A Pro Angler Voices Concerns About FFS

[Woody B]

I'm not intending to single any one person out.  There's several doing this.   

 

Every time there's one of these threads it amazes me how people who've never used FFS talk about how easy it makes it to catch Bass.  

[Swamp Girl]

I have hesitated to deeply opine about FFS because, as Woody noted, I have no direct experience with it. On the other hand, never having used it doesn't invalidate my perspective. 

 

My problem with it is the same problem I have with targeting big, spawning females. Pregnancy is hard. Some female bass don't survive it. Add the stress of C&R, especially if you parade the bass before a camera and stuff her into a live well, and you'll have fewer big females living ten-plus years and replicating their genetics, as they used to recover uncaught off-shore and that's no longer the case. It's a Devil's bargain, catching more big bass today for fewer big bass tomorrow.

 

I'm just grateful I fish water where technology-heavy boats can't be launched. 

 

[Susky River Rat]

@Woody B I’m not saying there is not skill. You can’t have this both ways though. YouTube whether for clicks or truth “ look how easy it is to catch bass with FFS.”  Many many videos from pros to regular people trying to be influencers saying this. Than pros saying they cannot compete without it.

 

So, what is it? Game changer you can’t compete with out that’s easier? Or is it well it’s really not that easy it just helps? Maybe for some it is extremely easy. For others it just gets them one or two more fish. 
 

I can say in the ice fishing world without using a flasher I wouldn’t catch much at all. I couldn’t imagine what FFS does. 

[Tennessee Boy]

10 minutes ago, Susky River Rat said:

So, what is it? Game changer you can’t compete with out that’s easier? Or is it well it’s really not that easy it just helps?

Like all technology FFS gives you information.  Compare it to a paper map.  Paper maps were game changers back in the day.  They showed us where off shore structure was that was previously unknown.  To take advantage of this new information you had to be able to read a map to identify structure.   You had to understand how fish relate to structure.  You had to know how to find the structure.  You had to know how to catch fish on structure.  Paper maps changed the game much more than FFS but it was not easy to take advantage of them.
 

FFS can be used in a lot of different ways to show you in real time what’s underwater in front of you.  How this information is used it up to the angler.  New information can help you or it can confuse you.   It can show you where the bass are and it can cause you to waste time casting at carp.  
 

The most controversial change FFS has made is in it’s use in targeting offshore suspended fish.  This is truly a game changer and we’ve seen this in some high profile tournaments.   Some people seem to think this technique can be effective anywhere at any time.  Those with FFS know this is not true.  Like all techniques,  it has a place and time.  Look at the results on the professional tournament trails this year and it’s obvious you have to adjust to the time and place to win a tournament.

[Choporoz]

Sure, FFS is an added tool to most pros.  Drew Gill is probably the best example for those who come down on the negative side of the arguments.  Early 20s, dominant as a rookie on a major circuit and vocal about how he's a 'pure scoper'.  

  Listening to him talk about one approach he takes on game day is just unfathomable to nearly all bass fishermen.  He is playing a completely different game.  Forget about seasonal patterns, migrations, structure, cover, etc.  He moves until he finds an area with fish.  Then, by studying their reactions, he can quickly determine preferred bait size, type, color, action, etc.  In no time, he knows more about how to fish today than most of us learn in several hours.  Just being able to strategize without all the preconceptions most of us have puts him in a different place right off the bat each day.

    It takes some folks a long time to use FFS to not only fish differently, but use it to ignore so much supposed 'truth'... if they ever get there

Edited August 7 by Choporoz
I had wrong Drew G

[Susky River Rat]

@Tennessee Boy so to sum up your long post. Yes, it’s a game changer with the right person and conditions. Am I out of context in saying that?

[Tennessee Boy]

3 minutes ago, Susky River Rat said:

@Tennessee Boy so to sum up your long post. Yes, it’s a game changer with the right person and conditions. Am I out of context in saying that?

It’s a game changer just like paper maps,  flashers,  2D graphs,  down imaging,  side imaging, GPS, and 360 imaging.  They all give us new information and that changes the game.  There is no evidence that any of these technologies harm fisheries.  We all get to decide if the new information increases or decreases our enjoyment of the sport.  

[TnRiver46]

37 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

There is no evidence that any of these technologies harm fisheries. 

And I know why…….

 

 

[Swamp Girl]

26 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

And I know why…….

 

 

 

I hope you're right, my friend. I truly want to be wrong in my pessimissm. 

[TnRiver46]

@ol'crickety, the way it was explained to us in fisheries classes and even working with small stream brook trout that had been severely extirpated was as follows: fisherman with rod and reel aren’t capable of altering fish population dynamics. Numbers vary depending on where you are but these small stream trout we worked with experience 70% natural mortality every single year. And the southern Appalachian brook trout has persisted for a long long time with that mortality rate. I’ve heard people say with bass in reservoirs it’s usually over 50%, I personally haven’t sampled them much.  So the fish are literally going to die on their own whether you catch and release them, eat them, whatever. 
 

What harmed the brook trout was logging practices and exotic species introduction, but mainly logging. It was way back when so they didn’t have to follow any best management practices, just destroyed the creeks basically. 
 

almost all wildlife/fisheries management comes down to habitat. The exceptions would be maybe fishing with nets or dynamite. I’m sure some aggressive poachers could kill lots of fish but not quite enough in most cases . If you don’t poison the water, build a dam, introduce a thousand head of cattle on a critical darter or Madtom habitat, etc., the fish will do their thing like they have for centuries. Some of the best pro fisherman still skunk with live sonar and they only keep 5 that they could legally eat anyway.

Beavers are actually more  capable of ruining a fish population than a human with a fishing pole and a livescope 

 

 

now completely nuking aquatic veg, don’t get me started 😂 

[Fried Lemons]

This is why I’ve never been interested in competitive fishing. I get to choose what bodies of water I fish, when I fish, and how I fish. 
 

That being said, if we are to take pro bass fishing seriously as a sport, there needs to be limits to how much ‘assistance’ a competitor is allowed to have. I’ve heard so many times that FFS won’t make fish bite which is hogwash. Skill expression in fishing comes from knowledge of how to find fish and how to get them to bite. FFS drastically reduces the difficulty in finding fish which is more than half the battle. Josh Jones, the master of this technology, believes it should be banned in competition.
 

I liken it to PEDs in high level sports. Drugs won’t do all the work for you but they will allow you to train harder and recover faster than possible naturally. Obviously they are still being used but not to the extent they would be if drug tests weren’t a thing.

[Tennessee Boy]

14 minutes ago, Fried Lemons said:

FFS drastically reduces the difficulty in finding fish which is more than half the battle.

All electronics reduce the difficulty in finding fish.  GPS is the most impactful in my opinion.  Where do you draw the line in tournaments?

[Team9nine]

Pay no attention to the naysayers @ol'crickety, your concern is much more nuanced and valid than the generalized arguments being made. Doug Hannon would be proud of you 

[AlabamaSpothunter]

There's not a piece of technology from yesteryear that even comes close to seeing your bait and fish reactions in real time.   

 

Remove FFS from Keith Carson's boat during that derby, does he still win based on the overwhelming power of down scan, side scan, GPS, 360, mapping, or any other technology you want to name?   

 

My answer is easily no.    He's had all those technologies minus maybe 360 in the past, why couldn't he utilize them for a win before now if they're all equally as powerful.  

 

There isn't even an argument to be had that a significant population of fish in any given body is now being caught that were never caught in the past, there is only one piece of technology responsible for this, and that's FFS.   You don't have O.H. Ivie with just mapping, 360, and traditional sonar.   You can repeat that story time after time since FFS has come out.  

 

I'm still supposed to believe that the A-Rig and Double Fluke Rig pose more of fair chase problem than live sonar 🤣

 

[Texas Flood]

25 minutes ago, Fried Lemons said:

I’ve heard so many times that FFS won’t make fish bite which is hogwash.

I can confirm as well as others on here that it is not hogwash. There has been plenty of times I have thrown everything but the kitchen sink and the bass will chase the bait and then swim away.

 

 

 

[Susky River Rat]

@Texas Floodwould you have kept casting in the area if that fish wasn’t there or you didn’t have FFS?

[Pat Brown]

6 hours ago, ol'crickety said:

I have hesitated to deeply opine about FFS because, as Woody noted, I have no direct experience with it. On the other hand, never having used it doesn't invalidate my perspective. 

 

My problem with it is the same problem I have with targeting big, spawning females. Pregnancy is hard. Some female bass don't survive it. Add the stress of C&R, especially if you parade the bass before a camera and stuff her into a live well, and you'll have fewer big females living ten-plus years and replicating their genetics, as they used to recover uncaught off-shore and that's no longer the case. It's a Devil's bargain, catching more big bass today for fewer big bass tomorrow.

 

I'm just grateful I fish water where technology-heavy boats can't be launched. 

 

 

 

People have always bedfished and people always keep catching big fish.  Anytime you catch a big female it's probably pregnant and probably stressed out.  Whether she's been lounging around her bed or chasing bait all day.

 

I think that most people agree that ffs is more of a threat to the untouchable offshore populations that were able to rest pelagically at certain points of the year and are no longer protected but even then - I've read about  enough government sponsored efforts to eradicate bass completely resulting in healthy and giant bass - that I personally don't really know what to think anymore.

 

I just try to take care of the fish that I catch and I think that's all anyone can ever do whether they use technology or bedfish / throw lures at open water and hope for the best or target 'ideal habitat' using your knowledge (bedding locations 9/10 times whether ya like it or not) etc etc

 

I'm not trying to debate the ethics of any of it because I think if you're cool sticking a hook into a fish's mouth and pulling her out of her natural environment for a picture - it's all about the same ethically speaking.  Just do your best and take care of the animal you've caught and try to release it safely.

 

Last thing we need is a bunch of anglers on big shame and guilt trips or superiority trips.  It's all good as long as we are trying our best IMHO.

 

I don't want my son to feel sad and ashamed when he catches his first 10 lb female worried she might be pregnant or dying or any of that.  I want him to be happy and proud and soak it in and treat the fish right all at once.

 

The people who should be ashamed are people harvesting beyond a legal limit off of beds or using tech or doing any other such stuff that has ALWAYS been regarded as unwise if you like the sport or even illegal in many instances!

 

People who do these things legally and conscientiously are always the victims of the critics and unfairly so - but the criticism and fear is still very valid.

 

I'm torn for the most part and don't really find myself eager to adopt the technology but I do think it would be interesting to see fish in real time and all that stuff.  The nerd in me likes it.  The outdoorsman thinks it's removing a lot of what makes fishing good.

[Fried Lemons]

10 minutes ago, Texas Flood said:

I can confirm as well as others on here that it is not hogwash. There has been plenty of times I have thrown everything but the kitchen sink and the bass will chase the bait and then swim away.

 

 

 

My point was that it circumvents intuition and knowledge of how to find fish which cheapens the sport, not that it forces fish to bite. You have to trick a fish into biting no matter what tech you are using. 

[Texas Flood]

18 minutes ago, Susky River Rat said:

@Texas Floodwould you have kept casting in the area if that fish wasn’t there or you didn’t have FFS?

Yes but that’s because we knew there was a big drop off. If it was an area we didn’t know well, I probably would’ve given up on that spot well before. 

7 minutes ago, Fried Lemons said:

My point was that it circumvents intuition and knowledge of how to find fish which cheapens the sport, not that it forces fish to bite. You have to trick a fish into biting no matter what tech you are using. 

I completely understand if people feel like it cheapen the spots. For me though, I just wanna have fun catching fish and will use electronics that helps me do that. 
 

 

People might not agree with that, but fishing means something different to everyone. 

[Bird]

No to FFS, I catch to many fish as it is. 😁

[Tennessee Boy]

25 minutes ago, AlabamaSpothunter said:

There's not a piece of technology from yesteryear that even comes close to seeing your bait and fish reactions in real time.   

I would be interested in hearing how seeing fish react to your bait has changed the way you fish.

 

I got my first boat in 1990 and all it came with was a flasher and of course I had paper maps.  I have personally experienced the impact that all of these technologies had on my fishing.  It depends of course on how you fish.  We all fish a little different so the impact that technology has will effect us all differently.  I was an early adopter of GPS.  I paid $460 for a GPS with a 3 inch screen and no mapping in 1996.  In those days the government limited the accuracy of GPS to 100 meters.  My unit was horrible compared to the GPS in any cell phone today.   Still,  it changed what I was able to do like no other technology before or since.  Before GPS you would look at a map, see all of this nice  structure and you would have to ask yourself how long it would take to find it.  It was common to spend an hour or more trying to locate something offshore.  The maps were less accurate and there were things that I was never able to find because they were not really there or because I just could not find them.   With my first GPS I could find anything in 10 minutes.  With today's GPS, I can spot lock on a waypoint and know I'm within casting distance of something.   The impact of GPS for me has come in stages.  My first unit went from 100 meter accuracy to 10 meter accuracy when the government turned off SSA.  My next unit was integrated in my fish finder and had an outline of the lake but no contour lines.   What I have today is amazing.  I see my position on a map with 1 foot contours and I can drop a waypoint on the map,  or from any sonar screen.  I can see something on 360,  put my finger on it,  and tell my trolling motor to circle it.   For the way I fish,  no technology even comes close to GPS in it's impact on the way I fish.  People who have spent their entire adult life with an accurate GPS in their pock have no idea how much of a game changer it has been to fishing.

 

There are a large percentage of anglers that only fish the bank.  For them I'm not sure any technologies matter that much.

[A-Jay]

I do not have or even been on a rig with FFS. 

I am of the mind set of let's wait and see.

This forum has something like 75k registered members and I bet there's at  least 10x that lurking in the shadows.

At some point in the not too distance future, those of us who have been part of this amazing journey for a few decades, will IMO no doubt recognize a change.  The level of significance of this change has yet to be determined.  However if and when the reports thread, and the lastest picture thread starts blowing up with pages upon  pages of posts depicting Giant after Giant bass, being landed by folks with little to no bass fishing experience, that might convinc me that this FFS phase of fishing, is anything more than just that.  

Talented anglers will continue to succeed while others will continue to struggle; with or with out FFS.

Perhaps I'm just in denial, but over the course of the decades I've been at this, countless deals dubbed the next big thing, have ended up just being a thing.

Now after all that, 

I going fishing. 

A-Jay

 

[TnRiver46]

We have an extremely dedicated group of individuals in Knoxville known as CFI, conservation fisheries inc. They have been protecting and literally saving species of fish since the 1980s. If there was a native fish in peril, these guys would be absolutely all over it. As you might have guessed, bass and crappie are not on their list of even a little concern 

https://www.conservationfisheries.org

[Tennessee Boy]

5 minutes ago, TnRiver46 said:

We have an extremely dedicated group of individuals in Knoxville known as CFI, conservation fisheries inc. They have been protecting and literally saving species of fish since the 1970s. If there was a native fish in peril, these guys would be absolutely all over it. As you might have guessed, bass and crappie are not on their list of even a little concern 

https://www.conservationfisheries.org

That's very cool.  I have bookmarked their site. 

 

A few years ago I snapped this picture at the Tennessee aquarium.  It was at the turtle exhibit and they were trying to make a point about turtles but I thought it said something important about bass.  What the graphic shows it how many adult offspring you would have in 9 years from just one animal if ALL of it's offspring survived.  Conclusion,  bass are very good at making more bass.

 

 

[gimruis]

2 hours ago, Tennessee Boy said:

Where do you draw the line in tournaments?

 

The issue as I see it, at least in tournaments, is that there is no line whatsoever with this technology.  Its just "outfit our rig with the most tech possible so we can go to the moon and back" to locate, target, and catch offshore bass.

 

There's a line drawn on hours you can fish.  If you're late, you are DQd.  There's a maxium boat and motor size.  If you are over it, you are DQd.  You can't use live bait or troll.  If you do, you're DQd.  There is a minimum size for entering a legal fish, and the max if 5.  If you are under or over, you are DQd.  There's all these rules set up and there's no limitations on screens or transducers so let's outfit our boats like the interior of a NASA rocket ship.

 

These are professional rigs that have their gear and tech often paid for, or partially paid for.  The problem is that its now filtered down into far less competitive events where participants aren't pros.  They're everyday folks.  They're retired people.  They're high schoolers trying to learn how to fish.  But show up to your local Tuesday night derby with a dozen other boats, and it looks like the 4th stop of the Bassmaster Elite because 10 of them are loaded up with graphs and ducers.  Is this really how we want our competition to look like all the way down to the smallest, least competitive level?

 

If there's limitation at the top, that will filter downwards.  I'm not exactly sure what that would look like but doing nothing isn't working.