Rods, reels, etc.

So much equipment, so little time . . . . It seems like one could spend a lifetime sifting through all the options of fishing equipment and never find the right combination of line, lure, rod, and reel. Though this might be a marketing ploy it is also an opportunity for anglers to fine tune their preferences. As such, one could easily write one's "biography" as an angler on the basis of the gear he/she has used through the years. My own are: a 5'0" Shakespeare combo, probably best used as a trout rod. Caught my first largemouth on it three years ago, on a texas rigged worm on some kind of light line (it came pre-rigged); after that came another Shakepeare, Ugly Stik, 6'0" medium action spinning rod with a Shimano rear drag reel (both of which I recently e-bayed); a Daiwa 5'6" light action spinning combo, which I still fish unweighted plastics on--this combo is still a favorite, great overall action and has caught me more fish than any other; another Daiwa 6'6" baitaster (paired with a Megaforce reel--see my earlier post for comments on the reel); a Shimano 6'6" medium action spinning rod with a Daiwa reel--"free" gift from NAFC--not a bad combo, contrary to my earlier opinions; and a BPS Tourney Special Baitcasting rod with a Pro Qualifier reel, my current favorite. The reason I mention all this is that it seems a good measure of one's involvement with fishing. Like many, when I was a kid I had the cheapest, least reliable gear and fished it only seldomly and without any problems. I took up fishing three years ago and went back to that kind of equipment and immediately saw the problems; everything I'd read about "getting what you pay for" was true. And just this year I've found that if you are really interested in a sport it is to your benefit to make an investment that will last you 3+ years, keeping costs in mind. That, to me, is one of the great things about fishing: it can be done very cheaply or more intensely, with expense being less of a concern. And there's also a great deal of play in between those areas. As such, I've enjoyed my few experiments with fishing equipment and can make a few recommendations. First, assess your needs as an angler. If you plan on fishing only when your time allows, which may be 10 or fewer times per fishing season, then don't consider any combination of rod and reel over $50. Second, if you are more interested in fishing more than that, do yourself the favor of learning about the sport before making a major purchase. That may seem easier said than done, but there are a number of very good internet resources available. That said, some of them are in the business, it seems, of being slightly vague about techniques and equipment. However, many of them are reliable even when they are trying to sell a product. (Cabelas has a number of very informative buyer's guides.) Third, whenever possible try equipment out before making a purchase. This means fishing with someone who has a lot of gear; no in-store experience is going to be a good substitute. This applies to both rods and reels, though it is most valuable with reels--there is no way of telling how line will come off a spool unless you cast it yourself. All told, this sport, like many, probably benefits most from its social aspect. Without it the sport would be far less advanced, a whole lot less fun, and less worth doing.

Champion's Choice, Part 1

In about two weeks I'll be headed to Oneida Lake to be a B.A.S.S. marshal at the final regular season Elite Series event of the year. I got the call about two weeks ago that a spot opened up for me (I was on a wait list for months) and jumped at the chance. I'm only entered for the first two days, with the possibility of a third day--again, a wait list process. Since I have limited resources (i.e. money), this is, to me, a pretty unique and precious opportunity to take a nice vacation and learn from the best bass anglers on the planet. The 2010 Elite schedule was released recently, and as with last year's annoucement revisions have been made; there will be no event in the northeast, as the Lake Champlain tournament was canceled for the second year in a row. That makes this chance at riding with the pros all the more valuable. Though I don't plan on being present for the final weigh in (again, money being what it is), I do plan on soaking in as many aspects of the process as I can. I have a short list of questions I'd like to ask the anglers I'm paired with. Among them are: Given that you're fishing such large bodies of water, how do you narrow down your choices of where to fish and how do you determine which spot looks better than another? What do you do in the off-season and how much do you fish? When preparing for a tournament how much time do you put in on a given body of water before it goes off-limits? How do you address (or did you address) your weaknesses as an angler? (I somehow don't imagine these guys as having weaknesses, in the sense that the rest of us think of having weaknesses.) And I think I may even ask a couple guys how sick of fishing they get during the season, if at all.

My fascination with crankbaits

I have to admit a fascination with crankbaits. For some reason I find it interesting that so many companies can make something that looks so much like what the next company makes, with a similar action, similar color and simlar price and somehow be "the" crankbait company on the market. To me, part of the joy of being a fisherman is the tackle, the "thingness" of it; and crankbaits are, to me, the pinnacle of an angler's obsessions. Something made by Rapala does not act like a Mann's, or a Norman's lures, or a Strike King lure, or a Bandit lure. Yet they each catch fish, for seemingly indescribable reasons. Obviously, the angler throwing them levels the field. Yet to me the mystery of the difference is part of the beauty.
One thing that doesn't seem too mysterious to me is their application. They seem to be a lure best suited to a specific set of conditions. Cranks are obviously a noise emitting and water displacement lure, making them well suited to stained water conditions. They're also great deflection lures, producing strikes on hard structure (like submerged timber), especially when cranked from a distance. Where they're not so great is weeds, which is where my frustration comes in. I come from the northeast, where smallmouth are more prevalent but where largemouth are easiest to catch in small ponds. A lot of the small ponds I fish are full of weeds. Let me say that again: a lot of the ponds I fish are FULL of weeds! This does mean lots of fish--I caught a giant (near 4#) pickerel yesterday--but it also means a lot of hours of picking weeds out of hooks. The only solution I've found, especially if you're fishing from shore, as I am, is to become a better angler and "find" the fish. This means fishing the edges of weeds and creating a reaction strike. And this, too, is a mystery to me, which is also a bit of a frustration. How many hours can somebody fish without catching anything and still be happy? My limit is somewhere around 3 hours, sometimes a lot less. But I have a tough time not wanting to tie on something that looks so enticing . . .

World Record Largemouth

News of a possible world record largemouth being caught on July 2 has raised a lot of debate over the meaning of the catch and its legitimacy, and for good reason. With everyone's eyes firmly fixed on California, to see a possible record-sharing bass come out of Japan has not only surprised many but caused a few to wonder at the definitions of a record breaker as well as the possible impact of such news. What is even more surprising is that while the catch has definitely caught our attention its impact has been dulled by its coming from outside the United States. Personally, I think this is less a matter of our own vanity and more a matter of the differences between what sport fishing means to us and what it means to the Japanese. While it is understandable to some to hear of Japan's policy of largemouth bass being an exotic species and therefore illegal to release after capture (carp, native to southeast Asia, is termed a "nuisance" species here in America), this status has to be taken into consideration when thinking of the importance of this recent catch. That the largemouth is an unwanted fish in Japan may immediately cause one to think that a record-breaker is less likely to be found there, making such a catch all the more impressive. In other words, if less fish are released, the less likely they are to reach record size. Yet if this is considered to be true then our loosely termed definition of gamefishing would have to somehow be altered: it would be more "sporting" or challenging for us to keep larger fish and make it harder for record sizes to be caught. Of course, this isn't the case, and most bass anglers would agree that fishing pressure makes catching large bass more of a challenge. Also worth considering is the fact that nuisance or exotic species are not fished for enthusiastically by the public, possibly because they are "bad" gamefish, of little to no food value, or an unwelcome competitor to native species. This last point--what is native and what isn't--is of the utmost importance. Who determines the importance of sustaining native species, and for what reason? We should probably also consider that many of the species we're fishing for in the United States are shared with Canadian anglers, often with far differing success and impacts on sustainability. At any rate, news of record-sized fish opens a pretty complicated discussion.