Paul Roberts

That's a big brown. Lake MI is the place. That fish is likely legit...but from my experience with Lake Ontario spawning runs, MANY big trout and salmon were snagged, not angled for. Snagging and "lifting" (the hidden mock-angling version) was rampant in my day, the lure of BIG fish and the bragging rights that went with were simply too much for many if not most. Maybe this is where my peeve stems; I just hated seeing the lying, and the denigration of the sport, as well as simply having entire sections of stream blown while snaggers waded kicked and chased perfectly catchable fish : >

Nice research Randall. Sucks to have to do it, doesn't it? Seems the more records I look into, the weirder it all gets. A few that come to mind: the WR brown trout (I believe Kent knows the particulars), the triploid 40#rainbows, the guy who snagged the huge CA bass, the NYS record steelhead (if it still holds -26lbs) was a naturally sterile fish that never matured or made a spawning run. I know the reprehensible BS is the real point here, and not all the above are BS -but underlying this I think is the fact that records are getting tougher to break, requiring rarer and rarer fish to meet them. And rarer and rarer egos maybe? I really do appreciate hearing about a lot of the CA guys who fish for the sport, the experience, and release those monster with a satisfied smile and no claim to a record. That's as cool as it gets. I don't have a problem with records, or even egos. It's the lying. Good for you for saying what needs to be said. Sorry you have to take the crap for doing so.

So how come your have BIG mouths. Very few of mine do lol. That's a big mama, eh?

I've heard that. I've read this from pros and others that have favorites that they claim are "special". And I have to take their word for it. I just haven't seen this -esp with plastics. If a plug appears to run and feel the same to me, I fish it with confidence. Individual differences are much more believable with wood plugs. Here's an interesting article on wood plugs: http://www.crankbaitcentral.com/FeatureArticles/Square-billed-Crankbaits-Myths-and-Truth-Part-I.html

Y'all aint so senile after all No! He is The Lucid1. Kinda like "THE fat panda". ;D Hey Ed, hope you're finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and getting out some. Yes, Paul, I am. Hmmm . . . . The Fat Panda . . . . maybe I need to change my screenname. It would be more fitting. The trick is to get them to call you that at work. Do you know the Wu Xi finger hold?

That's the way your lures SHOULD look! I love that. I had a "walleye" finish Rebel minnow years ago that got so chewed up by walleye teeth that it looked like I'd taken heavy grit sandpaper to it -the finish was essentially gone. But, it still caught 'em just fine. Very nice pike. Beautiful condition. With her condition, body depth, and nice full fins I bet she put on quite a show. Congrats.

Awesome. Shouldn't be too hard to get her back in the boat.

fnp, glad you figured it out. Really good lesson there. Y'all aint so senile after all No! He is The Lucid1. Kinda like "THE fat panda". ;D Hey Ed, hope you're finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and getting out some. The actual answer may not be complicated, but ferreting it out amongst the variables can be. What amazes me is that sometimes someone is on to something you can't see by looking. And sometimes they can't explain it. I guess it starts with very real control: knowing your individual lures (and line, rod, reel) so you know where you are in the water column, and then you can play with triggers (speed, action). Control leads to deliberate action and sensible experimentation, which lead to confidence. "Should" doesn't count. Again, too many variables. Line diameter, ipt of the reel (could have lost line from a snag and not have as full a spool), rod angle, cast distance, lure tune, etc, ... . The trick is being able to adapt the rig in your hands to the depth, speed, triggering requirement of the moment. What was always interesting to me was, as a fly-fisherman, I found guys that could use much heavier tippets to present small flies well enough to dupe trout, whereas a less experienced angler needed a finer tippet. The old salts knew what needed to be done, and had the deliberate control to do it. Technology helps, but you still have to know why and how.

Yeah, another coastal whopper. I think if most CO anglers ever actually saw an 8lber they'd need surgery to put their eyeballs back in their sockets. There's big, then there's BIG, and then there's BIG, and then there's ... The last categories apply to the CA, TX, FL, and JP, or uniquely managed waters.

I do the same, on ANY document that is more than a few sentences long. I don't lose emails or posts that way. I'm also a back-up freak: mirrored HD's, external HD, and CD's.

You have to get to know your lures, how they perform best, and what you can get out of that particular tool. It's beyond fascinating when I find someone that uses a lure to a potential I haven't realized, or can duplicate! Tells me, once again, there's way more to fishing artificials than chuck-n-wind a lot of the time.

They're comin' to papa! WTG. Nice report.

More possibilities than one might imagine. Seemingly subtle things can be not so subtle under water: -One individual lure better than the other as RW suggests. -One lure not tuned as well so not reaching the fish. Sometimes a foot matters. -One guy losing confidence and beginning to concentrate more on his buddy, or his not-catching. Examples could be one guy hitting bottom/obstructions in a particular way due to being aware of how fish are reacting, or just by manner of retrieve. At times, esp in early season, a short pause after hitting something brings the strike. Sometimes it's a short acceleration. These are things you try to key in on. If you are distracted, you are MUCH more likely to miss the cues. -Sometimes different lines, esp a stretchier one, can create a different reaction when the lure strikes something. -Missing takes and not realizing it. Sometimes the diff between a 'hot stick' and a cooler one. Of all of them I'd put my money on concentration. What do you think?

Good question. Dunno. Factors are: line density, line diameter, lure weight and resistance. Gonna have to figure that out for yourself. My guess is diameter will still be the major factor. Surface tension plays a role too, since it takes a bit of time for the FC to sink. On the last half of the retrieve or so, it's actually more difficult to pick the lure up on FC since the line is down more horizontal with the lure. This is an advantage of FC in deeper water, in keeping less bow between rod tip and lure. But it likely changes the rise and fall of a lure. I'd love to see this in a swimming pool to really know what this actually looks like.

Wow! Beautiful fish too. One of those NE monsters.

Would you be willing to play one longer?

Seen the same thing, at the same place, and others. Fourbizz, neat. I haven't seen that yet.

Depends on the questions you are asking. Some lab work can offer things you can't get another way, having proper controls, which can put some light on biological limitations. The above work could can probably be safely applied to the wild, to some degree. As to Mattlures, he mentioned seeing this in a pond he had, I believe. Yeah, I see ponds with lots of bullfrog tadpoles and they seem mostly unconcerned about the bass,or at least pretty well exposed. This kind of thing makes me think that "frog" bites (with hollowbody "frog" baits) are not what we think.

That goes against the conventional wisdom that Centrarchids are secondary freshwater fish, meaning they descended from ocean dwellers. I'd say river life was a more recent adaptation. I assume, but dunno, that most if not all FW fishes we have came from SW stock -but at different times. Centrarchids are one of the most recent though. Will be curious what you find out. Here's a pic I found https://webspace.utexas.edu/dib73/TheBolnickLab/page1/page18/page18.html : The continents were pretty much as we see them today (tectonically) so we have to go back earlier. Some older lineages like Esocids are far older and go back to Eurasian stocks in the fossil record. But even then, the continents were not enormously different. Here's another: http://books.google.com/books?id=Zo47TI_UUSsC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Centrarchid+Eocene+Montana+fossil&source=bl&ots=PvtjrVevzU&sig=TKyow_rrYvTjczp9vx_o3AYjLLA&hl=en&ei=DR_SS6qbL4vctgOx9ozMCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Centrarchid%20Eocene%20Montana%20fossil&f=false Seems the earliest Centrarchid fossils come from the late Oligocene in Montana. At that time there was a sea running N-S. (My son and I have collected fossils of sea life here on the CO plains.) That earliest known Centrachid looks a lot like a crappie, which fits the diagram above. Are we sufficiently off-topic yet??? Back to it: Regardless, our "basses" came much later and smallmouth are considered to have been a riverine species, according to Ralph. Maybe that's why they are more apt to get "square". That was his conjecture.

Hey..Gene is it?? Anyway, you mentioned a while back about bass not eating toads, I think. I've heard similar stuff about bullfrog tadpoles. Found this: Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) learn to avoid feeding on toad (Bufo) tadpoles Kipp C. Krusea and Bradford M. Stonea aDepartment of Zoology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920, USA Received 14 July 1983; revised 30 November 1983. MS. number: a4130. Available online 3 June 2006. Abstract Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), when starved for 1 day, almost totally abstain from eating toad (Bufo americanus and Bufo woodhousei) tadpoles. However, there is a positive relationship between bass hunger levels and the acceptability of Bufo larvae as food items. With experience, there is a decrease in the number of toad tadpoles engulfed (taken into the mouth), and that actually consumed by the bass, while the number of larvae expelled (spat out) increases. Bass strongly prefer Hyla crucifer tadpoles to B. americanus larvae, and learn to distinguish between the two species. These results agree with the hypothesis that the schooling behaviour found in B. americanus tadpoles functions, at least in part, as a deterrent to predation. Hyla crucifer btw is the Spring Peeper a tiny frog. B(ufo) americanus is the common toad.

Send me a link, I've got some time between reels tonight. I would look at it the same as smoltification in rainbow trout. Simple access to certain dietary and environmental differences cause a physiological change in the fish. http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/research/page/5/ Scroll to: Living the Good Life, For the Past 20 Million Years This may or may not get you to the right line of research, and researcher's. Also Google: Micropterus phylogeny / evolution / speciation Problem is, you'll get a lot of abstracts and not full text or biblio. But sometimes you can get them. Enjoy your reading.

Paul, I don't know how far north you have to be to be considered "north" (I expect farter north than I am) but our lakes do freeze over in the winter here and we do have about 3 months of winter weather. Anyway, the bass in the photo was 7-12 and 26" - length was by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency measuring method of from closed mouth to closed tail. This was a skinny, and probably old, fish. Hey Goose. That's what I'd like to see -some input. I consider Tennessee south, but I don't know how that works biologically really. Would be interesting to see the lengths of N LM across latitudes. Easy places to look would be state records and Master Angler awards, or other big fish records.

I don't know the evolutionary history of centrarchids. Probably adaptation from SW occurred earliest. There's expertise out there though. I did see something a few months ago on bigindianabass.com. The bibliography from that piece of research would put someone interested on the right track. I'm sure it's an interesting story.

They're just bulls!

Thanks Wayne. Any lip color in any others that day? Was this the reddest of the bunch?