Observations from the bps spring angler catalog

[dtrs5kprs]

45 minutes ago, fshndoug said:

 

On the high prices of spinnerbaits,Lureparts Online sell 100 #7 gold Indiana blades for around $90.00 depending on the daily price of gold,skirts cost .65 cents apiece,wire arm .10 cents each,owner hook will run .45 cents,swivel $1.00 split rings .4 cents,now paint the head and put it together.

As  far as not needing a good swivel for your spinnerbait,you don't know what you are talking about.I bet you don't believe in global warming either.

Quick math puts you at about $3.15 each, and you have not painted, packaged, advertised, warehoused, paid your employees or expenses, or paid federal excise tax, if you want to sell one. As much as I hate to admit it, $6-10 is about right for factory spinnerbaits. I'll likely never buy another (except for an occasional war eagle night bait) because I can build them cheaper, same for jigs, but no one is getting gouged.

And the science behind global warming is sketchy, at least with respect to direct causes. 

[Old plug]

WOW Dave SQUEAKS. i just knew you would have to do some squeking about the squeking ball bearings. It would be interesting to hear what you  might say if the ball bearing was going Pffffffffftttt. 

 

[dtrs5kprs]

1 hour ago, Old plug said:

WOW Dave SQUEAKS. i just knew you would have to do some squeking about the squeking ball bearings. It would be interesting to hear what you  might say if the ball bearing was going Pffffffffftttt. 

 

I was all in on ball bearing swivels. They were becoming the "in" thing when I was learning how to fish. If it wasn't free spinning you were wasting your time.

When Otis showed me his zip lock bag full of baits that looked like junk I thought he was nuts. No variety in blades or sizes, all of them with the old Luck E Strike snake tail trailer, minus a couple of inches. Jim Rogers had thoroughly thumped him in a derby on Grand from the front seat, and that was the explanation. He changed and believed it made a huge difference. His baits looked horrible, his rods looked worse, and his Ranger had an inch thick coating of dirt on it. Helped cover the scratches. He continually whacked us on them from MN to Truman in club and Fed derbies, and more often than not had big bass for the year.

I've made most of my blades (hundreds) since the early 90s the same way. Seems to hold up. Anymore, I think throwing a blade with a crane swivel gives you a bit of an edge since most fish have not had one squeak past them.

[fishinwrench]

OK, what's a crane swivel ?    Different from a brass or stainless barrel swivel ?

[dtrs5kprs]

 

Has less wire twists at the loop than a barrel swivel. Little less smooth than a rolling swivel (which tend to be more box shaped). 

[dtrs5kprs]

In case this becomes our official treatise on swivels...a nickle barrel swivel. Not a great choice for blades because the extra twist will catch on grass, leaves, skirt material, etc. Arguably the least smooth turning swivel.

[mjk86]

2 hours ago, dtrs5kprs said:

Quick math puts you at about $3.15 each, and you have not painted, packaged, advertised, warehoused, paid your employees or expenses, or paid federal excise tax, if you want to sell one. As much as I hate to admit it, $6-10 is about right for factory spinnerbaits. I'll likely never buy another (except for an occasional war eagle night bait) because I can build them cheaper, same for jigs, but no one is getting gouged.

And the science behind global warming is sketchy, at least with respect to direct causes. 

Nope.....the science behind climate is rock solid, its people who dont understand yet still want to promote their agenda  that say its sketchy....CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly at about 1700 wavenumbers.  IR radiation excites vibrational energy levels in upon absorbion, decay back to the ground state happens via non-radiative pathways, this generates heat.  The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat.  This in turn increases the temperature of the planet, which allows for more water vapor be absorbed and more trapped methane to be emmited, both of these are also strong absorbers of IR radiation, exacerbating the problem.  Its irresponsible to lie to people about things you dont understand, especially when the consequences are so dire.  I guess what do we care? its our grandchildren and their kids that will have to deal with it, so we can live in our little denial bubble.  Ya know cigarette companies once said that smoking makes you healthier. 

[jpb2187]

7 minutes ago, mjk86 said:

Nope.....the science behind climate is rock solid, its people who dont understand yet still want to promote their agenda  that say its sketchy....CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly at about 1700 wavenumbers.  IR radiation excites vibrational energy levels in upon absorbion, decay back to the ground state happens via non-radiative pathways, this generates heat.  The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat.  This in turn increases the temperature of the planet, which allows for more water vapor be absorbed and more trapped methane to be emmited, both of these are also strong absorbers of IR radiation, exacerbating the problem.  Its irresponsible to lie to people about things you dont understand, especially when the consequences are so dire.  I guess what do we care? its our grandchildren and their kids that will have to deal with it, so we can live in our little denial bubble.  Ya know cigarette companies once said that smoking makes you healthier. 

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but there are many more variables at play than CO2. My question is with the amount of emphasis put on CO2. I'm not denying CO2 warms the planet. I am however questioning the validity of model that forecasts long range temperature trends when it couldn't get the past 10 year period correct. 

[mjk86]

Just now, jpb2187 said:

Not speaking for anyone but myself, but there are many more variables at play than CO2. My question is with the amount of emphasis put on CO2. I'm not denying CO2 warms the planet. I am however questioning the validity of model that forecasts long range temperature trends when it couldn't get the past 10 year period correct. 

What other variables?  So CO2 doesnt absorb IR light (most of the suns energy is in the IR range)?  What else is causing such a radical increase in temperature?  What else is causing the decrease in pH in the oceans, and the build up of carbonic acid? This is the type of BS that drives me nuts...its good to be skeptical and question things...but have you submitted any papers to journals?  Can you elaborate on your findings?  Im really curious.  I worry that my son and the generation after him will hate us for our selfishness.  How can so many people continue to deny the obvious? 

[Mitch f]

Oh boy, here we go.........again!