Paul Roberts

Absolutely! Just keep hook sizes appropriate for that line.

That's darn thin for a "20lb" line. Then again, line break ratings can be ridiculous. I've found that the diameters printed on the boxes are pretty accurate, but the break strength ratings are all over the place. Most lines are under-rated in terms of actual break strength though it seems. Senshi may just be close to accurate.

Yeah, maybe the "15lb" (whatever that means considering actual rating) is causing the lure to plane. I use them with lines up to .015" diameter. Maybe its an unbalanced Red-Eye? I do have a small 1/4oz FlattShad that just wont run straight. I can't tune it either. I'm usually able to tune my way out of such problems. Oh, and I use a rounded snap. I love the Sonics too. I have both old Sonics and Super Sonics (with rattles). They work well, but are a bit small for largemouths, at least after things warm up. Agree with you there is some magic in those RT's. They shake and vibrate really strongly -rattles or not. They also seem to be better balanced than Spots, so they burn really well.

Don't get it. USPS Priority used to ship long tubes/boxes for $6! Was surprised to pay $30 for a 6' blank this winter. Maybe the Amazon world has increased competition for space on trucks?

Just found a new one I like: SBFishingTV.

Been there. Will be there again. I've always been able to figure out something. It may not always be exactly what I want. And that doesn't mean I don't ever get skunked. Sometimes it means, the populations have taken a nose-dive, and I'm better off spending my time elsewhere. I'm a small water guy now and they tend to be fickle over just about every time scale. They can over-heat, over-weed, over-mud, over drought, over-fish, and winter-kill. I guess that's why Im such a nerd when it comes to figuring out environmental cues and what they mean to the fish. I am beginning to have enough mental fodder to be able to explain a lot of those ups and downs. Which means I can take solace in the idea that a good explanation is better than a bad skunking. Three pieces of advice: -Make sure the dock talk is sound. -Pay attention to weather and water conditions. -Versatility matters.

Quick response: Two components: Attraction (getting initial positive attention) and Triggering (inciting the bite). The "steady" part provides control/consistency that allows me bottom and strike detection. It also sets up the triggering moves. I'm working on a video on this very topic. Got most of the graphics done, just need the time to put it together. Speaking of which, I gotta go.

Well... I'll pop in to say something... real quick-n-dirty, 'cause I really need to get to work here. Ditto the reading. Get busy! And have fun. Tell your significant other that it's important! This is your planet, man! You NEED to get to know it better before you die! Seasons are defined by climate, weather and water conditions: -Bass move to deeper main mass of water bodies (in reservoirs, natural lakes, and ponds) during the extreme seasons (Summer, and Winter). -Winter and Summer differ mostly in this way: Winter is below bass's most efficient metabolic range and Summer often has periods above. Bass have a penchant for stability at these times. So, bass hole up more and feed less in Winter, and bass populations in a given lake distribute to many feeding locations during Summer. -Spring and Fall are the transition seasons between the two. Spring culminates in the spawn. Fall is when bass start packing on the weight for winter and the coming spawn. Lake Maps depict potential Habitat areas important for bass: Habitat means, for our purposes here, security and food. Security comes in the form of depth and especially for bass, cover. That's Cover with a big C! And it's Food with a big F! Bass will pass on "stability" for Cover and Food. (But they can get... finicky, in those conditions.) Saddles, flats, points etc represent relatively shallow -and thus well sunlit- areas that provide Cover and produce the Food chain next to deeper main mass stability; This is why "drop-offs"/"steep contours" are often key areas. How deep food is produced depends most often on water clarity. Clear water allows food chain production deeper and fish can make a living deeper. Colored water often requires that bass live more shallow. Hope this "framework" helps. Now get busy!

My head always hurts! I've come to enjoy it. "...the more we realize just how much we don't know." That's for sure. But we know a lot too. I wouldn't want to... start all over again. Thanks, Glenn -I think. Now I may just have to add a couple One-Knockers to my lipless box -although I may not be able to close the lid if I do. The only thing worse than an over-stuffed tackle box, is one with open compartments!

That's a really good point. Someday I'll have to dig up the original research. I did just look through Knowing Bass and its NOT in there. There are some sonograms produced from lures that... weren't terribly helpful since the scale was not refined enough. It did show some higher decibel recordings in the lower frequencies, which should be perfect for bass. However the scale on the graph shows these spikes starting at 'about' 0hz and extinguishing rather quickly. These may be mostly low frequency/water movement? Since it wasn't in KB, I looked in the IF Critical Concepts and found what I'd read: in CC3. The researchers had tested 23 "rattling lures" and found that only 3 produced "dominant" sounds -the primary (loudest) that a given lure can produce- that were in the frequency range bass are known to hear. They also looked at secondary and tertiary sounds -less dominant (quieter) sounds of different frequencies- some that were in the bass's range. But the researchers concluded that the sounds were too weak "to attract fish from any distance". The CC3 author(s) concluded with: Most rattlebaits were not correctly designed, producing dominant/primary sounds outside the hearing range of bass. And, "Many new rattlebaits...produce sound of a lower frequency that should be more audible to bass." I'm guessing he's talking "knockers"/"tappers". This may also explain at some level why scaleface's bass responded to him tapping his watch? If the above mentioned research covers the whole story (which may not prove to be the case), we would be able to hear the dominant high frequency 'ticks' and 'clacks' -esp underwater- but the bass would be responding to the secondary and tertiary 'thumps'. Not worrying about being wrong, esp when none of its my own research! No vertigo here. EDIT: From what I recall, the research on what bass can hear was pretty well done. They trained bass to fear an uncomfortable stimulus -electric shock I believe. The fish were able to escape to a safe zone via a "shuttle box" -with an escape hatch. The bass were trained (conditioned) to anticipate the shocks with a preceding sound tone. The researchers then started their trials, which ran through a range of frequencies. There was a point (~1000 Hz) -surprisingly low- that the bass were unable to respond to, and anticipate the shock. Not sure where I got this; I must have seen the original paper. I've probably even written about this before. See IndianaFinesse, I've even forgotten the pain! Hey, let's do it again!

Wow. Interesting. Talk about a bubble. On the last reprinting I actually thought of buying a few copies. But, I thought they'd just keep re-printing them. And they probably will.

It seems a lot of people like those old Xcalibers. I don't own a one of em. That may have to change. The 2-tap makes sense too, as far as... current best info goes too. My favorite over the last few years has been the Sebile FlattShad. It's just so well designed. It vibrates instantly on the tug, and it became my favorite cold water lipless bc of that. I've also had it burn really well too. It's rattles are pretty anemic though; In fact I thought it was silent, until I just pulled one out and gave it a good shaking.

Im in shallow weedy waters mostly too. If fishing horizontal I tend to end up going to smaller baits bc they are lighter and have a slower sink rate. When fishing more vertically -like for yo-yoing- I can go heavier. I've done well on a number of them: Rattletraps, Spots, Red-Eyes, Daiwa, BPS, Matzuo. My GoTo became the Sebile FlattShad, but they don't make it in the 1/4 or 1/2oz anymore. I did recently pick up some Sebile FlattShads in the suspending/slow sink model; Some of the guys on here really like them. I'd love to hear of other suggestions for slower sinking lipless.

I've seen similar things too. And, yeah, it doesn't make intuitive sense that bass are essentially deaf to such high frequencies. Underwater especially, sound can really travel. But then, I wouldn't really know what bass can hear. Investigating such stuff is complex, most often found to be more complex the more you investigate. That's been my experience with research -even the big budget stuff I've been involved in. I came to call it -the nature of things- the "Deep Well". I was always hoping to find the bottom. But, instead I found a series of false bottoms, and that, the deeper you peer in, the worse the vertigo. As evidenced by Sam's interesting post. I've found bass to be totally curious, checking out just about everything. Whether they were reacting to you or the watch would be my first question. If it were the watch, then... what exactly did they hear? Probably not what we hear. There are low frequency thumps mixed in there too? I cannot rule out what bass really can and cannot hear. And I am even further lost when it comes to deciphering fishing results. I guess such non-commitment comes from getting the sht kicked out of my hypotheses, and the resulting vertigo. Yes, I can smile about it now. Hi Sam, good post. I have his book. And that's where I first read about the frequency research. It sure got my wheels turning. But, I haven't looked at the original research, or where it's lead to either. Guess my wheels will just have to spin a while longer. Oh... Knowing Bass was reprinted a bit ago. Yeah, it was up to over $100 a copy for a while there. Dunno how available it is now.

From what I've read, research into bass hearing capabilities has suggested that bass have a limited range of hearing. And it turns out they can't hear high frequency sounds -like the little b-b's in most "rattle-baits". This is especially so in shallow "soft" places (mud, weeds) that restrict and absorb sound. Apparently sound isn't terribly directional underwater either. Bass should be able to hear the lower pitched thuds from larger "knockers", but then, what do they make of them? What bass fishers tend to say is that different lures give different sounds and... sometimes... -some work better than others (how you'd know its the sound I question), and bass can get conditioned against some such lures (again, how you'd know it's the sound I am still left to wonder).

Gosh, they're all good. You don't need to break the bank. If I were to pick just two, it would be a shallow running squarebill type, and a 1/4oz lipless. If you have deep steep water you could go with a deeper diver and heavier lipless. The trick? Fish the heck out of them. And, don't think you have to "crank" them. I do a lot of crawling of floating/diving cranks -fishing them like a jig or soft plastic. Bass eat them.

This was/is (still) an important read. However, I started to comment, but on the recruitment of large bass, which I think is what A-Jay was focused on, rather than on the effects of bed fishing.

.

That's a fun story. Yes, there are lots of stories like that going around. My waters are public and hard fished, so I know -we should all know- that those fish are recycled. This isn't to say that bass, esp, shouldn't be harvested. But I feel the big ones -the older ones- should be put back. And I sure have appreciated it, sometimes more than once.

And sometimes we do. Once upon a time, I caught a large bass off a small rubble hump in August on a crankbait. She was missing her left eye, and was on the thin side. "Old fish", I thought. My fishing buddy caught her again a year later, in August, off the same hump, on a crankbait. He said she was in great condition and may have been as much as a pound heavier.

I hear you. Expecting people to understand science can be like... banging one's head against a wall. I like Carl Sagan's quote: "Opinion is easy; Knowledge takes work." And, sadly, not everyone has access, and therefore, interest enough -or the time for that matter- to do the work. The difficulty with this particular issue is that the science says different things depending on where you live. And people tend to form opinions around what they most want to believe. Glad to hear that the managers there have done the work, and are holding the line.

Some fish are impacted more greatly than others when displaced. It's a complex world down there, and bass are remarkably adaptable. But they are more so as a population than as individuals. Given a diverse lake, a given year class gets divvied up across the lake, with different groups of bass figuring out different ways to make a living. Some areas/food sources are better than others. Many (the tournament winners ) end up at those peak sources. Others... find other ways to make a living that... get those fish by; What's known as "false peaks". Many studies have found some behavioral "clustering" (statistically speaking) around home range size, suggesting that some fish are home-bodies and others are wanderers. Not always, but wandering is often more costly and an indication that the fish are not getting the best deal. One thing that's been found is that T-released fish have a higher likelihood of becoming wanderers. In a really productive lake, there might just be room and board for displaced fish. In others, maybe not. I would suspect that N fish are more apt to fall into the latter category. A-yup. Although in SM (and apparently, FL LM), females can take a more aggressive role around the bed, at least as long as they are there. That's as I understand it and, so far, have seen. I think this is bc they tend to move to spawn under promotive conditions, and can get the job done pretty quickly. There is evidence that bass may pair -or at least closely associate with their spawning partner- way early, during winter even. But the movement to actually spawn tends to follow specific conditions. At least this is what I see in my northern small ponds. I've seen females hanging around longer, but this has been when all the males are already occupied with eggs, or in ponds with few eligible males. One year, in a very small 3acre pond, I saw only 3 males attempt to make beds. At one point, the largest male, with apparently the most attractive site, had a line up of females, including the 3 largest in the pond, lined up outside his bed. The females actually began to fight with each other for access. The largest female took the spot, and the others just had to hang back and... be ornery.

Not at all interested in getting into the heat, but, just to clarify something: Studies from N and S show opposite results. Bed disturbances are much more detrimental in the N than in the S. It has to do with harshness of winters, duration of spawn season, ability to recuperate after, and overall biological productivity of waters. N and S are very different places. This is why regs are more restricted in the N. Thus, it's not necessarily "common sense". I'm hearing you A-Jay. Ice-out is imminent. Did you know that the first day of spring (at least at my latitude) is Feb 10th?! It's the beginning of the end for winter. :))

Does give one pause. Those numbers are pretty much the same for the LM's where I fish. Actually, the table shows that A-Jay's numbers are just about spot on -for the national average. The article says: The "average" is for all populations sampled across the species' entire geographic range. We also provided the 10th and 90th percentiles. The 10th percentiles mean that those values were higher than only 10% of the fish across their range (i.e., slow growth). The 90th percentile means that those values were higher than 90% of the sampled fish for that species across its entire range (fast growth). The "percentiles" in the table show growth rates for more rare circumstances: The 10th percentile is lowest 10% in growth rate. And the 90th, the upper 10% in growth rate. The percentiles are arbitrary cutoffs. Few of us fish those 10%, or 90% waters. Where do each of our waters fall? We'd need the data to really know. Some of my waters obviously have better growth rates than others. And I follow the waters that hold promise. For me, in my waters (decidedly "average"), it hurts to see 10+ yr old bass hauled out to the parking lot and dropped in the trunk of a car. I will usually let them know how old that fish likely is. If I get any flack, I say, "Do the math. Keep the smaller ones, please!" I feel justified because they are public waters, which means they're shared. It's a matter of respect -for the whole food chain.

I still have a Lamiglas S-Glass salmon/steelhead rod. I used it for down-rigging, hot-shotting, and esp hot-shot side-planing in rivers. It's thin-walled and quite light for an 8' glass rod. But, it's "rubbery" which is why it was relegated to a few jobs.