Sk8man

Best wishes for a full recovery Jason

You might want to use your own judgment on setting the drag though

I didn't mean to infer that you pull lines Rick I think we know better than that

A couple things strike me as worth mentioning here just as food for thought regarding the issue of how much backing you have. The running the chute vs,. board setup issue is a good point and some others to think about are; The gear ratio of your reel becomes very important in this situation as does the drag itself and how you use it. Many if not most of the aggressive salmon will stop briefly within a hundred yards or so if they feel increasing tension on the line (I know there are exceptions and I've had them). If you are using a reel with say a 20 lb drag and a gear ratio of 6 to 1 it can be a very different situation than having a drag of 15 lbs and a gear ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 in terms of the amount of control you MAY have over taking line back when provided even the most brief opportunity. I know some folks feel that the drag should be set and then left alone under all circumstances (and it may make a lot of sense for charters for example) but if you have a smooth drag that is familiar to you it can used as an effective weapon against the fish by making him use as much energy as possible to tire him out quickly (especially if they will be released) as there is a point below the breaking strength of line that the fish will be working and pulling against the boat itself rather than just the drag and this is where things can be exploited (not for the average charter customer though ). Rick mentions another very important thing that is often ignored and that is using the boat in any way possible against the fighting fish and I know it is an unpopular view on here to pull lines and chase down a big fish but sometimes it is necessary (e.g. a tournament where you don't want to take chances) and can also be helpful in the short backing situation as well.

Just make sure you get the new one with the RED screen on the display. A lot of places advertise the X4D bu it is the non-Blue Tooth model without surface speed and that has the BLUE screen

I agree Brian and That is exactly what I was hinting at Big

They are all a PIA to untangle

True but not everyone viewing things here is a highly experienced charter guy either and hopefully the discussion will generate some increased interest in trying different approaches for some or to give a little backdrop to others new to the sport.

Bloodrun SeaFlee 30 lb here both environments

Just a comment about big boards vs. inlines for folks that possibly haven't used either option yet. - The big boards are nice as far as pulling control goes and especially with heavier setups (e.g. longer coppers and cores) providing you have a boat with room that will allow you to locate a mast forward or on top or sides of top if hard top and anchored real well to drag them with. They may also pull better in rough water depending on the particular boards. The inlines are best for shorter setups and toplines or small dipseys as they are a bit easier to run in and out near the shoreline (e.g. for browns etc.) and are often faster to bring in in heavy traffic adjustments. They also take up much less room in the boat and are less expensive for the budget conscious (unless like some of us where you end up with a bunch of them ). They each have their place in the arsenal and strengths and weaknesses as well. Although a purist may go with the Albright or another knot for connections I have never had a Spro #8 swivel failure regardless of knot used and they don't require gluing etc. and Rob is right cut don't re-tie those ends

I thought he was referring to attaching leaders to the copper

Spro Power Swivel #8 (50 lb test) works great.

:lol: Rick

Well said!

I knew what I said above would be controversial and after all it is an opinion and like the invisibility issue not solid results based on repeatable research and I edited it to highlight the fact that I too use fluoro for most things other than trolling flies. My general view of fluoro is much the same as Rob's but for folks new to this stuff it is intended to make people think about things not commonly said here so that they can be aware that none of these things are without concerns, potential issues, and not everyone has an identical experience using them. One of the things that I always have in the back of my mind is that fishing itself involves a great deal of superstitious behavior (and I admit to it ) and we frequently think that the colors of lures, the exact distance of our lines set to even numbers (usually), the concept of "stealth" which is largely an assumption and possibly is only stealthy in our own minds and only stealthy if it works, and all the various things we do to get hits might just be superstitious behavior. It is possible that the action of the lure combined with closeness and attractiveness of the turbulence in the water at that particular point in time fools the fish into its potentially fatal action of grabbing it. An argument that flies in the face of this view is "repeatability" of results but again a lot of different variables are operating at once so line stiffness, visibility or lack of it, and the things we assume to be going on may not be the only things responsible. All I am saying is we always need to examine our "assumptions" and not treat them necessarily as "fact".

In no way do I pretend to be an "expert" regarding the scientific aspects of fishing lines but I do have an opinion that I'd like to offer despite it possibly not being a popular one with some folks. I also respect the folks at Blood Run Tackle and I buy their products. After spending my whole life fishing fresh and salt water environments I've used everything from the old nylon braids from the 1950's through the monofilaments, dacrons, copolymers and more recently the fluorocarbons as well as all the wire types from copper, monel, stainless, and titanium. Each type of line was developed with specific chemical and physical characteristics or properties that translates basically to "compromises" depending on the environment used and the particular line selection for that environment (including temperature ranges, UV light etc.) and like many things in life each type has its strengths and weaknesses. One of the very things that is a "strength" of fluorocarbon lines is also it's Achilles Heel or "weakness" and that is the rigidity of it. Yes it is stiff but it also breaks at the knot frequently and extremely low temperatures make it brittle as well such that it can break more readily. It also has little to no stretch which for some things is desirable because it allows you to "feel" light hitting fish like perch or bluegills and walleyes for example, but for others a little stretch may be desirable or even necessary. I know many fly manufacturers use it for tying trolling flies and I used to as well in my own home made flies until I had a some salmon break the commercial flies I was using right at the hook knot. These were popular commercially tied flies and used by folks here on LOU. I decided to start tying my own flies with 50 lb mono (Big Game clear) two seasons ago and never had a break off or other problems with it since switching. 50 lb mono is fairly stiff and the Big Game stuff although inexpensive is quite abrasion resistant and durable....It also has very good knot strength. I have also tried the majority of fluoro lines and I use Seaguar fluoro for many applications just not trolling flies which I think benefit from slight stretch when a large salmon hits it and I don't use snubbers either. Although line visibility can be a factor generally in shallow clear water my hunch is that it is much less of a factor down deep or in marginal visibility. I also question a basic assumption regarding fluorocarbon line that appears over and over in the advertisements and in my view is a "marketing ploy" rather than an unbiased research result and that is that allegation that it is invisible to fish. How many fish do you suppose responded to the survey? Their eyesight is quite different than ours from a structural standpoint and because fluoro may appear invisible to humans underwater or otherwise it may bear no relationship to the eyesight of fish. To me it is an unproven statement despite anecdotal reports and experiences.

I can't help but think that there is some kind of interaction going on with copper in the water that attracts the fish whether it is the vibration or electrical conduction stuff etc. who knows but I seem to have better luck with it in terms of number of hits than with the leadcores despite my buddies swearing by the cores (but they also don't use coppers yet....you know who you are... Bob )