FloridaFishinFool

I have also heard shimano reps say something similar, but I will have disagree with this statement. For example, take the shimano stradic FJ series reel. It has 5 bearings, but in the new stradic reels you now find more bearings. Why the change? In my old stradic spinning reel I found a peculiar situation when I opened it up for the first time. On the main drive gear I found only one ball bearing on one side and white plastic cheap bushing on the other side. Odd how that cheap plastic bushing was exactly the same size as the ball bearing on the other side. Coincidence? Hardly. Engineers designed the reel to accommodate ball bearings on BOTH sides of the main drive gear but for some reason it was left out on one side. Can you imagine building cars this way? On an axle to have a ball bearing on one side only and bushings on the other side? It does not make sense, but it does make cents. The whole reason to use a ball bearing is to improve ease of operation and smoothness, but if you use a plastic bushing on the other side it tends to add friction which really defeats the purpose of the ball bearing in the first place. Needless to say it, but that cheap plastic bushing was thrown in the trash can and a ball bearing was installed so that now both sides of the main drive gear had ball bearings exactly as the original engineers designed it. I saw this same thing years ago back in the 1980's with shimano's bantam reels. On the lower priced reels shimano inserted a brass bushing rather than a ball bearing, but the bushing was exactly the same size as the ball bearing so they were interchangeable. While on the more expensive reels they went with ball bearings rather than brass bushings. Shimano was using the bearing/bushing situation as a sales gimmick and nothing more. It was not engineering a better reel WITHOUT bearings. This is not the case. Another issue I have with shimano is they use a single bearing on the rotor of most of their spinning reels. I used some shimano spinning reels for years until they developed a little bit of a wobble. Then I discovered other brands were going to a double ball bearing system in the rotors which is much more stable and solid. To this day shimano has yet to follow suit, and if they have I am not aware of it, but regardless, I use spinning reels now with a double bearing system in the rotor and really like it. I have more than 30 years of experience in repairing and modifying reels and in my opinion less is not always better. For years shimano steadfastly resisted putting ball bearings into their handles. Why? Why did I have to use squeaky handles for years that required oil to help them spin freely? My old stradic had a squeaky no-bearing handle. I want ball bearings in my handles on spinning reels and casting reels. I don't want someone at shimano making this decision for me. It is not up to them. It is up to me the paying customer. Shimano is losing market share percentage today because other companies are going to the extreme to surpass them in many ways. Brand loyalty is gone for the most part. In my opinion shimano did it to themself. They have no one to blame but themself for why people like myself now spend money on other brands to get what we want, not what shimano dictates. --------------------------------------------- ADDED- here are some of the shimano bushings they put inside their reels instead of ball bearings. Notice the cheap plastic bushing is the same size as the ball bearings? Do you think shimano is using these to make a better reel? Here is a shimano cheap plastic bushing used where? On a spool shaft! Yeah, that'll really help to increase casting distance! Shimano SPOOL SHAFT BUSHING © P/N BNT0880 And here is a pair of shimano spinning reel main drive shaft cheap plastic bushings... the same type I found in my stradic! (And replaced with real bearings...) Here is a brass bushing used on the spool for a shimano calcutta 50: All of these bushings are made the same size as ball bearing sizes. Shimano uses these because they are cheaper than using ball bearings. Gives shimano a higher profit margin for every corner they can cut. The question to ask here is, do these bushings make a better reel? My answer is no. It is clear the original reel designers and engineers intended for ball bearings to be used in these locations and somewhere in the shimano corporate chain they decided to use these cheaper bushings in their cheaper reels and only use more ball bearings in their higher end reels as a sales gimmick. It is clearly not about making a better reel with fewer bearings. These bushings are in my opinion short-changing the paying customer. No other way to look at it in my opinion. So when some shimano rep tries to tell me how many bearings I need- they are full of it! I tell them how many I want since I am the one paying!

In my opinion I would leave it as is in memory of your grandfather- even though you are lucky enough to still have your grandfather around. I don't. All the men in my family are long since dead and gone and now I am the eldest male in my family having inherited all of their fishing gear. Let that rod collect dust for awhile if you do not like it now and put your money into a rod you can use now.

Yeah Dwight, I hope you are doing well these days! I agree with longevity. I am still using an old shimano Bantam Black Magnum from the mid 80's on a flippin' stick and it is still in like new condition now 30 years later. You just can't break it. Built like a tank. While on the other hand I have broken newer reels very quickly...

Wind. (And current) I live near the coast here in central Florida and I am always doing battle with the wind. Trying to keep the boat where I want it while making the perfect cast is probably the biggest battle. Nothing worse than making a cast and watching a gust of wind carry the lure 10 feet off the mark- or more! Who knows, maybe there is a fish waiting there too! Had that happen more times than I can count. The rest is just fun! Added: Exciting? Finding a spot in the St. Johns river where the bass are boiling on bait fish for 4 hours straight every day from mid June through mid August. Arrive at 3pm and anchor up in one spot with clear casting up and down the river, and watch in amazement as bass jump out of the water chasing bait fish actively in one small area of the river every day until near sundown. And then catching as many bass as I can cast to and hook up with. I had a 4 day stretch this summer with over 150 bass caught and just as many missed and could have caught many more had I had 6 arms with 6 rods and reels. The bass in my avatar was caught in there this summer. I just happened upon this spot cruising up the river when I happened to look up into a side channel and saw fish jumping out of the water up in there. So I throttled down, circled back around, shut down the outboard, dropped in the trolling motor and slowly and quietly went up inside the mouth of that channel and found bass fishing nirvana for 8 weeks! I told one buddy of mine about it and we both had a blast there. We did not have to look for fish. Those bass were boiling the water of the river in front of us and all around us every few minutes in different spots, sometimes boiling the water in 3 or more spots at the same time. It came down to trying to decided which boil was the best opportunity at any given second trying to judge where the biggest bass was actively feeding and cast to it. It was amazing!

Hmmm... one thing that sets my curado i apart is the centrifugal brakes. Shimano has finally created a braking system that really works and works well with a minute external adjustment that has been missing in the past... I used my new curado i all this past summer and once I got it dialed in it was pretty much set it and forget it. And my new curado i is smooth. Smoothness is directly related to just the two brass main drive gears pretty much- but can also involve the line guide gearing as well. So is it possible you might have gotten one with some gears that were not smooth? Possibly. I once bought a brand new curado G7 and right out of the box it was not smooth and I returned it for one that was. It happens. I repair and rebuild and modify reels, so I definitely do not fit into the bag of being an all shimano kind of guy. I actually like and use reels that were made at one particular factory in South Korea- the same place where Abu, Lew's, Bass Pro, Browning, Quantum and others are made- all mostly made from the same tooling too so I can swap gears from a Quantum into a Browning or Bass Pro because they are the same size and made identical. Usually about the only difference sometimes is what the reel looks like on the outside. It is kind of funny when I can open up a $300.00 Lew's reel and see the exact same set of gears I find inside of a used Quantum reel I bought on ebay for $25.00. Why the price disparity? A lot of it is just pure hype. When I need a set of gears I can sometimes just buy a broken reel off ebay for under $5.00 rather than a new set of gears at $30+. Once upon a time I almost exclusively used only shimano reels, but today shimano makes up only about 50% or less of all the reels I use. And I have only one shimano rod and rarely if ever even use it. To maintain a certain quality and durability for a reel in my opinion requires a certain amount of metal inside. I prefer only aluminum frames. Bass Pro makes some real cheapo reels built on an all plastic frame. They work, but they also break too. So I won't cut weight down past a certain point because I want strength and durability. I am also not a big fan of plastic housings, but this seems to be the norm these days. Even my new curado i is plastic on the outside. I have used Abu reels with aluminum gears, but I have moved away from them, and now all of my reels have only brass gears inside and I am staying right there. So if you want to sacrifice weight, how far are you willing to go I am wondering? Down to plastic frames and aluminum gears and plastic drag stars? I would really like to know what you are using now that you like more than shimano.

For zoom try the swimming super fluke Jr in white ice or disco violet, bait fish, smokin shad and baby bass colors, heck even crazy chrome too. But I confess I mostly use white ice and disco violet more probably because Walmart carries them in most stores and not so much of the other colors. If you try Berkley swim baits try chartreuse! And pearl white with red eye. The bass in my avatar was caught this summer on a zoom swimming super fluke Jr- the disco violet color.

68camaro, I tried to boil it down to the core essence of what sank that ship. I don't mean to hijack anyone's thread by changing the subject, but looking at those photos of the waves of Lake Erie reminded me of the story of the Edmund Fitzgerald knowing it was the gales of November some 40 years ago that helped to sink her too. I figured since we were talking about waves on the Great Lakes I would bring up the Edmund Fitzgerald- a story that has intrigued me for decades because of listening to Gordon Lightfoot's classic song "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" kind of created a mystery to this ship's sinking and in the years since I have read and watched every new detail and research that uncovers the details of her sinking bit by bit. So I hope you will indulge me a little bit to try and tell some of the relatively unknown story of the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald that deserves to be told- so I hope you will allow me to tell it here... The first issue I would like to bring up concerning this ship's sinking is that 40 years ago weather predicting was not very good. The weather map above shows that directly over top of the Great Lakes was a very unique weather situation of two massive fronts colliding into each other. This created unusually strong winds on the Great Lakes that were far above and beyond the normal weather patterns. It was an extreme low pressure mass of swirling air colliding with another front creating extreme conditions beneath on the surface of the Great Lakes. So this fact must be taken into account first and foremost since we all know it is the winds that drive wave action and the stronger the winds, the bigger the waves, not to mention the Edmund Fitzgerald was sailing into a funnel between shorelines which also helped to increase wave action. So as this ship was taking on water and slowly sinking lower and lower into the water, she continued to sail on into the worst wave action that Lake Superior could throw at her. It is amazing she made it as far as she did. It was a perfect storm of epic proportions. So when the EF left port, it was clear and sunny. But about half way across Lake Superior, the colliding weather fronts turned the weather foul in a hurry, and much stronger than normal gales of November. It was a double whammy on that day! But what I want to point out in this story are the heroic efforts of two men. You don't hear this story told when you hear about the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald, but in my opinion, it should be told. What makes a man a hero? To me it is a man who is willing to go above and beyond risking his own life to save others if he can. And on the night the Edmund Fitzgerald sank there are two men who became legends for their heroic deeds. The first hero of that night is Captain Bernie Cooper of the SS Arthur M. Anderson who was sailing directly behind the Edmund Fitzgerald approximately 10 miles behind her following directly in her path. This is significant because on the night the Edmund Fitzgerald sank the winds were so strong, some exceeding over 100mph, that the strong winds had knocked down and knocked out the Edmund Fitzgerald's radar and some communications equipment. Keep in mind these ore ships were sailing in the days long before any of them had GPS satellite positioning electronics. These ships were sailing blind for the most part, and now the Edmund Fitzgerald, without radar could only look out the front window to see where it was going! And with a storm of colliding fronts directly over top of them throwing some of the worst winds, waves, and rain at them, visibility was down to next to nothing. Imagine being the man at the wheel on that night! What the hell was he holding on to? A wheel to hell! Standing there with white knuckle grips on the wheel looking out the window hoping to god there was nothing out there to run into! The Edmund Fitzgerald was sailing blind to her doom! Under normal circumstances, those navigating these ships could look to shore for familiar sites and lights, but not on this night. They could not see the shore. They were completely cut off. This is what lead the U.S. Coast Guard to believe the Edmund Fitzgerald had sailed off course getting too close to Caribou Point and possibly grounding out as she rounded the point, but modern research has proven this did not happen. An examination of the EF hull shows no grounding evidence and divers even went down to examine the rocks and bottom of the lake at Caribou Point again looking for evidence of grounding and none was found. So today most experts agree, the EF did not ground out on Caribou Point, but was experiencing a hull stress fracture opening up as she rounded Caribou Point and began taking on water on one side being absorbed into the ore cargo causing a list and it could not be pumped back out once absorbed into the ore. She was sinking slowly and breaking apart as she sailed on into the worst wind and wave action still up ahead and now listing over 12 degrees which made it easy for the waves to begin washing off cargo hold covers and let more water pour into the cargo hold from above! She was doomed! But before reaching Caribou Point, once the radar and some communications devices were knocked out by the high winds, with the Edmund Fitzgerald now sailing blind, she had one hope behind her. Captain Bernie Cooper following her some 15 miles behind her on his ship the SS Arthur M. Anderson still had her radar working! So the captain of the Edmund Fitzgerald, Captain McSorley, had limited radio contact with Captain Bernie Cooper and asked him if he could cover his forward path in front of the Edmund Fitzgerald with his radar from ten miles back! It was somewhere along in here before reaching Caribou Point that Captain McSorley of the Edmund Fitzgerald slowed down a little bit hoping to let the ship following him to catch up to them a little bit because back then with the limited radar they were using back then, they were really pushing the limits of its capability for a ship 15 miles in the rear to be the forward sight of a ship 15 miles ahead, so to give that radar following behind the Edmund Fitzgerald greater forward sight, the Edmund Fitzgerald had to slow down and close the gap and distance between him and that radar which was the ONLY thing on the planet giving the Edmund Fitzgerald any sort of forward sight in the blindness of what they were facing! And all they had to communicate this information was mere radio talk! (Captain Cooper was recording the audio of some of these transmissions some of which can be found online) The Captain of the Edmund Fitzgerald slowed down allowing Captain Bernie Cooper to close the gap down to about 10 miles, so he caught up to the Edmund Fitzgerald by only 5 miles at the time of her sinking. So you can bet that Captain Bernie Cooper and his crew following the Edmund Fitzgerald were on high alert and now pulling double duty. They were receiving weather and wave conditions from the Edmund Fizgerald and the Edmund Fitzgerald was receiving critical radar information they used to navigate with. On that night they needed each other though it is not known if anything communicated to Anderson M. Cooper helped them to weather the storm and waves better, she did survive that night and made it to port. When the Anderson M. Cooper also rounded Caribou Point, Captain Bernie Cooper and his crew were still pulling double duty trying to save themselves, but to also try and help save the Edmund Fitzgerald ahead of them now cracking in half, taking on water and slowly sinking, but at the time no one knew the hull was fracturing under them! Captain McSorley of the Edmund Fitzgerald radio'd Capt. Bernie Cooper informing him of some of the cargo hold covers being open and Capt. Bernie Cooper asked him how he was doing "with his problem". It would be one of the last transmissions ever heard from the Edmund Fitzgerald. Imagine sitting at the radar following behind the Edmund Fitzgerald only to watch with horror as the blip on the screen suddenly disappears! The EF was gone and Capt. Bernie Cooper instinctively KNEW IT! He is the man who put out the distress call for help otherwise no one would have known she went down. And soon Capt. Bernie Cooper sailed right into the floating debris field left behind from the sinking of the EF. Risking his own life, risking the lives of his every crew member, and risking his ship, Captain Bernie Cooper turned around his fully loaded ore ship during the storm in the roughest worst conditions the Great Lakes was throwing at him and he desperately searched for the Edmund Fitzgerald or any survivors. We all know there was none. These actions on that night cemented Captain Bernie Cooper and his crew as heroes for their valiant efforts in helping to navigate the failing ship ahead of them, and for trying to rescue any possible survivors. Only heroes do that! Here is an image of Captain Bernie Cooper sitting down for an interview and you can bet this interview had very little to do with his entire career as an ore carrying captain, this interview was about the night the Edmund Fitzgerald sank and his role in it. Captain Bernie Cooper of the SS Arthur M. Anderson: There is one other man in this story who deserves high praise as a hero for what he did on that night. His name is Captain Don Erickson of the SS William Clay Ford. In the classic song sung by Gordon Lightfoot he sings about if the ship had only put a few more miles behind her she would have made it to the safety of Whitefish Bay. Part of the story that is often ignored and not told is that on the night the Edmund Fitzgerald sank, up ahead of her already safely at anchor were numerous fully loaded ore ships anchored up side by side just sitting there riding out the storm waiting for clear weather so they could be unloaded. The fully loaded ore ships were stacking up in there and on the way in was the Edmund Fitzgerald and the Arthur M. Anderson both desperately wanting to reach safe mooring of Whitefish Bay. When Captain Bernie Cooper saw the Edmund Fitzgerald disappear from his radar screen he instinctively knew she had sunk. Before he had even reached the site of the sinking he had called the U.S. Coast Guard with a distress call informing them of what had happened. Would you believe the U.S. Coast Guard at the time in 1975 could do nothing in this storm? No ships. No planes. Nothing. No help. All they could do was launch helicopters to fly over the area of the sinking and look at it. Captain Bernie Cooper received a call from the U.S. Coast Guard who informed him that there were no ships anywhere around nearby were big enough to take on the near 50 foot waves and 100mph winds they would have to face out there to hunt for the Edmund Fitzgerald. The closest ship big enough to tackle those conditions was 300 miles away in Duluth, Minnesota and could not arrive in time to try and save any lives. All other ships near the location of the sinking were not big enough to go out in that weather and waves! And so this brings us to our second hero on that night Captain Don Erickson of SS William Clay Ford. He and his crew were safely anchored up riding out the storm inside of Whitefish Bay along with 6 other fully loaded ore carrying ships. The U.S. Coast Guard put out a call to any ships in the area who were capable of helping in the search for the Edmund Fitzgerald and her crew to please answer the call for this emergency. Only one man answered that call for help. Captain Don Erickson. Imagine the discussion he had with his crew on his ship. I am sure it went something like this- men, we are being called upon to pull up anchor and venture back out into the storm with 50 foot waves and 100mph winds. This could be a suicide mission, so men I can not give you orders to risk your lives as many of you have wives and children at home so I can not issue direct orders for any of you men to sail to your deaths out there, but I must answer this call for help if I have to go it alone out there. So I have to ask each man of my crew will you risk your lives to sail into hell for our brothers out there knowing we may not make it back here safely twice? If any man among you chooses to not go say so now and leave this ship now because I must answer this call for help if no one else will... Captain Don Erickson and his crew were the only men and the only ship to pull up anchor and set sail into the storm to help search for the Edmund Fitzgerald. When he did that he sailed into history as a hero. He sailed his ship out of the safety of Whitefish Bay and back out onto Lake Superior to help search for the Edmund Fitzgerald and any surviving crew members. A legend was born! Only two captains and two ships plus crew sailed around hopelessly risking their very lives searching in vain for the Edmund Fitzgerald or survivors to rescue if they could... 1)Captain Bernie Cooper aboard his ship SS Arthur M. Anderson 2)Captain Don Erickson aboard his ship SS William Clay Ford These men are heroes of legend! So what does this say about the 6 other captains and ships who said no to the call for help? No, we will not risk our lives and no we will not risk our ships to help search for the Edmund Fitzgerald or survivors! Hero Captain Don Erickson aboard his ship SS William Clay Ford, the only ship to sail out of Whitefish Bay and back out into the storm to help search for the now sunk Edmund Fitzgerald! The image above shows hero Captain Don Erickson around the time the Edmund Fitzgerald sank. He is standing aboard the very ship he sailed out of Whitefish Bay back out into the storm and waves of Lake Superior that sank the Edmund Fitzgerald. Below is an image of hero Captain Don Erickson either just before he retired or after he had retired being interviewed about his role in the story of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Here he is shown sitting in his captain's seat inside the pilothouse of his ship he sailed into history aboard, the SS. William Clay Ford: Youtube has some cool videos on this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1i5utBKygI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MsEQwqRtPo captain Bernie Cooper interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASPrslLw5U Final radio transmissions and others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3dZ0YwOwI Documentary on the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uOnnIv5Qs Transcript of the radio transmissions before the sinking: November 9 8:30 AM The Edmund Fitzgerald is loaded with taconite pellets at Burlington Northern Railroad, Dock 1. The ship is scheduled to transport the cargo to Zug Island on the Detroit River. 2:20 PM The Fitzgerald departs Lake Superior en route of Detroit with 26,116 tons of taconite pellets. 2:39 PM The National Weather Service issues gale warnings for the area which the Fitzgerald is sailing in. Captain Cooper on the Anderson radios a freighter (the Edmund Fitzgerald) that he spots. 4:15 PM The Fitzgerald spots the Arthur M. Anderson some 15 miles behind it. November 10 1:00 AM Weather report from the Fitzgerald. The report from the Fitzgerald shows her to be 20 miles south of Isle Royale. Winds are at 52 knots, with waves ten feet in height. 7:00 AM Weather report from the Fitzgerald. Winds are at 35 knots, waves of ten feet. This is the last weather report that the Edmund Fitzgerald will ever make. 3:15 PM Captain Jesse Cooper, (J.C.) of the S.S. Arthur M. Anderson watches the Fitzgerald round Caribou Island and comments that the Fitzgerald is much closer to Six Fathom Shoal than he would want to be. 3:20 PM Anderson reports winds coming from the Northwest at 43 knots. 3:30 PM Radio transmission between the Fitzgerald and the Anderson Captain McSorley (C.M.) to Captain Cooper (C.C.): C.M.: "Anderson, this is the Fitzgerald. I have sustained some topside damage. I have a fence rail laid down, two vents lost or damaged, and a list. I'm checking down. Will you stay by me til I get to Whitefish?" C.C.: "Charlie on that Fitzgerald. Do you have your pumps going?" C.M.: "Yes, both of them 4:10 PM The Fitzgerald radios the Arthur M. Anderson requesting radar assistance for the remainder of the voyage. Fitzgerald: "Anderson, this is the Fitzgerald. I have lost both radars. Can you provide me with radar plots till we reach Whitefish Bay?" Anderson: "Charlie on that, Fitzgerald. We'll keep you advised of position." About 4:39 PM The Fitzgerald cannot pick up the Whitefish Point radio beacon. The Fitzgerald radios the Coast Guard station at Grand Marais on Channel 16, the emergency channel. Between 4:30 and 5:00 PM The Edmund Fitzgerald calls for any vessel in the Whitefish Point area regarding information about the beacon and light at Whitefish Point. They receive an answer by the saltwater vessel Avafors that the beacon and the light are not operating. Estimated between 5:30 and 6:00 PM Radio transmission between the Avafors and the Fitzgerald. Avafors: "Fitzgerald, this is the Avafors. I have the Whitefish light now but still am receiving no beacon. Over." Fitzgerald: "I'm very glad to hear it." Avafors: "The wind is really howling down here. What are the conditions where you are?" Fitzgerald: (Undiscernable shouts heard by the Avafors.) "DON'T LET NOBODY ON DECK!" Avafors: "What's that, Fitzgerald? Unclear. Over." Fitzgerald: "I have a bad list, lost both radars. And am taking heavy seas over the deck. One of the worst seas I've ever been in." Avafors: "If I'm correct, you have two radars." Fitzgerald: "They're both gone." Sometime around 7:00 PM The Anderson is struck by two huge waves that put water on the ship, 35 feet above the water line. The waves hit with enough force to push the starboard lifeboat down, damaging the bottom. 7:10 PM Radio transmission between the Anderson and the Fitzgerald. The Fitzgerald is still being followed by the Arthur M. Anderson. They are about 10 miles behind the Fitzgerald. Anderson: "Fitzgerald, this is the Anderson. Have you checked down?" Fitzgerald: "Yes we have." Anderson: "Fitzgerald, we are about 10 miles behind you, and gaining about 1 1/2 miles per hour. Fitzgerald, there is a target 19 miles ahead of us. So the target would be 9 miles on ahead of you." Fitzgerald: "Well, am I going to clear?" Anderson: "Yes. He is going to pass to the west of you." Fitzgerald: "Well, fine." Anderson: "By the way, Fitzgerald, how are you making out with your problem?" Fitzgerald: "We are holding our own." Anderson: "Okay, fine. I'll be talking to you later." They never did speak later...The 29 men onboard the Fitzgerald will never again speak with anyone outside of the ship. Sometime between 7:20 and 7:30 PM It is estimated that this was the time period when the ship vanished and sank. 7:15 PM The Fitzgerald enters a squall while still on Lake Superior; the squall obscures the vessel from radar observation by the Anderson; this is normal when in a squall. 7:25 PM Edmund Fitzgerald disappears from the radar of the S.S. Arthur M. Anderson, prompting a call to the Coast Guard to inform them of the situation. 7:55 PM The Anderson calls again and informs the Coast Guard that they have lost the Fitzgerald both visually and on radar. 9:00 PM The Coast Guard, with no available search ships, radios the Arthur M. Anderson requesting assistance. C.G.: "Anderson, this is Group Soo. What is your present position?" Anderson: "We're down here, about two miles off Parisienne Island right now... the wind is northwest forty to forty-five miles here in the bay." C.G.: "Is it calming down at all, do you think?" Anderson: "In the bay it is, but I heard a couple of the salties talking up there, and they wish they hadn't gone out." After much more conversation and a request by the Coast Guard to return to search for the ship, reluctant to go out, the S.S. Arthur M. Anderson agrees to "give it a try" but claims that that is "all we can do." Even the life boats on the Edmund Fitzgerald could not have saved that crew. They were ripped in half too. Wind, water, and waves. No hope. No survival. Mother Nature won.

Waves like these are what sank the Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior when she was broken in half on the surface by intense wave action. Today a lot of experts are firmly of the belief this ship was torn in half by the wave action. As she passed Caribou Point the capt. radio'd he was taking on water causing the ship to list over, and today many experts believe the hull was beginning to fracture causing her to take on water from below deck. ***Added, the U.S. Coast Guard theorized the EF had scraped ground passing Caribou Point which may have caused the damage to the hull below the waterline which caused her to begin taking on water causing her original list which set up the situation for the wave action to wash over the deck and more easily washing off the 3 inch thick solid steel cargo covers, but the capt. never indicated that he had scraped ground rounding that point. And the NTSB final report was made BEFORE anyone had gone down to examine the ship. Now that experts have been able to examine the ship's pieces on the bottom of Lake Superior, they have determined the ship did not ground on Caribou Point or the other location that was not on the EF's maps, but is today on the maps. Experts say the hull does not show long scraping damage, but shows tear damage from being ripped in half. So I am going with more modern research on what sank this ship than what the Coast Guard and NTSB actually came up at the time 40 years ago. As the EF reached the point where she sank, she was headed into a funnel between shorelines that actually increased the wave action exponentially out in deeper water and it washed off some of the cargo hold covers some of which had not been fastened down with all of the latches. The crew had gotten lax and may have only latched down the corner latches as the wreck was examined on the bottom of the lake to find most of the latches intact and unused. So water was flooding into the cargo holds from above through the now open cargo holds with no covers, and from below the waterline through a hull stress fracture adding water weight to one side of the ship, and the cargo or ore absorbed a lot of the water that could not now be pumped out and made the ship even heavier dragging her down deeper into the water causing her to list over- also possibly because of an ore shift inside the cargo hold too, and the hull was beginning to tear open now with shear weight moving off axis to the load bearing design of the ship to carry the load safely without stressing, and she continued to sail like this directly into the worst part of the lake with the worst wave action to be found any where. She was doomed. The man taking these images said he was taking them from a position of safety which I can only assume he is standing on shore looking out into Lake Erie taking these photos: "Shot during the month of November on the North shore of Lake Erie, about 500’-600’ off-shore from a small lakeside community called Port Stanley, Ontario." This tells me he was capturing the wave action in water that is probably shallower than what the EF experienced when she sank. So his waves topped out at some 25 feet shooting them from shore. When the EF sank the wave action was closer to 50 feet and this is not including adding in the funnel effect which could have pushed some waves even higher. And we know the EF faced stronger winds than 75mph with some approaching closer to 100mph which would also increase the size of the waves hitting that ship. Today we can only imagine what the EF faced out there on Lake Superior when she sank, but these images from Lake Erie show how dangerous it really can be if only showing a fraction of what the EF actually faced out there. Take a look at the map showing the wave action in that funnel and how close the EF was to the "red dot" of worst wave action when she sank. In retrospect, if that captain of the EF could have known what was up ahead for him, he would have been better off if he had run the EF straight aground when he could. A salvage job later on would have been better than the fate he and his crew met by trying to take on the worst of the worst the Great Lakes could throw at him. I appreciate David Sandford's work efforts at capturing these images of the gales of November on the Great Lakes. It is amazing work! I completely understand why he would keep his feet firmly planted on dry land to try and capture images like these too! Take a look at the map of Lake Superior below. Do you see how the winds were pushing waves directly into the decreasing funnel the EF was sailing into? Those waves could only go up higher the deeper into the funnel you proceed. The color chart clearly shows this effect. Just look how close the EF was to the red dot or location where the wave action was the worst. What would be a cool thing to photograph would be if David Sandford could take his camera to the shore area just north of the red dot in this map's image and then capture if he can the wave action at that location with similar weather conditions- which for the EF was a freak of Nature with colliding storm fronts right on top of him! I'd bet David could capture some waves double the size of the ones he shows here- if not bigger. I'd like to see some of that! In memory of the crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald! Michael E. Armagost 37 Third Mate Iron River, Wisconsin Frederick J. Beetcher 56 Porter Superior, Wisconsin Thomas D. Bentsen 23 Oiler St. Joseph, Michigan Edward F. Bindon 47 First Assistant Engineer Fairport Harbor, Ohio Thomas D. Borgeson 41 Maintenance Man Duluth, Minnesota Oliver J. Champeau 41 Third Assistant Engineer Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin Nolan S. Church 55 Porter Silver Bay, Minnesota Ransom E. Cundy 53 Watchman Superior, Wisconsin Thomas E. Edwards 50 Second Assistant Engineer Oregon, Ohio Russell G. Haskell 40 Second Assistant Engineer Millbury, Ohio George J. Holl 60 Chief Engineer Cabot, Pennsylvania Bruce L. Hudson 22 Deck Hand North Olmsted Ohio Allen G. Kalmon 43 Second Cook Washburn, Wisconsin Gordon F. MacLellan 30 Wiper Clearwater, Florida Joseph W. Mazes 59 Special Maintenance Man Ashland, Wisconsin John H. McCarthy 62 First Mate Bay Village, Ohio Ernest M. McSorley 63 Captain Toledo, Ohio Eugene W. O'Brien 50 Wheelsman Toledo, Ohio Karl A. Peckol 20 Watchman Ashtabula, Ohio John J. Poviach 59 Wheelsman Bradenton, Florida James A. Pratt 44 Second Mate Lakewood, Ohio Robert C. Rafferty 62 Steward Toledo, Ohio Paul M. Riippa 22 Deck Hand Ashtabula, Ohio John D. Simmons 63 Wheelsman Ashland, Wisconsin William J. Spengler 59 Watchman Toledo, Ohio Mark A. Thomas 21 Deck Hand Richmond Heights, Ohio Ralph G. Walton 58 Oiler Fremont, Ohio David E. Weiss 22 Cadet Agoura, California Blaine H. Wilhelm 52 Oiler Moquah, Wisconsin Here is an image of Capt. Don Erickson standing on deck of the SS William Clay Ford, a ship nearly identical to the EF. Notice behind him ALL of his cargo hold cover latches are securely latched and in place! A very important detail that Capt. McSorely of the EF did NOT do! He let his crew get away with only latching down a few at the corners of the covers, but NOT all of them! A deadly mistake on the Great Lakes! The above image shows how the pieces of the EF rest on the bottom. She broke apart on the surface, dumped her cargo seen in the scattered black spots and rammed nose first upright into the bottom while the rear section drifted away turning upside down on her way down to the bottom. Tell me, do any of you see any of the cargo hold covers in this image? Not a one can be seen! Most were washed off the deck between Caribou Point and the wreckage shown on the bottom here. The few that remain were shoved into the cargo hold by the weight of the water and waves washing over top of her deck while still at the surface. Once she slipped below the surface, there is NOTHING that would have BENT those covers INTO the cargo holds. That could only happen at the surface from wave action pounding down on the deck from above while the buoyancy of the ship resisted that weight! So some of the cargo hold covers were blown into the ship's cargo holds! This is amazing to me. Bent inwards from the weight of tons of water slamming down on top of her deck! 3 inch thick solid steel covers bent inwards along with the bases the covers were latched onto. That indicates some serious wave action much bigger than 25 feet tall! Much bigger! And this is what finally broke that ship in half on the surface. Snapped in two like a twig. Here is an image taken just before the EF left port on her fated cruise. Notice the latches? Most are left unused while only a few were actually latched down! This is precisely how the experts found her on the bottom of the lake! A deadly mistake!

Some great map info already posted, but I'd like to throw some into this discussion... I have been map collecting for years here in Florida. I began collecting bathymetric maps long before the days of instant downloading and satellite imaging. I have maps for many of Florida's lakes going back into the 1960's. And over the years I have noticed significant differences between bathymetric maps made by humans who actually go to the lake and measure lake bottom depths and chart them as compared with satellite generated maps made by people and machines and technology who never stepped foot anywhere near the lake they make maps for. Today I have the advantage of being able to compare old school maps to satellite created maps and I have found that the old school maps are in my opinion more accurate and contain more details. For example, one lake I have fished on a regular basis, my old school map shows me a deep hole in the lake, but when I look at a satellite generated image it does not show the hole any where on it. So I guess my point is that old school bathymetric maps made by humans doing on-site mapping of the lakes is more accurate than the satellite generated images. My sources for the old school maps are free! I get them from various government agencies. You have to consider what government agencies have control over the waters you want to fish. And then turn to them for the maps. So I get a lot of my maps here in Florida from local county and city governments and find them in the storm water and run-off depts. usually. And here in Florida we have the state government mapping lakes through local state run universities like the "Lake Watch" program and the "Water Atlas" program. These government agencies do not use 100% satellite imaging for their bathymetric information! And I can only assume the reason why is because the accuracy is not up to the higher standard the government needs for proper water management. When you click the link that takes you to the University of Florida's "Lake Watch" program which includes mapping, right at the top of the page and the first image they show you is a man in a boat on the lake doing the mapping the old fashioned way- by hand, not by satellite. And there must be a reason for this as I have already mentioned above- it boils down to accuracy. These guys who measure by hand find things the satellites do not. And I want the benefit of this more detailed information showing me deep holes in my lakes those satellite images can not see. http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/MapList.htm I have never looked for maps in Georgia, but I would assume that many state and county and city governments work the same up there too and produce their own lake maps with tax dollars. All you gotta do is learn to find who has them and ask for them, and many are now online for free download like the "Lake Watch" program I linked to above. I just looked at the "Water Atlas" website, and they explain how they make their maps more accurate by combining hands on mapping with satellite imaging, but keep in mind that in the past many of the maps I have acquired were made long before the possibility of satellite overlays... http://www.lake.wateratlas.usf.edu/shared/learnmore.asp?toolsection=lm_bathymetric How are the data collected? (Methods) A Bathymetric Map is similar to a contour map. In making a bathymetric map a SONAR depth finder is used along with a Global Positioning System (DGPS). Researchers map a course around the perimeter of a lake and then navigate parallel transects using the depth finder to store various depths of the lake in a consistent pattern. This data is then used to create a map showing the contour of the bottom of the lake. Florida LAKEWATCH, at the University of Florida's Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, may also provide data. Calculations GIS (ArcView/ArcInfo) processing using Triangulated Irregular Network commands. Caveats and Limitations Many lakes have not been professionally surveyed in order to accurately determine their elevations. This limits the number of lakes that can be meaningfully mapped in the near future. Bathymetric maps herein are for educational purposes only and are not to be used for navigation or professional survey reference. ------------------------------------- ADDED: Another reason I go to my local and state governments for lake maps is because satellite generated images can not and will not tell you where the state or local governments have sunk plastic trees for fishing improvements in certain areas. Right now here in Florida the state is sinking a number of these plastic trees into lake Griffin near Leesburg. There is not one map company on the planet who can give you this information and it will never show up on their satellite generated maps. So I stay in contact with and up to date with my state Fish and Wildlife Commission and regularly receive updates on their operations around the state which I take full advantage of when I can. Sometimes they provide me with their maps and sometimes I have to add it to maps I already have myself. Either way, it is great information to have and stay up to date with.

Fire tail.

This question gets down to the nitty gritty of why I fish in the first place. So if I am honest with myself and ask myself (without talking to myself) why do I fish in the first place it is to have fun. Fishing is a pleasure sport first and foremost. And I live in central Florida which is bass capitol and one of the best places in the country for fishing. So to ask myself and be truthful, do I fish purely for the big one, or do I fish to have fun and just catch fish? My honest answer is to have fun with it. Catching big ones is nice, but it is not an obsession for me. If it were an obsession I think a lot of the fun would be lost to some degree as I would be passing up a lot of fish I could have caught in my hunt for that big one. So over the years I have intentionally adjusted my fishing to catch more fish even if they are smaller fish, rather than just fish for the big ones and ignore the smaller fish. I'd have to say one of the greatest thrills for me fishing is the initial hookup. I love it when the fish grabs the lure and hits hard with a solid hookup. I want as many of those as I can get. I have caught some big bass that simply came to the surface rolled over and I dragged them in like a sled on top of the water. Not a whole lot of fun in that. But I have caught some 3 and 4 pound brawlers that just would not give up. So for me, I actually adjust my fishing for quantity over quality. I would rather catch 30 smaller fish than 1 or 2 larger fish. I am there to catch fish, not focus on just a big one. If I did that I would probably have some disappointing days with zero bass to show for it. Let me tell you a story about this summer... the summer of 2015 that directly relates to this thread question... The bass I am holding in my avatar photo I caught while focusing on quantity over quality... My big bass of this summer. I put my boat into the St. Johns river at a public boat ramp in mid June and headed north on the river in the main channel. I was passing up two smaller channels on my right that went around two small islands in the river. I looked up into the center channel and I saw bass jumping out of the water. I was like whoa! I immediately throttled down, circled back around, cut the motor off in the main channel, dropped the trolling motor into the water and I quietly slipped up into that center channel. I paid attention to where most of the activity was and I anchored up along the western shoreline pushing up into shallow water anchoring up there with clean clear casting access left and right up and down the river in front of me. I was amazed to watch literally thousands of bass hitting on bait fish in a prolonged feeding frenzy for the next 4 hours. There would be single boils or several different boils going on at the same time. Sometimes they would be right next to the boat. If I were just going for the big one, would I pass up a bass feeding frenzy like this just because 90% of the bass were between 1 to 3 pounds? Hell no! I am out here to have fun and catch as many as I can. And if I catch a big one, then hey great! But with a feeding frenzy like this I could not resist it. So I prepared several rods with match the hatch type of lures. I had a 7' ML spinning rod with 10 pound braid on it that I put on Berkley 2" soft swim baits. I had a curado i on a 6'6" MH fast action rod with 15 pound braid and 3" Berkley or Calcutta soft swim baits. And I had a 5' ultra-light spinning rod with 8 pound braid I put on a rapala minnow lure. Another bait cast rod and reel with a rattle trap on it. And another with a spinner on it. For about 4 hours anchored in one spot I was catching bass as fast as I could cast. If I had 6 arms and 6 rods and reels I would have done even better! But it was really cool to just sit in one spot and have the bass at my feet as I sat there on my casting seat on the front deck of the boat with finger on line ready to cast at any second waiting and watching for a bass boil up at my 9 o'clock position, or 12 o'clock right in front of me or off to my right or all of them at the same time and I did not know which boil to cast to! It was amazing! For the next 2 months- mid June through mid August it was awesome! There was a week at the peak where I lost count of the numbers of bass I was catching a day, with one 4 day spree topping out at over 150 bass caught, probably darn near just as many missed too! But you know, to me this is what bass fishing is all about. It is not about that one big one. It is about the fun of catching them! I'd say most of the bass caught out there averaged 2 pounds. Probably 80 to 90% of them. 10% of the bass were upwards of 3 pounds plus average. I caught a few above 4 and 5 pounds, and then one day late in the summer I was using zoom 3.5" paddle tail swim baits rigged weedless with a stinger treble hook on it when the big one hit. And she did not put up much of a fight either. The smaller 3 pounders gave me more of a fight! And I had a lot more of those! So I have to vote for smaller fish and more of them! Lots more of them!

I'd like to weigh in on these rods a little bit... The first thing I would like to say is that the only reason I ever even tried one of these rods is the sale price of $19.99 each down from $59.99 regular price. Price and price alone is why I started buying them. Another reason is because I have two young sons getting into fishing and these rods are perfect for their starter rods. Being so inexpensive if they break one it is not a big deal. I would like to clarify that I will not buy any of the vortex spinning rods. Those are too rubbery and whippy for my taste. Not much backbone to them. So the only vortex rod I do purchase when on sale for $20.00 is the 6'6" MH fast action bait casting rod. And this is the only vortex rod I can comment on since I have not purchased nor used any of the other vortex rods. The model number I purchase is GMVT66C-MH-13. The first time I came across these rods on sale in a store for $19.99 I purchased 3 of them. I did a quick bend check on a few and found that the alignment was all over the place, so I chose 3 rods that bent lined up with the guides on the rods. My reason for purchasing these rods was simply to get my boys into some inexpensive rods with decent characteristics, but I am not a fan of the single foot stainless steel guides used on these rods, but they worked fine for the boys. While out on a fishing trip with the boys, I made the mistake of laying my more expensive rods down in the boat in such a way that when my youngest boy lost his balance in the boat he stepped on the tip of one of my nicer pricey rods breaking off 9 inches of it ruining that rod. So as a quick on the spot replacement I switched that reel, a curado i over to one of the vortex 6'6" MH rods and kept on fishing with it. I was surprised to find that I actually liked the rod more now that I was using it. I found the shorter rod- I was using a 7' MH- but this vortex 6'6" felt more balanced and was actually lighter than my now broken more expensive rod, and I liked the way the tapered handle fit in my hand. It was actually easier to use and less fatiguing than my broken rod was. I could cast a country mile with it. And it handled all the bass I caught as well as any other rod would. And, after that experience I said what the heck, for the price you can't beat it. A $60 dollar rod for $20. So I bought 7 of them so far. I have not had any break on me at all as I have read others have experienced. These rods did well this past summer, and so I took two of my rods and removed the factory guides and ordered up some titanium oxide guides with double feet and I replaced all of the guides on the rods and turned them into sprial wraps- which cost me about $12.00 per rod for the guides and I put them on myself. (I only did this after the rod blank proved to me it was going to hold up.) As it stands right now, I am using several of these rods on a regular basis, my sons use them, my dad has one, and a fishing buddy of mine went out and bought two of them with a total count now of 11 rods purchased between all of us. None have broken. And everyone who uses one likes it. They are not whippy. They have decent characteristics, good backbone, balanced, lightweight, handle fits well in the hand and fairly sensitive too. For $20 there is absolutely nothing to complain about this rod- other than the guides... but with a couple hours of work, even that problem can be solved for under $15.00 per rod. So I am not ashamed to say I actually like a $20 rod! Hey, it came as a surprise to me too! But I will say I don't really use this rod for super heavy duty work load either. I am not trying to use it like a crane to winch bass out of heavy cover or fish 10 inch rubber worms with it. I mostly use it for open water swim baits, crank lures, spinners, etc. and it works fine for that. Compared to some of my more expensive rods, I judge this vortex rod to not be as heavy or strong as some other rods, but it has its place just under the heavy work load rods. This summer I think I kept 3 inch and 4 inch Berkley and Calcutta soft swim baits on it most of the time and it was perfect for that. Really. I could not complain one bit. I did a little bit of internet searches on the vortex rod and found an unconfirmed bit of interesting information... and I wonder if this has anything to do with the last digits of the model number I mentioned above: GMVT66C-MH-13: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/anyone-else-get-this-15-gander-vortex-rods.502139/ "for those who didn't know most of gander mountain rods are made by 1 3 fishing (vortex is) gander has good rods the elite are almost the same blanks as 13's higher end rods" Again, I can not confirm what this person posted about these rods, but if true... it just makes me feel just a little bit better about the rod choice. All I can say is for $20 give it a try! I was pleasantly surprised this summer and actually enjoyed using this one rod model.

I stopped using power pro because of the teflon lubricant they used on the line. Teflon is a poison. It does not break down over time. So the more power pro we use as fishermen the more teflon we are poisoning the environment with. And since it does not break down, it will still be there for our children and grandchildren, and great grandchildren and beyond. I don't want to contribute to the continued poisoning of the water or environment so I avoid using any teflon coated line. It wears off the line with every cast. Drag it through your fingers and you can see it rub off on your fingers. You can read on Cabela's website where they actually state they use teflon on the line to repel water from the line: "Line is coated with Teflon for higher water repellency." And it is not just ice that is coated with teflon, original power pro is as well. http://www.cabelas.com/product/POWER-PRO-ICE-TECH/1641459.uts So I have to ask myself what sort of fisherman am I really? Am I someone who cares about the environment and future generations enjoyment of it? Or am I a thoughtless polluter? I am not a tree hugger type, but I have moved away from teflon on braid line permanently and teflon coated cooking ware I wish teflon would be banned in all 50 states, around the world and in the oceans too. It just is not necessary and just drives the price up. So today I only buy dry braid lines and do not have any problems. The teflon wears off anyways, so the line gets progressively "drier" anyways so why not just start with a line that will not poison the environment for decades or centuries to come? It would be one thing if teflon was biodegradable, but it isn't: http://greenlivingideas.com/2012/06/13/how-toxic-is-teflon/ Once scratched, teflon pans begin an inevitable march toward complete exfoliation. That is, all that teflon is going to end up in your food, and then in you. According to the Environmental Working Group, teflon and PFOA (which is the chemical used to make teflon) are some of the most persistent chemicals in the world. Their toxic legacy will outlive every one of us, and the next 25 generations of our offspring. Ironically, it may shorten each generation’s lifespan, as well. PFOA’s effects include liver damage, immune dysfunction, thyroid dysfunction, and a decreased ability to fight infection. Teflon Kills BirdsPTFE is most notorious for its toxicity to birds. This has been referred to as “Teflon toxicosis” where the lungs of exposed birds hemorrhage, filling up with fluid and leading to suffocation. Here are some shocking stories of bird deaths related to Teflon (PTFE) exposure" Teflon is a killer. So why do we fishermen use it and never question it I can only wonder? What type of fisherman have I become? One that cares? Or, one that could not care less? I wish this website would take a stand on this issue and let's try and get the line industry to become more environmentally friendly and stop using teflon since it will be continuously accumulating in the environment with every roll sold, and will be there more than 25 generations of posterity down the road. Do we care about them? All I can do is my small part to eliminate it from what I do and hope that this post will reach a few of you to do the same. We do not need teflon to catch fish. I believe that.

I just checked. You are right. Bummer.

Anyone here on the forum going to ICAST tomorrow, Friday, the last day? I am going for the last 4 hours of the show looking for those cash deals by exhibitors who can't wait to close up shop and get out of there. Sometimes you can get some really good cash only deals just before the show closes.

Congrats on the new PB! Denny Brauer would be pleased!

Thanks guys! I appreciate the fast identification of this hook. I am now looking for the largest and heaviest they made in this series- the 4/0 hook size and 1/2 ounce weight #5142-084. (Wish they made a full oz. size!) And I will look into those Stealth Hybrid jig hooks and see if they will do as well for flippin' and pitchin' Hank's favorite craw! Thanks!

Awesome! Thanks guys! You are exactly right! Now I can order up some more! These work great here in central Florida for flippin' and pitchin' and punching light cover like lily pads and hyacinth- for heavier cover I gotta step up the weight to an oz. I am using them with Hank Parker's favorite craw the Berkley Pit Boss.

I am down to my last hook like this one, and at this point I have no idea who made it, or what brand it is, or anything about it is a mystery to me now, and I would like to try and find some more of these hooks. So I am hoping some of you know what this hook is or who made it. I'd sure appreciate any identification info on it! I have searched ebay over trying to find it with no success.

You are right. I thought any use of bluegill for live bait was illegal. I stand corrected. Looks like some bluegill bass fishing is in my near future.

I think large wild shiners would do as well, but here in Florida it is illegal to use bluegill for live bait. Something else to consider... The George Perry record bass caught back in 1932 was a naturally occurring species of fish caught in its' natural habitat. For this fish to get this big it had to avoid predators for its entire life. It had to avoid turtles, birds, gators, and any sort of predator that could have hunted and killed that record fish. Today a lot of bass are genetic modified fish designed to increase size and more rapidly too. They are not the same "fish" as the George Perry "natural" bass. And, for some of these pampered spoon fed bass in Japan and California they have no natural predators hunting them daily. So they can grow to enormous sizes artificially protected from predators. The question then- should artificially genetically modified fish, grown in protected pampered environments even be considered as a "fair" competitor for the George Perry naturally occurring species of fish? It is my opinion they should not. Any genetically modified fish are instantly disqualified to compete with naturally occurring fish. Those genetically modified fish should be in a category all their own separate from the naturally occurring category. Just sayin... If this is what bass fishing has come down to, then I should be able to create my own frankenstein genetically modified bass in some laboratory, and grow my own world record bass in my own personal aquarium spoon fed and protected for its entire life, and then one day when it gets big enough catch it on a rod and reel and presto! Instant world record bass out my backyard aquarium.

Same here. I have two pairs of stainless steel pliers and mine are as shiny today as they were new- and I live in Florida a very corrosive salty environment and no rust. Could it be the quality of metal is not what it use to be or claimed to be?

There are tons of various stainless steel pliers on ebay. Here are a few examples: http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-3-Stainless-Steel-Fishing-Pliers-Scissors-Line-Cutter-Remove-Hook-Tackle-Tool-/151088655588?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item232d95ece4 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Portable-Stainless-Steel-Tackle-Tool-Fishing-Scissors-Plier-Line-Hook-Cutter-/361087895434?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item541284078a http://www.ebay.com/itm/FISHERMAN-PLIERS-FISHING-PLIERS-STAINLESS-STEEL-8-/170429397324?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27ae62394c http://www.ebay.com/itm/Stainless-Stee-8-Long-Heavy-Duty-Soft-Grip-Needle-Fishing-Nose-Anglers-Plier-/171622557253?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27f5806645 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Premium-Quality-Stainless-Steel-8-Fishing-Pliers-Needle-Nose-Non-Slip-Handle-/171131492313?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d83b57d9

I'll second Lake Ivanhoe and Baldwin lake also fit that description too.

Link: http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/FLFFWCC/bulletins/f7af64 Credit: FWC