Josh Smith

.... and for 21 bucks I would.

http://www.basspro.com/Bass-Pro-Shops-210Piece-StikO-Kit-with-370-Tackle-Storage-Box/product/1407071613/ or, if that doesn't work, type in item number 1407071613 Regards, Josh

Hi Folks, This is the lake I've been studying this year: As you can see, access to many parts is hard. There are places I flat won't be able to get to until I get the boat operational. Finding time to repair that danged thing is tough! Anyway, the northernmost point, where there's that lone "Bass" label, is right where the overflow is. It leads to a waterfall and ultimately, the river. This is some of the cleanest water I've seen. All fish from this lake are safe to eat. It's a drainage lake, too, so that says a lot. Back around 2005 there was a lot of thick matting that seems to be gone. Now, it's a lot of seaweed and grass cover. As you can see, I've only covered a very small portion of that lake, and that portion produces 12" to 14" bass regularly. They bite on things most folks don't fish, most folks using live bait. To really explore this lake I should get a canoe, but the deep V with the trolling motor will suffice for now. It's really not that bad off; if I took a week off to finish repairs I could have it done easily. Can't afford that week off, though! I did enhance the picture a bit with filters to show the shallows and dropoffs, for you and for my own reference. It's a fun little lake! Regards, Josh

The lake I've been concentrating on this year seems to have mostly 12" to 14" bass. Very healthy. Are there bigger ones in there? Likely. Being Northern Indiana, though, I am betting there aren't many bigger. I am still studying the lake, though, and could be wrong. Josh

Well dang. I just use a casting sinker or rubber core sinker and a hook loaded with worms or chicken gizzard or liver. You all fancy it up! Josh

I have found that the lighter the mono backing, the less it digs. I use 8lb backing for this reason, but have been thinking about going to 2lb backing. There's just less space to dig into this way. Josh

Hello, That stuff is on all nickel Winchester I've ever seen, to a greater or lesser extent. I always assumed it's sealant. If its polishing compound then that's a bad assumption on my part, but bottom line is that it never hurt and is fine to use for defense. Josh

It's cool. All round Abu Garcias are welcome!

I noticed I messed up the math. It should have been 2πr. I don't know why I did that. The new numbers should be 12.56 inches vs 9.42 inches. I don't know why I did that. It's embarrassing. I agree that it may be insignificantly faster taken by itself. However, taken as a whole and multiplied by the reel's gears, it starts to become significant. The true overall ratio of a reel should be measured in inches per turn of the handle for inches of line retrieved. This gives a truer picture. If I have a 3" handle, one complete revolution will travel is 9.42" . A 2.5" handle will travel about 2" less. The insignificance does give way to what feels right for a given application. The small handles which came with the first Ambassadeur reels, for example, feel too small for most things save maybe panfish. They do let you reel faster on the 3.8 gears, but it doesn't feel right. A larger, aftermarket handle and upgraded gears feel better, to me, anyway. That's the thing: The difference between a 2.5" handle and a 3" handle is insignificant until you start talking subjective observation. At around 3" of handle, your wrist stops doing all the work and your forearm and even upper arm begin doing the work. This is why I'm interested in IPT and overall ratio vs gear ratio. Regards, Josh

OK, here's the math showing the mechanical advantages/disadvantages. Using a rod, the mechanical advantage always goes to the fish. It's just how much advantage you're willing to give up to the fish that you have to determine. All a rod is, is a series of mechanical advantages/disadvantages. The above shows the relationship. It's a series of levers. All a gear is, is a round lever, by the way. The title of the picture is "Force Multiplier" (or, could also be named "Why You Should Have Paid Attention in High School") Let me know if you can't read something; I'm no longer used to drawing schematics for anyone but me. Longer rods give the bass a greater mechanical advantage over the angler. A rod that has a medium action doesn't give up as much as it bends in the middle and reduces the overall length. For the argument, however, we're assuming stiff rods with no bend. Theoretical rods, in other words, or rods with the same amount of softness in the tip and strong backbones. Likewise, if you have two different rod handles, the longer one will do less work than the shorter one for the same distance traveled, but in return you don't have to reel quite as hard. Make sense? Can you read it? Regards, Josh P.S. I noticed I messed up the math. It should have been 2πr. I don't know why I did that. The new numbers should be 12.56 inches vs 9.42 inches. I don't know why I did that.

Hello, The crank handle is just a lever, and the lever is the simplest tool. It consists of a stick (or whatever) and a fulcrum. This applies to rods as well as reel handles, and it's one reason I don't understand when folks say longer rods give them mechanical advantage in fighting fish. Explanation to follow. I'm going to draw up a couple pictures and scan them. Regards, Josh

Hello, Get it back into the water ASAP. Bass blood coagulates very quickly when in contact with water. Josh

Thanks folks. I didn't get to go today (family comes first, and my 6-year-old boy needed to come to an understanding today on how to treat his mother.) The aim is to go tomorrow, now. Should be the same conditions. I have a question for you all: I have been playing with rigging Colorado and Indiana leaves (interchangeably) to swim jigs, not so much for flash but for low-level vibration. This is in conjunction with a trailer, usually a swimming minnow or craw chunk, and with or without rattle chamber. Is there any reason this shouldn't work? I've been thinking, too, about staining the leaves black so less flash occurs but noise is still present. Thank you, Josh

That 6.1:1 is more like a 6.8:1 on a low profile, about 26-28IPT. She'll take anything you want to use 'er for. She'll like a heavy rod. Josh

Hi Folks, Target is a drainage lake, very fertile with plenty of grass and other cover. It's the one I've been concentrating solely on. Currently, there's a cold front blowing through. Cold rain showers. Tomorrow is a high of 64 and partly cloudy. My barometers are standing at 30.2 and have been since this afternoon. The water should be sightly colder, but still above air temp. Runoff will be providing nutrients, but there are no shad, just fry and sunfish. Winds will probably stay out of the NW. Lake is about 20' deep at its deepest. I'll be fishing from shore. There are steep drop-offs about five feet out from shore. I'm thinking slow cranking on a shallow diving crankbait or even slowly fishing a jerkbait to start. I don't have much experience with fishing these conditions, though, and welcome suggestions. I assume the bass will be suspended about 2-5ft. Edited: 2-5ft holding to cover in the form of grass and weeds, mainly, and I propose moving the crankbaits and jerkbaits slowly through these. The dam overflow will be creating a slight current to from south to north if we get enough rain, and I'm assuming we will. Thoughts? Thank you, Josh

OK, so, paraphrasing: "I use 7.1:1 reels. The stress on the gears is so much that they had to beef them up. Additionally, the 7:1 is so hard to crank that I need a larger handle. That larger handle effectively reduces the overall gear ratio because the handle is, itself, a gear." It makes no sense. It's a marketing gimmick. You could do the same thing by putting a smaller handle on a lower gear ratio reel. Sure, maybe you get an easy 33ipt or whatever, but your hand travels a further distance. You cannot create energy. It just can't be done. Josh

Hello, Thank you for your answer. I figured (maybe wrongly) that there were assumed minimum requirements for the sport. As long as it's only a functioning live well, I'm covered! Thanks again! Josh

I would absolutely expect a guide to fish if he answered the question "What works best in this lake?" I don't use guides, and will gladly take anyone fishing if they want to learn. This lake I've been working on all year produces but it's the most picky lake I've ever seen. My mom is a teacher, and a good portion of my family are teachers. I'd be one but for the politics. I teach a certain rifle to people; that's my main vocation. The stuff I make for that rifle is the side benefit. If a person cannot or will not be taught, I move on. If a person knows as much as I do, we exchange info. Same with fishing. Not many can teach me about the guns I'm interested in. I'm sure there are many who can teach me about fishing. Thing is, they have to show they know more than I do. Anyone can call himself a guide and anyone can have a resume. If the guide is not catching more and better than I am, I am likely to wonder about him. Were I invited to fish with, say, Martin, Dance, or Houston; or even someone newer like Van Dam, I'd take it for granted they know more than me. Those first three have been pro longer than I've been alive! If you can make a living fishing, then I figure you know what you're doing. If I were to guide a person on this lake that I've been working on, I'd probably tell him something like this: "I can show you spots where there are usually bass. I can suggest what lures to try, and show you the action if you want. I will not make any guarantees that you'll catch fish. I might say something like 'see that point? Cast onto the bank -- careful, don't get hung up! -- and work that jig down the shelf'. If you don't want to take that advice or cast several times and can't catch anything, don't get mad if I try after you give up. Meantime, I'll be fishing another spot you've already fished or trying a new one where there shouldn't be fish but might just be." This is assuming someone new to fishing. Similar to the gun thing, if the person demonstrates an unwillingness to learn, or an equal or superior knowledge to my own, I'll just say something like, "There's a rock shelf off that point and the bass critters in this lake like crawdaddies and bass and sunfish fry for forage." If I hired someone to guide me, I'd appreciate a similar approach. In other words, don't insult a customer's knowledge, but don't assume knowledge where it doesn't exist, either. Regards, Josh

Hi Folks, I'm not competitive in nature when it comes to sports. At least, not against others. Others are a gauge I use to judge my abilities, and this is one reason I'm on Bass Resource to begin with. When I shoot, for example, I'm shooting to beat myself, not to beat other competitors (if any). I might also be shooting to demonstrate something, say, to prove the Mosin as as good as any Mauser, but mostly it's a personal competition with myself. I have thought for a while about entering a local tournament of some sort. If I can see how I am doing under the same conditions as other guys, then I can get a much more precise idea of where I am and where I should be. I have no idea if I'm ahead or behind the curve, or just dead center. My concern is making folks mad. Tournament anglers are there to compete against others, from what I've seen. They have fast bass boats to get to certain locations before the other guy. I would enter with my deep V boat, bought for reservoir fishing and not necessarily speed. It has a 15hp outboard on it, and will only take up to a 35hp. I've never liked the outboard; the trolling motor, which is also considered a little light for this boat and stern mounted, is my preference because I believe fishing should be a quiet activity. Now, were I to enter a local tournament with my humble equipment, would I be likely to make the real competitive anglers angry, or how would I be seen? If it's as a nuisance of any sort, I'll do something different as I don't want to mess with them or their sport at which I'm sure they're making at least a little money. On the other hand, if I can go out, fish, and compare how I did compared to others at the end of the day without unknowingly messing with anyone, then I might just have at it. How would professional anglers see someone like me, were I to do this? Regards, Josh

I agree with this. I was in Aikido for several years, was an auto tech, and still work with my hands. My forearms are pretty strong. Reeling all day with even a 7.0:1 isn't an issue. It's that reeling that much slower doesn't feel natural any more than going to 3.8 gears feels natural. Everything produces its best torque in a certain range. Mountain bikes, for example, have all those gears so that one can keep in his torque range no matter the speed. The way I see it, the same is true with reels. Reels that give you 23IPT to 26IPT cover more bases than a 30IPT reel, though the latter has its place. Regards, Josh

I had to call them up once to order parts; I wasn't going to try a warranty claim because a reel got damaged in a move. The lady was very helpful and polite to the point of being flirtatious. I think technical talk turned her on. Josh

I will have to check again, but I believe the drive gear was steel. I flat don't recall the click wheel for sure, but there was something different about it -- I don't think it had a click wheel. I noted something odd like that. I'm going to listen for clicks. (Checking...) No, no clicks. That is what I wondered about, why there were no slots or spring. I've been in a lot of reels lately and didn't document everything. If someone rebuilt this, it's a very nice job. I'll be fishing it, I guarantee that -- even if it were collectible, I'd fish it. It's too nice to let it set around! I just almost wonder if it was a demonstration model that a vendor kept around for trying out. That would explain its looks and the uneven fading (one side of the case faces light, maybe?) It's a 5500 plate, too, with the c-clip on the end of the driveshaft instead fo the 5000's screw. It really doesn't matter the history, not really, I just get curious. Opening it up was like a step backward in time for me. Nobody had been in that thing since it was built. There are always signs when a reel's been opened, and there just weren't any, at least nothing as recent as the scratching and whatever on the outside. Something that could explain the faded sideplate: Let's say that someone put on a Power/Speed handle, or whatever, and the crank side always faced the sun. When it got sold, the original reel handle was put back on. That's my theory. Accurate? I dunno. It makes sense seeing what I'm seeing. Had I been thinking, I'd have taken pics as I took it apart. It was interesting, though, like when I open up a rifle from WWI. Josh

As some have noted, I've been playing with one lake this year. It's overfished, or has been in the past, and I have done best in shallow water, on the bottom, in the grass. I caught a decent one on a Spook, and a smaller one on a shallow crankbait. Most have been on jigs and Texas rigs, though. They're not big in this lake, though I have no doubt there are cagey huge ones out there. I don't expect much being in Northern Indiana so far as size goes. I've been seeing 12" to 14" here, mostly. The pattern seems to have shifted and I'm trying to figure it out again. We just had some heavy rain and a massive cold front, so I'll have to go out again, maybe tonight. We'll see. The lake has green water and is very fertile. That one bass I caught on a crankbait this last time out has splotches that I was told here indicate very healthy bass. (I started a thread.) There are no shad in this lake, and the question is, what are they feeding on? Next time I go out, I'm taking plenty of cranks that look like baby bass, crawdads, and sunfish. There's usually matted cover in this lake that I've not seen this year. I was going to try froggin'. Speaking of frogs, they all done disappeared sometime in the past month. I'll have to look into that. They were all over that pond. Hmmm.... Josh

All I own are 4.7:1, 5.0:1, and 5.3:1, and one (5600c4 Mag) that's a 6.3:1 gear ratio. The 4.7:1 reels retrieve 23IPT. The 5.0:1 reels are similar, maybe a little less due to a different spool size. The 5.3:1 retrieves 26IPT. The 6.3:1 retrieves 30IPT. All but the 5.0:1 reels are round Abu Garcias. The 5.0:1 are Quantums. I'm looking at charts for modern low-profiles. My 6.3:1 round has about the same retrieve rate as a 7.0:1 low profile. My 5.3:1 round has about the same retrieve rate as a 6.3:1 low profile. My 4.7:1 round has about the same retrieve rate as 5.3:1 low profile. Interesting. I've never really sat down and compared all that before. So, you're running about 30IPT? If you can keep that up and you're catching fish, more power to you! For me, that's a bit fast, though, and I prefer my 23IPT and 26IPT reels for most things. Regards, Josh

Well, crap. I don't like this thread. It's reminding me how much stuff I have. 1. Supertuned and modified '60s 5000 on a Daiwa "Bill Dance" spinnerbait rod. 2. Abu 5500c3, supertuned and modified, on a BPS 5'6" MH rod. These two tie for first place. 3. Modified and supertuned 5000c on a Daiwa Jupiter medium 6'6" rod. 4. Modified and supertuned 5000 on a MH Daiwa Jupiter 7' rod. (This reel is still being built and doesn't see the water often for this reason.) 5. Supertuned and modified 5600c5 (I think) with MagTrax. I know it's a 5600, I know I've supertuned it, I just forget the number of bearings. It came with a provision for centrifugal brakes but none installed, with sole braking being magnetic. I installed the centrifugal brakes and now I have a dual braking reel. The rod is a 7' Berkely Lightning Rod. Both of these are a few years old. 6. Pflueger President spinning ultralight on an ultralight rod, Berkely Limited Edition I think. I got it when I was a teenager. It's something like 4'6", perfect for pitchin' and flippin', and is sensitive a rod as I've felt. 7. I have a Zebco 33 that was Grandpa's installed on an old Rhino rod of mine I found in my parents' garage. I gave it to Mom as it was her dad's, but I still sort of consider it mine as it's mainly decoration. 8. Grandpa's Cherry Rod with a bluish-green (Bronson, I think) spincast. 9. Silver Quantum 1310 on a Lew's MH rod from the '70s. 10. Black Quantum 1310 on another rod, forget which. 11. Black Quantum QL1000 (?) on a Fenwick MH rod that's probably a heavy rod now. The tip got broken sometime in the past (was one of Dad's rods) and I fixed it with a new tip. 12. I have a couple, few reels that aren't mounted to anything at the moment: • There's a '70s 5500 I just bought and tuned. • I have an ultralight Zebco Feathertouch spincast under-rod (what became the Bill Dance special, or whatever, more recently) that I've had since age 14 or 16. It still works well and I'm considering bringing it out of retirement to go on an ultralight rod for panfish. It's a slow retrieve reel and is better suited for bobber fishing. • I have a Bronson baitcasting reel of some sort that was Grandpa's, and it was previously on the Fenwick rod. • Old spinning reel I bought as a teen. It's never worked right and I need to get inside and see what's rubbing. • Garcia Mitchell 301 that I bought to fix. A couple, few of these that I didn't get from Dad or Grandpa and/or aren't sentimental and aren't favorites will probably go away. I am only a fan of spinning when it's ultralight, and the other spinning reels I have I bought solely to rebuild and learn from. I do the same thing with guns, but the guns I like are so much more expensive! Josh