iceintheveins

Slower is almost always better for sure. But it slow isn't working, try faster, or an erratic retrieve by adding occasional rodtip pops, or changing speeds.

They are GREAT, especially the pit boss.

Spinnerbaits work great year round. Slow rolling them deep is a good choice this time of year, as is burning them 1 - 2 feet beneath the surface early in the morning or in cloudy conditions when they won't hit a topwater.

Of course. Light braided line is great for fishing a mojo or split shot rig in grass.

I don't use the toad, but with the Super Fluke I use a 3/0 or 4/0 EWG gammy. My best colors are baby bass, white pearl, white ice, lemon shad, and arkansas shiner.

They work year round, a great lure to cover water with. This time of year in clear water, a faster retrieve often works best.

My friend has caught 1 pounders on 9" swimbaits. I would say as a whole though, bigger swimbaits, jigs and BIG plastics catch more big bass than other lures consistently. Then again, yesterday my three biggest bass, modest two pounders, came on a 4" senko, a 4" centipede, and a Dt6, all fairly small baits. Bigger baits caught fish too but smaller ones.

Hell yes they work. One of the very best jerkbaits out there for all bass, not to mention walleye, pike, trout and crappie.

A moderate, crankbait type rod is crucial. I change the hooks on all rat L traps to short shank gammies.

Ten for deep, and 12 to 17 for medium or shallow runners. The lighter the cover, the lighter the line.

Mr. Twister Split double tail, zoom swimmin' chunk, missile baits twin turbo, lft live magic shad boot tail, and a yamamoto 4" double tail.

Lipless crank or senko.

Original lunker lure buzzbait, 6 pounds 14 ounces. My best this year was a 5 pound 5 ouncer on a cavitron buzzbait. Both my other six pluses came on zoom lizards.

Again like I've said. GOOGLE it and you will find that according to their own studies, killing bass hasn't helped numbers of native fish. I STRONGLY disagree with your position. But you are entitled to it.

I also believe government is supposed to do what the people say. When the science says (AGAIN GOOGLE IT), that the removal of nonnative fish hasn't increased numbers of native trash fish, is HUGELY expensive, and VERY unpopular, the government SHOULD stop.

I do have vast knowledge and college biology credits in fisheries. Many veteran anglers I've met know more than biologists about fisheries management and the like. When I say "the science says" nonnative fish removal isn't helping native trash fish, I am going by THEIR OWN science. GOOGLE IT. Again, in many cases science isn't about facts anymore, it's about politics and agenda, and whatever gets more money flowing in. In Colorado's case, the Colorado River trash fish program is a source of federal dollars. Peer reviewed doesn't mean jack either, because in most cases they get to pick who reviews their data, and peer review assumes studies are done honestly and it's not a process designed to detect fraud. If you don't think fraud and corruption is rampant in fisheries management, you are mistaken. Also, when the same people doing the removals get to evaluate their own job performance, you have a MAJOR conflict of interest, especially when the public HATES the project and is going to react to the removals by illegally spreading more gamefish around. It creates a lose/lose for everyone. Again, not trying to be controversial or say most fishery biologists are dishonest and corrupt. I'm just saying there are enough of them that are in most places to mess things up at times. Do your own research is my motto, and don't trust what government says without verifying it.

Many lakes have smallies, like Horsetooth, Chatfield, Bear Creek and Aurora. Many scattered metro area ponds have largemouths and some nice ones.

Sand Hollow for sure. Quail Creek doesn't have the numbers but has more 5 - 7 pound and occasionally larger fish.

I'll have to respectfully disagree boys. It's about politics in many cases and not science. There are many studies they came out with before that showed little damage from introduced sportfish, and that the rough fish species were basically unrecoverable due to extensive habitat alteration. The public is at least 4 to 1 against killing any gamefish to save fish we consider undesirable and the science says likely unrecoverable. To me, ecological purism is revile. Plus, mechanically removing an introduced species is nearly a total waste of time and effort. Thousands and thousands of bass have been killed in one of my rivers and it still rivals the quality of many eastern smallmouth streams. Our biologists in Colorado and out west might be smart, but they are some of the most dishonest individuals I have ever met with very little integrity. We consider them our subordinates due to the fact we pay their salaries. The only ones who care about these fish are ecological extremists. There are lots of endangered fish out there, and not a single one has ever been completely removed from the endangered species list. It's a lost cause. So why promote a trash fish over amazing sportfish? Their own science has shown NO increase in squawfish, suckers, and chubs since they started killing our sportfish about 12 years ago. That speaks volumes in of itself. They continue it for political and monetary (government jobs) reasons, NOT science. So yes, I have a healthy skepticism of fishery biologists because they work for the government, and government cannot be blindly trusted.

You have to remember, some areas have no native sportfish. Not all of us can afford to travel either. Also, I've yet to see bass damage populations of rough fish. The real reason for native fish decline is habitat alteration and not nonnative sportfish,

I don't trust the fishery biologists in my state, they would rather have chubs, suckers, and squawfish than bass. It's not about science and facts with lots of biologists in many states, it's about politics and agenda and what the high ups want, and to hell with the anglers. Invasive species are an overblown threat in many cases. Species like Asian Carp are truly horrible though, and Snakeheads could be too. In short, can invasive fish be harmful? YES. But are they harmful in all cases? No. Are biologists always right and truthful? HELL NO!

Sad to see this fantastic fishery go down the drain. There are intersexed smallmouth on my smallmouth river, the Yampa, in Colorado as well.

If you are willing to drive the 3.5 hours to St. George, Sand Hollow And Quail Creek might be the two best largemouth fisheries in the state. Both are smaller lakes under 1000 acres. Sand Hollow has fantastic numbers of 2 - 6 pound largemouth. Quail Creek doesn't have quite the numbers that Sand Hollow does but you can still bag 10 - 12 bass on a good day and a decent chance at a 6 to 8 pounder and occasionally a little bigger. Both can be fished from the bank.

The Snake and it's reservoirs.

Catch and release is essential for Colorado bass since they are not well protected by our Division Of Parks and Wildlife, who are probably the worst fisheries managers in the nation.