Paul Roberts

Matt, are you able to re-post that video?

Interesting question: Until Catt figures out how to interview a bass we'll have to go with what scientists have discerned: Bass and most other fish have much poorer visual acuity than we do, as far as seeing details goes. This seems to vary a lot with light availability from what I've seen, and it varies with experience (the brains involved too). Fish eyes are sensitive to motion, shape, and contrast. From what I've read bass can see a maximum of about 30 feet (if I'm remembering right) in maximal visibility conditions. This has to do more with the influence of water on penetrating light -which scatters. Thus, fish don't tend to NEED "long range" vision. The inner ear may have the longest sensory range, but it is weak directionally -that is the bass can't use it like non-aquatic creatures to home in on exactly where a sound is emanating from. The lateral line is more about feel -sensing water motion. It is a short range system. Likely deep fish are hearing a sound emanating from above and then spot the motion -the disturbance. When we see a fish come up from deep water to hit a topwater, I would suspect that sound and disturbance matter most in initially getting their attention. Again, interesting question.

Biodiversity and the stocking of non-native species. Indigenous assemblages of fish have been altered enormously. I know there is some material out there on stocking of LMB in Mexican (and I believe African) lakes that resulted in the destruction of native fishes, and the traditional fisheries that supported local communities. Use of lead sinkers -lots out there on that -esp from the UK.

Wow. Hey all. Before you get too emotionally invested, you should know that there are a lot of people that have asked this kind of thing before. There's some good research out there on the subject. If I had more time here I'd dig some of it up. Off the top of my head a good site would be bigindianabass.com. Check the "research" link. This should also lead to keywords and authors to search. I'll throw in my opinion too, for what it's worth: Bass can "learn". It's been documented over and over again. How and what they learn is worth looking into.

Water bodies mature -they change. A healthy pond diverse in habitat and productive in nutrients, without large predators (like bass), will likely develop a healthy diverse food chain. After initial stocking of appropriate numbers, bass growth will likely be very rapid. But things get complicated from there. Bass change the relative abundance of prey which affects the RA's down the line. And there can be great variation across years in production of and interactions among all the players. Then there is reproduction. A fishery with lots of large bass has a good balance of mouths to feed. This tends to be rare and should be appreciated. In small not-intensively-managed waters it comes and goes with time. I've fished some ponds long enough to see periods when the bass suddenly break a barrier, a 16" barrier, an 18", 19" ...seems my ponds do not produce fish beyond 20" in anything I could call an intact year class. Although I have seen this on a couple occasions. One was due to age class (some surviving leviathans in an unfished private farm pond), the other is intensively managed. In general, in un-intensively-managed public waters in the north, these are unique fish. And they can and do turn up here and there -needles in their respective haystacks. I suppose a great opportunity for such a fish might be in the pond you describe. I fished one just as you described -shallow with one deeper hole. The owner put 5 bass in the previous spring he'd caught from a nearby lake. "About a foot long they were," he said. "One was a bit bigger." I saw four ~14-15 inch bass cruising the shoreline. I ran a jig through the dark green hole, and caught an 18". Easy "lunker"! ("Lunker" is relative). I didn't revisit that pond but if that, with so little competition, had the green light to GROW. How big -dunno her genetic make-up, or even sex. Later on, assuming one of the 5 is female, after a good spawn and that pond filed up with competing mouths (and all the associated changes down the line) the chance for rapid growth is likely to be compromised. Lots of professional mangers are trying to get what you (and we all) want. And it's labor intensive and fraught with complications. Check out Pond Boss website and mag. Bass over 20" in most northern waters are rare. Appreciate every one you see. If you find such a water, zip your lips and enjoy it while it lasts.

Ah, that makes sense. No way of knowing whether that pond could produce such a fish again. Things rarely stay the same with small waters.

BB, I'm assuming you didn't catch this fish, or see it. I have to say that a 22inch 6lb fish caught 4 years ago in a now 10 year old pond in PA, just doesn't add up. Don't believe everything you hear. A lot of anglers don't actually weight their fish, happier with subjective weights. The easiest place I could think of to get one, besides certain trophy fisheries is a small underfished (better, unfished) shallow pond with one small deep spot in it. Likely, if there is such a fish in there, you, or someone else will know soon enough. We aren't talking Loch Ness here, unless you are willing to believe everything you hear.

Fish in very cold water get exhausted quickly, so it's usually quicker to land them. Cold water can hold more 02 (open water) and bc the metabolism of fish is slowed, they simply need less 02. Release is often easier in cold water, despite fish tiring quicker. It's well above a fish species local acclimation temp, or anything near its final preferentia that fish are at greater risk of lethal lactic acidosis. Say for bass anything over low 80s MIGHT be trouble, esp for SM. LM seem to be adapted to handle surprisingly low 02 though. Again, I've just not experienced a problem with this in (either) bass species. For trout >70 can be trouble -I've seen this. Trout are more fragile in this regard than bass.

vicdotcom wrote: Ditto. I use a two-handed sidearm cast (rod held low) a lot, which generates speed for a low flat trajectory. I also feather the spool by draping the fingers of my rod hand onto the spool at the end of the cast, which provides the same result as thumbing a baitcaster -slowing the lure as it nears the target and/or stopping it completely when it gets there. Eventually you'll get a feel for distance -you probably already have it as it's the same for baitcasting. I'd also suggest that when casting you look at your exact target for inches accuracy -same as for baitcasting. I check loose loops just after I close the bail after a cast with my index finger immeditely in front of the spool. This helps the line go on taut, so loose loops won't get pinned down underneath incoming line and hamper later casts, or worse. I keep the line wet too, which helps it's in casting and line handling consistency as dry line is apt to be coiled and stiffer. I backreel, instead of using drag, to reduce line twist. I believe a shorter rod is more accurate than a longer one. This may just be my familiarity, but I think the shorter distance (smaller angle) between my eyes and the tip-top of the rod makes it easier to judge. I wonder if others find this too?

Over-sized bass are simply rare. Just what "over-sized" actually weighs varies with latitude and individual water. In much of the north, in most waters, 20 inches can be like a wall. Here's an article that gives a little perspective on this: http://www.bassresource.com/fishing/giant_trophy_bass.html This article is about double digit fish -moslty a southern phenomenon, but the perspective and info pertains to bass waters anywhere.

"You c'aint outwit a turkey, 'cuz a turkey ain't got no wits." -anonymous Appalach'n tiurkey hunter

Ice out! Not from NH so I can't offer advice on water bodies, except to say, call/email/Google your Sate fisheries Dept.

IMO a ML rod is a bit too light for a 3/8 jig, unless it has a lighter wire hook. And, I also think 12# is pushing the limits of a ML spinning rod. Check the line rating bc power designations can vary with maker. As Tin suggested a M would be better. But, you've got what you've got. If you need a 3/8 and aren't ready to buy a rod, fish it! You can probably make it work.

Yes, the short answer is, changing strategies with changes in water clarity is often a good idea. You can always try what worked last week, but be ready to switch. Have a plan for changes. Here's some stuff to think about as you develop strategies to respond to conditions involving water clarity. Often it's easier to get a strike from a fish period, in attenuated light. And it is often harder to get a fish to commit if they can see a lure over longer distance, because in that amount of time it is much more likely the lure will reveal itself to be a fake. Lots, if not most (educated) fish that see our lures do not strike. Something has to happen (triggering) that allows the fish to make that mistake. Attenuated and/or broken lighting (cloud cover, surface ripples, surface film, cover, shade, and water clarity) helps a lot. Bright conditions (and high clarity) allow fish to see what's wrong with your presentations. Three things seem to help most: stealth (motion, and lure/line entering the water softly), obscure your lures (color/finish and size), triggering (increased speed and erratic action so fish don't have time to see what's wrong, and to draw a quicker, more rash, or pressured decision from the fish the so-called reaction strike), and make better use of "ambush points". In dingy water, bass tend to move tighter to cover. Since they can't see as well they shift more toward a close-in ambush type hunting mode. At these times, repeated pitching tight to cover can catch bass you'd miss if you had expected them to move any distance for the lure. You also may need to slow the retrieve, use a straighter one (less direction changes) and use more easily detected lures color, sound, and water movement. A problem with water that changes from clear to muddy is that clear-water bass are used to relying on sight to hunt. Enter really roiled water and this can put them off. I've seen such conditions that have lasted for a while and seen the bass get really skinny. Bass that are used to dingy water rely more on sound and feel (lateral line) when hunting. If I knew the water is normally very clear and then it gets really muddy, I'd find new water. If it's a mild change, the attenuated light can be helpful to you (and the bass in getting close to prey). These are the extremes. You have to know the norm before you can judge the changes. And often, especially in unfamiliar waters, you simply have to let the fish tell you what they can handle.

Here in CO we have the big kitty's. People seem to freak out over them. All you gotta do is rub their neck and cheeks and they get real docile. It's a bit hard to do when they first git on your back, but if you can get a hand free, they can be pretty sweet critters.

When I used to trout fish in the PA backcountry, it so many people carried a sidearm -"for snakes" they'd say. We did see a few timber rattlers, but the thing that always had me scratching my head was that -snakes ain't got no legs! Just step aside, man! If you didn't SEE the snake before you stepped on it, what good was the pistol?

Hey John, Finally getting back here. I think we're on the same bus. Nice heavily spotted coho -there's too much anal fin there for a 'bow. Those elongated spots are very chinook-like! She's "smoked" -recently lost her silver and soon to spawn. Very pretty fish. Here are a few photos; a bright hen coho, and some male 'bows with that "Coho face": This is a bright 12# hen coho I caught under the MC bridge back in the 80s. Actually all these are 80s fish. 9# fall run 'bow (LP@441) Another fall run male bow (MC) Early maturing coho hen all of 14"long (SR) Another little hen coho of 13" (SR). I thought this fish was a pink (kokanee) at first.

Ditto. Yeah, I was surprised too. Remember, those research findings showing long durations out of the water were temperature dependent. Over, what was it, 80F(?) the LM didn't fare so well. It was also species dependent, as SM can't handle being out of water so long. Again, some species are more fragile than others. Those are nice fish on UL! No, I haven't seen that either. I've never played a bass too long. Then again, I don't live in CA!

In my mind the whole "reaction strike" idea is theoretical, and there are a lot of ideas on just what that is. So, I'm not sure of your question; It's pretty vague. Guess I'd need more info. What prompted you to ask this question? Something in a video you saw, mag article, something you saw on the water? Curious here.

I've never had a problem with bass either they just aren't terribly fragile, or fight that long. I have had a few males caught from beds that showed signs of previous hooking and were very weak on release, even without a long fight. I actually don't fish for males on beds anymore. Here's an interesting (amazing) piece of recent research on how long LM can be kept out of the water: Re-examining "Holding Your Breath" Guidelines http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/research/page/3/ I have had problems with larger trout caught in warm water (>70F) that turned pale very quickly and might not have survived. I tend to leave such fish alone. Other than that, even big trout and salmon I've caught on the big lakes were releasable, but caught on properly scaled tackle. UL fishing is fine for most situations. If you get seriously under-gunned you'll know it and probably not do it again. I have a story of stupidity for you. I'm embarrassed to say that I once fought a Chinook salmon from shore on a 5-1/2ft short handled glass rod and 8lb line for over 5hrs! Hooked it at midnight and it went into the net at 5:20am. Yeah, that's ridiculous but I was pretty green on such big fish (24#) and I was way under-gunned. It eventually deflated its bladder so it was like a rock. I had no control with that short soft rod and stretchy line at the distances it held. I had 300yards of 8lb on that reel and saw the knot at the bottom 3 times that night! It became so heavy I finally brought it to net by wrapping the line around my arm and literally pulling it to the top. I never hit the big lake again with such a rod, and I was much more aggressive in fighting those kings after that. The fish might have lived, if I'd released it, as it was still kicking pretty good when I finally got hold of it. It had had plenty of time to rest during that pathetic lop-sided battle. However, I was so whipped I almost didn't survive the following day at work.

I've seen some research on the topic over the years. You could probably Google up some of it. You could try "lactic acid" along with "angling" and "bass". In my experience, problems surrounding playing fish are pretty rare, unless they are caught in excessively warm water with low 02 -a problem I've encountered in trout fishing. I've also seen individual bass and salmon caught repeatedly off beds to the point that they become exhausted and just lie on the bottom. Some species are more fragile than others, and can't stay out of the water very long, especially after a long fight, or when caught from low 02 water. SM can't stay out as long as LM. Atlantic salmon and coho salmon both are fragile in this regard. I wouldn't consider 6 or 8lb lines as "UL", for most bass -you can land most bass in pretty short order with such tackle, although good smallies can keep me stalemated for quite a while. Never had any apparent problems releasing smallies though. UL is usually considered 1-4lb lines, but this depends on the fish of course.

Rhino Wrote: This is the distinction I originally saw too, but I've refined it considerably. It is at the center of what reaction strikes really are, even whether they really exist at all. DISCLAIMER: OK, this one's going to get dense. I am not responsible for headaches. A number of people, (Keith Jones of Berkley and Bob Underwood of SCUBA fame in particular), have suggested that with mature bass there is no such thing as a "reaction strike". Bass know what they are doing, to paraphrase Jones. Their reasoning, although coming from diff quarters, is that bass cannot afford to expend energy over-reacting to stuff that won't pay off. Prey is most often difficult enough to catch, and a lot of bass fail and disappear in the process. Striking things involuntarily would be maladaptive they argue. I understand this reasoning however, as an angler, I've seen enough "reactionary" (seemingly involuntary) strikes that I believe the term "reaction strike" is appropriate. And I can see where it could be advantageous as it is still a decision by the fish to strike, but a quick one one in which the fish is pressured to make it. However, it's not a rash decision (thus adhering to Optimal Foraging Theory (OFT) and agreeing in principle with Jones and Underwood), but a pressured decision, and one that can pay off for the fish. I guess it has something to do with reaction time how quickly a fish can make the decision to strike successfully. I see this type of pressured decision occurring in a number of ways, primarily when the predator is in high competition with other predators, and/or in close enough proximity to a lure or prey that MIGHT ESCAPE. Catt mentions this last scenario: In angling, this can be brought on by lure speed, action, and positioning in relation to cover, structure, current anything that restricts the fish's ability to react successfully to the lure. For both fish and angler it's often a matter of positioning and timing not every combination works. The physical space where this occurs has been called an ambush point or the strike zone (not "strike window" here although in relation to it of course). I most probably came to this realization as a long time stream fisher, in which current limits fish movement enough that for every movement they make there is an energetic consequence, (and where OFT research began). In stream fishing, especially for trout, smallmouths and other current using species, the fish's DECISION to take was obvious. What I've seen in trout is what appears to be an especially lightly set strike trigger, notable in the wet fly swing in which you are tempting a trout to take at the critical point before the fly (or lure) moves across current too far or fast to be chasedan energy expensive movement for stream fish. This hair trigger is especially evident in rainbow trout (of all sizes), to the degree that it can appear as rash, (esp when seen in an unnatural environment like that shopping mall mentioned above a set of circumstances simply not in the rainbow's evolutionary history). But I've seen something similar onstream too. I've been able to take advantage of a bows/steelies hair trigger by getting a fly, bait or lure right in front of a given fish's face, then making it quickly change speed and direction. They TAKE! It's almost like magic. It appears so involuntary that one useful ploy with these fish is, if you find one in a position where you can't get a fly to it, or it's asleep (stale), you can throw rocks at it, or even wade in and physically move it. Rest it 10 minutes and get a fly to accelerate right in its face and it'll often take. This does not work so well with most brown trout if you disturb them in any way they just shut down. Now I have to believe, in the wild, this is NOT maladaptive behavior, and the only way I can explain it (my guess here) is that it has to do with bows capabilities in fast water they are efficient feeders in much faster current than other trout. I am assuming that this carries over into their ability to react quickly, being efficient for bows, not for browns. There are other likely reasons why it doesn't work so well with browns, or brookies, but this is not a trout site, do I'll leave it off here. In slower water species I think this concept is less easy to recognize, but I believe it is still acting. Pike offered another lesson in this. They love current. They aren't equipped to sit in it, but they are well aware of it and use it. I used to be able to find pike in very slow streams, and in a canal system, by fishing current gathers places that necked down and created (oft-times slight) current. The pike sat in the eddy's created, and they were suckers for a lure brought through at the right speed and angle. The canal I fished had low pike numbers (not even known as a pike fishery), but I could find them easily in the proper current conditions. In LM bass, being a stillwater species, this is even harder to recognize, but I think the pressured decision concept still works, in many circumstances: high competition, and/or in close enough proximity to a lure that MIGHT ESCAPE. Again, this can be brought on by lure speed, action, and positioning in relation to cover, structure, current anything that restricts the fish's perceived ability to react to the lure. You are trying to force a predatory decision, and this is what a reaction strike is. Another thing the truly involuntary potential, and this one's a mindblower: Bass and other fish have an extension of the lateral line going onto the lower jaw and cheeks. It's been known for many years in ichthyology circles that mild electrical stimulation of these hair cells can cause an automatic involuntary feeding response. How cool is that? I've attempted to trigger this reaction in spawning female bass, and believe I may have been successful a few times. I use a ribbon tail worm and try to tickle a reluctant bass' jaw. When I used to target spawning females (I watch them now) I found that they wouldn't always take a worm allowed to fall to bottom maybe they see this too much from other anglers. Whatever, they often won't take. A swimming worm swum above them can work like a charm, especially if I'm out of sight. In this case the worm is silhouetted and it's right smack in the bass' strike window above and in front of her. But, if neither of these do the trick, and I can get really close without her bolting, the "jaw tickle" is worth a shot. And I've had it work a couple times although I really have no way of knowing whether it was such an involuntary take or not. Is this involuntary reaction to such stimulation maladaptive in the real world? No. My assumption is that these hair cells around the jaw and mouth are normally used at the very last moments when a fish is closing on prey, to accurately coordinate to the escape movements of the prey item. (I've always wondered if the lack of life in a "killed" lure plays a role in why many bass don't take it after they've inspected it up close. Want to make a $million? ...talk about brave new worlds). When experienced anglers say, fishing is all about timing, it's true, and at a much finer scale than most of us realize. Catching a fish really comes down to a series of sub-momentary decisions by the fish. It starts with the inner ears, the lateral line, goes to the eyes, and on down to the mandibular pores. This critical timing of a feeding sequence may even explain why fish have such high flicker fusion frequencies (FFF) the ability to separate (slow down) rapidly flickering light signals into something sensible. A bass FFF is way higher than a human's. Thus, we see a movie as a fluid motion picture, where a bass would see it as separate still images. We see a revolving spinner blade as a blur, where a bass sees every revolution. I'm wondering if this ability allows for very fast decision making and reactions to potential prey an obvious advantage for a primarily visual predator. Fish also have directional and other visual sensitivities that likely play a role in what triggers the cascade through the feeding sequence. Perch have been found to have a strong vertical sensitivity, especially for objects falling from top to bottom. Does this ring a bell? Now so far as I know bass haven't been looked at, but bass, especially smallmouths, have a strong feeding response toward falling lures. A dropping jig or tube seems to trigger something special in smallmouths, and largemouth too. Lake trout have a thing for lures rising upwards above them. There is also a speed component to the stimulation of optic neurons. Bass respond to target velocities of 10 to 50 degrees per second with a preference of around 30degrees (1/6th of the visual field, and likely temperature dependent). Pike have been found to have a slower preference to target velocities, which brings me back a ways to a lesson I learned from an old timer who took me fishing for bass and pickerel years ago. He told me that the bass liked the jigworm falling, and in general they liked lures changing in direction. The pickeral however liked the retrieve straight, because he said, pickerel aren't built to turn rapidly, and won't bother chasing something they don't think they can catch. This is true, but it's more than their body forms that are adapted to this target action. What all this comes down to is maybe all strikes are reaction strikes, the more apparently impulsive ones simply being at one end of a variable continuum of stimulation required to elicit a fully committed, start to finish, feeding response. Can we control our presentations enough to take consistent advantage of the feeding process in fishes? Sometimes, when conditions allow, yes. Experienced anglers can pick water apart and apply presentations where and how they can do the most good. They can choose lures that offer good, and appropriate, triggering characteristics. They can also, make use of conditions (like water clarity) to make best use of this. All of this falls under other larger contingencies too: Angler's can, must in fact, understand and adapt to the immediate environmental conditions that influence all of this. Lastly, I have wondered if for inexperienced anglers (and many catches by experienced anglers) whether a lot of catches are not simply a random encounter between fish, situation/conditions, and lure. The often similar overall catch rates amongst inexperienced anglers (or elicited by chuck-n-wind presentations) makes me think this could be so. Experienced anglers often come to the conclusion that bass take lures because the bass made a mistake. The ability of fish to make reaction strikes, and the experienced angler's ability to recognize when and in which way they are vulnerable and to discern ambush points/ strike zones, explains to some degree higher than random catch rates more mistakes elicited from our quarry, and fish in the boat. OK, I've rattled on long enough. Anyone still reading? LOL

I guess your question is one of ethics. In this light, UL fishing I think should be kept to smaller species. Overly long fighting can be an issue for fish survival, especially when they are caught in already stressful conditions. But, this doesn't mean you shouldn't use UL tackle, even for "relatively" large fish. Maybe just not where it is likely to jeopardize fish you want to release and have a good chance of survival. I once attempted to catch large trout on 1# test line on spinning tackle. I worked in a tackle shop and some came in -I just had to try it on the big trout that cruised our lake front. My friends said, "No way. You'll never land one. But I knew fish are buoyant and that it could be done. (This was just about the time the noodle rod craze came and, luckily, went). I did it, catching a 9# 'bow on 1# test on a 6foot graphite rod I built from one of the first graphite blanks available through Exxon believe it or not a 6ft 4wt fly rod blank. It took 10 minutes on a watch to beach that fish and the fight was very interesting, teaching me a lot about fighting a fish's fins, body positioning, and momentum, as well as what to do when a big fish leaps clear when tethered to a thread (I lost the first two to this; Buoyant fish suddenly have weight when they leave the water, either in the air or at the beach) . But that fish was dog tired and it scarcely swam away after some time spent reviving her. I concluded that at this extreme it was a stunt that I wouldn't need to do again. Also, keep in mind that, UL does not guarantee a "better" fight. A longer fight is not necessarily better. In all fishing I've found that there are certain rod/line combinations that bring out the best in the various fish species.

Thanks T-rig. Good info. Good site.

John, I've gotta run right now, but I'll look through photos I have -that fish may be a steelhead. In fact, looking closer I see it has spotting on the lower tail, and the forked look is likely just a fold. As I said I've caught steelies with that coho face (which always made me bristle at the original Salmo designation for rainbow). I may have a similar photo, as well as a photo of an Oncorhynchus I never did ID satisfactorially, even showing the photo to a biologist at teh Salmon R hatchery. And they couldn't be sure. When was your fish caught (month)?