Stratocat_Joe

Thank you for expanding on your preference. It's funny that you mentioned the unpredictability of spot lock around a bridge. One of the things I don't like about the MG Pinpoint GPS is it's unpredictability, too. I was fishing next to a bridge and it must have lost GPS connection and took off in a circle, running me right into the bridge. That's the issue with it now is that it just takes off on it's own at darn near full-speed, which can be hazardous while out on the water.

Thank you for the reply. I've been looking hard at the Maxxum and it might be the direction I go in.

@Darnold335 and @Born 2 fishBoth of you seem to be saying that having the spot lock feature is more important than having a foot-controlled TM. Can you expand on that preference? I enjoyed the spot lock feature while it worked on my mine but I always found myself wanting foot control. The MG wireless foot pedals were nice to have while they lasted... unfortunately, they didn't last long. And they were an extra $200! Luckily, one was replaced under warranty (1-year) but the replacement only lasted about six months, conveniently after the warranty expired. Another thing I should add is that I have a Livescope set-up; but, it's on a separate pole mount mainly due to the fact that they don't seem to function well on spot lock TM's, particularly the "stow and deploy" models like my Xi-3, where the whole TM shaft runs through the mounting bracket for stowing/deployment. So, if I fix the spot lock feature on my TM, I'll need to have a free hand to control the TM (when I'm not spot-locked) and/or the Livescope. This is another reason why I've been thinking about going with a foot-controlled TM that I can attach the LS transducer to. I agree that spot lock is a nice feature for fishing a particular spot...I'm just trying to figure out if it's more important, and efficient for fishing, than foot-control. So, in your opinion, why is spot lock more important than foot-control?

Thanks, Woody! I've been perusing Marketplace for awhile. I am a little skeptical at buying a used TM...but, if the right deal comes along, I may jump on it. Thanks, Tom!

When I bought my Bass Tracker Classic XL three years ago, the first thing I upgraded was the trolling motor to a MG Xi-3 with Pinpoint GPS (MG's version of Spot Lock). It only came with a wireless remote for operation, which I didn't think would bother me. Eventually, I added the wireless foot pedal; however, I've been through two of them and neither function properly. Now, the Pinpoint GPS is not functioning properly. When I hit the anchor button, the motor spins in circles and appears to be looking for a GPS signal. I've performed all of the calibrations again, with no success. I called MG and they said I needed to take it to an authorized dealer for repair. Unfortunately, it's no longer under warranty and, according to the dealer, the part to fix it is almost $450 with another $250 in labor needed to fix it. I only paid around $1,000 for the motor when I bought it new (bought it in May of 2020, just before Covid- pricing went into effect) so I'm not thrilled about spending $700 to fix it. The TM still works just fine, sans the Pinpoint GPS feature, but I've grown tired of using the remote constantly. I feel like I'd like to have a foot-controlled trolling motor to be more efficient while fishing. It's a little annoying to make a cast and then reach for the remote to redirect/operate the TM. So, I can either spend $700 to fix the GPS in my current TM, or, I can sell it and buy a foot-controlled TM. If you had approximately $700 to spend on one, which would you choose and why: 1. TM with spot lock feature but operated by remote; or, 2. TM w/o spot lock but foot-controlled? At this point, I'm really not interested in spending the $1500+ to get a TM that has both spot lock and foot controls. I mainly fish Lake Eufaula and Lake Seminole along the AL/GA line; although, I generally stay in the upper-ends of both due to being in a smaller boat. Thanks for taking the time to read my post and, as a first-time boat owner, I appreciate any insight.

I lived right across from downtown Columbia, on the Congaree...just down from where the Broad and Saluda rivers join to form the Congaree. There's supposedly a healthy population of SM in the Broad. I think there's even an urban guide that takes people out in that area. I caught a few SM out of Parr Shoals, which is just north of Columbia but the water level there fluctuates a lot. One time, I came back to the ramp where I put in to find the lake had receeded by several yards. I had to drag my kayak back to the ramp as my feet sank in mud up to my knees. I never went back after that!

I had similar concerns about gators when I moved from Kansas to Columbia, SC. At the time, I had a 11.5 FeelFree Lure. But I still hit the Hatchery and Duck Pond area at Lake Moultrie. I never had any issues with gators...just stay aware of your surroundings! I had one of the best fishing days I've ever had on the river that runs by Kingstree. There's a boat ramp right on the road that runs by the KFC. I put in there and paddled to the first bend to the right. Caught multiple 4-6 pounders right in that bend on a Chatterbait. I've since moved from Columbia to SW Georgia or else I'd offer to meet up with you. I heard some good things about Sparkleberry Swamp on Marion but I never put in there.

MLF/BPT Pro (and former BASS AOY) Brent Chapman did a show called Pro vs. Joe where he accepted challenges from "Joe's" to fish a body of water of their choice. Oftentimes, the "Joe" was an established angler in their local tournament scene, yet, Chapman would still usually win the challenge. And, in all honesty, I wouldn't consider Chapman to be in the top-tier of Pro anglers.

I don't know for certain but my guess is that this is why MLF/BPT made their content available across multiple viewing platforms...to attract more casual viewers. They obviously have their live streaming broadcast but also have/had content available on Discovery Channels, CBS Sports, Outdoor Channel, Sportsmans Channel, and WFN. BASS has been very limited by only offering it's content through ESPN (previously) or Fox Sports, aside from it's live coverage. I don't have cable, so, if I don't catch BASS Live, then they miss out on my viewership and I'm a fan of the sport. However, through my streaming platform (I use the Frndly app), I have access to most of MLF's content on all of the Outdoor/Sportsman/WFN channels, in addition to their live-stream. Coulter alluded to MLF/BPT's plan which is to capture TV revenue to share amongst the anglers in an attempt to become a true professional sport, similar to NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. They just have to grow the audience base. However, as Watson said, I think this scoring move is a step backwards as it diminishes the action/drama of the viewing product. Sure, some of us bass fishing fans will continue to watch, but we're the same ole' recycled pot that they can only wring so much money out of!

Like Watson, Coulter, and Wheeler discussed, it's going to diminish the viewing product, especially with the move to the live broadcasts by both leagues. It will be hard to fill an 8-hour TV/streaming broadcast with anglers who are only seeking 5 big bites. Even in the "every fish counts" format, there were lulls in the action. The casual viewer won't want to watch people fish...they want to watch people catch. I've mentioned this elsewhere on a MLF/BASS thread, as a fan of the sport of bass fishing, I watch both formats. But my wife (aka a casual viewer) can't stand watching a traditional 5-fish limit because she finds it boring watching people fish for 5 bites. However, she would sit down and watch a MLF event because the format usually created more action and viewing drama. As the Watson, Coulter, and Wheeler mentioned, that action and drama will likely be diminished with the new scoring change.

Interesting discussion on the subject matter... I think I agree with Watson on it. It would've made more sense to test this scoring change first. I think it would've been perfect to test it in their Heavy Hitters event. But, like Watson says in the video, I think the casual viewers that MLF was originally seeking to draw will not be interested in the new format. If they're watching a 5-fish format, they're going to watch a BASS event.

I was on a guided trip once when a storm blew in on us. The guide was driving from one end of the lake to the other as he tried to dodge the storm clouds. When we stopped to fish a creek arm, we could hear our rods go "snap, crackle, pop", just like a bowl of Rice Krispies. It was from all of the static electricity in the air. I decided to end the trip right then as one thing I don't mess around with is lightning.

I think there has always been the two varying strategies. Like those we've mentioned, some angler's approach tournaments with the strategy of catching as many fish as possible and weed through them for the 5 biggest. This was also how some of the biggest names in BASS history were successful. I remember hearing Rick Clunn say that the reason he was so successful early on was because he would generally focus on catching a limit (back when limits were 15 fish) instead of targeting larger fish. At the end of the day, his 15 1lb. to 2lb. fish would often outweigh the angler's who caught 7-8 3lb. to 4lb. fish. Of course, as limit sizes decreased, strategies had to change and with the change in strategy came a change in angling style for some. I think those that are leaving MLF/BPT recognize that their style doesn't fit the MLF/BPT format and, in order for them to be successful and remain at the top of the game for their branding, they need to play the game that best suits their style. Again, I wouldn't expect a top-tier wide receiver to stay with a team that is focused on running the ball. I also wouldn't expect a guy that excels only at (sometimes) catching the 5 biggest fish to stay in a league where every fish counts. Perhaps that is one of the reasons MLF/BPT is looking to make this change, since they've diminished the status of what used to be FLW. A lot of those FLW angler's, who used to be considered top-tier angler's (which is important for sponsorship) are now relegated to a lower level with the only carrot in front of them being an invitation to the BPT. That may not be enough incentive to keep those established angler's from the former FLW who are used to, and excelled at, traditional 5-fish limit tournaments.

I enjoyed watching both formats. I liken it to a football game. Sure, we all enjoy watching the teams with big yardage players (i.e. quality) but it doesn't mean we can't appreciate the team that consistently runs the ball 3-4 yards at a time (quantity) and marches down the field to score the same TD. I was fortunate enough to Marshal for Michael Neal during a Pro Circuit event last year and I asked him which format he prefers. He said he doesn't really fish them any different but he prefers the MLF/BPT format because each scorable fish counts. And that's from the angler who is now the 2X AOY from the Pro Circuit, which is a 5-Fish Limit format.

I was browsing the MLF website and I noticed a poll that asked fans whether the Bass Pro Tour (BPT) should adopt a 5-Fish Limit format. Given how MLF/BPT heavily advertised it's original mission to revolutionize the sport with it's catch/weigh/release (CWR) format, I was surprised by the poll. Personally, I find it odd that MLF/BPT has undergone so many structural changes in it's brief history Did anyone else see this? Any thoughts on the potential change? .

I had this bed extender for my Dorado, which was 12 ft. I cut up a foam pool noodle to cover the metal portion where the kayak sat on it and it worked great. https://www.harborfreight.com/truck-bed-extender-69650.html

I don't hunt, so I can't respond to those questions. However, I am curious if there really are "hunting tournaments" akin to bass tournaments? Regardless, you're comparing apples to oranges. To be clear, I don't fish tournaments, nor, do I have FFS. I'm just not seeing any difference in angling between those who use it and those who don't. Again, those who use it aren't doing anything different than a sight angler, with the exception of they are using FFS to see the cover/fish at depths greater than what can be seen with the naked eye. And, to bring this conversation in-line with the OP's post, it is my understanding that Dottie (who some claim would be considered the world record bass if it had been submitted) was caught/snagged while sight fishing. If I recall the story correctly, the angler was using a white jig because he could see it better in the water and when he saw the fish go down on the jig, he set the hook but, perhaps unfortunately, Dottie was hooked outside the mouth. In all honesty, what is the difference between using things like polarized sunglasses and lure colors to help anglers see fish/cover/lures better in the water and using FFS to help anglers see fish/cover/lures better in the water? I understand the associated costs are different, which is probably why I will never have FFS. There's a common misconception that just because a product costs more, it automatically entails the consumer to greater benefits. But, fundamentally speaking, using polarized sunglasses and lure colors to "see" better in the water and using FFS to "see" better in the water are the same side of the coin...it's just that FFS allows anglers to "see" in deeper/murkier water.

If you're against anglers watching fish react to a lure, are you against sight fishing, too? To me, I don't see any difference between sight fishing and using FFS. It's just that FFS allows anglers to "see" cover/fish in front of the angler (or wherever the transducer is pointed) at greater depths than the naked eye. I wonder if there was the same uproar about polarized sunglasses allowing anglers to see what they previously couldn't see? And, as any sight angler will tell you, just because you can see the fish and see it respond to a lure, doesn't mean you can catch it!

There's just as much screen watching in BASS. Did you not enjoy watching Jason Christie win the Classic this year, too? Or, Livesay on Fork? Or, Palaniuk anywhere? BMP pulling an 8-pounder out of a brush pile on Santee a few years ago, with a dropshot nonetheless, was pretty exciting to me!

Your post reminded me of a video I saw G-Man post recently. Perhaps it will help the OP with his perspective of "suffering'.

Honestly, I think my worst habit is I try to learn too much. With all of the various techniques, baits, lures, electronics, etc., not to mention the ease of access to information of all sorts through internet forums and YouTube videos, it's easy to get lost chasing the proverbial rabbit down the trail. Then, I feel like I have to chase those rabbits when I'm out on the water. I heard Greg Hackney make the comment that he used to catch them better before he knew too much about bass fishing. I can sort of relate to that.

Since I sold my truck, I have to car-top my kayak. I had some extra 3/4" PVC pipe laying around and I cut two pieces roughly the width of my car roof, bought some foam pipe insulation from the hardware store, and ran cinch straps through the PVC pipes to create two removable cross bars. I recommend using the cinch straps over ratchet straps because people tend to tighten ratchet straps too tightly which can damage the window/door insulation on the car and/or the kayak.

I've been looking at the FeelFree Flash PDL. It's marketed as a recreational kayak since it's not as wide as other FeelFree fishing kayaks. But, there are plenty of reviews that show people standing in it with no issue. 11 ft. in length, 70 pounds (w/o the drive), Auto reverse with the pedal system, all for $1600...but I've found several dealers online who are selling them below retail. I've had several different FeelFree kayaks and they've all been great. Top notch customer service in my experience! https://www.feelfreeus.com/products/flash?variant=40467062390945

For me, it was more about the simplicity of a kayak. I bought my first kayak over 10 years ago as I got back into fishing as a young adult. It reminded me of the days of my youth when I would grab 1-2 rods with a small tackle bag and go wade a creek near my house. The kayak also opened up more water than just wading the creek. Over time, I upgraded kayaks and added all of the neat accessories. When my son was born two years ago, I sold my kayak and bought a boat so I could take my family out on the water with me. But, when it was just me heading out to fish, there were times I missed the simplicity of just grabbing a kayak, 1-2 rods, a small tackle bag, and just going. So, I bought another kayak and now have the option for either/or. I have found that since I carry a ton more tackle on my boat and I can cover more water, I fish differently from my boat than I do from my kayak. And, although I enjoy fishing from my boat, I'm oftentimes more successful in catching fish from my kayak, which I believe is a result of the simplicity. There seems to be a lot of truth in the KISS principle.

I think one of the reasons there are so many colors (especially colors that are similar to one another) is to appease retail outlets that want to differentiate themselves from other retail competitors. I don't think GY views the individual angler as their primary customer; rather, they view the retail outlets as their primary customer. The retailers, particularly the larger retailers, like to have colors unique to their store. I know Zoom does this as well. There's a particular color I'm fond of that Zoom specifically makes only for Dick's Sporting Goods.