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.