Paul Roberts

Get the In-Fisherman Largemouth Bass Handbook of Strategies. It categorizes lake, pond and river types in language commonly used in fishing.

Some studies have shown that it takes very few successful nests to make a strong year class and that other factors cause poor year class success. Some northern studies though have indicated that bed fishing is very deleterious to potential hatch years. I have a friend who is a fisheries biologist in NY and he says he's has seen some serious impacts on smallmouths in the St. Lawrence River from bed fishing for males. From what I've read, in some of the big productive reservoirs in the south, bed fishing may not be as potentially deleterious as it in northern natural lakes, or in small waters I fish. For myself, I've chosen against fishing for male bass on beds for a several reasons: YOY bass are important food for larger bass I've seen this myself. If it were to be a good survival year for young bass then I see that surplus of young bass as a boon for larger bass. Food availability is often a limiting factor for bass growth. In the small waters I fish I'd rather have more fish contributing to the populations than just the few that happened to be lucky or less accessible to anglers. Male bass have a hell of a long arduous job. It is possible to be merciless with vulnerable males, and it seems many people are on the public waters I fish. I've too often seen males caught repeatedly, to exhaustion. Most male bass I see or catch have hook wounds, damaged jaws, even hooks or lures left in them. I personally do not want to participate. I leave bedding males be. I will fish for females though. They are much less vulnerable to repeated capture than males, being generally less pugnacious. They can be especially tough to catch when actually dropping eggs, but I leave these fish be regardless. Females don't hang out for a month guarding eggs and then fry either at least in the north where I fish. I am careful not to re-catch the same females repeatedly and if I see ones that look worn I leave them be, regardless of size. Since I fish small waters I can generally find such fish earlier and later in the year. I do a lot of observing during the spawn, a great time to assess a water's potential for bigger fish. For myself, I don't wrestle anymore with the ethical issue of whether my beliefs can hold up when money, or more accurately, ego, is on the line. I don't NEED a quick limit, or a kicker. I work within the ethical and sporting limits I've set for myself. This works best for me. Every impulsive thing I've ever done has left whatever victory I had, hollow.

Interesting BassChaser. Thanks for the details. I'd heard of cirrus clouds coming ahead of fronts but never really knew what they were about. Thanks.

I'm not a tournament fisher, it's more about nature study for me. Man, I'm just fascinated by it all. My Dad was a professional illustrator and he loved to go sketching. He also loved to fish too, so we did both together. I eventually went into the sciences so my journals are part data to answer the "burning questions", and part romance.

Please, bore us!

Sorry I don't fish down there. There are public ponds and reservoirs of various sizes around there though. Check the Colorado DOW (Division of Wildife) site and search Colorado fishing and check for public waters around Castle Rock and South Denver.

Sorry Muddy. Been there done that. I write for myself now. But...if you can teach me how to measure color penetration and the bass perception of it with my finger, I'll make an exception!

I've kept a fishing journal for a long time now. My first entry was in May 1976. Wow, I guess I've broken 30 years. I wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for the 9 volumes on the bookcase and the graying hair in my mirror. I also wouldn't remember half of what actually transpired on all those fishing days. Memory, it turns out, is really a lot of subjective mush not unlike dreams. Here are some suggestions, through my filter: There are lots of recipe book type logs out there that offer a list of things to fill in. I think these simply leave too much out and lack the flexibility and space for the information that really fleshes out a day on the water. There are also on-line databases you can buy, which I think is overkill. I just never record enough actual data, and there are so many variables to be considered. Things like weather trends, fish behaviors, and presentation details are rarely cookbook enough to fit neatly into a field, either digital or on paper. My journals have been kept in archive quality (acid free) 8½x11 artist's sketchbooks that start as just blank pages. I write sort of the way I'd tell a friend about how the day went; what worked or didn't, and what was interesting. More recently I've begun using word processing software on my computer to create entries, which helps a lot in organizing and editing. I then transfer this to my bound journals. Not everything is in prose though. I dutifully keep some data that are important, and these lead off every entry, following the date: Bod(ies) of Water: This is made obvious (in brackets) at the top of the entry so I can later refer back to specific waters easily. Weather: The trend over the last few days is critical, as well as through the day as I fish. Sky, water surface conditions, and water clarity (they are related in effect): changes through the day as I fish and how I adapted to them. Water Temp: I always record surface temps when I arrive and when I leave, in roughly the same location usually right at shore somewhere that gets direct sun representing the upper limit of direct conduction. I try to take the temp at exactly the same depth (4) because it can be cooler at say 8 as heat does not penetrate far the depths are warmed over time by convection, and mixing. This recording is a benchmark telling me how rapidly the day is able to heat or cool the water. I also record surface temps out over open water in several places as I fish. Then, I record temps where it might be different: windward and lee shores, sheltered coves, inlets etc. I usually record a couple profiles as well, to keep track of convection. I've always done this for trout religiously but only relatively recently for bass. It has proved worthwhile, helping me understand and better judge how weather, temp, and fish relate. When I trout fished a lot it got so I could put my hand in and judge temp accurately sort of like Muddy can do with color . But I don't fish that much anymore. Wind: Wind affects water temperature distribution which can affect fish distribution. Wind also affects surface and water conditions which affects fish spookiness, and their response to lure types and finishes. Biological activity: I may describe any interesting activity: Insect emergences (Yes for bass too bc insects are preyfish food midge hatches are worth fishing!), plankton blooms, flowering times, even snakes in the road or frogs on the shore sunning. I record when various fish are spawning and where, any observed behaviors, size (for age) classes of fish seen, etc... . Doing this I've been able to discover strong hatch years of bass in my ponds and follow up down the road with satisfying results. Presentation: I usually highlight lure configurations, and relevant tackle choices, and how and why they worked, or didn't. Catches: Size (actual) and numbers. I try to tally every fish. I keep a little notebook in my pocket for notes. Don't trust your memory it's very subjective, and this gets worse the more time has passed from the event -and I mean days, even hours. It seems I begin re-writing history almost immediately! Sketches: I'll diagram (sketch) the ponds, lakes, or areas in lakes, recording locations of interest. I download aerial maps of these to get the shape and locations right. I sketch in bottom contours and cover, my positioning, and use symbols for wind direction and fish locations and catches. I may also sketch insects, fish, fish colorations or markings, or lure configurations anything of particular interest. I try to journal that night when I return home. If I don't a lot of the day is lost, and I end up with mostly some hollow data. It's the thoughts, impressions, and ideas that flesh out the day. The data is important, and is the bare minimum. A really good journal entry though reads like a good fishing article, and focused on your very own piece of water. Sounds like a lot, and can be. But it gets easier when you are in the habit. It also helps if you are fascinated by now nature works and love to write too wish I had more time for both. Some example pages:

Wait and see. This pond may be fine. I certainly wouldn't write off a pond because of otters. They may end up specializing in certain size fish -likely the most abundant of a certain size. This would be a great question for DNR people working on their otter reintroduction project. You know, you can expect ponds to vary over the years in bass populations anyway. Otters or not, your pond may end up with some poor hatch years, and poorer fishing down the road. It's pretty common to have waters become hot fisheries, then poor, then hot again. This is more than norm than otherwise. I'd definitely report your otter sighting to the DNR. They will probably want to know about them, if they don't already. If anything, one of the cool things about being anglers is the cool things we get to see that so many others don't.

Hester, I never knew muskrats would eat fish. Neat! I'll adjust my record LOL Regardless, fish certainly isn't a their usual food. I certainly wouldn't be too concerned about them, or beavers. I have seen where 'rats can affect pond levels slightly by burrowing into the dam causing leaks. I worked at a private duck preserve that maintained several ponds and the beavers would sometimes dam up the overflow. Man what a job to clear that out! Several ponds I fish have beavers (all have muskrats), and the DOW has erected a chicken wire fence at the outlet, and around some of the trees around the pond. They've also fenced the area around the beaver dam so no one will disturb them. I enjoy seeing them. Man, I'd LOVE to see otters.

For the record: Beavers and muskrats both are rodents and both are herbivores. They do not eat fish. Beavers eat the cambium layer of certain trees and shrubs. 'Rats especially love cattail roots. Both make mound nests where material is available. Otherwise they dig burrows at waterline. Otters are carnivores that specialize on fish. They are threatened or endangered over most of their range. It would be a serious legal offense to disturb them in any way. In fact, I highly doubt there are otters in VA, but I'd check that out. Bass are ubiquitous, otters threatened to endangered everywhere. Beavers and 'rats won't bother the bass.

I have such a bait too. It was a cheap knock-off topwater that never worked right. It was a slim shape that came with fore and aft propellers. I took them off and it's slim nose would allow it to dive like a torpedo and then bob back up nose first, appearing to nearly leap out of the water. Man bass would crush it at times. I still use it. The Subwalk is essentially the same thing, but not so buoyant.

Kevin, Are these tough days you are describing always sunny bluebird days? Curious. Paul

Nice review, thanks ghost. I bought a couple too. If the lure has good action then there will be times when we can make it work. In ghost's particular case my guess is the shad in the area, many likely winter weakened, had a lot to do with the fast action. Nice to know the Subwalk shined there. Like your color choices too -a natural for clear water and the pearl for murkier water. I'm also assuming this early spring water had suspended material in it and that pearl Subwalk did a good job of looking and acting like a loopy shad! Again, very nice review.

I'd noticed that some of the best small bass waters I've fished for larger bass, had pike, or in one case pickeral, in them. And I'd assumed it had to do with pike keeping bluegills and small bass in check, allowing surviving bass better growth. I currently live in Colorado and there is a lake here with largemouths WAY above the norm in size. It has produced many bass over 7lbs, and even a 13-1/2lb that surpassed the state record by 2 lbs and was released. This lake too has pike, and some big ones. I'd always wondered whether pike could be a good management tool for large bass fisheries in some circumstances. Many managers argue, though, that most anglers would not be happy with large bass management because such waters often result in fewer smaller bass that would offer "numbers" fishing -the type most anglers like.

RoLo, Excellent!

It concentric: Pick the right lake/pond Pick the best area of the lake/pond for the season Find out the best structure for the season and conditions Find the best cover/breaks on the structure for that time Divine the best tackle, lures and presentation Fine tune the presentation Adjust as things change All the pieces mentioned in the original post are important. You just have to rule out the wrongs and narrow down the rights...

Hey Marty, I'm originally from the Rochester area. The rest of my clan are all there. I cut my teeth so to speak, for bass anyway, at Mendon Ponds.

If you are curious about the bass' world, and how bass perceive their world, it's a great book. It about the science, and written by a scientist; albeit one who works for a large tackle manufacturer. He appears to take the spirit of science appropriately, not dismissing the industry but not distorting information either. His writing is not entertaining. I'm not convinced this book will help anglers add fish to their livewells directly, but may help us make better decisions on the water; at least in helping dispel some misunderstandings about how bass operate, what their limitations are, and some things might influence a bass' decision to take. A good example is the section on scent: There are a whole lot of things out there touted as attractants that fish simply can't smell -they lack the receptors for these substances. We probably catch a lot of bass in spite of ourselves. Always dissappointing is the fact that science moves at a tedious snails' pace -just chipping away at the world making us realize we'll be long dead before they really figure it all out. So, the experiments described offer a bit of insight each, and beg for whole lot more.

This is my rig. The motor is off it right now. I was using a 20hp but it scared me a little.

Hmmmm...I'm not so big on football...and I do love walleyes and perch caught through the ice...And another thing, I like my tomatoes red! End of subject! LOL

Powerman, LOL a record per zip code! That's good. I might just have mine LOL! My point isn't about world records, although admittedly that's what the original post mentioned. It's about the appropriate perception and recognition of big bass. A glaring example is the BassMaster "Lunker Club" that only recognizes 10lb and up largemouths. In more than half the country, that's not even possible! What's up BassMaster?? You have readers all over the country, and some pretty proud anglers with their 6 or 7lb northern largemouths! (Is that akin to a 10lb florida?? I dunno what the number might be.) Correct me if I'm wrong Johnnydel, but I think that was the gist of the thread?

Johnnydel, your NOT a "loser", and that's the real point here. The magazines that tout only floridanus subspecies bass, and those that get sucked into the myth, are the real losers. And by "losers" I don't mean the derogatory sense of the word here. It's a lost perception of what a 3, 4, or 6lb bass means in most waters.

Excellent question -holy moly! Excellent responses too. I agree, without expensive genetic testing, maintaining meaningful "official" records would be impossible. But, this does not mean that magazines, and angler webpages couldn't offer meaningful recognition of angler catches, for boasting (not my thing) and better, for the information. This might be done on a regional (like IF does it), or better, a state by state basis. I think states with a known history of Florida strain bass stocking could be highlighted in red, as well. The largest northern subspecies largemouth ever caught was a 15+ freak taken in MA. Otherwise all others seem to peak out in the 11lb range. An accurately weighed 6lb northern largemouth is a rare fish in the majority of lakes and ponds throughout the country. Maybe an 8 in the south, although again I think floridanus states should be noted. BassMaster magazine's Lunker Club only recognizes bass over 10lbs! This entirely precludes entry for the majority of anglers across the country. I also think it sets an unreachable bar and set of expectations for anglers around the country. I have to say I'm tired of hearing about 10lb bass here in the north. Every kid has a story of such mythical beasts seen, lost, or caught by a buddy. I don't mind the sharing of the dream; It's the unrealistic proportions of that dream that bothers me. Not that there aren't 8 and even 10lb bass in the north, but not in the frequency I hear of them. I think a lot of this has to do with the unreal expectations set up by the media (magazines and TV bassin'). Excellent topic.

Ditto the Sternberg book(s). Oooops! Somewhere you'd talked about wind. Guess it was another post.