dr.crow

Here is what I would try, given what you've told us: Bluebird skies - fish the docks - shady side - pitch, flip or skip. even better in the heat of the day. Heavy overcast - try a black buzzbait, other topwater, or fast moving lure - something you can cover a lot of water with. Alternatives I would try - Carolina rig. If fishing from a boat with a finder, look for deep cover, and use a jig or shaky head on it. Deeper fish are less affected by bluebird, but I am a shallow water fisherman first - so I'd start with the docks and move for deeper cover/structure later.

A couple of thoughts - first, it is really important to keep those biting insects away. A buddy of mine went and played golf in Canada two weeks ago, got bit by some black fly, got a major skin infection, which then got into his blood stream, and spent a week in ICU! Being from Louisiana, I've used bug spray, but generally never worried about it too much - I might start paying more attention. Second point - fishing the marsh in South Louisiana with a guide - where there are lots of bugs and gnats (biting ones) - he uses skin so soft. So I would say that is a strong vote for it.

I just got a new mold for 6" finesse worm and poured some "floating" ones for a shaky head. Put them on a Spot Remover pro model jig head and checked them in the aquarium. SWEEET!!! These jigheads have a flat side and it really does sit on the flat edge, and the worm tail sticks straight up - just what I was looking for. But I have a concern - the 3/16 oz jighead has a hook that is only about 1.5" long - that's a lot of worm for a 1.5" hook. Are these jig heads made for shorter (e.g., 4" worms)? I'm concerned I won't hook up very well with the fish. I searched a little for longer shank hooks on a shaky head but haven't really found anything, plus I'm wondering if a longer shank will impair the action of the worm tail. Any ideas what to use with a bigger 6" (fairly thick too) finesse worm like this? Will this short shank jighead hook up with the fish? Thanks for your comments. Batman

Does the tail of a shaky head worm need to stand upright? I have a bunch of different finesse worms and don't really know if they will or not. How important is this aspect? Can I use any finesse worm on a shaky head or does it need to be specific for this purpose? Any thoughts on what the best worm for shaky head fishing is? What about the squirrel tail that Kriet uses? I'm thinking I might want to get some of those!

Yes! Print this out. It is for Shimanos, but applies to most baitcasters. Haven't tried the one for spinning rigs, but included that link as well. I made a "kit" with reel oil, cotton swaps, old cloth, silicon spray, and some rubbing alcohol. http://www.coastalfishing.org/articles/shimanoservice.htm http://www.scsurffishing.com/articles/reelmaintenance.htm

I have a tournament coming up in 2 weeks here in Virginia on a large reservoir with very little cover - lots of points and rocks. Lakes around here are frozen around edges right now, but today was warm - into upper 50s. I am going to assume water temperatures will be in the upper 30s to very low 40s in 2 weeks for the sake of my question. I have more confidence, generally speaking, in a Texas rig worm than a jig, on this reservoir (not flipping cover, the only part of jig fishing which is my strong suite - swimming it in deeper water - I'm still on the learning curve) and so for this tournament want to stick to what I have the most confidence - a Texas rig worm. My question - is this a good lure choice in the winter and what am I sacrificing by choosing it over a jig? Thanks, Batman

Gee Muddy - Sorry to hear that. I've been enjoying our discussion and have greatly valued your comments. I mean that sincerely. And I have to offer up an "oops" - I have purposely gone to where big tournament weigh ins were held the previous week because I knew a lot of bass were released there. And guess what - I did pretty well. Darn it! And just when I thought I was on to something!

Quote: "But...there's plenty of independent research out there." For you consipracy theorists, just remember the universe responds back to you with exactly the thoughts and ideas you send out to it. Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at will change. Regarding the analogy, I stand by it: DWI = fish getting caught on a hook Getting DWI and then still driving drunk = fish getting caught again because competition with other fish, getting surprised, whatever. Yeah - it happens even though DWIs DECREASE drunk driving. Not drinking and driving after having received a DWI = Big FAT Mama Bass that was caught once when she was 2 lbs and you'll never catch her on an artificial lure. Might better try a live shad. Point being - don't draw a broad conclusion just because you caught a bass twice on same lure in a relatively short period. And by the way for you anthropomorphism fans - that is the ONLY point of the analogy. But I'm sure this will draw more anthropomorphism posts - should keep us going for a while. LOL :

Ahh - gotta love the conspiracy theorists. But...there's plenty of independent research out there. I wonder why the Berkley scientists didn't say, "But our research proves that using a Berkley Powerworm will vastly increase the odds that bass will strike repeatedly after being caught." ...or something to that effect. It may not be anthropomorphism, but by presupposing darker motives behind Berkley scientists, aren't we attributing uniquely specific human characteristics in *perhaps* ourselves to others within the human race? I certainly don't assume they are working for their sales and marketing counterparts. Perhaps Berkey is looking for real answers. And perhaps Berkley realizes if they played that game, they would lose in the long run. But then again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I've done enough homework to realize what they are saying isn't any different than what indepent researchers have found. ;D

We've moved from debating the validity of aquarium results to debating the validity of pond results. There has been research on larger bodies of water which I've posted, as well as others, and these can be debated also. You get into even large bodies of water and complicated statistics have to be employeed - yep - more debate. Even the researchers typically conclude more information is needed, but the body of evidence builds, and I think it prudent to factor the possibilities into our thinking. The entire discussion on cognition is irrelevent - that thought line is more about the why than the what. And as a great fisherman with 40 years experience on the water keeps telling me, stop asking the why and focus on the what and where. You'll never know the why until the fish start talking.

I'm just sharing information - no axe to grind. I couldn't sleep last night and searched and searched - it just takes a lot of time to dig up these things, without access through a fancy institutional library, but they are out there. I found quite a few more but didn't want to bombard you all. Oh, and if you read the posts closely, I think we are making some progress. Remember - an open mind is a key to learning, and an ego stops learning dead in its tracks. Doesn't mean you have to believe everything someone tells you, but you have to be open to the possibility your previous view of how things are may be wrong, then formulate a new one with all the evidence at hand. Just a thougt. I appreciate everyone here, too - this discussion has been entertaining and educational and I appreciate your letting me join in on it. Batman

Linking Angling Catch Rates and Fish Learning under Catch-and-Release Regulations PAUL J. ASKEY,* SHANE A. RICHARDS,1 AND JOHN R. POST Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive Northwest, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada American Journal of Fisheries Management 26:10201029, 2006 Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2006 DOI: 10.1577/M06-035.1

Warmwater Fisheries: Symposium I (1991) edited by James L. Cooper, R. H. Hamre Edition: illustrated Published by DIANE Publishing, 1999 ISBN 0788182447, 9780788182440 407 pages

What kind of experiment would tell us what we want to know? What if you took a pond or small lake and every time you caught a fish you tagged it. You would only use one type of lure for this experiment and use it repeatedly. Each day or week you would record total caught, tagged and untagged. You might have to tag it with the date it was caught so you could track time between subsequent catches. Seems this would be an excellent study - would still have to work out the details of how it would work, but seems like it would be very interesting and a step closer to reality than an aquarium. Now all we need is someone with a private stocked pond who can conduct the experiment...

Alrighty then.

Tyrius - I understand your point and felt the same way. I also think there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who throw good scientific data out the window because of general mistrust. My experience versus a scientist sort of thing. On the otherhand, there is truth that extending laboratory data into the field can easily lead to wrong conclusions. One must always be extremely wary of that. I develop additives for engine oils, and there are many lab tests to demonstrate a formulation provides good oxidation control, prevents wear, etc. But the car manufacturers don't want to rely on a lab test, so instead they spend millions running the fluids in actual engines in actual cars and taxis. The reason? Mistrust of lab data and wanting real world data. The real world of a bass in a lake or pond is vastly different than an aquarium, so now I believe it is actually a good point that more work should be done on "wild" bass to answer this question.

One of Catts original posts several pages back did get me to really think more on this aquarium experiment, and I believe he may be correct that this set of conditions stacked the odds in favor of the fish not repeating hitting lures - no cover, repeated conditioning, etc. It is in fact a great point. For a fish in the wild, so many other factors are at play, that fish may react completely differently, and so conclusions drawn from an aquarium experiment could be incorrect. I still have a hard time imagining the effect will be ZERO - it may not be nearly as high as an aquarium "pet" displays, but it very well may not be ZERO effect either. At least those experiments demonstrated that the tendency and capability to become lure shy is there, right? How much that translates into the wild is still to be determined.

Furthermore, I just went and re-read the conclusions, which were: "What's it all mean for the bass angler? While there are no hard and fast rules in fishing, the research certainly seems to suggest that anglers should try different lures in the same areas, especially areas they fish regularly or that are heavily pressured." I wonder if anyone here disagree with this statement?

It is an analogy to assist understanding. The aquarium experiment demonstrates bass become accustomed to lures, pea brain or no. All the discussion on logic versus negative association is irrelevent - experiments have demonstrated they "learn" to not bite certain things. The broader question, then, was - can such an experiment be applied to a bass in the wild, and so the analogy was provided to assist understanding that there are still many variables involved (some may learn faster than others, some are younger and less experienced, some have never seen a lure, etc etc). That's whyh controlled experiments are so important - eliminate as many variables as you can in order to really measure a cause and effect.

Bass are individuals and an attempt to generalize behavior over the entire population will lead to false conclusions. Take by way of analogy, DWIs (or DUI). Some people, if they are dumb enough in the first place to drink and drive, then may get a DWI, and may learn from the experience and never do it again. Others are repeat offenders and keep on doing it, seemingly never learning from the experience. And typically, the older one gets, the wiser they get, and even if the drank and drove when they were younger, wise up and don't do it when they are older. Overall, one must judge that giving DWIs works for the most part and cuts down on drunk drivers, and so overall, one must judge that fish generally do get accustomed to lures and we must factor this into our thinking, to some degree. The analogy is that bass do become conditioned to lures, as the aquarium experiments show. Some may learn more quickly than others. The younger bass may require longer to get the idea - how many times have you caught 1-2 lb fish that still had signs of being hooked recently? The older bass - they've been around and have likely learned the signs of danger, else they wouldn't be so old. Disregarding the aquarium experiment altogether because it isn't all inclusive ignores what we can learn from it, and that is that bass do get conditioned to lures and may not bite. What about the other variables mentioned? Just like we always have new teenagers learning to drive and deciding to drink and drive, so do we have new bass in the fishery that may have never encountered a lure and are more prone to strike. If you want to maximize your odds and increase the percentage of bass your lure will appeal to means a few things: turning off electronics when you don't need them, very careful use of the trolling motor, using lures which fish may not have seen before, and making those lures look as realistic as possible. In the end, it is all about the odds, and the realization that every fish is a little different in some way.

Yep - we feel your pain. A couple weeks ago I hooked a nice heavy bass on a Carolina rig and it swallowed the hook. Made me sick and I put the Carolina rig down for the rest of the day, and haven't thrown it since.

Definintely keep going with your study, but I recommend you record every conceivable variable you can think of, such as: barometric pressure, cloud cover, time of day, moon phase, wind speed and direction, water clarity, water temperature, etc. Even fishing in as controlled situation as you can find, the variables are many. Still, if you collect enough data, you will be able to statistically analyze it and possible make some correlations. I don't believe so much in the air pressure effect because a slight change in depth of the fish over-rides any effect a decimal change in air pressure can cause - still, the pressure may be correlated to other events - a coming front, for example, or simply just steady conditions. Believe it or not, what I have found is that the moon phase is the biggest factor. Over years of fishing, I have caught more and better fish within a couple of days of either the new or full moon. As to the why, who knows. Keep us posted!

I suggest Buck Perry's Spoonplugging. It's not all about spoonplugging, either - very good coverage on breaks and structure and how fish use them.

I fish a lake that is used for flood control and power generation and the level fluctuates greatly during the year, so no grass. The key to fishing it is to focus on rock, wood and points. Carolina rigs on points is a good place to start. Use your depth finder to locate brush and rock piles as deep as 20 ft. Without grass, you will typically have to fish deeper. Also, any manmade structures will be the best places in the lake - old road beds or bridges.