EC:
Now that's funky for sure. Read the article and the theory behind this method of "pounding the bottom" makes sense to me. It's no wonder that some creative mind built a better mousetrap. I would LOVE to try this jig for cod. Better yet, I think I just might tweak some of my own jigs this way. Shouldn't be too hard to do. The only drawback I see in modifying a jig this way would be making it "unbalanced". Some jig makers boast about the "engineering" that goes into creating the perfect jig. The Luhr-Jensen company of Crippled Herring fame insists that their jigs catch fish because of the way the jig moves through the water when yo-yo'd or squided. This also makes sense to me given the lack of light in deep water. Fish just might react to the vibrations created by a moving jig rather than it's appearance. I know from previous posts that you are not a huge fan of Crippled Herring jigs (your an angerman afficionado), but I think they are tough to beat, especially the 13 oz. model. Because I'm a freak about experimenting, I seldom use the same jig for more than a couple of fish, unless there are slobs coming up, of course. Then I stay the course. But on spring trips on Georges where most of the fish are small I throw everything I've got in the bag at 'em. Makes for good reference points for the slow days when it takes some skill and knowledge to put a good catch together. The one element that I firmly believe in, regardless of what jig is used, is that the smallest (lightest) jig that will properly hold bottom is the one that will catch the most fish. Perhaps this is why that the 10 0z. angerman is quickly becoming a legendary tool on cod boats. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Now that's funky for sure. Read the article and the theory behind this method of "pounding the bottom" makes sense to me. It's no wonder that some creative mind built a better mousetrap. I would LOVE to try this jig for cod. Better yet, I think I just might tweak some of my own jigs this way. Shouldn't be too hard to do. The only drawback I see in modifying a jig this way would be making it "unbalanced". Some jig makers boast about the "engineering" that goes into creating the perfect jig. The Luhr-Jensen company of Crippled Herring fame insists that their jigs catch fish because of the way the jig moves through the water when yo-yo'd or squided. This also makes sense to me given the lack of light in deep water. Fish just might react to the vibrations created by a moving jig rather than it's appearance. I know from previous posts that you are not a huge fan of Crippled Herring jigs (your an angerman afficionado), but I think they are tough to beat, especially the 13 oz. model. Because I'm a freak about experimenting, I seldom use the same jig for more than a couple of fish, unless there are slobs coming up, of course. Then I stay the course. But on spring trips on Georges where most of the fish are small I throw everything I've got in the bag at 'em. Makes for good reference points for the slow days when it takes some skill and knowledge to put a good catch together. The one element that I firmly believe in, regardless of what jig is used, is that the smallest (lightest) jig that will properly hold bottom is the one that will catch the most fish. Perhaps this is why that the 10 0z. angerman is quickly becoming a legendary tool on cod boats. Would love to hear your thoughts.
