Paul Roberts

Ah! I wasn't meaning feeling out of control bc the fish can take line. Bass don't run far. They can have as much line as they can earn lol. I was talking about hooking fish over dense weeds (usually milfoil or coontail here) and they getting their fins in and burying. I can usually get them back, although sometimes I have to go over and dig em out. But if I keep their heads up and pointing my way, they can't dive and bury. I am using MH spin or casting tackle at this point in the year. And I crank like mad, giving no quarter, to keep that head up and coming my way. There is one weed type though I don't want them burying in, and that's Chara. Stuff is like steel wool. It grows in clear water ponds and I can see the buried bass -just a tail sticking out of that steel wool. There's no pulling them free and they are too deep to reach. Sometimes I just have to wait them out. In such clear waters I'm often using med spin tackle a jig worm or tube. I've gone to 10lb bc of the Chara.

I think I can answer that one. "Freezing" is an instinctive response used by many fishes when frightened. Bluegills and minnows often do this when approached by bass. Motion invites attack and by freezing prey fishes can sometimes avoid triggering an attack. "Frozen", or "immobile" prey fishes in tanks in fish behavior labs have been described as being so immobilized the researcher can reach right in and pick them up. A hooked bass is a frightened one. One common fear response by bass is to bolt to the bottom, and bury into cover, before "freezing". This happens quite often when fishing in heavy cover, the bass bolting into heavy vegetation, then freezing. I've also had bass wedge themselves into rip-rap, and even had one stuff itself into a muskrat burrow! All I could see was the tail sticking out. Didn't see that one coming. If one wedges itself, sometimes you can wait them out. Eventually they come to and swim out. This bolting for bottom and burying into cover is the main reason why bass are notoriously difficult to collect by netting, especially seines. The bass dive under the lead-line, and if there’s any cover, they’re in it and the net passes overhead. The inability to dive toward something to hide in is one reason I believe that bass over featureless bottoms are so apt to jump when hooked.

Ah! One of those newfangled jobs eh? Back when they still cut down trees to make stuff. Hey, did you know I worked at BE for a while? I was there in mid 80s. I was one of Gail's best customers.

I get "owned" every now and then by bass in heavy veges. If I can keep the head up and the fish pointed my way they won't bury. But I prefer casting tackle in heavy stuff anyway, and I'm using drag there. I just have to go heavy enough in line weight to compensate. Same for spinning I suppose.

That is wild! Amazing story. Also amazing how big an explosion a fish can make. Probably most accurate to make an estimate, then divide by 2! The bird is a junco btw.

I assume you mean "when the drag is spinning". I've always wondered about that. Mostly bc my son would reel like mad with his ABU spin-cast reel on a good bass, stale-mated against the the drag -the drag clicking away, him reeling, the line twisting, and me wincing. If he stopped reeling slack might form and he could lose the fish. Crank down the drag and he could bust off a really good one. Now spin-cast has a relatively slow retrieve rate and he was a kid with short arms, and not as adept with the rod. But what does one do with a spinning rig? What happens on a bass heading into trouble? Is the drag set so close to breaking point, or do you put your finger on the spool at that point? How do you lock down when you need to? Ever find that when a bass is able to turn it's head down into cover, it's moments from being buried? How do you keep it's head up? I can lock down, and give no quarter, and keep reeling. If I had drag, wouldn't it be giving when I don't want it to? And do I really want to stop reeling?

Mind boggling is something I try to avoid. I don't mean to come off... aggressively; it's my natural defensive response to being a thinker in a world that's.. just too big for thinking. It's frustrating to know I'll die barely scratching the surface of it all. "Color" is a topic that... I should probably avoid.

Why stop at 3? Odd, there aren't all that many colors available in pork. Contrast this with plastics which come in a huge variety of hues and combinations of hues. Interesting that color theories grow in complexity the more colors are offered. If you had the addition of say, olivaceous purple over motor oil with red flakes in a pork trailer, would it have been the answer that produced catches on a night when black, brown, and purple failed? On the night that the bass were only taking tequila-sunrise worms with a brown bloodline and burgundy #32 flakes in 60 fow, which color pork might they have preferred? And on the nights when the bass only took brown bloodline worms, no other contestants came in with good catches, unless they had brown bloodline worms? If color is that critical, how much time does one spend testing all those colors that are offered? I mean, mix that in with time of day, prey activity, number of bass present, number of bass active, moon phases, sky and water conditions, and dumb luck, and... how could one expect to add bloodline color to the list of variables. I don't know about you but I've never been able to stop and replay time. Events and changes roll by me like a torrent. Bloodline hue or flake color just isn't in the running. I find I choose my colors based on: -what's offed by the manufacturers -what makes me go "Ooooo!" in the store. -and fishing results (in that torrent of events I mentioned above) which have lead me to believe that translucent worms work better in high vis conditions, and that opaques work better in lower vis conditions, and fluorescents may help in certain circumstances -turbidity, and high competition (between bass). I think we humans are suckers for color, and poor at keeping track of, even recognizing, the variables inherent in astronomically complex environments.

Very true, Brian. We should be careful assuming too much across taxa. But, I don't think it should be ignored -some things are older and shared across taxa. As an example, the red and green peak sensitivities measured in bass are similar (but not the same) to those measured in bluegill. Bass behavior (crepuscular activity, use of shade, prey capture rates) tends to conform pretty well to what's known about light regulation in fish eyes.

With regular bass-sized spinning reels I just haven't had to leggo the handle for bass. I have on UL sized reels and... it's just NO problem. You don't have to catch the handle with the reeling hand. One uses the fingers of the rod hand, the same ones you pick up the line with on every cast. It's ... cake. I can understand the fear, but... it's unfounded. Maybe it's due to fear of line twist issues? I can say that if one puts line on correctly, and don't let the drag build twist up, line twist isn't an issue. I do wet my spool, however, when I start a day's fishing -cheaper than "line maintenance" sprays. Then again, there is no slack introduced when fighting a fish, even when letting go of the handle. Guess I've defending back-reeling all I can. For the record, anglers nowadays should stick to drag; it's even less of a no-brainer than back-reeling I suppose (except for the "proper settings" part, and maybe the adjustments mid-fight part, or the line twist part). But if you did back-reel, the reel wouldn't explode in your hands. In bass fishing, the rod does the majority of the fighting, the reel just holds line.

Think about why would fish respond so violently to something zipping overhead! Well.. we know a bit more than that. We also know that cones are much less light sensitive than rods and are not even employed at very low light. Night adapted (scotopic) vision is entirely rod vision. Photopic and scotopic vision are entirely different. Rod vision is not color vision. Bass, like us, don’t see color at night, and probably little of it in low light. Although the bass' pupil cannot regulate light coming in, pigments do, their chief job being to protect those sensitive rods. Although bass haven’t been looked at specifically, in other fishes adaption to photopic vision occurs in less than half the time it takes for scotopic adaption -something like 20 minutes for fish studied. If you consider how long it takes for lighting to build starting at dawn, such a time period appears aptly quick. As John mentions, bass appear to be adapted to crepuscular activity, and various studies have shown they have advantages over prey under reduced light. Bottom line, pertaining to this thread is that bass appreciate reduced light levels. There is not one reason, or “cause”, for this. Like many things when dealing with evolutionary adaptations within complex environments, it’s a matter of multiple selective forces over a long period of time. There’s “wisdom” in there that is darn difficult to deconstruct. Major selective forces for bass use of shade likely include: Lighting in the aquatic environment and all that affects it: Atmosphere, depth, surface conditions, water clarity. Visual capabilites of prey Visual signatures produced by prey The need for security from predators (including “raptor effect”) –real (immediate) or remembered (instinctual). Limitations such as competing needs (reproduction) and historical constraints (evol changes occur in steps, modifications rather than complete instantaneous overhauls), i.e. bass anatomy (including eye placement and functions) serve multiple roles from competing requirements. If bass had hooves, yes, they could see them all at once. Bass are doing the best they can in an immensely complex world. They certainly keep us predators on our toes.

Not all that sure they'd need to be "staring into the sun". They can look all around into a well lit landscape around them. Don't picture them staring up at the sky exactly. But I dunno, I've scuba and free-dived, but I'm not built like a bass. If I roll over on my back in a flat calm swimming pool, and lay on the bottom, the sun can be bright. But I literally have to roll over onto my back to see this. Any other orientation and I'm simply looking at the well-lit background -the pool walls and floor. And they are painted white. Even the underside of the water is not difficult to look at. Remember, sunlight attenuates as it passes through water, not just vertically but horizontally too. It's pretty easy to avoid looking directly into the sun's shortest path. Further, any surface ripples greatly increases scatter. UV light is an issue that affects more than eyes, so it may play a role. There was some interesting research that suggested that UV light affected nest depth and nest success for bluegills. Apparently at least they are aware of UV. Good topic and good discussion. Thanks for tackling it.

True, but I'd change one word; I'd change "feed from" to feed off. Bass may "ambush" from cover, but I believe this is more about opportunism than a hunting strategy bass are specifically adapted to. Their default hunting strategy is opportunistic cruising, flushing or looking for prey that is vulnerable or otherwise in a compromised position. Bass use terrain (and lots of other stuff –other bass being a particularly important one) to their advantage. This is where their true talents lie. They hunt within, amongst, and off of terrain as much as -or I would argue, more than- from terrain. Hunting in this way makes them effective not only around cover but just about anywhere they can find prey in an awkward spot. Bass even effectively hunt shad and alewives in open water, far away from "cover". Sky and water conditions weigh in heavy for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that prey is more difficult to approach in high vis conditions and bass hunting success declines in accordance. More bass are apt to be resting, often under cover, during these periods. But this isn’t the only reason bass head for cover under bright conditions, and bass may not be all resting either. Some are driven to cover under bright conditions because of their increased exposure to predators (raptor effect), and likely UV exposure plays some role too. It may also be that the raptor effect holds greater sway with the bass’s prey. Bluegills head to cover under bright conditions and likely the bass meet them there. Bluegills explain midsummer “frog bites” much better than “frogs” do. (And this explains why blow-ups and misses are so common with frog bites too). My point is that bass aren’t likely heading to cover so they can see better so they can “ambush” prey. Bright skies don’t get into the bass’s eyes like it would for us. In fact, bright sunlight increases visibility underwater tremendously. But the whole food chain responds with a ripple effect –like a chain being shaken from one end.

This is WAY more common than many anglers might think. A standard summer day in CO starts with brilliant sun, then giving way to overcast as thunderheads develop. Nearly every day I get to fish under brilliant blue and deep overcast. In shallow water especially, under high vis conditions, the path between us and our lure is made devoid of fish on every cast because of what you just described. Or is our difficulty catching just that the fish aren't biting under those conditions, even asleep? Well, I've proved to myself that some of those fish are catchable, and I don't have to go to heavy cover to do it. Granted it's not easy to do, and hardly worth the exercise, but it's been worth it just to know. With a long rod I'd make very high casts with a white SB beyond the fish. I choose white to camouflage it against the sky. I then have to keep the line off the water as the line landing on or cutting the water surface turns the fish inside out. But, the SB bulged under the surface works! They'll hit it. Another way, if the shoreline allowed, was to cast long well off to one side and then run the shoreline until the fish were in line with my retrieve. Bang! Fish on, under "impossible" conditions. Complete opposite of this is when the clouds roll in dense, and the water is dark and calm. I throw a bait and the wakes shoot toward the flying lure, rather than away, the bass often hitting at splashdown. Lighting matters -a lot.

They don't. I guess I've seen too many color theories just not hold up. Here's a fun one: Kevin Van Dam relates a story in one of his books" (paraphrased): Four top pros were sharing a large main lake point, and catching bass on worms. Each found a particular color that drew the most strikes. "The only one that worked", they each said when it was over. Interesting thing was, all four ended up "divining" 4 entirely different colors.

There is a fair amount of research on night activity and hunting success at various light intensities, as well as turbidity. My take-home is that mature bass see quite well in dim light -are even adapted to it. It takes some time to adapt after nightfall (as it does for humans). That hunting success rates fall as lighting approaches complete darkness. And that the lateral line system becomes more important in very low light and as turbidity increases. I've often fished to bass under brilliant skies and clear water. They don't seem to mind being exposed at times, and the light certainly doesn't appear to bother their eyes. But, they can be darn tough to catch, able to scrutinize every stupid move my baits make! That said, there is plenty of research documenting deleterious effects of UV to fish and fish eggs and larvae. UV is a plausible part of the story too.

Boat. Although there are spots that fish better from shore.

Whatever the cause, do be careful of repetitive motion stress. It can become debilitating. I spend a lot of time on computers and have learned to mouse left handed, and I switch off. I once strained my right elbow wrestling big bass one spring. Took 3 weeks off after and when I returned to it the pain came back on the first fish! I then switched to left handed fishing -a real learning curve there- and fished lefty for a year until my right resolved. I switch hit now.

I've never lost a fish that could be attributed to back-reeling. Back-reeling is just... a no brainer. I'm really not suggesting that anyone go to back-reeling. Just suggesting that you lose nothing if you did. It's not hard. And one can handle fish much bigger and faster than bass doing it. I am making the assumption that there are advantages to back-reeling, such as having complete control over line going out, being able to lock down when you want to, and with line twist. But then I don't know what advantages drag offers. I've never used it, except with my casting reels, and then I'm always aware that I'm at the mercy of a "setting".

First of all, bass are not "ambush predators". They are not built like ambush specialists that use a very high degree of camouflage, and an entirely sedentary hunting behavior. Some even lure prey to themselves. Examples of true ambush predators are stonefishes, scorpionfishes, flatfishes, and various bathypelagic species that hunt in complete darkness. Bass are not specialized pursuit hunters, stalkers, or habituaters either. They are "generalists" using all of these strategies and more. What I believe we are seeing when bass are "ambushing" (OK if used very loosely) are fish at a low activity level and resting. Bass are opportunists and will take a lure or prey that blunders too close, even when the bass are in an energy conservative state. Realize that prey doesn’t “blunder too close” all that often hence, in part, the need for both energy conservation and the more active hunting states. Energy conservation tends to be done where they are safest -under cover, and near or over deep water. What I believe Dr. Wright saw, when viewing those bass under that floating dock away from any other cover, were simply resting bass. "Radiant effect" is plausible. I always wanted to test that. We can't, and I know you didn't, preclude the raptor effect as part of the story. I fish small waters -a lot of them- and aerial threats such as kingfishers, herons, terns, osprey, and eagles are a nearly constant threat. Google any one of these birds along with "bass" and you'll see a lot of images people just happened to capture. Aerial threats create an instantaneous instinctive response from fish -especially so on sunny days. I've watched carp, bluegills, and bass bolt under passing light aircraft (500feet up!). Ever try to throw a lure over shallow fish under bright skies? Aerial threats are well understood by fish. Underwater threats are real too. This could be remembered or immediate. Bass are prey for much of their (often short) lives. Everything eats bass fry. Later, larger bass, pickeral, pike, crappie, catfish, and muskie are threats. Then there are mammals. I see mink on my ponds and once saw one pop to the surface with a 10inch bass. There was a time when otters were MUCH more common than they are now. No, predation is not the whole story and all your points are good ones. Thermoregulation (possibly) and energetic states are likely part of the story as well.

Come to think of it... No! I looked for good set of gears: Quick, Zebco Cards, Daiwa, ... and never looked... forward. Never saw a reason to add any bells and whistles on top of a good gear package and spool size. Which reminds me, I do have some newer reels: some SuperCasters (which are poor substitutes for my old workhorses). I've always had a thing for spinning reel design and even designed my own (on paper). They all lacked drag completely, being back-reelers. I stand by my statement. There is as much "smoothness" as is needed in the flex of the rod. Anglers would find out very quickly that their paranoia is for naught. Back-reeling is cake. Letting go of the handle, if need be, and re-catching the rotor is cake. On a typical bass fight, I rarely give line. If the fish tries to make headway on me, I may lower the rod a little to absorb it. If it's determined I'll budge a half turn. On pike, and trout, or a feisty smallie on UL tackle I may have to leggo the handle for a short run. No problem, my rod hand catches the rotor and the rod is still doing its job. I control all the line going in and out of my reel. Breaking point can be readily felt in the rod. If it's a long fight, or my line is damaged, I can back off. I have complete control when the fish is far out, or right at the boat. All this said, y'all, and newbs, should stick to drag. I would guess drag is better today than it was. I wouldn't know. And bass don't take enough line to cause much twist. I started back-reeling bc the Lindners, Rich Zaleski, Spence Petros, and all the guys back then did. Guess I'll die with my drag locked down, and take back-reeling with me.

Guess I've only br'd 30mph fish. So I can't say. But bass are a 15mph fish, at best.

Speed isn't even an issue. One can let go of the handle if you need to. You then stop the rotor with your rod hand.

I've back-reeled chinook salmon and steelhead -and with running room. It's just not a problem. You get to know how much tension to apply. It's easy. I can't imagine NOT being in touch with the break strength of my lines. Heck, I even back-reeled steelhead on 1kg line. A big advantage to back-reeling with such long distance runners is that line twist doesn't build up in the reel as it does with drag. One big salmon and my buddy's spinning reel spools turned into crazy coiled springs ready to explode in a tangle. One would never see this in bass fishing though, although it is potentially cumulative there too.