Team9nine

This is the more debatable topic of the two. Theoretically, it shouldn't happen because sonar frequencies (200khZ, 455 khZ, 800 khZ) are well above the hearing range of bass. However, Doug Hannon believed that fish can hear the harmonics of sonar waves (not the "sound"). "Plausible" - yes; "Can" - maybe EDIT: Tracked down this opinion on the subject from Ralph Manns, whom I have great respect for: Although the fish can't sense/hear the very high frequency sounds of the pulses themselves, they can sense the low frequency pulses (the clicks, if you will). Even if the unit doesn't make an audible click, it vibrates and sends out a signal detectable by a fish's lateral line at between 50 and 150 (or so) pulses a second (depending upon the scroll speed.) Every fish these guys/gals haul to the boat is given a chance to learn and associate the sound with danger. The sound may be meaningless as it goes over an inexperience fish. But, during the trauma of being hauled to boatside and netted or lipped the noise and the unpleasant experience are easily associated. Bass are programmed by instinct and habit to avoid such unpleasantness. The use of a radically different scroll speed may make the sound/pulses different enough so that even experienced bass don't know they are a threat. If you must keep a sonar on, I do so when fishing waters/shorelines I haven't previously learned with a sonar, try running the unit either at max or minimum scroll speed rather than the manufacturers automatic settings. This one is actually less debatable, as there is some pretty decent evidence via diving and tagging studies that it occurs.

Lots of things are plausible, but some are more (or less) likely than others. There are few absolutes in fishing. Stand or sit in one place long enough and your shadow will become something that attracts fish

Not unreasonable, but it also shouldn't be expected. Every lake is going to be different. Bass have to be able to associate the sound with something negative relative to their well being. On most of the lakes I fish, that's probably hard for them to do. When you consider all the unusual sounds coming from dozens (if not hundreds) of boats on the water at a given time, why should they pay special focus on just sonar noise? Lots of non-anglers have sonar on their boats running at the same time, and there is likely no way a fish could discern a difference or make that association. On the other hand, a smaller body of water with little recreational traffic but heavier angling pressure might eventually learn that association, along with a lot of other cues like the sound of a lure hitting the water on a cast, or the sound or pressure waves from a trolling motor. The biggest pressure waves come from the boat itself, and I believe it was Tom (wrb) go on another thread mentioned seeing bass react to a boat passing several hundred yards away.

The two best "processes" for eliminating water I've come across in all my years and studies come from Rick Clunn and Buck Perry. Rick's stuff was captured in several sources including Bassmaster and In-Fisherman, among many. The I-F articles done by Paul Prorok, the same person who wrote Bill Murphy's book, are the best. Buck wrote "Spoonplugging," but also has many other articles and material available. Can't go wrong with either system, IMHO. Both will create a permanent foundation of understanding to build upon, something so many seem to lack in this modern era of instant gratification for success.

Think in terms of a kite. Long legs on a frog is like a long tail on a kite - it helps stabilize the main body. Shorter legs and shorter kite tail lets the body get a little less stable, which on a frog makes it easier to walk. One leg shorter than another is to change the amount of drag on the legs so the frog has a tendency to naturally want to start rotating slightly making it easier to walk.

I can tell you I never shut mine off. The info gleaned more than offsets any negatives I might have experienced. Look at all the shows and pros who "video game" fish as one example. Not saying there isn't a body of water somewhere, or case where it might really make a difference, but if it exists, I have to believe it is in the minority.

While a long standing belief, it is largely considered just an attractive myth these days, as there is very little support for the story. The generally held concensus is that of some 400 suggestions from a DuPont committee, "No-Run" was actually the leading candidate name, but after some consideration, nylon won out. The more generally accepted explanation is that "nyl" was unique but arbitrary, while "on" kept the format of other popular materials of the time (cotton, rayon, etc.).

1/16 (1/15), 1/20 and 1/32 mostly, in that order. You'll still catch plenty on a 1/10 though.

Too big, but you'll be fine....

Somewhere between 15 - 35 years of normal use and storage conditions based on similar component material studies

In a hearbeat - Don't fight the bite!! -T9

Look up the term "feather" or "feathering" - it's the equivalent for spinning reels. Several YouTube videos you can watch. Basically using your index finger to control line.

Everyone tends to think being a professional angler is a great gig, but they forget that you have to promote certain baits of your sponsors, often on camera and at shows, and you end up like poor Lane, Surman and Christie. Same with the Livingston guys. I don't think I could do it - lol

Which, of course, then makes you wonder why they left the 'L' in Teckel, doesn't it, being a Japanese company, and all.

I agree with this....and PT Barnum

Getting a bunch of mixed catches now that summer is here. Here's a few: walleye, crappie and channel cats

I respool with fresh line. I don't like low spools, personally. You can leave much of the original line on as a constant backing, then simply add 75-100 yds of fresh line (connect the lines together) whenever you start getting low. That helps keep cost down.

When I use a net, the rubber style is all I use. Much prefer them to traditional nets

Not sure what you're doing wrong, 'cause I'd like to help you out. My experience has been 180 degrees opposite of yours with lighter braid (why I use it so much). I've landed 50# grass carp, 40# buffalo, along with low teens channel cats and wipers on nothing heavier than 8# braid and/or leaders, with 5# getting the majority of use. I don't intentionally go looking for fights in heavy cover, but I'm not scared of what a fish might do based on what I've been able to land.

Simply saying lighter pound test will work better with lighter weight lures in most cases, but if you're catching fish and happy, then keep rolling with what you're doing.

15# is fine for just all around use, say 1/8 oz and up. However, if you start downsizing and throwing 1/16, 1/32 or 1/64 oz baits instead of your normal stuff, lighter line will perform much better. I personally use 3#, 5#, and 8# braid for all my lighter stuff with 4, 6 or 8 pound leaders. -T9

Here's my tip - become a more experienced/better caster ...and I don't mean that negatively. I am almost 100% fluoro on every baitcaster I own, ranging from 8# up to 25# test, throw everything from Shad Raps to A-rigs, and I don't have any issues - never used line conditioner. It might help you initially while learning, but you don't need it. Simply become a better caster and your fluoro "issues" will go away.

You often have "homers" and "roamers." Some bass, often including the biggest in the lake, won't move any farther than they have to between spawning areas and summer/fall home areas. Other bass like schoolies may roam for miles at times, but they tend to run much smaller in size. Not the best conservation of energy strategy, but they're likely younger and make it work. That said, every lake is different, and bass will do what they have to to survive, so don't write it off (what you were told), but also don't consider it chiseled in stone

I can tell you that on my worst balanced rods (long, heavy sticks) that I have added butt caps and weights to to balance them, while you end up getting the desired balance, you can definitely feel the effect of having the added weight on the back end of the rod when you cast. Additionally, since most casts aren't simply wrist rotation, but also involve some arm movement, the momentum/inertia feeling just made things seem really awkward for me. Add in the loss of sensitivity, and I have since removed and stopped using any of the aftermarket add-ons for rod balancing. You are correct that the longest rods I own (7'3"-7'6") have the "worst" balance (relatively speaking), but not so much on the price point aspect. My best balancing spinning rods range from 6'2" - 7'0", and have a price range between $49 (Berkley Lightning Rod) and $270 (Loomis & Custom builds). My best casting rods range from 6'0"-7'0" and have a price range from $40 (Lightning Rod, again) to $230 (Loomis). On the balance point, if you start with just a rod blank and give it to two different builders/manufacturers, you can end up with two very different balance points for the same rod based on the components used and things such as guide number and spacing, materials, reel seats, butt length, etc., etc., so I would say you can have a big effect on that balance point, which goes back to my point of the best balanced rods are already built toward that end. By measuring several parameters of all the rods I own, I have come up with a formula that lets me know pretty well how balanced a rod will be before I even buy it, assuming I can get those parameter measurements in advance. Not too difficult in a store, but much more challenging if buying online. It works for me... and things like reel weight and lure weight don't seem to play as big a role as some might think.

You can like the feel of a rod without fretting over the counterbalance method. However, if you don't like the feel, I wouldn't add extra mass after the fact to try and get better balance. A builder has options from the beginning, the purchaser is usually pretty restricted. Adding mass hurts sensitivity, regardless of where you add it. Adding it to the butt of the rod compounds the problem because of excess at the farthest end, creating additional issues with inertia and momentum that could potentially be avoided with better build quality.