senile1

Welcome, JP!

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to the forum!

I grew up on a farm and drove tractors wearing nothing but a pair of cutoffs. (It was the 70s and very few worried about skin cancer at that time.) Many farmers wore old cotton T-shirts when they worked and their skin under those shirts was white as a baby's behind. (You've all heard of the farmer's tan.) So I don't understand where the UV protective clothing provides a tremendous benefit, except to the people who are selling it. Please educate me on this subject because I don't see how this clothing is any better than what these old farmers wore for protection against the sun. Actually, I just researched this topic and found some answers. It appears that this clothing isn't necessary for everyone. I obtained the quote below from the following link: http://www.rei.com/expertadvice/articles/sun+protection.html.

I'm shocked and saddened. I tend to not think of people passing who participate in this forum. Lubina will be missed.

I think it's vibration on the lateral line first, then sight followed by odor. I may remember this incorrectly but I believe Keith Jones states that the lateral line and inner ear are not very accurate at determining location unless the vibration occurs in close proximity to the bass. So the vibration triggers the bass to start looking (use of sight) for whatever created the appealing vibration. However, the bass doesn't know which direction to look so it takes a little searching, except in situations where the vibration is only a few feet away. Sound travels through water far better then air. I don't know if you have ever dove or swam under water, you can hear underwater sounds, even with our ears that are not developed for under water hearing. I have watched bass on several occasions, take off or swim away when a boat is barely in hearing distance. The bass have learned that prop sounds are a danger. I have also watch bass come from more then a hundred feet away to hit a buzz bait in clear water. Bass in marina's are conditioned to boat sounds and don't move, so it is hard to fit everything into one box fits all conditions. WRB The fact that sound travels better in water is common knowledge, and I believe that is the problem with determining direction. I haven't looked at the book, Knowing Bass, in awhile, but I believe it states that the magnitude of the vibration is to such a degree that the bass is overwhelmed with it and can't tell what direction it is coming from. However, when the vibration is in close proximity it can. When a bass hears/senses your buzzbait from 100 feet it hears it but then it looks for it and homes in on it. It doesn't home in on it by hearing/vibration only when a lure is a great distance away. In the stained to muddy water I fish, I guarantee the bass never travel 100 feet to a lure because they can't see what the exact direction to the lure is, even if they can sense by vibration that something interesting is out there.

Welcome to the Bass Resource community!

I think it's vibration on the lateral line first, then sight followed by odor. I may remember this incorrectly but I believe Keith Jones states that the lateral line and inner ear are not very accurate at determining location unless the vibration occurs in close proximity to the bass. So the vibration triggers the bass to start looking (use of sight) for whatever created the appealing vibration. However, the bass doesn't know which direction to look so it takes a little searching, except in situations where the vibration is only a few feet away.

You bought a good boat.

Excellent report, George!

Congrats, Dink! Keep the fire burnin'.

Cool. Cute kid. I'll bet she had a blast with Daddy!

I posted the following comment in a thread about matching the hatch: My opinion falls along the lines of what WRB stated but I thought the idea from the book, above, was an interesting one.

In the book, Knowing Bass, the author states that we don't actually know with certainty what triggers a bass to want to bite our lures. There are logical things we can try such as trying to match the action or the appearance of forage but these are just educated guesses. According to this author, there could be a specific factor, completely unrelated to the type of forage, that actually triggers a bass to bite. If that particular factor (or factors) could be determined and then implemented in exaggerated fashion in a lure it might be possible to create a lure that is more appealing than actual forage. I don't have any opinion regarding this assertion. I just thought it was an interesting idea to explore.

I've been using MegaStrike since 2004 and it has proven to be the cat's meow a few times for me. My only problem is I bought a bunch of the old stuff and I had to finish it before I bought the new formula. I'm down to the last tube.

. . . and the Cards are swept by the Rockies.

Well, he chose a good bourbon to drown his sorrows. He's guzzling Maker's Mark.

Welcome!

Ludwick, Ankiel and Duncan are 10 for their last 72 AB's... that's a red hot 0.139 BA Yeah, only Pujols, .333, Schumaker, .294, and Ryan, .286, are batting respectably. I can't believe Ludwick, Ankiel, and Duncan all chose the same year to bat below .250. These guys need to rattle some bats!

Welcome to the Bass Resource community!

What's up with the Cardinals? We've lost three in a row to the Western division, last-place Rockies and the games haven't been close. Our relievers have given up 23 earned runs in 24 innings pitched so far in this homestand. Except for Pujols, we have no offense. I hope this turns around. It's only three losses in a row, but even in the week or two before that, there wasn't a lot of run support for our pitchers.

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome, Doug!

Welcome to the community, Eric!

Welcome!