Bassun

Yup - I'm one of those who hold on to the old guys. My spare room has a variety of rods hanging out. Some are just really old ones that a dear friend gave me, one is a surf rod my dad used with an old mitchel on it. I even took two of my retired rods, and turned them into lamps over my desk. I have a few different reels hanging out too, but I have tossed some if there was no real nostalga. I have a couple which I will never part with like my old Shimano Bantum that I bought used when I first learned how to use a baitcaster. (And man are they easier to use now!)

Just curious, are these ponds you personally own or just ponds you have access to fish? If they are your ponds, you may want to actually consider some pond management to improve fishability and the fishery as a whole. Depending on the situation you have, a few dollars spent on controlling the algea and an appropriate number of diploid grass carp could massively improve your ponds.

I can only remember doing it once, and that was a long time ago on a jerkbait, and my brother in law (who fished very seldom at the time) did catch two dinks on an x-rap a couple years back. I've had a bunch of scenarios where two or more bass have hit at a fluke at the same time, or a trailing fish pick up a bait that just popped free from a different fish. Just the other day I had a stinking bluegill go crazy and take a grub basically out of the mouth of a decent bass.

I think you may have just swayed me somewhat, again “opportunistic” being the key. I agree bright light does increase underwater visibility, obviously; but the position of the sun plays a key role as well. Now considering the extreme range of view bass have, I think positioning would be important in such that the bass would ideally position itself to have the best “lighting” available, while not being “blinded” by the same light. Perhaps my perception is wrong, and they have no problems staring into the sun, but given the UVA, UVB, etc associated with that, as well as the flooding of photonic receptors I cannot imagine it has no impact. But, I could just as easily be wrong. Great thoughts Paul, thanks for sharing!

Thanks. I think it's been a fun convo thus far, and it's forced me to think more deeply about aspects of fish and fishing than I have in a while. As for my line of work, it's nothing even remotely related. I am a Software Test Engineer by trade. I dabble in too many things for fun. LOL, the sunglass effect. I like it! And I think it is surely part of the equation! Tom I’m going to take a stab at this one for fun. Obviously there are theories out there, and I am in no position to effectively apply the scientific method to attempt to prove anything, but based on what we know I would hypothesize the following: (again, complete conjecture and not a tested theory) So we’re looking at how bass see detail color variances in very low light at depths of 45-60 feet. I did remove “in the dark” as unless one is in a situation of “absolute darkness” there is some amount of light. First we would need to look at what happens to light as it filters through water. Now, for purposes of this supposition, let’s assume no extreme factors like extreme turbidity, heavily aerated current, extreme temperatures, etc. And that we are utilizing natural light, and only wavelengths we can see. A “best case scenario” if you will. Studies of color loss at depth give us some of the first clues. Under our good conditions, with the sun high in the sky, we understand that red is the first colors no longer visible (meaning loss of color saturation, and effectively moved into gray scale – not “invisible”). That occurs in around 15 feet of water. The next to fall off is orange at around 30 feet, and we begin to lose yellow at right around 45 feet. That leaves us with greens, purples, and blues. There is some debate, oddly, about hues of purple. Some suggest that much of the wavelength is lost nearly as soon as yellow, while others indicate it is somewhere between yellow and green and some follow the wavelength directly and indicate violets are the last to fade. I think we would legitimately need to consider more factors to delve into the purples, but from what I have read I personally feel they fall off somewhere around 50 feet. For the purpose of this discussion I will assume the theory that purples fall off around the same depth as yellows, leaving us with blue and green both being visible through the 45-60 foot depths. There’s just one problem with that…we are looking at figures determined with the sun high in the sky on a bight sunny day. The angle of inclination would be severely different, at best, which means we are no longer looking at a completely vertical penetration of light. The wavelengths would be filtered out based on their transmission through water along a straight line, so at a low angle colors which would fade in deeper waters, would become less and less vibrant at much shallower depths since the light is effectively traveling through more water to make it to a specific depth. What this tells us, in my opinion, is that vibrant colors will be lost at a very shallow depth once the sun is on the horizon. Reds, oranges, yellows (purples?) would all quickly lose their saturation as the water filters the wavelengths, this would obviously be compounded even further considering the low level of light to begin with. However, studies do show that greens and blues can travel a deep distance (hundred to hundreds of feet). So, given that I would firstly propose that blues and greens are going to be the most saturated colors at depth, with blue being the strongest. Considering the target depth of 45-60 feet I am going to focus on only those two colors. We understand that bass have rods and cones in their eyes. Rods effectively gather light; cones effectively delineate colors. This is a super glazed version of how they work, but this is a post on a forum, not a scientific paper lol. An important note to consider is the work of George Wald who discovered rods are most sensitive to wavelengths around 498 nm. Blue is about 475 nm green is about 510. Now that is a human rod, and I cannot guarantee the exact same wavelength is most sensitive to fish, but from what I have read, it stands to reason that at least a very similar wavelength would be. Now, as further speculation, I suspect a fishes rods are actually more tuned to a slightly lower wavelength, something in the blue spectrum. This is anecdotal, and based purely on experience of blue/black combo colors fished at night. We also understand how fish utilize rods and cones to deal with different levels of light. During periods of bright light, the rods are shifted back into “dark pigments” to protect them from the intense light, while the cones are shifted to the surface of the retina. This effectively puts the fish in “color mode” and they are able to see a wide range of colors with a great level of detail. Conversely, when there is low light (some suggest less that one foot-candle for optimum rod emergence) rods fully emerge and the focus is no longer delineation of colors, rather gathering of available light. Given we know that rods are most effective at seeing the 498 nm wavelength (blue-green), anything around that color will become the most visible. Reflective materials would also, obviously, provide higher levels of light as they are reflecting the full spectrum of light available, not just a specific wavelength. It should be noted, however, the color of the water which “clear” has a blue hue, would effectively influence the perceived reflected color. Given this, I would also surmise that reflective materials would be most effective in clear (technically lightly blue) or slightly green waters as there would not only be a total reflection of all available light, but that light would also be “tinted” the color of the water. If that puts it closer to the 498 nm wavelength (or whatever bass technically receive the best) then the rods would be most capable of photoreception effectively allowing the fish to see the reflected light even better. So, to answer the original question, “Explain to me how bass see detail color variances in the dark or very low light conditions at 45' to 60' depths.” I pose that they largely do not see “color” variances in that scenario. My supposition, given the above info, is that they see most colors in gray-scale during this situation as the wavelengths of most colors would be too muted to see. However, given their rod sensitivity to a specific wavelength, it is most effective to use a mix of blue/green (again whatever wavelength determined) for their eyes to be most receptive of light. Now, in terms of fishing, given all of the above – I would suggest using a blue/green and black color bait for the best visibility to the fish. If conditions are appropriate, adding flash would certainly be a potential advantage. Why blue and black vs blue and white? Black is the color recognized when all effective light is absorbed, white is when the entire spectrum is reflected. Given the rods are tuned to a specific color, (assuming blue or blue/green) and often water also has a hue of blue (naturally) or a mix of blue/green during many conditions, any white light reflected would naturally be perceived with a blue / green hue. Conversely, black will always be black. The highest contrast would be a mix of the most photoreceptive wavelength and black. I think this is why we often see the best success in low light with a mix of blue and black lures – this is NOT accounting for lures fished above the fish where black becomes an extremely strong solution as it is actually being silhouetted against a slightly lighter sky. I would also add, that any color in the spectrum, although effectively received as a scale of grays, could be a target color. While it may not be the most contrasting, it is plausible that a shade of gray could be a trigger color vs a blue. Obviously, it depends on forage and what the bass are “looking” for. Now again, this is PURELY SPECULATION, and would need considerable testing to validate my claims. But, I thought it would be a fun exercise to expound upon. I could be completely off…

I think your assertion that this would compel fish to "shade" their eyes is spot on. I agree with some of your points, but have to completely disagree in regards to the similarities of the eye. I also agree there is not tons of research about the eyesight of bass specifically, but I believe we can actually say that functionally the eyes are quite similar. Comparing the two you have the same basic structure: lens, cornea, iris, pupil, retina and so forth. Fish eyes also have rods and cones just as human eyes do. The eyes work, generally, to the same end. Some of the specific methods are different, but the overall design and function is quite similar. Some of the more notable differences would be: a much-expanded monocular vision, how the lenses adjust, and how they regulate photic conditions. Expanding on a few of the notable differences, but certainly not to be considered all inclusive, I think we can explore some of the structural differences. Let’s start with the lens. In a human eye our lens is flexed and relaxed in order to adjust focus. A bass lens is comparatively larger and shaped more round versus the convex shape of a human lens. Given the shape, it stands to reason that flexing would not be the method used to change focus – rather a retractor muscle adjusts the positioning to create focus. An added benefit of the round lens is that it allows for correction of spherical aberration, which ultimately leads to fish being able to focus any available light very sharply. Now the Iris and Pupil work differently as well. And while there are a variety of pupil types in fish, some such as shark are even capable contraction and dilation to control the amount of light entering the eye, bass do not have quickly changing pupil sizes. It was mentioned earlier that bass are quite slow to adjust from light to dark vision. The reason for this is that they simply do not dilate their pupils and allow more light in or contract them to restrict light; rather they use retinomotor activity, a change in the positioning and ratio of rods and cones effectively active, as well as their pigment proportions, in the eye to control the sensitivity to light. Obviously I am just glazing the surface on some of the more complicated differences in our eyes, but as a whole they are quite similar. They have a pupil to let light in, focus that light with a lens on the retina, and the optic never carries the signals to the optic lobe in their brain. There has been a lot of research on fish vision, although not as much specific to bass only. Admittedly, I have not done the research myself, and am just referencing others work. Now I would have to agree things are based on assumptions, but realistically how can we have any empirical data on exactly how a fishes brain decodes the nerve signals.

lol PB @ 18lbs I can only travel then hope to see something in that range. State Record here for LMB: 16-4 and was caught back in 85! On an interesting note, the SMB record of 8-01 was caught just a couple miles from my house. Sure, puney compared to your behemoths, but big for around here.

lol sometimes I get to rambling... We don't have any perminate populate of cormorant's here, at least as far as I know. Have you noticed any difference in how the bass react when there is a cormorant on the water? I'm curious if they tend to get defensive and hole up or if they continue to hit and feed as normal?

After further consideration, the fact that I even mentioned my "first" PB proves that there is something special about that first big fish. I'm not going to pretend I don't get excited, as I absolutely do, but maybe I'm not as "impacted" by the later fish. I think when I finally break the 10lb mark, that will be quite memorable as well - but yeah, I think you may be right. That first "big fish" does and will always hold a special place.

Paul -- You are absolutely correct, and I was too cavalier with my declaration as ambush predators in the purest sense. Given the discussion level, I should have thought more about that statement. I was simply meaning to convey they are designed for success in and around cover vs scavaging or hunting large expanses of open water, etc. Their bodies are designed for short powerful bursts of speed, and they will utilize structure and cover to feed from. Your description as "generalists" and "opportunistic" is a much better description and much better conveys their feeding methods. Thank you for correcting that and adding a good description of their feeding habits. Swampstud -- what a great description of fish feeding from dark to light. While not "ambush" in the sense a stonefish ambushes, this is more akin to what I was trying to convey. You hit it spot on, and comparing it to bow hunting makes perfect sense. You are literally trying to do the same thing, and would never find good success without good cover. Excellent points. Team9nine - Perhaps I should have researched and referenced that information vs posing my own suppositions, but it's good to hear my thought process and understanding isn't devoid of proven fact. And I absolutely agree that there are TONS of other factors which should be considered. And surely there is merit to the raptor effect. All said, perhaps I am being too dismissive and potentially being too locked into the singular reasoning given in the article. I'm sure Dr. Wright had not intended to pose that the "only" reason is the raptor effect. I should also consider the locale and types of raptors in the population. I think truely one would need to consider a least a few factors to effectively suggest the raptor effect as a primary reason for use of open cover. The number of birds of prey vs the amount of available prey outside of water would certianly be a contributing factor. If you are in an area with a high density of predators, and a low level of mammalian prey then it would seem likely fish would be a higher staple regardless of the raptor. In the same sense, water predators like eagles and osprey are absolutely going to target fish more often then say a Broad-winged or Red-tailed Hawks. Locally, we have a higher density of non-fishing raptors - I think that has somewhat jaded my notion of the raptor effect. (South-Western VA) I suspect, someone in an area with a greater density of fishing birds would be more likely to be impacted by the raptor effect. My suspicion is that Dr Wright is in an area such as that, and given those factors his conclusion certainly holds a greater merit. Locally, I've only seen the smallest fish taken by any birds. But, our density of Osprey and Eagle is fairly low where as our Hawk density is much higher. The fish I personally have seen taken mostly come from Great Blue Herons and I have never personally seen an Eagle take any fish from the local waters. That's not to say they don't, only that it is something I have not personally witnessed. Thanks for the conversation y'all. This article has certainly opened up an interesting conversation, and I think legitimatly offers another reason for the positioning of bass.

Yup - guilty here too! New rods / reels definately get a workout in the yard. I learned how to pitch, flip, and realy just cast a baitcaster in the yard. I also do a lot of fly casting in the yard. Just tying a small piece of bright yarn works great and you can practice all kinds of casts and see excatly how your line lays when it hits the grass, which is hugely important for fly fishing.

I think everyone breaks their PB many times while they are learning to fish. I honestly get a little excited over almost every fish, and that level of excitement is directly proportional to the size of the fish! So when a big ole pig is on, yeah I'm super stoked! PB, maybe, maybe not - but if its a hog then I'm excited. So yeah, a new PB has me excited for sure! Note - I can have just about as much fun pan fishing as I can bassin', I guess I'm just wired a little weird, lol. But to be candid, I actually get just as excited when someone else gets a big fish on...and if it's a kid - then I'm usually even more excited. I've been lucky enough to be around some first fish with my neices and nephews. Nothing beats it! And if you can help get them on something big early on, man --- that's just a memory of a life time. I don't remember my "first" fish ever although I know it was a bluegill caught on a cane pole -- but I sure do remember that first big bass I caught on my Snoopy pole! It was my first "big" PB and lasted for about a decade!

Hello all -- I wanted to hear thoughts and comments surrounding the article Dr. Wright posted as well as offer a counter theory which I feel is more impactuful in terms of fish relating to a floating dock. First, let me clearly define that this is NOT a troll post or anything of that nature. I do, however, have some differing opinions on his theory. However, I would also like to clarify that I do not completely dismiss his theory on the fishes preservation instinct completely. It is my opinion that there are other factors beyond age old preservation which often time places bass under floating docks, and other hard surface cover. To begin, I would like to expand on the temperature concept. I absolutely agree that the water under a dock, generally, is not noticeably cooler than the surrounding water. Given waters physical properties and what we understand of the physics of the motion of water, as well as the thermodynamics of water it makes complete sense that a small dock covering a miniscule area of water would have only the most negligible effect on water temps. Although I agree that the water itself is not significantly warmer, we do know that sunlight heats water and the intensity of that light is rapidly diminishing as studies present that less than half of the surface intensity is present at only three feet. These figures obviously change depending on the specific water conditions. The more clear the sample water the deeper the penetration will be, and conversely muddy or deeply stained water will be much more capable of stopping the light. Over 25% of surface light is incapable of penetrating even over 1 centimeter! Focusing on the fact that there is a radiant intensity at three feet (and deeper), we know there is an ability for heat to be recognized. While the water itself may not have a discernible temperature variation, any objects resting within this "radiant zone" will be capable of absorbing the heat. So, I postulate that an object at rest is capable of absorbing heat from the sun at a greater rate than the surrounding moving and highly thermally conductive water, especially if that object is dark colored. Given, the fact that it is surrounded by water does help negate the impact as well as the actual depth of said object noting a very quick reduction of intensity of light in water. Now having said all of that, do I believe that is the primary reason for fish under cover, no -- but to completely ignore the radiant impact of the sun is a bit dismissive. Obviously, depth change is much more effective and has other benefits and thusly I would suggest if a fish did want to cool down, it would just go to a deeper depth usually. But, I do not think we can completely ignore the thermal impact of sunlight penetrating the surface. I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it. Now, given that, even I do not believe that is the main reason for fish in shady areas. I do, however, believe there is more to it than just the Raptor Effect. Let us consider vision, not of birds of prey, but of the fish. Fish eyes are very similar, in most cases, to human eyes. Now, let's consider a scenario of varying light intensities in which we should be familiar with, then apply those scenarios to fish. If you have ever been inside your house, looking out at night you have probably noticed a couple of things. A: It's difficult to see outside when it is bright inside, and dark outside. B: Easy to see when it is dark inside, and a light is on outside. Considering that bass are predatory, largely sight based feeders, it becomes evident they would naturally select a situation where they can more easily see. We know, from our own experience, it is easier to see from a darker location looking into a well lit area. Expanding the effects of light on vision, we should also consider light blindness. Not as in permanent or even flash blindness where the retinal pigments are bleached out; but rather the scenario where you have sunlight hitting your eye directly, and you are trying to see. I'm doing a poor job of describing the situation - consider the following. You are standing in the sun with no hat, and the sun is hitting you in the face. Naturally you will squint, then probably put a hand up to block the sun from directly hitting your eyes, and eventually probably put on a hat and sunglasses. With each of these additional shading techniques you will note that your ability to see increases. A better example is when you are driving into the sun. You are often "blinded" by the light, and will lower a visor to block the sun. Now considering most fish can't squint, cover their eyes with a hand (Chernobyl maybe? lol) or wear hats, but have the same impacts on their vision, it stands to reason they are likely to migrate to a location where the intensity of the sun is reduced, aka shade. One of the more significant differences in a fishes eye vs human is the way our pupils work. Most fish have fixed pupil sizes. Whereas a humans eye can reduce the glare of light by decreasing the amount of light passing in by reducing the pupil size a fish usually cannot. Their eyes do adjust to different levels of light, however, it is accomplished utilizing a shift in the relative location of the rods and cones in their eyes. This is a much slower process and depending on the fish may take up to an hour for a major shift to occur. Certainly, beyond being able to see, we should also consider being able to be seen - but not just from above but from prey. A fish silhouetted in bright open water is much easier to see then one hiding in the shadows both from above and below the surface. I don't think there is any need to develop this any further as we all know bass are ambush predators and are obviously keen at utilizing structure and cover to hide themselves. Everything about a bass is designed for ambushing from cover. So, in conclusion, I would postulate that a bigger reason for fish staying under the surface cover of a floating dock is related to the fishes sight rather than that of being seen by raptors. I think I have demonstrated multiple positive benefits, related to vision, and considering bass are primarily sight based predators (granted they do utilize all other senses and especially use the lateral line), those benefits would likely be high on their priority list. I absolutly do not feel that this is the only reason a fish relates to cover, rather just one area which in this situation I felt needed to be expounded on. There is much more discussion to be had surrounding light and water. I did not delve into color spectrum which is visible at different depths or the impact of UV or polarized light. I think all of these play a hugely important role in the life any sight oriented fish. Lastly, I would like to reiterate that I am not attempting to bash Dr. Wrights article. I found it to be quite interesting and the notion of the Raptor Effect, I think does have some merit. The innate behavior to hide from prey is absolutely a valid and salient fact, it is the level of impact in which I am challenging. I am not a freshwater biologist, so it is possible my theories and conclusions are completely misguided; but I felt inclined to dive a little deeper into this and to at least explore the sight related aspect to fish holding under floating cover.

Nitrofreak -- I had about the same results Saturday. It was a lil chilly and the wind was howling. I didn't find any baitfish until about noon, and then worked over them with no luck. I picked up my best bass off a small grub thrown around some laydowns near the back of a cove - no where near any baitfish at the time. I I did see lots of fish on the graph around 10' deep, but they were not interested in anything I had to offer. I hit em with Carolina Rigs, Deep Cranks, Grubs but not even a bump. Admittedly though, there was a couple tournaments going on, and I wasnt fishing for money so I didn't run alot and really work hard to "find" fish. I went where I wanted, and there was baitfish - so I think the bass were just turned off. From what I understand, something like 8lbs won the tournament. 2 guys 8 hours... vs me fun fishing for about 5. I did get to watch a small bass, maybe 12 inches, attack a small ball right beside the boat; but that was about the only time I saw any sign of fish feeding on the shad. I also had a monster blow up about 20 yards behind the boat. I never saw him, but I can only assume it was a big striper. As for the bite -- IDK but the baitfish ARE definately starting to pile up in the coves so I can only assume the bite will be picking up mid-week, I think the cold front messed with em. I was told that a group of hybrids pushed bait up on the bank and went into frenzy mode at the mouth of a cove, so that definitely bodes well for the pattern. Too bad it wasn't where I was lol...

Rumor has it, that a presentation similar to that can pull some finicky cold water smallies out during the winter...

Hey I was just wondering if anyone has any experience with this little lake in NC. My wife, and sister in laws, have me driving down to the tanger outlets this October - so I figured why not rent either a jon or paddle boat and float around all day. Beats the heck out of spending a day shopping! From what I have read, the 59 acre lake supports Bass, Crappie and bream (but who knows what they are classifying as bream) I assume bluegills, etc. I was hoping to get an idea of how the little lake fishes, and what type of cover / structor there is. I will obviously be taking a lite assortment of gear and I was hoping to have a better idea of what to take. If it is really just a bluegill factory, that's fine -- I will just focus on 'gill gear, but if it does support a good number of bass, then I obviously would rather target them. Any incite or experiences would be appreciated. Thanks y'all!

Thank you for breaking that down... I was about to correct the "bass" confusion and you already did. Just to add a fun fact, Carp - are actually just big minnows (Family: Cyprinidae).

I don't like the ultra light short rods, I like them to be a little longer. I have better hook up ratios with those, and feel I can better handle the odd bigger fish you pick up. Bait wise, hands down you cannot beat a tiny hook and a nibblet of nightcrawler under a bobber (unless maybe you are fly fishing). But, I usually don't have worms on the boat so I use tiny 1" - 2" grubs of various colors. I start with white and go from there until I see them just really going after a different color. White, yellow and pink seem to be my best colors. As for the jig, I like to stay as small as I can and still cast. I think, though, I probably have the best luck on 1/16'th ounce heads, painted red and with an eye. My second choice is a bettle spin like desmobob mentioned. In fact, if I am fishing a farm pond and not using live bait (grasshoppers, crickets, worms are all awesome), then I will have a bettle spin on. I prefer the yellow or black bodies and without any tail. Just the grub body, I have much less luck with the ones that have the split tail design. I cannot remember a time in a farm pond when they did not succeed. And be ready, because those old fat bass will eat them too!

I've caught a few on cranks and worms both. I had to keep dodging them draging a worm in a cove one year in a tournament. They just wouldn't leave the things alone lol. I guess they were in the mood for garlic. Earlier that same day, my partner had backlashed badly and was picking out his nest. He was just starting to reel back in the line he spooled off when I noticed his line heading down the cove. "DUDE, you have a fish on!" He jumps up and cranks in all the line and hits paydirt with a solid hook set, fight on! He faught the thing for a couple of minutes before we ever saw anything. It came towards the surface and flashed a bit of white belly and I'll be honest, I thought he had a really nice bass on. Then he brought it up again and just stopped reeling...it was a nice channel cat. I don't remember if we weighed it or not but I'll call it about 8lb's and roughtly 24 inches. What shocked me was that he caught it basically dead sticking a floating crank. I can only guess the cat's were in prespawn and were feeding like crazy. Too bad it was a bass tourney, and not a whisker fish contest.

I do a fair amount of bank fishing for carp, but am by no stretch a cagey carp veteran. My preferred setup is a long 7'6" medium-light action rod spooled deep with 4lb line on something with a buttery drag. If I'm using heavier line, then I will tie in a swivel and run a 4lb or 6lb leader. This works pretty nicely as it gives you a good way to put a slide sinker on well away from the bait. If I can, I prefer to use no weight at all and just use the weight of my bait to cast with. BUT, if you are in current or wind then use some sort of slip sinker, and even then as little as you can. Hooks, I only use circle hooks for carp now. I have been having good luck using 1/0's here lately but downsizing wouldn't bother me at all. For bait I use the same thing consistently, and consistently have good results for common carp. Get a can of "Sweet Corn Nibblits" by Green Giant, its a smaller can and it has a pull tab lid which makes it super handy to open. And you need a fresh loaf of white bread. Sunbeam brand works well locally. I expected carp to like the high grain stuff, but nope - at least our fish prefer white bread. The bait: Depending on the size of carp you are targeting, you will need to adjust the size of your bait ball from approximately half a piece of bread, down to a quarter. If you are seeing smaller carp, then I would definitely drop hook size down, just be wary of gonig too small with circle hooks. If it cant fit around their lips, then it wont hook up. So, rip a piece of bread in half, and remove the crust. They do not like crust. Now take 1 kernal of corn and put it on the hook. Take 3 more and lay them spread out evenly along your bread and fold it in half over them as if you are making a minature half sandwich, or a corn taco if you prefer that visual. Now take that and basically wrap it around the shank of your hook. Usually it will wrap about one and a half times. Make sure the tip of the hook is exposed or just touching the bread. Once you have it positioned, put it in the palm of your hand and smash it into a tight doughball. You should feel the corn pop. Smash it quite firmly and make sure you have it roughly centered around the hook and that the tip of the hook is still exposed or resting just on the edge of the dough. If you smash the ball around the hook point, you will not hook up on as many. Your goal is to have a semi-hard dough bait when your done. If your bread is stale, it wont work as well. I like to cast two or three rods in an area ahead of where I see carp feeding, preferably upsteam (if fishing with others then I generally like to have 2 rods per angler). Feeding carp will leave mud trails where they are working the bottom. With a little luck you will be able to see where they are feeding at quite easily. I don't want to stack my bait too tightly, rather I want to cover feeding "paths" by having each at different distnances from the bank along the path I expect the carp to be on. Then, I put the rods in a WELL SECURED rod holder. I emphasise WELL SECURED, because they WILL drag off a rod. Plus, using a circle hook, and a solid rod holder means the fish will set its own hook before you ever grab the rod! After setting up all the rods, I sit back a few feet behind the holder and just kind of relax and wait for a carp to try to steal my rod. I don't touch the rods for little bumps and nudges or even short pulls. I ONLY touch a rod once a carp is pulling it hard enough to bend the rod over, and is usually pulling drag. I slowly pull the rod out of the holder and hold the rod butt completely verticle, giving the rod as much power as it (and the slipping drag) can offer to ensure a solid hookup. After a few seconds and I feel completely confident of a good hook up then I start to work the fish. I highly suggest a landing net for carp, even on the bank, especially if you are using 4lb line. It makes things much easier, and if you are by yourself it can make the difference between landing a good fish, and breaking one off at the shore.

It looks like I may be one of the exceptions as I tend to fish the fluke shallow and fast, usually getting more hits off of the twitching and gliding vs deadstick falling. I almost always fish them with unweighted hooks, tied directly with no swivel, etc. However if I am trying to fish the fluke deep, I use a belly weighted hook. I don't find it as successful overall, but if I need to fish deep I have better success with the weighted hook vs no wieght, but I think that is more of a reflection on how I tend to fish the fluke as if I am having to go deep, then that means my preferred haunts are not holding fish. Usually if I am having to let the fluke just drop, I end up grabbing a worm or some sort or a jig. I will say that pegging a small weight, or using a nail weight does work great if you have fish holding deeper in grass. I find the extra weight at the head seems to pop through the grass better and I usually end up dragging less back with each retrieve. I think that it is actually because the forward weight keeps the twitches less sharp and deadens the action a bit, but that in itself seems to keep me from wraping up in as much grass. So I guess I agree with most, actually, that no weight is my prefered method most of the time; but I think there are times when weighting a fluke the right way makes all the difference.

I've never lost anything in the high end range like some of you guys have. But, I am like most of you in that I don't buy lures to collect - I buy them to use and ultimately expect them to be lost, broken, etc. so I don't get too upset most of the time when I or a partner loses one. Besides, if you are pounding banks you often find a few lures during the day to kind of make up for the few you lose if you keep your eyes open. Especially if you are fishing a cove next to a road... Interestingly though, I have found that while putting a big fish on deck makes for a good story, I often remember the ones that got away better. Losing the cheap red-fin and monster striper I hooked into and faught for about 15 mins, (and even had him beside the boat once). Or the wiggle wart lost to what I believe was a flathead that dove strait down, because I spun my drag the wrong way and locked it down. The worst though, was a little Rogue jerkbait lost to about a 10" bass (yes, inch not pound). We had been fishing for a few hours and had no luck. We've all been there, threw everything blah blah blah. Well, finally I tied on an old Rogue and bam! Fish on. A few casts later, another fish. Bad thing, is that was the only one one the boat between both of us. He tried a few other jerkbaits, but this old Rogue was the only thing getting hit. We started down an arm of the cove we were fishing where I have usually had good success in spring and fall. At the mouth there is a long point on one side and a big lay down on the other - I pushed the boat out to split the shores. I shot the Rogue out over the point, while my partner was working the laydown. Twitch, twich, thump - and I set the hook. Well, apparently I had nicked my line - as when I set the hook I broke off the fish. I was aggrivated since I had finally started catching fish, and lost the one thing that worked. Then, it happened. A little bass jumps up about 10 feet from the boat, with my lure hanging out of his mouth right in front of me. I was like, "you will never believe this" to my partner. Then no more than maybe 15 seconds later, he did it again. This time, my partner saw it and found it much more funny than I. We continued down the small arm of the cove, catching nothing, but being heckled by this fish the whole way. He started at the mouth of the cove, and while obviously coincendentially, followed us about 100 yards to the back of the cove jumping up every few mins or so. Sure, it wasn't an expensive lure - but it was the only one we caught fish on that day - which made it priceless. And as if losing it wasn't enough, that little bass harassed us the whole way back in that arm trying to throw the lure. While aggrivating at first, it ended up being funny by the time we left the cove. And, at least I know I had a good hook set...

Absolutely you will find "off brand" lures that are as good as any "premier" company's offerings. That being said, not all are created equal. In my experience, the name brand baits do have some fairly consistent advantages such as a more scientific design which results in a better representation from lure to lure vs something hand hewn and painted which will be unique from one plug to the next. I call that an advantage, but only in that you often have to do little to no adjusting out of the box and will get a consistent action and look from the lure; where as a local handmade balsa lure may need some tuning before it will respond as expected. However, it is my opinion that often those same "quirks" are part of what give the local made lure an advantage. I subscribe to the notion that fish do become aware of artifical lures over time, and that impacts their effectiveness. I think that is part of the "hot lure" cycle and why you see so many fish caught on some new creation for a few years, then numbers fall off. Local lures generally do not get fished heavily enough for the fish to become acclimated to them, plus, as mentioned before - they often act slightly different from lure to lure and if hand painted almost definitely look slightly different from lure to lure. Another big advantange, in my opinion, of a local made bait is that they often do the best job in "matching the hatch". They are made by anglers fishing local waters who wanted to make a better bait. Sometimes it's a specific color in a worm, or some "secret" ingredient they add to the mix; or maybe it's a crank wittled down a little differently than the <enter brand here> version and hand painted to look just like the local forage. Sure, you may have good success from that Rapala you always throw. That is why you always throw it to begin with...but sometimes you will find even better success using a local creation designed just for those waters. Just ask any fly fisherman...when it comes to matching the hatch I think you will be hard pressed to find any better at it than those who carry a fly tying vice with them, and hand tie flies once they are at their location. That is the exact opposite of mass production, big name lures... and they do it for success.

Hey Congrats! You broke the seal, now it's all about culling, lol.

ColdSVT -- First off congrats! Second off, kudos for having the wherewithal to change your presentation to match what the fish were telling you. It's really hard to change up sometimes when you know you just caught a fish doing one thing, but the signs are saying to do something else. Too often many of us, myself included, choke up and don't make the change since we JUST caught a keeper doing something else. So as for the win, doesn't it feel great! Congrats and hopefully that was just the first of many!