# Hells Bay



## Smackdaddy53

There are about 500 threads on here that go into detail about this topic. 
I wouldn’t run a non-tunnel hull on the Texas flats but that’s just me.


----------



## EdK13

sjrobin said:


> Yes I have owned three non-tunnel skiffs since 2003 and used them in every bay in Texas. And before the skiffs I used center console Boston Whalers, aluminum jon boats, air boats etc, stepped out and waded every bay in Texas. So yes non-tunnel skiffs and boats can be used effectively, it just requires more knowledge of the water and it is a lot more work wading and poling. I have also fished out of tunnels like New Water Ibis, various Shoalwaters, Kenners, HB Pro, and Chittum Laguna. I have not seen any _fishing advantage _in any tunnel models I have used, just navigation shortcuts.


I would say yours is an extremely qualified opinion. In my opinion. But people are people.


----------



## ktn78704

Smackdaddy53 said:


> There are about 500 threads on here that go into detail about this topic.
> I wouldn’t run a non-tunnel hull on the Texas flats but that’s just me.


Thanks just joined the site and need to figure out how to search threads.


sjrobin said:


> Yes I have owned three non-tunnel skiffs since 2003 and used them in every bay in Texas. And before the skiffs I used center console Boston Whalers, aluminum jon boats, air boats etc, stepped out and waded every bay in Texas. So yes non-tunnel skiffs and boats can be used effectively, it just requires more knowledge of the water and it is a lot more work wading and poling. I have also fished out of tunnels like New Water Ibis, various Shoalwaters, Kenners, HB Pro, and Chittum Laguna. I have not seen any _fishing advantage _in any tunnel models I have used, just navigation shortcuts.


I tend to agree with you. I like to push pole and fly fish. As long as the boat can get into shallow water doesn’t matter if it’s a tunnel or not. I think a non tunnel with a jack plate can come close to the hole shot of a tunnel hull.
Thanks for your response.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

ktn78704 said:


> Thanks just joined the site and need to figure out how to search threads.
> 
> I tend to agree with you. I like to push pole and fly fish. As long as the boat can get into shallow water doesn’t matter if it’s a tunnel or not. I think a non tunnel with a jack plate can come close to the hole shot of a tunnel hull.
> Thanks for your response.


Depends on how far you like to pole. I respect sjrobin’s opinion and agree BUT I promise you a non-tunnel hull will never have a shallow water hole shot even close to a properly set up tunnel hull it’s just not physically possible.
Here’s my take- a non-tunnel might give you 3-4mph more top end and 1/8” less draft but the pros don’t outweigh the cons for me. Unless you know where every little gut and channel are you will end up trenching bottom more with a non tunnel and never get up where a tunnel can. There are some areas where I have to run jacked up with tabs down for miles to get to before shutting down. Do you want to pole that far? I can run in less than 6” with clean prop wash all day and skip over 3-4” sand flats if I know where they are. Not happening when you have 8-10” of lower unit below the hull fully jacked and trimmed, that’s just physics.
Anything can be operated irresponsibly so I won’t let people tell me a tunnel hull is only good for tearing up seagrass. I see boats blowing up grass flats all the time and 99% of the time it’s a boat that should not be even close to water less than 18” deep under power of an outboard.
Here’s a video I shot last week running my Maverick in 6-8” on a mixed bottom with my jack plate halfway up. It will run a lot skinnier and won’t have dirty propwash until 4” or so when the hull is bumping bottom.


----------



## Douglas Smith

You need to check out. Chittums


----------



## ktn78704

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Depends on how far you like to pole. I respect sjrobin’s opinion and agree BUT I promise you a non-tunnel hull will never have a shallow water hole shot even close to a properly set up tunnel hull it’s just not physically possible.
> Here’s my take- a non-tunnel might give you 3-4mph more top end and 1/8” less draft but the pros don’t outweigh the cons for me. Unless you know where every little gut and channel are you will end up trenching bottom more with a non tunnel and never get up where a tunnel can. There are some areas where I have to run jacked up with tabs down for miles to get to before shutting down. Do you want to pole that far? I can run in less than 6” with clean prop wash all day and skip over 3-4” sand flats if I know where they are. Not happening when you have 8-10” of lower unit below the hull fully jacked and trimmed, that’s just physics.
> Anything can be operated irresponsibly so I won’t let people tell me a tunnel hull is only good for tearing up seagrass. I see boats blowing up grass flats all the time and 99% of the time it’s a boat that should not be even close to water less than 18” deep under power of an outboard.
> Here’s a video I shot last week running my Maverick in 6-8” on a mixed bottom with my jack plate halfway up. It will run a lot skinnier and won’t have dirty propwash until 4” or so when the hull is bumping bottom.


That video was a maverick HPX-T Running in 6” of water?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

ktn78704 said:


> That video was a maverick HPX-T Running in 6” of water?


Yes it’s mine and I guess 6-8”. I didn’t get out and measure but it’s an area I frequently fish that is normally about a foot deep in that spot and the tide was pretty low. EdK has been in the back lakes and we ran over some much skinnier than that for a few hundred feet here and there. I don’t go tearing up flats, I will run where I can run cleanly and shut down and get up where I can do so without disturbing the bottom much.


----------



## ktn78704

This is awesome information. I used to have a Redfisher, but went to an Everglades for different uses. Now I'm back to skinny water running/poling. Since the time of owning my Redfisher in 2000 seems like Hells Bay has given Hewes a run for the money. Ive been researching the HB Professional Tunnel, but looks like the HPX deserves some consideration as well.


----------



## SomaliPirate

I can run in about 6-8" in the 17T as well. I don't do it often, but it's nice to know that I can when I need to.


----------



## ktn78704

Thanks for the feed back. I'm not planning on running that shallow either, but nice to know I can get back to the dock.


----------



## Anderson Guide Service

If you plan on running in the back lakes than a having a tunnel is not an option, it is a must. If you are running a true microskiff with less than a 25hp you can run pretty shallow without a tunnel but you still end up chewing up the bottom. The lower unit of a properly set up and trimmed tunnel hull is above the bottom of the boat so you hull hits before your engine does. If your hull needs 3" on plane then you can run in 3.5" in theory...


----------



## ktn78704

Thanks, I’m narrowing my boat search to a tunnel hull.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

I wouldn’t overlook an HPX Tunnel.


----------



## coconutgroves

There are spots that even a tunnel cannot get to that only a tiller Glades Skiff can. The tunnel does not guarantee entry to the back lakes. Many other factors are involved. In fact, that tunnel can screw you and leave you high and dry until the next tide comes in.

It's all trade offs. @sjrobin summed it up best from my pov. I've owned both, and while I would prefer a tunnel, they are not required here on the TX coast. In fact, once I changed to a non tunnel, I learned different water and started catching bigger fish.


----------



## ktn78704

For the past five years I’ve been using an Everglades 243 as the mother ship for a stand up kayak. I’m looking to fish the same area, but with a poling skiff. I have a good idea where I can run with or without a tunnel. I’m still leaning towards the HB prosessional because hull looks like a drier ride than HPX on the choppy days.


----------



## ktn78704

Thank you. I’m going to look at an older Whipray this weekend


----------



## not2shabby

I have a 17.8. No tunnel. I run / fish everywhere from Port A to deep in the land cut. It's an incredible skiff and has done everything I have asked it to. Occasionally, I will pole a little bit more than I would have to with a tunnel, but I often see fish when I'm getting into or out of places I can't comfortably come off plane or jump up. It's also just such a nice skiff to pole around I don't mind the extra time on the platform. I spend as much time with the motor out of the water as possible. That's when I'm happiest.

Given the choice, side by side, I would probably choose a tunnel for a little extra flexibility. I don't think it's a necessity for me. To each his own.


----------



## ktn78704

This is very helpful. I’m Fishing Cedar Bayou south to Port A, and hopefully beyond once I get a skiff. At this point probably over analyzing and should seek the best deal I can find whether it’s a tunnel or not.


----------



## efi2712micro

Fishing Galveston bay to Port A for the most part. I have owned the Ankona 18 tunnel and switched to the BT3 non tunnel. I love the BT3 and it gets me plenty shallow that I can see all the redfish I need in matagorda. got me access to some pretty remote back lakes but must admit there are places it was be able to go at low tides. Only once did I have to get out of the boat and pull it off land  (too lazy to poll my way back from where I came from). I was always able to get my way out to deeper enough to motor my way out without tearing the bottom (I make a point of that)! the BT3 is definitely a better boat for LA and Florida but it has been very well at home in Texas and has proven to be a damn good asset. I do not miss the Ankona even though it is also a damn good platform to fish off.


----------



## ActionCliff

I'm in my first true poling skiff. Waterman 16 non tunnel, honestly haven't found many places I can't go and I can pole where most others can't. I get tired head when I read too many tunnel vs non tunnel threads.  You'll be fine either way you choose and eventually figure out which is the best option for your needs.


----------



## ktn78704

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Yes it’s mine and I guess 6-8”. I didn’t get out and measure but it’s an area I frequently fish that is normally about a foot deep in that spot and the tide was pretty low. EdK has been in the back lakes and we ran over some much skinnier than that for a few hundred feet here and there. I don’t go tearing up flats, I will run where I can run cleanly and shut down and get up where I can do so without disturbing the bottom much.


I had one more question. How does the Maverick HPX T pole?


----------



## ktn78704

FWTXCW said:


> I'm in my first true poling skiff. Waterman 16 non tunnel, honestly haven't found many places I can't go and I can pole where most others can't. I get tired head when I read too many tunnel vs non tunnel threads.  You'll be fine either way you choose and eventually figure out which is the best option for your needs.


Yes it’s starting to make my head hurt as well


----------



## K3anderson

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Depends on how far you like to pole. I respect sjrobin’s opinion and agree BUT I promise you a non-tunnel hull will never have a shallow water hole shot even close to a properly set up tunnel hull it’s just not physically possible.
> Here’s my take- a non-tunnel might give you 3-4mph more top end and 1/8” less draft but the pros don’t outweigh the cons for me.


I dont know the answer, but, I know this video is F'ing sweet.


----------



## SKIFFSTIFF

I went from a Holmes tunnel scooter that would run if it had any water under the hull to a Beavertail Ospry that has a slot transom.I do miss the tunnel sometimes but overall I prefer the poling hull.The slot transom/Bob jackplate acts quite similar to a short tunnel.Trim tabs down plate up ,motor trimed,soft bottom,she will spin out in 8 inches.Hard sand bottom takes another 2 inches.I do love my boat BUT my buddy has a Whipray Classic and I can pole it with one hand.My next skiff will be a Whipray.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

SKIFFSTIFF said:


> I went from a Holmes tunnel scooter that would run if it had any water under the hull to a Beavertail Ospry that has a slot transom.I do miss the tunnel sometimes but overall I prefer the poling hull.The slot transom/Bob jackplate acts quite similar to a short tunnel.Trim tabs down plate up ,motor trimed,soft bottom,she will spin out in 8 inches.Hard sand bottom takes another 2 inches.I do love my boat BUT my buddy has a Whipray Classic and I can pole it with one hand.My next skiff will be a Whipray.


Sure


----------



## Smackdaddy53

ktn78704 said:


> I had one more question. How does the Maverick HPX T pole?


I love poling it and can maneuver it through very narrow creeks and it tracks well with the motor up. Ed was on the platform yesterday and I was poling us over 6” dragging bottom trying to get to some deeper water. I never poled anything else so I can’t give an intelligent answer based on personal experience how it is compared to others.


----------



## Tx_Whipray

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I love poling it and can maneuver it through very narrow creeks and it tracks well with the motor up. Ed was on the platform yesterday and I was poling us over 6” dragging bottom trying to get to some deeper water. I never poled anything else so I can’t give an intelligent answer based on personal experience how it is compared to others.


I'll let you pole me around on my Whipray any time you want to give it a try


----------



## EdK13

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I love poling it and can maneuver it through very narrow creeks and it tracks well with the motor up. Ed was on the platform yesterday and I was poling us over 6” dragging bottom trying to get to some deeper water. I never poled anything else so I can’t give an intelligent answer based on personal experience how it is compared to others.


POLE DANCER? YOU POLED THAT THING MANY MILES... 8 in a day with me through 15 mph wind and some nice reds to boot. Yesterday you ran sub 6 mid twenty's, on plane sub 10 knots. You have yours dialed in. Most are not.


----------



## EdK13

Tx_Whipray said:


> I'll let you pole me around on my Whipray any time you want to give it a try


It might piss him off! HA!


----------



## ktn78704

coconutgroves said:


> There are spots that even a tunnel cannot get to that only a tiller Glades Skiff can. The tunnel does not guarantee entry to the back lakes. Many other factors are involved. In fact, that tunnel can screw you and leave you high and dry until the next tide comes in.
> 
> It's all trade offs. @sjrobin summed it up best from my pov. I've owned both, and while I would prefer a tunnel, they are not required here on the TX coast. In fact, once I changed to a non tunnel, I learned different water and started catching bigger fish.


Yes I have noticed bigger redfish are in deeper water 10”-16”.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Tx_Whipray said:


> I'll let you pole me around on my Whipray any time you want to give it a try


Let’s go! I put out about 1200hp but I burn about 3 beers an hour, 5 if I’m poling into the wind!


----------



## TGlidden

SJ has it right, especially since you are planning to fly fish. Tunnels will restrict your access to shallow fishing grounds. Running to a fishing spot, across fishing grounds, will alter fish behavior for at least a day. Hurting your fishing and anyone else planning to fish that flat. If you have a Skiff that poles well, poling further just means more fishing time. Remember the words of Steve Huff, "pole till the fish find you." I fished tunnel skiffs for years and they consistently kept me out of fishable waters because of their draft. I've since sold the tunnel skiffs for the same hull in a non-tunnel.


----------



## ktn78704

Got it, not interested in running skinny, tearing up habitat, and spooking fish. I’d rather pole in and out of an area. But if I’m in a bind I’d like to know I can do a hole shot with minimal impact.


----------



## Stevie

Between a Whipray 16 and 17.8 I would pick a 16. (I ran NotShabby's 17.8 for 4 years... it is a Cadillac). The 16 is easier to pole, especially spin. I honestly think the 16 is drier and more seaworthy than the 17.8 for Texas bays...somehow it rides higher in the water.

(I also would not buy a sponson / notchback boat again).

If I had to pick a boat for the Middle or Lower Texas Coast, it would have a tunnel.

Agree with SJR that the 50 Tohatsu 4 stroke is a beast of an engine for it's weight. It runs great on the 16 Whip & Waterman.


----------



## richg99

*"(I also would not buy a sponson / notchback boat again)."*

Since I have recently considered adding sponsons to my 17 ft. Lowe tinny, would you mind clarifying why sponsons are considered a negative? I do not have a notch back nor a tunnel. If you don't want to derail this discussion, a PM would be fine, too. thanks.


----------



## Stevie

richg99 said:


> *"(I also would not buy a sponson / notchback boat again)."*
> 
> Since I have recently considered adding sponsons to my 17 ft. Lowe tinny, would you mind clarifying why sponsons are considered a negative? I do not have a notch back nor a tunnel. If you don't want to derail this discussion, a PM would be fine, too. thanks.


When poling, I find it hard to quickly turn the boat which is often necessary to allow the fly angler make an un obstructed cast at fish.

When running / planing, I find there is more drag on the aft in a sponson boat.


----------



## MariettaMike

Stevie said:


> When poling, I find it hard to quickly turn the boat which is often necessary to allow the fly angler make an un obstructed cast at fish.
> 
> When running / planing, I find there is more drag on the aft in a sponson boat.


Your observations regarding spinning with the pole and running a little slower on plane with the same HP are both true, but the advantages of poling straighter with shallower draft, making hairpin turns on plane without sliding, and running pretty shallow without a tunnel are worth the trade off for many.


----------



## not2shabby

A courtesy spin to put a fly caster into position on a shot is not unusual on my skiff. I spin often and think my skiff spins easily. There’s a little extra noise/resistance because of the sponsons, but it doesn’t bother me. 

Spinning also helps keep flies out of my back if we’re approaching a fish off the bow.


----------



## Anderson Guide Service

TGlidden said:


> SJ has it right, especially since you are planning to fly fish. Tunnels will restrict your access to shallow fishing grounds. Running to a fishing spot, across fishing grounds, will alter fish behavior for at least a day. Hurting your fishing and anyone else planning to fish that flat. If you have a Skiff that poles well, poling further just means more fishing time. Remember the words of Steve Huff, "pole till the fish find you." I fished tunnel skiffs for years and they consistently kept me out of fishable waters because of their draft. I've since sold the tunnel skiffs for the same hull in a non-tunnel.



I am sorry but this is simply not true. Here you are talking about miles of 12"-24" water. There is no poling into lets say the Island. You either run or you don't go there. There isn't enough time in the day to pole. 

Anyone who says you can jump up in 24" of water, let alone run, without tearing up the bottom in any non tunnel boat is not being honest. Lets say you have a microskiff running a 25hp. Your lower unit is going to be 8-9 inches below the bottom of the boat. You are not going to jump up in 12" of water on hard sand. You might over mud but either way you are tearing up the bottom. While you are on plane that engine needing 8-9 inches will need at least 15-16 inches not to bother the grass. I know this because of running tunnel hulls where the engine is ABOVE the hull. You still suck up grass, mud, ect. Get a ruler out and then say I can jump up in 12"

Draft wise, I still do not believe a well designed tunnel (think six sided) takes more water to float. Hell, look at a redfishline. They draft as shallow as most poling skiffs and have a huge tunnel. Even if it does you are talking about at the most a 1/2" difference between a tunnel and non tunnel. 

Either way an outboard disturbs the fish. I would argue that a non tunnel boat disturbs them less because the exhaust coming out in the stream of water is above the actual water line. Therefore there is less sound being distributed to the water. 

Sorry to go on a rant. Caught me at the wrong moment!!! haha


----------



## not2shabby

This is a deep rabbit hole.


----------



## richg99

Thanks


----------



## Smackdaddy53

not2shabby said:


> This is a deep rabbit hole.


Depends on who you talk to! A foot deep scares some of these guys.


----------



## ktn78704

That’s what I’ve been hearing tunnel doesn’t pole or run as well.
Thanks,
Kris


----------



## ktn78704

Ended up getting a Maverick HPXT and so far have taken two trips out of Rockport. Crossing choppy bay-bow trimmed down-was no problem, runs very shallow, and poles just fine. Seems like I'll pretty much be able to go anywhere I was kayaking out of my big boat. Extra goodies I don’t really need PP/TM, but I’ll use them until they break.


----------



## richg99

Nice.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

ktn78704 said:


> View attachment 22821
> Ended up getting a Maverick HPXT and so far have taken two trips out of Rockport. Crossing choppy bay-bow trimmed down-was no problem, runs very shallow, and poles just fine. Seems like I'll pretty much be able to go anywhere I was kayaking out of my big boat. Extra goodies I don’t really need PP/TM, but I’ll use them until they break.


The tunnel hull myths are just that...enjoy that nice skiff!


----------

