TyeeII

Hard to believe this boat hasn't sold...maybe you should post some better pics. The two you posted are pretty blurry.

PM sent

I was fishing Saturday in front of Kenosha and had 2 of the birds join us 16 miles offshore. One of them stayed in the boat the whole trip eating all the spiders and bugs he could find. I hand fed him 2 big Orb Weaver spiders, which was really cool, and he stayed on board for most of the run back to shore.

Looks like a clipped adipose. That would be a King. Nice fish either way!

That is definitely a Steelie, and a very big one at that. Nice work!

Jimmy spoons are my favorite rattle spoons. The ones in the picture look like Northport Nailer blanks. Are they painted on the back side?

Those are rattle spoons.

Incredible! I'm on the wrong side of the lake this year. Looks like all mag spoons you were running?

I haven't used them but a lot of guys are running them on Lake Michigan because our fishery has turned into a deep water fishery the last few years and the fish are down deep as well. The guys that make them were the original Vector guys and they make some durable products. If they make the long arms and say they will hold up to 25# weights, they should be fine.

600 bucks. I'm in Illinois. They haven't had a ton of use, but have some sun fading on the motor housings and rod holder caps from sitting on the boat in a slip all summer.

I have 2 big jons that fit your requirements except I have a depth raider installed instead of fish hawk. 4' booms, dual holders, ball cradle and swivels...plus mounting hardware and backer plates. Everything works great. Let me know if he's interested...

Thank you for this report. I agree we need a better understanding before we allow millions of fish to be transplanted that will be competing with our sportfish for food for most of their long lives.

If the sale falls through on the bases, I will take them off your hands. Thanks.

Well, this post prompted me to sign up to this site so I could reply. How deep are you trying to get? I often fish in over 100fow with 12 pounders with acceptable blowback. 14#ers work even better if I'm trying to contact bottom. It's a great idea, but it seems it does a few things wrong to make it worth while. First of all, aren't you actually decreasing the life of your riggers by making them pull up twice as much cable every time? Also, now you have to have twice as much cable on your rigger to get to deep depths. Most riggers don't have more than 400, so now you're only getting down to less than 200, and I can bounce bottom in 200 or deeper with a 17# Shark weight if I control my speed correctly. Another thing is having 2 cables in the water will surely cause more blowback, not to mention the increased chance for a tangle if a fish makes a crazy charge when he sees the net coming. Quite frankly, I wouldn't pull weights that heavy. The shape of the weight is more important. I've witnessed a 25# round weight with a small fin pull back considerably farther than the 17# Shark did. And that was with over 200 foot of cable out. We've also bounced bottom in 300 fow with that same weight by slowing down at the right times and letting the ball drop. Caught some real nice Lakers doing this, as well as a couple Kings. I have to commend you for pioneering an idea to fulfill a need, but it seems that you are taking away from what you are trying to accomplish by doubling your cable in the water, plus a pulley creating even more blowback. There are guys that fished crazy deep for big Kings and they had special riggers built to accomplish the task. Imagine sending 1000 feet of cable out to get 400 foot deep?!