Paul Roberts

Ah! Good question. And it's a doozy, too. There's more involved in the identification of "food" than visual shape, of course. There's also size, color, sound, movement, water displacement, scent, and who knows yet. By the time they get to taste... I suppose that may be the end of the line. But by then it's already in their mouth. That's when our "experiment" ends, with a hook-set. Since fish don't have hands they "sample" with their mouths, whereby taste and texture probably make the final call. But there's a list potentially to cover, before a lure even gets to a sampling. What was tested in the Berkley Lab was presumably mostly vision, in a lab setting: a large test tank, clear water, consistent background, and lighting. In the wild there is LOTS more at play, in terms of environmental conditions, which likely means that a greater range of senses might need to be called upon to make the call. Then there's all the ecological and economic (energy-wise) circumstances that play into how a given fish might operate in that particular space -other predators (fisherman included), competitors, prey types, ... These challenges have shaped bass, leaving them with physical and behavioral tools that have survived the tests of time, to operate from. From here, fish can and do learn. The idea of such experiments in the Berkley Lab was to reduce conditions and circumstances to control for that cloud of variables that could obscure the basic question: Do bass gravitate toward basic "Search Images" that say "food", more readily than others? The experiment I mentioned was meant to test (interview) bass about shape from a visual perspective -bass being primarily visual hunters. They also experimented with size, color, scent, and taste -the last two is where PowerBait, Gulp, and others came out of. So... the Ika. I would guess no, a skirtless Ika would not be a great improvement -exceptions could be during winter when bass are more apt to take smaller and less active, prey, or if a given group of bass are hip to your Ika! This can and does happen. Also, the skirt changes the size of the image (size is still one of the categories bass use to assess "food"), motion, speed, and water displacement. But, given either a change in conditions & circumstances (like those listed above), location, or time (as fish can and do forget), and you could still be in business with that lure. Some lures are likely tougher to remember (read identifying -bad- cues off of), and the Ika probably is in that niche. How long can fish remember? Potentially a long time it's been found, but this varies with the species, the circumstances under which the fish grew up in, the event, the object, and... probably other stuff too. The Berkley Lab apparently found that bass (LM) could learn to identify a certain lure as "not food", and hold onto that negative, or indifferent, search image for months -as long as the test went. Even, further... (phew!), fish, like all living things, are individuals. Some it seems have a penchant for certain lure types, or even specific lures, perhaps. The reasons are likely buried in each individual's "psyche": sensory and motor abilities, search images, personality, locational preferences, ... Phew, is right. It's a big world down there. Hope this helps. For me, this kind of stuff doesn't always help tell me why I caught the fish I did, but does help me understand a bit better why I didn't catch them all. And there's a lot to be said for that. In fact, I sometimes think -esp on the tough days- that if we could see what's actually going on down there around our lures the vast majority of the time, I think a lot of us would be finding something else to do with our time. Tennis anyone? At least there you can be sure to get to hit the ball around some.

That is an oddball take on what I call the "ping pong ball". Storm's never been afraid a nuthin'! Those round cranks do bounce through cover really well. I always have a few, for summer or esp in early fall when the veges are still up and dense. There are a bunch out there, but I've mostly used the little Bomber's: Square A and Shallow A. I also have a Bagley's Fat Cat -the ping-pong-ballest of them all!

If you have tracking problems, you could try adding a skeg.

I hear you. And... I agree. It's not the clothing. That heavy equipment I mentioned was wearing bright yellow! No, it's not the clothing, but what you do in it. And... I suppose how long you go about it: I found that, on flat trout stream pools, in which there was no way to approach without spooking them, all I had to do was wade right in on them -spooking them- and... just wait. 5 minutes would do it for brookies; about 10min for browns. This was for "fished over" trout. Here in the high Rockies, where I can hit streams that are not fished, those naive brookies and cutts only take about 10seconds, and you can actually stick them -repeatedly- before they get a clue. That said, and as "our resident scientist", I can tell you that, as curious as I generally am, I will be NOT be running any white Mickey Mouse shirt experiments! I have my own fashion statement to uphold. I'll be sticking to my stealth-mode fishing clothes: drab cotton long-sleeved pocketed button-downs from Goodwill at $3 ea. Worn more than a few out I have. Hey Kent, do you realize we had close to this same conversation... probably a decade ago now?! Two old codgers holding on to the same ideas. But, I don't think we're all that far off, since both could yield similar results. This brings to mind an old whitetail doe I knew. I had some pretty fancy camo -even had artificial leaves affixed. But, she only had to identify me once, after which she had me pegged everywhere and everything I tried to weave myself into. I guess I might as well have been wearing a white Mickey Mouse shirt.

Lots of ways bass could see you, and care. (Even more, if you add sound and water movement.) First, can they see you? As I'd mentioned above, bass are VERY vigilant and aware of what's going on around them. They seem to be more easily spooked when shallow, of course. And it might not take much to get them to bolt for safety. Fish seem not to be much concerned when I'm in boats. Even my float tube, which has legs with fins dangling overhead. I can alarm them, or put them off, but, in general, they don't seem to be concerned about me in my tube. From shore, things are different. Possibly bc they are more apt to be shallow fish, but they seem to be hyper aware of motion. And pressure wakes emanating from my footfalls is a serious spooker. I tend to wear dark drab clothes, esp when fishing from shore so that I am not highlighted against the background. Crow Horse's image above can show why. Rod motion can be a problem, which is one reason I do not like light colored rods. From a boat, possibly less of an issue, but I came to respect the effects of line flash too, at times, and so all my rods are dark. Sky and water conditions matter here -a lot. But, do they care? Fish can become habituated to the presence of... all kinds of things. Even heavy equipment around some of the quarries I've fished; Big yellow monsters thundering by belching smoke! On the flip-side, they can also be educated to fishing pressure. Some waters are fished harder than others, some waters expose us more, and some individual fish are spookier than others. Again, sky and water conditions matter -a lot. If a bass sees you, but doesn’t bolt, does it care? They sure can... Once upon a time... I spotted four large LMs holding, separately, along a shoreline of a large pond. This was late June –well past the spawn. A couple other anglers that had already been there said those big ones wouldn’t bite anything. I approached quietly, but somewhat visibly, and tried several things including a swimming worm, plastic craws, and 4” wacky’d finesse worms, to no avail. I noticed, though, that when I approached, the bass would react to my presence, but subtly. Their erect fins would sag a bit, and they’d drop a bit lower in the water column –they “sulked”. If you are a fly-fisher, sight-fishing -or "head-hunting" as it's called- for large brown trout, you'll know this behavior well. Their erect fins droop, and they sink ever-so slightly deeper. "Sulking" is a good descriptor. Apparently, bass can sulk too. They saw me, and “cared”. So… just like with big browns, I rested them, then rotated back through each fish. This time I approached low to the water’s edge and kept hidden behind shoreline willows. Casting was difficult from behind the bushes, but the bass did not see me, and did not sulk. And I caught three of the four. Two tipped up for the swimming worm on the first cast like a trout coming up for a dry fly. Number three took the worm on the second cast. She was interested but turned away on the first, and took the worm killed and twitched on the second. The fourth had moved, and spotted me on my attempted approach, and she'd had enough and vacated. The bass I got a thumb lock on were two 19s” and a 20” –top fish in that water. I don't know what would have happened had I been wearing a white shirt with Mickey Mouse on it, but...

For me... over the years, I've fished all depths and speeds, water densities, current, for different species. And I'm a bit of a jig-head nut. So I have weights and jigs that run the gamut. Nowadays, my bass waters are pretty shallow, and the majority of my fishing is in less than 12ft. But I fish year round here, even between ice-ups, and can have heavy vegetation in summer. So, I may use weights and jig heads from 1/32 to as much as 3/4. I tend to choose outfits, and the line diameter, based on conditions. I may bring extra spools along, but normally adjust depth and speed by lure weight. During summer I may use a 1/16oz weight or head for bass in a couple feet of water, and then "punch" into dense milfoil with a 1/2oz or more (different outfits). I often have 1/32's with me, for super-shallow places. It can be surprising how shallow bass can be, and heavier heads just skedaddle too quickly. In my clearer waters, I go as light as possible for DS, and find a 1/16 will do out to 8fow or so -in summer when water is less "syrupy". One pond I fish in mid-winter, I've found a 3/32oz jighead is just right for a slow swim and kill. A 1/16 a tad light (takes longer and less detection), and a 1/8 a bit much (a bit fast, and crashes a bit much). I use a scale to weight my heads, (and sinking lures), bc its surprising how far off they can be.

New rods and reels have advanced in many aspects. But, there are good ones of many vintages. For rods, in terms of conventional tackle, I generally draw the line at the point when good graphite appeared. Still one of my favorite rods is a Skyline 6005 I bought off the rack in 1981. Skyline had their schtick together back then, making fishable graphite without the breakage issues of the early "fishable" graphites. I use it regularly without hesitation. And a few others get regular use that date not too much after that one. That said, I also "upgrade", where needed. Things do get better and better.

Yes, I have. Three, that I can remember. They came well packed and were AOK.

Absolutely. But, not necessarily bc the fish might see me. I simply do not want to leave so much as a track. As to the bass, they see everything anyways. They are hyper-aware, but alarming them enough to affect your fishing is entirely contextual. Fish are pretty sophisticated critters. They know their waters very well, and are hyper-vigilant both for food, and for predators. This near-dichotomy essentially runs their lives. At least the parts anglers are mostly interested in.

Yes, we are "belief machines", as it's been put. It works, until... it doesn't work. Then, we are head-scratching again. And thinking, there has to be a better explanation... And so it goes.

Yeah, just from my fishing alone... all I can really say is... I think there's something going on with the turbulence lures produce. Lots of experiences, especially in terms of observed rejections, and what it is about some lures, and fly-fishing "fly" designs, that just plain trigger bigger fish. Jigs are one, and it's not always that they are slower or closer to the bottom or cover (although that can certainly help too), bc I see this with swim-jigs too, fished higher in the water column. Slim plastics, many trebled lures, take a lot of bass. But at the end of the day, the jigs (and creatures, spinnerbaits and buzzbaits, and big lures) tend to tally the bigger fish. I've been aware of Rick Clunn's interest in wakes, mostly from comments he'd made about some of his crankbait designs that sported texturing that was supposed to create turbulence. I say "was" bc I don't believe they ever lit things on fire. I never bought in (although I agreed with the premise) bc... I sort of feel that there are other things that do the job better. There's a reason wood plugs have stood the test of time, and it's not just nostalgia. Thanks for chatting.

If anyone has "Knowing Bass" by Keith Jones, there is a section on their research into what lure shapes interest bass. Long and thin -but not too thin- received the most interest from bass (strikes). That shape was essentially a cigar shape (think Senko, or Ned). I always tended to, naively, think of slim worms as "wormy" and therefore attractive to fish. And, they are, but apparently that cigar shape shouts "food" even louder to bass. They also looked at crayfish shapes, and found... essentially the same thing. The configuration that drew the most strikes was a craw with all the appendages plucked off! Essentially a cigar shape again. It seems we tend to think that legs make a bait look more enticing, and pincers make a craw look more realistic. But, apparently, the bass's response showed that those things just got in the way of what they consider the "food". These were done in clear water so we can assume that visual cues were primary there. How about in low visibility conditions? Who knows? I suspect thought that we most probably would have to separate lures from actual live prey, bc we don't really know what kinds of "hydrodynamic signatures" lures produce, or what bass might be respond to. In my fishing, I've come to think that the turbulence lures create is very important to fish -maybe especially so for bass- for identifying a lure as "food" or not, and, I suspect for how bass perceive the size, or... significance, for lack of better, of a potential prey item.

Yeah, we are on the same page in saying that bass appear to be less discriminatory in turbid water. I also would add that they may actually face a greater challenge capturing larger prey under turbid conditions, for reasons listed above. But, this does not mean that bass won't take larger prey in such conditions -if only they could get close enough to them to target them effectively. Large prey -bluegills in particular- need to be grabbed by the head, and wrestled down. This can be difficult enough under good visibility conditions. I have come to this from both research in hunting/feeding mechanics, and also from a good number of video observations. Bluegills, the critters I get to watch most often, are no push-overs. And large-ish ones can't be simply or easily inhaled, or over-run, like small prey fishes can -or many lure presentations allow. There is a big difference between actual prey and lures. Lures are blind, deaf, dum, and lateral line deficient! A lure's "behavior" is... what we do with them. I don't know if big lures are more effective in turbid water. I just don't have enough experience there. What I'd come to was to maintain a straight, slow retrieve (with regular sized lures) -that is, avoid erratic motion that might be more difficult for bass to catch when vision is impaired. And, there are studies that show that bass switch to feeding by lateral line when vision is impaired. Apparently, they may also make the best of lighting by holding in cover where they can see out into brighter "spacelight". So... I often use black lures in turbid water. That's an interesting comment by Rick Clunn, about bass being spooked by "noisy" lures in turbid water. I could see that, esp with fish that aren't used to feeding in turbid water. Apparently bass can adapt to living in turbid water, becoming more "feel" oriented. Yeah, I get that now. Doh! Apologies, @FCPhil This is a very common event in bass fishing. It's true for bass of all size, but seems esp important for large bass. WRB's answer was excellent. In fact, there's a LOT in there that could be unpacked, esp in terms of how bass hunt, and how they make kills. My present understanding is that bass cannot, very often, kill at will. One thing you should be aware of when comparing waters is that bass can make good livings in many water types. If the food is there, bass can grow well, even get big, in waters with little cover.

^^^ This! Trying to make sense of such things from an ecological viewpoint is darn difficult, bc of the sheer # of variables at play. I believe at least some of that research on bass feeding in turbid waters suggests that bass are taking what they can get: -The most abundant prey. -Prey they can physically get close to. The larger the body the more surface area for detection of water movement; This is not conjecture. -Prey they can physically handle. For bass to take large prey, esp those with spiny defenses, they need everything they've got to make that capture, handle, and ingest. Bluegills, in particular, are very adept at avoiding capture, and even avoiding ingestion after capture. I'm coming at this from a "lateral line" mechanics perspective. Vision is critical for feeding for bass the majority of the time. But... when they close, it's all about the cranial neuromasts. And this is in swimming pool clear water as well as turbid water. Vision is about targeting a prey item (identifying, aiming); The kill is seen through by feel. I disagree. Tracking energy expenditure is very important to all living things, including fish. That's what life does, for a living -quite literally. Energy flow is... what life is! I would agree, if: All the calculations that a predator makes (what I've come to call "economic negotiations") to determine whether a potential prey item is a worthwhile target, have already been done. In other words, they've already decided to, or are able to, expend that energy to attack. This most often means -"vulnerable" prey. Predation is a two-sided coin. Prey isn't food, until it's been caught... and handled... and swallowed.

Oh my...

Please do! Inquiring minds...

Thanks, Phil. I picked up a couple of those last spring. I got them for fishing around vegetation in the warm months, since they are bigger than what I tend to use in winter. I've been collecting up little lightweight lipless, regardless of quality . If it's little, and weighs 1/8oz or less, I'll try it. I was at Cabela's/BPS yesterday in fact, while my wife perused Ikea. I was asked by sales-folks if I was finding everything OK. I replied, "I'm finding more than I possibly have time to use." To another shopper, both of us looking at some nifty swimbaits, I said, "They sure get the mind going, don't they!" ? "A-Yup!!" So, Phil. Go fishing, then tell me the story. So's I can sit here and edit and not feel like I'm missing so much. ^^^ If you are in a boat, vertical is the way to go. But those on shore, are stuck with going horizontal; Hence the yo-yoing, with dead pauses. My main "Winter Laboratories" have mainly pretty clean bottoms. But I've been adding double and single hooks this year -as Crestliner mentions above- to try out for my more cover strewn waters. I think Brian (Team9nine) is using trebles, but his baits are tiny, so they aren't as likely to stick.

How cold? How fast? We run the gamut on this site, from the far N to the far S, from shad to bluegills, to perch. Curious, as always. I'll add to that... weakened, or even dying, shad. In a half-frozen pond I've been using slow-sink blades and lipless, yo-yo'd. And let lay on bottom for a spell. Most consistent for me has been in early winter (just prior to first ice), although @Team9nine seems to be pretty consistent with tiny (light-weight) bladebaits in mid-winter. (But possibly not in all water bodies -maybe he'll chime in). He's at the same latitude as we are, but lower in elevation. Water conditions seems to be darn close though. I've been collecting up tiny blades, and small light lipless, to put to work. However, my waters have been iced, and when there've been breaks, I'm steeped in video editing. Looks like I'll have to catch it on the next go-round. If you find something, lemme know! My half-frozen GoTo's are a hair jig, and a grub (Ned). They too seem to entice fish when fished nearly dead, sometimes dead. I can't seem to be able to get them to chase. I've even video'd them and they look like they are swimming through molasses, and pretty much are at 37-38F water. Horizontal lipless picks up here as water warms in spring. It can get silly in early summer, and again in early-mid fall.

Yes. It has mostly to do with the wake such baits create -how much water they move.

I've been hearing about that balmy weather eastward. We've been iced for a good month now. Yet its been flirting between safe and unsafe to walk on. Wish it would make up its mind.

It's apparently another El Nino year in the Pacific, which tends to bring a lot of moisture inland here -and the trend is they are getting hotter and hotter. Last year we had 40" of snow on May 19th! Rarely does it hang in that late. One year we had 64" of snow in 3 days. This is at my place at 8600ft. Where my bass waters are, got considerably less snow. However, such moisture can also mean good water levels here (we're pretty arid in general), which can make for good survival of YOY bass. We've had some tremendous bass production years on such wet springs.

1). Completely agree with you. 2). Here you are wading into a mighty big topic. And I think you are assuming a lot of me from my comment. I understand that this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. Me too -from multiple "sides" of the topic, since I've read a ton of "the literature" as well as had experiences with a lot of critters. I do not think that fish and humans share the same levels of cognition. That said, if you think you are prepared to define reason, cognition, sentience, and consciousness, in a comparative sense, there are an awful lot of people -who have spent careers on such things- who would love to know what you've uncovered. I'm not one of those experts, but since we're trading quips... I do know that there are lots of critters out there that will fall for shiny baubles, and repeatedly. I'm one of them! Why they do, is where things get interesting.

Yeah, that's... pretty much what I said. But I don't agree at that spinnerbaits and A-Rigs are seen as "spinnerbaits and "A-Rigs" to bass. They can spell "baitfish" pretty well, at times.

Great thread. Good articles, RyneB and A-Jay. I'm a tuber too. I like the spiral fall of a stable (90deg) jighead. I also often need them weedless, so various Stoopid rigging works well. I try to get them to spiral on the fall too. The less stable the head, the more finagling I have to do. A fat, double-dip, tube is my favorite skipping bait. It just makes it easy. And they can be rigged very snag resistant, as I tend to skip them under and into overhanging tress and brush. I will T-Rig them for flipping, but don't like them to rotate or twist on the fall. Not sure how much the fish care, but after I've seen a tube spiral-glide down, I much prefer that.

"Lizards" are one bait -despite their long-time popularity- that I don't own a single one of. I guess I just don't understand them. There are no lizards in the water, or even salamanders where I fish. I understand that imitation isn't at all necessary to get bass to bite. I just lump lizards in with "creature"-type baits: Bulky plastics that move water. That, apparently, is often enough to spell "food".