Tough Season Continues

The weather has been better through this point in the year than ever, but I continue to have a tough early season. A lot of the difficulty has been due to outside concerns, mostly work. This week, however, a major blow was struck, as I was in a car accident that luckily left me uninjured but without a car. The worst part was that I lost the battery for my boat's trolling motor and two rods, as well as having to take on a new car payment in the future. The odd and surprising thing has been that fishing with fewer rods (and thus fewer options for changing baits quickly) has been fun and informative. I lost two spinning rods, and until now I never really knew how much I relyed on them. I did a lot of my fishing with spinning rods that until now I didn't know would be better done with baitcasting gear. In short, I used spinning rods for light-weighted plastics, topwaters, jerkbaits, unweighted plastics (including soft-plastic jerkbaits), drop-shots, and just about anything else that seemed to work on line 8 pounds or less in weight. That's a lot! I fished for a few hours today, all from shore, and found that most of my presenations could be covered with baitcasting gear, and with better control. So why did I use spinning rods so much until now? A few reasons. One is cost. Baitcasting reels in particular can be expensive, and seemingly for good reason. The first baitcaster I used was a Daiwa Megaforce, and at the risk of sounding like a bitter person I will say that it nearly ruined me to the whole experience. As you will find in earlier posts here I was not happy with this reel. The big reason was the lack of a centrifugal brake. Centrifugal brakes control the cast at the very beginning, which in my limited experience is when most backlashes occur as it is when most of the spool's momentum is generated. All Daiwa reels, until recently (I think) are made with this set of free-spool brakes, and for that reason I can't see using them. At any rate, a lot of baitcasters that have centrifugal brakes are expensive, and for that reason I avoided them. And when you think of it, spinning reels can handle many of the things that baitcasting rods can handle. There are a few drawbacks to spinning reels: line twist is the most obvious, and heavy line also poses a challenge. Because line is no allowed to lay onto the spool as evenly as it is on a baitcaster it's forced to twist over itself and tangle more readily, and when you twist heavy line you create even bigger problems. For most anglers, however, these matters rarely come into play, so the choice is obvious. Where baitcasters excel, in their accuracy, is also a concern that most casual anglers don't need to take into account. Pitching and flipping are not only where baitcasters are at their best, they're also where they've had their greatest influence and in applications that most weekend warriors wouldn't think twice about tournament competitors concern themselves with casting accuracy to the point of near-obsession. Clearly there is nothing wrong with either approach, but each serves their purpose and nothing more. So why would someone who fishes 4-5 times a month buy a baitcaster over a simpler, more affordable spinning outfit? No one knows, NO ONE. Most, if not all lures can be thrown with some kind of a spinning outfit, and all spinning rods can throw lures with accuracy. Pitching is maybe the one technique that baitcasting rods can do that spinning rods cannot. But for most of us that isn't a loss.

Worst Early Season Yet

This has been the worst early season I've had yet. I've only caught four fish, and considering that we've been fishing for five weeks that isn't good. Three have been pickerel, which is also not good if you're fishing for bass. My last came today, and it was part tragedy and part comedy. The funny part was in how I was trying to unhook it. It inhaled my lure and wasn't going to give it up. So I went to my car (actually my mother's car, since mine was in the shop) and got a set of pliers. It still wasn't going without a fight, and by this time it was bleeding all over the place. So I figured it was dead and that I would just keep it. Except I didn't want to put it in the back of my mother's car and have it make a mess. I found a plastic bag from a grocery store and figured I could put it in there, but when I went for it a bunch of half-smoked cigarettes came flying out all over me. So there I am covered in slime, fish blood and cigarette ash, holding a half-dead pick. So I just cut it off and threw it in the trunk and went home. I killed it pretty quickly, which made me feel a little better until I cut it open. It was FULL of eggs. So I killed a healthy, breeding fish. Which seemed about right, since the rest of the day was not much better--my car cost me about $600 to get fixed.

First Fish

Today marked the first fish of the year for me. It was only a pickerel (not too desirable to a bass fisherman), but the satisfaction after what always seems to be an ever-longer winter was indescribable. So much of what that first fish of the year feels like is something that is both new and familiar. I spend a lot of time in the winter reading about fishing and trying to arm myself with the best information I can to increase my catch when spring arrives. Once the weather warms and the ice melts I've built up enough anticipation and imagination of what it will again feel like to catch a fish that it is, in a sense, a moot point. It WILL happen, and I do my best not to let it worry me. Yet once you do catch one, especially when it is as early in the year as it is this year, not much can do away with the surprise and joy.
At any rate, it was an interesting day, since I drove to a number of local ponds in search of a bite. I ended up at a lake very near my house, with a small area of access just off a fairly busy road. Part of the lake has a diversion under the road and into a "back" pond area, with rip-rap built up along the banks. I've done enough reading to remember that a lot of people say that areas with rip-rap are great early spring spots because the rocks retain heat, which attracts fish. A lure that works well in those conditions is a suspending jerkbait, according to the experts, so that was what I was throwing. It took a good 20 or so casts and a few changes of spots and angles, but finally the fish took it and swam away. Not a hit, so to speak, but once it did hook itself (I did little to make it happen) it put up a good fight. It's pretty satisfying to know that SOMETHING would hit a lure at this time of the year, even if it isn't a bass, especially considering there are NO fish visible from shore (well, except one baby pick I saw at another local pond, just sunning itself near some grass, in a few inches of water). They're probably still deep, and if the water temps of the "big" lake in NH are any indication (about 39 degrees today) they'll be there for a while longer.

Fluorocarbon

Fluorocarbon line seems to be one of those tackle innovations that has become standard equipment, and with its growth in popularity has come a number of different versions with differing prices. Like many anglers, I've been wary of buying some for fear of it ending up a tangled mess to the tune of $30. I found out that a lot of the negative rumors about fluoro are just rumors, at least to my inexperienced eye. I bought 15# Vicious fluoro, mostly because of its price but also due to its USA roots, and so far I am one of the fluoro converted. I haven't had very many chances to put it to use, as we're still pretty cold in New Hampshire. There are a few small ponds already iced out, and I couldn't resist trying the stuff out. All the news about its sensitivity is 100% true. Fishing a jig with fluoro is proof of its worth, especially in sensing changes in bottom composition. Weeds feel smooth to the touch, where rocks or other hard surfaces feel like tiny snags. I haven't caught a fish on it yet (remember, it is still the second week of March and I am in New Hampshire), but I am certain that detecting strikes with this line will be much easier than it is with mono. Another thing I'm surprised about is memory. I'm using it on a baitcaster, which makes it more managable than it would be on a spinning reel. But despite a few nasty overruns I can say that the line is MORE managable than mono. It seems like mono has the advantage of being very supple and long in stretch, which makes it a better line for hard strikes that require a certain forgiveness. But because of its stretch I get the feeling that it holds its shape longer than fluoro, which means a more slinky-like coil over extended periods of time. Given that it is pretty cheap, anglers, especially casual anglers, are more likely to leave it on their reels, which means more memory and more fouled casts, translating into weaker line. As for fluoro, all I can find as a mark against it is its price, which is too bad considering that its performance is so much better. If it is, as some say, too stiff to stay on a reel for a prolonged period of time then it would seem that a cheaper fluorocarbon, like Vicious, would be the obvious choice. Fluoro also has a reputation for being a bit more brittle than mono, which means anglers should check and re-tie as often as possible. With all that re-tying and stripping of old line it makes sense to replace the line more frequently, which means a cheaper line is more beneficial. The more involved I get with fishing the more I find that being good at it depends on one's attention to detail, and I think that fluoro affords you that kind of advantage. If you're fishing anything on or near the bottom, fluoro is the best bet since it transmits the vibrations from the lure best. Yet considering the long-standing popularity and affordability of mono I find it ironic that the best all-purpose line might not be mono. A lot of anglers are now resorting to mono for a single, simple application: topwaters. Mono doesn't sink, stretches well and absorbs hard hits well, and isn't as visible as braid. It also isn't as tough as braid, which is why anglers like Dean Rojas use braid in weed-choked areas where topwater frogs are successful. But mono is a cheap, managable line for most. It holds knots better than any line, including fluoro. Knot strength seems to be the only disadvantage to fluorocarbon.

Classic

Well, the Classic has been over for some time now, and I chose not to write about it until now. The decision was based partly on laziness, partly on wanting to let the whole thing settle down, and partly on a number of miscellaneous things. I'll start with what I wanted to let settle down: my reaction, which was that I wanted to see someone other than KVD win. I have no problems with him at all, but I just wanted to see someone else do it. But with that said the question remains: just how much greater is his legacy with this win? In my opinion, this elevates it to a degree we might not yet be able to understand. In the history of B.A.S.S. there have been two great anglers who seem to have made their reputations on either the Angler of the Year title or the Classic, but not both. Roland Martin won 7 million Angler of the Year titles (actually nine, I think), and Rick Clunn won four Classic titles. To win either seems impossible to the casual angler. To win either more than once seems ridiculous. To win both multiple times IS ridiculous. And now KVD has won both enough times to be mentioned alongside the best to have done either. He might not be knocking on Martin's door just yet, and to win another Classic is a lot to expect. But he is still in his early forties, is currently fishing the best he ever has, and he has NO pressure to prove himself. Could anyone ask for a better position to be in?
Of the miscellaneous things on my mind is something Charlie Hartley wrote about in his blog on bassmaster.com. He said that from what he heard Iaconelli had something like 18 bites the entire tournament and boated 17 fish. By his measure that meant that Ike was never on a reliable pattern and was just struggling his way to the top. How do you muster the confidence to finish in the top ten when you know you don't have a pattern going? Ike himself said he was catching fish on his favorite grub with spinning tackle, something that obviously came out of his panic box. To leave so much up to chance at the most important tournament of the year is pretty admirable.
Another thing that amazed me throughout the coverage was just how many guys were fishing in the same area. This is old news by now, but it does raise a number of points. For one thing, how can a tournament like this be held on a lake where the entire outcome is decided in such a small area? Yes, there are matters of etiquette to observe, but in a field of 50 anglers how fair is it to hold a tournament on waters that are so clearly loaded in one area? It didn't seem like the advantage was a secret, since a number of people were commenting throughout the tournament about how Beeswax Creek was a popular release point for local tournaments. Nonetheless, you have to ask yourself how KVD was able to key in on such a spot as he did. He had a small area all to himself, according to a number of reports, and he was able to find a few creek channels that were key. He seems to have that sixth sense to finding the best spots, as well as an ability to fish them well. I think this is what Rick Clunn meant in the latest Bassmaster when he said that KVD's best weapon is his mind. He seems to be able to put together details in a way few ever could before.

Flipping and Pitching

I wanted to make a post about pitching and flipping, aside from all the Classic stuff although it has something to do with it. Ish Monroe posted on Bassmaster.com that he thinks John Murray has a good chance to win the Classic this year, citing Murray's natural ability. If you've read this blog (and no one has, as far as I can tell) you'll note that I was fortunate enough to ride with Murray at the Oneida event last year. Here's a short version of how the first day went down for him: he pulled up on a spot off-shore and caught a limit in less than 30 minutes; he culled about 20 minutes after that; then he fished for bigger fish all day and faced the same problems as anyone else. So, he can find fish, easily. But like anyone else, he has a tough time winning tournaments. What he doesn't have a tough time doing is fishing the techniques. Not too sure why I think it's important to mention this except to remind that Ish says Murray has as much natural ability as anyone. After Murray left his first spot, which was a smallmouth spot, he went to find largemouth by pitching weeds, which is what everyone else did. Even the guy I was paired with the next day pitched for most of the day. But John did so with a kind of precision I imagine I will never see again in my life. I'm not saying this to impress people. I honestly believe that the technique he used was better than anyone--except maybe Mark Menendez, Tommy Biffle or Denny Brauer--has to offer. He was really roll-casting more than pitching in the traditional sense, which is pretty impressive in its own right. I have been practicing the technique all winter, and it is NOT easy. But Murray does it in such a way that is hard and easy-looking. He keeps his rod tip up, rolling it, then lowering the tip and letting the lure skim along the surface. I mean it when I say that he did this perhaps over 1000 times that one day. Not one made a splash. NOT ONE. I'm not kidding. There were times he rolled it out there and I felt sure he would make a big noise. But he somehow slowed the lure down and it entered the water with NO disturbance. Seriously. Imagine a lure about two inches above the water somehow just dropping into the water with no splash, no sound, nothing. I swear, I am not kidding when I say this is what John Murray was doing all day long. ALL day long! So, when Ish says he believes that John Murray has natural ability, I have to believe him.

More Classic Practice

BassFan has a new story with some of the Classic competitors giving their summations of last week's pre-tournament practice period, and what many first deemed a deep-water bite has changed for some to a shallow water bite. The reason, according to all, is the muddiness of the water. This shows just how good these guys are, not just because they know how hard a deep water bite is under muddy conditions but because they have the experience and confidence to know that the possibility still exists to catch fish in water 10 feet deep or shallower. Most of us would automatically shift to the deeper, off-shore stuff. That would be our instinct, yet it's based more, I'm guessing, on what we've heard or read. The time the pros have put in on the water has told them something else entirely, which is to never rule out another possibility. Byron Velvick may have made the most surprising admission, which is that three of his top-12 finishes last year came after not developing a pattern during practice. His point was that it has worked many times for Skeet Reese. (He isn't comparing himself to Skeet or being arrogant--he's just pointing out that there's a precedent for that kind of approach, which lends some confidence to it.) So it would seem that the mantra of "fishing the moment" can be taken to its simplest form on the biggest stage that bass fishing has to offer.

Classic Practice

I went to the Worcester Outdoor Expo today, and Mark Zona of ESPN confirmed what a lot of us have been fearful of: the Classic is going to be tough, REALLY tough. He said he'd spoken with KVD in the morning and that water temps were just around 40 degrees. On the B.A.S.S. site there are videos of guys practicing in the snow, and the forecast doesn't get any better over the next four days or so. By the time it all starts things are supposed to get around 50, but it seems like that won't be enough to turn any of the fish around. Zona also said that according to KVD the water is pretty muddy right now, and the forecast calls for rain next Saturday, the second official day of fishing. So, does anyone want to guess what it will take to win it? I think there are going to be a number of guys who skunked. One of the guys at practice said he only caught one fish, albeit in a flu-shortened day. But everyone else's 50 pound guesses are now going to 40-something. I'll go one lower and say that not too many are going to go much above 30. KVD seems to thrive in tough situations like this, but I'm not putting my money on him. I think it might take a slow-falling jig bite similar to what Alton Jones won with on Lake Hartwell in '08. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Gary Klein the one to do it. Although there's always Aaron Martens with his scrounger . . . .

Winter Weather and the Classic

I've been watching the Lay Lake water temperatures online lately, and it seems a few things are evident. First, the site that I've been viewing has been displaying inaccurate temperatures. About a week ago it listed the temp as around 43, which seems right. Then a few days ago it began listing it as 50, with the temp at 43 just the day before. That is obviously a mistake. But given the temp in the low 40's, which Bassmaster.com has confirmed, it's pretty obvious that this is not going to be an easy Classic. Even if the temps were to warm up--and it sounds like the weather will improve a bit, into the 50's by next Wednesday or so--it won't be nearly enough to put the fish into shallow water. This really could make this anyone's game, and I'm guessing it might wash out the hopes of a few of the media favorites. Russ Lane is a self-professed spotted bass fanatic (check out his site--he specializes in guided tours for spots), and some people have pegged him as being a factor. But given that this Classic might bear some resemblance to the frigid Lake Hartwell Classic of '08, who's to say that a deep jig bite, like the one that helped Alton Jones win, won't be a winning pattern? Where I am, in New Hampshire, it's snowing,which may not seem like surprising news. But this is the first snow we've had in nearly 6 weeks. The mega-blast of snow that hit the metro-Atlantic states a week ago missed us entirely. But the south is nearly as cold as we are, and it's been that way ALL winter long! As far as winters go up here, this is pretty much par for the course. I'm counting the days to ice-out, and I expect we'll be fishing open water in about two months. But what they're going through down south is unheard of. It sounds as though the spawn will be put off by about a month and a half. My guess is that they'll be fishing a late winter pattern at the Classic, rather than pre-spawn.

Okechobee

B.A.S.S. will begin their 2010 season with the Southern Open on Lake Okechobee tommorow. As everyone, or nearly everyone knows the weather has NOT been cooperating. Yet the reports are for the temperatures to warm into the 70's tommorow and remain there for the rest of the week. We are supposed to get into the 40's this week, in New England, and hopefully this will bode well for the guys in FLA.
I can't help but find this funny, though, because a few anglers in Florida are reporting water temps in the 40's. The last time I went out in my boat the water temp was about 48 degrees. It was like being in Alaska, though in New England we are used to dealing with relatively long winters. Lake Winniepesaukee is 34 degrees, and that is about as cold as it will get, iced over until April. Yet a lot of smaller lakes down here, in southern NH, are still provinding largemouths out of the ice. I, however, will probably not be icefishing at all this year. I'll be happy to wait until things warm up.
And therein lies the irony. In Florida the fish will be spawning next week. SPAWNING! That doesn't happen for at least 6 months here! Think about that. It's a 24 hour car drive but only a 2-3 hour plane ride to most parts of Florida from New England. Wow. I envy that, big time. But that's the way it goes. Granted, a lot of this might be overstated (will the fish really be spawning?), but to those of us who deal with ice a lot of the time the fantasy is worth it.

How complex is fishing?

To most people fishing is nothing more than a leisurely activity, and while every one of us who enjoy fishing would agree that one of its greatest qualities is in its recreational joys there are other things that drive some anglers. One of my biggest pet peeves, which I luckily have not been exposed to yet, is someone who thinks that professional tournament angling isn't a big deal or all that hard. I was thinking about this because one of the things I love most is the challenge of fishing, so if there's a perception that tournament angling isn't worth recognition I'd like to show some people what it is they're missing.
Take a simple look at the tournament format: you fish for 8 hours, including travel time, and try to catch the five best fish of a certain minimum length (between 12 and 15 inches, usually). Simple, right? Well, if you add to that a launch time of 7 am, a lot of people would shudder. Then think that you are competing with a field of anywhere from 30-150+ anglers who are trying to do the exact same thing as you; and you are sometimes fishing on a lake that is in excess of 10,000 acres, making both navigation and finding fish an even bigger challenge; and the weather, as we know, is constantly changing, adding another challenge to both travel and catching fish; and while much of the technology of boats and fishing gear is advanced enough to not be a worry on most days, there is always the possiblity of having a boat completely dying on you while you are miles from the launch or losing your favorite bait during prime conditions. (This last problem happened to Chad Griffen at the last regular season B.A.S.S. event on Oneida Lake, and he was still able to win.) These are not the end to the complications for a tournament angler. Water clarity, temperature, surface conditions, low light, and wind also make matters difficult. So, considering this, who is the best tournament angler? I think the answer lies in something Rick Clunn said in an interview. When asked how much a factor luck plays into tournaments, he said that the longer a tournament goes on, in terms of the number of days, the less luck plays a factor. Makes perfect sense. The best anglers adjust to the conditions, including angling pressure. So, to make the matter perhaps more general, maybe the best angler is the one who makes luck less of a factor in his or her success.

Winter Practice

I've been meaning to practice pitching this winter, and though the cold is enough to keep me out of my garage (forget going outside!) I finally put in an hour today. I'm fairly new to baitcasters, yet I feel pretty comfortable with thumbing the spool during casting. I think I finally realized the difference in using the thumb when pitching, and the truth is that I am nowhere near as good at it as I thought. I know I'll never be a Tommy Biffle or Denny Brauer, but for my needs I thought I was well on my way. At any rate, it got me to thinking about just how to learn to pitch well. The answer came from watching other pros do it. When you see guys who are good at pitching you notice that a lot of the skill comes at the very end of the pitch, as the lures falls into the water. This may sound pretty basic, since the obvious goal is to let the lure fall in without any disturbance. Yet it involves training your thumb in a totally different manner than when you're casting. A lot of guys, when they pitch, tend to pull back slightly on the rod as the lure finishes its arc and enters the water. This obviously slows the lure down even more than if you let it fall freely, thus letting it just drop silently into the water. This is much easier said than done, and I found out that the lesson is best learned (for me, at least) a few steps at a time. First, I felt like I really had to train my thumb to stop a lure from a simple stand-still, vertical spot, without moving it forward. If you read a lot of basics about how to use baitcasters you'll notice they all say this is the most important part, and while this is true I also found that they don't say anything about the trick of pulling back on the rod. So I decided to learn that, from that vertical position. With my thumb on the spool, I let the lure drop, then as it was nearing the ground, I pulled back slightly on the rod so that it would slow down and I could control just how hard it hit the ground. After doing this for a while I also noticed that one of the keys was to have more than just the tip of your thumb on the spool. I felt like I had more control with the entire last joint of my thumb on the spool, so that more skin was in contact with the line and less pressure was needed to slow the lure down. As I would pull back on the rod I didn't need to apply more pressure to the spool--the backward motion of the rod along with the light but constant pressure of my thumb naturally slowed the lure down. All this coordination of different movements is what makes pitching so hard, but as I found out it really is only one movement with the other action of the thumb being a constant. The second part of learning to pitch well, to me, will be making the lure swing forward as it falls and learning to control its speed as it falls both forward and downward. I was trying to learn it all at once and it wasn't working, so I figured this would make matters much easier. Then, after that, accuracy will be the next lesson, and, finally, distance. I think breaking the technique down into these smaller lessons makes it a lot easier and less frustrating.

Conservation

Conservation as part of recreational fishing is obviously a very big topic and would take a long time to discuss. Rather than explore it in a broad way I wanted to mention a few things that occured to me while reading an interview with the outgoing director of the Texas state fisheries, posted on bassfan.com. One of the things he mentions is consumptive rather than recreational management of fisheries. The definition is obvious, as are the implications, yet the odd thing to me is how little acknowledgement anglers actually get for upholding and promoting the policy. I mention this because of the all the recent controversy over the recent formation of the Intra-Ocean task force. The implication seems to be that recreational anglers are as responsible for the overfishing of certain species as commercial fishing. The other compelling matter to me is angling pressure. He mentions that as angling pressure increases, as it must with an increase in population, the greater the need will be for stocking bass. He says that the concerns are more on the level of habitat, but he doesn't elaborate (is it a matter of polution?). I imagine it has something to do with the shift in climate, global warming and the like, and I mention this only because he also said part of the reason that lakes like Falcon and Amistad are fishing like entirely new fisheries is because of the change in water level, growth of new weed cover, and subsequent creation of new habitat for bass. Whatever the case, it is an ever-changing phenomenon and can only be managed with a dynamic outlook toward the future.