fissure_man

@J Francho they look almost identical, but for snap weights you need the ones with a small plastic pin in the center of the grip pad. You put your line behind this pin so it doesn't pull out.

For trolling, you want to rig those with an OR16 snap weight clip by Offshore Tackle (or similar knockoff) - the kind with the pin through the grip pad. Those clips let you snap the weight on your line any distance ahead of your lure and it will stay in place, then simply unclip it from your line as you reel in your fish.

You want a limber fibreglass rod with a handle that's compatible with your rod holder (not a trigger grip). Daiwa Wilderness rods are decent enough and very cheap; something around 8' M or ML power should work. Not sure if they're still available? As for a reel, you can just use a bass reel with mono if it has sufficient line capacity. Line counter is not necessary.

I don't understand this, can you elaborate?

The longer handle increases the torque for an equivalent applied force, or reduces the applied force for an equivalent torque. It’s the same equation rearranged in different ways. Agreed that you can choose handle length according to preference for different applications. Similar in some ways to changing gear ratio, but not the same. The longer handle doesn’t increase load on the gears assuming the presentation is the same (same lure, same retrieve speed). In the extremes, a longer handle would give you more leverage to wrench on the gears, but your drag will slip at the same load regardless of handle length. And unless you’re winching your truck out of the mud, peak load on the gears delivered through the spool shaft (e.g. setting the hook, pulling on a fish or snag) and your handle shaft is just resting on A/R (handle length is irrelevant).

The science of light and vision is interesting and makes for a good discussion, but I think we are sometimes stretching to turn that knowledge into ‘rules’ for lure color selection. Knowing whether or not a bass can visually distinguish the color of our lure is one thing, but knowing which visual cues will entice a bite is another (i.e. is maximum visibility the goal, when/why?). Most of the time, I suspect that when we swim our lure past a bass and it doesn’t bite, it’s not because it didn’t know the lure was there.

All else equal, swapping out an 80 mm handle for 100 mm reduces your force at the handle by 20% and increases the handle path circumference by 25%. It’s a matter of preference, but it’s not insignificant. We belabor other subtleties of our gear that are (arguably) less consequential. E.g. a 7’ rod is only 8% longer than a 6’6” rod, yet we routinely split hairs between 6’6”, 6’8”, 6’9”, 6’10”, 7’0”, etc…

Black is a popular lure color in muddy water because it contrasts and stands out. Black is also a popular line color in muddy water because it is subtle and blends in. Take your pick lol.

You may be right, but it’s still a crappy deal in comparison to lifetime “over the counter” replacement. My post was mainly just in response to others above about warranties vs. insurance policies and the ethics of asking for replacement of old rod broken after years of regular use. In at least some cases, this is exactly the kind of replacement program we thought we had paid for.

There was a time not that long ago when salespeople and reps marketed some of these high end rods by explaining that you could snap the tip off as you walked out the door of the store, and they’d hand you a replacement off the rack. “Unconditional” they would say. I have a few Shimano Crucials bought during that era and a big part of the purchase decision was their offer of ‘over the counter’ replacement. That program no longer exists and I didn’t use it once, though I’m sure I paid for it in the original price of the rods. For Shimano at least (and probably others), despite what salespeople would tell you, there were warranty limitations in the fine print all along – defect vs. abuse, proof of purchase, etc. However, they didn’t enforce them. Times change and surely the program became too expensive, so they’ve since moved to enforce the limitations that already existed, and dealers will no longer participate in “over the counter” because they're on the hook for claims that Shimano rejects. Legally I’m sure there’s nothing they’re doing wrong, but the fact is that many people expected they were purchasing an unconditional replacement policy “for life” and that’s no longer the case. If I broke a 15-20 year old crucial rod tomorrow, I’d send it in for replacement and see what Shimano says. I’m quite sure at this point it wouldn’t be a failure due to defects, but when I purchased the rod it was my (naïve) understanding that that wouldn’t matter.

Steez will do the job in a pinch but I’ve always found that cutting off ~6 ft of the rod tip results in a butt-heavy feel, especially on a Dobyns. In that case I want a reel with some bulk to counterbalance. Different strokes, I guess.

I guess we all start somewhere, but when you can save up enough pennies I'd lose the old beater reel. A Conquest 400 feels like the right choice...

@J Francho The OP’s question was about whether or not a 3/8 oz sinker might be “too much weight for a fish to hold on to,” presumably getting at whether or not (or at what point) a heavy sinker might be rejected by the fish as being unnatural or for any other reason. Claim was made that other bass prey weigh more than 3/8 oz therefore there should be no concern. Whether or not the conclusion is correct at 3/8 oz, the logic is flawed. The simple fact is that lead or tungsten sinkers are unnaturally dense in comparison to any bass prey, and the difference is magnified by immersing them in a dense fluid (water). Why insist on comparing mass when one object suspends and the other sinks faster than a rock? Reducing sinker size in general produces a package that is more similar to the bass’ prey in terms of overall density and, probably, the way it reacts to being ‘slurped’ by the bass. Whether or not (or at what point) this becomes important to the effectiveness of the presentation is up for debate, which is (again) the original point of the thread.

We can pretend that buoyancy is irrelevant, but there’s a reason we don’t make sinkers out of wood ?‍♂️

No, but if you could get away with a lighter weight without sacrificing presentation efficiency, you’d likely be better off. Totally different scenario, but the clearest example I’ve seen of weight alone making a difference has been while vertical fishing for walleye or perch with small minnows. In this case, simply skewering a minnow on a bare jig head and suspending it near bottom, no other ‘action’ to speak of (a reasonably well-controlled test environment). When sitting on a school of small and less active fish, ‘nibblers’ can run you out of minnows in a hurry, particularly if you’re in a boat full of folks impatient on the hookset. This can be almost completely solved by losing the heavy jig heads and fishing something like a drop shot with a little slack, or a lindy rig. No change in number of bites, but the hook up rate goes through the roof. IMO this is similar to the ‘feeding mechanics’ angle mentioned above – it simply takes more effort/suction to pull in the minnow anchored to a heavy jig head, and they don’t have the whole deal in their mouth when you feel the bite. Mass vs. weight argument could be easily solved by settling on definitions. Mass certainly does not change whether an object is above/below water; weight may or may not change depending on how you define or measure it. Spring scales never measure mass, they measure force which we can conveniently use to estimate mass when the object is much much denser than the fluid it’s immersed in (air). This isn’t always valid, as in the Hindenburg example, or when an object is underwater. Weight most commonly refers to the force of gravity on an object, which does not change when an object is submerged. However, in the context of the question at hand, is it not sensible that ‘weight’ should refer to an ‘apparent weight’ or ‘buoyed weight’ (net downward force), taking into account that bass and their prey are underwater where the buoyant force is extremely significant? Forces are felt, mass is not.

The mass of the Hindenburg zeppelin was somewhere approaching 200,000 kg, and yet it would register less than 0 on a scale. In fact, any ‘weight’ that we measure conventionally is buoyed by our own atmosphere, but most things we care to weigh are so much denser than the air they displace that we ignore the difference. Semantics aside, I propose that because bass live underwater, the only ‘weight’ relevant to the discussion at hand is the ‘buoyed weight’ as might be measured underwater. Yeeessss mass is unchanged and gravity still exerts the same force which is counteracted by a buoyant force and blah blah blah. From the bass' perspective (if I may), and in terms of what they might conceivably 'feel' and reject, everything in their world is buoyed by water - just like everything in ours is buoyed by air. An interesting side point (if one accepts the above), is that given two sinkers of equal mass, one made of lead and the other of tungsten, the latter actually ‘weighs’ more (buoyed weight) from the bass’ perspective because it displaces less water.

Underwater, I would think all of those weigh less than a 3/8 oz lead sinker.

I'm no electrician but if the issue was only that the batteries are non-identical age/condition, I would not expect the newly replaced battery to be the first to die the second time around. Seems to me that something is killing that battery specifically, could be a slow short or charger problem, need to check all the wiring connected to it including the charger. I think if you just replace all 3 batteries there's a high chance you will find the same problem down the road. OP is fortunate the battery was replaced under warranty as I doubt this is a problem with the battery itself (happened twice in a row now).

For arguments sake, you’d need 5 times as many fishing trips to catch the same total # of bass with the less effective lure, at that point would you be ahead on a total cost basis? Plastics are a small fraction of my overall fishing expenses; if I believed senkos were anywhere near 5x as effective (bass per cast) as other stickbaits I would not hesitate to shell out for them. If $/bass is really the only metric that matters, one would be better off to stay away from soft plastics entirely and just grab something like a $4 casting spoon, then fish it for the rest of their life.

Ah you’re probably right, drop shot won’t work on the St Lawrence It doesn’t matter what bait you’re using if you’re not getting it in front of the fish and you're not able to detect strikes. In a deep water + heavy current scenarios, many conventional presentations won’t be effective. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re facing, but if the water is so deep and current so strong that you’re having trouble keeping in contact with your bait and the bottom despite using a 1 oz weight, I would try a drift method vs. force-feeding what has worked in other conditions. Bail open vs. closed seems like a solved issue – close it unless you’re stripping a bit of line at the end of your cast to allow a more vertical fall (then close it). If you’re leaving the bail open and the river current is stripping line and creating a huge bow – yes, that’s a problem.

The key here (revealed late in the thread) is that it sounds like you’re facing heavy current on the St Lawrence, right? Not just deep water. Ideally there is some bottom topography/cover to break the flow, but you need to get your bait down to that zone and stay in contact with it. A light wacky rig is no good. The fish are tucked into those deep current breaks and just getting your lure in front of their face should be priority one. Are you in a boat? Try “drift fishing.” Toss out a weight that gets you contact with the bottom in a hurry (just drop it off the side of the boat). Set up a drift that lets you keep your line fairly vertical, which means using your TM against the current. Slip back with the river current, ‘tickling’ your lure along bottom. Again, you need enough weight to stay in contact with the bottom with a fairly vertical line to detect bites and avoid snags. When you drift to the end of your target area, loop around and start over. A heavy drop shot works great for this because it protects the line from abrasion which means you can get away with thinner line (cut through the current), it protects your hook point from rocks, it has a very high bite to hook to land ratio, it’s snag resistant, and when you do snag you can just clip on a new sinker most of the time. You can wacky rig your senko on the DS but it wouldn’t be my first choice in current. I’d nose hook something smaller: xzone slammer, poor boys goby, gulp minnow/leech, etc. A heavy football head or tube jig will also work, but they’re more snag-prone and more costly to donate to the river – drop shot has replaced them for me. Other rigs for big-river steelhead and walleye will also work but are not in the usual bass repertoire.

I’m sure there’s plenty of literature on this. My comments are based on personal experience, anecdotes, and limited reading, so take it for what it’s worth. There’s no hard rule because the pressure change increases gradually with depth and there are other factors that complicate mortality (immediate vs delayed release, temp change, hooking injury, exhaustion). That said, IMO ~30 ft seems like a reasonable guideline for immediately released bass, walleye, and perch, with the latter two being less “hardy” in general and more likely to roll over on you. Irreversible damage can be done by a major pressure change even if a release weight is used, particularly if the fish is not immediately released. I don’t fizz fish, and I don’t catch and release for bass/walleye/perch deeper than about 30 ft. I’ve caught plenty of walleye and perch in 40-60 ft and would not be confident in a high survival rate even if using a release weight – these fish end up on the dinner table. The trout and salmon at the end of your list have ducted swim bladders making them far less susceptible to barotrauma – gas can be released as it expands. However, when brought to surface quickly this doesn’t always occur right away, it’s common to hear burping in the net or when handling the fish. These are cold water fish and temperature change from deep to shallow might be more critical, as well as exhaustion from a long fight. On lake O it’s not uncommon to bring in a salmon or laker from deep water temps in the 40’s – temp change might be 30 degrees or more to surface water. Even if these fish are not affected by barotrauma, a release weight to get them back to their preferred temp range seems like a good idea for summer fishing. Pike seem to be hardy like bass, I can’t recall a problematic release due to what I’d interpret as barotrauma, but I don’t fish for them deeper than about 30 ft. I don’t fish for muskie, but I have the impression that it’s uncommon to target them in very deep water? I think both do have the ability to vent their swim bladders, though perhaps not as easily as trout/salmon. I fish 60' of water for certain species, so there's at least two To be fair, this is posted on the "other fish species" board and it is common to target several of the listed species at depths of 60' or greater, in some cases much greater

To be clear, Johns Hopkins is not presenting these numbers to support a view that the global response to COVID-19 ought to be the same as for the seasonal flu. To make the point that it seems you’re implying, what’s missing is an assessment of the trajectory, the projected growth in cases. Resting on one data point (current case numbers) from a curve that’s ramping sharply upward is at best ignorant, at worst deceptive. At the beginning of the month there were less than 100 cases confirmed in the USA, currently there are over 30k. The rather drastic measures being taken around the globe are aimed at slowing the spread to reduce the peak burden on healthcare systems and give time to prepare. Waiting until case numbers spike to extraordinary levels before reacting would be irresponsible; by then the opportunity for mitigation is lost. This is already playing out in other parts of the world. Is there any reason to expect the USA to be immune to a similar outcome? Whether or not you feel that the current response to this virus is appropriate, know that the decisions being made are not simple and are not taken lightly. This is not the bubonic plague, and panic or hysteria will help nobody. But neither will denial or the spread of misinformation.

I think the ‘2 knots’ argument against leaders is overblown. If you’re not confident that you can tie two knots in succession that will withstand the loads you put on them, you need to tie better knots or change your equipment (drag setting, line type/strength). Regardless of the number of knots you tie, breakoffs should be a very rare occurrence because there’s no need to test the absolute limit of the line/knot strength. I use leaders frequently and I don’t remember the last time I broke off a fish at the leader knot – almost all breakoffs for me (other than snags and pike bite-offs) happen when I’m using light line and being lazy, not retying frequently enough. On paper, my inclusion of a leader knot adds another potential point of failure, but if it’s never failing in practice, does it matter? A hypothetical knot might achieve 70% of the line’s “un-knotted” strength, with a standard deviation of 10% (assume normal distribution). For 10 lb test, that would be 7 lb knot strength with a standard deviation of 1 lb. If you tie one of these knots and then load it to 7 lb, you have a 50% chance of that knot failing. If you tie two of those knots and apply the same load, you have a 75% chance of failure. Adding the second knot in this case increased the odds of failure by a factor of 1.5 - not twice as likely, but certainly a considerable difference. However alarming the above may seem, tying fewer knots is not an effective solution (even the single knot case failed 50% of the time). Instead, just use a strong enough line for your application and set your drag appropriately. Using the same example and parameters as above, if you change the maximum load to 3.5 lb (i.e. by setting your drag) the likelihood of failure drops to around 0.025% for 1 knot, 0.050% for 2 knots. At this point our failure rates are differing by a factor of 2, but the magnitude of the difference is trivial (0.025%). 2 times as likely as something that is very rare…. is still very rare. (i.e. buying two lottery tickets doubles your chances of winning, but I still wouldn't count on winning) Bottom line for me – tie good knots, retie frequently (doesn’t matter how strong your knot is if you’ve abraded the line above it to a thread), know your weakest link, and don’t overload it. No issue with preferring mono or flouro mainlines for some applications; I do it myself. But the justification shouldn’t be a fear of knot strength IMO.

What I mean is, ‘force to yield’ should not be equated with ‘force to stretch.’ In fact, the concept of a minimum ‘force to stretch’ doesn’t even make sense, because it implies that below some threshold the material is infinitely stiff. Yield refers to irreversible deformation beyond the material’s elastic limit. Although an elastic-plastic material under tension does stretch or elongate as it yields, an elastic ‘phase’ of stretching begins immediately upon loading and increases with increasing load. This is the ‘stretch’ that anglers refer to! For a material like nylon fishing line under short term loading, significant elastic strain (stretch) can and does occur before any yielding, and this stretch is at detectable at very low loads. Nylon mono’s tendency to return to original length even after significant stretching displays its capacity for elastic (non-yielding) deformation. The experiment with 1 ft of line will certainly not violate the above, though it may be difficult to eyeball the elastic stretch with such a short length between one’s hands. If you attach one end of the line to something rigid and the other to a proper handle, even 1 ft of line would stretch by a length easily felt and measured. The stretch will be miniscule, but its magnitude (stretched length minus original length) for a given load is proportional to the length of the line – that tiny stretch felt over 1 ft can be multiplied by 100 (ft) for a reasonable-length cast. Whether or not this stretch matters or is a meaningful obstacle to fishing success is a question for another day, but there’s no question that it occurs! The aerospace industry (with which you are familiar) relies on many precision-engineered components and materials to deform elastically without yielding; the concept is the same.