Further North

The ability of the Calais DC to avoid backlashes and to cast into a strong wind changes that equation a bit - the added functionality that allows you to spend your time fishing instead of dealing with other issues, and to cast further do make a difference. It's kind of similar to saying that an older race car still goes around the track, finishes the race and still wins one now and then...that is all correct...but taking advantage of technology to make fishing time more productive and increasing a fisherman's ability to do some things is never a bad thing. Whether that difference is worth the $$$ is up to the individual. I'm not sorry I spent the money on the Calais DC. I'm not sorry I spent the money on my electronics and trolling motor either...and that was a lot more than $300....

Back in May I had an interesting conversation with the owner of Fly South down in Nashville ( was down there on business and wandered into the shop on a Saturday). His take (and any errors here are mine, not his) was that there is one overlooked advantage of multi-piece rods: Each section of a multi-piece rod can be built with differently with the specific function of that part of the rod in mind. That isn't an option with a one piece...yes, they can taper the materials to produce a fast action, or a slower one...but the maker of the multi-piece rod has even more options. The discussion revolved around fly rods (a one piece 9 ft. rod is a pain in the fanny no matter how "sensitive" it is)...most of my fly rods are 4 piece - I have a a couple of three piece rods, and two or three two piece...and there's no appreciable difference in overall feel or performance...and I have no less confidence in the multi piece rods. A thought on rod storage of multi-piece rods in the boat - I store my rods rigged and ready to go as I don't want to be fiddling round with putting a rod together and rigging it when I am on fish...so the few two piece spinning and bait casting rods I own are always together unless I am traveling with them without the boat. Same for my fly rods.

I always find it interesting when someone has a bad experience with something - often years ago - and vows to never use it again. This ignores different brands, different products within a brand, the idea that it may have been user error...or that it was simply a bad individual product (made on a Monday, so to speak). I tried fluorocarbon when I first got back into fishing...didn't like it...tried some other brands, other types...still didn't like it...but I checked back now and - and I learned a bunch of things - then and there are some places where it is the best possible choice. Most often I use it for leaders, tied on to braid...or onto a fly line...but there's other times when it's fine on its own. I've never understood the mindset that leads to what I'll call a "purist" mentality. It's a limiting behavior that insulates the believer from improvements and opportunity to learn and grow... ...For instance, I fly fish...but I am not a "fly fisherman". I use spinning and bait casting gear when it works best...or when I want to. I have plenty of examples of things I've learned in one kind of fishing that crosses over to another...putting it all together makes me a better fisherman overall. Ignoring fluorocarbon because I didn't like it years ago would have left me with a gap in my tool box...and - for me - that'd be bad...

I have a Calais DC...I love it, great reel. As mentioned above, backlash is mostly a thing of the past using the reel...and even if you do get them, they are small and easily dealt with. The different modes are really important - being able to cast into the wind is very nice. If you set it up right, the distance you will get is great - more than with any other reel I own. It's only possible down side is weight - it's not a small reel. Mine is currently on a 7' 9" TFO that I have rigged for toothy fish...but now that my Canadian trip is done for the year I'll re-rig the set up for pitching heavier jigs. ...is it worth the difference in cost? It was to me, others will not think so.

Tough choice - I'd tend towards the Alumacraft, as long as the carpet repair was warranted along with the boat...but I'd sure like to have that 115 over the 90...

I'll have to check mine, but I thought they could go over either shoulder?

This is very much a a "horses for courses" and preference issue. I use casting rigs for some things, spinning rigs for others...and fly rods for things neither can do. I always wind up feeling like people who limit themselves to one method or another are not getting all they can out of things...but if they are happy, I am happy.

I struggled with them being comfortable also - it took a lot of adjustment of that smaller strap for me to get it dialed in.

Getting into boats is a long process of figuring out what you like, what you need and how you fish. Starting out with an inexpensive option is a great way to find out some things...It's probably best to plan go through several different rigs until you figure out what you like.

Minnow, you're spot on, IMO. I grew up pulling 30 ft. campers for grouse hunting... Here's how my math works for my rig: 2005 Crestliner CMV, empty: < 1200 lbs. 2005 Johnson (Suzuki) DF140: <400 lbs. 41 gallons gas: < 250 lbs. Tackle and rods: ~ 200 lbs. Trolling motor, batteries, and charger < 200 lbs. That gets me to 2050 lbs. Trailer is <700 lbs. and round up for misc. gizmos - I'm at 3100. Less than 90% of capacity...and I never tow with a full tank of gas...so that's got a huge impact. That Tracker is lighter than my CMV, the motor is way lighter than my 140, and it carries less gas...no brainer from here. A new (later than 2013) Ford Escape will pull it all day, every day.

Nice fish! I didn't take a lot of pictures, but we had some near absurd smallie action on Lake of the Woods a couple of weeks ago...it was weird...som fish were still on beds, and some were obviously two weeks past that and aggressively hitting anything that looked even vaguely like a 2" - 3" crayfish. ...between the fly rod and a hula grub finessed on a spinning rod, if I went 50; without a fish I figured something was wrong...

The most I've paid for one is $89...not much in the overall pile of fishing receipts.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Sling packs are slick, especially when you need to re-rig mid river. Pull it around, open it up and you've not only got what you need, but a place to work too.

How many gallons per mile does that thing burn?

I've heard that...but never experienced it...unless the weather is really awful...or the guy driving the boat didn't know what he was doing. It's hard to get whet when only the last two feet of the hull is in the water.

Cool rig...wouldn't work at some of our...ah..."unimproved" boat launches here in NW WI.

I have that same deal with my motor - it's relatively small even compared t0 a lot of modern motors and it's tiny compared to the early 90s Johnson 150 I had on my Lund Pro-V. It's easy to cast around and it's easy to walk a big pike or musky around the motor if they decide that's where they want to go.

Well said - and with a lot fewer words than I used... I actually did the calculation on the swept area of the brakes on my Saab ( I called it the SnAABlazer) vs. the Escape...and when the weight of the heavier vehicle was taken into account the difference was negligible but slightly in favor of the Escape. I came down that huge hill in Duluth with the boat behind me with no problems at all.

I started with the same thinking. I was wrong. Modern engines are not the same as the ones I grew up with where cubic inches are the only reliable way to develop torque. As I mentioned, the 2.0 liter Escape only gives up 7 ft. lbs. to the 4.2 liter straight six in the Trailblazer/Envoy line...which only gave up a little to the V8 they offered. Between far better manufacturing processes, better design, turbocharging, computerized engine management, and transmissions with many more gear ranges, the engine is not stressed like many people tend to think it will be. I was running at 70 MPH on the interstate on that trio to Ontario and no more RPMs that I would have with the bigger, less efficient truck. That same 2.0 motor in non-turbocharged form puts out 160 HP and 146 ft. lbs. torque at a fairly low 4450 RPM...in the Escape that gets bumped to 240 HP and 270 ft. lbs. @ 3000 RPM...and it comes on smooth and usable, not peaky like older turbocharged engines. I would suggest not dismissing the Escape out of hand because it doesn't fit the old paradigm with what a lot of folks think of as a a small engine - in today's excessively litigious society, Ford would not rate the vehicle with that tow rating unless it was both capable and safe. Torque is torque and it really is that simple. I wouldn't attempt to pull a 20 ft glass boat with the Escape, or even a deep V Lund/Crestliner/Alumacraft that weighed in at 4,000 lbs....but the Escape will pull that Tracker and my CMV for years with no problems, and get mid 20s MPG in normal driving and high 20s on the highway for the 90% or better that he's not towing the boat. I was spending about $70+ a week on gas for the Saab - I'm at about $35 - $40 with the Escape...that difference buys a lot of gear...or helps put a kid through school... Obviously, if someone is uncomfortable with a 2.0 liter engine towing a small boat, they shouldn't do it...but the facts and data show that it will work well.

I've had a Lund 1800 Pro-V, a 1750 Crestliner and am currently running a Crestliner CMV 1850. I like the CMV because of layout and storage, but all three were good boats and I'd buy another of either brand in a heartbeat. I had a Tracker for a couple years as well...they are good boats, and it got the job done well, but they just don't have the same build quality as the Lunds and Crestliners. That's not bashing the Tracker - it's just reality. If a Tracker was what my budget allowed, I'd buy another, no problem. I fished out of several Alumacrafts and one G3, no problems there either, all good products. I have not fished out of a Lowe, but have heard they are good. ...the way I picked out my last boat (the CMV) was based on how I fish - I wanted big decks, lots of storage and a rod locker. I want my tackle below deck, out of my way when I'm fishing, and I want the same for the rods I'm not using. I decided I'd settle for slightly lower ride quality as I fish a lot more than I run the boat I easilly fish 10 hours for every hour I spend running), it turned out it doesn't matter much...my CMV has an 11° dead rise, the Fish Hawk has an 12° dead rise and the Pro-V had a bit more than that...there's no real difference in how they run at cruising speed, and honestly the CMV is easier to handle in bad weather than the Lund was...but that's likely got more to do with the hull design being 15 years newer than dead rise angles. ...as far as getting into shallow water...I ran that big Lund into water around 12" often easily. Trim up the motor and run in on the bow mount...no problem. Could it go as shallow as a bass boat? Probably not...but I don't need to where I live. I run the CMV through water around 1 ft. all the time. Easy as pie. I have mor trouble running my trolling motor shallow than I do hanging up the boat hull.

E-Tecs had some troubles when they first came out...not so much any more. It's hard to buy a bad motor these days, unless you are unlucky enough to get the one bad one they all make from time to time. I would have no problem buying any make new motors these days. Going with what you can get serviced near by is as good a reason as any to pick a motor. ...if my Suzuki DF140 ever craps out I'd probably go to a Yamaha F150 because the best dealer in our areas sells them and that motor is excellent. I'd have no problem with a Merc, Evinrude or another Suzuki either.

Go take a look at the Ford Escape with the 2.0L motor and the towing package. Rated for towing to 3500 lbs, bulit in anti-sway, lots of other great features. I'd been towing my Crestliner CMV 1850 with a Saab 9-7x (it's the same truck as the Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy) and having no problems, but the day to day gas mileage was killing me. The escape only gives up 7 ft. lbs of torque and pulls my boat just fine...better than the Saab...subjectively, better than the Saab. There is no lack of power at all, the brakes do a fine job of stopping (again, as good as the Saab) and I get better than 25 MPG day to day driving, and an easy 15 MPG pulling the boat. Escapes can be found used all over for mid $20Ks a couple of years old (we paid $23,250 for our 2014 in January of this year)...but finding one with the factory tow package can be a bit of a challenge - took me about a month the zero in on the right price/options deal witht he factory package. Going with an aftermarket hitch seriously impacts the tow rating (it drops out the anti sway), I would not recommend it. That Crestliner CMV probably tips the scales at about 3,100 if the gas tank is full and it's got all my gear in it, and it tows great - I've towed the boat an easy 25 times this season including one 700 mile round trip from WI to Lake of the Woods and a couple of 2 hour hauls here in NW WI. Zero problems, great tow vehicle. I spent the time from the end of the season here (mid November) until January researching and test driving all the comparable SUVs and Crossovers...nothing else even came close to the combination of towing ability and day to day MPG that the Escape did. I drove them all, read about them on-line, talked to owners, etc. At the end of all that it was an easy choice.

That'd do it for me... It's exciting enough when a musky or a pike nails a bass on your line...can't imagine what it's like when a gator does it. ...but it sounds like an even bigger reason to use the nets from shore or when in a boat.

This works great on the boat. lean the rod away from you, over the gunnels, but the line in your teeth and off you go. I re-rigged several rods this way up in Canada a couple of weeks ago with wire leaders and with flouro leaders - works every time. I can get this done in about 3 minutes if I set up for it right.

I don't understand the reluctance of some of the folks who replied to use a net... I net almost all the fish I bring in the boat fish, for a few reasons: It's easier on the fish. It's easier on me. I'm not going to get a hook driven into my hand by a last minute lunge from the fish. The net extends my reach and I can get them in the boat faster (more of #1) I keep 3 nets on the boat, two fairly large fly fishing style nets (one in front, one in back) - these get used for 90% of the bass I need to net as it's easy to bend down, grab the net, scoop up the fish, de-hook it and have it back in the water fast. I use either the black rubber nets, or the coated ones - never, ever had a problem getting the fish or the hooks out of them. My third net is a Ego Slider S2 large size net...again, with the black rubber netting. This gets used for fish about 20" and over, so a few bass and most pike and small musky. These nets extend to about double their original length if needed. ...but what I do 90% of the time is leave the fish in the water, bend down and grab the hook with a set of pliers and back it out of the fish without ever taking it out of the water. I de-barb all my hooks, so this is usually easy and fast. When I'm wading, one of the fly fishing nets gets used, if the fish won't fit in that, I'll use the technique above ove backing them onto shore.