Paul Roberts

I understand George's comment -this is a big undertaking -if you really expect a definitive answer. Heck, a million dollars and a stable of grad students would be hard pressed here! But, you don't have to attempt the definitive study. Part of (often a lot of) a science fair project is to delve into science, and discover how complicated nature is, how carefully you have to observe, think, and plan, and the limits of our ability to perceive nature. And we all discover how TEDIOUS good science most often is! (In this last regard, I think you've picked a good project). There's a common misconception about science that it is all about finding THE ANSWER, when it is more often comes down to defining better questions. Better understandings come along the way. Go for it. Have fun with it. You'll learn a lot, but not necessarily what you had intended. And that's OK. Consider all of us your peer review LOL! ;D : :-[ :-X :-?

Fun stuff. Keep us posted.

Structure/Cover has several "functions": Structure/cover creates a diversity of environmental elements that create/support a diversity of life forms that are the food chain. You need a lot of links to grow mature bass. Cover is a place for those links to escape predation. Bass know, and learn, how to exploit that cover when feeding. Anglers do too. While bass can be caught other places, they are most vulnerable at those locations. Pressure can and probably will rear it's ugly head, but under proper conditions and with good presentation skills, you can work around this. Those same areas will still be where the bass are most vulnerable. Another one, if the water is shallow enough, or clear enough, is the surface film -and it's everywhere. A topwater worked appropriately can usually draw some fish. If away from the usual "hunting locations" it may just take some patience.

I've seen this behavior in aquariums, even with bluegills. Due to low O2 the fish get very inactive and hang with mouths at the surface. Air holds much more 02 than water in general, but fish can't really access it. (Some species can suck air into their air bladders and breath this way, when 02 gets low. Species that evloved in low 02 waters can do this: bowfin, mudminnows. But bluegills can't as far as I know.) The bluegill you saw is probably gaining the precious little oxygen that diffuses into the water at the surface, and trying to stay inactive so as not to burn much. It's a last ditch effort to save itself. Sounds like that lake may have a fertility (sewage, fertilizers, siltation) problem. Is there a lake association that can address the problem?

Fun science fair project! One difficulty I see, doing this by angling, is keeping presentation equal during sampling. Going with one lure only would help, but the bass might get turned off to that lure. Maybe a range of, say 3, lures that you fish in succession -the same way and amount of time each: a plastic worm, a jig, and a topwater, for example (Whatever is appropriate for your chosen water). Doing this in one pond would be best, and easiest. But, fishing pressure you exert might be a problem. Rotating though three ponds might help, but that's an awful lot of effort. Anyway you do it, you'll have to get A LOT of fishing in to cover the barometric range. Lots a hard work there ;D Good luck with it. Let us know how it goes. If anything, you'll learn a lot about science, if not about bass.

Those are healthy fish! And under mile high skies too.

This is pretty common in waters I've fished in both NY and CO. There has to be some way for prey fish to escape predation, otherwise there wouldn't be any left -and you'd have small, skinny bass. This is not uncommon in small ponds with little cover. I'm wondering if these ponds have a shallow shelf rimming them, as the primary cover, making the shoreline, as I think you describe, the key location for hunting bass, but shallow enough to exclude the bass. Another thought is that you have golden shiners in there, and some are able to grow to mature size somewhere (shelf?). These can be too large to be eaten by most bass in the pond, and are able to crank out young shiners over the course of the year. I believe GS's can spawn more than once a year in the south. Just some thoughts.

Why are small and medium lakes given the same acreage (50-500)?

LOL On the good days, I think I'm in control. Other times I wonder if fishing and obsessive gambling are the same animal.

I use a fast 7-foot rod with a large spool spinning reel loaded with 15 or 20lb braid. Braid takes some getting used to, but will outcast other lines, by quite a bit.

I'd add to that: ...without alarming them (in the slightest -for educated fish), and making the lure look like "food". That's not always as easy as one might think. Again, if we were able to see all the fish that see our lures, and ignore them, we might just hang up our rods -or need counseling for the ensuing ego adjustment.

Not going to guess on the weight -Weight is over-rated. Cool story though. The right lure, in the right place, at the time, is measured in moments.

Why choose the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) site to research Sierra Club's stance on hunting? Why not go right to the primary source? There is no connection between ALF and SC. That page is NOT a page of organizations affiliated, or even of like objectives, with ALF. The list also includes The National Shooting Sports Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, among others. And, interstingly, you omitted a sentence: "is not opposed to sports hunting outside of appropriate sanctuaries such as national parks, provided it is regulatedWildlife animals should not be valued principally in terms of whether they can serve as targetswe should respect the moral right of all creatures to exist, to maintain basic and successful breeding stock, to have essential habitat protected, to be free of unnecessary predation, persecution, and cruel and unduly confining captivityregulated sports hunting may have a place for those who choose to pursue it, but there are more pressing concerns" Here are your statements that I am calling into question: These are at very least strongly biased and at worst, inflammatory and divisive. Where did the Bush Administration come in? That letter sent by the SC strongly condemns the Bush administration not hunting and fishing. I can understand your issue if the SC misappropriated the ASA mailing list, I suppose... What strikes me odd is the vehemence with which you take a pretty standard SC solicitation letter (given the actions and values of the Bush Administration), and run it into the SC's clandestine plan to destroy hunting and fishing in America, or at least the ASA. The SC's founder, John Muir was against hunting, but he's been dead a long time and the SC has embraced hunters and anglers, as they rightly should. They want to be effective in resource conservation issues, not side-lined as so many fringe organizations have done to themselves. (And one of the fronts that needs to be handled is at the policy level). ...Sierra Club is encouraging behavior that John Muir condemned in the 19th century, spending $200,000 a year on hunter outreach programs, and hosting an essay competition entitled Why I Hunt?, offering as first prize a $12,700 hunting trip to Alaska. ... About 20 years ago (Carl) Pope noticed articles in Outdoor Life attacking the Sierra Club as anti-hunting, recounted Washington Monthly managing editor Christina Larson in an April 2006 review of the strengthening alliance between pro-hunting organizations and mainstream environmental charities. At that point, said Pope, I realized we were dealing with a conscious political strategy to separate rural hunters and fishers from urban environmentalists. It wasn't about hunting and fishing. It was about politics. Since becoming Sierra Club executive director, Pope has sought common ground with hunters, Larson summarized. Because hunters have clout in the U.S. Senate and other Republican-controlled branches of government, Larson explained, and perhaps also because environmental charities have no fear of losing their non-hunting donor base to charities that take firm anti-hunting positions but win no political victories, the Sierra Club and most of the rest of the green advocacy establishment are actively courting the hook-and-bullet crowd. ... Here's the link It's an interesting read: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/06/05/editorials5.06.htm Sure don't wish to offend you, Lane, really. However, I don't think you are giving the BassResource membership the whole story. And you are choosing a vehemently biased, inflammatory and potentially divisive tack. I don't appreciate that. And I'm willing to say so.

From the Sierra Club: For over a century, Sierra Club has been dedicated to exploring and protecting the natural world. We are a broad-based conservation organization with a diverse membership. Approximately 20 percent of Sierra Club members reported buying hunting and/or fishing licenses in the past year, and Sierra Club policy explicitly recognizes sport-hunting and fishing as a valuable wildlife management tool. Sierra Club also has an active political program dedicated to conservation, which in 2004 endorsed 40 members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and 19 candidates with an "A" rating or better from the NRA, seven more candidates than in the previous election cycle. Contrary to NRA assertions, the Sierra Club does not have a position on the right to own guns and does not seek to prohibit private ownership of firearms. From PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights group founded on the belief that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment. ... People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds... From ALF: The ALF Mission Statement: To effectively allocate resources (time and money) to end the "property" status of nonhuman animals. The Objective of the Mission: To abolish institutionalized animal exploitation because it assumes that animals are property. Oh, come on! I'd call THAT a bit radical. And patently untrue. As Zel mentions, the infiltration of conservation organizations by those with extreme, detached from nature (not to mention weird) objectives is something that must be watched, and acted against appropriately. But let's not fall into the same pit with them. Firefightin, I am currently PO'd at Trout Unlimited, for a similar discretionary act. But, an organization is as good as it's constituency. We lost the ASPCA to PETA. What a shame, however, they are causing a lot of rolled eyes in the world of the sane. It reminds me of the old Defenders of Wildlife, who started as an AR organization and realized how limited they were. They got smart and became a professional conservation organization. They are focused on Endangered and Threatened species, which deserves advocacy, especially in light of the Bush administration disdain for the value of intact ecosystems. BTW: Here's another organization worth knowing about: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php?link=board As to road closings in backcountry areas, here's their statement: Use the quads God gave you.

Lane, your RIGHTS were never questioned. The information you are presenting is what I'm asking about. Don't confuse the two. Here's what you had me read: About Sierra Sportsmen, and the Sierra Sportsmen Network: The Sierra Sportsmen Network is a countrywide, thousands-strong group of conservation-minded anglers and hunters. Since the Sierra Club was founded in 1892, hunters and anglers have played a leadership role in our work to preserve the wild places and wildlife all Americans enjoy. We have built this community website for angler and hunters like you, a place to share your passion for the outdoors! It appears to me that the Sierra Club is following in the enormously successful footsteps of The Nature Conservancy bringing anglers and hunters into the mix. GREAT idea! I always thought that should be done, and have worked toward it. But it's so easy to spook the right. Just as it's so easy to spook the left. If you fear, "divide and conquer", well, unfortunately, it's already here. Many special interests are real experts at this. Maybe a cursory understanding of the issues doesn't serve? Or maybe it does, depending on ones intentions. I'm going to continue to keep my eye on the ball: The integrity of biological diversity in our increasingly crowded and urbanizing country and world. Here's the other you had me read: Sierra Club's Policy On Sport Hunting & Fishing Wildlife and Native Plant Management, Sport Hunting And Fishing - Wildlife and native plant management should emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy, viable native plant and animal populations, their habitats, and ecological processes. Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations. Because national parks are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife, the Sierra Club is opposed to sport hunting in national parks. Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, December 10-11, 1994. Sounds an awful lot like what you suggested, Lane. I'm surprised you can't find common ground there. I have no issue with the above statement. And if I had to lose a bass fishery to save an indigenous chub, I might be a bit disappointed, but I'd be all for it. Bass are ubiquitous. I can just go down the road apiece. Or fish for something else. Essentially, and here's the issue at hand: The heritage entrusted to us, the biological integrity of our land and water, is not just another plaything. The other links offered illustrate the inner workings of an organization working its way through the political minefield this country is. (As evidenced by this very thread.) As to global warming, the "controversy" is pretty much over. Where have you been? The EPA actually finally went against "the inner circle" of the Bush administration and stated what's become the present understanding: That global warming is supported by too many facts to be ignored. And that's where things stand within the administration. Elsewhere things are moving at a more rapid clip including the energy industry itself. You are standing on antiquated ground, my friend. Or, you are more political pundit than scientist. I remember Bush's response speech, where he suggested sunblock and sunglasses. Kinda like the Be proud, Go shopping statement after 9-11. And, gosh, if one believes the Bush administration's stance and actions on environmental policy are sound, then... the biological integrity of our land and water really is in trouble. Is it? Or isn't it? What's your take on that question? Hunting will disappear -whether our cold dead fingers are wrapped around our guns or not. It'll go because the natural world will continue to lose constituency. The enemy is not "us", (the anglers/hunters) and "them" (the "environmentally aware"). It's those that would exploit our ignorance of each other, and divide us.

That's not the Sierra Club I've known. Putting biological integrity ahead of industry interests (whether mining, drilling, or commercial fishing or even recreational fishing) certainly does not warrant damnation, nor further propaganda. Give us some specific examples so we can research them and make informed decisions about this accusation.

LOVE the clouds, hate the lightning and wind. If there is booming overhead, I don't care what the fish do, I get the he!! outta' there (usually to shore until it that cell blows past. During the overcast, I get busy, and get myself to a good location. Afterwards, I just readjust to the lighting conditions. If it gets really bright, the fishing can get tougher. Often, here in CO, more cells come through and it stays cloudy. Every day, and every hour, is different.

Very8-) It would be interesting to check that area with an O2 meter, the surrounding area, and the incoming trib. For the future, it would be worth knowing whether it was oxygen or the physical effects of current that made the difference. This makes for a good discussion example because current is often misunderstood in effect, as is shade. Not to say that Gatorbassman is misunderstanding anything, or wrong in his assumption a grass-less but highly fertile res could be well below oxygen saturation in midsummer. And doubling second means you were onto something special. Just out of curiosity, was that res at very low pool? But, in many cases, temps (or oxygen), may, or may not, play the role we might think it does. Current to a fish, and a cool breeze to a mammal, are not synonomous. Current, in and of itself, does not often provide more oxygen in most commonly encountered situations. Current can bring oxygen, under certain circumstances, but I think its effect is generally overrated in most waters, except maybe in some very fertile, vegetation-limited, reservoirs. Some examples: Wind generated currents, just pushing around the same temp water, won't add oxygen. Maybe rolling up deeper colder water might (cold water can hold more 02), if there's oxygen down there to bring up at all. But that would be quite a blow, and we'd be dealing with other stuff at that point, and would soon enough go back to the norm. The other way to add oxygen to water (besides dropping the temp and photosynthesis) is to churn it up with air because air holds a lot more oxygen than water can. A strong blow might do this, but only if the affected water was already well below saturation, and the effect would be short-lived as the processes that made the area sub-saturated would likely still be in effect. For a current from outside a stillwater body to bring in sufficient oxygen it would either have to be coming from a much colder tributary, large enough to alter the water temperature of that area of the res. Or, that area of the res would first have to be well below saturation having those use versus production issues mentioned. This is not unlikely with a grass-less but highly fertile res in midsummer, when biological activity (oxygen use) is in high gear. But I would expect that that trib would have to be large and moving water through at a good rate to really have much effect. Maybe T9 can weigh in -he may even have some real live data. In general, current has other, more general and profound effects: Incoming tribs are important for the basic development of the food chain in many phytoplankton-based fisheries. Also, current can concentrate and orient the food chain, creating easier feeding opportunities. Shade is commonly misunderstood too it doesn't affect oxygen levels (except maybe to decrease it by hindering photosynthesis). Instead, shade serves to get overheated bass out of the direct heating effects of the sun, is a safe place to rest in poor conditions for hunting, allows a closer approach to prey when hunting, and helps obscure the ridiculous nature of our FAKE lures. It doesn't affect oxygen levels. Raul touched on an important point: Optimum growth temperature (determined in the lab) is not the same as preferred temp.

As I understand it, oxygen content in and of itself really isn't the problem with warm surface waters. There is enough O2 at 85F, or even 90F, for bass to live, however they'd need an awful lot of food to maintain body weight, much less grow, at those temps. Northern bass, anyway, appear to avoid these temps or at least may become inactive in them. I've always noticed that in most of the waters I've fished the bass become thin during midsummer. Actually, if there is adequate plant growth (rooted or planktonic) O2 peaks during the day (bringing the water to saturation for the given temp) because photosynthesis accounts for the majority of 02 production in lakes primarily from rooted plants, secondarily from phytoplankton. Oxygen deficits occur when oxygen use outstrips oxygen production. This happens in very nutrient rich waters, where accumulated organic material decays and the available O2 is used by more bacteria than fish. This is especially likely in turbid waters where light, and photosynthesis, is attenuated. Over-nutrified waters often develop huge blooms of phytoplankton (and other algae) that then die off and create an oxygen deficit from the decay of all that accumulated dead algae. Rooted weeds die off at times too and it is possible, but rare I think, to have rooted vegetation creating much of an oxygen deficit alone. I suppose strong weed growth followed by suddenly muddied waters, or a large plankton bloom, with high temps, could cause an oxygen issue, especially in small waters or isolated coves that don't get flushed out by the main water body. Oxygen depletion occurs commonly in the depths of fertile lakes where organic matter accumulates below the photic zone, above which photosynthesis can keep things humming. You can get a rough bead on how deep adequate light penetrates for plants is by the depth of the weedline keeping in mind that some plants require less light than others, and sometimes it's bottom make-up that limits where plants can grow. Suffice it to say that water clarity is the important factor in light penetration, and therefore, oxygen production. A thermocline (colder denser water unable to mix with warmer wind affected surface waters) occurs far enough below the photic zone that photosynthesis cannot match decay and eventually oxygen is depleted. In clear lakes (with a deep photic zone), and not too much fertility, areas below the thermocline will have oxygen, and often more oxygen than surface waters because colder water can hold more oxygen than warm water does. Thermoclines basically develop at a depth protected from wind action, which depends on the depth of the water body and how protected from wind by the land around it is. On a small pond deep in the woods, a thermocline could potentially develop as shallow as 8 feet. In a big open, wind swept lake it may not develop at all if the lake is shallow enough. Most thermoclines develop in lake basins at something approaching 20 feet deep and get progressively deeper through the summer, only to be ruptured in fall when surface temps cool and the density difference between the layers lessens. Eventually free mixing occurs, or, more often, a good wind finally ruptures it. Oxygen depletion is not always a deep water phenomenon. It can also occur in stagnant over-nutrified waters, or backwater areas with no circulation from other areas of the lake. Here decaying material and little light penetration (excessive weed build up, algae blooms, and water turbidity) can feed the wrong critters. Now, I've never owned an O2 probe (I know WRB has) but I'd venture that significant O2 depletion is relatively rare in all but the most over-fertilized waters, or fertile waters that are deep enough, and/or wind protected enough, to cap off the bottom waters in a thermocline. If your summer fishin' water has decent clarity and is not over-nutrified, oxygen depletion is probably not the reason bass are not feeding in midday in the shallows, or have gone deep. Heading deeper in summer occurs for reasons other than oxygen content. In other words it occurs even though there is sufficient oxygen in the shallows. I'd love to have Bob Lusk weigh in on this topic.

Welcome back Muddy. 50 posts in 4 days?! You must have been savin' it all up. You'll be back to "Been Posting a Long Time" status in, gosh -a week! Glenn, are there records for that?

Fish adjust their body temp in only two ways: soak up sun (or move to heated water), or by muscle "friction" when swimming. I have felt bass that were notably cooler than others -deeper caught. But a fish cannot be hotter than the water, except possibly a little -by swimming so aggressively (for a period of time) that it develops friction within its muscles. But, this doesn't sound like a healthy situation for most summer bass, unless there is enough readily available food to support that body temp and associated metabolic processes. This is why summer bass in many waters get thin in mid-summer, and switch to low light, night, and early morning feeding. The other thought I have is that it's very difficult to assess temp sensations because they are relative to our own extremities (finger) temp and perception of it.

Yeah, I wonder just how much luck plays a role in our fishing, or maybe better, how much fish aggressiveness plays. Likely, it's a big chunk of the story a lot of the time, for all of us. I'd like to think otherwise, and sometimes I feel like I did something special. But, much of the time, I'm at the mercy of the fish and conditions. It's nice when they help out some.

Wow. That's a great day. That's a great pond! What do you attribute this day to? Besides your flawless erudition and amazing skills...

Hester, sounds like you've read that spot perfectly. Many anglers wouldn't recognize such a spot, others might know they can catch bass there sometimes, but not why. You've got a chunk of the story, and a key to many if not most of the mature bass in that little pond. Very8-) Many of my small waters have a few key locations that give up the majority of mature bass. Some we recognize just looking at 'em, others are not as apparent. Regardless, most we have to probe with lures, and observe, to find the proper approach. I'll describe another one, one that involves current probably the most obvious type. It's a navigation canal full of smallmouth and walleyes. There is a pond attached by a short (30 foot) narrow channel that is lined with rip-rap to prevent erosion. The rip-rap and additional habitat (the pond) make it a good spot with more food than other places: silversides, spottails, darters, perch, and sunfish are there. Bass and walleyes are there too. This place always holds fish, but can become a real hot-spot when water is moved through the canal via the lock system (used to brings boats through the elevation changes across the length of the canal). In most places you would only notice the subtle water change by seeing the flow speed or direction change occasionally as locks are opened and closed. But, at that narrow rip-rap lined channel the added volume of water is squeezed through into the pond where it backs up, then is squeezed back out into the canal, creating a pretty good current. This oscillating current is fascinating to fish and illustrated perfectly how current affects the upper end of the food chain. It's the downcurrent end of the short channel that fishes well, as prey fish get pulled out through the channel and many get sucked into the vortexes (negative pressure areas) created along the rip-rip edge. Smallies and walleye's line up here to feed. What's neat is the oscillations continue back and forth and you just switch ends of the channel to stay on the opportunity/strike zones. Over time I've found a lot of opportunity/ambush spots. Keep your eyes peeled, and realize, when you catch a mature bass, there was something going on there, and it may be repeatable.

I see -that makes sense. I guess the question was: Can non-feeding (neutral/negative) bass be stimulate to strike out of some sort of reflex? I always assumed targeting a "reaction bite" was a tactic used by some when bass aren't biting well. Sort of forcing them to bite. So, is a burned rattlebait forcing bass to strike against their better judgement? Or is it energetically worthwhile somehow: High competition, fish at peak metabolic efficiency, water temps too high (I'm reachin' now)? Anyway, no answers expected, just mullin' it over.