VekolBass

Let the bass tell you. If you're catching bass in 50 degree water then stay there and catch more. If you're not catching bass in 50 degree water, then move to where it is warmer. I definetly wouldn't move to where it was colder.

It's not quite the NE, but not too far off. I enjoy wading the smallmouth streams here in Northern VA in summer. The fish are smaller than what you'll find in Tennessee or the Great Lakes, a two pounder is a large fish, but seeing as a two pound smallmouth is the equivalent of a four pound largemouth it is still a blast. My son caught the below fishing the Rappahannock last summer.

Concur.

For hook sharpening I use a Dremel tool with a small grinder. Be sure to use the lowest speed and use a light touch. The sandpaper drums work great for removing any rust that might have formed on hooks too.

I just read "Bass Madness" this weekend. I get the feeling that Schultz is, by and large, not a fan of tournament fishing. That's fine, I'm not sure that I like it either--at least at the national "big business" level that the book explores. Schultz's main concerns seem to be ethical (fishing for bedding fish and fish mortality issues), and that fishing for money more resembles gambling than sport. I disagree with him on the bedding fish issue, am unsure on the fish mortality issue, and agree to a point on the gambling issue. It is a good read though, he is an entertaining writer.

That's a really unfortunate. Best wishes for a quick and full recovery. The bass in Florida, however, are doubtless relieved. Hopefully, it will be a very short reprieve.

Search for the warmest water you can find in the body of water that you fish. Southern exposed banks, rip rap, or the upper arms of the lake where creek water is entering (particularly when there has been a warm rain.) Then look for bait fish on your electronics. If you don't have electronics, use a jig or other bottom bait to find a creek channel or break line (ie. ledge or slope.) Submerged stumps and brush can also attract baitfish in the winter. Baitfish generally relate to such areas in the winter--and the bass relate to the baitfish. One last thing, mental attitude is important. Hope for the best, but don't get frustrated if you don't catch anything. That happens a lot in the winter--particularly if you choose not to fish during optimum conditions (a period of stable and warm weather.

Great thread and information. I've got at least 5 Silver Minnows tucked away in a corner of my tackle box that I never use (like a lot of the things the Bait Monkey seduced me into buying over the years.) Sounds like it would be perfect for the weed choked areas of the Potomac during the late summer months. I'll definitely try this out.

My basic rule of thumb is that if water temperature is below 60 degrees in most areas of a lake, look for warmer water. If it is over 85 degrees look for cooler water. Below 60 degrees use finesse presentations or jigs and fish slower. When the water is really cold (under 45) a difference of just a few degrees can make all the difference.

I'm sorry to be crude, but this is just plain nonesense. "A mosquito infested watesland" describes most of Florida and certaily the everglades. Has it been so long ago that the Exxon Valdez ruined miles of pristine water and habitat? Talk to the stone crabbers and commercial and recreational fisherman, lobsterman, and shell fisherman in the gulf of mexico. (before wilma) C'mon guys, we're the ones who are supposed to care about and conserve the outdoors. If the hunters and fisherman don't care about the environment who will? You can honestly advocate for drilling in the last great wilderness habitat in North America while people are driving 9 mpg hummers, Obese SUV's and stretch limos? The investment in research in alternative fuels is apalllingly low. We can spend 100 billion dollars to invade Iraq, but investing in something that would really liberate us, namely freedom from the oil barons, is not a priority. I guess I'm the dummy, because I just don't get it. Millions of people live in, and many more are relocating to, Florida. That in and of itself creates a far larger ecological problem in that peninsula than even several thousand oil and gas wells would have created. The Northern Slope of Alaska is far less hospitable. In addition to the mosquitos that make those in the lower 48 look like a joke (at times they literally drive the resident caribou mad) the winter temperatures preclude the place from ever having a significant human population. The most robust oil development plan for the North Slope only would effect under 5% of the total area currently protected as wilderness. As I said before, if not there then where? As far as the Exxon Valdez is concerned: -- It was a tanker, current dependence on tankers to transport oil from abroad makes it more likely that it could theoretically happen again. (Sam made an excellent point regarding oil being a commodity, but Ill blithely ignore its implications in an effort to cut down on keystrokes.) -- As long is we have a modern society there will be costs associated with acquiring the energy resources need to run it. I dont want to sound crude--but accidents will happen and we will just have to deal with it. Fortunately, as the Exxon Valdez and several other incidents have proved, the environment given a chance, recovers nicely. In the 60s and 70s the Potomac river was essentially dead, except for some rough fish. Today we hold bass tournaments on it. A minimum amount of common sense environmental legislation accomplished that. As regards high fuel use vehicles go I dont advocate their use, and I dont discourage it either. I advocate the free market. As oil resources become more scarce, price goes up, and people driving things like Hummers, three quarter ton trucks, and bass boats with 225 HP motors feel the pinch. They then have to make a decision whether to continue doing what their doing or scale down to an econobox sedan or a 25hp outboard--like mine. Their business. Alternate fuels? This country has people called "venture capitalists." They are people with money to invest in technologies that promise to be "the next big thing." If there is sound economic logic for investing in a technology--ie. it will be profitable--they will line up to invest their money. The lack of investment in alternative fuels (if there really is a lack, which I somewhat doubt) suggests to me that all the hype is just that. Ethanol being a prime example. As the price for oil rises, which it probably will over time, these alternative fuels may become more attractive. The day that my local station offers something cheaper that doesnt damage my engine I will be the first in line at the pump.

A lot of that is tax--no pity for self-inflicted wounds. U.S. gas would be cheaper if we would fully exploit the resources we've got. Sorry, but a mosquito infested wasteland that I'll never visit like the Alaskan North Slope seems a perfect place to put some oil rigs. If not there, then where? Ditto for off-shore resources. Don't those people know that off-shore rigs are fish magnets? Oil prices go up quickly because the down-stream suppliers are protecting themselves from price increases that they know (or suspect) are coming. Nothing moves faster than bad news. They are slower to reduce prices because they don't really want to, and it takes time for market pressure to force them to cut prices. True, oil companies are making money hand over fist now, but in the nineties they were going broke because of low world oil prices. No one gave a c--p about their oil profits then, but now that prices are up everyone thinks they are getting gouged. At some point investors need to make a substantial profit on their investment otherwise they will put their wealth into something that will yield profit--and to make the hard times worth waiting through. Frankly, the low prices did us bad in the long run because there wasn't enough money at hand for oil field exploration and development--not to mention making the difficult process of building more refinery capacity an attractive proposition.

A great indication that it's winter time, and most folks can't get out on the water. :'(

DirecTV ROCKS!!! There is almost always some kind of outdoor programming being shown on the 600 series channels. ESPN is backing away from the angling market, I do believe.

A question like that is generally a pretty good indicator of "buyer's remorse." Excellent point RW.

I've got a Pflueger Trion which runs $99. I like it, and used it extensively all last year. A number of other manufacturer's have comparable, and maybe better, reels in the $75-$100 range. Once you start getting in the $50 to $70 range you will notice a decrease in "fishability"--but many of these reels are OK too for most applications.

I have a 737 and like it--although I do not have any experience with other manufacturer's products. Prior to the 737 I had a Humminbird Wide Optic, which I still have and intend on mounting as the bow unit.

I've had similar problems with boat covers in the last year or so since I bought my 17' Tracker jon boat. I think I finally came up with a solution--at least it has worked well so far. Last winter the problem was that the Stearns boat cover wold sag when it rained and formed a large pool of water in the boat. It was a lot worse when it snowed, or rained then froze. I had to chip large chunks of ice and bail cold water on several occasions. That even though I had created basically a tent by putting two 5/8" wooden dowels about 2 1/2' in length and ran a rope between them. This set up failed. The dowels couldn't hold up against the weight of the above mentioned pooling. So plan B. I replaced the wooden dowels with 1/2" EMT conduit. Rather than a rope, I cut two tennis balls and placed them over the conduit ends. Most importantly I purchased the same Stearns cover--only a fitted variety this time with an elastic cord that better holds it in place. Combined with a number of bungee cords securing it at the perimeter the new set up has worked so far this fall and winter despite some pretty serious rainfall--no pooling. We will see what happens when (if) it snows.

It looks like I'm going to have to learn to squeeze some dace. ;D

If the number of people angling falls to less than 5% of current anglers then I guess it would be quite possible that angling could be outlawed. But then, if there are that few anglers at some point in the distant future then there that won't be that many people who should be unhappy about it. Perhaps it will simply vanish due to disinterest. Too bad, people won't know what they're missing. I doubt, however, that that will ever really happen. A lot of sports have experienced similar declines in popularity--particularly those sports that require some degree of personal dedication and physical effort. Backpacking and tennis come to mind. As some others have alluded to, this is likely a by-product of a number of factors which I won't repeat. Often, at some point the decline ends, and a steady state of participation is reached that is sustainable. If we could only change fishing to catching, and make it physically pleasurable to be in a boat for ten hours in 90 degree weather we could solve this problem overnight. The real concern here is political. Reading the article that Chris linked to (which is and of itself interesting because it was written by a commercial fishing industry group that is in fact arguing that recreational anglers are far too influential in setting government fishing policy-- part of that industry's never ending quest to profitably provide the public their God given right to $0.99 Filet-o-Fish sandwiches regardless of what it does to the environment) one finds that while the number of people participating in fishing has decreased by a third, people are fishing twice as much. More dedicated participants are more likely to involve themselves politically--and vote their interests (which is one of the things the industry group is really whining about). Thus the decline in angling has not really hurt it politically, and may have helped it somewhat. If fishing continues to decline in popularity a point of diminishing returns will occur--and the lack of participation will hurt the sport politically. I think fishing has a long way to go in this regard. Hunting has far fewer participants, and has seen a significant drop in participation over the past thirty years. Despite this, the political challenges facing the hunting community are about the same now as they were 20 years ago--and in some cases have improved in areas (liberalized bag limits, new seasons for formerly illegal species.) We have the advantage of having our interests coincide with that of the fish--in most cases. With some hesitation, because I'm not sure if I think that maximizing the number of people fishing is really a worthy goal in and of itself, I'll throw out some ideas that might help increase the number of anglers: 1. Keep fishing simple. A hard thing to do on a place like BR where we are generally dedicated fishermen looking for the most effective ways of catching fish, regardless of the cost or complexity. But other venues could certainly help with this. Perhaps people who have never fished are watching fishing shows on cable and see articles explaining the wonders of sonar, underwater cameras, $500 fishing reels, you name it. No wonder they quickly change the channel looking for something simpler and cheaper. It won't keep the tackle industry in business, but maybe describing how to take a $50 rod and reel, tie on a worm, and catch a fish. 2. Ensure There are Safe Places to Fish. Support public fishing facilities and waters in urban areas, and make sure there are good numbers of edible fish present. Might want to make sure the license fees are reasonable too. I'm sure the decrease in trout fishing mentioned in the article Chris linked to is a result of affluent property owners nailing up "no trespassing" signs on what was once accesible streamfront acreage. I know it is difficult to find shore fishing in Virginia for the same reason.

I think it is the natural result of big business "discovering" a sport (ESPN/BASS), hyping it to the masses, the masses trying it out and discovering that: 1. You can't just throw money at it to become proficient--or even have fun. (see some of the recent threads regarding this subject) 2. It requires some degree of physical effort and discomfort. 3. It is an activity that requires patience and concentration. They tried it and discovered they did not like it. Not a problem as far as I'm concerned. The water is too crowded as it is.

There are clubs that hold tournaments where the style and power of the boat are limited. See http://www.bassjons.com. I don't think there are any limitations regarding electronics, numbers of rods, etc.

Don't beat yourself up about what the pro's do or don't do. They live on another planet--and you are light years away from it. Fishing is about having fun, for you to become concerned about what Kevin Van Dam does or uses on his boat is like getting bent out of shape because you own a computer, but Bill Gates is a billionaire. Like any other professional in any other endeavor, fishing pro's get there by spending most of their waking hours on the water doing something they love. If fishing makes you happy, that is the one lesson that the pro's offer to us all that is self evident--so adhere to it, and not only will you be happier, but become a better fisherman too. Regardless of the number of gadgets you have with you. I don't know about Biosonix, but as regards sonars go most of their value is to help the angler eliminate those large areas of any body of water where the fish aren't--saving valuable time. Used by skilled anglers, they may help locate better areas to fish than others. I can't tell you, because I haven't got that good yet. At this point, once I find baitfish I turn the thing off and concentrate on fishing. As a matter of fact, I've been using a sonar for a year and a half now, and I can tell you that to my knowledge I have not caught a fish yet that I saw on the sonar first. Putting around on the lake looking for structure to be fished later though has paid dividends--and can be fun in and of itself.

I'm a member--mainly for the magazine subscription. I'm rather in neutral about both the organization and the magazine, and renewing will be doubtful.

Using the BR fishing log as a starting point I created a fillable form template using MS Word. Send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy for your use.

Very cool. You might want to try to come up with a motto or some other witty thing to add on the bottom to kind of balance it--symmetry.