phisher_d

Jeez Dwight, that's a giant! Did you get a measurement on that beast? Looks well over 40 and girthy...

Right you are, but there's more. Given two identical outfits, the longer rod will cast a bit farther because of its greater circumferential "speed" (greater radius). But 5 seconds on the electric motor would dilute the discrepancy. Moreover, what the shorter rod lacks in speed, it makes up for in 'power'. Although long rods are often associated with 'leverage', the fulcrum is located at the reel, so it's the fish that benefits from the leverage of a longer rod, and the fisherman who foots the bill. With regard to "line-handling" and hook-setting, rod-length is a two-way street. When working in a spatterdock field, I would surely appreciate a little extra rod length to prevent the line from draping over a pad and aborting the entire retrieve. On the other hand, when working in close quarters among 8-ft tall bulrushes, the shorter rod maximizes my maneuverablility. As a bonus, a shorter rod is always more portable in the car, in the boat and in the home. With regard to "hook-sets", the shorter rod provides more power but the longer rod moves more line. The shorter rod would be better for game fish with bony mouths, but the longer rod benefits anglers who use nylon, copolymer or flurocarbon line. The extra line movement generated by the bigger arc of a long rod helps to override the stretch in the line. On the other hand, anglers using non-stretch braid do not require a long-stroke hook-set. Roger I can see what you're saying about the power and leverage, but how often do you find your self being "overpowered" by a bass, even with the longest of rods? There is something to be said about the shock absorbing ability of certain long rods, especially when dealing with the treble hook lures (think of steelheaders in the streams with tiny hooks, often fishing 10-12 foot rods and light line). With late running fish, especially smallmouth, the extra length (and shock absorbance) could be the difference between torn out hooks and a landed fish (a smooth drag obviously comes into play here as well). With braided line (no stretch), this effect becomes even more important. While this is true, sometimes it's important to keep your distance from the fish in order to get bit. Also, with crankbaits, longer casts give your bait more time at its intended depth (ie: with two 30 yard casts, your bait spends less time in the "strike zone" than with one 60 yard cast). With regard to hook-setting power, I can see what you mean, but I think there are more important factors to consider. If the difference was significant (relatively speaking), I don't think that we would see as many people fishing heavy hook baits like jigs and texas rigs on long flipping sticks. For me, when fishing baits vertically in cover (especially deep weeds) I find that a long rod allows me to stay in contact with the bait more easily, because of the longer arc length over my typical range of motion. In my mind, this alone outweighs any loss of power. For "long cast" baits like cranks and jerkbaits that have light hooks, I would guess that power becomes less important and line movement becomes more important (due to the bow in the line caused by drag in the water, even with non stretch line). It always comes down to a trade-off of benefits and drawbacks, but I prefer 7'+ rods for almost all applications, with the exceptions being tip-down jerking techniques (jerkbaits, poppers, dog-walkers), shallow crankbaits around cover, spinnerbaits around cover, and skipping. That said, it really just comes down to personal preference Cheers Dave

They are a good bait. You probably won't get the same quality assurance that you will with lucky craft, but I haven't had any major problems with the 7-8 that I've bought. If you get a defective one you should be able to return it for a replacement, just keep the packaging. There have been days after the water warms up where I have found that they outproduce LCs...

lol how much shorter is better? You're getting into ice fishing territory there...(seriously) http://www.reedssports.com/Product/product.taf?_function=detail&_ID=14824&pc=2516 ;D Out of curiosity, what do you want a rod like that for? Skipping?

Cranks - 7 foot Topwater - varies by bait (buzzbaits and toads get 7', dog walkers and poppers get 6'6") Hard Jerkbaits - 6'8" spinning The shorter rod for jerkbaits and topwaters prevents you from slapping the water when working the bait with the rod tip pointing downward.. I prefer spinning gear for hard jerkbaits because I find that I get less wrist and arm fatigue when working the bait hard. Some days the smallies won't touch a jerkbait unless it is ripped real hard and fast.

I would go with a medium-heavy rod around 7' with a fast or x-fast action. For sparse cover you could get away with a medium power rod, but I would stick with the med-hvy for versatility. Spool up with 15lb fluoro and you're good to go. If you go this route, you'll find that a 7'0" MH is a suitable rod for a wide variety of applications, not just tubes... Cheers (suggest a price range if you are looking for specific brand/model suggestions)

How will you be fishing the tube? The ideal rod can range anywhere from a ML spinning rod to a flipping stick, depending on the application.

Nope didn't notice... Don't you think that maybe the kinds of people who read this forum should be made aware of this sooner rather than later? I do. I'm not trying to start anything that would "taint" the forum.. If the mods think this is inappropriate, so be it...

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762 :-/

A steel leader won't affect the action any more than a heavy mono or flouro leader would. Up here, most guys targeting large muskies or pike have switched to heavy fluoro leaders, typically #80 or more, often as high as #120. If you are not targetting the big pike, I would suggest using a fine titanium leader (around #15-20, or whatever your mainline is). Titanium leaders are thin (low vis) and flexible, meaning that they won't affect the action of the bait so much. They're expensive, but they last much much longer then standard braided wire leaders (they don't kink).

Awesome game! Great effort by both teams.

The argument for better hookups vs non-snelled straight shank hooks comes from the "rocking" action that occurs when pressure is applied to the weight above the hook. If you snell a hook with the mainline entering the hook eye from the front, and then you pull down on the weight, the hook point will swing outwards. In theory, this should jam the hook point into the bass' mouth.

R.I. makes a product called the BMF barb (pictured), but you can go to a hardware store and just buy a bunch of heat shrink tubing and make your own for less $$. Without a barb like this the BMF has just two tiny barbs that will not hold a bait very well in heavy cover (you'd be better off with a wide gap IMO). Cut the tubing on an angle (as in the picture), slide it onto the hook and heat it with a lighter. Pull on the cut end a bit so that it sticks out, then let it set. This barb will hold the beaver in place even when punching through heavy weeds. Use a heavy rod with heavy braided line, slide a peg up the line, then a heavy tungsten weight. Snell the modified hook, making sure that the mainline enters the hook from the front (this is key). The rigging of the beaver is similar to how you would rig a plastic on a EWG hook. Poke the hook in the tip and out the back about 3/8" down, then slide it up and over the barb. Then bury the hook point in the bait so that it lies straight. Do not try to "texpose" the hook point on the outside of the bait like you would with an EWG, it should be buried in. Slide the peg and weight snug up against the bait and you're ready to punch. Check out this video for step by step instructions: (i've never tried those punch skirts in the video, I just use the bait by itself... they sure do make a nice looking presentation though. Also, I haven't tried his particular version of the snell knot but I definitely will this season as it looks much easier/quicker than the one I've used)

Red hooks reflect red light, and red line allows red light to pass through it, so either way the bass should see red (in shallow water)... Am I missing something? If the depth is sufficient to filter out all available red light, then both the hooks and the line should appear black. (An object that can't reflect or transmit any light, by definition, appears black) This deep water scenario is where most proponents of red line claim they have the greatest advantage, but does the red really help? If there is no red light available, then all that the line can do is absorb the remaining light (the blues and greens), which will end up making the line stand out from its surroundings even more (by appearing black in an atmosphere lit by blue and green). It seems to me that under any conditions (from an invisibility standpoint), you can't beat a truly clear line. A clear line does not filter the light passing through it, meaning that no matter the depth, the line will look like its surroundings. If the line happens to have similar refractive properties to water (*cough* fluorocarbon), then it will be that much more invisible, because it will not distort the light passing through it. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of red lures and hooks and I can believe that there are times when the bass might really key in on those colors. However, when it comes to invisibility and red line, I have not come across any information that would lead me to believe that it would have an advantage over plain, old-fashioned clear line. Perhaps you could post a link?

Thanks for the tips guys. I have been using #1 but I will try out #2 as well this year. Now if only the dang ice would melt