Further North

...not sure on bass (I only use a leader for finesse presentations in clear water for bass...and it's alway diameter based, not break strength based...and therefore much less that the braid the leader is tied to)...but on toothy fish it's for resistance to line abrasion. When you tie into a 36" - 48" or bigger pike pike or musky, the teeth and gill rakers can slice a thin line like it's not even there... I either use tieable stainless, or 80# - 100# fluoro for those applications... There's not much that's more disconcerting than hooking into a 25# - 30# musky and having it break the line before you can get the lure out of it's mouth...first...the lure cost a bunch of $$$...second and much more important...that lure stuck in the fish's face can kill it...and there's no toothy fish angler worth his tackle that wants that to happen to a fish that's a couple of decades old...

It might be a wee bit more complex that that if the 5# bass wraps the line around a dock support, a sunken log, or runs it across a rock pile...also...it might be worth figuring out what stresses are put on a line during a hook-set (hint: it's more than the fish weighs...way more...). I use braid that is roughly the same diameter as the reel is designed for...for a coupla reasons: It'd be stupid expensive to put 10# braid on a reel designed for 12# mono... Given that the line diameter is the same, why not get the extra strength? I don't loose lures with "50# rope"...the hook will bend before the line will break...

Interesting...all the rods I've ordered from STP came in solid fiber tubes... Question: Are we talking "cardboard" (ceral box material) or corrugated (what most boxes are made of)? I ask because there's a huge difference. A triangular corrugated tube is way more than a fishing rod needs unless the shipper screws up massively. There is no stacking strength to worry about, and burst strength is fine unless the shipper does something stupid...

I'm going to guess that it was really corrugated and not cardboard (the stuff they make cereal boxes out of). A triangular corrugated container is pretty tough, will get the job done for a fishing rod unless the carrier fouls it up spectacularly. ...I've ordered rads from Temple Forks Outfitters via Amazon, arrived in a similar package, it was fine...After 32 years in the packaging business, you won't get better unless it ships in a 1/4" think solid fiber tube...and those bad boys are expensive.

So far (about 2 months into using the FG knot) I would say that it is at least as strong as the Alberto...and slimmer without question. I've used it on bass (30# - 50# braid to 10# - 17# fluro) and pike/musky (50# - 65# braid to 80# fluoro or 30# - 50# tieable stainless leader material like Surflon or Tyger Wire). It's a bit more of a chore to tie...but it goes through guides better than an Alberto and hold on tight.

In NW WI we have thousands of lakes, dozens of rivers and hundreds of streams... I fish the big lakes from my boat, wade the rivers and streams and use a canoe on the smaller lakes. Sometimes the rivers call for a combination of canoe and wading. Each has its place in my fishing life and for different reasons, depending on what I'm feeling like on a given day.

The ability of the Calais DC to avoid backlashes and to cast into a strong wind changes that equation a bit - the added functionality that allows you to spend your time fishing instead of dealing with other issues, and to cast further do make a difference. It's kind of similar to saying that an older race car still goes around the track, finishes the race and still wins one now and then...that is all correct...but taking advantage of technology to make fishing time more productive and increasing a fisherman's ability to do some things is never a bad thing. Whether that difference is worth the $$$ is up to the individual. I'm not sorry I spent the money on the Calais DC. I'm not sorry I spent the money on my electronics and trolling motor either...and that was a lot more than $300....

Back in May I had an interesting conversation with the owner of Fly South down in Nashville ( was down there on business and wandered into the shop on a Saturday). His take (and any errors here are mine, not his) was that there is one overlooked advantage of multi-piece rods: Each section of a multi-piece rod can be built with differently with the specific function of that part of the rod in mind. That isn't an option with a one piece...yes, they can taper the materials to produce a fast action, or a slower one...but the maker of the multi-piece rod has even more options. The discussion revolved around fly rods (a one piece 9 ft. rod is a pain in the fanny no matter how "sensitive" it is)...most of my fly rods are 4 piece - I have a a couple of three piece rods, and two or three two piece...and there's no appreciable difference in overall feel or performance...and I have no less confidence in the multi piece rods. A thought on rod storage of multi-piece rods in the boat - I store my rods rigged and ready to go as I don't want to be fiddling round with putting a rod together and rigging it when I am on fish...so the few two piece spinning and bait casting rods I own are always together unless I am traveling with them without the boat. Same for my fly rods.

I always find it interesting when someone has a bad experience with something - often years ago - and vows to never use it again. This ignores different brands, different products within a brand, the idea that it may have been user error...or that it was simply a bad individual product (made on a Monday, so to speak). I tried fluorocarbon when I first got back into fishing...didn't like it...tried some other brands, other types...still didn't like it...but I checked back now and - and I learned a bunch of things - then and there are some places where it is the best possible choice. Most often I use it for leaders, tied on to braid...or onto a fly line...but there's other times when it's fine on its own. I've never understood the mindset that leads to what I'll call a "purist" mentality. It's a limiting behavior that insulates the believer from improvements and opportunity to learn and grow... ...For instance, I fly fish...but I am not a "fly fisherman". I use spinning and bait casting gear when it works best...or when I want to. I have plenty of examples of things I've learned in one kind of fishing that crosses over to another...putting it all together makes me a better fisherman overall. Ignoring fluorocarbon because I didn't like it years ago would have left me with a gap in my tool box...and - for me - that'd be bad...

I have a Calais DC...I love it, great reel. As mentioned above, backlash is mostly a thing of the past using the reel...and even if you do get them, they are small and easily dealt with. The different modes are really important - being able to cast into the wind is very nice. If you set it up right, the distance you will get is great - more than with any other reel I own. It's only possible down side is weight - it's not a small reel. Mine is currently on a 7' 9" TFO that I have rigged for toothy fish...but now that my Canadian trip is done for the year I'll re-rig the set up for pitching heavier jigs. ...is it worth the difference in cost? It was to me, others will not think so.

Tough choice - I'd tend towards the Alumacraft, as long as the carpet repair was warranted along with the boat...but I'd sure like to have that 115 over the 90...

I'll have to check mine, but I thought they could go over either shoulder?

This is very much a a "horses for courses" and preference issue. I use casting rigs for some things, spinning rigs for others...and fly rods for things neither can do. I always wind up feeling like people who limit themselves to one method or another are not getting all they can out of things...but if they are happy, I am happy.

I struggled with them being comfortable also - it took a lot of adjustment of that smaller strap for me to get it dialed in.

Getting into boats is a long process of figuring out what you like, what you need and how you fish. Starting out with an inexpensive option is a great way to find out some things...It's probably best to plan go through several different rigs until you figure out what you like.

Minnow, you're spot on, IMO. I grew up pulling 30 ft. campers for grouse hunting... Here's how my math works for my rig: 2005 Crestliner CMV, empty: < 1200 lbs. 2005 Johnson (Suzuki) DF140: <400 lbs. 41 gallons gas: < 250 lbs. Tackle and rods: ~ 200 lbs. Trolling motor, batteries, and charger < 200 lbs. That gets me to 2050 lbs. Trailer is <700 lbs. and round up for misc. gizmos - I'm at 3100. Less than 90% of capacity...and I never tow with a full tank of gas...so that's got a huge impact. That Tracker is lighter than my CMV, the motor is way lighter than my 140, and it carries less gas...no brainer from here. A new (later than 2013) Ford Escape will pull it all day, every day.

Nice fish! I didn't take a lot of pictures, but we had some near absurd smallie action on Lake of the Woods a couple of weeks ago...it was weird...som fish were still on beds, and some were obviously two weeks past that and aggressively hitting anything that looked even vaguely like a 2" - 3" crayfish. ...between the fly rod and a hula grub finessed on a spinning rod, if I went 50; without a fish I figured something was wrong...

The most I've paid for one is $89...not much in the overall pile of fishing receipts.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Sling packs are slick, especially when you need to re-rig mid river. Pull it around, open it up and you've not only got what you need, but a place to work too.

How many gallons per mile does that thing burn?

I've heard that...but never experienced it...unless the weather is really awful...or the guy driving the boat didn't know what he was doing. It's hard to get whet when only the last two feet of the hull is in the water.

Cool rig...wouldn't work at some of our...ah..."unimproved" boat launches here in NW WI.

I have that same deal with my motor - it's relatively small even compared t0 a lot of modern motors and it's tiny compared to the early 90s Johnson 150 I had on my Lund Pro-V. It's easy to cast around and it's easy to walk a big pike or musky around the motor if they decide that's where they want to go.

Well said - and with a lot fewer words than I used... I actually did the calculation on the swept area of the brakes on my Saab ( I called it the SnAABlazer) vs. the Escape...and when the weight of the heavier vehicle was taken into account the difference was negligible but slightly in favor of the Escape. I came down that huge hill in Duluth with the boat behind me with no problems at all.

I started with the same thinking. I was wrong. Modern engines are not the same as the ones I grew up with where cubic inches are the only reliable way to develop torque. As I mentioned, the 2.0 liter Escape only gives up 7 ft. lbs. to the 4.2 liter straight six in the Trailblazer/Envoy line...which only gave up a little to the V8 they offered. Between far better manufacturing processes, better design, turbocharging, computerized engine management, and transmissions with many more gear ranges, the engine is not stressed like many people tend to think it will be. I was running at 70 MPH on the interstate on that trio to Ontario and no more RPMs that I would have with the bigger, less efficient truck. That same 2.0 motor in non-turbocharged form puts out 160 HP and 146 ft. lbs. torque at a fairly low 4450 RPM...in the Escape that gets bumped to 240 HP and 270 ft. lbs. @ 3000 RPM...and it comes on smooth and usable, not peaky like older turbocharged engines. I would suggest not dismissing the Escape out of hand because it doesn't fit the old paradigm with what a lot of folks think of as a a small engine - in today's excessively litigious society, Ford would not rate the vehicle with that tow rating unless it was both capable and safe. Torque is torque and it really is that simple. I wouldn't attempt to pull a 20 ft glass boat with the Escape, or even a deep V Lund/Crestliner/Alumacraft that weighed in at 4,000 lbs....but the Escape will pull that Tracker and my CMV for years with no problems, and get mid 20s MPG in normal driving and high 20s on the highway for the 90% or better that he's not towing the boat. I was spending about $70+ a week on gas for the Saab - I'm at about $35 - $40 with the Escape...that difference buys a lot of gear...or helps put a kid through school... Obviously, if someone is uncomfortable with a 2.0 liter engine towing a small boat, they shouldn't do it...but the facts and data show that it will work well.