Paul Roberts

I live in Colorado and we fish the many snowmelt retention reservoirs on the plains. WY is a diff place though in terms of such Ag development. The plains is the place to be mostly bc bass are warmwater fish of course. Although there are some smallmouth fisheries and even a few LM at slightly higher elevations. Call your DNR and ask about warmwater fishing. I know there are some in Fort Collins (just south of Cheyenne). There's Glendo and Grey Rocks midstate WY, but I believe they are mostly walleye, crappie, and wiper fisheries. Again call and ask. Good luck with your search. Just remember, all fishing is good.

First, to answer the OP: Shad may not be easy to see, esp gizzard shad. Threadfins can be more surface oriented and easier to spot. All will make their presence known eventually if you spend time there. However, there is a short cut: Either Google the lake and see what the DNR has to say about species present in the lake (and other related, useful, and cool stuff), or call or email them up and ask. Most managers, being public servants, are approachable. After all, you are one of their constituents. At least that's been my experience. I agree with both sides of the baitfish/lure discussion above. Following is a post I made for a very similar question: Bass are adaptable. They can feed on a range of prey almost anywhere in the water column. They have preferences though. And they have limitations determined by body shape (how effectively they operate in water), energetics (energy balance in obtaining food), and prey availability and vulnerability (diff things –most prey are not pushovers). Bass being adaptable can change prey if needed, but in many waters they have a predominate prey type. In some waters it’s bluegills (shallower weedier waters, ponds, many natural lakes), others it’s shad (most often in reservoirs: gizzard, and threadfin in the south), some it’s crappies (esp in MW and S reservoirs), or yellow perch (esp in the NE), some it’s golden shiners (far south in weedy ponds and lakes, and some stocked ponds in the N). Young bass, or crappies, can be a staple prey item for mature bass, especially so on strong hatch years (this can influence the way you fish drastically). Crayfish are a staple in many waters too, in fact most bass waters have crayfish and they are often part of LM diets everywhere, but more so in some waters, places within waters, and some seasons (winter migrations make them esp vulnerable). Bass change prey size as they grow so, to get big, bass need to switch prey type or age as they grow. At times, you’ll see waters in which the bass are thin, at a certain size indicating a gap in the food chain. Not sure how you are trying to use prey info but I’ll suggest you don’t have to worry too much about what bass are feeding on to catch some. Again, they are very adaptable and will often respond to a variety of presentations. “Match the hatch” is harder to realize than I think many anglers realize. What works is often more influenced by sky and water conditions, bass activity level, where in the water column they are, and proximity to cover structure (what you’ll hear as “positioning”). That said, as you get more familiar with your waters knowing what’s going on with the prey fish in your favorite waters can offer opportunities worth knowing, and revisiting year in and year out. As an example, I now fish small waters (ponds and small reservoirs) that are predominately bluegill based, so I have learned about bluegill locations and behavior in my waters –and the bass are there! The connection is VERY real. After that, all I have to do is deal with sky and water conditions. In larger waters, you’ll often be dealing with larger scale preyfish migrations, as Tom mentioned –especially with shad, perch, spottail shiners, alewife, smelt, species that make more use of more open water. However, while bluegills in ponds tend to be homebodies, in many lakes mature ‘gills will move a distance to find spawning gravel, and they tend to move deeper in summer off deep weedlines. As you get deeply into your fishing, you’ll want to get to where they show up and when and where they are vulnerable to bass. Predators are super athletes, but so are their prey. QUOTE:...on 12 May 2014 - 08:21, said: The reason for asking is I didnt know if there were certain times of the year that were better for throwing bluegill imitators or baby bass colored lures. I have bluegill colored crankbaits, and baby bass colored cranks and flukes. I didnt know if they started feeding heavy on these species at a certain time. Ah...just saw this. Don't expect that lures colored like preyfish represent those preyfish in the bass's eyes. For bass eating bluegills, you'd be WAY better off putting a shad colored lure (or a fluorescent pink one) in the right place doing the right thing than a bluegill colored one a couple feet off the mark. Again, what works is often more influenced by sky and water conditions, bass activity level, where in the water column they are, and proximity to cover structure (what you’ll hear as “positioning”). IF you get all this down, on each cast, (no small order) that's when it's time to play with "hatch matching" colors. But you'll already be so busy catching fish that you won't probably have time, or care, to change.

Bass are adaptable. They can feed on a range of prey almost anywhere in the water column. They have preferences though. And they have limitations determined by body shape (how effectively they operate in water), energetics (energy balance in obtaining food), and prey availability and vulnerability (diff things –most prey are not pushovers). Bass being adaptable can change prey if needed, but in many waters they have a predominate prey type. In some waters it’s bluegills (shallower weedier waters, ponds, many natural lakes), others it’s shad (most often in reservoirs: gizzard, and threadfin in the south), some it’s crappies (esp in MW and S reservoirs), or yellow perch (esp in the NE), some it’s golden shiners (far south in weedy ponds and lakes, and some stocked ponds in the N). Young bass, or crappies, can be a staple prey item for mature bass, especially so on strong hatch years (this can influence the way you fish drastically). Crayfish are a staple in many waters too, in fact most bass waters have crayfish and they are often part of LM diets everywhere, but more so in some waters, places within waters, and some seasons (winter migrations make them esp vulnerable). Bass change prey size as they grow so to get big, bass need to switch prey type or age as they grow. At times, you’ll see waters in which the bass are thin, at a certain size indicating a gap in the food chain. Not sure how you are trying to use prey info but I’ll suggest you don’t have to worry too much about what bass are feeding on to catch some. Again, they are very adaptable and will often respond to a variety of presentations. “Match the hatch” is harder to realize than I think many anglers realize. What works is often more influenced by sky and water conditions, bass activity level, where in the water column they are, and proximity to cover structure (what you’ll hear as “positioning”). That said, as you get more familiar with your waters knowing what’s going on with the prey fish in your favorite waters can offer opportunities worth knowing, and revisiting year in and year out. As an example, I now fish small waters (ponds and small reservoirs) that are predominately bluegill based, so I have learned about bluegill locations and behavior in my waters –and the bass are there! The connection is VERY real. After that, all I have to do is deal with sky and water conditions. In larger waters, you’ll often be dealing with larger scale preyfish migrations, as Tom mentioned –especially with shad, perch, spottail shiners, alewife, smelt, species that make more use of more open water. However, while bluegills in ponds tend to be homebodies, in many lakes mature ‘gills will move a distance to find spawning gravel, and they tend to move deeper in summer off deep weedlines. As you get deeply into your fishing, you’ll want to get to where they show up and when and where they are vulnerable to bass. Predators are super athletes, but so are their prey. Ah...just saw this. Don't expect that lures colored like preyfish represent those preyfish in the bass's eyes. For bass eating bluegills, you'd be WAY better off putting a shad colored lure (or a fluorescent pink one) in the right place doing the right thing than a bluegill colored one a couple feet off the mark. Again, what works is often more influenced by sky and water conditions, bass activity level, where in the water column they are, and proximity to cover structure (what you’ll hear as “positioning”). IF you get all this down, on each cast, (no small order) that's when it's time to play with "hatch matching" colors. But you'll already be so busy catching fish that you won't probably have time, or care, to change.

There is good info in that video, such as the general idea that large bass are successful predators, and there is research to suggest that aggressive individuals do grow faster and have a better chance at getting big –provided the food is there, and angling pressure and associated mortality is low. But, do big bass feed more at midday? Are more big bass caught at midday? Are big bass more vulnerable to angling at midday? Are these even the same questions? I’m not sure we can actually get at the first question or third questions by answering the second. -First, saying anything about “big bass” is a statistical nightmare –most often comprising low number data sets. Second, angling success data offers precious little control, even recognition, of the possible variables involved. Collecting angling data across the continent, (and ignoring season, weather, sky and water conditions, prey type, availability and vulnerability, angling pressure, angler habits, angler effort, etc), is a recipe for chaos. -Bass vision: There is a fair amount of research that pertains to bass behavior and lighting, and some of it doesn’t really jive with what is stated in the video. The fact that bass have color vision does not mean they cannot hunt in low light or are even less efficient –esp compared to their prey. According to some research I’ve seen bass can see much better than bluegills in low light. Many small prey fish species head for cover or shelter for the night -for good reason. Telemetry studies have shown increased crepuscular and nocturnal activity in bass in many waters. Probably depends a lot on season, prey, angling pressure. -Prey vulnerability to bass. There is research that has looked at hunting success by LM under different lighting. One in particular found that under brighter lighting bluegills were able to avoid LM and capture rates by the bass fell, During low light bass could approach closer and capture rates increased. I’ve seen this type of thing myself on ponds I fish where I purposely watch bass hunt from high banks. Under brilliant sun, bass make fewer chases and time and again I’ve seen bass enter a cove and see the bluegills stream away and into cover well out ahead of the cruising bass. It’s apparent that they can see the bass from a long ways out. Now, one could argue that these are not “big” bass. Yet they are the largest and oldest bass in these small ponds. Thus they should also conform to Hannon’s suggestion that these are the “rule followers” –the one’s that have survived. There’s a hole I see in the “rule follower” idea that assumes that there is one set of rules that bass follow, as if every year or every season would be the same. Prey abundance, prey vulnerability, cover density, and other factors can vary greatly year to year. One set of “rules” may not pan out the next season, much less the next year. Becoming “big” is not a formula that is met at all times. And being an “aggressive individual” carries tremendous risks. There is some research in brown trout too -a fish that has the ability to diverge in growth pattern from cohorts due in large part to aggressiveness in feeding- and many of these individuals burn out and die depending on what’s available to support such growth. Growing “big” is, in large part, luck. -Bass vulnerability to angling: I think it’s safe to say that, at least for northern largemouths, large bass are most vulnerable during the cold water periods. In the north, sun angle can be low enough that the prime periods tend to shift to midday. Dunno how this pans out for floridanus, and I know Hannon has written that he caught most of his big bass in summer. His experience is with Florida strain largemouth. Maybe floridanus is different? Certainly sun angle, and water temps, would be different. Roger? -Angler effort weighs in heavy. I remember all the excitement around the Texas Sharelunker program catch rate and moon phase comparison. At one point early on, a poorly done statistical investigation suggested that catches of lunker bass clustered around the full and new moons. Well, that ended up being wrong. Catches were pretty much evenly distributed against moon phases. The most solid conclusion that could be drawn turned out to be that most significant period to catch a Sharelunker qualified bass in Texas was … on a weekend. How does angler effort vary across the day on each water body? As to time of day, how many anglers get up at 3 or 4am to be on the lake at sunrise? Also, I don’t know about you but it often takes me some time to get my act together, figure out what’s going on for the day, and then to revisit those good locations ferreted out for the day. By then, it’s not 9am anymore. Does time to get to casting change with age? Do older, and presumably more experienced, anglers tend to fish later in the day than many gung-ho younger anglers –if so, maybe it’s more a matter of energetics than it is success rate on “big” bass. I wonder how success rate on big bass would compare between night and day, if corrected for effort? Do big bass feed more at midday? How would we know?

Yes! Paul's (Dr Reelgood) really on top of his fish and fishing. His trip reports are just great. He's also done some wonderful narratives. They give a sense of the water, season, the day, the fish, and what was going through the mind of the fisherman. Here are a few of my "interpretive narrative" type reports: www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/115075-boom-spring-or-is-it http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/116606-searching-out-those-zones-of-carnage/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/69619-some-more-fishing-crankin%C2%92-and-finessin%C2%92/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/69568-some-fishing/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/69867-best-layed-plans-and-%C2%93cinder-blocks-with-fins%C2%94/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/70336-small-ponds-ice-out-and-bloody-fingers/

I can understand that sentiment. I am just programmed to take things as deep as I can go. When I was very young, I'd look up at the nature section in the library and just about pee my pants. Glad that's over . That said, the one thing I purposely never studied (in knock, drag out detail) was my grouse hunting. That was pure "downtime", like wandering into a watercolor painting.

My fishing (and hunting) journaling goes way back too -pretty close to continuous since the late 70's. I started with, and still use archive quality sketch books and ink pens. The few entries I did early on in ballpoint faded over time. I pretty much have done them like Will and A-Jay –“data” and "the story" in narrative form. Narrative includes my interpretations and explanations as well the how stuff It works well for me bc they help jumpstart rich and useful memories when I review entries prior to an outing. I now also write up some fishing days via word processer on the computer for posts, future articles, or mebbe a book or two (or more) someday. The drawback to handwritten journals is that they can make it hard to find things after you’ve got more than a few volumes on the shelf. Back when I fished more I read them almost religiously -they were a part of my lexicon. I referred to them often and knew just where everything was -like a giant long narrative. Computer typed info is easier to search, but I still keep the hand written journals bc it would be a shame to stop. Nowadays, my hand written journaling contains more data, maps, and sketches, with short narrative. The fuller narratives are done on computer. I get the most out of my days in the field through this process. I use photography, maps, and sketches too, I started with film cameras, my first bought with money earned from my trap-lines once upon a time. Photography, or at least the cameras, have come a long way since then. I've created maps with varying degrees of detail for lots of ponds, small lakes and reservoirs, and streams, using symbols, labels and captions to denote important things. Satellite views now make mapping a heck of a lot easier, at least in terms of big picture water body shape and relationship to the different areas I "know". Interesting that the shorelines in my memory maps rarely meet when I try to draw them! Says something about how biased and fragmented our navigational equipment, or at least memory of it, is. This is true in more ways than mapping I'm afraid. The "data" I keep is mostly the numerical stuff (temp, visibility, depths, fish sizes), but also location, and weather descriptions and trends. I may print weather data in graphic form from weather data websites –you’ll see these in some of my trip reports here on BR. I keep track of critters seen -esp those that tell me something about timing, habitat, or food chain info I should be hip to. Examples might be ... when the blue damselflies emerge which concentrates the bluegills and bass, or when I see the first renovated crayfish burrows in the shallows in spring, or the relationship between the shad spawn and moon phase. I track the quality of the bass spawn by quantity of fry and fingerlings and other year classes observed, back calculating hatch year and forward calculating for expected growth. This helps tell me decide which waters I should be spending my precious time on. Along with this I try to keep tabs on winterjkill by making a circuit of my most vulnerable waters at ice-out. The two, year class popn size and winterkill allow me to keep a bead on which waters are apt to be most, and least, productive. I also watch and talk with other anglers, as they can reveal a lot, if you know fish and fishing. There's LOTS of other ecological interaction stuff that can factor in. The trick is to recognize them, and keep track of them -this, over time, becomes an angling education. I realized long ago that I simply can't hold it all in my head. I journal because I want to capture my experiences, but I realize that this is tied to what's most satisfying for me -being "in touch" with what's going on outdoors. There are definite patterns out there and they are cyclical: seasons, micro-seasons, to ever finer periods. This becomes more obvious after you’ve had a bunch under your belt, but it eventually builds into something unwieldy. It’s too big to hold in my mind. Yes, my body remembers quite a bit, if you know what I mean, but my head can help a lot, in re-directing my efforts or starting me on the right track to begin with. Although seasons are cyclical, no two waters or years set up or progress the same, which translates into the "moods" of each water body. There are too many seasonal micro-events worth remembering, things to be aware of, things to be watching out for -opportunities-"in's" I call them. I cannot keep track of them all. Glad I kept the journals up. Their value accrues over time. Records have helped me be a better "noticer". If you've read any of my trip report posts you'll get an idea of the kind of info I glean and make use of, and how each day’s “story” is really part of a much larger, deeper, narrative. Record keeping takes some work. I carry a small shirt pocket sized notebook and pen for maps and sketches and a pocket digital voice recorder for data, important thoughts and points. When I get home, no matter how tired, I try to journal, because I'll forget things and the resulting story ends up vague. Amazing how different my impressions can be AFTER the days pass. Everyone approaches their fishing differently so you have to decide what works for you, and how much time and effort (and the type of time and effort) you want to put into it.

Nice report, Will! Always fun to see your stories and images. Cameras have come a long way!

Dunno. But my guess is most people excitedly report the catches and forget to mention the zeros. That's the stuff you've been hearing about and had high expectations? After all, it still is a real world down there.

Off my curmudgeon's horse: There is no ONE ... (shaddap!) OK ... a Senko-like cigar worm, probably a 4" (bright day), or 5" (regular). But not in winter.... And not ... (shaddap!) The reason is bc bass see them as food a lot of the time and have a hard time picking up negative cues from them.

The link I provided in my first post pertains to ponds from shore.

Yes we know a lot. I think we take for granted what we know. Look at the myriad ancient mythologies conjured to explain nature. Moving to much more recent times, the world was deemed flat. Check out the increasing accuracy of world maps over time. They get more accurate the more we know. (Ever tried to map your hunting turf on paper? It can be pretty comical at first). Mythologies worked I think bc how we thought wasn’t what was most important. There’s underlying stuff. That’s the important stuff of nature. And we aren’t likely to get down to it, to explain it accurately, without appropriate intellectual tools. "Falsifiabllity" is a tool, a safeguard against dogma. In other words, the rule is: one cannot propose a lone hypotheses (explanation) in an experiment without proposing alternative possibilities. This is a tough nut for many to understand intuitively, I think bc of the fear factor mentioned in my prior post. We'd rather have it simple, and agreeing with how we think and feel. Science requires more. Looking specifically at angling, imagine starting all over again: as an infant, or as a brand new angler. Knowledge, gleaned from many sources, can help us in our quests quite a lot. Imagine having to learn what you know now without any outside help. Some fundamental information is exportable, say, across the entire geographical range of largemouth bass, other info is more regional, other confined more locally. Then there are time scales: "seasons", "sub-seasons", weeks, hours, into moments. Things get pretty hairy about then. And yes, we are fishing in the moment; flying by the seat of our pants. But how anyone got where they are at that moment is not a random event -unless maybe you are a complete newb going it alone. Maybe a better question: Can we predict? And at what resolution?

Well ... I agree this has certainly been a passionate discussion. What intrigues me is the possible reasons for such passion. I've been very interested in how we perceive and understand nature, and I think, I wonder if, the passion generated here centers around the fear inherent in "insanity" -the loss of an understanding of the world around us. I've come to think of identity (possibly consciousness itself) like a house of cards. When someone tugs at some of those cards (esp the foundational ones) it can make us passionately defensive. Fishing takes us out there to the edge of our knowledge, our identity, -consciousness. Fascinating. Mebbe, likely, I'm alone in that. I've been growing used to "insanity" -or it's getting more and more familiar the more I look. Too much time in the woods I guess. "Science" has a repeated habit of threatening that "house of cards", to even tug at those foundational ones. Many of us may think of our foundations as being on much firmer footing, but all you have to do is practice good science -with passion- for a while and you'll almost certainly find your understandings are on shakier ground than you previously thought. Or I should say, than I thought as that’s been my experience. From terror to enlightenment, to terror once again. Strange critters we are.

Sorry if I sound a bit like a griping old curmudgeon, but the GoTo threads almost always miss the big picture: Lure choice cannot be separated from location and conditions. There is no one lure wonder. If you are relying on the lure to find your fish for you, you are going to be find yourself banging your head against a wall. I posted two responses trying to flesh this out in the other thread, including presentations to try and why: Can't Get Largemouth In The Winter!

Possible, of course. But first you have to get to the bass. Four feet might be too shallow in all but the very shallowest of wintering locations -like in small shallow ponds. Wintering spots in lakes are often over 15ft deep, thus, jigs, bladebaits, SB's, ... . Lures are tools, not magic. Again, many times some action triggers strikes, and can help you locate the sweet spots. Then you can start experimenting with mood. Passive presentations (relying on solid feeding responses) may or may not work at times. If you rely on one presentation, and the fish aren't interested, then you'll surely miss the sweet spot. Don't get hung up on one magic bait. We could call it the "Curse of the Senko" (insert any GoTo in place of "Senko"). In general, winter and summer both can be challenging times for anglers, not bc the fish aren't biting, but bc the fish aren't in the shallows like they are spring and fall -when and where the fishing is easier and more familiar. Many people fish only in the spring when bass are visible bc they then know they are casting around bass. This is even true in the shallow ponds I often fish, where summer and winter habitats are not physically all that far away -they just aren't right at the shorelines! The mystery of fishing blind intimidates just about everyone and it's perseverance that get's you over those rough (seemingly senseless) times. Some knowledge going in can help you cut to the chase, as it were, and keep your sanity by at least giving you some threads of sense to follow.

Plenty of good advice above. You just have to keep at it. I fish a number of different ponds and small reservoirs. Some give up winter bass and some don't. I don't believe for a minute that in some ponds they not catchable. It's just that I haven't found the best locations. Some thoughts/advice/background on winter bass fishing: General Trends in Winter Bass Habitat: -Bass are apt to bunch up in good winter habitat. As flyfisher mentions, a couple feet off and you can be out of the game. -Winter bass generally use deeper water, often away from shorelines. In some of my shallower ponds the winter habitat is obvious: the deep pockets surrounded by the shallows. Find these and you’ll learn a lot about winter bass activity. These bass are often belly to the bottom and I will often fail if I’m fishing too high up. I have one shallow pond that has no deep spots; it’s just a dishpan, rimmed with a shallow shelf. I haven’t caught winter bass there yet. My guess is they are away from the shallow shorelines down near the roots of the weed clumps. No boats are allowed on this one so … I may never find out. -Look for steeper shorelines. The going theory is that temperature stability becomes more critical and deeper areas offer it. There’s also been conjecture that bass can adjust depth with barometric pressure changes and temperature fluctuations easier on steep drops. I dunno, I’m not a bass. Steep contours in certain locations (esp “inside turns”) may also provide calm water out of wind generated current. Certainly current is a big deal for winter bass in rivers and reservoirs, and this likely has a strong influence on bass in winter. Rapid (steep) depth changes do appear to be winter habitat for small water bass too, maybe simply bc steep drops and deep water tend to come together in ponds. It could also be that, when vegetation dies, steep contours become the cover they use to feel comfortable. I think this is at least a part of it. -It seems when weeds die, bass vacate. However ice fisherman find them in deeper weeds, and cameras have shown LM at times cruising the weed edges like they do in summer. In some of my ponds, in years that don't get snow-packed ice, deeper weeds survive through winter. -Winter bass seem to appreciate hard cover, and this may have to do with the loss if soft cover (weeds), and rock and wood can attract winter bass, usually along with depth and steep contours if either/or/any are available. "Ideal" habitat doesn't always, or rarely, exists. Bass make do. -Winter days in the north are short and the sun is low in the sky. The warmest parts of the day seem to be best, which means that fishing periods can be real short; often I don’t catch fish until at least 10AM and things seem to die before evening sets in. This may be an artifact of small relatively shallow waters I fish. IT could also be an artifact of my sampling effort -not sire how much time I've actually logged in the early AM on frigid mornings. If it has a "dead horse" feel to it, I may jump to conclusions. Gotta beware of how I "feel" bc it's not always right. I have ot keep in mind to back up my "feelings" with solid effort. Can't truthfully say I've done that in this case. Lemme know what you find. Presentation: -In general, slow is the rule, but that is only in terms of horizontal speed. (Horizontal speed is the one thing that newb (and many not so newb) anglers fail to appreciate.) Bass aren’t always willing to chase, and this is esp so in the winter.) Vertical speed, coupled with little horizontal speed, can trigger winter bass really well. Use of active horizontal presentations in winter appears to be confined to shad-based fisheries in which cold-stressed shad provide incentive for bass to chase in temps as low as 36F (WI) and 39F (TN). So far, I’ve seen reports of this phenomenon coming from WI, IN, MO, and TN. -Bluegill-based lakes seem to give up bass through the ice, (first and last best) on deep weedlines, and possibly shallower areas with weed clumps (bluegill wintering habitat). Ice anglers note that bass are grouped, and you must knock a lot of holes to find them. Catching is relatively easy at times. In one neat study that used submerged cameras and hook-n-line ice fishing, LM seemed to require some triggering with erratic motion to get them to bite, compared to SM which readily took live minnows at the same time. It's been apparent to me that this can be true with LM year round, but esp so in colder water or off-activity periods. -Many winter anglers make good use of bladebaits which provide that erratic vertical component without much horizontal speed. These work best in lakes with some depth, and from a boat. In my ponds, often fished from shore, I’ve made similar use of lipless cranks. Other winter GoTo’s for me are: suspending jerks (long pauses -i.e. little horizontal speed), deer hair jigs (w/wo overhead spinner) and often with a pork strip, spinnerbaits (CO with pork), creature jigs. Match these to substrate, cover, and depth, and bass activity. Angler Mind-Set: The fact that bass have left the shallows in itself can reduce catch rates beyond the comfortable threshold for anglers used to fishing shallow summer bass habitat. Add narrower active periods and shorter strike ranges and this will weed out most anglers used to comparatively easy fishing in the warmer seasons. Then add cold “un-bass-like” weather and many anglers are done before they really started. If you find yourself coming up with more explanations for why bass can’t be caught in winter, you are more than half done for already. As I said, some ponds I haven’t figured out and it can get pretty dull catching-wise. Others, I can catch ‘em and that feels pretty good. Here’s a fishing trip report I posted that touches on “winter” habitat on some small ponds: http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/115075-boom-spring-or-is-it/?hl=%2Bpaul+%2Broberts#entry1261169

Well... we do know what wavelengths of light bass are sensitive to, and at what proportions. And there are some really good ideas out there on what induced the development of those color vision capabilities. But making much use out of that info as an angler is the rub. Too many confounding intervening variables. Dunno about you all, but I've never been able to make much use of specific wavelengths (color), or at least seen anything that proves anything concretely. I have collected a number of anecdotal stories about anglers and their pet color theories. Pretty amusing stories many are that tell me that most of them have little to do with reality -what's going on for the fish. Doesn't mean we should stop looking though.

Sometimes they reverberate in my dental fillings. I can almost make them out... Will keep you posted.

Here's a few that ask the same: http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/78685-what-happened-to-the-ask-the-professor-section/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/75561-whats-up-with-mr-hannon/ http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/74966-welcome-doug-hannon/ It was called "The Professor's Corner" and the module appears to have been removed.

For the record, there are quite a few peer reviewed studies pertaining to largemouth bass catchability and responses to angling. And a lot of anecdotal stuff from good theorists such as Keith Jones, Ralph Manns, Rich Zaleski, Bob Underwood, and Doug Hannon. Bass can learn, but how that plays out in angling is mostly lost in the myriad environmental variables. And any comparison with "virgin fisheries" is pretty much moot considering that we all fish angler impacted waters. Getting back to the fishing, and where I think some of the contention in this thread lies, is the idea that a given lure can be learned to the point that it would be excluded by bass. This doesn’t tend to be born out, IME, at least so drastically. But let me tackle the idea in this way… I asked: What IS a "Jitterbug" (or “Hula Popper”) to a bass? And does that stay constant? It’s certainly not the same Jitterbug known to the angler or lure collector. If the "idea" of a "Jitterbug" is not constant to a bass, then WHY NOT? My answer is that it is NOT constant and that bass get a different read on its signature depending on conditions, circumstances, and that bass’s mood. This thread begs the question of just what the nitty gritty of lure presentation actually is. Again, lures are NOT food. And rest assured they all look pretty silly under good scrutiny. They have to be disguised as food, you literally are duping fish with them. This is easier done in some conditions and circumstance than others, and why we anglers pretty much rely on providence to offer them up to us. The pride we can take in angling skill revolves around our abilities to recognize opportunities and take advantage of them. Catt brought up a good question as to why spinnerbaits are so often singled out as the bait most apt to be learned and avoided by bass. My guess is it’s twofold: There’s a historical context in that SBs became hugely popular at a time when expendable income went through the roof and hordes of anglers began using them and there weren’t all the options available then as there are now. Secondly, the SB is a classic chuck-n-wind lure apt to be mis-applied by the hordes of newbs and weekend warriors chucking them. A few things happened: Fish did get hip to them at some level. I’ve seen this myself in “virgin SB fisheries” I got to fish. Fairly quickly though, the times and conditions when the bass are susceptible to a new lure begins to narrow after they’ve been consistently exposed to it. But … and more practically speaking, anglers simply discovered that there are real limits to chuck-n-wind presentations -PERIOD! Lots of anglers still make mighty good use of SBs. It’s how, where and when you apply them that makes the vast majority of the difference. Once again, as I’ve offered this up many times before and many experienced anglers have agreed, if you are relying on some inherent magic in a given lure to do the work for you, you are fooling yourself. Much of the time we must take “lures” to the fish, not expect the fish to come to our lures.

Ah! You are misunderstanding. Not fake or distort data. "Control" in this sense does not mean to actively distort things but to remove confounding factors. In this case (here we go again, and for the last time): Brian Needham, on 05 Nov 2013 - 08:26, said: Exactly!! You nailed it! There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time. And, Tommy, these studies didn't fail under peer review. It's understood that inferences and interpretations are made, and that there's lots more beneath that we cannot comprehend yet. But there's plenty of good work there -too much of it to ignore.

The research, and there is a LOT of it, is peer reviewed. I've been through the process a number of times and can tell you it can be stringent. The reviewers are experienced in the appropriate field. They look at your experimental design, confounding factors, your statistics, and if it doesn't pass muster they throw back at you to revise, edit, or go back to the drawing board. What's odd here is how you can pass judgment so easily in a field you have no working experience in. You are not in position to judge the quality of this body of work. 42 years on a given lake does not make you an expert on the fields of study that apply to fish behavior. Do you really think that all those universities are full of ... idiots? When repeated studies, looking at the issue in many creative ways from labs to natural waters, show bass respond negatively to angling and that it affects catch rates considerably, what conclusions would you draw? Ignore the whole thing? That is certainly your choice. Agreed.

Yes. And said characteristically succintly. Thank you, Tommy. Phew! I knew this was becoming an argument for the wrong reasons. I just couldn't find exactly what was wrankling everyone. It's mostly about ... level of importance. Learning in bass is so hard to discern. And then, what can you do with the info. IME, with all the variables in wild waters, learning just lowers the vulnerability of bass to angling by some ... generalized factor. We are then left with ... the fishing we know -dealing with all those variables. The devil is in those details. that's fishing. Pleasure hashing this out with you guys.

Exactly!! You nailed it! There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time. Now...what are we going to do with this info?? My answer is ... nothing. Because I am not expecting virgin fisheries. What I glean out of this is that I know the bass know, to some level. At least emotionally that's worth knowing. And when someone writes that they finally got to fish a pond never fished before and it eventually "wore out" that learning plays at least some role in that. From there we must pay closer attention to the variables at hand that matter most at the given season, trend, hour. That's fishing. Bc we are human, would we try to catch largemouth bass and ... say ... chipmunks the same way? In other words, are we able to discern anything at all in the world out there? How about largemouth vs spots? Are there any differences? And how do we know -considering this deficit of being human and all?

No, "Y'all" didn't say that, I said that. And It was not a blanket response to the entire subject. It was separating the reason why you cannot say much at all about the cognitive/memory abilities of fish with so many competing variables. Which variable affected your days fishing?? Well, that depends on the day, even hour. Which affected a bass' response to a particular lure? Would testing it in the dark compare against high noon, to take one extreme example? There are so many in nature that you would be left with nothing but "well it could have been this, or it could have been that or .... etc... That is exactly why this is not a question for anglers to answer. If anglers really think they can trust their own observations, powers of discernment, and memories over x number of years of fishing (that each contain multiple seasons and enormous variation in conditions and circumstances) to discern a single factor like "ability to learn" amongst all the rest, I'm ... shocked . You would then be right that there is no way to "know". So... why bother?? Tommy, Brian, is that your main point here? Let's pretend that that is not the case and we can move on: What might actually be done with the finding that yes bass in a lab CAN learn to avoid lures they've had experience with? Well, it certainly cannot be applied as the entire reason for the variability in our catch rates. But it's worth knowing. It becomes more interesting when we see multiple field studies that show that catch rates decline precipitously as virgin fisheries are fished. But, none that show that virgin bass fisheries get EASIER following experience with angling. The Ridge Lake study is particularly compelling bc of its thoroughness. They actually quantified every catch, amount of angler effort, anglers catch rates, which fish were caught and how many times. They then drained the lake at the end of each year and counted every fish to be sure they had info on each. What they found was that bass became more difficult to catch over time and that individual bass varied in vulnerability to angling. Some were caught repeatedly, some never. Overall, catch rates declined rapidly following the introduction of angling. Basically "chuck-n-wind" began to fail. Anglers had to pay attention to the details of weather, water, seasons, and lure choice -conditions and circumstances -the fishing we know today. We all fish to experienced fish. As anglers we cannot compare this with a virgin fishery.