Paul Roberts

Well...that's noble and all, but that much schooling is not for everyone. If you head that way -great! But, that much schooling will likely keep you off the bass waters. I went to school with fisheries in my sites -and was the period in my life I fished least. School is a no-brainer -you do it. It'll likely be the best route for your future, and give you the time and money to fish. That said, you're young, now's the time to dabble in dreams. Here's my advice: Fish -a lot.

Very nice! Ellesar, would you describe those "spots"? What was different about them? Any idea?

JeffH wrote: Very good point. I don't agree that 'structure' "drives" movement/migration, but I do agree that it, or better -the breaks- contains it, or concentrates it.

VERY interesting post. Speaks to me a lot about smallmouths. Sounds like smallies I've known in large lakes. Thank you for taking the time to chime in. Sounds like fishing to me.

It will always be 'preliminary' research lol. Working science is more about forming better questions than finding end-all be-all answers. If one is expecting final answers (that 100% certainty), they are in for a lot of disappointment. I remember my first dabbling in endocrinology, an undergraduate course. I expected to know all there was t know about how the body functioned chemically. What I met was a dry tedious list of all the research that indicated this or suggested that. There were no Answers, just intriguing puzzles, slightly better understandings. What was clear was that there was LOTS more work ahead. Breakthroughs do happen (Eureka!) -that lead to ... much better questions. If one is looking for ANSWERS, 100% percent certainty, they are on the wrong planet, or maybe stick to collecting stamps. ;D

This can be a good tact. Matching the hatch can be difficult, esp with large (bass sized) lures and in still water. Add high visibility conditions (sun, clear water, and a flat calm surface) and it's close to impossible. Sometimes in fishing there is more fishing than catching. Sounds like HAWK is onto something -go for it. Keep at it and you'll find something too, and return the favor to HAWK .

I get the feeling from reading your initial post, and maybe I'm reading in, that you have unrealistic expectations probably from comparing yourself to "bass pros", magazines, and the posts of successful anglers on-line from all over the country. Advice: First off, drop ANY comparisons, esp at this point in your fishing life. I liked when you finally said, "I was stoked!" That's were you need to put your head. Catching fish consistently is NOT easy, it's not cookbook -or, I take that back: The cookbook is complex and full of contingencies. Fishing will keep you thinking and learning. You should be stoked over those three bass. When I fish it's almost never pulling em in hand over fist. I figure something out and make a run of 3 to 6 fish, then if all goes well I earn another, and so on. Some days it's really tough and you can't figure it out. On some of those days everyone had a hard time. On others, it may only be you. That's fishing, as I know it.

No one is "trying" to discredit Buck Perry. Buck provided a foundation, if not THE foundation, for modern angling -notably applicable to LMB fishing. But foundations are to be built on, not unquestionable gospel.

There's a reason for that. See the Aggressive Strike thread, by Steezy.

Ditto. To a 'T'. Great thread Tom.

Done! Ordered #2. Thanks Jeff.

I, for one, don't expect 100% certainty. Nature will quickly rip those expectations away -as you mention. But better understandings are possible, the levels of subjectivity fathomed, and those understandings will continue to accrue. I'm willing to consider them and take what I can from them. Also, I'm not afraid of complexity -it's fun! And ALL the fun can't be taken from fishing bc, as you say, it's just too complex. We'll always find something to have to figure out. We anglers earn our keep out there, just like the bass do. I wouldn't have it any other way. As to "dis-crediting" Buck Perry... Some of the the things he divined by rod and reel have fallen under better lighting. (Again, 100% certainty isn't to be expected. Doubt Buck did either.) This does not mean his contributions were not, and still aren't, monumental. But...what's been seen since, with technology not available in his day, paints an altered picture, and promises better resolution to come. On this point, I was going to respond with more info, but I've seen the discussions around Buck's observations turn into something else altogether. So, I'm gonna back off. Plus, it's been a long time since I read Buck's stuff, and do not presently own it. At your suggestion, I'm going to shut up and order it. Thanks for the reminder.

Smokin'. 8-)

Wow. Very interesting. That "equilibrium" (say enough to perpetuate popns of big fish) was less a myth when land/water systems were intact, and punctuation events rarer. We've sure changed things, and it seems we now have the job of maintenance, often defensively.

According to some (pretty good) research -Yes, it is possible. However, I've always had a hard time with such a potential 'excuse'. In general, healthy prey (of a size that will grow quality bass) is not easy for bass to capture. According to some research (I've not seen mentioned to me by Ralph Manns), is that bass are rarely stuffed full. They work for their meals. So, I think that too much forage, and related satiation (bellies full), are just too rare where I've fished (mostly bluegill based fisheries). I don't believe I've seen it or maybe not recognized it. When we aren't catching, you've gotta know your fishery pretty darn well to get a bead on something like that with only a fishing pole between you and what's really going on down there. I'm really careful not to throw up answers/excuses that might knock down my motivation. Too often, it was something else and I just ended up shooting myself in the foot. Often, some fish can be eked out by an adjustment, rather than an excuse. I've got a scenario right now that had me thinking it might be this too-much-forage deal. We've had a wet year flooding shoreline cover and the bass hatch and fry survival are phenomenal. I have a pond with clouds of them, and the mature bass had become tough nuts in this normally 'easy' pond. I was beginning to wonder whether there was too much easy forage. But, I saw this once before about 15 years ago in a private pond that had a huge bass hatch. The mature bass would hit a 3" streamer (on fly-tackle) much better than they would larger lures thrown on conventional tackle. So this year I tried something similar using tiny 1-1/2" shad-style grubs (like you'd use for crappie) on UL spinning tackle and began popping decent LMs at a satisfying pace. This isn't satiation, but apparently a "search image" deal as close to match the hatch as I've found in bass fishing. So, have I seen too much forage? Not yet, as far as I could tell. But, it's apparently a real possibility. The research I mentioned was with walleye, and the culprit was gizzard shad. I've read and conversed with anglers talking about winter shad die-offs, and the best fishing tends to be when die-off numbers are limited and not catastrophic the anglers thinking that big die-offs can be too much of a good thing. Some stuff to think about.

Catt wrote: I guess I want to know the 'why', not just the 'what'. As you've said before whenever I really open my yap... "...fishing doesn't have to complicated." True enough. Follow Buck Perry's advice and most anglers will be well ahead of the crowd. Strikes me Buck knew a lot of what, but not a lot of why.

Fishing Rhino wrote: Tom, that's Phragmites -I believe it's invasive. (Correct me Roger if need be ) Sounds like you have a very diverse pond, habitat-wise. Very cool, very fun -lots of options for bass and a bass angler to dabble in. Unfortunately, my man-made (and relatively young) ponds I have here are pretty limited that way . That shelf is the food shelf (Catt's "kitchen" -same term I use for the riffles in a trout stream). That food shelf can exist in many configurations though -not just along shorelines. A key component is light penetration -that's where food chains (worth considering) start from. Add to this diversity of substrate (an ecological term for area in which life can grow on) and you are crankin' out food. Rich, diverse habitats are sheer beauty and get my heart racing. Always made me wonder if the concept of "beauty" isn't derived from this diversity and complexity -going back to our hunter gatherer roots. (Threw that in for you Tom, and any other wide ranging thinkers ). Imagine hiking a long way and coming to either a desert, or an eden. Which would get your heart racing and your spirits up? I know that feeling and get it every time I see a richly diverse pond and every time I look round the next bend of a rich trout stream.

Dunno -without knowing what's going on in the food chain. Ideas (from a distance): Work deeper -outer weed lines and any hard structure/cover nearby -as you suggested. Should find your LMs there. -You describe what sounds like it might be connected to the Great Lakes/St Lawrence (?). You also mention fish breaking. I wonder if shad or alewives are spawning now, and drawing fish away from shorelines -even away from cover (esp SM). -Might try some UL stuff -finesse worms and grubs n such -near hard structure/cover outside the weedwalls. Might be that you now have lots of YOY (young of the year) fishes and bass are concentrating on them. Just some (distant) thoughts. Out of curiosity: Do you know the surface temps in the areas your now not catching in?

Roger, I like that. What I like about it is it is much less glamorous than structure (except the cleavage part); a cool headed technician's term for, simply, the lay of the bottom. Anglers love to call anything with fish relating to it structure but some structure may not attract fish at all. And conversely, I've seen lone boulder groups on expansive silt flats holding groups of mature bass taking cracks at passing pelagic prey, and possibly waiting out craws. I've seen LMs living happily in expansive vegetated flats, using slight breaks created by contour because they result in changes in the vegetation not because they were special in any other way. I've even seen mature bass (albeit SM) that roam pelagically and not related to contours. Some LM do this too although LM are somewhat, but not entirely, different energetically. SoI see fish holding areas (whatever you term them) in a functional sense: locations that produce food, and offer protection from predators and the elements (in most waters and circumstances this includes depth contour changes), and proximity usually matters. Breaks are places that hold bass either for the feeling of security they offer, or they are localized places that offer an advantage in feeding. If they are close together, great, the more the merrier. But bass do not NEED signposts to travel by. Telemetry has shown this notion, although common, not necessary, and thus not explaining the true function of breaks. The term "structure" is a large scale term that CAN be useless. Just realize what's important when talking about fish use of it.

Bluegills, for instance, can be found in dense vegetation, broken veg, wood, open water, shallow or deep. You would choose a diff lure or presentation for each. Water clarity and sky conditions would affect this too. I think location specifics and conditions dictate method and lure choices first. Then there's finding the proper approach angles. This, with method/lure choice I call "gettin' in". Trying to match forage is really difficult, esp with large prey in stillwater -I'd call that part of fine-tuning. Just the way I look at it. You're right Paul. I left my first post alittle broad. What I meant by "forage seems to dictate location and lures" is that the bass are their because of a high concentration of food. The lure choice also comes from the cover that the forage is around. The central idea in my way of thinking is food. Its not just to focus on color, its also about establishing a pattern. Mottfia Gotcha. Agreed. Food is the biggest motivator (outside the immediate spawn). Protection is wrapped in too of course. Sounds like a we're getting down to the functional definition of structure doesn't it.

Your dragons and damsels are busy doing their thing. Hey..you know the alien in the movie Alien? It was patterned after a dragonfly larvae (except the "molecular acid" part). If you adjust for scale, Hollywood is hard pressed to come up with things scarier than what's out there in the real world.

Bluegills, for instance, can be found in dense vegetation, broken veg, wood, open water, shallow or deep. You would choose a diff lure or presentation for each. Water clarity and sky conditions would affect this too. I think location specifics and conditions dictate method and lure choices first. Then there's finding the proper approach angles. This, with method/lure choice I call "gettin' in". Trying to match forage is really difficult, esp with large prey in stillwater -I'd call that part of fine-tuning. Just the way I look at it.

You don't owe anything to anyone. Each spot and situation will have it's own circumstances. You decide. My advice from what you've relayed is to keep it to yourself. Share with those you know well enough and share the same ethic. My ethic, shared with others in the past, is never to share a spot that someone else shared with me. I always assume it's been shared in confidence. It's not an unspoken rule because others may not think this way. But those that have put in their time and have hard earned locations and scenarios will understand this, especially in hard fished waters or populated areas. I'm not secretive though. Where I've lived there is just too much good water that I cannot possibly cover it all, and neither can they! I've always had a lot of places I will share readily enough. When I do, with the right people, I have made a friend to mutually share good info with.

Tom, nice report. Sounds like the same scenario I have here starting as early as late May and well into July. I guess you're further north, although with this cool year it may be extended here some. Have to keep my open and keep recording what I see. It's the blue damsel, and dragon, emergences. The nymphs live in vegetation and a good pond can produce an awful lot of them. The bluegills move into the dense vegetation for them. When the nymphs are really coming off they sit at the surface on any piece of emergent vegetation waiting for their wings to harden. When this is going heavy the 'gills kissing the surface sound like popcorn is popping! The bass are right in there with those 'gills. I wonder if you have something similar going on?

True that..... Have you guys not ever pulled up to a good spot of fish (whether it be structure, break line, or cover), and caught them on basically anything you threw? Changing and catching bass on different lures dosn't prove anything other than the bass may have got accustomed to him throwing another one. Ive fished brush piles on drops before, caught a few keeprs on a jig and the bite stop. Throw right back with something else and immediately get bit... I don't think so much that what I threw mattered, its how I threw it and from what angle. Its not necessarily the lure if you hit it right. The wrong lure with the right presentation is much better than the right lure with the wrong presentation. Im not going to say that I have never seen a day where a lure or color seem to matter, but its far lower on the list of my priorities than finding the good fish to begin with. I think TommyBass has done a bit of fishing. If Greg was casting those same lures randomly, would he have done as well? As a long-time fly-fisher my other thought was the kind of mayflies emerging. Mud produces MUCH less food in rivers (and often lakes) than cobble. the more surface area the substrate offers the better. There are burrowing mays, and one species will burrow in silt, others in gravel. But the vast majority of mayflies live on larger substrate though -cobbles and boulders. The hard bottomed areas, whatever they were, likely were the source of the activity along those stretches. Put those two together: food production concentrating activity and angle of presentation and you've probably got a big chunk of that scenario.