Sk8man

I don't think Jan Brewer is still in business out in Ovid. Might want to give Fishy a call Stan he might know where to get them if he doesn't have them. https://fishybusinesstackleshop.com/hours.html I haven't seen them with the tag for years though. He has the regular bead chains and a small version of spring clips. (like those pictured on Brian's post below) I've been using the standard bead chains for years now and make my own spring clips to attach either to the ring or between the beads. The faceted plastic beads help to grasp them and especially in the cold weather. I haven't been able to find the longer springs for awhile but the shorter ones you can get at jann's Netcraft as well as the tool kit for making the spring clips. If you order it get the one with the manual etc. You can also use a standard swivel snap and attach it to the ring instead of between the beads.

WTG Manny

As far as I know the Gobies haven't been introduced there. Keuka doesn't have a direct connection to the Seneca River for them to spread by themselvesetc. Hopefully they won't be introduced by some idiot using them for bait or something.

Keep pecking away at them Manny. Encouraging to see action happening out there.

The decision to stock Ciscos may have been based on the fact that they don't create the Thiamine deficiency in trout and salmon and grow to a larger size than sawbellies perhaps providing more nutritional value?

The clip is a trot line clip from Jann's Netcraft, then a small piece of shrink tube and a large Duolock snap

The reason I mentioned the fin clips is that if present they can be checked with diary information and an estimate made about age when stocked vs current size etc. better than nothing if the other better methods are not possible. Sometimes clips aren't present even on stocked fish (e.g. if missed when doing the clipping and it happens) but most years they are clipped prior to stocking and especially back then.

I wonder if it had any fin clips because that could give a good estimate of at least stocking age.

good one JJ wonder why it isn't in the history books....probably cancel crowd's doing

The reason for 6-8 ft is primarily because of the rod length as you want it short of that for netting the fish so you don't have to hand line it in. I have used them as short as 2 ft. successfully and 12 ft. which I hand lined in. The leader length isn't what usually is the problem. The reason I use the tiny rubber bands that girls use for their hair is that when half-hitched tightly they stay on the mainline and don't drop off in the water and they will reel right up into the reel without problem if I don't get them off on the way in.

https://gamblerrigs.com/collections/all

www.gamblerrigs.com Its all good stuff https://gamblerrigs.com/

You won't find anything better on the market for lakers than the Gambler products

Leadcore on Seneca 300 yds. of 30 lb braid as backing is plenty for running with or without boards. I would imagine it would fit as the 30 lb braid is pretty thin diameter. All my reels are bigger than the 20's though but I have room to spare on them. If all ten colors won't fit use fewer colors and snap weights to get down.

I think "troubles on here (Greg Dale) makes some good ones. I have made my own for many years that I use with rubber bands.

Generally the heavier the spoon the more it may slide downward but usually it reaches a bow in the line somewhere before actually reaching the end. If your cheater length is kept to about 6-8 ft as stated it should just go to the main line swivel and trail behind the main lure after popping the rigger if you are using decent swivel snaps and your trolling speed is not super excessive where there are strong currents. Sometimes folks underestimate the directionality of currents and think it is just one continuous direction while it can be multi-directional (e.g. side currents) from the side as well and this is the case with Lake O big time.

I think they claimed to have sighted that fish during the Civil War better check the papers from that time period

After a few days of thinking about the derby and the winning fish. A few speculations come to mind which could be instructional. First of all that laker is so far off the charts from the usual winner or even the previous record fish that I caught in 2016 (33 inch 16.18 lb Brown) it is hard to imagine a trout that big (nearly twice the size) being down there all these years while his peers must be long gone. He obviously was doing something different that they weren't doing. My hunch is he may be even older than Gambler estimated based on his own gargantuan laker from Lake O because of the difference in food availability, and perhaps even bait size and diversity in Canandaigua (perhaps slower growth rate?). My hunch is he may be close to 30 years old. No matter what he didn't get to that age or size by being careless or stupid Taking into consideration the area in which he was caught (near the deepest spot in the lake) and the method which was rather unorthodox for catching a laker out deep (on a stickbait trolled shallow over deep water) it made me wonder if perhaps he mainly resided out there in that deep water area near the deepest spot in the lake and maybe didn't frequent the shallower ends of the lake where much more fishing tends to occur, where he would have been more vulnerable etc. or whether perhaps he was a mainly a night feeder or something. I know on Seneca in years past I used to heavily fish the 500 ft. barge area and would frequently mark huge fish down between 300 and 450 ft. and it was always rumored that divers had seen gigantic fish down there. I know that in that general area of Canandaigua Lake there is a pretty constant source of bait nearly all year around hugging bottom so the fish may not have needed to travel far for food or be in "risky" places. The first day I marked several very long pods of bait stretched along the bottom the first day in 156ft through 192 ft of water very little suspended. About all of the previous night fishing on Canandaigua stopped many years ago and usually it was limited to the first 150 ft or so of water at the south end and not in the area he was caught so if he was in the depths he would have avoided that as well. This brings us to the current situation wherein he was caught. There was a lot of suspended debris in the lake this weekend and lakers are great "opportunists" so I wonder if he was up higher than usual checking out the debris field for potential food and here comes this nice stickbait scurrying by and boom he makes his mistake. Obviously all supposition but fun trying to figure it out anyway.