Team9nine

Your argument is totally plausible. The difficulty in proving it's vibration and larger water movement that makes big baits attractive is you need to eliminate vision to do it IMO. That isn't easy to do. A scenario of turbid water or night time/deep water where light is largely eliminated seems like the only viable option. To your point, maybe they do prefer larger items, but if they instead choose to eat whatever they can get in low visibility situations, I'd argue that supports my side of the discussion, that they only prefer big when they can SEE big - not when they can feel big. This can be supported with existing studies. More specifically to the OPs original question/premise, I'd add this statement from the (Hambright, 1991) study: "The relationship between prey body depth and piscivore mouth width clearly sets constraints on maximum prey sizes that can be ingested by gapelimited piscivores. These two factors also may play an important role in the selection of prey by piscivores within the range of ingestible prey sizes. Because many factors that influence prey selection by piscivores may also be associated with prey body depth, it is impossible to assign a singular role to body depth. Nonetheless, my results suggest that body depth is more useful than the traditional measure of prey length as a common measure for prey size selection by gape-limited piscivores feeding on an array of deep-bodied and shallow-bodied species." I'd agree...

I had to read through this one a couple times, then think on it overnight, but have come to the conclusion that depending on how the full spool of line is handled, there are only 3 outcomes. One benefits the split concept argument Heartland mentions, one benefits QUAKEnSHAKES argument, and the third is that the two methods are identical (depends on how you backfill the full spool; but same waste between the two methods). Being on cell right now, I can't detail out the scenarios easily or quickly.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether bass can find any kind of prey (or bait) in the lakes they inhabit. Nothing moves in the water without a bass knowing about it, at least at close range. Instead, the question is one of, do they (bigger bass) prefer or are they more likely to be caught by someone using larger and/or oversized presentations ("fatter" because they move more water or create a bigger disturbance) than a longer but thinner lure of approx same weight. I would argue, they do attract bigger bass, but not because of displacement.

In theory, if larger lures were better in murky water, then you would think diet studies would bear this out by bass, and other species in general, showing preferential targeting of larger prey sizes because of being easier to detect and possibly increased reactive distance. Instead, most studies I've seen generally suggest that predators become less discerning and mostly non-discriminatory in prey size (possible exception for the smallest sizes of prey), likely because they lose the vision advantage that offered size selectivity and increased reaction distance in the first place. In some cases, certain types of prey are even largely ignored (or at least minimally preferred) regardless of size in turbid environments. There's probably a component of baseline turbidity involved, also. Bass from more turbid environments might react more positively to larger prey, whereas bass accustomed to usually clear water might not. Anecdotally, Rick Clunn has suggested that on lakes that normally are clear but then mud up, a great deal of sound or water displacement by the lure can actually scare more bass than it will attract. In those cases, he prefers something like a fat worm or bulky jig as opposed to large rattling crankbaits or spinnerbaits with oversized blades.

As Paul alluded to, I've had good success with small blade baits (arguably a type of lipless) in winter conditions, even on partially frozen waters. They are certainly worth a try. I retrieve one of two ways. Either slow hops in deep water (relatively speaking), or slow and steady up shallow. You'll have to try both. As for hooks, the bait I throw comes stock with size 14s...basically bluegill hooks. I've played with upsizing one or the other, and both with no conclusive results. I'm leaning toward the front hook being more important than the back, and my next experiment will be a single upsized treble with no rear hook attached. Should have my answer after that.

Yes - there's science to support it, though I would debate the wake/vibration theories ?

Yep - northern strain...which is why our state record will never be broken again in our lifetimes This shows the most recent state record bass for Indiana, all three of them, which goes back to 1968, a span of 50 years. The top left and right photos are one many probably haven't seen, and that was the 11-11 record set in 1968 by Curt Reynolds, and taken from Ferdinand Lake in Dubois Co. Look at the gut on that thing. Next (No. 2) was Warren Alexander's 1990 state record bass of 12-06. That fish was caught out of a 2-acre pond that was 15 feet deep, and caught on a chartreuse and white spinnerbait. The pond was located in Perry Co., and Warren wouldn't divulge much more. The bass was 23" long and had a 22.5" girth. Unfortunately for Warren, unlike the record he broke that stood for 22 years, Warren's record was broken the very next year when Jennifer Schultz caught the current 14-12 state record on a Pop-R from a small private reservoir in Harrison Co. That fish is bottom left in the picture.

I would suggest praying, because based on the age of this post and the popularity of that lure, it will likely take nothing short of a miracle to find some Of course, it never hurts to check eBay from time to time.

With trick worms and Ned in the rotation on the plastics side, along with the jigs, as long as you keep your presentation options open (variety), you'll have no problem sticking with it and catching fish year round. If it's what you want to do, then go for it. Some days will be slower than others, but there probably won't be many days you don't at least stick a few.

Now days, I use junebug in most all plastics. If that doesn't work, I'll try junebug, and if I still can't get bit, I'll look around and tie on junebug. Makes my life really simple and always seems to work for me ?

It's a bit stiffer, so you need to be a bit more vigilant with spool/thumb control. Don't try lightweight stuff right off the bat. Heavier lures will make casting easier at first until you get a feel for it. Only other thing is don't backlash...but if you do, be very careful and take your time getting it out. Can't just yank on it like mono. Fluoro doesn't like being bent into a 'V' or other sharp angles. Guaranteed weak spot. Otherwise, enjoy.

Just checked some DT-6s and they look nearly identical to me, within a millimeter or so in overall length.

Crappies are great. Never hurts to have them as a backup in case the bass bite is slow, or you just feel like doing something different for a change. Nice job.

If the spool holds 180 yards and you are only spooling 100 yards on, while you won't run out of line on a cast, you will have issues because the spool won't be at full capacity as designed. It will affect casting distance, drag settings and retrieve speeds. Just find some junk mono sitting around somewhere and wind on about 75 yds, then attach your fluoro to it with a uni-uni knot or similar and wind the remaining 100 yards of fluoro on. That will give you a full spool right near that 180 yd. designation.

I just bought a bunch of Owner ST-36BC trebles in sizes #4, 5 and 6 from TW last week. They're RB and not EWG, but they are available and should work just fine unless you are absolutely sold on EWGs.

I would say 100 yds should be more than enough. It's what I try and shoot for anytime I'm splitting spools and topping off reels, including my deep cranking reels. Sounds like you might have to run 75 yds or so of mono as a backing first though so the line ends up full on the reel spool.

I was a bit reluctant at first, but now have upwards of 400 transactions via eBay and PayPal, both buying and selling of fishing items, and don't think I've had a single instance of fraud. Worst thing at this point have been "used" items that didn't quite live up to their condition description, but hasn't happened too often. Just got a "like new" Shimano Cardiff off eBay last week for 20% less than retail, plus free shipping and no sales tax. I try to cap my limit on purchases at a couple hundred to avoid any big ripoff potential though.

I just got home and checked the Alwine stuff. One of the interesting things is he went back over Hannon's data set and analysis and basically found error with (was unhappy with?) the assumptions/conclusions. He also updated the data set with everything applicable post-publishing, and using Hannon's basis for analysis, it actually weakened Hannon's original claims. In summary on the subject, he stated, "This is compelling evidence to further bolster the case that lunar periods have little if anything to do with the feeding cycles of fish." On the MLF stuff, I can get much of the data on catches right down to the minute, and it would be easy enough to compare catch times vs. solunar tables for the day. What would be extremely challenging (IMO) is factoring out for the influence of poor decision making on the part of the angler. To what degree would the conclusion accurately reflect the effect of the solunar tables (times) while excluding for the angler biases (locations, baits, etc.)? I know it can be statistically factored out or a percent cause attributed to other factors, but the exact name of the analysis escapes me at the moment. If you've watched MLF much, it seems like there are always some anglers who start out "hot" because they pulled up on the right bank or started with the right presentation, but who end up fizzling out as the day progresses because the best patterns change and the angler doesn't adapt. Likewise, there are cases where an angler starts out well behind in periods 1 and 2, but then finally figure something out and make great comebacks in the final period, even winning. That said, if you would like a small data set to analyze, let me know and I can work on putting something together. Maybe an analysis of a small subset of data would provide enough info to determine whether it would be worth the effort to pursue a larger data set.

I'm fairly certain Josh Alwine statistically downplayed the lunar influence in his book, too, but I don't have it right in front of me at the moment. I know Ralph Manns also fell short in proving statistical significance in all his research and record keeping on bass and lunar influence.

All depends on who you ask. I personally prefer the older Bagley Bs with the brass hardware and lead in the lip. Have sunk a small fortune into them (see pic of just a few of them) That said, I have to admit, I have some of the newer version that have produced just as well as the olds, so it's probably a combination of confidence, and like most wood baits, finding the ones with that "magic" combination of factors that just make them produce better.

No such thing as "the best," but I only spool with 832 and regular PP, everything from 3# up to 65#. Does everything I need 'well enough.'

OK, this might resemble me, @Paul Roberts, @fissure_man... to name a few

Saw that. ?That's why I wanted to post, so anyone thinking of buying it will hold off and wait for sale and get 2 spools for price of one.

Ran this same analysis and wrote about it over a dozen years ago (2006), back when the data set had a little over 400 bass recorded and got the exact same answer. Glad to see nothing has changed over the years ?

Navionics, Hbird's AutoChart and FishSmart, and MyRadar