Im a little torn on this. I don't have the brain power to sort this all out right now but I can be hammered on a frog and switch to a bluegill type lure and fish it in the same area and near surface and catch nothing but a tired arm. similar if I switched to a wake bait that's just sub surface.

 

Im thinking more along the lines of survival and oppounistic tendencies with a splash of learned very primitive "favorites". I hunt and eat dear but don't eat coyote or squirrels or mice but you throw me in the wilderness with nothing and anything that comes my way that looks like I can eat it wuthout taking damage is ending up in my stomach. If I eat a mouse or small bird and find it was less worth the effort than other game I'd steer away from it if I was given more favorable options, but would absolutely eat them if my other sources became slim in the moment. 

 

On the fish side we say a lake populated with shad will usually be the favored table fare over bluegill. My fishing experience mirrors this as I've caught maybe a handful of fish with bluegill colors vs the many many fish with shad colors. If bass eat what is an opportunity than why do we see the above preference? Shouldn't they be eaten comparatively?

 

I belive they are opportunistic with a bit of preference when they aren't starved enough to strike anything that moves. I believe it's a mix of matching what they prefer and what WE can present the best to them. This is why @TnRiver46 can only catch weeds on a spinnerbait but some of us is our favors lure and why most of you can hammer them on jigs but all I catch are rocks.

@Functional, I wish! We don’t have weeds 😂 

This is a very interesting thread.  I've been following it but have not had time to respond  in detail until now.

 

I’m not a neuroscientist but I’m fascinated by the way the brain works and I’ve read a number of book on the topic that were written for novices like me.  We often project our own thoughts, emotions, and reasoning abilities onto animals. It’s a natural tendency — we try to make sense of the world by using our own minds as the reference point. This is a mistake when trying to understand how fish “think”.  To understand how a fish brain works you need to understand the differences and similarities between our brain and theirs.

 

At the center of human consciousness is the neocortex. This is where conscious thought occurs. The neocortex enables reasoning, abstract thinking, complex planning, language, and a sense of self-awareness. When you decide where to go fishing and where to cast, that’s your neocortex at work.

 

Fish, by contrast, do not have a neocortex. Their brains are dominated by structures similar to the more primitive regions of the human brain, such as the brainstem and limbic system — areas that control instinct, reflexes, and basic survival behaviors. These structures are highly effective for responding quickly to stimuli, but they do not produce anything close to the layered, reflective cognition humans experience.

 

Fish brains operate in a world of immediate responses: reacting to sudden movements, adjusting to changes in light or current, or striking at prey that enters their strike zone. This is not thought in the way humans think of thought; it is stimulus and response.

 

If you want to understand how fish “think,” you need to stop imagining human-like thought in them and instead look inward — at the primitive, automatic parts of your own brain. Consider what happens when you pull your hand away from a hot surface. You don’t stop to reason through the pain; your body reacts reflexively. That reaction — fast, unconscious, and automatic — is closer to how a fish processes its environment.

 

This does not mean fish are mindless. They have forms of memory, they can learn to associate signals with food, and are capable of surprisingly complex behaviors. But these behaviors are built on instinctive and adaptive programming rather than conscious analysis. A bass does not “decide” in the human sense — it is responding to hard wired signals triggered by shape, movement, vibration, context and who knows what else.

 

A book I recently read told of a scientific experiment that demonstrates a fishes cognitive ability.  They put a fish (didn't say what species) in a tank with a clear divider that had a hole in it.  The fish quickly found the hole and used to hole to move from one side of the tank to the other.  Then they dropped food on the opposite side of the tank from the fish.  The fish tried to swim directly toward the food and hit the divider.  It could not get to the food.  It was able to map out it's environment and use the hole to navigate in that environment but could not cognitively understand that to get to the food on the other side of the tank it needed to go through the hole.  The fish was able to react to the food being in the tank but was not able to do the analysis needed to solve the problem posed by the divider.

13 hours ago, Bird said:

Maybe this hobby is easier than we think, just make a ruckus and they are willing to dine.

Except for the days that stealthy and subdued are the only thing that work.

 

I think this is more tied to water clarity than anything else, but still a factor to consider.

Edited August 23, 2025Aug 23 by ElGuapo928

I want to know why a bass thinks my fishing buddy's frog is something good to eat, but thinks mine is nothing more than an expensive piece of plastic.  I also want to know how a bass knows what lure in my tackle box I only have one of, and why the bass will wait until I have a backlash to hit the one and only lure.

 

I also wonder if in every lake the bass have a museum of lures.  Do they take their kids to the museum and tell them all about what the lures were like in the old days.  Do the kids look at their parents and whisper to each other, can you believe how dumb my dad was to think that was something to eat, look at the giant old hooks, the paint job looks like something out of a cartoon, and what about that piece of ugly mono tied to the lure, even a blind bass could see that from a mile off.   Then mom tells them they are sure lucky there was a branch nearby when she got hooked by the old Hula Popper, or they wouldn't even be around to laugh at their parents.

14 hours ago, Bird said:

 

 

Maybe this hobby is easier than we think, just make a ruckus and they are willing to dine.

Just as a comparison, 30 years back, hunting was a silent sport.  You walked on tiptoes in the forest, not talking, hoping not to step on a branch, even standing still.  Today, they crash antlers against trees, the call out and break branches with their hands and it works.  There are no steadfast rules.

28 minutes ago, Reel said:

Just as a comparison, 30 years back, hunting was a silent sport.  You walked on tiptoes in the forest, not talking, hoping not to step on a branch, even standing still.  Today, they crash antlers against trees, the call out and break branches with their hands and it works.  There are no steadfast rules.

Going back to the original question: Are bass seing what we think there seing ?

 

No.  Bass see a disturbance on the surface and their instinct  associates it with the satisfaction (need) of eating.  If that disturbance is similar to one a couple of hours ago that ended up a satisfactory meal, you have a good change that it will hit your frog. 

17 hours ago, king fisher said:

I'm going way out on a limb here, but I don't believe the age old written in stone theory about a lure looking like an injured minnow.  Everyone knows a predator fish wants to eat injured or dying prey because they are week, and an easy meal.  That is written in the law book of fishing.  My question to those that can quote the fishing law book word for word, and twice on Sunday. Is why when I fish live bait for predatory fish, do they not hit a bait that is acting wounded or weak?  They only hit the ones that are the most alive and healthy?  There I said it.  Go ahead and kick me out of fishing law school, and never let me into the fisherman's prayer group, but first answer my question. 

That is a dang good point.

---------

The theory as to why a bass eats shad vs bluegill when perhaps a bluegill happens to be handy to eat got me to thinking.

 

I can think of 2 reasons.

 

Taste. Perhaps bluegill don't taste as good as shad do.

 

Fun. Perhaps it's more fun to chase shad. Other animals play, so perhaps bass enjoy the hunt for the sake of hunting.

7 minutes ago, Bazoo said:

That is a dang good point.

---------

The theory as to why a bass eats shad vs bluegill when perhaps a bluegill happens to be handy to eat got me to thinking.

 

I can think of 2 reasons.

 

Taste. Perhaps bluegill don't taste as good as shad do.

 

Fun. Perhaps it's more fun to chase shad. Other animals play, so perhaps bass enjoy the hunt for the sake of hunting.

How much validity there is to this I don’t know, but the theory used to be that shad were preferred prey based on bluegills’ spiny dorsal fins being able to lodge in their gullet. 
 

I can say that threadfins are the number one prey hacked up in my livewell most of the year. 

17 hours ago, king fisher said:

I'm going way out on a limb here, but I don't believe the age old written in stone theory about a lure looking like an injured minnow.  Everyone knows a predator fish wants to eat injured or dying prey because they are week, and an easy meal.  That is written in the law book of fishing.  My question to those that can quote the fishing law book word for word, and twice on Sunday. Is why when I fish live bait for predatory fish, do they not hit a bait that is acting wounded or weak?  They only hit the ones that are the most alive and healthy?  There I said it.  Go ahead and kick me out of fishing law school, and never let me into the fisherman's prayer group, but first answer my question. 

Let's talk about live bait & how bass respond to it. All experienced live bait fisherman strive to get wild shiners versus domestic shiners. They want fresh bait that has been conditioned or hardened and they want the most lively bait available. None of the above lends evidence to bass preferring wounded or weak bait. But there are exceptions to the rule. A well known bass guide on Stickmarsk/Farm 13 almost always fished the same area. It was a dead end cut abutting a water control structure.There was a heavy mat of vegetation at the end. He would work through dozens upon dozens of live shiners in a single outing every day, week after week. He was basically baiting the area like a corn dump attracting deer. When he ran out of live bait he started using up the dead bait left over to extend the fishing time for his clients. After a while he noticed the live bait wasn't getting the same attention as before. He decided to try a dead bait instead & got bit quickly. For a period of several weeks he found out the dead shiners out fished the live shiners. We surmised that maybe the bass were becoming conditioned to the live bait & getting hooked frequently. This body of water is catch & release only so the frequency of the same fish being caught over & over is common. Eventually the live bait preference returned. How much effect does conditioning have on bass behavior & feeding? We all know how conditioning does affect our pets. 

No one has mentioned the lateral line. Every fish that swims has one and vibrations in the water can be detected through the lateral line.

 

Some of the water I’m fishing this time of year is like pea soup. Ain’t no way they are using their vision as the primary means of finding prey; they are feeling it in the water column.

45 minutes ago, gim said:

No one has mentioned the lateral line. Every fish that swims has one and vibrations in the water can be detected through the lateral line.

 

Some of the water I’m fishing this time of year is like pea soup. Ain’t no way they are using their vision as the primary means of finding prey; they are feeling it in the water column.

Another very good point, also piggybacks onto the argument of them getting spooky from sonar pinging. 

I wonder if shad make a noise. I know some fish do, catfish and drum. I wonder if shad make some kind of noise similiar to a clicking sound, and thats why rattling lures do so well, and why changing the rattle sound helps with pressured fish.

 

It would also explain why the clicking of the hooks does not deter bass.

 

I'll have to do some research on the matter.

6 minutes ago, Bazoo said:

 

I'll have to do some research on the matter.

 

Let us know what you discover, Bazoo. I'm curious too: It's a good question.

2 hours ago, Swamp Girl said:

 

Let us know what you discover, Bazoo. I'm curious too: It's a good question.

About 15 minutes produced this...

 

https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/b354cb49-af8a-4611-8726-0cf10a8ccf96

 

I haven't found anything on threadfin yet.

-----

Addendum, by all information I can find, threadfin are not soniferous.

Oh what @gim mentioned about sound and lateral lines.

I was fishing Rainbow River, crystal clear, 72*, eel grass bottom, for the most part. The most frustrated place I’ve ever fished.
Texas rigged ribbon tail, no bites, nibbles or even chasing it. I put in a worm rattle. On my third cast, I had a fish on. It was small, very small, 6” maybe. Got 4 more, nothing over 10”, but the bite was on.

I believe it was the rattle that triggered the bites.

 So it just not what they see it can also be what they feel.

A jerk bait, lipless and others put off vibrations even with out the rattles. 
Great thread @Swamp Girl.

@Bazoo I had no idea Shad made noise… thanks. 

12 hours ago, gim said:

No one has mentioned the lateral line. Every fish that swims has one and vibrations in the water can be detected through the lateral line.

 

Some of the water I’m fishing this time of year is like pea soup. Ain’t no way they are using their vision as the primary means of finding prey; they are feeling it in the water column.

You’re right.  I recall seeing results of studies examining feeding behaviors that found that when bass were ‘blinded’ through the manipulation of light, their feeding behavior was negatively impacted. This was not the case when deprived of the input provided by their lateral line system.  When relying on vision alone, they seemed to need to be much closer to the prey before deciding to strike and were less successful.  When relying on only the lateral line and the spatial information it provides, their success was not affected as much.  Another observation I found interesting was that without the information gathered by the lateral line, fish relied more on inhaling food than attacking and ‘biting’ it.  

While these studies may not have addressed what bass see, they did provide some answers on how they ‘see’ it.  

On 8/22/2025 at 3:43 PM, Rockhopper said:

I disagree with this completely

Me too, the forage in the waterways are well known and because of this Lure Manufacturers have designed baits to mimic nature. 
 

Match the hatch isn’t just a saying it’s factual and is well known and understood by fisherman. This is in all water, fresh or salt, highland reservoirs, natural lakes, swift rivers, lazy rivers, streams, creeks, farm ponds. 
 

I would encourage anyone to read and study Doug Hannon’s work. 
 

Enticing a largemouth to strike is a different topic all together and it’s why we say the words, “reaction strikes”

Pods of baitfish (shad) golden shiners etc, have been recorded making sounds and our rattle baits try to emulate this and are in fact successful. Crayfish make clicking sounds and it’s why some of our jigs have rattle bands on them and are usually dressed with a crawfish imitation.. 

 

It's an interesting topic and whole books have been written on the subject of LMB behavior, covering the topics we’re discussing here plus effects of weather, high pressure vs low pressure, structure types, deep vs shallow, moon phases, insect hatches and crawfish hatches. Tidal influences and sunlight and its biological effects. 

 

20 minutes ago, F14A-B said:

On 8/22/2025 at 3:43 PM, Rockhopper said:

I disagree with this completely

Me too, the forage in the waterways are well known and because of this Lure Manufacturers have designed baits to mimic nature. 
 

Match the hatch isn’t just a saying it’s factual and is well known and understood by fisherman.

 

If this were true, then lures that look the most like forage fish would always catch the most bass. Also, lures that look like nothing in nature that bass eat, like my Shimano Flashboost pink popper, would catch no bass. However, that little lure has caught hundreds of bass for me. 

Long and short of it is that bass do not necessarily or even often think they are eating when they strike a lure at all!  A lot of times they’re instinctively driving things away from an area that they are compelled to protect biologically.

Vibration, scent, profile, sink/float rate, action. I think on days this order varies. I don’t even look at what I throw as food. I don’t look at my lures as mimicking something else.  I look for what is triggering them. Is it a square bill grinding bottom? Is it the thump of blades? Is it the painful slow sink of the fluke?  It can be the most realistic looking bait ever. I still look at what is triggering. Bass see, smell, taste. They do not have hands so they use their mouths for feeling. 

11 minutes ago, Pat Brown said:

Long and short of it is that bass do not necessarily or even often think they are eating when they strike a lure at all!  A lot of times they’re instinctively driving things away from an area that they are compelled to protect biologically.

Very true.  Outside of the spawn, bass seem to generally become more territorial and more likely to exhibit defensive behaviors with age especially when resources like food and desirable habitat like structure, water health, temperature, food, etc. become restricted.  I have often wondered when a bass seems content to just bang my bait rather than eat it if I’m in an area that for whatever reason holds fewer fish, and the fish banging my bait isn’t hungry but simply defending its spot.  On a few occasions, I’ve been able to revisit the area.  Once in awhile I’ve been lucky and pulled a fish out of that spot when, I guess, the fish was as much in the mood to eat as defend.

41 minutes ago, Pat Brown said:

A lot of times they’re instinctively driving things away from an area that they are compelled to protect biologically.

 

I agree.

 

37 minutes ago, Susky River Rat said:

They do not have hands so they use their mouths for feeling. 

 

I agree again.

 

 

I see both of the above some mornings with a surface lure. Some mornings they inhale. Some mornings they bump.

17 minutes ago, Pat Brown said:

Long and short of it is that bass do not necessarily or even often think they are eating when they strike a lure at all!  A lot of times they’re instinctively driving things away from an area that they are compelled to protect biologically.

That’s what I addressed as a reaction strike. The only time I’ve ever seen a LMB react aggressively was on the bed or while feeding or( protecting a nest) I’ve seen males and females do that. When schooling bass are feeding on a ball of shad let’s say, then often a large white Zara Spook can draw strikes, or a rattle trap. Those fish are feeding and feeding LMB have different behaviors than fish that are suspended at 24 feet on a ledge in Kentucky lake. We burn very large crank baits to elicit reaction strikes from non-feeding Bass. It works and it can fire up a school. I’ve seen guys catch doubles doing it. 

 

3 hours ago, OldManLure said:

You’re right.  I recall seeing results of studies examining feeding behaviors that found that when bass were ‘blinded’ through the manipulation of light, their feeding behavior was negatively impacted. This was not the case when deprived of the input provided by their lateral line system.  When relying on vision alone, they seemed to need to be much closer to the prey before deciding to strike and were less successful.  When relying on only the lateral line and the spatial information it provides, their success was not affected as much.  Another observation I found interesting was that without the information gathered by the lateral line, fish relied more on inhaling food than attacking and ‘biting’ it.  

While these studies may not have addressed what bass see, they did provide some answers on how they ‘see’ it.  

Would you happen to know anything about those studies? The names? The place they were published?