The Benefits Of Realism? 2024
Heron reply :
Simply put....
In your experience, have you found that baits with the most realistic profiles/paintjobs/ etc. catch fish any better/bigger/more frequently, than baits that lack any level of realism in their design?
So far its been my experience that says, No. Ive come to figure that the fish typically know the difference between something like a fake craw, and a real craw. But the fish seem more likely to strike at baits that have more ambiguity to them, and will for instance, go for a bait that (for lack of a better term) creates the illusion of say, a craw.
What say you?
Weld's Largemouth reply :
I say, spinnerbaits!
Megastink reply :
You're buying confidence. That said, I use lucky craft and mega bass Jerkbaits in clear water, because that's the only time I can think of where a bass has the chance to stare down a bait.
Alpha Male reply :
I think bass are predators. They will strike anything then perceive as edible. That said I believe that a rage craw on a shakeyhead is life like enough to get them to strike it. Remember they have no way to feel it other than putting it in their mouth. And as predators they will eat something even if they aren't hungry just to prevent another fish from getting it.
I have a 75 gallon fish tank at home with African cichlids in it and it is fun to feed them guppies or small crickets. On occation I put in some bright red plastic crickets in that I use for crappies. They will eat it and spit it out 3-5 times before they give up.
scaleface reply :
I snorkled in a clear river and fed bass live crawfish then tried to catch them with a plastic crawfish on a hook and short piece of light line. They knew the difference and would not bite . Personally, and I may be wrong , I think they see the string. I know I can see it and they see much better in the water than I .I can see fluorocarbon under water easily too.
Catch and Grease reply :
I do believe realistic lures can be a great thing. Just look at all the guys catching massive bags of bass on realsitc swimbaits.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:48 AM, scaleface said:I snorkled in a clear river and fed bass live crawfish then tried to catch them with a plastic crawfish on a hook and short piece of light line. They knew the difference and would not bite . Personally, and I may be wrong , I think they see the string. I know I can see it and they see much better in the water than I .I can see fluorocarbon under water easily too.
Im getting the impression, that when a fish has the chance to sit there and get a good look at the bait...the more realism that the bait is designed with, then the easier it is for the fish to tell that it is fake.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:55 AM, Catch and Grease said:I do believe realistic lures can be a great thing. Just look at all the guys catching massive bags of bass on realsitc swimbaits.
True, but Im wondering if the fish are keying more so on the swimbait's movement, rather than its actual details.
But on the flip side - look at all the guys catching massive bags of bass on Jig n Pigs. Perhaps, different waters, different circumstances.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:19 AM, Weld said:I say, spinnerbaits!
AYE!!!
Catch and Grease reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:57 AM, Heron said:True, but Im wondering if the fish are keying more so on the swimbait's movement, rather than its actual details.
But on the flip side - look at all the guys catching massive bags of bass on Jig n Pigs. Perhaps, different waters, different circumstances.
Do realistic lures work well? Absolutely. Do "not realistic" lures work well? Absolutely.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:02 AM, Catch and Grease said:Do realistic lures work well? Absolutely. Do "not realistic" lures work well? Absolutely.
But does one work, any better or less, than the other?
scaleface reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:55 AM, Heron said:Im getting the impression, that when a fish has the chance to sit there and get a good look at the bait...the more realism that the bait is designed with, then the easier it is for the fish to tell that it is fake.
I agree 100 percent. The 70's and 80's were much better times to catch fish on a plastic worm than todays educated fish.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:04 AM, scaleface said:I agree 100 percent. The 70's and 80's were much better times to catch fish on a plastic worm than todays educated fish.
True, and honestly, the way people perceive things is really not much different. For isntance, we can easily tell that a mannequin is fake, more so than a simple human silhouette. Despite the more accurate details on the mannequin(under certain conditions).
zachb34 reply :
I think that once you get a not so realistic pattern with some realistic colors in the water moving/wobbling they almost blend into something realistic. More times than not, I think bass strike because the bait is moving, which they register as alive and therefore food.
scaleface reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:13 AM, Heron said:True, and honestly, the way people perceive things is really not much different. For isntance, we can easily tell that a mannequin is fake, more so than a simple human silhouette. Despite the more accurate details on the mannequin(under certain conditions).
...and if you see the mannequin in low light situations it can be impossible to tell.
Scott F reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:48 AM, scaleface said:I snorkled in a clear river and fed bass live crawfish then tried to catch them with a plastic crawfish on a hook and short piece of light line. They knew the difference and would not bite . Personally, and I may be wrong , I think they see the string. I know I can see it and they see much better in the water than I .I can see fluorocarbon under water easily too.
So you think the string was the difference? Did try using the live crawfish on the same hook and short piece of light line?
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:17 AM, scaleface said:...and if you see the mannequin in low light situations it can be impossible to tell.
Agreed...
(and now we come back to those "certain conditions")
In that instance, the low light has begun to add some level of ambiguity to that mannequin. (which seems to be ideal) Under those same conditions the silhouette is already playing mind tricks on you.
scaleface reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:22 AM, Scott F said:So you think the string was the difference? Did try using the live crawfish on the same hook and short piece of light line?
Good point . No I didnt and I think if I did the bass would have took it . I think line is part of the equation still.
Heron reply :
On the flip side to all of this, it does also seem (and Im sure weve all heard this before) that when baits are larger (to a certain extent) the fish are even more apt to tell that it is fake. Hence, more added realism almost becomes required for a bait of such size.
Maybe..I dont know.
Catch and Grease reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:04 AM, Heron said:But does one work, any better or less, than the other?
If one always out fished the other then all the pro's would be using one or the other.
Raul reply :
I say no.On 1/8/2015 at 6:13 AM, Heron said:Simply put....
In your experience, have you found that baits with the most realistic profiles/paintjobs/ etc. catch fish any better/bigger/more frequently, than baits that lack any level of realism in their design?
So far its been my experience that says, No. Ive come to figure that the fish typically know the difference between something like a fake craw, and a real craw. But the fish seem more likely to strike at baits that have more ambiguity to them, and will for instance, go for a bait that (for lack of a better term) creates the illusion of say, a craw.
What say you?
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:39 AM, Catch and Grease said:If one always out fished the other then all the pro's would be using one or the other.
Ok, I'll take that as a "No."
Heron reply :
So now let me mix it up with this....
I spoke earlier if "certain" conditions. So with that, are there any conditions, to your knowledge, that would make a bait of high realism, more productive than a bait without?
Alonerankin2 reply :
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but to the point about a plastic worm having a greater advantage in the 70's & 80's, but due to a largemouths exceedingly great ability to have become educated in this century I find to be a fairly inaccurate statement. In fact, ridiculous. The plastic worm has been & still is my favorite, most dependable Lure I have ever used. I use these plastic worms because they work.. Just as good now as they did in 1978 when I began to use them.
scaleface reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:52 AM, Alonerankin2 said:Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but to the point about a plastic worm having a greater advantage in the 70's & 80's, but due to a largemouths exceedingly great ability to have become educated in this century I find to be a fairly inaccurate statement. In fact, ridiculous. The plastic worm has been & still is my favorite, most dependable Lure I have ever used. I use these plastic worms because they work.. Just as good now as they did in 1978 when I began to use them.
Ive used them since about 78 also. We obviously have different experience. I still have a texas rig tied on 100 percent of the time but I catch a fraction of the fish with them as I use too. But this is off subject. Would make a good thread though.
iabass8 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:04 AM, Heron said:But does one work, any better or less, than the other?
In a Vacuum, no. One can out fish the other in different conditions.
On 1/8/2015 at 7:48 AM, Heron said:So now let me mix it up with this....
I spoke earlier if "certain" conditions. So with that, are there any conditions, to your knowledge, that would make a bait of high realism, more productive than a bait without?
The answer to this question is going to be redundant ....clear water.
MassBass reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:48 AM, scaleface said:I snorkled in a clear river and fed bass live crawfish then tried to catch them with a plastic crawfish on a hook and short piece of light line. They knew the difference and would not bite . Personally, and I may be wrong , I think they see the string. I know I can see it and they see much better in the water than I .I can see fluorocarbon under water easily too.
I did the same thing. but in a lake. I had the time of my life. And I learned alot. I think a tube is the best crawfish imitation, much better than a plastic craw dreamed up by a lure maker's fantasy. There were times when I would feed the bass with craws I caught and then drop a black and blue tube and they would INHALE it. Also caught them on live craws. But the whole feeding bass then trying to catch them is kind of un-sporting, even tho u will learn alot.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:59 AM, iabass8 said:In a Vacuum, no. One can out fish the other in different conditions.
The answer to this question is going to be redundant ....clear water.
Thats the answer I was expecting, and on the surface, I would agree with that. But nonetheless, my experience has shown that to be inconsistent.
Matthew2000 reply :
We don't know what bass see. That being said if they have the same vision as us isn't it better to buy the realistic pattern just in case. Depends on the bait fast moving cranks and spinnerbaits no I don't think so there eye most likely cannot follow the lure. To see what it is just like when someone throws a punch at you, you react to it immeadlty. In the fishes case because they have no hands they use their mouths. Then you set the hook.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 8:09 AM, Matthew2000 said:We don't know what bass see. That being said if they have the same vision as us isn't it better to buy the realistic pattern just in case. Depends on the bait fast moving cranks and spinnerbaits no I don't think so there eye most likely cannot follow the lure. To see what it is just like when someone throws a punch at you, you react to it immeadlty. In the fishes case because they have no hands they use their mouths. Then you set the hook.
Actually we do know what bass see. Its been studied.
cyclops2 reply :
Can NOT resist a answer to this question !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have caught more HUGE fresh water bass & pike on a SINGLE Flicker Spinner gold #2 spinner blade. 1/2" long with a single #12 hook on it.
18" smallies 24" LM + 40" pike......................Many many many times. While pitching for perch.
Spinners ARE FRIGGIN DEATH on almost any fish.
Yeah......I bought 12 new Rebels & Rapalas 1.5" long, in perch pattern & Emerald Shiner. But the fact remains. The single gold blade WILL catch fish also in bright light levels .
cyclops2 reply :
Best times was........ Had 2 nice perch on a double spinner line . Rod bends down. Drag on the 4# roars strong.
Blues19 reply :
Its an interesting thought. I have never thought about it like this. I think if they are hungry they are going to eat whatever, But maybe if they see something that is not so realistic and an interesting color, maybe they bite it out of curiosity. Who knows what those little jokers think.
nascar2428 reply :
I caught hundreds of Bass last Summer using one bait. Is it realistic looking? Not to me, but the Bass obviously think it is. Senko's and all of its impostors all catch fish.
Matthew2000 reply :
Heron until you can literally see through a basses eyes no we don't know there are therories as to what because of the fishes behavior. They may not even see color like we do.
cyclops2 reply :
I think people do not separate the fact that a hungry fish goes RIGHT AFTER THE BIG NOISEY lure from a farther distance.
The 1/2" Flicker Spinner is not NEARLY as productive as my 8 to 14 " lures on large fish.
cyclops2 reply :
Perch ARE VERY canabalistic !! I have caught many 6" perch on the very skinny 8" Rapala floater. Real strikes 2 of 3 hooks in the little guys mouth.
Alonerankin2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:57 AM, scaleface said:Ive used them since about 78 also. We obviously have different experience. I still have a texas rig tied on 100 percent of the time but I catch a fraction of the fish with them as I use too. But this is off subject. Would make a good thread though.
I wouldn't disagree with it being off topic either, however in post #12 you brought up the plastic worm along with the educated largemouth bass.
So what level of education do you believe the largemouth bass has aquired to the point of plastic worms being more effective in the 70's & 80's?
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 8:33 AM, Matthew2000 said:Heron until you can literally see through a basses eyes no we don't know there are therories as to what because of the fishes behavior. They may not even see color like we do.
Actually they do see color...at least as good as we do, The conclusions about this actually are not based on behavior, but instead on the fish's biology and anatomy. Meaning, someone who gets paid to research these things, took a fish, pulled out its eyeball, sliced it open with a scalpel, and studied it under a microscope.
But youre more than welcome to express your concerns to any one of the fish biologists who study this species.
Also, when you get a chance, feel free to reference "rods and cones" and their importance in vision.
Catch and Grease reply :
Lol ^
Matthew2000 reply :
They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.
Alonerankin2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:23 AM, Catch and Grease said:Lol ^
Lol^^
RSM789 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 7:04 AM, scaleface said:I agree 100 percent. The 70's and 80's were much better times to catch fish on a plastic worm than todays educated fish.
There are a couple of things that make me think twice before I agree with that. First, in the 70's, nearly all bass that were caught were kept. That means the only fish left in a lake to reproduce had the disposition of being more difficult to catch. Now with the popularity of catch & release, the most gullible bass can get caught 30 times, yet still end up with old age being his cause of death. Having those willing to bite fish in the gene pool seems as if it may balance out the increased angling pressure.
Second, the plastic worms of today are a far cry from the Crème worms & Mann's jelly worms of the 1970's. I remember the first time I saw a Mister Twister worm with a 4" curly tail, I thought that I would catch every fish in my lake. With the addition of scent, specialized hooks, softer worms that the fish hang onto, tungsten sinkers and more sensitive line & equipment, catching a bass with a 6" plastic worm is much easier now. Remember how good you used to have to be to even feel a strike with a fiberglass rod, monofilament and a lead sinker?
I may be swayed by personal experience on this. I added up some totals for 2014 from my fish logs & over 1/3 of my bass were caught on T-rigged plastics, with another 1/3 caught on wacky rigged Senkos. Some of that may be experience I have gained over the years, but it sure seems like using plastic worms now (& catching bass) is much easier than it was 40 years ago.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:31 AM, Matthew2000 said:They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.
They do this with all species, son.
Well then.....since you had no prior knowledge of the science involved (until I brought it up) whatsoever....what is your basis for saying the science is flawed? How do you know what considerations were/were not accounted for?
You ask good questions, and the answers to those questions are available. So with that, now would be a good time for you to stop posting on here, for the time being, and go read some documentation on this subject. It would surely benefit your fishing.
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:31 AM, Matthew2000 said:They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.
I'm with you, I don't think fish squint there eyes in dust storms either...... 
Catch and Grease reply :
Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"
Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:44 AM, Catch and Grease said:Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"
Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.
Pleeeeze. There is no need for us to be biologists ourselves, so long as we are able to reference work that biologists have made available.
Besides, all of my nonsense is just regurgitated from what biologists and others have concluded from their studies.
cyclops2 reply :
....deleted
Catch and Grease reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:50 AM, Heron said:Pleeeeze. There is no need for us to be biologists ourselves, so long as we are able to reference work that biologists have made available.
Besides, all of my nonsense is just regurgitated from what biologists and others have concluded from their studies.
I'm not saying you have to be a biologist to believe in it, I'm saying you need to be a biologist to PREACH IT BROTHA!
RSM789 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 9:44 AM, Catch and Grease said:Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"
Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.
I may not be a biologist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:02 AM, RSM789 said:I may not be a biologist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...
You too? Nice.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:02 AM, Catch and Grease said:I'm not saying you have to be a biologist to believe in it, I'm saying you need to be a biologist to PREACH IT BROTHA!
Uhhh...no you dont.
Heron reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:05 AM, Heron said:Uhhh...no you dont.
Would you have preferred I began my statements with "According to fish biologists - Yes bass do see color"
MassBass reply :
In cloudy or murky water a bass' eyes is secondary to it's lateral line and detection of vibrations in the water column.
iabass8 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:02 AM, Catch and Grease said:I'm not saying you have to be a biologist to believe in it, I'm saying you need to be a biologist to PREACH IT BROTHA!
solid logic right here.....
aavery2 reply :
I say fish can see color all the way from the infrared spectrum to the ultraviolet spectrum. Prove me wrong.
cyclops2 reply :
They can not squint or wear UV A & B sunglasses !!
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:24 AM, cyclops2 said:They can not squint or wear UV A & B sunglasses !!
Now there is some realism for you, put that in your pipe and smoke it!!
Alonerankin2 reply :
According to Greek mythology cyclops can't see color, idk is this true?
Catch and Grease reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:29 AM, Alonerankin2 said:According to Greek mythology cyclops can't see color, idk is this true?
I read an article and a Greek mythologist said it was true! So it is true!! Don't listen to the hundreds of other Greek mythologist that may have different opinions!
Matthew2000 reply :
So heron what your saying is you read something off the internet so now your a biologist that speaks to fish about what colors they see. And to my other comment about the dust storms, I was referring to lakes being stirred up due to motors from boats and jet skis. Your evidence showed no actual publishing of any sort. But your going to ask about the science that I know? Bit hypocritical right there I stated a theory that I had and stated my purpose behind it. You stated something about human eyesight being comparable to a fishes. And you did not respond to the differnt conditions so I'm guessing you didn't think that one through. Now pleazzzzzzze
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:29 AM, Alonerankin2 said:According to Greek mythology cyclops can't see color, idk is this true?
I think that is correct, but they do have a highly developed lateral line, or is that a sub-cranial ridge, I always get those two mixed up.
Catch and Grease reply :
Well before the thread gets locked ill post this... Good read! You should give it a look heron...
http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/147612-how-bass-see-color/
Matthew2000 reply :
I hear when they reach a certain age they find a dark cave to sit in all day and tell people that they are smart.
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:49 AM, Matthew2000 said:I hear when they reach a certain age they find a dark cave to sit in all day and tell people that they are smart.
Keep catching bass like the one in your avatar and you can believe what ever you want.
Matthew2000 reply :
I'm not sure if that's an insult or not....
Matthew2000 reply :
This is me of those forums that was meant to start an argument, some like to argue for some reason
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:54 AM, Matthew2000 said:I'm not sure if that's an insult or not....
Where you from, Sumpter?
Matthew2000 reply :
Before SC I lived in Ohio. Now I live outside of rock hill about 20 minuets.
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:58 AM, Matthew2000 said:Before SC I lived in Ohio. Now I live outside of rock hill about 20 minuets.
You know where Socastee is?
Matthew2000 reply :
That looks a lot like sarcasm and through typing I can't tell. But if your being serious no clue.
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 11:03 AM, Matthew2000 said:That looks a lot like sarcasm and through typing I can't tell. But if your being serious no clue.
Conway, Myrtle Beach, Surfside, George Town, Murrel's Inlet. Near Coastal Carolina College and the Racetrack.
Matthew2000 reply :
Yep know those.
RSM789 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 10:56 AM, Matthew2000 said:This is me of those forums that was meant to start an argument, some like to argue for some reason
To paraphrase a Monty Python Skit "Not necessarily, maybe I was arguing on my free time"
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 11:12 AM, Matthew2000 said:Yep know those.
Those are my old stompin grounds.
Matthew2000 reply :
"Tis but a flesh wound" "bring out ya dead"
Matthew2000 reply :
I cannot imange being so close to all those places as a teenager... I would be in jail for something
scaleface reply :
LOL. I guess ill go to one of the whats your favert lure threads.
Matthew2000 reply :
Or you could try the kidnapped and dropped in the jungle but they give you your bass fishing gear and you just so happen to be carrying a machete and tomahawk in your shirt pocket forum.
aavery2 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 11:34 AM, scaleface said:LOL. I guess ill go to one of the whats your favert lure threads.
Get us back on track Scaleface, everyone was getting a little tense, now that everyone is loose again, lets talk realism.
deep reply :
Yeah good idea, let's talk realism.
First off, I think bigger bass are picky eaters (of lures), because in a normal reservoir, there's a lot of real food for them to chase and eat (or sit and eat).
You have to press the right buttons to get them to react (positively) to your bait. Realism to me is a total package; size, profile, color, action, presentation, etc. Everytime you press a wrong button, your chances of catching them goes down a little (or a lot).
It's amazing how some of the most realistic looking and amazingly swimming swimbaits do *not* have a good track record. "Certain vibrations are bad vibrations." (Yes, I stole that from Ken Huddleston's interview on STE). They are giving off some negative cues that turn fish off, for whatever reasons. I'm not a bass, so I won't know.
You have to find baits that create and sell the correct illusion. Does a jig really look like a crawfish? Does a worm look like anything you ever seen in the water? You can fish a totally wacky color, but as long as it sells the correct illusion, we're good.
cyclops2 reply :
Agree with BAD noise rattles.
hoosierbass07 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:13 AM, Heron said:Simply put....
In your experience, have you found that baits with the most realistic profiles/paintjobs/ etc. catch fish any better/bigger/more frequently, than baits that lack any level of realism in their design?
So far its been my experience that says, No. Ive come to figure that the fish typically know the difference between something like a fake craw, and a real craw. But the fish seem more likely to strike at baits that have more ambiguity to them, and will for instance, go for a bait that (for lack of a better term) creates the illusion of say, a craw.
What say you?
I 've been thinking about this topic the last few days. I've been thinking about lures that are very detailed and lures that are more plain and less detailed. In my two years of bass fishing so far, I think the more plain lures work far better than the more detailed. For instance, one of the most plain lures is the Senko/stick bait. Is there anything more plain than the shape of that? And yet it probably is the number one bass catching lure out there besides live bait. Then I have my two really big bass I caught last spring, both were on lures I didn't think would work at all and seemed sort of plain to me - a stiff El Grande lizard around five inches long and a Strike King KVD shad crankbait. I remember putting the lizard on my hook and thinking the whole thing was just too stiff with little movement. But I did end up catching my personal best at that time while using it on a split shot. I didn't think I would catch anything on that crankbait either but ended up catching my personal best. I found that crankabait to be rather plain/cheap looking. But it worked for me (in the spring). To me those two lures were plain and boring but they worked. Ok, they really only worked once the whole year, but they worked.
cyclops2 reply :
Great post 07.
Bass fishing is not like salt water fishing with lures. We do not get large schools of big bass to try 4 lures at once by 4 people at the same time.
hoosierbass07 reply :
On 1/8/2015 at 6:55 AM, Heron said:Im getting the impression, that when a fish has the chance to sit there and get a good look at the bait...the more realism that the bait is designed with, then the easier it is for the fish to tell that it is fake.
I think you are right. Doug Hannon talks about this subject in his Big Bass Magic book. To paraphrase - when fishing in daylight, bass have an easier time seeing the lure and telling the difference between live bait and a fake lure. So in the daylight use smaller lures or real bait. Use fake lures in darker situations like morning or evening or cloudy days. But in daylight - you better use small lures because it's hard to fool a bass with lots of day light.
Bill Murphy mentions something about this in his book too. He was talking about crankbaits and painting fancy patterns on them. He said, according him, instead of painting lures with exact details, paint them with slashes of color you are trying to imitate, but don't paint it image for image. Bass will be attracted more to the basic patterns more than an exact copy image.
SPEEDBEAD. reply :
I didn't notice a dramatic increase in the size of fish I catch until I started throwing realistic and larger baits.
Throw what makes you confident. I'm a firm believer that confidence in what you are doing is a bigger factor than what lure you select.
Preytorien reply :
I think I would mostly say it has to do with which of the bass's senses you're appealing to.
If you are going to appeal to the aggressive feeding nature of a bass, or your conditions see bass feeding aggressively, almost with no caution, they'll more than likely be attracted to the lure out of habit and nature.
If you're on a tough day or conditions where the bass may study your lure or have a good look at it (gin clear water), then realism probably plays a good part.
I've used too many odd looking lures that don't really resemble anything a bass would eat, and still caught them to believe that realism is at the top of the importance list. I still can't figure out what a jig (with no trailer), spinnerbait, buzzbait, tube jig, or chatterbait are supposed to resemble.....but rememeber, those are lures that are appealing to the ambush nature of the fish, not the fish's actual eyesight.
....and when all else fails, the ole' senko stumps me the most. Even if it were painted like a real worm and didn't have squared off ends.....how many bass actually see, know, and eat worms? But yet they produce like crazy.
cyclops2 reply :
Pike are great followers to a boat. I have tested with live perch & had them trail 4 times right to the boat. Same sized pike. Not all fish are hungry & stupid. He expended plenty of energy with the follows.
We have had fishing contests with just beer can rings & a hook. Not too bad of a body count.
rboat reply :
We all agree fish strike objects for many reasons, hunger, curiosity, just to kill something annoying or in the wrong territory, competition for food (eat it before some other fish gets it) etc. Not to add to the fire, but the worlds top ichthyologists really don't agree on what a fish sees whether it be, clarity, color, acuity, luminosity, or anything else and I doubt they ever will. I do believe in clear water something that moves and looks natural would have a better shot at a hunger induced strike. In off color water, I believe the fish use their other senses more in finding their food. I have seen guys who have an old lure that just always works. The paint is gone, eyes are gone, and it just looks like a piece of plastic with hooks. It is not realistic or natural, but it works. This is one of those one in a million lures that gives off the right sound or hydrodynamic wave or some type of movement that is perfect.
P.S. If you have one of those lures keep it protected, and don't try to improve it, or better yet,send to me for safe keeping! 
scaleface reply :
^^ I like looking through others tackle boxes for chewed up lures. Someone gave me a used Sammy top water , that lure's been through heck. I still dont know why he gave it away . I guess he had a new shiny one .
roadwarrior reply :
I'm a collector. I doubt that I have actually fished any more than 5% of my hard lures.
I love Megabass, especially the Ito Vision 110.
Matthew2000 reply :
^^ what!!
roadwarrior reply :
My obsession is jerkbaits. I collect several brands, but the Vision is my favorite. I probably have more LC
than any other brand and they are the most productive for me. Still, I'm drawn to the Vision 110, original and
FX series.
Matthew2000 reply :
You only use 5% of them! You either don't use jerk baits or you have a ton of em.
RoLo reply :
My experience dovetails with Heron's experience.
Back in the 50s a rash of plastic replicas flooded the market which were highly detailed 'dead-ringers'
of crayfish, shiners, crickets, salamanders, hellgrammites and more. Like a kid in a candy shop,
I fell hook, line & sinker, but truthfully I don't remember catching much of anything on them.
Yeah they had the look, but were made of tough plastic and lacked realistic action.
Sure enough, they all disappeared one-by-one.
The Yum Crawbug has been the most lifelike crayfish replication for the past 20 years, but is it popular?
The Zoom Pro Chunk, looks like a flat, steamrollered banner, but it far outsells the Yum Crawbug,
which I believe TW no longer carries.
All that said, I'd be the first sucker to pay more for any lure that boosted my confidence.
But based on past experience, superficial realism doesn't have much influence on my confidence.
If your lure enters the strike window of an active bass and it moves like a living creature, it's going down the hatch.
PS:
On the other hand, if your lake is teeming with those chartreuse & white creatures,
you know, the ones with the silver flappers and the tentacles in the rear:
then by all means 'match the hatch and tie on a spinnerbait 
Roger
cyclops2 reply :
What lures work in AUGUST HOT SUNNY days ? Now we separate the wanna bees.
Anything works on fish protecting a nest in a spawning area. That is not fishing. No skill required
iabass8 reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 7:35 AM, cyclops2 said:
Anything works on fish protecting a nest in a spawning area.
Factually, that is incorrect.
On 1/10/2015 at 7:35 AM, cyclops2 said:That is not fishing. No skill required
throwing a worm on a hook and tossing it under a bobber doesn't require skill either. It's still fishing.
cyclops2 reply :
O K
You catch more fish in August than fishing a spawning bed area ? I will give you 15 minutes in each place.
You are the MAN.
MassBass reply :
There is a phenomenon that I believe is relevant here. The more realistic something is, the more likely the fish will look at it and see its flaws. Storm used to make a craw tube that was precisely realistic, however they did not work good and are out of my tacklebag. The more closely an imposter tries to mimic something, the more its' flaws are obvious. If you follow me.
iabass8 reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 7:51 AM, cyclops2 said:O K
You catch more fish in August than fishing a spawning bed area ?
I didn't say I catch more fish in August than a spawning area. I simply pointed out how your statements that "spawning bass will bite anything, they are easy to catch, and it is not fishing" are factually incorrect.
On 1/10/2015 at 7:51 AM, cyclops2 said:
I will give you 15 minutes in each place.
I appreciate the invitation. Unfortunately, I have no desire to visit New Jersey.
On 1/10/2015 at 7:51 AM, cyclops2 said:
You are the MAN.
Thanks bro!
Matthew2000 reply :
Good luck getting into a debate with iabass... Mine lasted 3 days in the end I was wrong but it was about football.
Heron reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 7:13 AM, RoLo said:My experience dovetails with Heron's experience.
Back in the 50s a rash of plastic replicas flooded the market which were highly detailed 'dead-ringers'
of crayfish, shiners, crickets, salamanders, hellgrammites and more. Like a kid in a candy shop,
I fell hook, line & sinker, but truthfully I don't remember catching much of anything on them.
Sure enough, they all disappeared one-by-one.
The Yum Crawbug has been the most lifelike crayfish replication for the past 20 years, but is it popular?
The Zoom Pro Chunk, looks like a flat, steamrollered banner, but it far outsells the Yum Crawbug,
which I believe TW no longer carries.
All that said, I'd be the first sucker to pay more for any lure that boosted my confidence.
But based on past experience, superficial realism doesn't have much influence on my confidence.
If your lure enters the strike window of an active bass and it moves like a living creature, it's going down the hatch.
PS:
On the other hand, if your lake is teeming with those chartreuse & white creatures,
you know, the ones with the silver flappers and the tentacles in the rear:
then by all means 'match the hatch and tie on a spinnerbait
Roger
Fish here like shiny flappers wearing short skirts.
Heron reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 8:24 AM, Heron said:Fish here like shiny flappers wearing short skirts.
Most of them must be males.
Mattlures reply :
Realistic baits will out fish non realistic baits probably at least 10 to 1 when it comes to big bass.
Here is the thing though. Many guys think a bait looks realistic to them because it has some details or a good paint job but it is still far from realistic. 99% of most cranks and similar baits are not realistic at all even though they may have a photo finish. They still look like a lure and not a fish. It would be like painting a picture of a Ferrari on the side of truck and expecting people to think its a Ferrari. No its still a truck. I will use the Huddleston as my example. Here is a bait that actually is realistic. Its looks like a trout. Its the correct SHAPE, SIZE, and COLOR. When bass eat that bait I am pretty sure they think they are eating a real trout. Its not a reaction bite. They are feeding. That bait is realistic and its results speak for themselves.
The biggest problem with this argument is guys comparing a regular crank bait to one with a realistic looking paint job. The truth is neither one of them is realistic at all so they produce similar results. If you want to debate the effectiveness of realism then choose a bait that looks like a real fish, swims like a real fish, is the correct size of that fish and realistic paint job. Then you will see how effective realistic lures can be. Consider this. I make a couple baits that are made for dead sticking. They just float on the surface, with none or very little action by the fisherman. They get bit by big bass based soley on their realism. Most bites are slow and deliberate. I have seen it many times, The bass will slowly swim to the front of the bait and eat it head first. The bait is not being worked. its just floating. Its the realism that fools those fish.
For all regular non realistic, non swimbait lures. I think that simple patterns work as well or better then a detailed finish.
Heron reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 9:15 AM, Mattlures said:Realistic baits will out fish non realistic baits probably at least 10 to 1 when it comes to big bass.
Here is the thing though. Many guys think a bait looks realistic to them because it has some details or a good paint job but it is still far from realistic. 99% of most cranks and similar baits are not realistic at all even though they may have a photo finish. They still look like a lure and not a fish. It would be like painting a picture of a Ferrari on the side of truck and expecting people to think its a Ferrari. No its still a truck. I will use the Huddleston as my example. Here is a bait that actually is realistic. Its looks like a trout. Its the correct SHAPE, SIZE, and COLOR. When bass eat that bait I am pretty sure they think they are eating a real trout. Its not a reaction bite. They are feeding. That bait is realistic and its results speak for themselves.
The biggest problem with this argument is guys comparing a regular crank bait to one with a realistic looking paint job. The truth is neither one of them is realistic at all so they produce similar results. If you want to debate the effectiveness of realism then choose a bait that looks like a real fish, swims like a real fish, is the correct size of that fish and realistic paint job. Then you will see how effective realistic lures can be. Consider this. I make a couple baits that are made for dead sticking. They just float on the surface, with none or very little action by the fisherman. They get bit by big bass based soley on their realism. Most bites are slow and deliberate. I have seen it many times, The bass will slowly swim to the front of the bait and eat it head first. The bait is not being worked. its just floating. Its the realism that fools those fish.
For all regular non realistic, non swimbait lures. I think that simple patterns work as well or better then a detailed finish.
I agree with much of this. Certainly realism would require much more than just a nice paint job. I also wonder how much accuracy in the bait's movement also contributes to its success.
But in your experience, do you have the same conclusion about say, craw baits (if you use them)? Have you noticed anything that shows a craw bait design of high realism (like maybe a Huddlebug, 3D Craw, etc.) produce more than a caw bait that is not realistic at all?
Matthew2000 reply :
My matt lures ripped 
Mattlures reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 9:48 AM, Matthew2000 said:My matt lures ripped
Its a soft bait. Ripping does happen with all soft baits. Get your self some Mend-it and you can fix all your ripped soft baits many times.
Mattlures reply :
On 1/10/2015 at 9:33 AM, Heron said:I agree with much of this. Certainly realism would require much more than just a nice paint job. I also wonder how much accuracy in the bait's movement also contributes to its success.
But in your experience, do you have the same conclusion about say, craw baits (if you use them)? Have you noticed anything that shows a craw bait design of high realism (like maybe a Huddlebug, 3D Craw, etc.) produce more than a caw bait that is not realistic at all?
I would rather use a simple jig then a craw bait but I bet a Huddle bug would out fish most of the other realistic craw baits. Where I fish using live dads is legal so I would rather use a live craw. Trout, bluegill, baby bass etc. are illegal so I use the closest thing I can buy or make.
Matthew2000 reply :
Already did that 5 or 6 times, it's beyond repair it served me well though.
J Francho reply :
The bigger and slower I go, the more realism I want. Realism can be defined in many ways.
RB 77 reply :
Sometimes it will add a huge advantage. Other times it makes no diffrerence at all. I have found it to be very situational and can apply to both reaction and non-reaction strikes alike.
related Fishing Tackle topic
previous topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.