Behavioral Differences Between Bass Species 2024
coryn h. fishowl reply :
Now, most people know certain specific behavioral differences such as smallmouth bass more often going for crawfish and living in clearer deeper, cooler water and being more streamlined while largemouth have a more varied diet etc. So what are some species specific behavioral differences you've noticed, e.g. fastest bass (I would say smallmouth), which one more often chases fish (SM)/most commonly ambushes (LM), aggressiveness (LM are overall more aggressive, SM fight more aggressively), strength, diet etc? What are some interesting things you've noted in specific differences in groups of bass; perhaps bass in one region prefer crawfish more, or you've one species has a faster cruising speed than another or strikes differently than another?
I personally have just learned that NE bass are less likely to strike (brightly colored) salamander baits because the real thing, inn that area, is usually poisonous.
Go wild
WRB reply :
There are several different species of fresh water black bass, the most common being Spotted bass, Smallmouth bass and Largemouth bass, Both Spotted and Largemouth have 2 different strains that affect size and prey preferences.
Spotted and Smallmouth bass are river bass that live in both rivers and lakes, both behave as if they live in moving water and tend to roam a lot looking for prey. Largemouth are lake bass, tend to stay in one area, and move during migrational periods and don't roam by nature.
Largemouth bass eat a wider variety of prey because they can with a larger mouth. All bass like to eat crawdads and baitfish, they are a predators that adapt to the ecosystem they live in.
Both Spots and Smallies spawn in colder water than Largemouth and tend to like gravel bottoms, where Largemouth are not as particular, preferring more sheltered areas.
Could go on for several pages, this should get you started.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/27/2013 at 12:41 PM, WRB said:There are several different species of fresh water black bass, the most common being Spotted bass, a small mouth bass and largemouth bass, Both Spotted and Largemouth have 2 different strains that affect size and prey preferences.
Spotted and Smallmouth bass are river bass that live in both rivers and lakes, both behave as if they live in moving water andctendcto roam a lot looking for prey. Largemouth are lake bass, tend to stay in one area, and move during migration all periods, they don't roam by nature.
Largemouth bass eat a wider variety of prey because they can with a larger mouth. All bass like to eat crawdads and baitfish, they are a predators that adapt to the ecosystem they live in.
Both Spots and Smallies spawn in colder water than Largemouth and tend to like gravel bottoms, where Largemouth are not as particular, preferring more sheltered areas.
Could go on for several pages, this should get you started.
Tom
I'm quite familiar with this myself. I was asking rather, if anyone has noticed anyone specific differences in groups of bass; perhaps bass in one region prefer crawfish more, or that they've noticed one species has a faster cruising speed than another or how NE bass are less likely to strike (brightly colored) salamander baits because the real thing, inn that area, is usually poisonous.
Bluebasser86 reply :
Bass will behave differently between lakes also, depending on cover and prey species. One lake I fish a lot the largemouth are the ones that cruise in schools over open water chasing baitfish, while the smallmouth stay on the banks chasing bluegill and craws. Some places they act very similar. I've had trips at Table Rock where I've caught all 3 off the same spot on the same bait.
Largemouth seem to be the only one I've ever caught in any real numbers in portions of lakes that stay very muddy. Smallmouth are probably the fastest and I'd argue the most aggressive, when they are actively feeding.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
A friend of mine recently noticed that at a lake he fished, during summer, after a cold front would sweep through, and the shallows would get foggy, the LM left and SM came in. Myself wanting to be a wildlife biologist/animal behaviorist, this was a neat nut to crack. I realized than the temp/ barometric pressure would have been uncomfortable for bass and bluegill who would leave the shallows, one following the other. With competition gone SM would then go to the most crawfish/minnow rich portion of the lake...the shallows that the big mouths were leaving. The largemouth fed mostly on the numerous meal sized bluegill, channel cats, frogs and even garter snakes in that area, while mostly ignoring the crawfish/minnows that SM seemed to seek. (I assume because they found those to be a less rewarding food source and because the crawfish were markedly more active during foggy times, probably because the overall numbers of predators had suddenly dropped.) Afterwards, when temps went up and the fog cleared, the largemouth chased away smallies who returned to deeper areas with different forage.
WRB reply :
All amphibians have poisionous skin secretions, frogs, salamanders, newts and bass eat them without any problems. The critters that don't learn from mistakes, don't survive.
Prey preference is usually a matter if availability, bass prefer high protein prey that is nearby, easy to catch and abundant. Genetically some bass species are better suited to catch and eat different types of prey. For example Florida strain LMB prefer baitfish in the shape of golden shiners; long slender baitfish over shorter wider baitfish. When FLMB were transplanted into California lakes, no golden shiners were available and planted rainbow trout filled that niche. The northern LMB in the same lakes tend to ignor planted rainbow trout, preferring to eat smaller Threadfin shad, bluegill, crappie, green sunfish. Both FLMB and NLMB targeted crawdads in the same lakes they shared.
Then consider the method the different bass species go about hunting and eating prey. Smallmouth and Spotted bass are more selective hunters than LMB and faster stronger swimmers covering more water than LMB. Spotted and Smallmouth bass tend to dash into bait schools, LMB tend to heard them into feeding zones before attacking. LMB engulf prey in one gulp, both Spotted And Smallmouth tend to bite their prey first.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/27/2013 at 11:48 PM, WRB said:All amphibians have poisionous skin secretions, frogs, salamanders, newts and bass eat them without any problems. The critters that don't learn from mistakes, don't survive.
Actually, given that poison is very metabolically expensive to make, very few utilize them. Far more however, mimic poisonous ones, but this is a double edged sword. As poisonous animals are usually colorful, the mimics must be also, and any predator that has not tangled with a toxic creature (which is likely, given that due to the metabolic price, toxic amphibians have generally few offspring) would eat them. Most amphibians are fine with using camouflage, and given that much of their metabolic efforts are not focused on making toxins, will grow faster/larger e.g. an non toxic eatern hellbender is non toxic and larger, the poisonous spotted salamander are much smaller. The NE has a particularly high # of poisonous salamanders such as Spotted salamanders, so if usind lizard baits in that regions, I would stick with pumpkinseed colored baits.
DocBar reply :
Wouldn't a better title be "Behavioral Differences in Species Between Regions"? I grew up fishing in SE Texas, where there weren't a lot of SM, but any bass would nail a crawfish anything. I'm now in El Centro, Ca. and these bass don;t know what a crawfish is. 6 months fishing, not a single bite on a craw anything. Lot's of fish on a Rapala CD 7 or 9 in brown trout (they stock brown trout in this pond every spring) that a fish from SE Texas would look at funny. There just aren't any brown trout there. It looks funny/odd to them.
Paying attention to local forage is much more productive than behavior of a certain species of bass. They will all eat basically the same thing. I've never seen one spit out a shad to go eat a crawfish or vice versa. I have seen them ignore something that doesn't appear to be their natural prey for the location.
hoosierbass07 reply :
Today I bought some In-Fisherman DVDs on sale at Gander Mountain. I watched a couple tonight and one short segment was about the differences of LMB in different regions. One thing I remember them saying is that Illinois LMB were transplanted to Minnesota lakes and not one survived Minnesota's cold winter weather. So as one would assume, northern bass keep eating at a cold temperature that would shut down southern bass.
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
NE bass are less likely to strike (brightly colored) salamander baits because the real thing, inn that area, is usually poisonous.
Hard to believe bass have the intelligence to know the difference between poisonous and non-poisinous. I've caught LM on bright colored lizards and spotted Mr Twister salamanders for years.
KyakR reply :
Found this fascinating article about how environmental pressure from human beings is changing the behavior of bass:
"Although a great deal of effort has been expended to try to understand the consequences of fishing-induced selection by commercial fisheries, relatively little effort has been put into trying to understand the selective effects of recreational angling. We conducted a long-term selection experiment to assess the heritability of vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Three successive generations of artificially selected largemouth bass were produced from a single experimental study population. Within each generation, individual adult largemouth bass were identified as having either high or low vulnerability to angling through a series of controlled catch-and-release angling trials. Individuals of each vulnerability group (high and low) were then selected from that population for breeding to produce the next generation. The response to selection for vulnerability to angling increased with each generation; that is, the magnitude of the difference between the high- and low-vulnerability groups of fish increased with each successive generation. Realized heritability was calculated as 0.146 (r 2 = 0.995), indicating that the vulnerability of largemouth bass to angling is indeed a heritable trait. Our results indicate that recreational angling has the potential to alter the gene pool of wild fish populations, which may indirectly affect population characteristics such as survival, growth rate, and reproductive output as well as directly affecting angling success rates." Wow!
slonezp reply :
On 10/28/2013 at 11:59 PM, KyakR said:Found this fascinating article about how environmental pressure from human beings is changing the behavior of bass:
"Although a great deal of effort has been expended to try to understand the consequences of fishing-induced selection by commercial fisheries, relatively little effort has been put into trying to understand the selective effects of recreational angling. We conducted a long-term selection experiment to assess the heritability of vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Three successive generations of artificially selected largemouth bass were produced from a single experimental study population. Within each generation, individual adult largemouth bass were identified as having either high or low vulnerability to angling through a series of controlled catch-and-release angling trials. Individuals of each vulnerability group (high and low) were then selected from that population for breeding to produce the next generation. The response to selection for vulnerability to angling increased with each generation; that is, the magnitude of the difference between the high- and low-vulnerability groups of fish increased with each successive generation. Realized heritability was calculated as 0.146 (r 2 = 0.995), indicating that the vulnerability of largemouth bass to angling is indeed a heritable trait. Our results indicate that recreational angling has the potential to alter the gene pool of wild fish populations, which may indirectly affect population characteristics such as survival, growth rate, and reproductive output as well as directly affecting angling success rates." Wow!
Who is "we" and "our"? Are they a credible source?
KyakR reply :
Actually, there is a bit of academic snippiness about this issue.......here's the link to the abstract ( American Fisheries Transaction Soc.) 
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/28/2013 at 10:00 PM, SENKOSAM said:Hard to believe bass have the intelligence to know the difference between poisonous and non-poisinous. I've caught LM on bright colored lizards and spotted Mr Twister salamanders for years.
However true that may be, I'd rather go with pumpkinseed though
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
However true that may be, I'd rather go with pumpkinseed though
You and me both.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/28/2013 at 11:59 PM, KyakR said:Found this fascinating article about how environmental pressure from human beings is changing the behavior of bass:
"Although a great deal of effort has been expended to try to understand the consequences of fishing-induced selection by commercial fisheries, relatively little effort has been put into trying to understand the selective effects of recreational angling. We conducted a long-term selection experiment to assess the heritability of vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Three successive generations of artificially selected largemouth bass were produced from a single experimental study population. Within each generation, individual adult largemouth bass were identified as having either high or low vulnerability to angling through a series of controlled catch-and-release angling trials. Individuals of each vulnerability group (high and low) were then selected from that population for breeding to produce the next generation. The response to selection for vulnerability to angling increased with each generation; that is, the magnitude of the difference between the high- and low-vulnerability groups of fish increased with each successive generation. Realized heritability was calculated as 0.146 (r 2 = 0.995), indicating that the vulnerability of largemouth bass to angling is indeed a heritable trait. Our results indicate that recreational angling has the potential to alter the gene pool of wild fish populations, which may indirectly affect population characteristics such as survival, growth rate, and reproductive output as well as directly affecting angling success rates." Wow!
Fascinating but not entirely unprecedented as it has been proven that does have a (however limited) effect on the health of a fish. Therefore, a fish that has never been caught would likely be slightly more fit than its easily caught counterpart. This is without even mentioning that some with will inevitably die from the stress of being caught. Natural Selection will whittle down any genetic predispositions toward habits that endanger the health/ability to sire more offspring. Fascinating Watson!!
Brian Needham reply :
On 10/28/2013 at 11:59 PM, KyakR said:Found this fascinating article about how environmental pressure from human beings is changing the behavior of bass:
"Although a great deal of effort has been expended to try to understand the consequences of fishing-induced selection by commercial fisheries, relatively little effort has been put into trying to understand the selective effects of recreational angling. We conducted a long-term selection experiment to assess the heritability of vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Three successive generations of artificially selected largemouth bass were produced from a single experimental study population. Within each generation, individual adult largemouth bass were identified as having either high or low vulnerability to angling through a series of controlled catch-and-release angling trials. Individuals of each vulnerability group (high and low) were then selected from that population for breeding to produce the next generation. The response to selection for vulnerability to angling increased with each generation; that is, the magnitude of the difference between the high- and low-vulnerability groups of fish increased with each successive generation. Realized heritability was calculated as 0.146 (r 2 = 0.995), indicating that the vulnerability of largemouth bass to angling is indeed a heritable trait. Our results indicate that recreational angling has the potential to alter the gene pool of wild fish populations, which may indirectly affect population characteristics such as survival, growth rate, and reproductive output as well as directly affecting angling success rates." Wow!
allow me to simplify..............the stupid ones got caught. Then "we" made them inbreed to make "stupider" fish that got caught more. LOL
WRB reply :
It's the opposite. The most aggressive bass get caught, the less aggressive and more cautious bass servive. In a few generations we end up a population of bass that are harder to fool with artifical lures.
FLMB are less aggressive than NLMB, in the lakes that have or had where I have bass fished over 50 year period. In the early years the FLMB were thought to be uncatchable on artifical lures, only live bait worked.
In the San Diego lakes the bass anglers in the know, like Bill Murphy, were live bait specialist. Being a diehard lure angler I spent a lot of time trying to catch FLMB on lures. I learned a lot bout fishing live bait and the SD guys learned how to use big soft plastic worms and jigs. At the end of the day we shared and learned together that FLMB were different from the bass we knew, the agressive eaier to catch NLMB.
The vast majority if the country has NLMB because FLMB can!t survive water less than 45 degrees. Texas/Oklahoma has tied to genetically alter the FLMB to have a lower water temp tolerance, don't believe it was a success.
If you want to catch FLMB that grow over 15 lbs., your choice is warmer climates. Be aware these bass are not easy to catch on lures.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
Tom, my comment was more tongue in cheek, joking more than anything.
WRB reply :
No problem, it's getting harder to find those retarded bass!On 10/29/2013 at 11:50 AM, Brian Needham said:Tom, my comment was more tongue in cheek, joking more than anything.
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
The most aggressive bass get caught, the less aggressive and more cautious bass survive. In a few generations we end up a population of bass that are harder to fool with artificial lures.
A far less accepted view would be that bass never believe an artificial is a real representation of anything it eats or that it was exposed to for the first time. Remember the Glen Lau video of the bass taking down the duckling by its leg? Remember an event where a large California bass was found to have diver's weights in its stomach?
Fish are stupid and on a scale of intelligence as compared to higher forms, ranks right down there with insects and as with insects have reflexes and instincts to help them survive. But unlike mammals with reflexes and instincts, a bass does not have the mental capacity to think beyond them, mental being the key word. If it did, it would have characteristics that demonstrate some sort of intelligence instead of simple neurological activity.
To put this into a fish's simple response-to-artificials perspective, if one considers the possibility that a bass is not capable of knowing what an artificial represents but instead simply reacts because the lure pushes it's aggression buttons, than an angler may chose what lure characteristics work best at what time of day or year and how the lure is presented. The best anglers figured this out the first time they switched from one lure type and action to another and caught bass.
Relating this to the idea that a bass always thinks a lure is one thing but then rejects it because it's not part of its diet-of-the-moment, suggests that it is capable of thoughtful choice, like that of a child refusing to eat peas but not candy. But, IMO, a bass will always opt to eat a real life form (strange or familiar) because its instincts and body tell it to by whatever physiological means it has that far surpass anything a human has minus the power of a complex brain.
Quote
Physiologically, the function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body. The brain acts on the rest of the body both by generating patterns of muscle activity and by driving the secretion of chemicals called hormones. This centralized control allows rapid and coordinated responses to changes in the environment. Some basic types of responsiveness such as reflexes can be mediated by the spinal cord or peripheral ganglia, but sophisticated purposeful control of behavior based on complex sensory input requires the information-integrating capabilities of a centralized brain.From a philosophical point of view, what makes the brain special in comparison to other organs is that it forms the physical structure associated with a mind.
Intelligence requires the possession of a mind. Bass don't have minds but rather reflexes that get them into trouble when they slowly or instantly react to an artifical lure. We think of all reflexive action as instantaneous and confuse it with voluntary action - defined as
Quotean anticipated, but not necessarily conscious, goal-orientated movement. This psychological concept is part of cognitive psychology that is associated with consciousness and will.
I'm convinced from years of catching bass on artificials that reflexive and involuntary actions intersect, but only when it comes to artificial lures, but that reflexive and voluntary actions happen when a bass's senses confirms a thing is alive and edible.
In the same sense (no pun), a bass voluntarily rejects something based on a set of senses that easily determine real life, but at the same time attack an object that forces it to react but not necessarily feed on based on it being irritated by its presence.
An obvious example would be to place a real crawfish near a bass and at the same time, a jig with craw-type trailer. Which would the bass go for? I don't care if KVD was working the jig - the craw would be consumed and the jig ignored. On the other hand, picture prey being in abundance near a bass, but all of a sudden a jig hits bottom, begins to moves on or off the bottom and bang! a bass attacks! Did it hit because for one moment it believed the lure a real crawfish? Did nearby bass learn the lesson from seeing a bass being caught on it that jigs should always be avoided? Doubtful.
Do bass in a feeding frenzy attack lures that appear similar to what they are feeding on - usually other fish regardless of species? I've been fortunate to catch bass schooled within casting distance on different lure types and still caught bass after bass. A higher aggression level made the fish strike, yet its simple brain didn't warn it to avoid lures that took fish out of the school or that a worm is not a fish.
The above makes lure choice a no-brainer, pun intended.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/29/2013 at 7:18 PM, SENKOSAM said:A far less accepted view would be that bass never believe an artificial is a real representation of anything it eats or that it was exposed to for the first time. Remember the Glen Lau video of the bass taking down the duckling by its leg? Remember an event where a large California bass was found to have diver's weights in its stomach?
Fish are stupid and on a scale of intelligence as compared to higher forms, ranks right down there with insects and as with insects have reflexes and instincts to help them survive. But unlike mammals with reflexes and instincts, a bass does not have the mental capacity to think beyond them, mental being the key word. If it did, it would have characteristics that demonstrate some sort of intelligence instead of simple neurological activity.
To put this into a fish's simple response-to-artificials perspective, if one considers the possibility that a bass is not capable of knowing what an artificial represents but instead simply reacts because the lure pushes it's aggression buttons, than an angler may chose what lure characteristics work best at what time of day or year and how the lure is presented. The best anglers figured this out the first time they switched from one lure type and action to another and caught bass.
Relating this to the idea that a bass always thinks a lure is one thing but then rejects it because it's not part of its diet-of-the-moment, suggests that it is capable of thoughtful choice, like that of a child refusing to eat peas but not candy. But, IMO, a bass will always opt to eat a real life form (strange or familiar) because its instincts and body tell it to by whatever physiological means it has that far surpass anything a human has minus the power of a complex brain.
Intelligence requires the possession of a mind. Bass don't have minds but rather reflexes that get them into trouble when they slowly or instantly react to an artifical lure. We think of all reflexive action as instantaneous and confuse it with voluntary action - defined as
I'm convinced from years of catching bass on artificials that reflexive and involuntary actions intersect, but only when it comes to artificial lures, but that reflexive and voluntary actions happen when a bass's senses confirms a thing is alive and edible.
In the same sense (no pun), a bass voluntarily rejects something based on a set of senses that easily determine real life, but at the same time attack an object that forces it to react but not necessarily feed on based on it being irritated by its presence.
An obvious example would be to place a real crawfish near a bass and at the same time, a jig with craw-type trailer. Which would the bass go for? I don't care if KVD was working the jig - the craw would be consumed and the jig ignored. On the other hand, picture prey being in abundance near a bass, but all of a sudden a jig hits bottom, begins to moves on or off the bottom and bang! a bass attacks! Did it hit because for one moment it believed the lure a real crawfish? Did nearby bass learn the lesson from seeing a bass being caught on it that jigs should always be avoided? Doubtful.
Do bass in a feeding frenzy attack lures that appear similar to what they are feeding on - usually other fish regardless of species? I've been fortunate to catch bass schooled within casting distance on different lure types and still caught bass after bass. A higher aggression level made the fish strike, yet its simple brain didn't warn it to avoid lures that took fish out of the school or that a worm is not a fish.
The above makes lure choice a no-brainer, pun intended.
Make no mistake, I have had extensive experience with fish, (aquariums) and somethings need not represent a natural food item for it to be found attractive. Think, for a moment, the first time a LMB encounters something that will become a food source, for example, a bluegill. At that point the bass does not know that bluegills are food...and yet it strike. It simply has to look like a potential meal. For example, a Senko looks like nothing in a bass' diet, and yet... The downside is that something like a spinnerbait, that mimics nothing in a bass' diet that it can be burnt out; as opposed to something like a fluke, which, mimicking a wounded baitfish, won't get burnt out as easily because it mimics something a bass regularly eats.
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
the first time a LMB encounters something that will become a food source, for example, a bluegill. At that point the bass does not know that bluegills are food...and yet it strike. It simply has to look like a potential meal.
I would go one step further - it also has to feel, move, taste of and smell alive - or in other words, sense provoking. I believe a bass is wired to know the difference between realistic looking lures and a live protein source it's supposed to simulate, never confusing the two in the wild. Plus I agree with your statement,
Quote
somethings need not represent a natural food item for it to be found attractive.
I'll go one step further: Some lures have unique characteristics that simulate the action of a prey animal regardless of overall appearance (ie spinnerbait in your example); other lure actions primarily just make them take notice and challenge them by being a bit too flashy in appearance or motions within their zones of aggression.
The fluke and Mann's Shadow are perfect examples of action simulations close to those of minnows. The waddle of swimbaits simulate that of a cat fish/ mad tom. The quiver/flash of a 3" Rapala (in the right hands) simulates that of a minnow in it's last gasps near the surface, while the suspending X-Rap simulates something different - a fish pausing mid-depth. Granted, these simulations of actions and motion may not be convincing to a bass that the lure is a real animal, but simulated actions can't hurt when bass are already primed for action, needing that extra push. Finesse lures and their presentations are mostly successful due to live bait action-simulations and anglers buy many of the most expensive plugs because they excel at providing that something that triggers a response when worked slowly.
Sudden reflex responses don't require finesse and highly unrealistic looking and moving lures fit into a lure category that challenges a bass, raising its aggression level in the shortest period of time. Fast moving, wide-wobble crankbaits and burned, large willow leaf spinnerbaits don't give a fish time to raise its aggression level slowly and multiple strikes sometimes happen in the same area (but only when the time is right to use those lures).
Nice talking to you coryn along the lines of conjecture based on experience . Fish aren't logical, but anglers should be, though many are very successful believing conventional reasons fish strike lures. I haven't taught my grandkids those reasons and they do very well catching fish near their casts on lures that may or may not simulate. After seeing a worm squirm on the hook, they will never use live bait again!
KyakR reply :
Tom made a comment on another thread about the transition of LMB from eating phytoplankton when fry to eating other fish (he called it piscivory)......how fish that make that transition earlier than the others are more successful survivors. It blows me away how many factors interact to produce a certain behavior in any animal! It's a beautiful thing! The article I quoted perked my ears up because it made a connection between actual genes and one behavior without elaborating on what genes and how they work to influence behavior. The idea that LMB's genes actually change in response to us was new to me. But SENKOSAM clarified this when he pointed out that because bass don't exactly have much between the ears (?), reflexive and instinctual behavior are in the driver's seat, and these are powerfully mediated by genes. I'm wonky by nature, and love to read.....but though I have years on the water I never had a teacher to point out the big picture and help me connect the dots. That makes all the difference, no matter that I can read the science. So here's another one, he he 
WRB reply :
What gets over looked with animals we base preconceived ideas about, like memory and brain size is geneic instinct. You don't teach a bird dog to hunt birds, they are genetically wired to hunt birds and all we do is teach them to behave in a manner we want them to.
Animals like bass must learn instantly where to find food and what food is, they are also part of the food chain and must learn that fact quickly. This learning ability is survival instinct, if they don't have it, they don't survive.
The soft plastic worm doesn't give off many negative signals to bass, the only negatives are color, line, hook, weight , unnatural smells and movements. What has and continues to happen is a specific size, shape and color combination becomes the "hot" worm for a season or two, then dies off. Perfect example was the green weenie era or worms. We had green weenies in red, black, blue flakes, light and dark green, light and dark brown. Today it's pumpkin or watermelon, not a combination of 2 colors that is the " hot" worm. What happened to the green weenie? Why did bass everywhere stop eating it? Did anglers tire of catching bass on weenies or did the bass learn to avoid it.
Tom
PS, the DeFresco bass is part of the world record bass legacy. This 21.1 bass, including the 2.5 lb diving weight was identicle to a 19.8 lb bass caught at Miramar lake a few days earlier. The 2.5 lb diving weight was subtracted from this bass and stands at 19.1. Fraud was never proven.....
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
This learning ability is survival instinct, if they don't have it, they don't survive.
I don't think learning to survive is applicable since the survival instinct is already part of an animal's DNA encoding. It doesn't need to learn to feed or be coached by it's parents - it automatically begins feeding after it's hatched and automatically increases the size of its prey as it get older and larger. As far as finding sources of food, it may just hang out waiting for prey to come to it, run with schools or migrate a distance where it senses prey will be. Patterns consist of anglers learning which choice a population of bass chooses to be near a food source in a specific water.
QuoteThe soft plastic worm doesn't give off many negative signals to bass, the only negatives are color, line, hook, weight , unnatural smells and movements.
When noting negatives of a bait (and you mentioned quite a few!), many anglers don't take into account the simple fact that BASS SIMPLY DON'T CARE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE INCAPABLE. Why do they inhale a plastic worm or any other slow moving bait they have a long time to study and think about? Fact is nothing in their DNA gives them any cognitive ability and their instinct for survival only goes so far and in fact falls far short when it comes to animals that prey on them and anglers that hunt them.
When a color or bait seems to catch less bass,
Quote
did anglers tire of catching bass on weenies or did the bass learn to avoid it?
The first statement IMO is far more likely, the second one never proven in a large sample of waters by a large number of experienced bass anglers. Keith Jones in Knowing Bass gives a plausible explanation plastic worms and minnow shaped lures work:
Quote
As primary piscivores, bass are predisposed to seek objects with the long body style of prey fish. Other anatomical details such as appendages likely play a secondary role. Inborn tendencies are not unknown in the science of animal behavior. Many species come equipped with instinctive behaviors that are released by the appearance of specific key stimuli. The relationship between the instinctive behavior and its stimulus is like that between a lock and key.
and
Quote
Natural is a human term, not a bass term.Whether the shape is natural or unnatural is of no consequence. Anglers would do better to focus on the features of shape that activate strike behavior and then exploit those features for greater effect.
Back to color preference:
Quote
There is no consensus among bass anglers (or bass) that one color is reliably better than all others at all times and places. All pure colors and color patterns score the same. If bass have a favorite color, they're keeping it a secret. The ease with which bass can spot a lure against the prevailing background, lure detectability, is often more important than the lure's color.
Another factor Jones mentions is the importance of lure size range. Some bass prefer lures in a size range on the small side, others respond to a range of larger sizes, but any bass may hit any one size lure, small, medium or large, anytime conditions are ideal outside the range.
All of the above give me reasons to chose certain baits in certain colors, none having to do with a non-existent fish intelligence so many believe exists. Lock & key, like binary computer code - on or off, makes more sense when it comes to lure success.
Catt reply :
KyakR, couple questions
Was y'all research done in the wild?
Would it not stand to reason that if your research was true we would soon no longer be able to catch bass because they would simply stop hitting lures?
Catt reply :
WRB, Please explain Black-N-Blue Jigs?
Also explain why bird dogs instinctively know how to hunt but bass have to learn how to hunt?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/29/2013 at 10:07 PM, SENKOSAM said:I would go one step further - it also has to feel, move, taste of and smell alive - or in other words, sense provoking. I believe a bass is wired to know the difference between realistic looking lures and a live protein source it's supposed to simulate, never confusing the two in the wild. Plus I agree with your statement,
I'll go one step further: Some lures have unique characteristics that simulate the action of a prey animal regardless of overall appearance (ie spinnerbait in your example); other lure actions primarily just make them take notice and challenge them by being a bit too flashy in appearance or motions within their zones of aggression.
The fluke and Mann's Shadow are perfect examples of action simulations close to those of minnows. The waddle of swimbaits simulate that of a cat fish/ mad tom. The quiver/flash of a 3" Rapala (in the right hands) simulates that of a minnow in it's last gasps near the surface, while the suspending X-Rap simulates something different - a fish pausing mid-depth. Granted, these simulations of actions and motion may not be convincing to a bass that the lure is a real animal, but simulated actions can't hurt when bass are already primed for action, needing that extra push. Finesse lures and their presentations are mostly successful due to live bait action-simulations and anglers buy many of the most expensive plugs because they excel at providing that something that triggers a response when worked slowly.
Sudden reflex responses don't require finesse and highly unrealistic looking and moving lures fit into a lure category that challenges a bass, raising its aggression level in the shortest period of time. Fast moving, wide-wobble crankbaits and burned, large willow leaf spinnerbaits don't give a fish time to raise its aggression level slowly and multiple strikes sometimes happen in the same area (but only when the time is right to use those lures).
Nice talking to you coryn along the lines of conjecture based on experience . Fish aren't logical, but anglers should be, though many are very successful believing conventional reasons fish strike lures. I haven't taught my grandkids those reasons and they do very well catching fish near their casts on lures that may or may not simulate. After seeing a worm squirm on the hook, they will never use live bait again!
Sometimes that is the best. Predatory behavioral studies show that when attacking a group, the predator will always pick out the different animal, it is easily kept track of. There is a reason albino animals are rare.
WRB reply :
You can't catch a cold using black and blue jigs in the lakes in SoCal, unless it's at night! Up in the NorCal delta black and bue or all blue works great, the difference is water clarity. In both places our crayfish (crawdads) are reddish brown or greenish brown in the wild. Bass know how to hunt, they just change the prey preference as they get to be adults. Have you ever caught a finger length bass, they are hunters.On 10/30/2013 at 9:23 AM, Catt said:WRB, Please explain Black-N-Blue Jigs?
Also explain why bird dogs instinctively know how to hunt but bass have to learn how to hunt?
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/29/2013 at 11:54 PM, KyakR said:
Tom made a comment on another thread about the transition of LMB from eating phytoplankton when fry to eating other fish (he called it piscivory)......how fish that make that transition earlier than the others are more successful survivors. It blows me away how many factors interact to produce a certain behavior in any animal! It's a beautiful thing! The article I quoted perked my ears up because it made a connection between actual genes and one behavior without elaborating on what genes and how they work to influence behavior. The idea that LMB's genes actually change in response to us was new to me. But SENKOSAM clarified this when he pointed out that because bass don't exactly have much between the ears (?), reflexive and instinctual behavior are in the driver's seat, and these are powerfully mediated by genes. I'm wonky by nature, and love to read.....but though I have years on the water I never had a teacher to point out the big picture and help me connect the dots. That makes all the difference, no matter that I can read the science. So here's another one, he he
I absolutely love evolutionary biology (especially in context to behavior,) I am ravenously devouring two books on animal behavior. This study you quoted reminded me of the Galapagos Finch study by Peter and Rosemary Grant. (Look it up, it is fascinating.) Your posts on this thread have really brought it into a more academic context.
Interesting fact of the day: Sand Tiger Sharks have two uteri in which eggs hatch internally. In each one, the most developed embryo cannibalizes its weaker siblings. Eventually, only two (in seperate uteri) remain, and are born.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 11:00 AM, WRB said:You can't catch a cold using black and blue jigs in the lakes in SoCal, unless it's at night! Up in the NorCal delta black and bue or all blue works great, the difference is water clarity. In both places our crayfish (crawdads) are reddish brown or greenish brown in the wild. Bass know how to hunt, they just change the prey preference as they get to be adults. Have you ever caught a finger length bass, they are hunters.
Tom
What I find funny is that the blue and purple end of the visible light spectrum is where bass have the poorest vision, and yet it still stands.
Also, when one says that bass have no cognition, they must think about what cognition is. If it is in the sense of self-awareness or abstract thinking, then no, but their brains are beautifully hardwired to allow them to survive, with remarkable memory and reaction time. However, there are many animals that are underrated in recognition of their intellect, such as crows, who have mental abilities to rival chimps and are crowned as one of the most intelligent animals on the planet.
Catt reply :
coryn h. fishowl
Merriam-Webster: cognition
Mental activities; the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, & remembering.
A bass can do none of the above 
Catt reply :
There is a lot of information flying around under the guise of "science", one must keep in mind if it is not observable, testable, repeatable, & falsifiable it aint science. If the study, research, or what ever you call is does not meet all four every single time it is nothing more than interesting information.
SENKOSAM reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 6:40 PM, Catt said:There is a lot of information flying around under the guise of "science", one must keep in mind if it is not observable, testable, repeatable, & falsifiable it aint science. If the study, research, or what ever you call is does not meet all four every single time it is nothing more than interesting information.
The proof will always be in the catching and catching consistently.
Interesting that of all the pros that have made it to the top, very few use the same lures, colors and presentations in the same cover or on the same structure to be in the top ten in any given tournament. Could a co-angler have done as well using something different? Many have, many haven't.
Science falls short trying to predict what a bass will strike, when and where it will strike or how often. Many pros fail to make even the top 40 in many tournaments, which suggests that knowing thy water is as important as what to cast and that luck, in many instances, is the deciding factor, all things being equal.
Boxing oneself into a corner because of any information source ultimately limits one's success and today's truth may be less than accurate or false tomorrow. Flukes happen!
That pretty much says it all.
KyakR reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 9:11 AM, Catt said:KyakR, couple questions
Was y'all research done in the wild?
Would it not stand to reason that if your research was true we would soon no longer be able to catch bass because they would simply stop hitting lures?
Good point....made me think The research I quoted began with an artificial truncation selection, which only means human beings did it, not nature in the wild. They picked the fish in each group and bred them. And yes! You're describing exactly what happens in highly pressured waters......the question the research asked was "why?" And they hoped to establish that the bass are affected at the genetic level, which was news to me! Didn't mean to go nuts about it tho 
But I've gotten wide of coryn h. fishowl's original question. Different strains of bass. Tom's comments about FLMB vs NLMB got to the heart of the matter I think......
Catt reply :
So in other words, no this research was not in the wild, it was forced by man!
Brian Needham reply :
Catt, you sir must carry a hammer in your pocket.....
Catt reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 1:43 AM, Brian Needham said:Catt, you sir must carry a hammer in your pocket.....
Nope it's in the back of the truck
PABASS reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 10:58 PM, Catt said:So in other words, no this research was not in the wild, it was forced by man!
In this day and age what wasn't forced by humans? SMB are not native to our rivers, they were released by a train crash carrying them so even if the study was done on this large sample it still would be forced by humans. I don't think LMB for that matter are native to PA and many other areas in the US. I think what this showed was eventual outcomes based on a small sample group that in nature could be an eventual outcome. Its all about replicating the results and if this was proved its starts becoming science.
Catt reply :
The study of wildlife in cages or an aquarium is not science.
You can not have human interference & call it science.
PABASS reply :
What defines a cage? Is a one acre pond a cage? For that matter PA doesn't have many natural lakes, we have a big one of course but most lakes and ponds are man made. This goes back to intellect are we saying that bass know what a cage is or that a bass knows a aquarium isn't "natural"?
Catt reply :
If you want to believe bass in an aquarium act the same as bass in the wild have fun with that.
Oh by the way Texas only has one natural lake...so what's you point?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 1:32 PM, Catt said:coryn h. fishowl
Merriam-Webster: cognition
Mental activities; the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, & remembering.
A bass can do none of the above
Exactly, but it is a word, like legions of others, so often used out of context. That was part of my point
pbizzle reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 10:50 PM, KyakR said:Good point....made me think
But I've gotten wide of coryn h. fishowl's original question. Different strains of bass. Tom's comments about FLMB vs NLMB got to the heart of the matter I think......
Now I have a question. If bass in a highly pressured lake will stop hitting a certain lure that they've grown accustomed to why don't they just stop eating the prey that the lure mimics?
slonezp reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 8:55 AM, pbizzle said:Now I have a question. If bass in a highly pressured lake will stop hitting a certain lure that they've grown accustomed to why don't they just stop eating the prey that the lure mimics?
There's a 20 page discussion on the site somewhere that will answer or will not answer this exact question. 
slonezp reply :
I lied. It was only 8 pages http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/115106-fish-becoming-conditioned/page-1?hl=+fish +becoming +conditioned
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/30/2013 at 9:11 AM, Catt said:KyakR, couple questions
Was y'all research done in the wild?
Would it not stand to reason that if your research was true we would soon no longer be able to catch bass because they would simply stop hitting lures?
No, lures change and pressure on lakes fluctuates, so this wouldn't remain a consistent factor to the point that our innovation would get outpaced.
On 10/30/2013 at 10:58 PM, Catt said:So in other words, no this research was not in the wild, it was forced by man!
On 10/31/2013 at 3:09 AM, PABASS said:In this day and age what wasn't forced by humans? SMB are not native to our rivers, they were released by a train crash carrying them so even if the study was done on this large sample it still would be forced by humans. I don't think LMB for that matter are native to PA and many other areas in the US. I think what this showed was eventual outcomes based on a small sample group that in nature could be an eventual outcome. Its all about replicating the results and if this was proved its starts becoming science.
On 10/31/2013 at 4:57 AM, PABASS said:What defines a cage? Is a one acre pond a cage? For that matter PA doesn't have many natural lakes, we have a big one of course but most lakes and ponds are man made. This goes back to intellect are we saying that bass know what a cage is or that a bass knows a aquarium isn't "natural"?
On 10/31/2013 at 5:28 AM, Catt said:If you want to believe bass in an aquarium act the same as bass in the wild have fun with that.
Oh by the way Texas only has one natural lake...so what's you point?
Actually aquariums can offer a fairly realistic view into bass behavior. Take, for example, an experiment with bass showing that they prefered crawfish lures with no legs/claws to "healthy craws!" We can assume that the tank water was clear, the plastics were realistic, and that the bass had some experience with real crawfish before. Taking this into account, the bass, having learned form actual crawfish, know that the claws are defensive weapons, and would of course go for the easier meal, i.e. the injured lure. However, we can infer that the tank bass, living in gin-clear water, are mostly sight predators, as compared to their stained/muddy water dwelling counterparts, who use their lateral line and nose more. This allows us to predict that stained water bass may prefer a "Healthy" lure with intact appendages offering more vibration and a better overall multisensory appeal.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 8:55 AM, pbizzle said:Now I have a question. If bass in a highly pressured lake will stop hitting a certain lure that they've grown accustomed to why don't they just stop eating the prey that the lure mimics?
Exactly why lures imitating forage accurately don't get burn out easily.
SENKOSAM reply :
There are many lures that always work regardless how many anglers use them depending on the water, which kind of negates the lure burn out idea. A few I can always depend on most times of day:
jigs and trailers
soft plastics in different designs (creature baits, grub minnows, drop shot plastics)
WRB reply :
It's a mistake to compare the thought process of the human brain to that of animals that survive by instinct in lieu of intellect. Good examples are migratory animals like insects, fish and birds with tiny brains that travel thousands of miles, make round trips one time in their lifetime. The Monark butterfly for example migrates from the Midwest to Mexico and California, winters on fir trees, then returns to where it was it started. Monarks only live as butterflies for 8 month and have no prior experience to learn how to do this.
Bass have instinctive intellengance to help them complete their life cycle and reproduce the species. How a bass learns to stay out of harms way hasn't been scientifically proven. There have been tracking studies with LMB in the wild, San Diego biologist Mike Lembeck studies in the mid 70's suggest we know little about bass migration habits, their survival instincts indicate a high percetage of big bass are rarely caught. Bill Murphy quotes Mike Lembeck in his book In Pursuit of Giant Bass and by Homer Circle in his book Bass Wisdom.
Google or Bing: Mike Lembeck, biologist, interesting scientific facts about bass behavior in the wild.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:05 AM, SENKOSAM said:There are many lures that always work regardless how many anglers use them depending on the water, which kind of negates the lure burn out idea. A few I can always depend on most times of day:
jigs and trailers
soft plastics in different designs (creature baits, grub minnows, drop shot plastics)
Now there is an effective class of baits that really can get burnt out.
Brian Needham reply :
coryn.......... it is your assumptions that makes your rebuttal invalid.
You can't simply mix assumptions and a lab.
Which I believe is Catt's point..........do whatever you want in the lab, it aint nature, and never will be nature, which is why you have to study it in nature.
My point would be, do you think Goodall's research would have reached the level it did if she simply went to a "controlled" zoo?
agree or disagree?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:59 AM, Brian Needham said:coryn.......... it is your assumptions that makes your rebuttal invalid.
You can't simply mix assumptions and a lab.
Which I believe is Catt's point..........do whatever you want in the lab, it aint nature, and never will be nature, which is why you have to study it in nature.
My point would be, do you think Goodall's research would have reached the level it did if she simply went to a "controlled" zoo?
agree or disagree?
It is the very basis of much scientific testing to allow us to make educated, scientific predictions as towards the outcome of situations that we cannot yet test, in much the same way the Einstein's Theory of Relativity made the prediction that mass bent light, one that would be tested years later via an eclipse. Indeed, those actions are integral to the definition of the word theory, the heart of science, "a law or principle about the workings of the universe that is both testable and makes verifiable predictions." No, Goodall's research could not have been conducted in a controlled zoo, but, as more accurately relatable to my analogy, her findings were used to spurn new theories of animal behavior that would be tested/ observed in the field. However, I predict, that as long as I keep catching them with my methodology, that I'll be happy; which is something I can easily test.
Brian Needham reply :
I understand that.
I see your point, and I hope you see mine.
The theory of relativity and bending of light has nothing to do with wild animals.
You can not, no matter how controlled the environment is, study a wild animal in a captive lab. This is proven through the sole fact a lab is not a natural environment. and via pack animal experiments, even psychological stress testing/environmental testing on humans, rats. conditioning vs instinct ect ect.
In a lab, you have to feed the animal.......animals do not get fed in the wild
In a lab , you have lights.....animals have the SUN in the wild, and many base instinctual movements around the sun, not a fluorescent bulb.
In a lab you have boarders and cages......in the wild you do not
In a lab you have controls and variables........in the wild everything is a variable (you can make a lab report say anything you want, and continue to prove it )
Animals, bass, nature have been on this planet long before we ever figured out the technology to study it in a lab. and no matter how strong our advances, we as humans will not figure out nature. Why? Simply because we did not create nature, and there is no way to reverse engineer nature as a whole.
Now, I think we all agree Steve Parks (BigO) is one if not the premier bait makers in the industry...... send him a PM and ask this question:
What produces more results and produces more useable information to create/design a bait, lab reports or in the field testing from the front deck of your boat?
JMO, and yours may differ.
WRB reply :
Because this thread is about bass behavior, I choose to reference Mike Lemark's studies for 2 reasons, 1 they are scientific. 2, they where performed on wild bass in their natural environment.
These studies changed they way I perceived bass behavior and adapted this knowledge to help me become a better angler. A few things stood out, big bass have lived long enough to avoid anglers and tend to locate near deep water sanctuaries. Observing the San Diego bass anglers like Bill Murphy that were successful catching these bass, it became apparent keeping quite, blending into the environment and waiting for bass to return to an area that they had vacated when I came into that area, was important in catching the wary bass.
One of Mikes bass would leave the area it was located during the closed fishing season the day the lake opened to fishing each spring. This big bass swam straight into the buoyed off area by the dam closed to fishing, stayed there until the lake closed agian in the fall. Several bass would leave areas they stayed in as soon as boats started up each morning, moved out into deep water and returned when the lake closed each day. This study included about 150 big bass that were electro shocked, with radio tracking devices surgically inserted and lasted a few years, exact time period I need to look up.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
wow thanks for bringing the Lemark studies to the table WRB. I will have to round these up if still available.
your last post outlined something that is simply impossible to replicate in a lab, and probably provided tons more info to educate with.
KyakR reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 4:24 AM, Catt said:The study of wildlife in cages or an aquarium is not science.
You can not have human interference & call it science.
Disagree. It depends what kind of research method you're using. Research studies come in different forms.
Goodall was using a different method than say, a geneticist trying to get at the reason some people's eyes are blue and some brown. One is observational, where controlling variables (zoo) distorts the results, the other involves asking one specific question (forming a hypothesis) and testing it. In this form the fewer variables the better.
Science always involves human interference (Heisenberg Principle). The simple act of observation changes things. But you're so right when you point out the inadequacy of science in some matters! I think true wisdom in fishing and other things comes from living many experiences and having them in your gut beyond words and test tubes. Not to be too touchy- feely (he!) but I call that love, whether for fishing, people or science itself.
On 10/30/2013 at 8:16 PM, SENKOSAM said:The proof will always be in the catching and catching consistently.
Interesting that of all the pros that have made it to the top, very few use the same lures, colors and presentations in the same cover or on the same structure to be in the top ten in any given tournament. Could a co-angler have done as well using something different? Many have, many haven't.
Science falls short trying to predict what a bass will strike, when and where it will strike or how often. Many pros fail to make even the top 40 in many tournaments, which suggests that knowing thy water is as important as what to cast and that luck, in many instances, is the deciding factor, all things being equal.
Boxing oneself into a corner because of any information source ultimately limits one's success and today's truth may be less than accurate or false tomorrow. Flukes happen!
That pretty much says it all.
I like this
And pbizzle, good question!
But anybody know from their personal observation about different bass strains? I only deal with the Northern so I actually really know zip 
Mainebass1984 reply :
This is quite an interesting topic. I think there certainly is a behavior difference in smallmouth and largemouth bass. I have dissected hundreds of bass stomachs. A smallmouths diet up in in New England consists mostly of crayfish and yellow perch. A largemouth will eat just about anything. I have even found a bird as well as rocks in a largemouths stomach. Heavily pressure fish do become more wary then in lakes that receive less pressure. I have experienced days when a color change can make the difference between catching two fish and twenty fish. I think that most of the time smallmouth are more aggressive. Most of my experience is with northern strain largemouth. Southern strain is an altogether different fish. When it comes down to it when a fish is hungry it will eat. Maybe science cant predict what a bass will strike when and where but experience can. Science can tell you a lot about bass behavior. Science along with experience allows me to follow bass year round.
Oh and to get back to one of the original posts about bass not eating salamanders in the northeast. They sure do eat them in Maine. Black is my favorite color.
Check out this salamander a bass had half way down his throat when I caught him:
webertime reply :
Sure a professional biologist has to step in and ruin my learnin'. Lemark's research (or something very similar) was in an issue of Bass Angler Magazine ~2 years ago. Very cool stuff.
PABASS reply :
My point with man-made lakes versus natural lakes are simply man can create an environment that becomes "wild" or "natural" to a bass, without being a scientist logic lets me believe that something replicated in a "aquarium" must also be reproducible in the wild depending on what we are trying to learn. I am not saying that everything we learn is 1:1 however if your telling me what we learn in a controlled environment is nothing like in the wild as it concerns bass then show me the proof... I believe this very site had an article from several biologist whom used a pond in NY I believe as a controlled environment due to no fishing allowed, no "man" interference although its a man-made pond is this the "wild" is it "natural"? And if we have a hard time discerning the difference why then would a bass automatically know the difference? Take a 1:1 species of Bass and I would imagine Bass out west behave differently than a Bass in the east and I also imagine a bass in a lab out west acts similar to a bass in the east. The key here is controlled environments, which allows us to predict and learn regardless if its a wild bass or not. We can create environments solely on the goal of what we want to learn, can we learn everything from a controlled environment of course not but its a tool, please tell me why it isn't?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 12:15 PM, Brian Needham said:
Now, I think we all agree Steve Parks (BigO) is one if not the premier bait makers in the industry...... send him a PM and ask this question:
What produces more results and produces more useable information to create/design a bait, lab reports or in the field testing from the front deck of your boat?
JMO, and yours may differ.
Both, but the proving ground is the field. Good comment.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 8:16 PM, Mainebass1984 said:
Oh and to get back to one of the original posts about bass not eating salamanders in the northeast. They sure do eat them in Maine. Black is my favorite color.
Check out this salamander a bass had half way down his throat when I caught him:
They eat them alright, but given a choice, they would most likely eat hellbender salamander than a less appetizing spotted.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 8:46 PM, PABASS said:My point with man-made lakes versus natural lakes are simply man can create an environment that becomes "wild" or "natural" to a bass, without being a scientist logic lets me believe that something replicated in a "aquarium" must also be reproducible in the wild depending on what we are trying to learn. I am not saying that everything we learn is 1:1 however if your telling me what we learn in a controlled environment is nothing like in the wild as it concerns bass then show me the proof... I believe this very site had an article from several biologist whom used a pond in NY I believe as a controlled environment due to no fishing allowed, no "man" interference although its a man-made pond is this the "wild" is it "natural"? And if we have a hard time discerning the difference why then would a bass automatically know the difference? Take a 1:1 species of Bass and I would imagine Bass out west behave differently than a Bass in the east and I also imagine a bass in a lab out west acts similar to a bass in the east. The key here is controlled environments, which allows us to predict and learn regardless if its a wild bass or not. We can create environments solely on the goal of what we want to learn, can we learn everything from a controlled environment of course not but its a tool, please tell me why it isn't?
My point exactly.
Brian Needham reply :
a pond and an aquarium are not the same. Never can be as one is made by nature, God, X, verus an aquarium made of glass.
Even a man made pond is not an aquarium, and IMO an aquarium can not replicate weather, sunlight, barometric changes(if fully controlled), natural temp changes.
but lets go full Socratic method:
what are you trying to learn?
PABASS reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 9:13 PM, Brian Needham said:a pond and an aquarium are not the same. Never can be as one is made by nature, God, X, verus an aquarium made of glass.
Even a man made pond is not an aquarium, and IMO an aquarium can not replicate weather, sunlight, barometric changes(if fully controlled), natural temp changes.
but lets go full Socratic method:
what are you trying to learn?
My use of aquarium was just a generic term, we clearly as pointed out in my post can make a controlled environment much more advanced then a simple glass aquarium to meet the needs of what we are trying to learn. And that's my point, we humans introduced bass to our human made ponds, lakes, rivers and streams yet we call it natural and wild, is it? I agree there is nothing better then learning true reproducible facts in the wild but lets be realistic here you cant always do this, again controlled environments are a tool and when its "reproducible" in a controlled environment the "wild" is the proving grounds which also means all things considered its reproducible in that environment as well. I have a question about "natural" and "wild" the Florida strain of bass why is it still not in Florida? How natural is it to have an unnatural fish in a man-made lake?
Brian Needham reply :
If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?
You have to have a “control” in this process you have to be able to fully replicate one or the other, the lab or nature… you cant do either, but you can however use nature as a “given” as it is already provided.
I use science/ lab reports daily. They provide me what I need to know. I use them for soil test; they are great for telling me WHAT. What elements are in the ground, and at what concentrate… they cannot tell me however, HOW to grow the grass.
I also use path labs. The microscope or a growth chamber can tell me what pathogen the grass is infected with, however it can not tell me HOW to get rid of the pathogen.
Science cannot tell you the how or why, it can tell you the what. Sometimes it can tell you the how, but not the why and what. And so on and so on. Science is not complete in its work, nature however is.
Really when you boil it all down, you cannot answer a “why” question.
Needham how can you not answer a why question?
Two reasons
1. Is simple…its called the “why game” Keep asking the why to every answer the person gives you, go through all the permutations and you will always arrive at “cause it makes me feel good” so the “answer” to a why question is 100% without fail, “cause it makes me feel good”
2. Now for the complicated end… To answer a “why something happens?” you would have to explain everything that has happened and every cause and effect since the creation of time. And that is something no human, scientist or otherwise can do. Our minds are not built to that capacity.
I will end this post with a quote;
“Many men fish all their lives without realizing it is not the fish they are after.”
And a lab cant prove that either
webertime reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 8:55 PM, coryn h. fishowl said:They eat them alright, but given a choice, they would most likely eat hellbender salamander than a less appetizing spotted.
So there's science that proves what's appetizing to a bass?
"Hmmmm I'll bypass that fat, protein packed, spineless and scaleless little treat because I prefer the hints of maple and Bacon in that other salamander I MAY come across later..." that's a bit too much brain power attributed to them.
KyakR reply :
PABASS reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 9:45 PM, Brian Needham said:If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?
You have to have a “control” in this process you have to be able to fully replicate one or the other, the lab or nature… you cant do either, but you can however use nature as a “given” as it is already provided.
I use science/ lab reports daily. They provide me what I need to know. I use them for soil test; they are great for telling me WHAT. What elements are in the ground, and at what concentrate… they cannot tell me however, HOW to grow the grass.
I also use path labs. The microscope or a growth chamber can tell me what pathogen the grass is infected with, however it can not tell me HOW to get rid of the pathogen.
Science cannot tell you the how or why, it can tell you the what. Sometimes it can tell you the how, but not the why and what. And so on and so on. Science is not complete in its work, nature however is.
Really when you boil it all down, you cannot answer a “why” question.
Needham how can you not answer a why question?
Two reasons
1. Is simple…its called the “why game” Keep asking the why to every answer the person gives you, go through all the permutations and you will always arrive at “cause it makes me feel good” so the “answer” to a why question is 100% without fail, “cause it makes me feel good”
2. Now for the complicated end… To answer a “why something happens?” you would have to explain everything that has happened and every cause and effect since the creation of time. And that is something no human, scientist or otherwise can do. Our minds are not built to that capacity.
I will end this post with a quote;
“Many men fish all their lives without realizing it is not the fish they are after.”
And a lab cant prove that either
If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then? Then its just a bass, right? And isn't that the point of controlled environments?
If you are implying that what I am saying is that science tells me how to catch a bass then I don't think we will ever come to an agreement because we are not communicating on the same level.
Back to your grass, so with those results you know that grass based on the soil elements will grow well or might need some human assistance, about how fast it will grow and what grass does for soil, humans and many other animals, you know that grass will help prevent soil erosion and consume c02 to create oxygen. Do you think all these reproducible results were performed in the wild or in a controlled environment?
Brian Needham reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:00 PM, webertime said:So there's science that proves what's appetizing to a bass?
good point
I say nature does it for them.
SPEEDBEAD. reply :
I've said it numerous times here....
I just fish. 
Cool that there is so much quotable info out there but it just isn't my thing. Life is complicated enough....
Brian Needham reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:02 PM, PABASS said:If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then? Then its just a bass, right? And isn't that the point of controlled environments?
If you are implying that what I am saying is that science tells me how to catch a bass then I don't think we will ever come to an agreement because we are not communicating on the same level.
Back to your grass, so with those results you know that grass based on the soil elements will grow well or might need some human assistance, about how fast it will grow and what grass does for soil, humans and many other animals, you know that grass will help prevent soil erosion and consume c02 to create oxygen. Do you think all these reproducible results were performed in the wild or in a controlled environment?
I think the grass grew better in the wild on its own before I started to mow it, introducing stress, coercing it to grow for playing conditions (golf) instead of growing for health of the plant. Plants, animals they adapt.
That adaptation is what makes the lab flawed for behavioral experiments.
. Is a bass by any other name still a bass?
Western/Eastern bass have totally different water, food chains, ect ect.
Perhaps they all revert back to “just being a bass” in the tank. I say that for the fact anything done by man nature will undo in time. I see it in grass…. We have “made” new grasses by genetic breeding. Issue is over the long term, everything reverts back to its original state. It may take 5, 10, 20, 50, 100,1000 years but nature reclaims it all.
We can see the changes man makes while studying wild animals. Look at the mortality rate of captive animals once released back into the wild. The animals have become so dependant on their captors they forget how to survive in the wild and die.
Knowing that, can we really say bass being studied in a tank are giving us a “natural look”.
Which is why I firmly believe any wild animal studies needs to be done in the natural habitat, not in a lab.
There are just some things we are meant to enjoy and not study. The study can be futile because we are humans, not creators. BUT if we were going to study it, it needs to be done in the environment the creator/nature has provided, not four walls in a microscope.
We are never going to fully understand it, so let’s just fish!
I am sure we can all agree to disagree but it is an interesting topic nonetheless and makes for good conversation I suppose.
Brian Needham reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 9:13 PM, Brian Needham said:
but lets go full Socratic method:
what are you trying to learn?
mispoke here.
what are WE trying to learn?
PABASS reply :
Brian I think we are on the same book here, we know certain things because of science and we know certain things from time spent on the water and personally that's where I want to be..
WRB reply :
Discussed some differences between NLMB and FLMB sharing the same lakes. The next is the integrate, a combination of FLMB and NLMB or F1. The F1 is the first generation integrate where a male NLMB and pure FLMB spawn. The F1 growth potention is similar to pure FLMB, 20+ lbs, however is more aggressive, these are the giant bass that make up most of California's record list and the reason those records are aging. F1's maybe a memory today, very rare bass.
The northern (Kentucy) spotted bass vs the southern (Alabama) spotted bass are similar to comparing FLMB and NLMB, 2 different species. Like the LMB, the Northern spot grows about half as big as it's cousin the southern spot, however both are very aggressive feeders, the easiest of all bass to catch. The spots seem to have no fear when focused on feeding. Spots tend to bite their prey and have teeth to hold it, this means they use the front of their mouth, where LMB use the back of the mouth more often. A spot will bite prey to injure it, then bite agian to turn the prey around to swallow it. A pecking type bite often confused with a bluegill.
If you have spots where you fish, you can hesitate on hook sets, the spot strikes more than ounce!
Smallmouth have similar striking traits of the Spotted bass, no teeth and tend to be a little more wary, somewhere between a LMB and the spot. Smallies and Alambama spots grow about the same size; records in the 10 to 11 lb range. Both spots and smallies prefer more open water areas and some current if available.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:44 PM, PABASS said:Brian I think we are on the same book here, we know certain things because of science and we know certain things from time spent on the water and personally that's where I want to be..
I do believe you are correct, we may come from different angles but I think we wind up at the same place.
Indeed, the only "aquarium" I am worried about is my livewell! HA!
Catt reply :
Confirmation bias
SENKOSAM reply :
Nice topic and a much friendlier and civil discussion than one I started months ago and was reamed by a few (minus mods doing their job and even threatened by one). I congratulate everyone!!!
Reflecting on what's been stated, some things have either been left out or touched on briefly without emphasis. Fishing, from basic to advanced levels, must include bass factors and human factors that can not be ignored and the most important word of all, variables, pretty much includes them.
Science and Bassmaster magazine has touched on bass factors such as habitat types, fish behavior, diet, anatomy, etc. and from the latter source, at times mixes in misinformation when selling lures and suggests vague ideas, suggestions and reasons as it concerns outings, neither of which are scientific in the least! (It's kind of like watching Bill Dance on TV! lol) But the human variable can never be ignored as the fly in the ointment of fact, especially as it concerns scientific fact vs. opinion based on incomplete facts, wishful thinking, generalizations and superstition.
Bass anglers first off are affected by prejudice, the best anglers less so. Have you ever fished a lure you don't have confidence in (even though a B.A.S.S.pro used it to win megabucks), never caught fish on it consistently and then stored it away indefinitely for posterity? Lures that produce less than others may have real value, but today's goal of many for instant gratification coupled with multiple disappointments, skew our evaluation of many lures and presentations that may produce great catches. Not knowing what to use, when or where, affects the catches of great anglers as well as lesser anglers. Knowing bass behavior may help, but it will never be foolproof because of human fallibility starting with prejudice and ignorance induced by inexperience and an inflexible mindset.
We say bass are creatures of habit but what about humans? How many of you fall into the same bad habits of using only one or a few lures and presentations in fewer cover/ structure types and depths than you should, especially on tough days after getting few strikes hour after hour? Somewhere in a body of water, fish are prone to being caught and other than where and how you're fishing for them, fish can't be blamed for one's poor choices based on bad habits or execution.
Bass may be creatures of habit, but their habits are most times dictated by a biological response to many variables, particularly environmental. Keith Jones offered some interesting factoids, but environmental factors include too many things fish are sensitive to that bass anglers can never completely factor in. Many of you know many of them that can have a dramatic effect: water temperature and levels - rising or falling, light based on sun angle/ water clarity, depth, pH, wind - strength, speed, direction, water level - drought, flood stage, current, and on and on. Time of year/ seasonal variables make all the difference in the world! Prey location and behavior, general fish and other wild life metabolism and activity, pre and post spawn behavior, general boating/ fishing activity, etc, must be factored in. How has science been able to have a controlled experiment to include all of those bass behavior modifiers to be able to predict what bass are up to at any one moment or time period?!!
Lure burn out has been mentioned, but bass memory has been studied and found to be limited in capacity and in the length of time memories are stored. Bass may remember some lures after being caught multiple times and shy away from striking them, but for how long - one year, a few years or for as long as it lives? Does the bass share that information with other bass or do all other bass in a water learn from it's demise, spreading the word that, that lure is deadly / avoid it any like it at all costs!!!? Or does human prejudice, including that spread by word of mouth, kill the lure's popularity for a body of water under the category of lure burn out? What about other waters? If the lure does poorly somewhere else, was it because fish were exposed to it too often, a flying fish spread the word between waters or the lure, like most others, has a time and place?
Granted, some lures do great the first year, but the reasons why may have nothing to do with their overwhelming fish appeal or novelty, but more to do with fishing variables that put anglers more often in the right place, using one of many lures and presentations to clobber bass day after day in a particular year. To ignore all of the variables that make lures successful prompts one to believe in fairy tales as it concerns certain lures and one's abilities. Variables account for a lure's success, many of which an angler will never know the combination of.
So as it concerns scientific predictions of bass behavior, degrees of intelligence and whether of not a group of bass is prone to being caught, I say, the challenge of fishing is not only to catch fish, but to be amazed when we catch them at all! - science be damned (along with fishing shows)!
Frank
Brian Needham reply :
nice Frank!
I contest anything that is living is a creature of habit, or at least instinct. So where would one get their habits from if it was not instinctual? Perhaps that is further if a stretch than needed.
You are absolutely correct, it is a wonder we catch anything at all. I for one find nothing better than to sit back and marvel at a fish that I catch on a "artificial" lure. to know for a split second I out witted nature, how awesome it that?
WRB reply :
Experienced bass learn from their time on the water what bass prefer on the lakes they fish and become good anglers that consistantly catch fish or they don't learn and repeat what other good anglers are doing. The 90-10 rule where 10% of the angers catch 90% of the bass hasn't changed in my life time. The fact that the top anglers catch their bass using different lures and presentations then the 90% who struggle is an interesting topic and gives us a clue regarding bass behavior. The common denominator to solving this problem is food verses bass feeding activity, the top anglers are catching active feeding bass, the unsuccessful are not.
Bass don't eat all day long and they are not laying in ambush waiting for your lure to swim by as most anglers believe. Cover enough water and you will catch bass is another mistake most anglers make. You may stumble into active bass by covering a lot of water where bass are located, this is a hit and miss technique.
If you could go directly to where the bass are located and time your fishing to when the bass are active feeding, you will consistantly catch more bass. Learning about bass behavior helps, discovering what the bass are eating and where they are located = success...as long as your presence doesn't alter the feeding activity.
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
...as long as your presence doesn't alter the feeding activity.
This assumes bass are feeding when they bite a lure. Many are not! If I were to watch fish reactions to the presence of a lure underwater, I'd be willing to bet the farm that many fish start out inactive, suspending off bottom, and when a lure is within striking distance or a distance close enough to be observed, a bass becomes active. This usually starts with curiosity and most often ending up with curiosity as it nibbles at or gets a lure in its mouth.
Great videos exist on Youtube and in a set I own produced by Glen Lau demonstrating many instances of fish slowly deciding whether to bite something (lure or live animal) and then going after it almost like in slow motion. No darting around, no jumping clear out the water with the object in its mouth, but just slowly closing in, staring at it and then inhaling it in the blink of an eye.
I saved an underwater video of perch being caught under the ice and the sequence was exactly like the above. The strangest thing was that the minnow hanging from a spoon was dead and stiff, yet perch came over, milled around as one became interested and started pecking at the minnow. Soon, more large perch were going after the lure, but only after it was jigged. None left the area after three were caught and then more struck!
So, in effect, it's not the active fish we're after most of the time (as much as we'd like), but idle fish prone to being provoked by the presence of an unknown object that pushes its buttons. It's what makes punching cover so successful!
Brian Needham reply :
I thought there were 3 reasons a fish would strike a lure:
1. feeding
2. defensive/protective
3. reaction
is this flawed teaching handed down through the years?
WRB reply :
1& 2 there isn't a debate, bass must eat to survive and must protect their spawning site to reproduce.On 11/1/2013 at 3:42 AM, Brian Needham said:I thought there were 3 reasons a fish would strike a lure:
1. feeding
2. defensive/protective
3. reaction
is this flawed teaching handed down through the years?
3 is debatable. Fish are not like cats that we can tease into striking, I belive that is a myth.
Spent a lot of time watching bass in the wild in clear lakes and ponds. When these bass are inactive, you can drop a live crawdad,minnow, tiger salamander (water dog) on there nose and they just back away and have zero interest in striking. At the same time you see baitfish swimming around these inactive bass without any sign of fear. Within a moments notice, the baitfish run and hide, the bass start to move and become alert, now if you drop the same live critter in the water near the bass, it strikes immediately. It's easy to tease a bass looking for prey, impossible to get a reaction from a bass not interested. The direction prey enters the basses viewing area can make a big difference in getting the bass looking for prey to react to that prey, this is different then teasing, you simple discovered the right angle for the bass to commit to.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
interesting Tom, thanks.
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
I thought there were 3 reasons a fish would strike a lure:
1. feeding
2. defensive/protective
3. reaction
is this flawed teaching handed down through the years?
Let's get #2 out of the way first. How much time is a bass defending a nest in its lifetime? Females - none.
Feeding pertains to feeding on living real prey that a bass instinctively knows is alive via its senses.
The reaction sought comes from whatever makes a bass decide to strike or react to an artificial IMO. Science and humans can only offer conjecture from their own point of view and that of the simple biological urges they associate with all predator aggression. I've watched many videos taken in the wild and a fair amount of them suggest bass are not striking a lure much of the time because of an active feeding mode. If you get a chance to watch the Homer Circle, Glen Lau video set, you'll see what I'm talking about.
The reason bass strike artificial baits, especially those they have not been exposed to or that are totally unrealistic, go beyond man's ability to know. I realize the above is unconventional but also an easier way to chose lures based on lure characteristics that aren't intended to look or act like any prey animal a bass normally eats.
Each to his own and again, even though I can't say conventional notions are wrong, there's a good chance they are.
Brian Needham reply :
perhaps I should have used the word territorial?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:00 PM, webertime said:So there's science that proves what's appetizing to a bass?
"Hmmmm I'll bypass that fat, protein packed, spineless and scaleless little treat because I prefer the hints of maple and Bacon in that other salamander I MAY come across later..." that's a bit too much brain power attributed to them.
Simple positive reinforcement vs punishment. Eat the slightly toxic one, or the delicious one.
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/1/2013 at 11:38 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:Simple positive reinforcement vs punishment. Eat the slightly toxic one, or the delicious one.
reinforcement vs punishment would mean bass have a memory, correct?
Bob Lusk says they do not have a memory.
but if you wanted to say it was instintual then I could go along with that.
SPEEDBEAD. reply :
On 11/1/2013 at 9:17 AM, SENKOSAM said:Let's get #2 out of the way first. How much time is a bass defending a nest in its lifetime? Females - none.
I'd have to disagree with you there.
WRB reply :
#2. Male bass select the bed site and protect until the fry are ready to be on their own.
The female bass select which male and bed site or sites they lay eggs. The female doesn't instantly move onto a bed to spawn or leave immediacy after laying eggs, about a 2 day period the female is very protective of the bed site area and the reason they get caught during the spawn.
There should be no debate on this set of facts.
#3. Yes I have watched the movie Big Mouth, filmed at Cypress Springs or gardens, FL. This is a no fishing area, a sanctuary similar to a large aquarium, the bass are wild, very used to seeing people that don't harm them.
Bass don't have hands, you see them make a half hearted attempt to check out the lures and instantly reject them, treble hooks and all. These bass are grouped up and active, not suspended in an inactive mood.
Great film for every bass angler to watch.
Tom
PS, watch this film and you will know why sharp hooks are important!
SENKOSAM reply :
Knowing Bass, p.9
Quote
As the the female releases her eggs, the male emits a string of milt to fertilize the eggs. The female swims off and leaves the male to guard the nest. While the eggs develop, the male defends the nest against any mobile intruder.
The female may also lay more eggs in a different location, starting the process with another male.
Another source:
Quote
Normally the male Largemouth bass will find the nest for the spawning season, this nest will be made from sand and gravel, circular in shape and quite shallow, it will also normally be around twice the size of the male Largemouth bass in length.
Once the nest is created the male Largemouth will guard a perimeter that is around six feet in circumference and will keep swimming around the nest until he can find a female mate, once a perfect mate is found they will swim together and the spawning take place when they both swim laterally so they can get in close contact with one another so when both fish shudder the released eggs and sperm can be released in the same place.
Female Largemouth actually spawn more than once in the spring period, their first spawn will be the majority of their eggs, but a second and sometimes third spawn can take place within a month of the first.
The male guards the eggs which only take two to four weeks to hatch and the male will also keep guard of the fry that hatch for up to two weeks when the fry will leave the nest for good.
Quote"You'll see bucks on the beds four or five days before the females show up," Scroggins says. "The females are in the same general area, cruising around."
QuoteThough it's hard to catch a female while she's rolling, it's now-or-never time. She will leave as soon as she finishes dropping her eggs. (bassmaster site)Quote
The act of spawning for an individual pair of bass seems to last no more than a few hours. Many times I've come across bass spawning in the morning and returned in the early afternoon to discover that the female already has left. Once she's gone (she may not dispose of all the eggs in one episode), the male remains on the nest to protect the eggs and fry from predators. He may stand guard for up to two weeks!
WRB reply :
In deep structure lakes where I have spent the majority of my bass fishing the water is very clear with few aquatics weeds, mostly rocky with sparse wood/ brush. This is typical of SoCal bass lakes during the spawn.
The tem shallow is relative to the lake regarding how deep bed site are. Rarely will you find beds in water less than 2' , the average is closer to 4', some beds are deeper than 1o'. The very shallow beds are usually made by smaller males, the larger females tend to avoid beds less than 3' deep, preferring the deeper bed sites. One reason could be blue herons can easily catch a bass off a shallower bed.
To claim the female leaves immediately after laying egg's may be true if that female has completed all her eggs, the female usually moves somewhere between 5' to 10' away from the nest site and keeps a watch from the perimeter area. The little male stays on the nest site. A common practice with bed anglers is catch the male, and wait for the female to return, then catch her.
I have witnessed several big females laying eggs on one bed site at the same time, it's not always one pair. Most bass anglers have experience with spawning bass due to the fact they easy to observe and catch.
The time it takes for eggs to hatch depends on the water temperature the eggs are in; about 14 days in water 60 degrees, 5 days in water 67 degrees. The warmer the water the more egg eating predators are around the bed sites, thus lower success rates. Survival of the fittest!
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
To claim the female leaves immediately after laying egg's may be true if that female has completed all her eggs, the female usually moves somewhere between 5' to 10' away from the nest site and keeps a watch from the perimeter area. The little male stays on the nest site. A common practice with bed anglers is catch the male, and wait for the female to return,
source?
Why would a female who has laid some eggs be any different than one who laid eggs leftover from a previous spawn?
I haven't read anywhere that a female will return to a nest or that they 'keep watch'.
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/2/2013 at 3:30 AM, WRB said:. A common practice with bed anglers is catch the male, and wait for the female to return, then catch her.
I have seen footage of Edwin Evers doing this in a Florida tournament
00 mod reply :
Same bed. Back to back casts. Caught the smaller male (5lbs 1 oz) first then the female (7lbs even) next cast.
SENKOSAM reply :
Getting back to the reasons bass strike lures, I found some interesting statements in Knowing Bass that describe the sequence I mentioned when observing underwater videos.
Quote
A strong food scent can arouse even inactive bass in much the same way that an alarm clock wakes you from a deep sleep. The bass may not immediately appear to do much in response. It might not even move because most of the response is taking place within the nervous system. Heightened behaviors (increased rate of breathing, flaring of gills, shifting of eyes) indicate a bass is rearranging it's sensory priorities and mental focus.
Quote
Bass are primarily visual hunters, meaning that their eyes direct most of their strikes on prey and lures. But bass are not always in a constant state of visual alertness. They are not always actively scanning their surroundings. Sometimes they are in what might be called a mental fog. The first effect of *** food odor is to arouse the bass out that fog. It then becomes visually alert - the superb visual hunter that it is. Vibration detection in murky water or in the dark takes precedence over visual cues, but whatever the situation, a bass will reliably maximize the use of all its senses to find food. Bass are prone to err greatly in their choice of targets. An agitated bass may abandon all caution, strking just about everything in their path - in short, anything that will fit in their oral chasm.
Quote
Bass can rush in for the kill, but frequently do not. The first contact, the analysis stage, helps bass evaluate a target before finally committing to strike and may be restricted to a mere bump with the snout or a quick nip with their lips.
WRB reply :
Years ago or decades ago now, I fished a wide range of live bait for bass. Crawdads, water dogs, Canadian night crawlers, mud suckers, chubs, shiners and Threadfin shad. When bass were active, swimming around or patrolling the area, they would strike live bait immediately as soon as they detected it. The opposite was the case when the bass were suspended in an inactive state.
If there was a school or group of suspended bass it could take 20-30 minutes of the live bait swimming or moving around near them before one bass might wake up and take notice, swim over and strike the bait. This act of striking must set off some pheromone, the entire bass school would wake up and come over to the area of the strike, then it was wide open fishing as long as you had the live bait that started to feeding spree.
Someday someone will study the trigger mechanism of pheromones from baitfish or predator fish, it's an odor response.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/1/2013 at 8:24 PM, Brian Needham said:reinforcement vs punishment would mean bass have a memory, correct?
Bob Lusk says they do not have a memory.
but if you wanted to say it was instintual then I could go along with that.
Given that a friend of mine had a bass in an aquarium which he trained to swim around a log twice before getting food, I'd say they do. Not to mention that bass have been shown to cease biting certain lures in a controlled environment after several nips. They realize it isn't food and even months after, will not bite they lure once they have learned this.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/1/2013 at 12:48 AM, SENKOSAM said:
Lure burn out has been mentioned, but bass memory has been studied and found to be limited in capacity and in the length of time memories are stored. Bass may remember some lures after being caught multiple times and shy away from striking them, but for how long - one year, a few years or for as long as it lives? Does the bass share that information with other bass or do all other bass in a water learn from it's demise, spreading the word that, that lure is deadly / avoid it any like it at all costs!!!? Or does human prejudice, including that spread by word of mouth, kill the lure's popularity for a body of water under the category of lure burn out? What about other waters? If the lure does poorly somewhere else, was it because fish were exposed to it too often, a flying fish spread the word between waters or the lure, like most others, has a time and place?
And I digress
SENKOSAM reply :
What are the chances a bass is caught by the same lure? Maybe in an aquarium where a study confirms long term memory, but in a large body of water? In any one year a new lure can do well, but lake conditions may change just enough to relocate bass that were easy to catch on a lure many just happened to use. The following year most bass don't remember the lure anyway, but it may remember and associate trolling motor sounds with danger after having been caught multiple times week after week and in consecutive years. Virgin bass are easy to catch - pressured bass not so much.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/2/2013 at 9:44 PM, SENKOSAM said:What are the chances a bass is caught by the same lure? Maybe in an aquarium where a study confirms long term memory, but in a large body of water? In any one year a new lure can do well, but lake conditions may change just enough to relocate bass that were easy to catch on a lure many just happened to use. The following year most bass don't remember the lure anyway, but it may remember and associate trolling motor sounds with danger after having been caught multiple times week after week and in consecutive years. Virgin bass are easy to catch - pressured bass not so much.
No study I know of has tested memory of lures to the extent of several years. More importantly, how much do bass generalize. If one gets hooked on a rapala jointed shad rap, will it strike at the lure in a different color, or has its vibration pattern, movement, etc. been so imprinted that the bass will never strike at that lure again. This gets even hairier when getting into jigs and spinnerbait design and skirts.
WRB reply :
Go online and search "Born to be caught, bass study" 20 year lake environment study by the U of Illinois.On 11/2/2013 at 11:50 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:Given that a friend of mine had a bass in an aquarium which he trained to swim around a log twice before getting food, I'd say they do. Not to mention that bass have been shown to cease biting certain lures in a controlled environment after several nips. They realize it isn't food and even months after, will not bite they lure once they have learned this.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/2/2013 at 11:50 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:Given that a friend of mine had a bass in an aquarium which he trained to swim around a log twice before getting food, I'd say they do. Not to mention that bass have been shown to cease biting certain lures in a controlled environment after several nips. They realize it isn't food and even months after, will not bite they lure once they have learned this.
I will continue to trust Bob Lusk, AKA pond boss.
The man has forgotten more about growing/studying fish than most of us will ever know.
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/2/2013 at 11:50 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:Given that a friend of mine had a bass in an aquarium which he trained to swim around a log twice before getting food, I'd say they do. Not to mention that bass have been shown to cease biting certain lures in a controlled environment after several nips. They realize it isn't food and even months after, will not bite they lure once they have learned this.
On 11/2/2013 at 9:56 PM, coryn h. fishowl said:No study I know of has tested memory of lures to the extent of several years. More importantly, how much do bass generalize. If one gets hooked on a rapala jointed shad rap, will it strike at the lure in a different color, or has its vibration pattern, movement, etc. been so imprinted that the bass will never strike at that lure again. This gets even hairier when getting into jigs and spinnerbait design and skirts.
so you just said they will stop biting a lure in a lab, but then turn around and no study has tested memory of lures????? come one man you cant have it both ways.
you can make a lab report say anything you want if you "control" it the right way, of course you won't agree with that either.
Catt has told you, WRB has told you, and I told you, you MUST study it in the wild or it doesn't mean anything.
and last time I checked, Bass will still bite a crème/plastic worm, so that proves you wrong too.
Paul Roberts reply :
Bass have been found to learn to avoid lures, and retain the "memory" up to several months. When testing responses to lures, researchers have to change out for fresh fish bc the previous fish learned enough to alter responses to lures, or avoid them altogether. Also, tank-mates learn from those that were directly edified.
And you cannot "test in the wild" like you can in a controlled laboratory bc there are so many competing variables in "the wild" that in the end you have nothing to say. Lab studies control extraneous variables enough to tease out something specific -such as that bass can "learn" and retain the experience. However, there are field studies too that have shown that catch rates decline precipitously shortly after angling is introduced to previously unfished for bass.
WRB reply :
The Ridge lake, Illinois bass study Born to be Caught is hard to dispute.
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
According to K. Jones, not all bass are alike in that some can be caught many times and some only a few. This was the study Jone's and Tom referred to:
QuoteWithin every population of bass, some individuals learn to renounce lures quickly, whereas others never make the mental connection between lures and trauma. In a four year study of angling recapture rates at a catch and release lake in Illinois, the average LM was caught twice each season. However, some bass were caught up to sixteen times in a single season.
Were any caught on the same lures more than once? How similar in design and color? How different the presentation? What length of time between captures?
What lures were found to be rejected first; which least? What was the water like - clarity, temperature, stain, etc.? Too many variables to make general statements about lure burn out and general lure rejection, as Paul said after I stated the same previously. But Paul also made this statement which holds true:
Quote
However, there are studies that have shown that catch rates decline precipitously shortly after angling is introduced to previously unfished for bass.
This also most definitely pertains to waters that have fewer accomplished bass anglers to pressure bass where they hang out with lures they have minimal exposure to.
I still maintain the more 'natural' and subdued the action and presentation, the less rejection overall. Downsizing may also have a positive effect on catching pre-caught bass which is why drop shot, 4" soft plastics work so well. Ask Ike!
(Tom, the report also states, "Male bass are the sole caregiver for the offspring. Females lay eggs and leave.") Read it on the Science Daily site.
Brian Needham reply :
Paul........its the variables in the wild that make the controls in the lab, incomplete, and useless IMO. (within reason)
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/3/2013 at 1:11 PM, WRB said:The Ridge lake, Illinois bass study Born to be Caught is hard to dispute.
Tom
link or method of how to find this study?
thanks tom
SENKOSAM reply :
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414153532.htm
WRB reply :
There isn't any question that the male bass has a longer time period guarding the nest site that it picked out and cleaned out to get ready for a female bass. The females role usually includes selecting a nest and male bass to spawn with, she doesn't just swim up and start depositing eggs. The ritual includes accepting the male bass, cleaning out the nest until it satisfies the female, this also helps to loosen eggs in the ovary sacks and can cause some tail damage. The male and femal are now together around the nest site. All this activity takes a few days. When the female is ready to drop some of her eggs initially, the first spawn, she rolls on her side and starts to drop eggs, the male moves in and drops melt on the eggs to fertilize them. This goes on for about an hour, then the female moves off a short distance to recuperate and watches the nest for any intruders. If this was her final egg laying, she moves off and doesn't return.
When bed fishing it's common to see 1 smaller size bass on nest because the male doesn't leave until the fry are ready, then the male often attackes his own brood!
It's also common to make a cast to the male on the bed and have a bigger female,that you don't see, charge in and nail your lure or bait or you catch the male, put it in the livewell and the female comes back to guard the nest. These are common tactics in bed fishing.
The statement "the female leaves" is true, but not absolute in the definition.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/3/2013 at 7:03 AM, Brian Needham said:so you just said they will stop biting a lure in a lab, but then turn around and no study has tested memory of lures????? come one man you cant have it both ways.
you can make a lab report say anything you want if you "control" it the right way, of course you won't agree with that either.
Catt has told you, WRB has told you, and I told you, you MUST study it in the wild or it doesn't mean anything.
and last time I checked, Bass will still bite a crème/plastic worm, so that proves you wrong too.
No study has tested memory of lures to the extent of years. Only months
WRB reply :
The Ridge lake study, Sam kindly posted a link to a article briefly giving some highlites on, was a 20 year study over several generations of bass susceptibility to being caught on lures. If you are thinking about a specific lure or lure classification, you are correct. However if bass didn't get conditioned to certain lures, we would simply fish with the same lure. This begs the question of why have thousands of lure choices for bass, when they have no memory? The answer should be obvious by looking at your tackle box.On 11/4/2013 at 1:03 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:No study has tested memory of lures to the extent of years. Only months
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
This begs the question of why have thousands of lure choices for bass, when they have no memory? The answer should be obvious by looking at your tackle box.
.... because anglers believe what they see, hear and read and run out to buy more! Bass aren't the only ones fooled by lures and lure makers. I no longer give up on lures that produce year after year and as much as the discussion is interesting, it won't change the way I fish or what I use to catch bass, memorable or not.
Brian Needham reply :
all the old timers around here are
white and chartruse spinnnerbaits
black and crome rattle traps
craw colored cranks
watermelon worms and black and blue jigs
they all catch plenty of fish and have so for 50+ years in the same lake.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 3:37 AM, Brian Needham said:all the old timers around here are
white and chartruse spinnnerbaits
black and crome rattle traps
craw colored cranks
watermelon worms and black and blue jigs
they all catch plenty of fish and have so for 50+ years in the same lake.
The answer, or ability to refine the question, is obscured by all the variables in the wild.
One way to get a quick understanding of it is to fish a pond that has NEVER been fished. I have a number of times and it is ... ridiculous. Such opportunities are so rare now that few will have the opportunity. We all fish for "educated" fish now.
The Ridge Lake study is a classic. There are quite a few others, but none so long in duration and with such control of a lake system (They drained it very year and counted every fish).
There's little question that bass can learn. From there, things get more complicated, especially "in the wild". There is no one "wild".
Catt reply :
Paul read what you wrote!
Think about!
Controlling every aspect of an experiment is forcing the outcome to justify your desired answer.
I don't care how bass react in a controlled sitting, I do care how bass react on Toledo Bend.
I have 42 yrs experence on Toledo Bend, I'm still catching bass on the same structure with the same lure.
This is reality
Brian Needham reply :
Catt, I have stated that very thing AT LEAST 4 or 5 times in this thread, they don't want to listen. They think lab rats can tell them something about wild animals.
I think I am just going to let them catch "lab bass" while we catch REAL bass....
Paul Roberts reply :
If you used used TB as the place to decipher whether bass can learn or not, you'd never find out. It's a "Do what you've always done, get what you always got." kind of thing. Lighting (sky, water), metabolic/energetic variation ("activity level"), competition with other predators, proximity to other predators, proximity to prey, activity of prey, type of prey, proximity to cover, presence of other anglers, "education level" of bass, etc ... cloud the question to the point that any "results" are useless. Unless you mean to tell me you catch 100 bass off each structure every time you go out? The variation in your results, (and those we all experience "in the wild"), is due to which of the variables I listed?
Fishing and research are two different things. The fact that bass can learn (some better than others) is worth knowing I think. But I agree it's no holy grail of an answer to all our fishing woes. Your point might be that it doesn't matter since none of us are fishing virgin fisheries. We have to learn to deal with all the variables. Lab and "controlled" studies of all types are not useless however. They each offer a glimpse of just what's important in a relative sense, opportunities to chip away at the limitations.
Catt reply :
Confirmation Bias, a tendency of people to favor information (not science) that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
Paul Roberts reply :
That is no answer to my question.
Which of the variables I listed (or any others you can add) explain the variability in your (our) catch rates in the wild? And does it tell us anything at all about whether bass can learn?
And I'll add a question; this one for Brian:
If you wanted to find out if bass can learn, how would you go about it?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 1:23 AM, WRB said:The Ridge lake study, Sam kindly posted a link to a article briefly giving some highlites on, was a 20 year study over several generations of bass susceptibility to being caught on lures. If you are thinking about a specific lure or lure classification, you are correct. However if bass didn't get conditioned to certain lures, we would simply fish with the same lure. This begs the question of why have thousands of lure choices for bass, when they have no memory? The answer should be obvious by looking at your tackle box.
Tom
Perfectly said my friend
Catt reply :
The thousands of lure choices are to catch the fisherman!
The research referenced is over a 20 yr period. I have 42 yrs of research on Toledo Bend, my first bass caught was on a Ringworm & 42 yrs later I'm still catching them on Ringworms.
So my question is where is the learning?
Oh yea please explain a Jitterbug, Hula Popper, & other lures 50-60 yrs old.
Brian Needham reply :
Paul ask yourself the same questions in a lab settings.
We are all old enough in this thread to know we can not control or predict mother nature.
The only question remains how many in the thread are smart enough not to still try........
Catt reply :
In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.
Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference review, & journal publication.
coryn h. fishowl, Paul Roberts, & WRB, none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?
Paul Roberts reply :
Again,
Those are not answers to my questions. (My answers are in parentheses below):
-Which of the variables I listed (or any others you can add) explain the variability in your (our) catch rates in the wild? (The answer is ... depends on the given day, or hour even)
-And does it tell us anything at all about whether bass can learn? (No.)
-If you wanted to find out if bass can learn, how would you go about it? (Fishing??? No. Enter a good university that has expertise in the field of fish behavior, acquire a good committee of those experts -you'll need em- and then do the work).
As to "none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?" :
That's not the case at all. But don't take my word for it. I'm not one of those fish behavior experts. But I've done enough real science to know that we are not dealing with a bunch of fools in those fields. Go ask around in the right circles -those that have expertise in the field of fish behavior. Most are willing to chat a bit.
As to "Why does the Jitterbug work after all these years?" I'll play along ... What IS a "Jitterbug" to a bass? And why do you think that stays constant? If the "idea" of a "Jitterbug" is not constant, WHY? Therein lies your answer (see below).
As to WRB's, "This begs the question of why have thousands of lure choices for bass, when they have no memory?":
I'm going to disagree with this as well, for the same reasons: Ignoring the bait monkey (our predilection to obsessively collect stuff) the VARIABILITY IN CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES (my partial list above) is why we need multiple tools to catch numbers of bass consistently. Memory, conditioning, learning to SPECIFIC lures is not, or is rarely, involved. At least in my experience. Maybe on a very popular lake where boat after boat comes down a bank with white spinnerbaits, maybe. (You can be sure though that there are days (conditions and circumstances), and ways of handling them, however, when the ol' white spinnerbait on that same bank will still catch em.) The effects of angling are more subtle, and broader, than conditioning against a particular lure. In my present understanding, as an angler, memory/conditioning has more to do with a generalized wariness and discernment exercised by fish to anglers and their presentations. Cast to fish NEVER before fished to and you'll see -they are different animals than ones that have experience with anglers. Want to know the magic potion for replicating virgin fish on a hard fished lake? Take a deep overcast, stable temps (or inc/dec depending on season), add some chop, have most anglers home watching football, the right density of preoccupied prey fishes, your favorite res pulling water, ... etc ...and you'll come somewhere close.
SENKOSAM reply :
A laboratory can be a lake but most likely a pond is better and I made one complete with thick weed bed, pads, fish (stocked per permit), depth of 9' maximum and even a hump. Of course I couldn't prevent my neighbor from adding some quality bass and other fish and most have thrived (except those eaten). Over the last six years I've learned a few things from the fish regardless of species, especially bass.
1. Bass associate a bass boat hooked to my truck with getting fed. I like adding yellow perch to the forage to be able to feed my fish and those that grow from birth. At first I would just drop six or so into the water and pull away. The following week I noticed a bass looking at me from about 5' away with part of it's body in the weeds. I dropped in a perch and it was swiftly snatched and made off with.
A few days later, i did the same except now there were three bass waiting to be fed. Mind you these were not the stockies from the fish farm - too large. In the last three years, some bass always come when the truck and boat arrive parallel to the same shoreline, except when the water temp drops below 55.
Note that many of these bass have been caught over and over, but not only still bite lures, but are conditioned to be fed within the year of having been caught.
SENKOSAM reply :
A laboratory can be a lake but most likely a pond is better and I made one complete with thick weed bed, pads, fish (stocked per permit), depth of 9' maximum and even a hump. Of course I couldn't prevent my neighbor from adding some quality bass and other fish and most have thrived (except those eaten). Over the last six years I've learned a few things from the fish regardless of species, especially bass.
1. Bass were able to associate a bass boat hooked to my truck with getting fed in the early evening between 6 and 7 pm. I've added yellow perch to build a forage base to be able to feed my fish and those that grow from birth. At first I would just drop six or so into the water and pull away. The following week I noticed a bass looking at me from about 5' away with part of it's body in the weeds. I dropped in a perch and it was swiftly snatched and made off with.
A few days later, I did the same except now there were three bass waiting to be fed. Mind you these were not the stockies from the fish farm - too large. In the last three years, some bass always come when the truck and boat arrive parallel to the same shoreline, at the same time of day except when the water temp drops below 55. I've had as many as five bass at a time and one that is fully exposed no more than 3' from me. Even my wading border collies don't bother them when food is involved.
2. Note that many of these bass have been caught over and over, but not only still bite lures, but are so conditioned by a stimulus, they lack fear or subdue the memory of the trauma being caught when I feed them. It's not as if there isn't enough fish swimming around - there are hundreds of all sizes. Besides, these fish are also caught through the ice on soft plastics even though prey fish are present in this tiny pond throughout the year. So, with so much food present, why would a bass even consider attacking a lure?
As far as lure burn out, some lures always get bit, more so by juveniles. But at times many older bass bite the same design in different areas (ie. punching a creature bait through heavy vegetation) on the same day.
Will future generations learn that a boat and truck mean an easy meal dropped from above? Obviously not an inherited lesson because different generations are caught by just a few lures most times over and over, just as many bass are caught over and over on the same type of lures in large lakes and rivers. In my opinion, fish are not capable of communicating negative experiences or learning from another fish's negative experience.
All this tells me as that at times, a bass's priorities can be affected by anglers whether or not they are feeding and that lures are not usually attacked because of appetite.
Catt reply :
I'm two semesters away from a degree in the philosophy of science; let me explain how it really works!
When research is done on wildlife where scientist;
Quote: control extraneous variables enough to tease something specific-such as that bass can "learn" and retain the experence.
In the scientific community under peer review the word "tease" is replaced with the word forced!
In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unneccessary to ascertain truth.
The rationalists thinks there are to many variables in the wild to obtain the results we want so we will simply remove the variables in a "scientific lab
".
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 11:32 AM, Catt said:The thousands of lure choices are to catch the fisherman!
The research referenced is over a 20 yr period. I have 42 yrs of research on Toledo Bend, my first bass caught was on a Ringworm & 42 yrs later I'm still catching them on Ringworms.
So my question is where is the learning?
Oh yea please explain a Jitterbug, Hula Popper, & other lures 50-60 yrs old.
Those lures weren't nearly as used/burnt out as spinnerbaits. If a bass gets caught on a hula popper (one of my favorite baits by the way) it isn't likely to get caught on it again, at least not in the same color pattern. Let us not get to testy, for argumentative bickering that grows to be offensive would surely be the death of this topic. Good night and joy be with you all.
Brian Needham reply :
where is the proof of that Ian???
you are talking in circles again dude.
now the fish will not be caught again on a hula popper(at least not the same color pattern) but on the last page no study over any concernable lenght has shown this to be true.
Lab reports speak in circle, always "CYA"
Catt speaks of confirmation bias and it holds true here too. Yall want to prove something yet say there are too many variables to control. THATS THE POINT...... let nature be natural.
We are humans, we do not suppose to understand or figure out everything.
SENKOSAM reply :
Has anyone considered the fact that some lures will never suffer from lack of strikes due to a shape and action that simulate a fish? Jones stated that bass and other predator fish (most freshwater species) prey on fish as the mainstay off their diet. The lures pictured fit the shape and action of fish, even the stick at the right. These lures always catch some bass as well as other species regardless of rig or presentation. My color choice never matches anything - I let shape and action do the talking. Seeing as how dependable they all year round (except in winter when downsizing is a given), is it a wonder that fish, even those hooked before, have no problem choosing them over live bait.
These lures are not reaction type baits such as crankbaits, spinnerbaits, noisy surface lures or other in-your-face lures; they are subtle, slow and teasing - one of the best for heavily fished waters. They fit in perfectly with a bass's genetic disposition to target fish over any other animal. No learning or unlearning possible.
As far as colors go, few are all that are ever needed and never need to simulate actual fish species such as gills, perch or shiners. If anything, flash & contrast are my choice regardless of water color, appealing to the visual targeting ability of bass along with the stream-lined shape and quiver of body and tail. (Note the pearl nail polish painted on then bottom of the Rapala.)
Let the lab rats test these lures on over a hundred bass, over a year or two, and it's doubtful that fish will or can avoid attacking them, some more than others when fish are susceptible. (Small sticks work better more often than 5" baits and Rapalas least.)
Frank
SPEEDBEAD. reply :
On 10/31/2013 at 10:07 PM, SPEEDBEAD. said:I've said it numerous times here....
I just fish.
Cool that there is so much quotable info out there but it just isn't my thing. Life is complicated enough....
Just throwing this little gem out there again.
Catt reply :
I find it interesting that most of these studies that I've read mentioned a spinner bait as the #1 easiest to remember.
I also find it interesting that most support the proven theory that the plastic worm is only lure made that a bass can not remember.
With the thousands of lure choices out there I wouldn't hesitate to exchange "plastic worm" from any of todays plastic lures.
WRB reply :
You might want to research Mike Lembeck and Larry Botroff, both fishery biologist in the San Deido area who's bass behavior studies are accepted by the science and fishery management organizations.On 11/4/2013 at 11:46 AM, Catt said:In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.
Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference review, & journal publication.
coryn h. fishowl, Paul Roberts, & WRB, none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?
The University of Illinios study referenced by David Phipp and his research teams study report appears to have been performed without bias. I have no idea if the science or fishery management accepts this report. Both reports were offered to satisfy your request for studies performed in the wild on wild largemouth bass verses captive tank fish.
You state that you have fished TB with the same lures on the same structure for 30 years successfully. I doubt that you are using the exact same lures, same types, different manufactures, sizes snd colors. My experience is similar, except the lakes I fish are much smaller, 2 miles long where TB is over 50 miles long. The jig I use is the same jig, the same colors bucktail hair and the same colors of pork trailers with the same shape, since 1971. Knowone else fishes the lakes with this jig combination and it has worked for me for over 40 years. So we agree that some lure classes work for decades. The more a lure replicates natural food sources it will continue to catch bass. If the anglers uses actual heathly live bait, the general bass population would never stop eating it.
Tom
PS; take a look at Science has lost it's way, LA Times.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 10:42 PM, Brian Needham said:Yall want to prove something yet say there are too many variables to control.
No, "Y'all" didn't say that, I said that. And It was not a blanket response to the entire subject. It was separating the reason why you cannot say much at all about the cognitive/memory abilities of fish with so many competing variables. Which variable affected your days fishing?? Well, that depends on the day, even hour. Which affected a bass' response to a particular lure? Would testing it in the dark compare against high noon, to take one extreme example? There are so many in nature that you would be left with nothing but "well it could have been this, or it could have been that or .... etc... That is exactly why this is not a question for anglers to answer. If anglers really think they can trust their own observations, powers of discernment, and memories over x number of years of fishing (that each contain multiple seasons and enormous variation in conditions and circumstances) to discern a single factor like "ability to learn" amongst all the rest, I'm ... shocked 
. You would then be right that there is no way to "know". So... why bother?? Tommy, Brian, is that your main point here?
Let's pretend that that is not the case and we can move on:
What might actually be done with the finding that yes bass in a lab CAN learn to avoid lures they've had experience with? Well, it certainly cannot be applied as the entire reason for the variability in our catch rates. But it's worth knowing. It becomes more interesting when we see multiple field studies that show that catch rates decline precipitously as virgin fisheries are fished. But, none that show that virgin bass fisheries get EASIER following experience with angling.
The Ridge Lake study is particularly compelling bc of its thoroughness. They actually quantified every catch, amount of angler effort, anglers catch rates, which fish were caught and how many times. They then drained the lake at the end of each year and counted every fish to be sure they had info on each. What they found was that bass became more difficult to catch over time and that individual bass varied in vulnerability to angling. Some were caught repeatedly, some never. Overall, catch rates declined rapidly following the introduction of angling. Basically "chuck-n-wind" began to fail. Anglers had to pay attention to the details of weather, water, seasons, and lure choice -conditions and circumstances -the fishing we know today. We all fish to experienced fish. As anglers we cannot compare this with a virgin fishery.
Brian Needham reply :
but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.
"so many in nature you are left with nothing"
if you take away variables are you not left with confirmation bias? as you possibly drop the one variable that rules the mood of the fish one way or another?
My main point, again I will state it, is we will never know because we are human, they are bass. And they aint talking. nature has mystified man since the dawn of time and that aint changing anytime soon either.
agree to disagree about the angle we come from
only question I am worried about is..............Your livewells full?
Paul Roberts reply :
On 11/5/2013 at 8:26 AM, Brian Needham said:but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.
Exactly!! You nailed it! There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time. Now...what are we going to do with this info??
My answer is ... nothing. Because I am not expecting virgin fisheries. What I glean out of this is that I know the bass know, to some level. At least emotionally that's worth knowing. And when someone writes that they finally got to fish a pond never fished before and it eventually "wore out" that learning plays at least some role in that. From there we must pay closer attention to the variables at hand that matter most at the given season, trend, hour. That's fishing.
Quotewe will never know because we are human, they are bass.
Bc we are human, would we try to catch largemouth bass and ... say ... chipmunks the same way? In other words, are we able to discern anything at all in the world out there? How about largemouth vs spots? Are there any differences? And how do we know -considering this deficit of being human and all?
Catt reply :
The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.
I never said the research was useless, just interesting information. I do tend to believe bass remember lures but that memory last seconds to minutes not weeks to months.
WRB do we have comprehension difficulties
Clearly stated, 42 yrs, the same worm, from the same manufacturer, & in the same colors.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 11/5/2013 at 9:02 AM, Catt said:The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.
I never said the research was useless, just interesting information.
Yes. And said characteristically succintly. Thank you, Tommy. Phew! I knew this was becoming an argument for the wrong reasons. I just couldn't find exactly what was wrankling everyone. It's mostly about ... level of importance. Learning in bass is so hard to discern. And then, what can you do with the info. IME, with all the variables in wild waters, learning just lowers the vulnerability of bass to angling by some ... generalized factor. We are then left with ... the fishing we know -dealing with all those variables. The devil is in those details. that's fishing.
Pleasure hashing this out with you guys.
Catt reply :
All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!
WRB reply :
you clearly stated 42 years, go back and retread #118. You didn't mention worms, colors or mfr's. we are both suffering from old timers. What is important we both fished 42 years with the same type of lures, worms and jigs, on similar structure with success!On 11/5/2013 at 9:02 AM, Catt said:The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.
I never said the research was useless, just interesting information. I do tend to believe bass remember lures but that memory last seconds to minutes not weeks to months.
WRB do we have comprehension difficulties
Clearly stated, 42 yrs, the same worm, from the same manufacturer, & in the same colors.
Tom
WRB reply :
Validated by whom? The studies were published, Nature and Science Journals, accepted by fishery biologist and management organizations across the country. What science community are you suggesting should approve a published paper?On 11/5/2013 at 10:00 AM, Catt said:All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!
We just need to agree to disagree on this topic and move on.
Tom
Paul Roberts reply :
On 11/5/2013 at 10:00 AM, Catt said:All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!
The research, and there is a LOT of it, is peer reviewed. I've been through the process a number of times and can tell you it can be stringent. The reviewers are experienced in the appropriate field. They look at your experimental design, confounding factors, your statistics, and if it doesn't pass muster they throw back at you to revise, edit, or go back to the drawing board. What's odd here is how you can pass judgment so easily in a field you have no working experience in. You are not in position to judge the quality of this body of work. 42 years on a given lake does not make you an expert on the fields of study that apply to fish behavior. Do you really think that all those universities are full of ... idiots?
When repeated studies, looking at the issue in many creative ways from labs to natural waters, show bass respond negatively to angling and that it affects catch rates considerably, what conclusions would you draw? Ignore the whole thing? That is certainly your choice.
QuoteWe just need to agree to disagree on this topic and move on.
Agreed.
Catt reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 11:46 AM, Catt said:In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.
Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference review, & journal publication.
coryn h. fishowl, Paul Roberts, & WRB, none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?
Catt reply :
Quote: control extraneous variables enough to tease something specific-such as that bass can "learn" and retain the experience.
That Paul is where that type of research fails under peer review.
Paul Roberts reply :
Ah! You are misunderstanding. Not fake or distort data. "Control" in this sense does not mean to actively distort things but to remove confounding factors. In this case (here we go again, and for the last time):
Brian Needham, on 05 Nov 2013 - 08:26, said:
On 11/5/2013 at 8:26 AM, Brian Needham said:but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.
Exactly!! You nailed it! There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time.
And, Tommy, these studies didn't fail under peer review. It's understood that inferences and interpretations are made, and that there's lots more beneath that we cannot comprehend yet. But there's plenty of good work there -too much of it to ignore.
SENKOSAM reply :
Paul pretty much echoed what many experienced anglers know for a fact - individual waters contain individual bass affected by different variables that affect fishing and for the most part lessen predictability and catch rates. What research does show are the biological attributes and limitations bass have as well as as well as how they relate to those variables which many anglers have been ignorant of and assume incorrectly reasons bass bite or not.
Knowing Bass, by Jones points out many facts about bass, lures and lab findings in controlled and uncontrolled environments, confirmed by other studies and experienced anglers. The book includes the variables we all encounter on a daily and seasonal basis filtered by bass senses for the most part but in conjunction with neural responses/reactions (aka unsophisticated cerebral ability).
So let's not bash science or research altogether, but appreciate findings that may clarify the why and how fishing is a sport and rarely a sure thing. Both research and anglers have room for error statistically and individually, indicating that a guess can sometimes outweigh massive research, but most important, disprove claims made by lure companies and sponsors promoting sales for one dumb reason or another. Match the hatch as well as other dogmatic generalities stated over and over in Bassmaster and BASS Times will always stick in my craw as fallacies that research and my own experiences over 55 years has challenged, refuted or modified!
In my opinion, I basically compare a bass's brain to that of a one month old child that instinctively exhibits certain automatic behaviors (the act of suckling, cooing, expressing discomfort and fear and when to fall asleep). Bass by comparison suspend, feed when hungry or provoked, flee when alarmed and chose to touch, mouth or ingest objects it shouldn't, just like a curious human baby. The big difference is that when a baby is startled or awakened abruptly, it cries; a bass after a split second of composure, will quickly analyze the sudden appearance of an object and then react to it one of three ways.
How much learning goes on? About as much as a one month old infant stuck with that IQ for the rest of it's life.
Again each to his own beliefs, but as long as individual anglers catch fish different ways on the same day in the same water or different nearby water, that's all the validation I need. And that is a constant!
WRB reply :
We are trying to discuss bass behavior and apply scientific analysis to behavior that hasn't have enough funding to attract a broad base of information.
The 2 reports I referenced were funded by the city of San Deigo to determine if the goal of improving angler success Carch rate per hour of fishing and the bass being caught averaging larger size. This is what Orville Ball hoped to achieve by introducing pure Florida strain largemouth bass into San Deigo city lakes. Larry Botroff and Mike Lembeck, both DFG biologist, studied the bass and catch rates to make thiat determination. The results of the studies proved that FLMB were more difficult to catch and the angler per hour catch rate declined as a result. The FLMB introduction was considered a failure to meet the goals intended. The intend to introduce giant bass was not planned, it was a byproduct an unintended result.
This often happens in research, sometimes the unintended results far exceed the original goal, most of the time it fails.
One of the most outstanding study was a project named Alex. Alex was a African grey paroit that was trained to talk to determine the vocabulary a paroit could attain. Alex's vocabulary was astonishing, however the bird also showed the ability to comprehend the vocabulary. The scientific community is split on Alex ability to comprehend words. There is no debate that Alex was an intelligent bird. Birds, bass and humans are not all the same and this makes behavior studies subjective.
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/4/2013 at 11:46 AM, Catt said:In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.
Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference review, & journal publication.
coryn h. fishowl, Paul Roberts, & WRB, none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?
There are not very many popular experiments concerning bass behavior. Most studies are observatory research, not experimentation to be be reviewed, nor are there many who study bass specifically in the scientific community (as compared to say physicists) to review and accept hypothesis. Now, if you wanted to talk about behavioral research concerning the effectiveness of enclosed environments among in mostly instinctual animals, (e.g. fish as a whole, as opposed to a chimp, which learns more behaviors) then yes, I'm sure you could find more peer reviewed studies. I wish this were a more popular animal for biologists to study, so that we might have more scientific information concerning this vexing little mascot of ours, and, seeking to be an animal biologist myself one day, perhaps I can be one to do so myself.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
I never thought this topic would grow to be so large, haha. 
Paul Roberts reply :
For the record, there are quite a few peer reviewed studies pertaining to largemouth bass catchability and responses to angling. And a lot of anecdotal stuff from good theorists such as Keith Jones, Ralph Manns, Rich Zaleski, Bob Underwood, and Doug Hannon. Bass can learn, but how that plays out in angling is mostly lost in the myriad environmental variables. And any comparison with "virgin fisheries" is pretty much moot considering that we all fish angler impacted waters.
Getting back to the fishing, and where I think some of the contention in this thread lies, is the idea that a given lure can be learned to the point that it would be excluded by bass.
QuoteIf a bass gets caught on a hula popper (one of my favorite baits by the way) it isn't likely to get caught on it again, at least not in the same color pattern.
This doesn’t tend to be born out, IME, at least so drastically. But let me tackle the idea in this way…
I asked: What IS a "Jitterbug" (or “Hula Popper”) to a bass? And does that stay constant? It’s certainly not the same Jitterbug known to the angler or lure collector. If the "idea" of a "Jitterbug" is not constant to a bass, then WHY NOT? My answer is that it is NOT constant and that bass get a different read on its signature depending on conditions, circumstances, and that bass’s mood.
This thread begs the question of just what the nitty gritty of lure presentation actually is. Again, lures are NOT food. And rest assured they all look pretty silly under good scrutiny. They have to be disguised as food, you literally are duping fish with them. This is easier done in some conditions and circumstance than others, and why we anglers pretty much rely on providence to offer them up to us. The pride we can take in angling skill revolves around our abilities to recognize opportunities and take advantage of them.
Catt brought up a good question as to why spinnerbaits are so often singled out as the bait most apt to be learned and avoided by bass. My guess is it’s twofold: There’s a historical context in that SBs became hugely popular at a time when expendable income went through the roof and hordes of anglers began using them and there weren’t all the options available then as there are now. Secondly, the SB is a classic chuck-n-wind lure apt to be mis-applied by the hordes of newbs and weekend warriors chucking them. A few things happened: Fish did get hip to them at some level. I’ve seen this myself in “virgin SB fisheries” I got to fish. Fairly quickly though, the times and conditions when the bass are susceptible to a new lure begins to narrow after they’ve been consistently exposed to it. But … and more practically speaking, anglers simply discovered that there are real limits to chuck-n-wind presentations -PERIOD!
Lots of anglers still make mighty good use of SBs. It’s how, where and when you apply them that makes the vast majority of the difference. Once again, as I’ve offered this up many times before and many experienced anglers have agreed, if you are relying on some inherent magic in a given lure to do the work for you, you are fooling yourself. Much of the time we must take “lures” to the fish, not expect the fish to come to our lures.
SENKOSAM reply :
Excellent Paul!
First, I like the idea of using the word theorist. Too many times we forget that much of our decisions are based on our own preconceived theories or that of someone else. Most times I would speculate that more than half all anglers ignore the variables that take into account bass physiology, the physics of light in water and the best lures for the job that do not ignore those variables.
As Jones said in knowing Bass,
Quote
Designing artificial lures may have been turned into art, but it's not much of a science.
and
Quote
Isn't it possible that the facts we rely on are really misinterpretations based on ignorance? Some currently accepted lure appeal to bass is not necessarily what we think it is and you need only to listen to a few tournament speeches to realize that even some pro anglers have serious misconceptions .... What they believe bass see and what is likely the bass sees are often miles apart and it's ironic that bass anglers choose lures based on what we think bass might like to see. When matching the hatch (not always the best approach by any means), anglers have no reasonable idea about the best lures to use and all too frequently our choices are based on what looks good to us. We can only hope bass agree.
When the facts of bass vision, motion and vibration detection, water clarity, light and a few other variables are taken into account, what appears complex is really far more simple when understood from a the perspective that other things matter. Lure choices become simplified because previous assumptions fall short when we start including the changing variables we know that can exist on any different day that should not be ignored.
It's nice and exciting buying lures based on their eye candy appeal or magic-like qualities and to brag about how fantastic they were after the first outing, but the truth is is that lures are just one key that fit the lock-of-the-day but often fail from then on because time and place apply always. Just the fact that most lures are unrealistic looking in the extreme should make one stop and think, in what world does a jig look like a crawfish or that a spinnerbait resembles a shad or blue gill? To suggest that they do to a bass, first of all ignores what most lures look like in typical algae filled water early or late in the day. Second, and more important, is that to insist that bass translate one lure's appearance into being a specific animal species. It's not even a reasonable assumption and makes me wonder the original source and whether there was self interest involved
Bass aren't logical though anglers should be, and though visual hunters, bass by no means put much thought into an object moving a few miles per hour and hopefully a few feet away though a visual filter. What's more is that the fast moving lure the bass gets caught on, most times can't be remembered because it never got a good look at it when it attacked it in the first place, plus a bass can't see what's in its mouth.
Nice discussion that hopefully many will give serious thought and consideration to. Illusions are nice, but they can be damned frustrating and any bass would tell you that if it could after it was caught!
WRB reply :
Bass vision is another whole new can of worms or pandora s box. Stick with Kieth Jones on this topic as he maybe closer to factual data on this subjective topic.
Tom
SENKOSAM reply :
Jones is my main source.
tatertester reply :
I still say spoonplugs prove that bass are suckers for a reaction bait.
WRB reply :
Spoon plugs proved bass related to structure away from shore. During Buck Perry's era trolling plugs was as common as casting crankbaits today, it was the accepted fishing technique. Deep diving plugs were limited to River Runts, Whopper Stoppers Hellbenders and Bombers. Perry's metal version of a Flat Fish proved a controlled depth diving plug trolled over mid lake structure elements like humps caught bass that few new existed.On 11/8/2013 at 6:50 AM, tatertester said:I still say spoonplugs prove that bass are suckers for a reaction bait.
Tom
tatertester reply :
Spoonplugs with their various depths and trolling technique surely catch bass , but, not nearly as enjoyable fishing as current methods IMO.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/8/2013 at 2:49 AM, WRB said:Bass vision is another whole new can of worms or pandora s box. Stick with Kieth Jones on this topic as he maybe closer to factual data on this subjective topic.
Tom
It still surprises me that anglers use so many stained to muddy patterns featuring so much blue and purple, e.g. blue and black jigs, with the idea that these are "flashy colors," when these are the colors that bass are worst at seeing.
SENKOSAM reply :
Cory, I think anglers can only speculate about color, but not about lure contrasts that include sound/vibration, lure brightness or shadowing and lure action, which account for all strikes lure related beyond angler manipulation. Constants rarely exist in nature which makes fishing so challenging.
Catt reply :
Jigs imitate crawfish which are black, brown, blue, green, white, orange, red & combinations there of.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/12/2013 at 11:38 PM, SENKOSAM said:Cory, I think anglers can only speculate about color, but not about lure contrasts that include sound/vibration, lure brightness or shadowing and lure action, which account for all strikes lure related beyond angler manipulation. Constants rarely exist in nature which makes fishing so challenging.
we know based on studies of their eyes how they see the world. For example, they see red and greens the best.
Catt reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 8:27 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:we know based on studies of their eyes how they see the world. For example, they see red and greens the best.
ROFLMAO no you don't!
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 8:30 AM, Catt said:ROFLMAO no you don't!
took the words out of my mouth Catt.
Catt reply :
Cory is the funniest dude that's been on the site in years!
Paul Roberts reply :
Well... we do know what wavelengths of light bass are sensitive to, and at what proportions. And there are some really good ideas out there on what induced the development of those color vision capabilities. But making much use out of that info as an angler is the rub. Too many confounding intervening variables. Dunno about you all, but I've never been able to make much use of specific wavelengths (color), or at least seen anything that proves anything concretely. I have collected a number of anecdotal stories about anglers and their pet color theories. Pretty amusing stories many are that tell me that most of them have little to do with reality -what's going on for the fish. Doesn't mean we should stop looking though.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 8:30 AM, Catt said:ROFLMAO no you don't!
Yes, scientists have in fact studied their eyes and through cellular studies of the organ itself have determined how they see there world. this is not a whimsical guess, it is science, precise science! do not slander the credibility of research based on your unfounded opinions! 
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 8:40 AM, Catt said:Cory is the funniest dude that's been on the site in years!
Am I to assume this to be an insult, if so then I would like to maintain the civility that this site is known for without the tasteless mocking taunts of typical youtube comment worthy banter. Lets not get this thread killed
Brian Needham reply :
who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?
not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.
I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.
Catt reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 10:07 AM, coryn h. fishowl said:Yes, we have in fact studied their eyes and through cellular studies of the organ itself have determined how they see there world. this is not a whimsical guess, it is science, precise science! do not slander the credibility of research based on your unfounded opinions!
Dude you aint got a clue what science is
Brian Needham reply :
back to the topic....... I have read more than one "study" that says blues are readily more seeable. yet you seem to think it is a mythical color based on your earlier post.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 10:13 AM, Brian Needham said:back to the topic....... I have read more than one "study" that says blues are readily more seeable. yet you seem to think it is a mythical color based on your earlier post.
Oh no, just that blues and purples are further on an end of the spectrum that they have trouble discerning. It would look somewhat grayish to them.
http://books.google.com/books?id=uKBd85BhyQYC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=largemouth+bass+vision+blues+purple&source=bl&ots=E2CyX8wsDu&sig=oVoWga8RmsIU7N0PFGD6iA2FkkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0uCCUrKdKeKs2wXX_YDIBA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=largemouth%20bass%20vision%20blues%20purple&f=false
http://aaronlesieur.com/bass-fishing-articles/through-the-eye-of-the-bass/
Brian Needham reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 10:11 AM, Brian Needham said:who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?
not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.
I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 10:18 AM, Brian Needham said:
On 11/13/2013 at 10:11 AM, Brian Needham said:who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?
not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.
I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.
The "we" was a grammatical error. However, my major in college will be wildlife biology with a specialization in predatorial behavior, and as such would one day love to study the animal I devote so much time to chasing.
WRB reply :
Fishbowl be aware of Internet info, pay attention to valid published papers and printed books by recognized experts in this field. Kieth Jones, Knowing Bass is a good resource for example.
What is known about how LMB see colors underwater where they live is an ongoing science experiment.
Bass can see seveal times better in low light than a human can see above water in bright light conditions.
Bass have the ability to change their vision for long distance verses close up and change the flutter rate to look at fast moving objects in slow motion. What is unknown is there ultra violet color range that the human eye can't detect unaided. There is lots of things we don't know about how bass see their world. When you get our age, you may LOL at what we think we know. Until that time keep an open mind, some of us have been bass fishing longer than you dad has lived. When I was 17 I knew everything, then discovered at 35 I actually was confident of a few things, at 70 I have forgotten more about bass fishing than most people will ever know.
You posted a good thread that has brought out some very good exchanges, some are getting personal and that isn't positive and time to accept the fact it's better to agree to disagree than win a point.
Peace.
Tom
Catt reply :
Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by obsevation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
For something to be considered "scientific" it MUST meet all four of the following principles.
Observation: the action or process of observing something in order to gain information; someone had to have observed it at least once in their life time.
Testable: involves two componts
1. The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability.
2. The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series.
Repeatable: The ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently (peer review). It is one of the main principles of the scientific method and relies on ceteribus paribus (all things being equal or held constant).
Falsifiable: A hypothesis or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Example, all swams are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 1:05 PM, WRB said:When I was 17 I knew everything, then discovered at 35 I actually was confident of a few things, at 70 I have forgotten more about bass fishing than most people will ever know.
You posted a good thread that has brought out some very good exchanges, some are getting personal and that isn't positive and time to accept the fact it's better to agree to disagree than win a point.
Peace.
Tom
If I believed myself to know everything, I would not devote my time researching the behavior and biology of predators, bass included. Yes, it is an ongoing challenge, seeing the world through eyes of bass, but some things we know already, such as their color perception. However, I do appreciate the manner in which you have approached topics.
SENKOSAM reply :
Putting all BS aside (including my own), answer this question: what are YOUR favorite crankbait colors?
Putting the question into perspective: a human's choice is most times not scientific! It's based on opinion, based on simplified knowledge and beliefs. Opinion is supported by experiences, successes and failures, but mostly bias.
I have a bias for pearl sided crankbaits. Why? Because they flash more light the deeper crankbaits are used and contrast with all backgrounds viewed from the side.
Does anyone actually use purple, pink, blue or aquamarine crankbaits? Years ago the Color C Lector had them on the meter which took into consideration water qualities and depth. But how long did that go over? How many of you use solid colored crankbaits with no details such as eyes, gills and scales? Do they promote strikes happening? (BTW, I've used solid white and pearl crankbaits and caught bass.)
Again, bias, opinion, experience or inexperience decides our lure choices, colors, sizes, etc. and where they are used. Location is by far #1, but to suggest that one size fits all when it comes to chosing artificial baits under all or specific situations is in itself telling. Such is constantly demonstrated by bait company propaganda that exercise sophisticated methods to dismiss reason and logic to sell and to take their word for why we should buy this or that lure in different colors. Their schills have lost credibility, except to the clueless novice that are drawn in by imagery of big bass, big tournament wins and 50 bass days. We know better.
I'm apt to believe that many of you that replied to this topic have experience and have limited your choices based on many outings on different waters under different conditons. Science is nice, but taking chances on a whim and being surprised when they catch fish are so much better!
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/13/2013 at 9:59 PM, SENKOSAM said:Putting all BS aside (including my own), answer this question: what are YOUR favorite crankbait colors?
Putting the question into perspective: a human's choice is most times not scientific! It's based on opinion, based on simplified knowledge and beliefs. Opinion is supported by experiences, successes and failures, but mostly bias.
I have a bias for pearl sided crankbaits. Why? Because they flash more light the deeper crankbaits are used and contrast with all backgrounds viewed from the side.
Does anyone actually use purple, pink, blue or aquamarine crankbaits? Years ago the Color C Lector had them on the meter which took into consideration water qualities and depth. But how long did that go over? How many of you use solid colored crankbaits with no details such as eyes, gills and scales? Do they promote strikes happening? (BTW, I've used solid white and pearl crankbaits and caught bass.)
Again, bias, opinion, experience or inexperience decides our lure choices, colors, sizes, etc. and where they are used. Location is by far #1, but to suggest that one size fits all when it comes to chosing artificial baits under all or specific situations is in itself telling. Such is constantly demonstrated by bait company propaganda that exercise sophisticated methods to dismiss reason and logic to sell and to take their word for why we should buy this or that lure in different colors. Their schills have lost credibility, except to the clueless novice that are drawn in by imagery of big bass, big tournament wins and 50 bass days. We know better.
I'm apt to believe that many of you that replied to this topic have experience and have limited your choices based on many outings on different waters under different conditons. Science is nice, but taking chances on a whim and being surprised when they catch fish are so much better!
Hallelujah! Darn good post man. When nothing works I always throw a wildcard bait in some strange color, and oftentimes it works!
KyakR reply :
This may very well be my favorite thread on BR so far! Passionate exchanges full of years of knowledge and experience......questions worthy of a philosopher (ie "How can we know?").......clashes between age and youth! Not to mention the overall effort of everyone to remain open-minded and civil even when there's fire in the eye!
My 2 cents has to with what Science is and why I love it. I think that each of us has an interior "mental model" of the world around us. As we grow and learn, this model comes more and more to approximate our "reality," if you think of reality as the great machine of the universe with all it's laws and consequences. We each have different "models" and each of them is inadequate alone. Each person survives more or less according to his and how accurate it is......everyone's "model" includes information about gravity. If not life can be hard.
Science is the "mental model" of the entire human race created over centuries to help us negotiate our world. To continually refine what we know! We conquered our planet because Science, through our shared bank of experience, has modeled "reality" ever more adequately, even past the limits of our senses. It's not perfect! But it is the best model we have, and it's as good as it is only because real scientists labor to hold tightly to the scientific method, which has been, happily, well described here. Science is called a discipline for a reason. To "do" it properly requires enormous discipline, not only by one, but by groups of people together. By people who love it, know what it means to humanity, and for whom forsaking the scientific method is unthinkable and unethical.
Science gives us a less adequate model of bass behavior than we'd like partly because, as Tom said, the funding isn't there. And I think Brian said some important things implying (to me anyway) that the science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior. All it means is that the big gun of Science hasn't been pointed in that direction. IMO
Second to last thing: I think it's good to remember that amazing things have been done and said by people under 25. Most of major advancements in many fields come from young people about that age. But it's also true that us old folks often have wisdom difficult for youngsters to grasp. My son Brian tells me now that he's in his mid-thirties that I'm getting smarter every year 
Lastly, I love this thread because it's really given me such a great idea about everybody's personality! What interesting and cool people! Would be neat to get a topic like this going at the roadtrip after a few beers!
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior
Maybe if skin divers followed bass around for weeks in the wild non-stop, could they begin to see locations, feeding behavior and responses to various lures (similar to Glen Lau and Doug Hannon videos). But that most likely will never happen and most important, not happen on the thousands of waters across the nation. Habitat defines bass behavior and anglers that fish different waters have to figure out what differences there are that habitat defines which dictates trying different lures and presentations that find susceptible bass.
Sure, science can predict chemical reactions and (sometimes) the weather, but wild things that turn on and off at the drop of a hat - maybe not so much, otherwise certain anglers who owned predictive informations would always win whatever tournament they were in. Reading the standings in BASSMaster Magazine tells me no one does because few veteran pros are in the top forty all of the time.
The scientific method and logs have helped me define bass behavior as chaotic, as all those who have been skunked might agree. Granted, bass may show a predictable pattern that can last for a few days or weeks, but the following year be totally different, even as far as the lures they strike in certain locations. Other than that, science has helped me organize my experiences into facts that are a bit more reliable over time, minus the fallacies and misinformation I mentioned earlier.
No model is perfect nor could it be when it comes to wild life, but an angler needs a frame of reference to at least have somewhere to start from when trying different things to save time versus snoozing on a bank with a bobber and live bait attached to the big toe with a bit of string while snoozing under a large straw hat hoping for a tug on his big toe alerting him to a bite.
When, where and how to use lures will always be the challenge that no model will ever predict 100 %.
WRB reply :
The only B.A.S.S. tournament pro that was also a scientist was the late Dr. Loren Hill, professor U of OK. Father of Keyon Hill, Elite pro.
Dr. Loren Hill had written about 50 papers on largemouth bass and we tend to debate his knowledge, bass anglers are a study unto itself, self proclaimed experts . Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.
Tom
PS; agree with KayakR, this was an interesting thread and everyone who interacted added their opinions and experiences, sharing is what this is all about. Have a good Thanksgiving day to all.
KyakR reply :
Happy Thanksgiving !
SENKOSAM reply :
Quote
Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.
So true! An open mind leads to discovery and surprise, insuring the ebb and flow of learning. Sharing our experiences opens volumes of ideas to at least consider just as being on the water does.
Thanks Giving
A day for giving thanks and counting our blessings such as good friends and family (whoever and wherever they may be) and praying for those less fortunate.
Enjoy and don't over eat!
Frank
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/28/2013 at 11:11 PM, SENKOSAM said:
Enjoy and don't over eat!
Easier said than done
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 11/28/2013 at 3:13 AM, KyakR said:This may very well be my favorite thread on BR so far! Passionate exchanges full of years of knowledge and experience......questions worthy of a philosopher (ie "How can we know?").......clashes between age and youth! Not to mention the overall effort of everyone to remain open-minded and civil even when there's fire in the eye!
My 2 cents has to with what Science is and why I love it. I think that each of us has an interior "mental model" of the world around us. As we grow and learn, this model comes more and more to approximate our "reality," if you think of reality as the great machine of the universe with all it's laws and consequences. We each have different "models" and each of them is inadequate alone. Each person survives more or less according to his and how accurate it is......everyone's "model" includes information about gravity. If not life can be hard.
Science is the "mental model" of the entire human race created over centuries to help us negotiate our world. To continually refine what we know! We conquered our planet because Science, through our shared bank of experience, has modeled "reality" ever more adequately, even past the limits of our senses. It's not perfect! But it is the best model we have, and it's as good as it is only because real scientists labor to hold tightly to the scientific method, which has been, happily, well described here. Science is called a discipline for a reason. To "do" it properly requires enormous discipline, not only by one, but by groups of people together. By people who love it, know what it means to humanity, and for whom forsaking the scientific method is unthinkable and unethical.
Science gives us a less adequate model of bass behavior than we'd like partly because, as Tom said, the funding isn't there. And I think Brian said some important things implying (to me anyway) that the science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior. All it means is that the big gun of Science hasn't been pointed in that direction. IMO
Second to last thing: I think it's good to remember that amazing things have been done and said by people under 25. Most of major advancements in many fields come from young people about that age. But it's also true that us old folks often have wisdom difficult for youngsters to grasp. My son Brian tells me now that he's in his mid-thirties that I'm getting smarter every year
Lastly, I love this thread because it's really given me such a great idea about everybody's personality! What interesting and cool people! Would be neat to get a topic like this going at the roadtrip after a few beers!
images-1.jpgCome on, now that's not even fair, how do you keep one up(ing) everyone with your thoughtful responses and insight. How can we compete.
KyakR reply :
On 12/1/2013 at 12:31 PM, coryn h. fishowl said:Come on, now that's not even fair, how do you keep one up(ing) everyone with your thoughtful responses and insight. How can we compete.
Mroohohaha! Hurry up and turn 18 so you can debate me at the Road trip!
Catt reply :
Ever heard of Ken Cook?On 11/28/2013 at 12:57 PM, WRB said:The only B.A.S.S. tournament pro that was also a scientist was the late Dr. Loren Hill, professor U of OK. Father of Keyon Hill, Elite pro.
Dr. Loren Hill had written about 50 papers on largemouth bass and we tend to debate his knowledge, bass anglers are a study unto itself, self proclaimed experts . Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.
Tom
PS; agree with KayakR, this was an interesting thread and everyone who interacted added their opinions and experiences, sharing is what this is all about. Have a good Thanksgiving day to all.
Oklahoma Fisheries Biologist & one of the top Professional Angler!
Want me to name more?
WRB reply :
How soon I forget.On 12/2/2013 at 10:49 PM, Catt said:Ever heard of Ken Cook?
Oklahoma Fisheries Biologist & one of the top Professional Angler!
Want me to name more?
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 12/1/2013 at 4:16 PM, KyakR said:Mroohohaha! Hurry up and turn 18 so you can debate me at the Road trip!
If I go, I'll turn 18 halfway through the trip. B-day's on May 2. Sounds like an incredible opportunity, I would love to attend.
KyakR reply :
On 12/4/2013 at 1:55 PM, coryn h. fishowl said:If I go, I'll turn 18 halfway through the trip. B-day's on May 2. Sounds like an incredible opportunity, I would love to attend.
It would be mighty fine if you could!
KyakR reply :
But you'd have to give me your beers 
Brian Needham reply :
Btw: Brian is not implying anything.
My statement is clear: It is nature and we are human. Nature will never be "figured out", for the fact we are human.
It is not our place to understand. Mother Nature will always be "king", always one step in front of humans.... as that is the way it was designed.
If it wasnt we would still be using penicillian for everything but things change for whatever reason. Kyakr, from what I gather you come from a nursing background. You would have had to seen it yourself.
with that said we still catch fish on the same spinnerbaits in the same colors and the same worms...... it is a circle; a circle that will not be broken or figured out in any lab or study method, IMO.
Sure the lab and studies will always come close, but nature will always change, add another variable. Then humans will make new studies on new lures, and think we have it figured out, only for nature to turn it upside down again.
Sometimes you just got to look up and enjoy what you are seeing, and not worry about the WHY so much, just be glad it is.
There is a reason they are called mad scientist......they went mad trying to figure out the impossible, LOL.
and that argument has never been broken, and most likely never will.
Catt reply :
Just out of curiosity coryn h. fishowl since January 1 st to December 5 th how many bass have you caught?
50? 100? 250? 500? 1,000? More?
How many over 5? Over 8? Over 10?
Science is about information...more importantly the interruptation of that information!
You have a lot of knowledge but no wisdom!
KyakR reply :
On 12/5/2013 at 10:36 PM, Brian Needham said:Btw: Brian is not implying anything.
My statement is clear: It is nature and we are human. Nature will never be "figured out", for the fact we are human.
It is not our place to understand. Mother Nature will always be "king", always one step in front of humans.... as that is the way it was designed.
If it wasnt we would still be using penicillian for everything but things change for whatever reason. Kyakr, from what I gather you come from a nursing background. You would have had to seen it yourself.
with that said we still catch fish on the same spinnerbaits in the same colors and the same worms...... it is a circle; a circle that will not be broken or figured out in any lab or study method, IMO.
Sure the lab and studies will always come close, but nature will always change, add another variable. Then humans will make new studies on new lures, and think we have it figured out, only for nature to turn it upside down again.
Sometimes you just got to look up and enjoy what you are seeing, and not worry about the WHY so much, just be glad it is.
There is a reason they are called mad scientist......they went mad trying to figure out the impossible, LOL.
and that argument has never been broken, and most likely never will.
Nursing background....true! I've seen many lives saved, much human happiness because Science intervened. I do agree with you here, Brian Our knowledge will always fall short, and will sometimes even take lives or make them worse (H-bomb, bacteria resistant TB, etc.) But it is our place as human beings to understand if that means acquiring widom (**** sapiens means wise ape). Science is only a tool to accomplish this. It's the human heart that really "knows." Nature and people aren't separate either......we are nature too. But, as you imply, if people in science or otherwise ever forget to have humility before the unknowable, to bend a knee and bow a head to the things of the spirit that are in us and in Nature, tragedy often follows! The Greeks called this "hubris" and I often loved the stories of this in dad's mythology books when I was a kid!
Anyhow, I do recognize the truth in what you're saying. Even if you mentioned Yakburgers that one time 
A-Jay reply :
On 11/1/2013 at 2:03 AM, WRB said:Experienced bass learn from their time on the water what bass prefer on the lakes they fish and become good anglers that consistantly catch fish or they don't learn and repeat what other good anglers are doing. The 90-10 rule where 10% of the angers catch 90% of the bass hasn't changed in my life time. The fact that the top anglers catch their bass using different lures and presentations then the 90% who struggle is an interesting topic and gives us a clue regarding bass behavior. The common denominator to solving this problem is food verses bass feeding activity, the top anglers are catching active feeding bass, the unsuccessful are not.
Bass don't eat all day long and they are not laying in ambush waiting for your lure to swim by as most anglers believe. Cover enough water and you will catch bass is another mistake most anglers make. You may stumble into active bass by covering a lot of water where bass are located, this is a hit and miss technique.
If you could go directly to where the bass are located and time your fishing to when the bass are active feeding, you will consistantly catch more bass. Learning about bass behavior helps, discovering what the bass are eating and where they are located = success...as long as your presence doesn't alter the feeding activity.
Tom
I had not been following this thread from the beginning.
I did just read all 14 pages; living in the snow belt, I've got time.
Much of this may not directly answer the OP's questions but there is an abundance of very interesting info and views here; most of which is way above my pay grade.
However, Toms quote above is one I can wrap my head around and routinely attempt to implement.
Perhaps the single most impressive aspect of this entire thread - Is The Passion.
A-Jay
Brian Needham reply :
welcome to the fray A-Jay!!!
it has been a wierd ride......I have learned so I suppose that's all that matters.
SPEEDBEAD. reply :
Just trying to make LongMike proud here but shouldn't the title of the thread be "among" since there are three species of bass tagged under the title?
I'm better with grammar than biology.
WRB reply :
Thank you A-jay. Interesting thread that has covered a lot of philosophy and some differences between bass species. The title could have been the science of bass and man behavior.
Put another log on the fire and enjoy the Holidays.
Tom
Nave reply :
Very interesting read!
aceman387 reply :
I just stumbled upon this topic, amazing stuff ! Man we have some talented people on this site. You can surf other bass sites and you will never find such talent and knowledge and information. This place has the best of the best. 
Great job you guys!
Nitrofreak reply :
I think I am intellectually challenged !! LOL !!
KyakR reply :
On 12/7/2013 at 12:04 AM, A-Jay said:
Perhaps the single most impressive aspect of this entire thread - Is The Passion.
A-Jay
Hit it on the head What else would make us live and breathe bass fishing enough to accumulate all this?! What else would make grown-ups cry over hard water in the wintertime?
Catt reply :
On 12/6/2013 at 5:48 AM, Catt said:Just out of curiosity coryn h. fishowl since January 1 st to December 5 th how many bass have you caught?
50? 100? 250? 500? 1,000? More?
How many over 5? Over 8? Over 10?
Well!
Catt reply :
I guess he don't want to answer!
A-Jay reply :
On 12/6/2013 at 5:48 AM, Catt said:Just out of curiosity coryn h. fishowl since January 1 st to December 5 th how many bass have you caught?
50? 100? 250? 500? 1,000? More?
How many over 5? Over 8? Over 10?
Well!
On 12/10/2013 at 9:53 PM, Catt said:I guess he don't want to answer!
Looks like he logged off before your post & hasn't been on since - so I don't believe he's seen it yet.
And I'm betting whatever the numbers, they'll be something less than yours.
A-Jay
Paul Roberts reply :
Well ... I agree this has certainly been a passionate discussion. What intrigues me is the possible reasons for such passion.
I've been very interested in how we perceive and understand nature, and I think, I wonder if, the passion generated here centers around the fear inherent in "insanity" -the loss of an understanding of the world around us. I've come to think of identity (possibly consciousness itself) like a house of cards. When someone tugs at some of those cards (esp the foundational ones) it can make us passionately defensive. Fishing takes us out there to the edge of our knowledge, our identity, -consciousness. Fascinating. Mebbe, likely, I'm alone in that. I've been growing used to "insanity" -or it's getting more and more familiar the more I look. Too much time in the woods I guess.
"Science" has a repeated habit of threatening that "house of cards", to even tug at those foundational ones. Many of us may think of our foundations as being on much firmer footing, but all you have to do is practice good science -with passion- for a while and you'll almost certainly find your understandings are on shakier ground than you previously thought. Or I should say, than I thought as that’s been my experience. From terror to enlightenment, to terror once again. Strange critters we are.
Catt reply :
The falsifiable aspect of science is the human!
What we learned today changed what we thought we knew yesterday & what we learn tomorrow will change what we thought we knew today.
So do we really know anything?
Paul Roberts reply :
On 12/11/2013 at 11:06 AM, Catt said:The falsifiable aspect of science is the human!
What we learned today changed what we thought we knew yesterday & what we learn tomorrow will change what we thought we knew today.
So do we really know anything?
Yes we know a lot. I think we take for granted what we know. Look at the myriad ancient mythologies conjured to explain nature. Moving to much more recent times, the world was deemed flat. Check out the increasing accuracy of world maps over time. They get more accurate the more we know. (Ever tried to map your hunting turf on paper? It can be pretty comical at first). Mythologies worked I think bc how we thought wasn’t what was most important. There’s underlying stuff. That’s the important stuff of nature. And we aren’t likely to get down to it, to explain it accurately, without appropriate intellectual tools.
"Falsifiabllity" is a tool, a safeguard against dogma. In other words, the rule is: one cannot propose a lone hypotheses (explanation) in an experiment without proposing alternative possibilities. This is a tough nut for many to understand intuitively, I think bc of the fear factor mentioned in my prior post. We'd rather have it simple, and agreeing with how we think and feel. Science requires more.
Looking specifically at angling, imagine starting all over again: as an infant, or as a brand new angler. Knowledge, gleaned from many sources, can help us in our quests quite a lot. Imagine having to learn what you know now without any outside help. Some fundamental information is exportable, say, across the entire geographical range of largemouth bass, other info is more regional, other confined more locally. Then there are time scales: "seasons", "sub-seasons", weeks, hours, into moments. Things get pretty hairy about then. And yes, we are fishing in the moment; flying by the seat of our pants. But how anyone got where they are at that moment is not a random event -unless maybe you are a complete newb going it alone. Maybe a better question: Can we predict? And at what resolution?
RoLo reply :
On 12/11/2013 at 10:12 AM, Paul Roberts said:Well ... I agree this has certainly been a passionate discussion. What intrigues me is the possible reasons for such passion.
I've been very interested in how we perceive and understand nature, and I think, I wonder if, the passion generated here centers around the fear inherent in "insanity" -the loss of an understanding of the world around us. I've come to think of identity (possibly consciousness itself) like a house of cards. When someone tugs at some of those cards (esp the foundational ones) it can make us passionately defensive. Fishing takes us out there to the edge of our knowledge, our identity, -consciousness. Fascinating. Mebbe, likely, I'm alone in that. I've been growing used to "insanity" -or it's getting more and more familiar the more I look. Too much time in the woods I guess.
"Science" has a repeated habit of threatening that "house of cards", to even tug at those foundational ones. Many of us may think of our foundations as being on much firmer footing, but all you have to do is practice good science -with passion- for a while and you'll almost certainly find your understandings are on shakier ground than you previously thought. Or I should say, than I thought as that’s been my experience. From terror to enlightenment, to terror once again. Strange critters we are.
A lucid analogy that.
This topic has been covered thoroughly and thoughtfully, and I can only reiterate what's already been implicated.
Telemetric studies performed in the wild differ from tank studies in two major ways:
> Tank studies are conducted in a controlled environment (microcosm).
> Bass in the wild have more available options than captive subjects (macrocosm).
This doesn't mean that we can't learn from tank studies, because we can and do.
But it also means that the results are suspect and require intense cross-examination.
Roger
KyakR reply :
I think it might be easy for us to forget coryn h.fishowl's age, and all that goes with it. If he was 20 or 30 (or 60 like me!) yeah, guess we could take a few shots if he sounded too big for his britches. But not, in my opinion, bang up a teenager publicly. He's gifted, yes......but that's often a way he doesn't fit in already and can be a burden at that age. Please let's remember one of the important things about this site, that we encourage youngsters in our sport and provide them with guidance and a safe place to speak up.
Having said that, I must add that men guide and nurture differently than women, and a father who loved his boy would no doubt use a different way to guide his almost-a-man son than I might. Love this thread....has everything
KyakR reply :
On 12/11/2013 at 10:12 AM, Paul Roberts said:Well ... I agree this has certainly been a passionate discussion. What intrigues me is the possible reasons for such passion.
I've been very interested in how we perceive and understand nature, and I think, I wonder if, the passion generated here centers around the fear inherent in "insanity" -the loss of an understanding of the world around us. I've come to think of identity (possibly consciousness itself) like a house of cards. When someone tugs at some of those cards (esp the foundational ones) it can make us passionately defensive. Fishing takes us out there to the edge of our knowledge, our identity, -consciousness. Fascinating. Mebbe, likely, I'm alone in that. I've been growing used to "insanity" -or it's getting more and more familiar the more I look. Too much time in the woods I guess.
"Science" has a repeated habit of threatening that "house of cards", to even tug at those foundational ones. Many of us may think of our foundations as being on much firmer footing, but all you have to do is practice good science -with passion- for a while and you'll almost certainly find your understandings are on shakier ground than you previously thought. Or I should say, than I thought as that’s been my experience. From terror to enlightenment, to terror once again. Strange critters we are.
We each passionately do defend our views of the world, our understanding of it. Humanity has a long track record of fearing new ideas and perceptions, as you said so well. And this generates everything from little tiffs here to war and bloodshed through the ages. But I think our passion for fishing comes not from an existential terror, but from love. BigBill's posts on BR come to mind! People love better the more we know......love not as sentiment, but as insight. And insight feeds imagination, and the world changes insofar as we re-imagine it! (more and bigger bass )I know that learning from you guys here (enlightenment) means I get bit more! And the more I get bit, the happier I am and the more I want to know! But the less I get bit (terror) the more I want to sleep in and pull the covers over my head 
Have to admit, though, that fishing gives me joy and being outdoors calms my soul beyond my understanding.
Hey, did we leave spotted bass out? Any info on their differences? I've never caught one but am headed cross country after the Roadtrip and want to try!
Catt reply :
Science is about facts not assumptions, all advancements mentioned, pharmaceuticals, accuracy of world maps, physicians, mathematics, & the likes are groynded in hard facts. The study of animals in controlled environments are in itself an assumption; we are asked to assume this is how bass react in the wild.
Brian Needham reply :
On 12/11/2013 at 9:00 PM, KyakR said:I think it might be easy for us to forget coryn h.fishowl's age, and all that goes with it. If he was 20 or 30 (or 60 like me!) yeah, guess we could take a few shots if he sounded too big for his britches. But not, in my opinion, bang up a teenager publicly. He's gifted, yes......but that's often a way he doesn't fit in already and can be a burden at that age. Please let's remember one of the important things about this site, that we encourage youngsters in our sport and provide them with guidance and a safe place to speak up.
Having said that, I must add that men guide and nurture differently than women, and a father who loved his boy would no doubt use a different way to guide his almost-a-man son than I might. Love this thread....has everything
are you impling we should give a kid a pass because he is a kid?
That would not be doing him a favor, IMO..... if anyone had taken unfair shots at anyone, which they haven't.
it dont matter if you are 6, 16, or 60..... this has been a rational disscussion where people have stated points, and other have stated counter points. Anything else would be spilt milk, so lets not read so much into it.
Coryn, seems to be smart enough, have enough vocabulary and man enough to handle himself..... what I would find embarrassing is a stanger trying to play momma bear on the internet.
in the south we call it ...... if ya gonna run with the big dogs...
I am not calling you wrong, and not saying what your feelings or Coryn's feeling should be. I do however find your post interesting.... I do because I like the people dynamic of life. The interaction between people, mostly male and female...... The Game, some call it.
KyakR reply :
Actually, young men would be without true guidance if it weren't for fathers and other men willing to take them out and let them have reality teach them, learn how to take the buffeting and not only survive, but grow stronger. I mostly agree with you, Brian It must be a balance, the right guidance at the right time. I was a single mom with a son who's dad was gone. At a certain point (13 or thereabout) my approach wasn't enough! I'm not a father, period. So I swallowed hard and got him karate (goju) lessons with a strong, no nonsense sensai (master). I was terrified. But he took his falls, got into brawls, lost a tooth and some fights, and now he says it was one of the best experiences he had. Now he does run with the big dogs. If I'd had a daughter, it'd be much the same.....a father shows his offspring how to cope in the larger world. Actually, a father's involvement in his daughter's life is the major determinant of her confidence as a woman.
Grown men are warriors in their way, no matter what vocation they settle on. I have the deepest respect for this. But women are warriors in their way, like a mother bear is, but the timing must be right.
My gender had nothing to do with my comments. If someone had implied sarcastically that you were writing checks you couldn't cash and they weren't joking I'd still find it inappropriate on this forum. Think about the difference in how you would have commented on what I said if I'd been a man.
But I can see how Coryn might have been embarrassed, and you might be right there. Sorry Coryn. I have too hot a temper at times. And Brian, I do like your bluntness ! You Irish?
bait__Monkey reply :
ou-ee...dat sum good stuff, butt mi head is spinning!
i tink i ned 2 see da vet, maybee Dr. Raul explain sum
of dis 2 me.
used guys r really good, tank u!
KyakR reply :
Spotted bass info (says hopefully....) ? 
WRB reply :
Spotted bass, there are a few posts in this long thread.
Like LMB, spots come in 2 species; northern or Kentucky and southern or Alabama. Spotted bass were river bass that have transitioned to being lake bass when the rivers were dammed back in the 30's for power generation and navigation.
Spotted bass are very similar to smallmouth bass, the southern spot and smallmouth are about the same size on average, the northern spot is about 1/2 the size. Spots are very aggressive bass, stronger fighters than LMB, however not as aerobatic as smallmouth.
Spots tend to prefer soft plastics with highlighted tails like green with chartreuse tail or brown with pink tail.
Crawdads and small bait fish make up the major diet source.
Spots like to hang around deeper water with rocks, similar to smallies. Spots also roam a lot like smallies.
Spots will declaw a crawdad by hitting the claws and shaking the crawdad, before engulfing it. This trait can lead to missed strikes thinking a bluegill is striking the worm or jig and hook setting too quickly.
Tom
Brian Needham reply :
I am not irish......but I am Southern.
would I have responded different if you were male?
based on the fact I try to judge people on merit I would like to say no...... but the simple fact is us as humans and more so the male/female interaction relationship there are certian things hard wired into us.... so indeed if you were male I would have been more harsh, not that mean to be less harsh, its the whole nurture vs alpha male pack animal deal.
did your response have anything to do you being female?
of course it did, you are female. your motherly insticnt kicked in, because you percieved a youngling was been attacked (real or unreal is of no matter), that response is hard wired into you from nature. You have it whether you like it or not....... or perhaps, and this is just a perhaps, you and coryn have PM'ed enough or talked outside the boards and have become parabonded, not outside the realm of human interactions yet somewhat a strech given the distance that separates.
back to fishing...... all the above and earlier statements are curious. I say that because in Human life it is the male that is most often labeled non caring (lack of a better term) or stand offish. yet in fish it IS THE male that hangs with the offspring more so than the female. where in humans the male are labeled as the ones to just "seed and go" it is the female that does it in fish. interesting indeed.
so anyways, about the spotted bass. They are agressive and hearty spwaners. Smaller than others, but probably eat the most. They like cleaner water and often deeper as well, often to be found in current or around current. I really enjoy catching spots, though many find them almost a trash fish due to their high spawning rates. They can and will over time, outcompete large or small mouth bass in many settings.
The TN river has plenty of them but georgia is probably the most well know for its magnum spots(at least in the south). There and the Coosa River in alabama
hope this helps.
roadwarrior reply :
A lot of guys on the Tennessee River keep all spots to eat or give away, even those of us that
are otherwise C&R ONLY. In Tennessee they are classified as a "game fish", otherwise they would
all be kept. Some lakes in Alabama and Georgia have been taken over by this species, dramatically
reducing largemouth populations.
RoLo reply :
We lived in Georgia during the 90s and often fished West Point Lake & Lake Lanier.
If I were looking for a trophy spot, I'd make a beeline for Lanier, but they're the bane of West Point Lake.
In a mere 6-year period, we seen the decline of largemouth bass on West Point Lake,
countered by the explosion of spotted bass. I felt sorry for the fishing guides who were running out of alibis.
Eventually, the only real good largemouth fishing we found was near the headwaters of the Chattahoochee,
but spotted bass can be taken throughout the entire reservoir at nearly every boat stop.
Roger
WRB reply :
You shouldn't lump both Kentucky /northern spots with Alabama/southern spots together, same in name only like NLMB vs FLMB.
A mature male Kentucy spotted bass may never reach 12" length, the females 15" and these northern spots are very aggressive and prolific spawner's. CA has a few lakes with Kentucky spots and a winning tournament weight is often less than 8 lbs for 5 bass. CA also has several lakes with Alabama spots and the world record spots from lakes Perris, followed by the current record from Pine Flat, may be eclipsed by Pardee, where spots over 8 lbs show up each year. Lake Perris no longer has a spotted bass population, displaced by FLMB and red ear sunfish; the FLMB eat the young spots and the shell crackers (red ears) eat the spawn.
Not all spotted bass are pests!
Tom
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 12/6/2013 at 5:48 AM, Catt said:Just out of curiosity coryn h. fishowl since January 1 st to December 5 th how many bass have you caught?
50? 100? 250? 500? 1,000? More?
How many over 5? Over 8? Over 10?
Science is about information...more importantly the interruptation of that information!
You have a lot of knowledge but no wisdom!
Sorry I've been on hiatus, (final exams/end of semester season) and to answer your question, I don't know. I was too busy having fun and trying to heave them from the water. P.S. wisdom is not only intelligence in the context of many years' experience, it is also a synonym of knowledge. I can tell you however, that it was a good season, (given my fanaticism, it is surprising I'm not hacking at the ice with a pickaxe right now trying to get in "one last bite") despite my having been landlocked, and only capable of bank fishing save for a choice few outings.
Oh, one more thing, MAY YOU ALL HAVE A MERRY HOLIDAYS!!!
KyakR reply :
Anybody here ever catch a "Tiger" or "Gorilla" bass?
KyakR reply :
Here's an article flyfisher posted, and wow, it's a doozy!
KyakR reply :
Oops. Try http://www.strikeking.com/journal/00022/1.php 
Catt reply :
Here's your reason coryn!
I have a project, experiment, assignment or what ever ya want to call it for 2014.
Take the total of you in 2013 & double it in 2014!
Take the largest bass you caught in 2013 & add 8 ozs to it in 2014!
To truly understand the behavior of a bass one must also understand its environment & its ecosystem.
Here's question for you?
Can you stand on the bank of a body, look at the shoreline cover; grass, shrubs, brush, trees, emergent, submergent vegetation & then determine bottom composition.
Streams, creeks, bayous, rivers, ponds, natural lake, & reservoirs are all different ecosystems. Each has a pronounced yet different on the behavior on bass.
They are affected by sunlight, water claity, dissolved oxygen, PH balance, water temperature, tide, salinity level, algae types, prey species & on. All of this determines the bass's behavior & most of it is not present in the controlled environment!
You have an understanding well beyond your years but you are looking at only one half of the picture.
Brian Needham reply :
Catt that is an excellent project for everyone!
I wish I could look to exsisting cover and determine bottom hardness..... I have read some on the topic, but seem to go brain dead on the water and not pay the attention I should.
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 12/25/2013 at 2:34 AM, Catt said:Take the total of you in 2013 & double it in 2014!
Take the largest bass you caught in 2013 & add 8 ozs to it in 2014!
To truly understand the behavior of a bass one must also understand its environment & its ecosystem.
Can you stand on the bank of a body, look at the shoreline cover; grass, shrubs, brush, trees, emergent, submergent vegetation & then determine bottom composition.
Streams, creeks, bayous, rivers, ponds, natural lake, & reservoirs are all different ecosystems. Each has a pronounced yet different on the behavior on bass.
They are affected by sunlight, water claity, dissolved oxygen, PH balance, water temperature, tide, salinity level, algae types, prey species & on. All of this determines the bass's behavior & most of it is not present in the controlled environment!
LOVE IT!!! Happy new years. Sorry for yet another hiatus, my user account on my computer got corrupted/deleted. *sigh*
On 12/26/2013 at 9:27 PM, Brian Needham said:
I wish I could look to exsisting cover and determine bottom hardness..... I have read some on the topic, but seem to go brain dead on the water and not pay the attention I should.
Something similar happens to me too, quite often, I will go brain dead while reading the article...but usually because I find myself reading the stuff at 1:30 in the morning haha
Fish'N Impossible reply :
I have noticed on our local lake, mud bottom, they red crawfish colors do not get bit, crankbaits included, because the crawfish in the lake never reach a red color, usually only brown or green. But 30 miles away in our Rock bottom lake red is a great color and performs very well consistently, because those crass actually get hot enough to turn the red hue in the summer.
Catt reply :
coryn, you will find there is a method to my madness & it will make you a better angler if you can hang!
coryn h. fishowl reply :
I can see the madness part, 13,000+ posts...good lord man, I'm a teenager and I don''t post on social networks that much. haha 
Fishing>facebook
So how is cabin fever season? Whitetail season is dwon too, so I'm weathering the storm with a new book...Bass Wisdom
Catt reply :
If ya gonna do the math do all of it!
13,220 post over 9 yrs or approximately 3,050 days, which averages 4.34 post daily.
The bulk of that is found in my ongoing thread on teaching anglers to fish Toledo Bend, which just happens to the the largest ongoing thread on the site.
I've also authored several large threads on fishing structure, fishing grass, & fishing pre-spawn through the spawn.
All of it is based on personal experience not some thing I Googled!
Nitrofreak reply :
On 1/2/2014 at 10:12 AM, Catt said:coryn, you will find there is a method to my madness & it will make you a better angler if you can hang!
True Dat !!!!
coryn h. fishowl reply :
On 1/10/2014 at 11:40 PM, Catt said:If ya gonna do the math do all of it!
13,220 post over 9 yrs or approximately 3,050 days, which averages 4.34 post daily.
The bulk of that is found in my ongoing thread on teaching anglers to fish Toledo Bend, which just happens to the the largest ongoing thread on the site.
I've also authored several large threads on fishing structure, fishing grass, & fishing pre-spawn through the spawn.
All of it is based on personal experience not some thing I Googled!
The great thing about fishing is, you learn from screw ups (because having a hook stuck in you or losing a $10 Rapala is a good motivator to not screw up again.) haha
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.