Tennessee Boy

Welcome to the forum

That is a chunky fish! Very nice. Congrats.

Welcome!

Thanks @kschultz76. The reel was brand new and I tried different spool tensions. It worked best when it was very loose. I think this real is probably just not for me. It works okay for short cast. It drove me crazy when I tried to cast a 3/4 oz carolina rig. It was easy to cast 25 yards but almost impossible to cast more than 40 yard regardless of how hard I cast. With my older Diawas, I would cast all of my line out if I cast as hard as I did with the Zillion.

@Basson66 Here is my take on the two images you posted. The problem with the first image (with 3 bottoms) is that the lower depth range is to deep. You're in 5 ft of water and the screen is showing 29 ft of sonar returns. Sonar signals keep bouncing around after they are recieved. The signal is bouncing off the bottom and you are reading it a 5ft, then it bounces off the boat/surface and back down off the bottom again and is shown at 10ft and then again and is shown at 15ft. The hard bottom and shallow depth make the bounces stronger so the problem is worse. This is still happening on your second images but you don't see it because range is set to 10ft and the second bottom would be a 17ft (twice the depth). In shallow water, you will see these extra bottoms on any sonar if you manually set the range to more than twice the depth. Your unit is interpeting the depth correctly but the range is not being adjusted to match the depth. THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM. There might be a simple solution to your problem. Make sure you have your lower range set to "Auto". If you inadvertantly set it to a fix range then this would explain what you are seeing. If it is set to "Auto" then it is a software problem that Humminbird needs to address.

I find this comment very interesting. I bought a Zillion SV TW earlier this year and I hated the brakes. It seemed way over braked to me. I could not stand it with the brakes set above 2 or 3. Makes me wonder if I got a defective one.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point of diminishing returns with this technology. The 360 Imaging and Live Scan stuff is just getting started. 360 Imaging has help me catch fish that I would not have caught without it and it has so much room for improvement. If they can get the future 360 Imaging views to be as good as the current side imaging views it will be scary what you will be able to do with it. CHIRP is important with down imaging and side imaging where you are looking for a high resolution image. I primarily look to 2D sonar to see an exaggerated view of what is in the water column. So now that 2 inch fish that appears as a 3ft arch will be higher definition. I'm all for CHIRP 2D but dropping from 60° to 42° will also mean that you will see a lot fewer fish in 2D. All things considered I like the new models but they did make some interesting trade offs.

You've got to love the way marketing people spin everything. I've read everything I can find on the new Humminbird Gen2 Solix (which should also apply to the Gen3 Helix). Here's what I can decipher from the marketing hype. The new transducers (including the ones built into Minnkota TMs) when paired with the new fish finders provide higher resolutions down imaging and side imaging returns. The screen resolution has not improved so you will have to zoom in to see any improved detail. 2D imaging is now CHIRP and the marketing people tell us that is better. I'm sure CHIRP is better but it's hard to say how much better. The 2D sonar now has a highly touted "Wide Mode" (42°) for maximum coverage and "Narrow Mode" (25°) for maximum detail. My Gen1 Solix has two less touted modes, a wide mode (60°) and a narrow mode (20°). So the old model is wider and narrower than the new and improved version but the new one is CHIRP (so it must be better?). My take: I personally don't like that the "narrow mode" is less narrow now. Most of the time, wider is better but there are times when I like as narrow a beam as possible. I also would like to know how they have implemented down imaging with the Minn Kota built in transducer. I haven't been able to find anything on the cone angle and shape for the Minn Kota transducer. Traditional down imaging uses a very wide and very thin beam, so using it on a trolling motor that is turning could be confusing for some users. So is it worth the upgrade? It depends on what you are upgrading from. I'm certainly not going to upgrade my one year old Solix. If you're like most users and give no consideration to the details of your sonar frequency, beam shape, and cone angle, then I doubt you would be able to tell any difference between the newest generation and the previous generation of Humminbird Sonar.

Yeah, Fragle makes the best lamps in the world. ?

I agree with what others have said. I've used both brands in the past. Both get the job done. I'm currently a happy Humminbird Solix user. Most of the lakes I fish have high definition LakeMaster maps available. For my needs, this makes all other brands of fish finders obsolete. I mostly fish offshore structure where the LakeMaster maps are a game changer. Lakemaster maps are not available for all lakes so this may not be a factor in your decision. I personally have been more impressed with the quality of Lowrance units over Humminbirds. My Solix units have a few annoying bugs but nothing that makes me regret buying them.

Prayers lifted

Yeah, that's the difficult question that most people never ask, probably because it's almost impossible to prove it.

Argh.... In my opinion that was one of the most important (in a very bad way) games for Tennessee in the last 20 years. It should be band from the airwaves.

Mono - Probably change about every 10 outings. Floro - I usually get tired of fishing with it after a couple of outings. Braid - Change it when I get a bad backlash that I can get out. Usually after a couple of hours of fishing. ?

Welcome to the forum. I used to live in Alabama. There's some good fishing down there.

I need to learn more about this Stupid Rig. Sound's like something I would be good at ?.

I guess if fish had eyelids they could feed in the sun with their eyes closed. What does this myth say about fishermen? Even the great ones like Roland Martin fall for a good narrative. His book was published in 1980 but I doubt this started with him.

My first boat was a 17ft Tracker 50HP that bought used in 1989. It served me very well for over 12 years. I had a 12V TM with two batteries wired in series and never came close to running out of juice. I caught a lot of fish with that boat and when I didn't catch them it wasn't the boat fault. Some people like fast boat just like some people like fast cars. If that's you then get a big motor but I was very happy in a boat with a top speed of 32MPH. I will say that a good trolling motor has always been money well spent in my opinion.

I'm not following you on this. Can you explain?

"High Percentage Fishing: A statistical Approach To Improving Catch Rates" by Josh Alwine has a chapter on moon phases. He discusses the arguments for gravity, light levels, and position of the moon. He also looks at some studies like the moon phase when world records catches were made. He makes a pretty strong case that the link between fishing and moon phase is a myth. Then he makes an exception for muskie fishing ?. Personally, I don't consider the moon phase when planning my fishing. I always catch more fish when I'm on my boat than I do when I'm on my couch.

It's winter isn't it.

Roland Martin said in his book 101 Bass-Catching Secrets "Bass have no eyelids, so most of the time they seek deep water in most reservoirs." This is a widely held belief among anglers but is disputed by biologist. What's your opinion on the subject? Fact or Myth?

And I aways said, the only way you can't fish a jig is topwater. I guess you proved me wrong on that.

Just so you know. You won't be able to do this when you're in your 50s. ?

Very sound advice in my opinion.