Paul Roberts

A lot of my ponds are as you describe. There are likely locations where bass will come closer to shore, or areas where the cover is broken and you can get past it. You can look for shallow areas of slop too (froggin'). Mornings and evenings bass may be more willing to come inside, and to the top. Otherwise, here's what I do:

Lemme get back truer to the topic here. My GoTo's haven't changed much over the years. Except now I fish under higher visibility conditions (clarity and sky) since moving west. I do add new things every year though, either entirely new tools, or upgrades. Yeah, the search feature will suffice for me I guess.

I learned on my own, then took my Dad fishing! But, I had lots of help on the way, mostly from Al and Ron Lindner, Dave Csanda, Rich Zaleski, Spence Petros, Rex Grady, KVD, etc...

Oooops! Sorry Raul. :-[ An online friend of mine went on a quest to catch more big bass in his heavily fished waters in Indiana, by applying "science". Here's his site. http://www.bigindianabass.typepad.com/ There is no forum so it won't be competition with this site. It brings up some interesting topics and has a place for commentary from readers.

Great thread. I realize I can "get by" with just a few lures, especially if I'm fishing just a handful of similar waters. I have two thoughts towards this way of thinking: -Many anglers (if not most) have a few GoTo's that they have developed confidence in. They then look for the locations, and fish, that these lures operate well in. -Many anglers not only have confidence baits, but confidence retrieves that go with these. There's likely more that can be done with each lure than many anglers actually do, that will allow some adaptation. But I approach my fishing differently, partly out of necessity and partly out of curiosity. It comes from having been a multi-species angler, over many different water types. And now, I fish a lot of different small waters: ponds, quarries, and small reservoirs. Not only can they be quite different in make up, but since they are small I don't have the option of finding other locations or fish. I have to make it happen under the whole gamut of conditions that fall before us (me and the fish we're in it together!). I can't just run down the lake. I can leave and hit another pond, which I may do at times. But for the most part, I've got a masochistic streak and can't let a good cold front or hailstorm go by, LOL. So, I've come to realize over time that certain things work better than others under certain times and conditions. Take for example...the floating Rapala. I use it in several different ways that are a standard part of my arsenal. It's a GREAT topwater, especially in the early spring when water is cold, and when water is very clear, or calm. It casts well but lands very quietly, and has a rolling action on the twitch that is a super trigger, and the lack of much horizontal movement is the ticket in cold water. But, as the water warms and bass are more willing to commit to a chase, I use it as a subtle waking bait. I go up to the #13 (from the #11), take the front treble off so the nose rides up a bit, and use it under similar conditions as above, just that the water is warmer and waking allows me to cover more water, without putting calm water fish off (spooking them). If the water is a bit turbid, but still calm, I'll stay with the #13, but twitch it (as fish cannot find it as easy as in clear water, and a more stationary bait works better again) often after a good pop, to draw attention. With some chop added, I could fish the #13 with pops and short rips. That flash is great. But a popper can be better. The popper (spitter) throws water and the splashdown isn't such an issue, in fact, it's an attraction. Depending on the visibility, the popper can be fished subtly, or aggressively it's simply a more aggressive bait than the Rapala. That's just one example of subtle changes that can be made as conditions change that can make a big difference. Going further, I've identified lots of such tools and where they shine, and may employ them in succession. I'll have three rods with three different such tailored tools, (say a waker, a swimming jig, and a tube / or a walker, jig, tandem spinnerbait / or... depending on the water body, season, and conditions at hand). I cast one, then the other, then the other, and catch more fish from a given spot than I would if I only fished one. Why? Several reasons: -Presentations are never perfect from splashdown to rod tip. One bass may see the wrong thing and shy away, whereas the next in line you pass on the retrieve sees FOOD! and BANG! On the next cast, the first bass may already be distrusting of that thing, and still shy from it. (Although this may sound, and be, anthropomorphic, I've come to this through sight fishing, as well as results.) This is especially so in heavily fished waters. -The follow up lures offer something different enough that you can often take that first fish, or another that won't commit to the surface. -I believe some individual fish like different things. So, I go for versatility.

Wow. Truly great stuff everyone. You don't know what you know until you try to explain it. That's a big part of the great challenge of teaching, and writing. Similarly, trying to organize and explain stuff often brings out glaring holes in your thinking. It's separating the faith and opinion from the knowledge. The former keeps you going the latter, hopefully, comes over time. Opinion is easy, everyone has one. But knowledge takes one hell of a lot of work. paraphrasing Carl Sagan. No, you can't control em, but you can control yourself. You can learn what they mean, and how to avoid, work around, or work with them. Your brain is the most amazing computer there is. It's all about potential. Maybe that's what the faith part is.

I can definitely see where anglers, especially new ones, could be confused by all the fishing information and advice out there, especially if there isn't a really good framework to fit it into. In-Fisherman built such a framework (F=L=P=S, water body classification, calendar periods, and activity levels) that offers a pretty good start. Yeah, you sure can't chase someone else's fishing. Paul, that's a great post. About the epiphany thing though you didn't have that until after you'd read a lot. You need some basic knowledge before you can get there. But, experience is what brings it home. So, all, what's your take-home here? Here's one of mine: Keep it simple and enjoyable, expand at a comfortable pace, keep your expectations in check, don't close your mind. Good thread, Tom.

Thanks for the encouragement, FD. Remember, it's a fishin' book (or might be someday). A lot of money won't be needed. Guess I'm one of the anyone's. Tom, is that a cheap shot? ????? Does your "major in biology" qualify you to make such a statement? Yes, there is something wrong there. Don't blame the what-you-call "biology". Sounds like this thread has run it's course.

Do you fish the same stuff in the same way all year round? Why, or why not? Would you suggest the exact same stuff to everyone, everywhere, in all seasons? Why, or why not? If you wanted to describe lure presentation in a nutshell, that could help someone year round, all around the country, in all water types, what would you say? If the only book on presentation is just a list of recipes, how do you know when to apply which? And do you just go through the ever enlarging recipe boxes every day; buzzing, burnin, bulging, ripping, walking, waking, twitching, yo-yoing, swimming, slow-rolling, ..etc...ad finitum? Or, are there some times and places where these things might make more of a difference than others. Why? Realize these are presentation (retrieve) techniques, not presentation methods. Is there anything that ties these things together? Hmmmm, doesn't sound so simple to me. Can you explain all this, and have it exportable to varying waters around the country? Might there be anything that ties some of this together? Might that be helpful? I don't know anything about solunar, but weather matters, to both fish and the fishing -but not in equal proportion LOL). We can't control it, we can work around, or with it, but it matters -sometimes a lot. If an angler had a choice, and you were offering advice, would you suggest they fish before a front or after and why. In early spring in the north? In summer in the south? In a spring lake in Florida? In mid-summer in a muddy pond in Pennsylvania? A clear one? Why? Does the why matter? Again, I see an ever fattening recipe book here -a lot like that wildflowers by color book I mentioned above. It's early spring in a small pond in Maryland, and again in a large reservoir in Kansas. It's about to snow. What advice would you give? (Stay home isn't an option). It's mid-summer in a small pond in Maryland, and again in a large tree-filled reservoir in Texas. What advice would you give? Etc...etc... Is everything time and place specific? Do we really have to re-invent the wheel every single day? Or are there some recognizable patterns? And how do you go about discerning them? Might any of these even become predictable? This isn't a test, or in need of immediate answers. Just stuff to think about. Or should we just not think about such stuff? Maybe the advice we should offer newbs could be just one article: It might say pick three lures, choose one water body, (preferably a small one), and fish it (mechanically) for life. The empirical approach might suffice there -eventually. Last questions: Was all your reading helpful at all? Was some better than others? Do you think that the IF calendar periods and lake classifications were helpful to anglers? Yeah, those scientists really are fools, just playing their silly games. It's actually all a conspiracy to make nature seem more complicated then it really is. I think the issue here is more about avoiding complication, rather than trying to understand nature. The issue is confusion, not that nature is complicated. Lost in complication is confusing. When you are not lost in it, it's power. Describes science to a tee.

I wouldn't blindly take out small bass. If they are very thin (like photo below) and big-headed, then go ahead. But if they are fat and happy, they may be part of a good year class and worth letting them contribute in their time. Large bass and small ones don't compete; they eat different sized prey. Bob Lusk may have more to say on this. Also, check articles on this site, and on PondBoss site.

I have photos but they aren't digital. You can search Google (images): Here are some common ones from NY (I used to live there)... Milfoil There are native species but the widespread common one is Eurasian watermilfoil "Myriophyllum spicatum" (lots of it through N end of Cayuga). Looks like coontail but is sparser leafed, stalk is pale yellowish or pinkish and cord-like. May mat on surface when mature, where waves don't sever it. Likely flowering right now; An indicator of post-spawn to pre-summer in smaller waters. Coontail "Ceratophyllum demersum" Like milfoil but fronds denser, feathery overall in appearance, softer (engulfs lures quicker), and leaflets are very slightly toothed (held up against sky). May matt on surface when mature. Hydrilla "Hydrilla verticillata" Kind of like coontail but much wider leafed. I don't believe it is common in the north, but that might have changed. Potamogeton Several species, often deeper than coontail. Potamogeton perfoliatus, great fish habitat and nice to fish through. Dies back by mid-summer, more common in north. Potamogeton crispus curly leaf, is common but rarely dense enough to be great fish habitat. Potemageton filiformus, thread-leaf, is common, impossible to fish through cleanly but luckily normally sparse. Normally outside coontail beds -too sparse to be good fish habitat. Potamogeton natans looks like a small egg-shaped lily pad. Can be dense enough to offer overhead cover. Nice to fish through. Chara Actually a macro-algae (huge algae). Also called skunkgrass or sand grass you'll know why whenyou crush it in your fingers. A deepwater weed that carpets the bottom in clear waters, growing as high as 2 feet high from bottom. Normally you won't see it, but will dredge it up on hooks. An indicator of harder, gravelly bottoms. Crayfish love this stuff. Filamentous Algae -Often called snotweed this is stringy like hair when out of the water, but like a mushy mass when wet. Grows up from bottom, then drifts free. Wind will blow it into mats. Look for mats on wind blown shores, especially in early summer. If there is a foot of water and a nice heating day, bass will crowd under it right against shore. (No one knows they are there.) Clumps on lures but can be fished over, through, dapped, or punched. Just clean off after every cast. Can be worth it.

Often anglers slightly under-confident in what they are specifically doing will fail to hit fish on the first good point and then it's downhill from there. This is a time to change. Not necessarily away from the crank though. I'm willing to bet (because I've done it too and see it often) that if you don't hit fish soon you begin doubting. Which leads to a lack of concentration. Which often results in your fishing too fast. It's easy to fish a crank too fast. It's the main reason people fail with crankbaits I think. "crankbait" just calls for speed right? Wrong -much of the time. Sometime speed is great, when you have active aggressive fish willing to chase. But this is probably accounts for about 20% of the time. The rest of the time fish it like a jig, interspersed with accelerations, deflections, and rips. I'd suggest that you could continue with that crank around the lake making sure you are fishing it accurately (banging stuff, ripping walls) and slow crawling in between. If no go then I would assume the bass are not at the depth you are fishing and switch cranks to a medium to check higher in the water column. I'd then try a shallow crank over the cover. You can check a lot of water with a few cranks. But you really have to be deliberate. A tell tale sign that you are either too fast, (absent-mindedly) or putting fish down (is it sunny with clear water?), is that you don't even catch any small fish. If still no go then change locations entirely -go to real shallow overhead cover and check things out with...what the water calls for. Or try deep. In general, in most waters, fish are shalllow ot higher in th ewater column early in teh year and deeper later. Lastly go back to your starting point and fish something entirely different from the crank. If still no go, you are probably out of time and must simply suck it up. There's always tomorrow.

Not all of them matter, or at least all the time. The idea is not to get lost in minutiae, but know the big foundational pieces for what they are, and use them to ask better questions and make better more confident decisions. This is a huge part of the challenge the writing (which I revel in). I've got to take this stuff to ground meaning relate it directly to fishing scenarios anglers can relate to. Helping a varied audience stay with me is going to be a real challenge. I...think...I can do it. When it's easy, that's great! But... Why? We can't always answer this, but I like to at least have some REALLY good ideas as to why, based on some good work. In fact, I want as many such good possibilities as I can get, so that I can weigh their likelihood and make some decisions on how to adapt, before I call it a day. Since we cannot often see what's going on down there I look at fishing scenarios as a set of probabilities. I want as much good information on my side as I can get. I know I can't eliminate all the I dunno's. I have no illusions about creating a panacea, nor even an integrated whole. Maybe part of the issue lies there; I don't believe there is an integrated whole, as each of the players in any system are individuals, not cloned robots. And those individuals are responding to environmental forces they, in turn, do not control. They have it tough too! It's not just us fisherman that are up us against the lake, the day, or the hour; it's the fish's problem too. They want to eat, we want to give them something (fake) to eat. What's the problem? A lot as it turns out, from both sides of the fence. Fishing is often about finding some threads of sense in chaos. Sometimes it's easier, or more obvious than others. BTW: The writing I'm working on is not about scientific fishing. It's just my own ideas on what's going on with fish, and I have some useful background in the sciences, as well as fishing, to call on. I think, from anglers I've met and conversed with, that many could have a better understanding of the environments they fish in, the limitations living things have, and what their lures actually need to be doing down there in relation to the former. I think it's very astute of Tom to question the merits of bringing too much esoteric science into our fishing. It may lead people to sore heads rather than sore arms! Tom's experience is considerable, it shows, and he's smart to raise the question. My simple answer is: Science is simply a powerful tool to be used along with your common sense (what you already know). It's not the focus.

Cute, (really!), but I wouldn't wave off the powers of science so lightly. And realize, those aliens may not have caught you but they'd do pretty darn well "fishing" in downtown NY -especially at noon with a pizza for bait. Fishing for exceptions is not good advice. But, then again, how would one know what's an exception? Cast, cast, cast, cast, CATCH!! Was that one an exception?? Me too. But realize, I don't read some (typically obscure) journal article and go out and make direct use of it. It's a cumulative thing. Ecologists, limnologists, physiologists, and others have been working on a better understanding of how nature works, and it's worth knowing. There is order in nature. Interestingly, Catt's comment: is THE definition of ecology -how livng things interact with their environment. What these sciences have brought to the table is worth adding to your mental arsenal, if you really want to get a better handle on the overwhelming amount of information that comprises an understanding of nature. Will it make you a better fisherman? I think so but not without the proper approach. Here's an analogy that describes the way some people approach nature: Say you want to learn your wildflowers. You can get a book that shows pictures of flowers, organized by colors. You might find your specimen in it, or one that looks a lot like it (???), and then the book spits out a name. Over time you might have a collection of flowers you recognize, but, and here's the problem: Arranged by color (and maybe season) in your mind, you end up with an awful lot of disparate things to remember. Eventually it gets unwieldy. There is a MUCH better way. Botanists, on the other hand, take a phylogenetic (evolutionary relatedness) approach, having recognized patterns of plant structure, and are able to break plants down into categories which share characteristics. Thus, you don't have to look through a vast array of pictures to get to one that looks like the one you picked. Instead, you see alternate leaves and flowers in a raceme and know that it's of the mustard family. From there the key further separates the mustards until you get your specimen. Interestingly, this works great because our minds handle hierarchical categorizations easily, in tiers like computer menus. Hence, pattern fishing, calendar periods, and other such attempts at understanding fish. If you know the infrastructure you are more able to recognize things for what they really are, ask more enlightened questions, and make better decisions. The problem is much of science literature is dense material, written in lawyer-ese like jargon, and in general it just isn't easily accessible to people without the background, access to research libraries, and the fishing experience to make it relevant. I'm in process of trying to better put all this great information together into something useful. I've had a long and serious interest in teaching fishing, and other outdoor related stuff. This is why I do all the writing end of this; I'd like to put a book together, or two, that gleans from the sciences and offers a framework for understanding aquatic systems for anglers. This is no small task, and knowing my penchant for process over product, and need for depth, it may be my son that finishes it LOL. But I'm plugging away, and all these discussions here help keep me focused on what's important. Who knows, maybe Catt and others will convince me such a book doesn't need to be written, or that I'm not the guy to do it. If so, that's fine, I'll just keep the process going for myself. I'm too enchanted to stop, practical enough or not. Guess they'll just have to peel my cold stiff fingers off my nets, binoculars, microscopes, books, and fishing rods someday LOL.

We all know different water bodies fish differently. We also know that there are things that work better than others under certain seasons, conditions, and situations. Why?! Many ask How? Where? When? Great, if you can get someone to tell you, or better, show you. But what if you are going it alone like most of us on any given weekend? What if we fish waters that don't have a huge following, with guide services, and lots of buddies, even discussion groups? I'll bend a proverb here: When helping out a novice angler, I not only tell them where, when, and how, but why. If I told someone to go to such and such a spot, at such and such time, tie on this lure, cast in this way, and retrieve it this way, I would have showed them how to catch a fish. If I told them why that spot, why that time, why that cast, why that retrieve, I'll have given them the tools to find similar situations, and adapt to similar but altered ones, regardless of water body.

Catt, Good post One that needs to be addressed. That would be me! Agreed. I think for a lot of people, without a strong foundation in biology/ecology, it would be difficult to apply a lot of scientific research to their fishing and have it make a huge difference. It might make it more interesting, to some, which I believe is your point, Tom. But, I'll stretch FishinDaddy's point some and suggest that, beyond experience, we modern anglers take for granted what scientists have brought to our understanding of bass and bass fishing. That said, I also acknowledge the enormous inroads anglers have made empirically in the catching end of things why's be damned. A lot of my allotted fishing time is not about putting as many bass in the boat as possible. I'm out there to learn about how aquatic systems work, and often this means spending time just taking water temperatures, netting and keying out aquatic insects, superimposing observations onto weather data, reading seemingly esoteric research articles, or... I'm into the discovery, and it is not necessarily all fishing. In fact, I've spent the last two spawning seasons not fishing at all, just taking temperature profiles and observing spawning behavior. It's fascinating all by itself, but the practical aspect for the angler in me is that I can now look at trends in conditions, and bass in the water, and quickly know where in the spawn they are which is important since different water bodies spawn at different times. In fact, I can ascertain the seasonal window present in one water body and extrapolate pretty accurately where the bass will be in the behavioral sequence in other water bodies in the area. This affects where I will start my search for bass, and what lures I'm going to have with me in the ballpark as I put it. Beyond the spawn, I'm darn curious about cold front effects, how bass respond to light intensity, heat, what controls insect emergences, plankton regimes, and other stuff. This isn't fishing, or putting bass in the boat, at least for the moment maybe never. So, Catt, you are right on. No one needs to ask why, really, to catch some bass. But I do, for my own often esoteric reasons. And there are certainly much simpler ways to go about enjoying fishing. On the other hand, I know a guy who fishes only a black buzzbait and a black plastic worm. He says that's all you need, and then, "Some days they bite and some days they don't." My guess is there are some water bodies he doesn't revisit anymore (good ones), and I never see him before the spawn (during which time he's likely to say, "Too early yet. Things'll pick up when the water warms".)

Catt, KISS works, but only some of the time. I have to ask: Do you ever go out there and just don't know why a bite turned on, or shut down? Or do you just not ask why? Sure, you can go try to scrounge up another pattern. But wouldn't it be great to know a lot of those why's? If you knew why, you'd put yourself in position to predict it. A lot of natural events are (loosely) cyclical, and if you know the particulars that lead to an event, you'll recognize them again. Yes, pattern fishing works, but in spite of itself. I want to know the "Why's". It's the question that leads to deeper understanding, than "How" and "When".

Yeah, genetics. I hesitated on that one, mostly because I know few specifics about it really. Is it growth potential, or simple aggression that counts most? I suppose it doesn't matter which, the take-home message is the same: On most waters, release those big ones, and handle with care. Unless maybe your water is so intensively managed that 5lbers are a nuisance! As to the FloridaXNorthern issue, here's an interesting bit of research on the subject: http://www.bigindianabass.typepad.com/ Scroll to: It's All in the Genes

Angles, yes. And there are LOTS of "other subjects" to this question. Fishing (or let's say catching consistently) is a VERY complex game. But there are key things at work that shift in priority as the Earth spins, and the wind blows (to be poetic). Knowing how fish behave, how conditions alter things, and what lures do, puts you into the ballpark. The rest is fishing. Someday I hope to be able to just walk right out onto the pitcher's mound every time. Then, being a red-blooded male (with control issues LOL), I want to stand there and throw only strikes. Oh well, I'm at least within the diamond most of the time now, and still working on my pitching.

Start by doing some reading. This'll get you asking some relevant questions when you hit the water. There's good information in the articles section of this site. I'd also highly suggest the In-Fisherman Largemouth Bass Handbook of Strategies. Understanding how lake types, calendar periods, and bass activity, come together to make a days fishing, is the starting blocks.

Many people approach lure choice by having some confidence baits, and then looking for situations to match them. I'm the other way around, I look at the fish and conditions, then choose lures to apply. I re-think, re-adjust, adapt, as I go. We all know lots of things catch bass. But some work better than others depending on the circumstances. In my mind, those circumstances are fish behavior and activity, and sky and water conditions. I first try to decide where the fish are generally by season and in terms of actual lake lay-out (called location). Then I decide where in that location or structure they are -how close to cover, how high in the water column, etc...(this is called position). Then I try to determine what they are doing, their activity level -How easy they will be to dupe, how willing to chase they are, etc.. Essentially, I'm usually looking for the easiest fish to catch). Together these dictate the very basic controls: depth, speed. From there other more specific things enter in to the mix: -Cover present (weed type, algae, wood, rock, ...) -Visibility conditions: Water clarity, cloud cover, time of day, cover. -Other anglers present? -How spooky are they? (Often directly related to visibility and other anglers). -Prey type the bass are likely feeding on, or used to seeing. -Triggering. What manipulations you apply to turn non-biters into biters. -other stuff... -How comfortable (which boils down to how experienced) you are with the lures in your possession. If you have lures you don't know much about, read about where they shine and then go have a practice session with them, figuring out what they do. Better, pay attention to fishing conditions you encounter, then go read up on (or ask) what lures shine in those types of conditions. Then get one or two and do your practice sessions. If I'm using something I'm sure should work, then it may mean I haven't really found the fish yet, or I need to adjust the triggering -which may mean a different retrieve, or a lure change. If I'm still not catching, then I blame the fish, the lake, and the sky (LOL), meaning, I re-think parts of the above prescription; I've missed something. Maybe the majority of fish aren't still shallow, maybe they've dropped deeper now, or maybe my fish are right under that wind-blown algae on shore? Maybe they are feeding on bottom-gleaning bluegills and I need to try deeper. Maybe more speed, more aggressive triggering, more subtle... . Maybe they are holding just deep enough that with the new water color coupled with those thin clouds, the bass aren't seeing my topwater I need to go noisier, or slower, or subsurface. Maybe... You get the idea. I suppose the bottom line is: If you aren't hitting them, there is a reason, and it's all about asking the right questions. I'd work on understanding what questions to ask. Hopefully, when I finally find a bite, I let the fish tell me what details I need to adjust, to maximize the bite. I also watch conditions like a hawk so I can turn that corner with them. This is where I want to be and hopefully can get there before the sun goes down on me. Not uncommonly, I've deduced several things that will work, and I'll switch rods on nearly consecutive casts: (i.e. Buzzer, slower topwater, swimming jig, free-falling tube). This'll often pull more fish out of a given spot than if I'd fished just one before moving on. Lures are truly are tools, or maybe better, keys. They are not magic; the magic is in your knowledge of them and then ability to apply them in the right places at the right times which means knowing fish, water, and your own pieces of it. This isn't a precise science either. You may be able to apply a lure in a different way than another angler and make a key that fits a certain set of circumstances. In fact, if you get good at this you may find that making your own lure concoctions is the most satisfying. It's a nice place to be. It means you've grabbed the bait monkey by the b@!!$.

My Dad, and my friend Diallo.

Are you sure there are "big" bass in this pond? A lot of small sunnies, and few large ones, doesn't bode well for growing of big bass -unless there are some old ones still around -less likely in a public water.

The short answer is: Food. With some qualifications: -Appropriate sized food -for all year classes to bring bass to size. -Available food -catchable, meaning not living where bass don't, or tucked away in dense cover where bass cannot efficiently get at them. -A LOT of it! Well, that was my simple answer, but there's more to it (nothing in nature is really simple) ...So...here's s'more... In most waters (those that vary year to year in the above prescription) age of the bass matters. In the waters I fish it takes 8 years or more for a bass to reach 18 inches. In many of my ponds, bass hit 16inches and get really thin and then disappear. In others, the cutoff may be 18". Each year may vary too in what it offers to bass of various size classes. It is possible for individual bass to jump a forage base bottle neck, usually by being especially aggressive. The very largest bass in most waters are often the most aggressive individuals. However, these fish tend to be most vulnerable to angling, and suffer attrition over the years it takes to grow large. For an interesting study on this, see Brian Waldman's site: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/research/page/2/ Scroll down to: Pressure and Bass Aggressiveness The final sub-set of individuals that may get really big are those that are very difficult to catch by anglers even dubbed by some researchers as "immune to angling". As you can see, waters that produce really truly big bass are truly rare. Would love to hear Bob Lusk weigh in here.

For an added clinker to the discussion, females in food rich situations have been known to spawn, eat and gain more fat reserves (which are converted to eggs), and spawn again. I once saw a large female at a particular bed (two different males) over a month and a half period apart! It's possible it was a different female, although they looked very much alike. Regardless, the second time around that female would qualify as a late spawner. From what I've observed in my ponds, I think as long the hormones are raging, at least some females hang around the spawning areas. Do the biggest females come first? I haven't seen that in my shallow ponds, unless they spawn deeper than I can see. However, I've seen, and other observers have too, that smaller females (and males) seem to spawn later. It's believed that one reason is because it takes a certain amount of fat reserves to convert to eggs, and smaller bass come out of winter requiring more time to gain necessary weight. Or maybe, since experience is known to affect fish spawning site fidelity and success, it might simply take longer for younger bass to get with the program. The older bass simply know what to do. Just some thoughts.