Team9nine

What? tournament tour·na·ment - n. 1. A series of contests in which a number of contestants compete and the one that prevails through the final round or that finishes with the best record is declared the winner 2. A sports competition or series of contests that involves many players or teams and that usually continues for at least several days 3. A series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event Sounds exactly like what I've been watching... -T9

Summit Bass Anglers out of New Castle was on the list. Might check into that one. They also used to run a regular weeknight tourney out of the bait shop by the lake. Not sure if it's still there, but might talk to them to see if any clubs still work through there. -T9

A fully rigged Nitro bass boat that they valued at $25,000 at the time... -T9

Quite a few in that Indy/Anderson/Muncie area. Check out the following website for a list of most all state clubs. I believe they are in alphabetical order by city: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/indiana-bass-clubs.html -T9

Looks like the back of Walker Ramp Plenty of structure, and plenty of bass in that area, along with crappie, too. As an FYI for readers, the lake is drawn down 22 feet each year (winter pool) as a flood control measure, but the main lake has a depth of around 60 feet or so, so there are minimal issues in regard to fish survival. -T9

In short, I'd answer, "correct", "yes", and "not necessarily," but now we have another term (feeding) thrown into the mix along with 'biting' and 'striking'. The problem at this point is we start getting into semantics, what or who you believe, as well as where your definitions are coming from (IMHO). This is one of the biggest reasons why I like the way Buck approached his fishing. Arguably, this is one of the few cases in which I'd say that the semantics don't matter, because depth and speed control, combined with "aids," as needed, cover everything. It stops you from overthinking your approach to each and every situation. Are they biting? Are they feeding? Are they striking? Am I supposed to fish this bait fast or slow? What if they're neutral instead of positive or negative? Proper depth and speed control will take care of it all, plus so much more. It really is that simple. All that said, one thing I like to do is refer back to the Lindner's (In' Fisherman) original work, as well as their later stuff, and see how thoughts and concepts have changed. I do this because a large part of the basic In' Fisherman formula and concepts were simply Buck's works/words adopted, reworded (sometimes) and expanded upon. So, for instance, in the case of pos., neutral, neg., a look at the very first issue of In' Fisherman gives you the following: They also wrote about 'striking' versus 'biting' versus 'feeding' as such: One of the earlier 'Fishing News' newspapers (1965) had "Striking vs. Biting" as their featured headline article, and a much more in-depth look at the subject. However, the more you read on the subject, the more confusing it can get. Later editions of Fishing Facts magazines contained a section in the front of every issue called "Fishing Talk - our language of structure fishing." This was a compilation of terminology and definitions provided by both Buck and Ron Lindner. In it, they listed the following definition of the two terms, attributed to Ron: Biting: The act of actively seeking out forage. The fish are in a positive appetite mood. "The fish are biting." Striking: An involuntary reflex action which prompts a fish to strike at a bait or lure due to his pugnacious nature, and as triggered by the right combination of controls the fisherman can exercise over his lure, principally speed and depth. This is the opposite of biting, which is a feeding process. So, in the end, I don't know if any of this made things more clear or more confusing - LOL. Personally, in my fishing, I just try and follow the guidelines and don't worry about such things -T9

Mercer - Can't stand the guy - won't watch his show. Zona, on the other hand, from what I've seen of him, I like. -T9

Another vote for the buzzbait. Put the trolling motor on high and just go winging down the bank all day long, anticipating a blow-up at any moment Sadly, I don't think I did that even once last year... -T9

Dug some more and might have come up with the answer. Buck wrote: "It might be well to explain here why I call these types of lures 'jump-type' lures. I do it because these type lures should be jumped a distance, then allowed to return to bottom. You will note I did not say dragged a distance, then stopped on the bottom. Neither did I say the retrieve should be slow and steady with the lure sliding along the bottom; these lures should be jumped." A few pages later, Buck goes into the differences of live bait versus artificials. As I mentioned above, live/dead bait was for the slowest speed control. Along those lines, he stated that you could drift or row or use techniques like "back trolling" (the Lindner's presentation of dragging of live bait along the bottom) with bait. So dragging wasn't necessarily the issue. But he also wrote that he believed that there was a difference between biting and striking (fish). Fish could be made to strike artificials, but when they fed (which was a minority of the time, they "bit" natural baits. As such, I believe the advice to never drag or slide along the bottom was because he felt that type speed was reserved for live bait, while "jumping" a lure provided the trigger to make a fish "strike" an artificial. Make sense? -T9

LOL - just saved me a lot of typing Thanks! I think that concept might have a little "wiggle room" these days, and yes, it's all depth-speed control. Buck viewed jump baits as the slower speed control lures. Actually, 'live bait' and 'dead bait' fell below the jump lure category. How fast or how slow depended upon how far or fast you "jumped" the lure. Shorter jumps = slower speeds. Pauses between jumps were considered "zero speed" control. Therefore, with a single retrieve, you could cover multiple speed options on the cast. Again though, based on weight and bulk of your jig or worm or spoon, if you moved it too fast (as in swimming perhaps), it would likely rise too far above bottom, and therefore you would lose your depth control component. "Jumping" always allowed for your bait to return back to bottom, whatever depth you were in. From what I can tell though, Buck never "dragged" to my knowledge, at least that I've been able to find. Haven't heard an exact explanation as to why. Theoretically you can "drag" any jig or worm without the need for a football head. Might have to dig a little deeper into the library and see if I can find a better answer for that one. -T9

The answer lies in the intimate relationship between depth and speed. Buck made them 'controls' (as opposed to aids) because the two are so intertwined. He stated; Using your swimbait fishing as an example. You stated, "In general, I find "slow" is a good speed to fish my baits." You also said, "fish it very slow subsurface, a couple feet down in the column. Real trouts seem to do that a lot." So now you have established preferred depth at which your big bass are holding or feeding at, which we all agree is most important. This is a key depth range that you would want to maintain. Let's say that 'subsurface' is 6' down in this instance. You can throw any of your Hudds you want, but to be successful at that 6' depth, you are also going to have to maintain a slow speed (most times) as you stated. It is this depth and speed combination that will ultimately be the primary key to your success. If you throw the ROF16 and try to maintain it at 6', your retrieve speed is going to be too fast, and you likely won't get bit. If you throw the floater/wake bait, you can fish it as slow as you need to, but your depth is going to be off and those fish might not rise to the surface to eat it. It takes a COMBINATION of depth and speed for successful fishing, at least a lot of the time - the two are inseparable. This is why they are both controls. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other. Once you can achieve that depth/speed combination, then you are free to play with color, size and action all you want -T9

Some clarification - There are actually two versions of 832 out there. One has a single strand of GORE, and the other has 2 strands of GORE. GORE is a higher density material compared to braid. They market the 2-strand version as "832-D deep down" because of its enhanced sinking ability. The single strand version, while not currently marketed as a sinking line, has been touted to be such by numerous persons on various forums, and even demonstrated to be a sinking line in comparisons I've seen (video) of multiple tested line types. -T9

^^ This ^^ All braid, with the exception of those made with different denser fibers added into the braid or weave, or treated somehow to offset this, will float due to their density being slightly less than water (usually around 0.97-0.98). One good example would be Sufix 832 braid that has a strand of GORE fiber weaved in to make it sink. -T9

If you liked the book "Spoonplugging," then you'll like Murphy's book, too. BTW, Murphy was a troller part of the time even though he personally disliked the technique. As for the deep water part, I'll throw in my two cents. Part of trolling a spoonplug was to map and interpret the bottom, yes. As you suggested, a lot of the mapping now days is largely done for anglers due to the chips and technology available. Still, there is nothing like putting a lure down there to feel out things like bottom content, whether there is any cover in relation to those breaklines/structure/etc. and what type, as well as to simply see if there are biting fish using that structure. Also, not all maps are 100% dead on when it comes to subtle structural differences (fingers, breaks, etc.). That said, the other part of trolling was to check all speeds. There is simply no way you can reel a bait faster than you can troll it, and at times, that type speed will be the trigger that makes a fish bite. You'll read that again in Murphy's book when you get to that part. So yes, you can fish without trolling, especially if you simply focus on fishing prime structures as opposed to searching general areas, but realize that you'll be leaving a certain segment of speed control out of your game. Beyond that, you can cover speeds well from casting and retrieving cranks or similar plugs as fast as reasonable, all the way down to dead-sticking or drop-shot type presentations with almost no "speed." You'll be able to cover most of the speed range casting, but not all, especially as you go deeper. -T9

What is described above is actually "long-lining." It is a tactic to get normal deep divers even deeper, down to 25'-35' depths or more "on a cast". This is easily accomplished with trolling due to the fixed length of line out and control over that length. "Strolling" is a common tactic on places like Erie where you basically drag a tube or jig or similar bottom bait on a semi-fixed line length while the wind or trolling motor moves you along over a large expanse of water like a reef or flat. As long as you work the rod and reel to some degree, it isn't considered trolling. In either case, the fact that professional bass anglers go to such lengths to basically try and replicate trolling while still staying within the rules of a "no trolling allowed" system should give you some idea of the advantages to the technique. If pro circuits allowed it, no doubt some pros would do it, especially on a circuit like B.A.S.S. where the pro is only paired with a marshal. -T9

Heck yeah, I backreel. Just another technique for the arsenal. -T9

The answer is because when Ray Scott first started and devised the rules for his national B.A.S.S. events, he envisioned a competition where guys who didn't know each other were paired together in boats and competed "mano y mano," cast for cast, one lure each. Each angler was competing against all the other guys, and everyone's weight was an individual score - let the best man win. As such, there was no good way to implement trolling into the game and keep with the spirit of competition and fairness he sought. Since Ray and B.A.S.S. set the rules, most every other bass tourney organization that followed did the same. If you take note of the professional tours for other species you'll see the difference. For example, the walleye guys (PWT, AIM, etc.) were always paired as a pro and a co-angler in the same boat, and had a shared weight system (work as a team, and the weight for the boat is the weight recorded for both the pro angler and the co-angler). Makes trolling and scoring fair for both partners. Similarly, nearly all professional crappie events are "team" events, where the team (both guys) get the same weight for the day. As such, trolling is a perfectly good tactic again, fair for all. Ray set the rules for bass competition, so that's how we play the game. -T9

That lake has a lot of structure. Immediately at ice-out, I'm starting my attack at the deep holes, of which there are 3 key areas (2 north, 1 SW, and the biggest area in the SE corner). I'm working the structure (points, breaklines, etc.) immediately adjacent to those holes, as well as the holes themselves, then slowly working shallower as the water warms. There is likely no oxygen issue at any depth unless you've had a prolonged winter (period of ice cover) with lots of snow. Even then, previous studies in mid-January show good oxygen to 50' depths. As soon as ice comes off, oxygen will return to those areas. Beginning around spawn time (Early May?), that is when the thermocline starts forming on this lake and oxygen starts becoming an issue in deeper water. From that point through the summer and into September, it's a 16' and less ballgame, give or take slightly. After Sept., the thermocline starts breaking up again and oxygen starts pushing deeper, so my tendency would be to start working deeper, also. You should really invest in a small depthfinder of some sort. Even these little portable wrist/castable gizmos they have out now will get you covered to know the basic location of the deep holes and the breaks leading into and away from them. For under $100, today's portable units will really help you out. -T9

No way to truly test in the store, at home, or anywhere else, as everybody's perception/feel is going to be different - likely all subjective. If you really wanted to know, it would be cool to take a bunch of rods to a lab and have them slapped on an oscilloscope or similar type instrument and tested for their ability to transmit energy (resonant frequency, wavelength, impulse strength, etc.). Then you could actually state something factual in that regard. -T9

Alright - a few thoughts based on the above: 6' Sechi is pretty clear, meaning the vegetation present probably extends and covers a large majority of this reservoir. Milfoil would likely be in the silty portions of reservoir, largely confined to the littoral zone at depths of 6'-8' or less. The pondweed is probably similar, but the muskgrass would likely be in deeper depths beyond the other two, and in areas that are less silted in - possibly appearing all the way out to the 17' max depth. All the "grass" would help with the filtering of water, and would help explain the good sechi reading despite the silt. The silt would suggest some type of runoff or murky input, perhaps from farmland or perhaps from adjacent meadows. Likely not forested in the area since the comment of "precious little wood," Non-forested would also help explain the siltiness since there would be less watershed protection. The water temps and the reference to pike and perch is interesting from several standpoints. Being coolwater species, the pike probably roam the deep open water as well as the deep weedline for much of the summer, thereby forcing many of the smaller bass shallow in this lake, likely into the pondweed and milfoil. Larger bass could survive amongst "snakes," but that would also somewhat depend upon the overall pike size structure. Still, I'd expect some nice sized bass in deep open water, but the majority of bass to stay shallow. Bluegill would be similar, with most being confined to the littoral areas or the inside weedline (or inside the weedbeds). Perch would likely stay out in the sandgrass in somewhat deeper water, and likely from the deep weedline out. Like pike, they prefer cool water temps with good oxygen in the summer. About the oxygen and cool temps, this lake is probably higher altitude or certainly farther north, likely 40 degree north latitude or better. As such, a thermocline is unlikely (also based on the given summer temps if those are maxes), which is what allows the perch and pike refuge and the ability to survive in this lake. The pike probably spawn in in any marshy bay areas present, while the perch will spawn along dead weed stems and the available scattered wood in the shallows. Bass and bluegill would likely spawn just on the inside weedline in slightly deeper water due to the overall clarity. Due to the silt mention, it also wouldn't surprise me to find a decent population of bass up what appears to be a tributary arm. That is likely murkier overall, with more scattered vegetation, and would help the bass and bluegill avoid pike predation in this lake. That's all I can think of for now. -T9

Not exactly - Ned now has 6 basic retrieves he uses (used to be 5 until this past year). On any given day, he and or his partners will rotate through them all trying to figure out which one is best for the conditions. Here are the six retrieves that Midwest Finesse anglers use: (1) swim, glide, and shake; (2) hop-and-bounce; (3) drag-and-deadstick; (4) straight swim; (5) drag and incessant shake; (6) strolling If you do a search it is pretty easy to come up with more info on this. I personally use 5 different ones that are a variation on his original set. He's modified his slightly over the years. -T9

One more...

Not a photographer by any means, but every once in a great while I capture an image that pleasantly surprises me.

Several places. The punisher jigs mentioned are craft fur, which will work fine. Bass Pro has their Pro Series Smallmouth bucktail jigs - just pull the rubber strands off if you don't want them on there. Cabela's has Kalin hair/bucktail jigs. Eagle Claw also makes a bucktail jig. Then there are places who do custom jig ties like Andy's Custom Bass Lures. Google any of these - they all work. -T9

I don't view it as a case of which is the "better" approach, as each has their merits. If I'm not very familiar with a piece of structure, I'll always tend to start shallow first. On structures I know very well, and also know exactly which paths and breaks the fish tend to use from experience, I'll frequently start deeper, right on those key areas (spots on a spot) as you suggest. To that end, and papajoes point, if I know the structure that well, I'm not going to drive right over any key deep/transition areas to get to the shallows. I'm coming in from the flat side or along the shoreline. But I would personally never limit myself to doing it just one way or the other (deep > shallow; shallow > deep) every single time out, regardless. I really think it depends on how familiar with a lake and/or structure you are, as well as the prevailing weather and water conditions. Whatever works for you on your waters... -T9