Spoonplugging by Buck Perry 2024
jimf reply :
Buck Perry is thought of as the father of structure fishing. I happened to read his book Spoonplugging 30 some years ago, it was just when I was coming of age as a fisherman and switching from night crawlers and bobbers for bluegill to artificial baits for bass. Buck was a smart guy, math/physics background, and he approached fishing with an analytical eye which I appreciated.
I'm trying to remember ... how much of that book was dedicated to actually fishing his own brand of lure, and how much was general bass fishing knowledge that is still valid today? I'm thinking about picking the book up on Amazon, I'm wondering if it's worth a re-read at this stage of my fishing life?
There is a website that sales a set of manuals - buckperry.com. Anyone read those - the Buck Perry's Guideline for Fishing Success. Looks like about $70 for the 9 volumes. Worth it? Too out of date?
A-Jay reply :
For anyone who is or wants to be more than a 'casual' bass angler - the book is a must read.
The information & presentation is dated but extremely viable - and will be forever.
My own fishing has benefitted greatly from the info.
YMMV
I have not read the 'program guide'.
A-Jay
Team9nine reply :
Have it all and more - and read it all over and over again every year. Buck said if your tools (lures, rod, reel, line, etc.) will allow you to do what needs to be done out on the water, then you didn't need to buy his. There is a ton of basic, solid knowledge packed into all the books you mention. It is money well spent IMO, and there is nothing "hard sell" about it, especially when compared to much of what is being written and promoted these days.
-T9
A-Jay reply :
On 2/21/2017 at 1:36 AM, Team9nine said:Have it all and more - and read it all over and over again every year. Buck said if your tools (lures, rod, reel, line, etc.) will allow you to do what needs to be done out on the water, then you didn't need to buy his. There is a ton of basic, solid knowledge packed into all the books you mention. It is money well spent IMO, and there is nothing "hard sell" about it, especially when compared to much of what is being written and promoted these days.
-T9
Which is by & large superfluous.
A-Jay
J Francho reply :
It's definitely still relevant today.
Catt reply :
On 2/21/2017 at 12:55 AM, jimf said:I'm wondering if it's worth a re-read at this stage of my fishing life?
There is a website that sales a set of manuals - buckperry.com. Anyone read those - the Buck Perry's Guideline for Fishing Success. Looks like about $70 for the 9 volumes. Worth it?
Too out of date?
If you have to ask these questions or ya think its about plugs.. Ya might wanna re-read em!
papajoe222 reply :
I browse through my copy at least twice a season. That one and 'Lunkers Love Nightcrawlers' help me keep focus on the big picture and not what's been producing for me.
Spoonplugger4Life reply :
Buck also said, U can be Spoonplugging w/out using Spoonplugs! Try & get a comment like that from any other lure manufacturer. The 9 Volume Home Study Guide is an expansion of the material in the book, Knowledge is the Key, is another of his great statements. So w/that in mind, his lures were the tools he developed to acquire the information necessary to arrive at the fish, but if U have some U prefer, that work as well or better, by all means, use em. Again his words not mine. Be certain that as well as the spoonplugs are designed, they're still No Magic Lures. Facts don't change, so its still valid today. The Knowledge he left for us is the closest thing to that! And his Company is still selling Spoonplugs since 1946! They have all the reading materials too! So as he would sign his books, Good Fishing Always.
BassWhole! reply :
Systematically and efficiently covering water with equipment that suits the task until you find fish, and doing it the way it works for you will never go out of style. I certainly can't speak for Mr. Perry, but from his approach it's hard to believe that he wouldn't use all the tools and technology available to him, if he'd started fishing now. That's the lesson.
Crestliner2008 reply :
I, too, read his "Spoonplugging" book back in the '60's in high school. First read an article about him the old "Fisherman's Bible" that use to be published yearly. Got the book and wore out my first one in about a year. Bought 3 more, which I've since given to my grand-kids. Timeless information and knowledge.
I got a real kick out his take on a new "super lure". When at the time, a tournament angler, fishing near him, told him he had the greatest lure of all time - a floating Rapala. So, Buck, being Buck, grabbed a piece of hickory and whittled out a duplicate looking lure, right there, on the spot. Made a cast and caught a bass, in front of the guy! His only comment was, "yep, that is a pretty good lure"!
Don't get much more honest than that.
jimf reply :
Thanks to all for the feedback, I think I'll make an investment in the 9 volume set. The specifics are fuzzy, but I remember reading him way back when and thinking "Makes alot of sense".
3dees reply :
everything he wrote about structure has not changed over the years. best info you can get. many years ago my cousin and I would go out with a rented row boat and my 10hp merc. trolled wide open with the 4' Buck Perry rod, No Bow line and the spoon plugs. caught hundreds of fish, mostly pike. then I grew up and bought my first bass boat. never caught that many fish per year again. oh for the good old days.
WRB reply :
On 2/21/2017 at 9:00 PM, reason said:Systematically and efficiently covering water with equipment that suits the task until you find fish, and doing it the way it works for you will never go out of style. I certainly can't speak for Mr. Perry, but from his approach it's hard to believe that he wouldn't use all the tools and technology available to him, if he'd started fishing now. That's the lesson.
When we are younger and full of curiousty and energy developing thought processes, threories, methods to prove and apply them is exciting. As we get older the drive tends to lessen along with the energy to continue developing and become satisfied with what we have accomplished.
Buck Perry experimented with sonar and disregarded it's use, he was satisfied with the methods he developed. I met Buck Perry when he was no longer developing his structure fishing theory and was selling his lures and techniques.
Buck Perry deserves credit for being a structure fishing pioneer, however he didn't adopt more modern tools, technique or theory. I couldn't understand his reasoning to refuse using sonar 40 years ago when I was excited with the technology, but I do now because I am older and slower to except change.
Re read his books.
Tom
jimf reply :
On 2/22/2017 at 9:01 AM, WRB said:When we are younger and full of curiousty and energy developing thought processes, threories, methods to prove and apply them is exciting. As we get older the drive tends to lessen along with the energy to continue developing and become satisfied with what we have accomplished.
Buck Perry experimented with sonar and disregarded it's use, he was satisfied with the methods he developed. I met Buck Perry when he was no longer developing his structure fishing theory and was selling his lures and techniques.
Buck Perry deserves credit for being a structure fishing pioneer, however he didn't adopt more modern tools, technique or theory. I couldn't understand his reasoning to refuse using sonar 40 years ago when I was excited with the technology, but I do now because I am older and slower to except change.
Re read his books.
Tom
I found a copy and am now reading it, and as I read it I was thinking back to your comment about Buck not embracing sonar, and that is amazing to me given the importance he put on deep underwater structure.
Team9nine reply :
On 3/2/2017 at 1:57 AM, jimf said:
I found a copy and am now reading it, and as I read it I was thinking back to your comment about Buck not embracing sonar, and that is amazing to me given the importance he put on deep underwater structure.
Not terribly surprising if you study and understand Buck. It's not that he didn't "embrace" sonar as he built and used his own units (needle) before Lowrance developed their small affordable (and portable) freshwater flasher units in the late 1950s. And in later years you sometimes saw him with a commercially produced flasher. But he regarded them as "aids" to help you check things out on occasion, not to have your head buried in one or to spend all your time looking for fish. He believed the best tool was what was between your ears, and that when combined with what your Spoonplug was telling you, you'd learn more about your lake trolling and casting and following procedures than you would just driving around with your face glued to a box...and eventually you still had to put a lure downstairs sooner or later to actually catch a fish and give you that final interpretation. Things we seem to take for granted these days like side-imaging and such didn't come out until the mid 2000s, the year he passed at the age of 90. All that said, many of his "assistants/instructors" did use them regularly to more quickly help define specific structure situations.
-T9
Catt reply :
@Team9nine
Not sure if this will work but I'll try pulling up an older thread @jimf ya need to read it!
jimf reply :
I found a copy of the book and re-read it. During the re-reading I started questioning some things, and upon researching that I kind of stumbled on a few articles and studies by fisheries biologist and fisherman that contradict some of Buck's ideas. For instance, I found this from In-Fisherman author and fisheries biologist Ralph Manns:
Buck is a great angler and contributed many fine ideas to fishing lore. But, he formed his opinions about what bass do (how they behave) from his fishing successes. He did not watch bass move. He only observed where and when he caught them. What's more, he only observed bass that were willing to bite, and missed out on the activities of inactive and moving but not biting bass.
As a fishery-biology student the mid-1970s, I tracked bass and dove under water to observe them for more than a year. One of my objectives was to prove or disprove (I expected to prove)Per’s assumption that bass lived deep and moved shallow to feed in daily sorties. My literature search showed that the seven or eight bass tracking studies made prior to my research failed to find the vertical movements claimed by Perry, but I attributed that to the fact that the first trackers only monitored their tagged bass once a day. I, and assistants, followed them over full 24-hour tracking periods to learn where and when they went up and down.
I failed to prove Perry's ideas. Instead I found bass tended to stay within a few feet of the same depth day after day, and even across major weather and seasonal changes. Further research revealed that the gas bladders of bass will only let them change holding depths a foot or two an hour. They can dash upward as much as 12 feet near the surface and have greater vertical mobility at deeper depths, but they quickly return to the starting depths to which they have adapted their gas bladder pressure. I also tracked bass that swam directly across my lake (Travis in Central Texas) crossing over areas more than 140 feet deep and back. they did not need to follow structure or breaklines when moving. The did do this sometimes, however.
These tracking/diving findings and many other disagreements with current fishing lore were reported in the In-Fisherman magazine, issue 43 (June/July 1982. The limitations of the gas bladder were outlined in Book 66 (Apr/May 1986). I've monitored scientific research on bass continuously, including more than 40 subsequent tracking studies without finding any evidence that bass move as predicted by Perry. Two trackers have, however, found greater vertical movement in smallmouth than in largemouth, and one reported several fish that might have moved up from around 20 feet to 7 feet overnight. Three other researchers reported bass that moved out over, and suspended over deep water, without actually moving deep. The conclusion is that bass are found at many depths, and are active at different depths at different times. This behavior can be documented at most major bass tournaments, where bass are taken both deep and shallow on any given day.
The point is: To learn about fish movements you've got to watch fish move. Perry's trolling system is very effective, rapidly helping anglers cover both deep and shallow water to find the active, biting bass that we catch, and he fathered "structure fishing" as we know it. (Remember the difference between structure and cover. hey are not the same thing.) But, he created erroneous lore about how the bass move. Science has failed to document, or even briefly observe, his proposed behaviors. Usually researchers have reported mainly horizontal movement and depth stability. Bass holding at 7 feet may move up to 5, or even 3 feet, and back during a feeding movement. But, bass feeding moves are generally along contour lines, not across them.
The ultimate lesson from all this is that it takes many years and many repetitions and arguments before factual observations and scientific data replace the angling-based assumptions of non-biologist anglers. We still find many, if not most, bass anglers and bass PROS think bass are "ambush" predators, despite countless observations by both scientists, divers, underwater videos, and anglers themselves that bass usually move along cover edges and/or breaklines (shelves) when they feed. See my "ambush" article on the BFHP articles pages. BFHPers who are interested and have no access to a well-stocked library of fishing magazin
Catt reply :
"Usually researchers have reported mainly horizontal movement and depth stability. Bass holding at 7 feet may move up to 5, or even 3 feet, and back during a feeding movement. But, bass feeding moves are generally along contour lines, not across them."
I could be wrong but Is that not what Buck taught?
Team9nine reply :
So you have now advanced to the Gettier Problem. Here's the way I see it. Buck developed most of his thoughts on the subject in the 1940s and 1950s, long before the advent of things like underwater cameras, tiny implantable transmitters and tracking, as well as a host of other technologies. As Ralph touches on, there are things we know now that he simply couldn't know then. But here are the keys for me.
First, he was the one who pioneered most of what we call 'structure fishing' today, including much of the terminology still in use. If you (figuratively) are going to carry on a deeper discussion on the merits of what he wrote and believed, you need to have put in the time reading his material so that you understand where he was coming from and what he was saying. To argue against a position you haven't studied or tried to understand only makes your position weak.
Beyond that, on the questionable stuff as mentioned by Ralph, I give Buck the benefit of the doubt by saying 'he was right for the wrong reasons.' If you follow his guidelines, you will flat out catch fish. For example, does the fact that the fish moved onto the structure horizontally instead of as vertically as Buck suggested really matter to the guy who just caught a sack full of bass? In a technical sense, yes, it's good to know, but in a practical sense, one could argue it doesn't matter. One would certainly be foolish in my eyes to discount everything Buck wrote because of these technicalities. Things such as depth and speed as the two primary controls are still the hallmark of great systems such as In-Fisherman's F+L+P=S to this day.
In the end, what you make of this sport and the way you approach it or play it is up to each one of us to decide. More power to you in whatever form that takes. But to use another idiom, be careful about throwing out the baby with the bath water.
-T9
jimf reply :
One of the main ideas Buck had were these regular (twice daily I think he said) trips across contour lines from the deep water where they lived to the shallow water where they fed, following underwater structure. What Ralph Manns was saying is that not what has been observed underwater or through tracking.
BTW - the "Ambush" article mentioned above was featured here:
https://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/ambush_bass.html
That was kind of eye opening to me.
Team9nine reply :
On 3/10/2017 at 4:20 AM, jimf said:One of the main ideas Buck had were these regular (twice daily I think he said) trips across contour lines from the deep water where they lived to the shallow water where they fed, following underwater structure. What Ralph Manns was saying is that not what has been observed underwater or through tracking.
Buck's guideline states, 'once or twice a day fish may become active and move toward the shallows.' Lots of support for that via John Hope's tracking data as just one example. The technicality lies in the degree of verticalness.
jimf reply :
Reading Spoonplugging 30 years ago was the point in time where I seriously began to think about fishing. I formed many of my own ideas based on that book. @Team9nineI really agree with everything you said above, for me it's not about throwing out anything but maybe using others ideas, different ways of observing and studying fish behavior to sharpen the focus a little bit. And Lord knows I could use sharper focus when it comes to fishing.
MFBAB reply :
I think BP way overdid it with the "daily migration" thing, and also with the implication that the fish dropped off into extremely deep water after every cold front.
My take is that he did this intentionally in an attempt to drive home his basic premise that bass don't live on shallow water cover or structure 365 days a year (deep water is the home of the fish in his words).
You have to understand that he was touring the country during the 50's and 60's, trying to teach people his trolling methods and selling spoonplugs.
Most people back then looked at him like he was from outer space when he started trolling around (sometimes at fairly high speeds) dragging the spoonplugs and generally they weren't too interested in the technique, even though he was usually catching a lot of fish.
You can see what this did to him in his writing style, he comes across as very definitive/authoritative, almost even adversarial at times, but it's because he had spent so many years trying to teach people about a system that consistently worked on virtually any lake all over the country.......and they ALL doubted it, or said "we don't fish like that around here", or whatever other excuse you can think of, instead of just saying "Thank You, Mr. Perry!!"
There isn't any other material I've seen anywhere (and I've looked at almost all there is available over the years) that covers structure and how bass relate to it and move on it even a fraction as well as BP does, IMHO. If you read and understand this material, you will understand how to find fish, period.
Spoonplugging is the first book I'd recommend to any beginning fisherman who wanted to get serious about things, I only wish someone would have turned me onto it a long time before I found it myself!
JerryL reply :
I've been there, the whole '' spoonplugging '' experience, hook, line and sinker.
I was a complete devotee to buck perry's '' teachings '' ( 1974 --80 ) until I woke up to the scam it is. Buck nor any other spoonplugger ever proved with irrefutable evidence ( videos, not pictures ) that fish spend 95 % of their time in deep water '' sanctuaries '' ( 35 ft. or so ) and for 10 to 15 minutes or so move up to '' contact points '', along deep water '' structure '' ( '' breaks and breaklines '' ) to '' scatterpoints '' and then into the shallows.
Modern technology has verified that bass, and all other game fish, do not make drastic depth changes ( it would kill them ) and are not bottom fish, for the very most part, feed up rather than down ( look at the position of their eyes ( top of their head )... in fact, perry was wrong on everything -- even his definiton of '' structure '' was wrong. Structure is anything different from the surrounding area and is not always deep -- a tilted stump in a bunch of upright stumps in 1 ft. of water is structure. Gamefish will gravitate to that stump because it is DIFFERENT from the others. Cold fronts do NOT drive them deep ( proven by the ' flipping '' technique ) that catches big fish holding tight to cover after frontal passages.
'' Speed and depth control '' ? Old timers figured out before perry that the speed and depth of your lures have to be controlled according to the moods of the fish... and perry left out the third part of that equation, '' strike zone '', how far they will move to take a lure.
Just remember, perry claimed spoonpluggers could make '' lunker catches '' from the casting position after all the work was done ( trolling, mapping and interpretation, evaluation of current weather and water conditions, etc. ) but he nor any other spoonplugger ever demonstrated proving such extraordinary claims.
GreenPig reply :
On 2/21/2017 at 1:25 AM, A-Jay said:For anyone who is or wants to be more than a 'casual' bass angler - the book is a must read.
The information & presentation is dated but extremely viable - and will be forever.
My own fishing has benefitted greatly from the info.
YMMV
I have not read the 'program guide'.
A-Jay
X2
Dogface reply :
Has anyone ever fished with or caught fish with spoonplugs?
My son was given a complete set but they have never been wet. We've talked about using them and I guess we should give them a try.
Team9nine reply :
Yep ???? You can almost consider them like lipless cranks (traps). The smaller the size, the shallower it will run, though being metal, they’ll all sink to the bottom if you let them. Can also troll them using the same principles. Go for it.
WRB reply :
Spoonplug popularity faded along with trolling for bass. Spoonplugs don't cast particularly good but troll very well maintaining a specific depth range depending on the lure size, that is what they were designed to do.
When researching bass we all tend to group them in lieu of thinking of bass as individual fish with individual behavior characteristics, I know do.The older and bigger a bass gets it's life lessons change behavior and the more individual they become.
*Back in 1974 Mike Lembeck a California biologist did a 3 year study at lake San Vicente tracking 200 bass of various sizes. Some of the bass stayed together, most didn't and had individual behavior patterns. The largest bass of his tracking study traveled across very deep water and showed up at mid lake underwater islands or humps joining other big bass. The big bass would leave and return randomly traveling at various depths, no set pattern.
After fishing for big bass over the past 60+ years and trying to understand these fish the more I learned the less I knew.
Tom
*reference In Pursuit of Gaint Bass, Bill Murphy
bowhunter63 reply :
It ruled the roost back in the day. It was all over fishing facts magazine.
Dogface reply :
Thanks guys! I'm going to try them.
Photos to follow......well maybe they will.????
'
Team9nine reply :
Here's a pic for motivation 
caught on a 250 on the cast.
BassWhole! reply :
On 4/30/2019 at 8:01 AM, Team9nine said:Here's a pic for motivation
Casting trolling spoons? Next ya'll be casting umbrellas...
The things that Mr BP wrote about, are scaled down versions of what is done in the salt, particularly for striped bass. While I don't agree with some of of his approach and assertions, there is no denying the results, which is ultimately what it's about. I know many excellent anglers, including charter captains and guides who have some pretty nutty ideas as to what fish are doing or why what they do works, and while they may not be right, they get the job done.
WRB reply :
I am not a Buck Perry deciple per se but anyone who bass fishes today benefits from his observations about bass behavior. When you consider Perry was studing bass back in 30's to 40's, the depression through WWII when fish were food not sport his research and theories are amazing. It wasn't until the 50's that the Spoonplug became a commercial lure and Buck Perry began promoting his products.
Buck Perry deserves our respect for advancing the sport of bass fishing.
Tom
Catt reply :
Buck Perry was not in the business of selling lures, he was in the business of teaching structure fishing.
detroit1 reply :
JerryL makes some good points,but I disagree with his definition of "structure". I grew up with the explanation had only to do the bottom of the lake. (flat, dropoff, hump, depression, including man - made structures-bridge, rip rap). Cover is not structure. Cover would be weeds, stumps, docks,brushpile, tire, some old fridge etc. A leaning stump in a flat filled with vertical stumps is not "structure". I do agree that it's good to fish something where 2 different things abut each other (2 different weed types, chunk rock/gravel, etc.) but I could be wrong... I never tried his no-bo line, short stout rod,or trolled seriously, but I do still have his book and a couple of spoonplugs.
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.