Paul Roberts

Excellent point. Also, there are certainly details within those "pelagic" areas that anglers can exploit, as the bass are doing the same. Healthy prey is generally difficult to catch. Bass exploit any advantage -that's what anglers are looking for too. The oddest one to me is Finger Lakes smallies, that can be found 10 to 40 feet down over 200 to 600 feet of water, chasing alewives.

The links Catt provided offer a good synopsis of the concepts BP introduced, and some controversy that has surfaced since. As Roger (RoLo) brought up in the third link, telemetry has shown that not all bass move from "deep to shallow" to feed. This is true. Catt provided a pretty good response: To take it further, telemetry has highlighted just how adaptable bass are; that they do what works depending on what the environment offers. If habitat provides what bass need (food, cover, security) they'll likely occupy it, and many will develop small home ranges. But, bass appear to be adaptable enough that other groups, often within the same water body, are mobile, or transient, never tied down to a limited home range. Such fish are known to exist in everything from massive waters to small ponds. Some bass populations do make daily feeding movements (not migrations as that's really something different) from deep to shallow. But due to restrictions of the gas bladder, these movements are not likely as the figures in the first link show daily movements from 40 to 15 feet. Likely these fish that appear at 15 feet to feed made a more or less horizontal movement from a suspended position over the depths, made a more or less parallel movement along a contour or two, or, simply moved out from within that 15foot weedline to feed as is common in vegetated natural lakes. Taking this even further, in some (relatively rare) cases structure use isn't considered a consistent locational factor for some bass populations (there are cases with both LM and SM). These waters tend to be steep-sided (narrow littoral area) with pelagic prey. In these waters, bass use littoral areas to spawn and then remain offshore and not consistently related to structure or cover the rest of the year. Many SM in the steep-sided Finger Lakes of NY and in some Canadian shield lakes are known to follow pelagic prey fishes that don't generally relate to structure. Here's a quote from an interesting study on LM in a particular Florida pit, ... Pelagic areas were utilized night and day, and year-round, except during the spawning season. The majority of these locations were in the open water limnetic zone not associated with any structural habitat. ... Using conventional wisdom they suggested, If largemouth bass have a mobile lifestyle due to a lack of attractive habitat, then offering habitat may allow them to assume a more sedentary habit. This would allow the fish to be more accessible to anglers, who often fish near structural habitat. So, the managers added fish attractors (cover), but the bass showed no particular preference to them. They concluded that the pelagic prey kept the bass mobile. They also suggested that creating habitat for more sedentary prey species (sunfish) would require massive physical manipulation (creation of flats) and then the addition of cover the creation of structure and cover and food sources more in line with what anglers expect. They concluded that angler education on the nature of this particular lake was most cost effective. The key point is: Bass are highly adaptable, and are capable of conforming to what the environment offers. Since water bodies can vary considerably, bass habits can too. And, not all bass in a given water body operate in the same way. J Francho wrote: Lake Ontario has vast areas of good smallmouth habitat. Trolling, esp from a yak, makes perfect sense.

Pretty interesting how there are so many diff takes on "clarity" in those photos.

BINGO! (You beat me to it.) Welcome. Pleasure to have your experience, and diplomacy, on board.

Wow! So sorry to hear, CJ. Glad you could at least find safe haven for a bit, and that you're stuff was still your stuff when you got back.

Well... Nylon takes on water fairly quickly, so after an hour of fishing or less your line is somewhat weakened anyway. Do the polymers in L&L make nylon more waterproof? Is that the idea?

Good story. So many people are not anti, just have no experience with anglers or angling. If you ask them what they think, squeamishness is often front line. This is why I'm not combative with most people on this kind of issue. I'm also careful to provide them a good experience so they at least don't get turned off. While I was doing animal research as a university student I ended up sharing a summer apartment with the President of the student chapter of PETA -to our mutual horror. But we were both entirely civil, acknowledging each others differences (he was urban -from NYC) and we didn't discuss our respective ideas at all. We both kept to ourselves, but I did take him out into the field a couple times to show him wildlife related stuff I knew we'd share an interest in. One such excursion was to re-find a young coyote that I had got to actually play with me. I could run and leap through the hayfield and have that 'yote get all excited and leap around like a puppy, mirroring my playful behavior. We didn't re-find the animal but ended up talking a bit about whether playing with a wild coyote was a good idea and talked about wild animals becoming habituated to people, and what that could mean for both. I told him about the increases in coyote and mountain lion attacks on people in places where habituation had developed. His philosophy (house of cards -we all have one) couldn't go very far with the idea though, having a pretty limited understanding of wild vs domestic. He just felt that people have f'd up the world and should now just leave it alone. I'm wondering if he ever took that to it's logical conclusions. So far, I've found real fringe AR people to be somewhat asocial, having some kind of traumatic view of the world, or just indoctrinated (sheep). Most people I've met though, just lack (good) experience.

Great thread. I do the same: I measure clarity in terms of depth too, noting whether lack of clarity is due to turbidity (an algal bloom, suspended material), or dissolved material (not so common here). Looks to me like your pics show an algae bloom (the green), esp in the shallows by the rushes -maybe that is due to warmer temp or maybe it collected there from a breeze or other circulation.

In the state of NY it is illegal to "harrass" (or some other term) someone engaged in hunting or fishing. It's a state law. Now, how one proves that may be a challenge, but oftentimes "anti" tactics are less than subtle.

Oh man...a lot. Not in fishing so much but in hunting, fur trapping, and animal research. I've chosen to live rural, as I'm a naturalist ("nature lover" to some, "nature hater" to others), but have spent plenty of time in more urban settings including University towns often dubbed "rarified air", which means steeped in deep thought, which can be really great, unless the "thinkers" let their Opinions jump ahead of their experience human nature I guess. I'll give one pathetic fishing related story: I was running a Learn-To-Fish-Day event in a University town and we had kids excitedly casting, tying knots, and then fishing in a river mouth (pre-baited for carp). A boy kept showing up at the outskirts, obviously very interested, then running off. The third time he came back I said, "Hi, would you like to join us? It's free." He looked at me, looked at the other kids and their parents, his eyes darting back and forth as if he was in real turmoil. He then looked up at me and said, "We don't believe in fishing," and he ran off. I really felt for that kid. Parents should NOT dump politics on children. My Mom didn't like it when I started fur trapping, but she said she made the decision to let me develop my own interests, knew I was sensitive and responsible, and trusted me. I try to understand both (actually the many) sides so I can know where I stand on the things I participate in, and when to shut off, or re-think, my Opinions. I guess it comes from having had to defend myself amongst people from many walks, on the many consumptive uses for animals I've been involved in. Another quick story, but hunting related: I was pitching dummies for my lab at a small manicured corporate pond. I was at one end with my dog, and several family groups of geese were at the other, calmly preening on the bank. Now both the geese and the dog are aware but indifferent to one another, from experience; Amber knew she cannot catch those geese, and the geese knew it too. Plus, she was tightly obedience trained and knew when to get serious about hunting (she knew who had the gun and what it can do). A guy came peeling up in a van, stormed up to me, and said, You should not be here! Those geese LIVE here! Now I happened to know every pond and pothole within a 15mile radius of that place. I knew where those geese raised broods and where and when they roosted and fed. He didn't have a clue. I calmly but forcefully said, No. They don't. They spend some evenings here, And so do I. He looked stymied, then without another word, turned on his heels and was gone. When I get the chance I at least try to give someone like that something to think about. Another...this one, because of the audacity of the girl, I was less helpful. I was grouse hunting with a friend, and an Audi appeared bristling with Nordic skis. The driver pulled up and said in a snide tone, We'll be skiing here, you won't shoot us will you? I turned to my friend and said, Colin, is Nordic skier season still open? Colin took the nod and pulled out his wallet and pretended to consult the regs. Ummmm....lessseeee....Nordic skier season....closed....Yesterday! You're safe, I said. Hunting, at least, IS in trouble, and so is a basic understanding of nature the real culprit I think. Our society, the world in fact, is rapidly urbanizing and people are growing up without in depth experience with the natural world. Here's a worthwhile read on the subject: Nature Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv (2005).

Absolutely!

;D ;D True enough, generally.

Catt wrote: Ditto. Most probably there are bass that use it, but you may not want to catch them as they may be few or small. In other words there may be better places. Catt wrote: Ditto. It's about food (most of the year). Worst case scenario is a flat mud bottom, with diverse habitat elements (depth, structure, cover) found elsewhere. Best case scenario is having those diverse habitat elements right around your dock!

No assurances needed.

RW, I'm very curious about SM spawning so early (Feb!), or at 52F if that is indeed something like a stable temp at the beds. Something different is going on there, (although most of the research I've focused on is for LM). Maybe it's a local adaptation? Your fisheries people probably know why this early spawn occurs on the Tennessee. Do you know local biologists that could address this? I'm curious as usual.

RW, interesting... Is this a tailwater fishery -with cold discharge?

There's an endogenous rhythm too -an internal clock -something I actually get to see in my smallest shallowest ponds in which temps reach the mid-60s during warm spells a month early for spawning. And no spawning occurs. So, the general timing has to be right. Get a ballpark date for your water, or section of water, then keep track of weather trends. In general, smaller/shallower waters warm first and spawn first. In my areas (CO and NY) spawning runs from late April in the smallest waters and as late as early June in the deepest waters. There tends to be one or two peak spawning movements in my smallest waters encompassing 2 weeks -the entire spawn (including outliers) in a single small water body covering about a month.

Initiation of the spawn in bass is primarily temp dependent. The average number is around 60F -that is after temps have stabilized in that range. LM eggs are known to suffer high mortality in water temps at 55 and below. I too have seen bass initiating beds in 58F water and believe the range may be able to dip below 60. But realize that temps vary over a 24hr period, with sun incidence, water circulation, depth, and bottom make up. So, when we appear and take a temp, that number doesn't represent what the fish have experienced. Last year I recorded a 48F temp in the bed of a tending male LM! But, it had set-up the bed and spawned with a female the previous week when water temps had been in the low 60s. There's lots of good discussion on this topic from previous years. Scroll back to posts from late last winter and spring.

Silvercliff_46 wrote: Silvercliff, not as many of you guys around anymore. Glad to have you here.

This is a bit multi-species (which is good!) as I think it gives a good range of perspectives on why/where match the hatch works, and good stuff to think about... Match the hatch (MTH) does work... but, it works best on fish with repetitive feeding opportunities, and less so with those feeding opportunistically. Stream trout are the best understood in this. Basically, low fertility freestone streams provide more opportunistic feeding on fewer, but a broader range, of prey items while fertile spring creeks and tailwaters provide dense repetitive feeding on a narrow range of prey, often on a specific insect, or even on a specific stage of that particular insect. But... Presenting the right fly to a trout poorly, is worse than the wrong fly presented well. It's said that presentation is 90% of the game. True enough, but after you have presentation down, the lure that spells "food" the best is the one to tie on. As a fly designer I've seen the right fly offering the correct image outfish standard flies for the given scenario 20:1. The difference can be astounding. IME most bass tend to be more opportunistic in their feeding, and more rarely have opportunities to feed repetitively, except maybe with dense schooling prey species, or when specifically targeting craws. With warmwater fish in stillwater I've been pretty sure I was effective with a MTH route when fish were actively feeding and focused on something specific, say walleyes or SM feeding on schools of silversides where an old b/s Rapala smokes. Also, IME, it's generally harder to MTH in still water, esp in high visibility conditions, and especially with bass to which we tend to throw larger lures that are easier for bass to discern as fake. I did see a MTH scenario in a LM pond that stands out: This pond had a huge hatch of YOY LM and we all did so-so fishing standard bass stuff. When I noticed the hordes of baby bass I switched to a fly-rod and whipped up some two-toned 3 streamers with a black stripe. This KILLED em! We tried other flies and lures but those streamers did the real damage. Interestingly, not only did the white bellied fly catch fish but a yellow bellied derivation of that fly pattern did too. Which brings up... Another factor, prey visibility enters in: I'll leave you to ponder... The Mystery of the Blue Lobster... A number of years back I was at a research lab on the Atlantic coast. One of the projects they had going was to check out the feasibility of raising lobsters for market. They raised from eggs some bright blue lobsters. I inquired about them because I'd also seen blue crayfish. They said it was an interesting story... Blue lobsters are something like one in a million in the wild. But in the lab they were finding a much higher percentage of blues (don't remember the numbers). Turns out they are a quite common color but the researchers theorize that the blue ones are selected out by predators (sculpins, sea robins, and striped bass mostly), thus nearly all wild lobsters are found in the usual earth tones. In the lab no such selective pressure exists, and blue ones are relatively common. Similarly, one of the reasons many flocking bird species all look alike is that the odd one, say the starling with a white tail feather, or the lone mallard in with a flock of Gads, is more apt to be targeted by hawks and falcons. When you are prey, it pays not to stand out. I believe this is at least one of the reasons that fluorescent or odd-colored lures work so well.

All the beaver dams I've been on were stable, but easy to trip on stuff -no worries there. The one thing I'd be aware of is this scary scenario, and it is a potential anywhere when wading: When wading watch out for deep mud or silt. Anglers have stepped into it, got stuck, then fell over into the water and drowned. This is something you might not think of when chasing after those fish. I became aware of this when a couple anglers drowned in shallow water in a stream I used to frequent. (JohnF if you stop in here, it's the mud slides at Linear). I've had this almost happen and you don't always know you're in potential danger until you find you can't move your boot, in danger of falling over, and surrounded by water -even very shallow water if you fall face first! This is a very real potential hazard around beaver ponds because of the amount of silt that ponds can accumulate. When water levels fall, or the stream course shifts, lots of deep silt can be left for an angler to wander into. Don't be scared, just aware of it.

Yeah, cool stuff. Aquariums can be really neat. Mudminnows! Now those are neat! I have a river tank, and have always considered it better than TV.

Ditto Randall's posts. Most likely...a floridanus from very clear water. Maybe pre-spawn too. Every spring I see immediately pre-spawn females (northern strain) with heavy markings against a bright metallic gold-green. They lack those vertical shaped markings along the side though (a floridanus feature), having a regular blotchy stripe and blotches across the upper back. Very striking. Never had one in hand though; They seem to be pre-occupied at that time. I saw one female last year on a bed with a male -he gently pushing her around. She was absolutely stuffed with eggs and as close to perfectly round as any bass I've ever seen. She was that pale gold-green with two sets of dark and jagged longitudinal stripes. She looked for all the world like one of those little round striped watermelons, with fins! Really made me chuckle.

Hey Muddy, I've not known beaver ponds with bass in them, mostly because beaver are attracted to the sound of running water, and so tend to make dams in areas of rushing current where bass are less apt to be. They often make dams further upstream than bass tend to reside. But, beaver ponds with trout are a common scenario. Beaver ponds often vary in quality of the fishing with age. When dams are first formed the local trout are provided larger water and often trout will grow quickly in them. Also, larger trout already in the system will collect in beaver ponds -trout tend to move a lot throughout most stream systems, over the course of the year. If you can find a newly built pond, even up in a tiny headwater creek, you could have a real lunker producer. It pays to purposely keep track of beaver activity in trout systems for this reason. Usually the first 5 years produce best in terms of growth of the local population -trout grow fast when the lid is off. Later, silt inundates the channels and insect diversity suffers, shifting to midges. Also, ponds are great nursery habitat for YOY trout so they, especially brookies, will often overpopulate a beaver pond in just a few years. Combined with poorer food choices, growth suffers. But...older ponds may hold some behemoths, especially if browns are present. In some systems old beaver ponds with stunted brookies will hold several 17-20+inch brookie-munching browns that tend to hold in the deeper channel pockets, with or without cover, during high light periods. Big browns are somewhat similar to big largemouths -don't let the fly-boys (although I'm, one of 'em) steer you into fishin' too dainty in such ponds. Night fishing can be the best crack at them. You can even fish topwaters. Oh yes..during the day especially, they are WAY spooky. You'll need to learn the best approach and to literally stalk to the water's edge. Jeeesss..I'm getting excited for you already, and we don't even know what you've got yet LOL. Beaver dams can act as barriers to migrating trout moving upstream too, and from late fall through early spring big browns on spawning runs can be found in deeper pockets, runs, and holes just below. Definitely worth adding this scenario to your to-do list. Beaver ponds can be bad news in some trout waters though. In warmer stretches further down the watershed beaver ponds can further warm these stretches, and coupled with the siltation, can ruin the trout fishing. Hmmmm..there's probably other stuff but that's what comes to mind right now. Glad to hear you're traipsin' around. All the good stuff lies off the beaten path.

Btech, that is a good thought and would seem to make sense. I haven't looked into scent too much as it appears to be of "lesser" importance to bass compared to sight and sound, at least over any distance. Scent, while it might play some role in some cases, certainly wouldn't explain why a bass might rush "20 feet" (give or take some unknown amount) upwards to strike a hardbait. There is one piece of evidence that I think illuminates this pretty well. While Ralph Manns was hand-feeding his pond bass he noted that the bass needed to be "trained" to recognize the dead shad he was offering as food. They took when the bait splashed down or was falling through the water column. He said that a shad that had settled to the bottom was ignored, not recognized as "food", unless the bass got to within mere inches of it. He said it appeared that the bass were unable to smell it, and recognize it as food, unless they were literally inches from it.