Paul Roberts

Catt, are you able to show us that on a 2D map? Maybe screenshot and erase telltale location info that might expose your spot to the public? In not, entirely understandable.

No, they won't. Been there done that. I suspect that those were fed fish, trained to a certain location and expectation. Bet that bonk on the nose surprised them too.

Now that's unique. Bet that hurt! Appears to have been shot in France.

Agreed. He did say a lot about how he's always learning and will never know it all -too many variables basically. There are no EXPERTS I think is how he has put it. I'm not sure how truly scientific his methods really were. Organized, perceptive, and well executed, yes. However, I've never been sold on "scientific fishing". I believe that's virtually as mutually exclusive in practice as it in semantics. That said, what he put together was pretty impressive body of work. And he knew how to go about it.

Great conversation; It’s such a pleasure. I "liked" pretty much everything. Started to multi-quote and gave it up there are so many great comments. I agree with all of it, which tells me we're all pretty much on the same page, give or take. If I could make a summary comment it would be in the recognition of the myriad variables we all know -or eventually discover- summed up in A-Jay's "chasing unicorns". And, Brian, I've also gone GoPro. Yeah, and I'm hoping to explain a few things along the way. As I write (about... nature stuff) I am constantly aware of the variables and how difficult it is to make "statements". But I've grown used to it, having had enough experiences in the sciences to fathom the fact that such inquiries are surrounded by error bars, and that knowledge (despite touted as the key to successful fishing) is mostly incomplete. I sum up my fishing this way: Although fishing may require a lot of knowledge, planning, observation, and execution, on the water we're flying by the seat of our pants. And I joke that I start re-writing history as soon as I leave the water. All I can hope for is that I've done enough homework on the variables that I can at least consider them in my final narrative -what my 40years of journaling has been all about. Along the lines of John's post above, I recently shot a video journal called Bluebird Blue, in which I fish a small "Swimming Pool" of a pond under post-frontal blue. There were other anglers on that pond while I was there, and they all blanked. The most outwardly capable of them (by speak, tackle quality, and enthusiasm) told me he'd been crushing them over the last week with "horizontal baits", it being "fall". I smiled and thought to myself, "Oooh boy, today you are headed for a "fall" alright." An hour or so later he was packing out, fishless, and said he was going to other ponds "to find some biters". I shot my video with the pond to myself that included underwater video of bass happily hunting in 2fow under those bluebird skies and clear water. I caught bass (by finesse) and finished with my "Blue-pers" for the day -me spooking bass after bass, showing why those fish were so darn hard to catch. It wasn't because those bass had lock-jaw, went deep, hid in inside turns, crawled into crevices, etc.... . Instead, it was MOST simply because they were so ready to turn inside out at anything out of place. I emphasize "MOST" because it's not the whole story, of course, as there were other variables at play. But the bass's shift from aggressive hunting to vigilance was the first, and largest, hurdle. Knowing the variables well enough to consider which of them are likely (error bars again) most significant in the moment is how I play the game; How I think we all play the game, as best we can. After all we're all merely mortal, unlike the likes of Buck Perry. Or so it would seem.

Simplifying is essentially how we predators get anything done amid such complexity. I've been wired a bit differently however (I blame a rock bass that tugged on my line when I was 5 years old). I want to know why. It's what drives my fishing. I was perusing some of Buck's course books last night, and in one he said (paraphrased) that fisherman rarely ask WHY. But, in his writings, he does a great job of what and how, but precious little why. What and how are indispensable. But I'm a why guy. Can't help it. Even if I'm the only one interested.

Not sure there's a rule there. But bottom contact is often the best, probably 90+% of time: fish are more secure, prey can be easier to catch against bottom, contact triggers. But... not always, depending on what's going on. Fish could be resting or feeding up high. If former they could be suspended, neutrally buoyant, as riverbasser suggests. If latter they could be up and chasing pelagic prey. If there is vertical cover there, they could be doing either as well. Peri-spawn (pre-spawn when spawn is imminent, during spawn, immediately post-spawn) bass may be suspended high in the water column -females esp- at or near the depth they're be spawning at. And...I often check aggressiveness of bass by fishing high to see if they'll move, chase. If not, I'll go down after them. BTW: This is Catt's terminology. I used it to hook back up with the OP.

Wayne, is there current passing those pilings?

Not sure who it was, but like others interviewed, one pro said he had quality fish in certain spots (some on beds, others groups in pre or post). When he moved away from these spots, he found only smaller ones.

Form, Function, Fit.

Most probably, a LOT. The bottom of the Salmon River in Pulaski NY was (probably still is) festooned with an INCREDIBLE amount of line, lead (of all sizes), hooks, and lures. It was truly shocking to see. Litter like that, above the water, would result in immediate action.

Now we're talking. The Lake is Cayuga Lake, a 40mile long mostly oligotrophic glacial lake, in NYS, that averages well over 200ft in depth (max over 400). That flat is about a mile wide, and almost 2mi. long. Here's a map:

There is no official definition of a "pond" and this isn't surprising considering the possible permutations. One definition of a "pond", commonly used, and I like, is a small water body (~under 100acres) that is shallow enough that light can penetrate to the bottom. Obviously, this doesn't cover everything, but works since we bass fishers are most interested in the functional aspects of water bodies.

Often fishers consider "pond" fishing as easy and just practice for "real" fishing. Kindof chaps my... . And, I took a wrong turn. Big water sure adds dimension to the game; That's a no brainer. But, IMO, there's plenty to keep a bass fisher busy in small waters, if you fish enough of them. Believe it or not, that happens on ponds too. Only, it's just a walk away, and I can usually just plain see it. I always walk a pond first, even ones I've fished often.

No trick question. Or at least no trap set. My idea is to give us something down at the nitty gritty to chew on, to illustrate what Catt presented in the OP, in a form that is not… a classic main lake point with a drop-off or creek channel at the end. Thanks for participating, Roger. This was in June and there were fish in all stages. In my -I guess cryptic- tack, season really isn’t what I was thinking about. This area is used year round, probably even under the ice, although I haven’t ice-fished it. I'm actually thinking along the lines of… "You can have structure without bass, but not bass without structure.” So, what defines “structure” when it’s not so obvious? Especially in light of the questions that always come up surrounding whether -or when- rocks, docks, weeds, party barges, water skiers, etc… can be considered “structure”. Yes, riverbasser, you are remembering correctly. And… so no one feels like they are walking into some kind of trap, I’ll get that unnerving lead-in question out of the way: The fisherman in the boat is Kevin Van Dam on his way to winning on Cayuga Lake with 75+lbs. There are bass on this structure, likely all year round. Hoping to get some people’s thoughts here. Imagine the possibilities on such “structure”. After all, there are bass there; What could be at work there? This may be obvious to some, but not necessarily to others.

No baiting. Apologies for mis-understanding your post. I read it "learn", rather than "learned".

Wow. You must be GOOD! In many small waters, even ponds, I've at times been forced to realize that I'm not the only one with all the power. The smaller the pond, the more humbling they can be.

Interesting scenario. Lotsa potential variables out there.

Here's a big flat. It's pretty much the shallowest portion of the lake -about 10fow- and we are only seeing a portion of this expansive flat. And there's a boat down there. Is this guy wasting his time?

Great story. And so true.

Bass are bass -meaning, they share certain characteristics across all waters, even though all waters are not the same asking different things of those fundamental characteristics. Small waters help in one particular aspect -finding fish is one heck of lot easier and less costly: no boat, no maps, no electronics needed. "Structure", if you even have to consider it (as many small waters could have bass habitat throughout), is most often attached to the shoreline and therefore an easy initial read. You are then looking for the "hot-spots"/ holding spots/ spots-on-the-spots/ ambush points/ strike zones/"carnage zones"/ etc... -pick your labels. Then it becomes a matter of finding, or conjuring, biters. At this juncture, I agree entirely with NCbassraider's excellent post.

Bingo! At least for me. This is taking an understanding of structure deeper. This is the functional aspect Catt mentions, and I've discussed here in threads past. Sounds like an "inside turn" on a breakline to me. An "irregularity", even within a flat can produce bass, provided the flat simply holds prey. If there is adequate food present, some bass are likely to find it. On the small waters I fish I can often either see what's going on through the surface (clear water and high vantages) or, of late, I've been shooting underwater video. Here's one description: From a high bank above a rapid drop-off at the end of a major point, I spotted several bass in about 4fow. They were hunting bluegills in sparse brush just off the steep shoreline. When they became aware of me they got nervous and moved ahead -to a single small piece of brush where they stopped to observe me -shifting to security mode. I moved ahead and they moved to the next piece. I moved ahead and they dropped deeper, to a deeper piece of brush, where they stopped, bunched up. I moved again, and they dropped deeper still, and out of sight. I returned a half hour later and they were back to the shallower bush, coming back into hunting mode. If I'd waited they would have gone back to hunting the shallow 'gills in near-shore cover. This description covers two birds here: behavior/function, and what it looks like.

Once, long ago, I was bobber-n-worm fishing with my dad and I caught ANOTHER tiny bluegill. I was so wanting to catch a bass, the little 'gils were stealing my bait, and our day was running out. I got angry and whipped that little 'gill back into the water, and missed. It smacked the bank, bounced into the water, convulsed on the surface, then floated still. My dad didn't say anything; He didn't have to. A few years ago, my son and I were fishing and snorkeling in a beautiful private clear water pond in NY we had permission to explore. At one point, I wanted to show him a chain pickeral so I put on a Mepps #2 and promptly caught a smallish pickeral. It was badly tangled in those barbs and extraction resulted in a bit of a bloody and torn mess. I turned to my son and saw tears streaming down his face. I knew what he felt, I know him well: He saw a beautiful, and living, creature damaged, mangled. It felt like vandalism, especially in that setting, and through my son's young and sensitive eyes. I then mashed the barbs fully down and the next pickeral -a much nicer one- leapt clear and threw the Mepps. I've since gone to micro-barbs. (In general, Mepps barbs are overkill). Bottom line for me, I appreciate those amazing beautiful creatures and want to know them, see them, and then put them back as beautiful and healthy as they were when I caught them. There are a few waters around me in which the jaws of many of the bass are torn, mangled, or with parts missing. If it's bad enough, I'll fish elsewhere. And I'm careful not to add to such a scene in other waters I frequent.

Glenn's video is focusing on a key point -the weight of the bass. And he's right we don't want to overreact. Or make erroneous assumptions, esp about other people's actions. I simply do not actually know how much pressure a bass' jaw (tendons and muscles) can take. I do feel as though I have a feel for it at some level, having handled fish (and many other animals) for a lot of years. (I've been a fisheries and wildlife researcher for many years and was also a veterinary health technician for some of that. But my training in science has me very wary of my "feel" for something. The only piece of research I'm aware of trying to get at the question is this one: It suggests a different recovery effect -but little outwardly noticeable damage- over holding styles: supported, vertical hung, and horizontal hung: http://www.bassmaster.com/conservation-news/what-s-proper-way-hold-hawg Then there is a piece from a fish physiology and biomechanics researcher (whose worked on biomechanics of bass jaws and feeding), who warns of unseen damage: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/research/page/6/ There is likely a difference between LM and SM as their jaw length is a result of co-evolution with prey, resulting in different relative jaw strengths: SM likened to pliers and LM to a lever. SM's have substantially stronger jaws -measured by bite pressure- due to mechanical advantage of jaw length. Still, my Fisheries Advisor once admonished me for torquing a nice (2-1/2lb) smallmouth up horizontally, while ogling it after taking it from a trap-net. One more point: It may be fine if a bass is held in a certain way while it's calm. But a sudden flip, twist, or wrench in your grip might cause some damage. Handling animals is not always about what you do but being aware of how the animal will react. Part of handling fish is knowing when it is about to flip, which comes from experience, and of course some luck. Overall, I'm going to agree with Glenn on this. But, also with others that care should be exercised as fishing does appear to have unseen consequences, and handling is a part of that.

Bass jaws aren't exactly weak, but big ones -which most of us don't handle on a regular basis- are at greater risk of damage. Managers in the the Texas ShareLunker program have had things to say about this bc they've seen serious damage in some of their angler donated fish (albeit these are huge bass). Fish make their livings with their mouths and catch&release is for naught if fish are returned damaged, even compromised. I do hold small to medium sized bass out somewhat horizontal but I distribute the forces exerted on the lower jaws, gill arches, and neck vertebrae by supporting the head with my last three fingers held rigidly up under the pelvic girdle.