearly all metal for those with an aversion to plastics, composites, carbon, etc. For me - I have both LP and (now) a lot of round reels. They're all tools, and each have different features that make them appropriate for certain tasks and presentations. I usually have at least one round reel in the car or in the boat. Occasionally, the planets all align and the tools I choose for the job that day might all be round reels - like this photo from one of the last times I was in the boat in December...

Have you used round reels before? If not, this is one time where you might want to handle the reels on a rod to make sure you're comfortable with the feel. Round reels typically chosen for swimbaits are going to palm considerably larger than low-profile BC reels and you might want to handle one for a while to see how they feel on a rod. Some steps to guide the process: identify the baits / weights you want to throw, determine the line type/pound test you want to use with those baits, determine the line capacity you want for your chosen line, review the Abu and Shimano round reel line up and identify the size reel you need to provide your chosen line capacity, then hit a store and handle the chosen reels on a rod. Depending on the size of the reel - the Shimanos might palm smaller for you due to their recessed reel foot so that's one factor that could determine which brand to choose.

Very cool ! I will have to get my Runts wet this year sometime...

This one. 1959. I still take it out about once a year. It reels in dinks now just as well as it did 55 years ago...

Ah - gift cards - PERFECT - you get what you want and not a bunch of stuff you might not need. What a phenomenal day you guys had. I'm a native Floridian, grew up in South Florida, fished the 'Glades (this in the 1960s)...but my Dad and I never had that kind of day. Such a wonderful fishery you're enjoying. To put it in perspective from my viewpoint some quick figures. In 2013, the local bass club here in TN, in 16 tournaments totaling over 2,000 angler-hours, only caught 19 LMB 3 pounds or heavier. That year, I caught 25 LMB 3 pounds or heavier, thus beating the bass club. You guys, in ONE DAY, caught more FOUR pound or heavier LMB than our 3 pound numbers for an entire YEAR. Just INCREDIBLE ! CONGRATS again...

Yes - for the CQ14-100. The smaller sideplate is nice...but there is a reduction in capacity to pay for it.I'm still "calibrated" to the CQ00-100/CTE-100GT capacity of about 115yds/12lb or 95yds/14lb...which was why I mentioned that I only use my 200 for 17lb. So, for CQ14, line capacity of the 100 may be an issue for you.

It just occured to me that CQ14-100 has smaller line capacity than the CQ00-100 so I guess you should really determine what line you want to use before picking a size. I use mostly 10 pound line and the 100 will hold about 100yds - plenty for me. It will hold about 85yds of 12 pound - still enough for me.

I haven't used my CQ14-100 for anything under about 3/8 oz. Under 3/8, I use a 50 size

Dwight - did you get your goodies yet? Just wondering what kind of stuff is included.

I used my earlier gen CTE-GTs and CQ00s for nearly everything. I can even toss a lipless crank with them but at 23ipt you sometimes have to crank like crazy. I now have several round reels with 26 - 28ipt so they have taken over the lipless mission and the CTEs and CQs are used now mostly for cranking and bottom contact. Now that CQ14 will have a 30ipt option, all sorts of applications are possible...On 100 vs. 200, the 100 has adequate line capacity for most applications. I only go to a 200 with 17lb line. The CQ14 100 size also palms nicely...

Thanks! Part of the reason I go into detail on the fishing report posts is some folks seem to get a kick out of it. As you know, I love having photos in threads. Most folks have digital cameras or photo-capable phones so it's easy to grab pics while fishing (not like the film days!). I like seeing fish pictures and I like seeing reels with line on them, mounted on rods, and slimed up a bit...instead of sitting on top of their box... Fished today - surface water temps up to 43/44. No fish caught unfortunately. I really need a nasty front to come in to pick up the fishing again...

RW - Your CTE-200GT is the functional equivalent of a Conquest 200 (last generation - aka CQ00). The differences are: CQ has a forged handle / TE-GT has a stamped handle CQ has a forged drag star / TE-GT has a stamped star CQ has clicking spool tension knob and drag / TE-GT has no clicks CQ has a ported palm-side sideplate / TE-GT is plain/unported I have both CTE-GTs and CQ00s and they perform and feel the same to me. These photos show the external differences (using 100-size reels): Now - the Conquest being discussed in this thread is the Conquest 14. CQ14 has all the latest gadgets/features: SVS Infinity Braking, X-Ship, Micro-Module Gears, etc. The CQ 14 has a smaller sideplate and palms noticeably smaller than the equivalent size CQ00, it MIGHT (or might not) cast a bit farther due to the braking system, and will probably feel smoother to most folks due to the micro-module gears and X-ship. All in all, just a nicer reel than the earlier generation. Is CQ14 enough better than a CQ00 (or a CTE-GT) to warrant buying a new reel? That's up to each person to decide..

Yeah - I had cued up the Met DC as well. However, I'm waiting to find out if the Met DC makes the usual "DC whine" - if the reel is silent...I might not be as interested...

Jeff - click the link. The specs on that page show 77cm for the 100HG which is about 30.3". YEAH BABY ! I was planning on getting a 50-size Conquest14 had they released one this year. I note that Jun at JapanTackle has removed any reference to a 50-size on his web site so perhaps he might be hearing that it might not happen. SO, my reserved spot for a 50 will be transferred to the 100HG...