Maineiac

Yup, I'm another newbie too and you have it pegged. Great info, considered judgements and folks willing to try any thing if it catches fish. I have learned a great deal on here. I know I have asked some pretty different questions and they have all been treated with respect.It is a real blast when I have found moments when I have been able to contribute in a meaningfull manner. 26 days till open water fishing and I found a spot today that one might be able to get a couple of flips into between the ice cap. GO ICE, GO ICE, GO ICE.........anyone know a dance that would make this chant more effective? Not that strip necked, paint your body blue, run outside and dive into a snowbank one from last year........that one doesn't work......besides the Finns up the road do it for sport all winter....and I think they like the ice....odd people. But I digress, great site. Still looking up stuff from a couple of the threads from earlier this winter.

Hey this is fun. You know how Senkos are forever wanting to slide back down over the eye of the hook when you are Texas rigging them on EWG hooks. I got really tired of it especially on the 7" ones when I fished them in deep weed. So now I first tie my line to a number 2 or number 3 black crosslock snap and then attach that to my hook. When I run the hook into the bait I just go enough deeper to allow the snap to be pulled into the head of the bait. Bait stays put and if I want to change out hooks no big deal. If you are out experimenting with tubes hunting for the right color or size it can be a pain if you are using regular insert jig heads. So if I know I am going to be trying a number of different tubes I tie on a 3/16 or 1/4 oz. mushroom head jig and fish the tubes of that. The good ones have larger hooks like VMC Barbarians or Gammys so you get the same good hooksets and the distribution of weight is such that you get a great glide out of the bait when you work it. If your looking for them check out Gopher Tackle or Stamina both have about the same thing. I fish grubs and worms and all sorts of plastic this way. For those of you that live near salt water have you ever noticed the buckets of cheap 5 and 6 inch shad bodies that they sell for stripers and blues? Color is often called mackerel and is a blueish green tint with black bars on it. Grab a handfull the next time you intend to go weed or slop fishing, take one and rig it flat Texas style on a 4/0 or 5/0 EWG hook. I prefer the Gammy Super Braid ones but thats just me. Remember don't try to get the bait to ride normally upright but flat. Make sure you goop the bait up good with something Like Smelly Jelly to help it slide through the weed and for the aroma. At the lake find a big ole weed flat and just start winding the super mackerel out and working it on the surface like one of those fancy paddle/flap tail worms. Work it spluttering across the surface first and then if that doesn't do it let it drop into openings and twitch swim it along to the next weed. Nothing new here but it can be cheaper than some plastic if you keep your eyes open and big fish seem to like it if they are in the weeds.

Yup good stuff but as always why does it seem that the more we learn the more we want to know? The Hope studies were indeed ground breaking and the basic information they put into the bass information base is still, as on this forum being looked at and relearned. For those of us in the Northern tier though some studies out of Ontario may be a little more usefull. In-Fisherman has published sereral of them over the years and if I can find them again I will get them on here for all to look at. I think one still needs to be carefull with any of these studies for reasons that have been mentioned on here more than once. Every lake is to some extent different. LM are indeed LM but differences in things like water temps, forage bases and even varriatons in bottom topography or seasonal varriations in cover. Another thread on here that looked at different ways to keep fishing records is nothing more than an extension of this and the more that each of us do of it on our own the more each of us will know about the nuances of fish movement on our home waters.

For years this state has distributed neat little printed log books that some of us up here have kept for the State Fish and Game biologists. Pretty much standard data as has been listed in a print format and there have even been some instances where they were looking for specific info on certain lakes where I have sent it in at the end of the year with digital pictures and even little envelopes of scale samples. But my wife found a computer program that I am getting more comfortable with. I record info on the water and she enters it in as I turn the sheets into her. It seems pretty comprehensive for the price and I suspect can do a great deal more than I want or need. Its from a little outfit called MCM Software and its called Fishing Organizer Log 2002. I figured for 15 bucks I wouldn't be out that much if it flopped and so far I have been pleased. I just didn't have the computer skills some of you apparently do and wussed out with a turnkey product. But it is interesting the stuff that can come back to you at the end of a season if you have captured some of the data and for someone like me that can't remember stuff its a must.

RW lets take your concept even one more step. I would be willing to bet the majority of state record fish game by chance. And that most of these fish were not even caught by what we would probably refer to as serious fishermen. Now as more folks get serious about chasing big fish that could change but it will take time. All of you are right about the mind set thing. I still find I can not do the big fish or bust thing to the exclusion of every thing else the way I should. I still chase a number of tourneys and that kind of makes things confusing at times. I think one of the more interesting things for me though has been trying to incorporate more big fish techniques into my tourney fishing. It does indeed take a different mindset but on the right water at the right time it is simply productive. I only fish team tourneys these days and I have found not every partner wants to take the gamble doing this can present. So I'm down to a couple guys that are willing to put in the effort to learn something new and then try and use it in tourneys. But we are having a great time and the winter has flown by to this point as we have tried to continue our learning process.

Most of our states have good colleges and universities and if any of yours have a biology or wildlife program it is an even bet they have studenst or staff that have done research on the forage base of local lakes. A contact to the local school will tell you what you have and I have found them more than willing to share such information or point you to where it is kept. After that as has been mentioned the state fish and game folks are usually great.

I guess as they say not an assignment requiring a rocket scientist at least to get started. Find our your fishing a lake on a given date and get out the lake map books. Once you have gotten comfortable with where what is and those areas that allign with what you already know about similar seasonal patterns on similar lakes then it is time to head to the lake. Once at the lake it is all about water clarity, water temp and wind up here. I suspect RW would also make a check of things like current ( a fact I was rather oblivious of until he brought it up) After that I like to cruise selected areas slowly and watch my electronics. Generally when I am doing this I run the console unit in split screen 2-D/3-D and try to start figuring out where the bait is and how fish are relating to structure. After that it is all about covering some area and letting the fish tell me where they are and what they want.

Info that also reminds one of the importance of feel in fishing a C-rig. Even after I mostly broke myself of holding the rod wrong (can a guy that fishes a jig and pig alot ever completly break themself?) and forcing myself to drag rather than lift and drop I still didn't start to have the success I should have until I went to a rod with some backbone but that still had decent sensitivity. Then I smartened up and went to a main line using Super Braid and a flurocarbon leader. First time out I was amazed at what I was feeling including fish. I find that the more I can feel of bottom with my rig the better I am at holding the rod correctly and fishing the rig right. So if your struggeling with this rig up so you can feel what you are doing and you will do better all around. Least it has helped me.

Not even sure this is a newbie question as I have seen some pretty good fishermen second guess themselves. If you only just barely put the point of the hook under the plastic and are using the new generation of hooks we have available to us I doubt you will ever have a problem setting the hook on a fish. I will some times even fish smaller worms T rigged weedless on line as light as 6 pound test and using a 1/0 or maybe 2/0 Gammy EWG I can get a good consistant hookset. It is all about how deep you burry the point. It only has to be ever so slightly under the surface and if you have it right you will occasionaly find that the point will work it self out into an exposed position simply from the pressure of being dragged accross the bottom. With heavier gear/line and thicker cover I don't even hesitate putting the point in deep enough to allow me to drag through brush piles and stumps. With the hook in that deep I want a stout rod and good line and will put some beef into the hookset but I still have little trouble getting a hookset. So don't worry rig it weedless and fish the thick stuff.

Ok RoLo but I have no idea why you would see the need to appologize to me. Nor anyone else for that matter. I look forward to getting home in the evening and checking out BR and what new gems are in the offing for that day. Becoming a better fisherman as has been so often pointed out on here takes time and effort and particularly time on the water. For those of us that live in areas that are seemingly tucked up to the next ice age that time on the water thing gets a little skewed and that is where a forum such as the ones we have access to on BR become so important to us. Trying to keep the learning process going in the winter is hard. But here I sit on a day when the outside thermometer hovers at near zero with a blizzard on its way and I have my book of marked up lake maps beside my chair and I find myself setting up for the tourney season by comparing threads on here to conditions that I know or suspect. I haven't seen anything on here that has been disrespectful to considered input. Even when folks have wandered off where their minds have taken them folks have pretty much gone with the flow and just nudged things back into forum line (something other sites can't always lay a claim to). I have days I almost *** Matt and George and the others that have a more stable fishery and have even found input from the South I have filed away for those moments up here when it actually does warm up (hey I saw water temps hit 80.5 once last year, for about 3 hours) (ok 2 days later it was 75 but that is warm water fishing? Right?) Anyway RW had it right on a 5 star rating for some of your stuff and I would say the same for much of this thread. Hats off to Matt for starting it. RW I didn't stop to think about the riverine nature of your fishing world. Had I done so it would have been obvious that the current factor would have a serious effect on any kind of thermocline factor. D U H. I think you are right on though about structure and smallies. I can count a few lakes where deep weed can mean quality smallies but for the most part it has always been drops and rocks. I have just returned to spending much time on rivers for bass and the resivoir as a fishing pond so I'll probably be a pest on that issue too. Anyway thanks for all the info and allowing a frozen out fisherman a place to muse on what he thinks he is learning.

My foster brother came home safley from Korea in 1954 and on July 4th of that summer we had a big cook out and family get together at the local pond. While there I got to fish a worm under a bobber and at the age of 6 caught my first bass. Big it wasn't but I was hookedand have been ever since. Dad and my uncle would take me meat fishing for perch and bullheads and that was a blast. Dad loved stream fishing for brookies and I never really got into it the same as he did but loved fishing with him for pickerel for chowder fish for gram. It was after marrying and meeting my first wifes uncle that I got hopelessly adicted to basfishing in the early 70's that I really headed down this slippery road to fishing perditon and have loved all of it. Now it's all about turning on the grandsons to what their great grandfather and great granduncle turned me on to. Got two hooked one to go. Hey he's over 2 now and times awasting.

Matt not sure your last post served the purpose you intended. It did seem to shut down a rather productive and informative thread. The whole point has been or seems to have been that good fish can at times be caught shallow or at other times deep depending on the lake or region. It looks like the question remains as to why one can do what they can when they can. I have really enjoyed this and have found myself hooking up my partners to this discussion. I still have some questions for the esteemed panel. RW, do you see this depth thing and smallies as I do? The LM only lads don't even suspect the depth factor and our smallies and I have days I'm not sure I do even after all these years. Do you get the thermocline issue and smalie success as we do at times? With some of our oligatrophic smallie lakes and a predominent forage of rainbow smelt in some of our lakes the chase the thermocline thing can play into this. With the LM is this driven as much by forage as anything else? Sorry Matt some of us don't live in Texas and this is helping. Want to get every last drop of info out of it.

Ok I don't know these good folks fishing lineage but if they are fishing in Scotland they either have a background in fly fishing for trout or if they are "rough" fishermen they have a background fishing live baits or dead real baits. They may be most comfortable and productive fishing live bait and you might learn some stuff too. Just a thought.

Wasn't going to tumble on this thread but now I'm curious. How many kids and their ages would help. I' not sure about the kayak thing as it is going to at least partially trap the individual you are trying to entice into this in a setting that limits other options. We got our boys into fishing with some degree of success but each in their own time and at an older age than you might be considering. With the grandkids we started earlier and with a larger boat we started the little ones off on the water with us before they could walk. As they got larger 4 or so years old we started them fishing with ice fishing jigging rods and made sure they would have fish to catch through the day. No we didn't set some artificial expectation that they could always go out and catch fish all day but that on any given day they would get a number and we set them up with rod holders as they graduated to ultralight rigs. But it was always ok to kick back and watch the world around them, read a comic book, eat, pretend to drive the boat, eat, watch the fish finders for fish, eat. And they would keep drifting back to their poles. As we taught them casting it became a game to see who could make the best cast. Rigged with T'rigged weightless Senkos they could cast easily, fish through most cover and catch fish. But it was the mix of activities that made the boys enjoy their time on the water and made it possible to start doing club tourneys and youth events with thme by the time they were 6. Now at 8 they are even more fun to take fishing but we still keep in mind that they are 8 and may want to do other things as the day progresses. Like eat. Did I mention the importance of bringing plenty of neat picnic stuff?

Really hard to legislate common sense or intelligence let alone common decency. This is coming all over as has been said. The NH state legislature (house) has just passed a 45 mph spped limit on their state waters and now it goes to the Senate for their take on it. For most states it is a factor of too many people wanting to go fast on the water and too little water for them to do it on safely. Coupled with limited education requirements, weak licensing requirements and even more limited enforcement capability and it should not be considered odd that we have a mess. I was at the training center for the CG in York town VA a couple years back and there were water craft enforcement types from all over the country there comparing notes and training. Doubt we have seen the end to this. But hey my boat will do a stately 32 mph so I should be ok. Hmmmmm kind of worried about my partners Gambler though.

Good places based on structure can be as good today as they were years ago. Good places based on cover or structure and cover well they can come and go depending on the type of weed year we are having. But those lakes that have under gone major change in terms of dominance of a fish species can show great change, a local pond that was out standing for SM before the introduction of LM had a certain set of places that I always fished and that always produced. But in this case I don't fish the lake the same way anymore because of the new dominance of LM. Another lake that has cleaned up markedly over the last 10 or 15 years has also seen some shifting of prefered spots. I think as long as pool levels and water quality remain constant that you don't get much change.

Rods I can't say I have a choice other than maybe Fenwick and BPS Extremes. Reels I must have something with the old Ambassador round winches I certainly have enough of them. Line Berkley XL, Vanish Fluro and Stren Super Braid. Scent Smelly Jelly and Jacks Juice Lures, Yammy Senkos especially in 7", Berkley worms, V&M Lizards Crankbaits not sure Rapala maybe.

And as has been intimated not all points are created equal. Often once you have been doing this for awhile you will find secondary points that are consistantly more productive or that produce better fish than some primary points. Watch where you catch fish on points is it an inside or outside bend that is formed? Is there more than one prominent drop associated with the point. Often fishermen will get fixated with the first prominent drop on a point and might not find fish and then forget to go out a little more to see how the point goes out and down to what might be considered the main lake floor at that point. One of the reasons I still run a 3-D Hummingbird is so that I can in prefishing slowly motor back and forth and in and out over a point and see just how a point lays out. Break lines on points, inside, outside bends, points on a point, cover on a point, you will learn not all points are created equal but all points hold the promise of good fish.

Ok I checked back and it looks like we are tackling this from two sides on this thread and as I have all ready run off on the whole fish intelligence thing I might as well take a shot at the big fish deep water connection. R Warrior and I will probably sound a similar cord on some of this and I hope I will show for some reasons of territorial similarity. I'm probably going to tick some of you off on this and please understand that is the farthest thing from my intent, as I want to start by patting all the contributers to this thread on the back for building an incredibly informative and thought provoking discussion. I have printed it off and insisted my 2 partners and my oldest read all of it because of the well reasoned insights given. All that said we need to set some delimiters for the discussion or at least I do to qualify what I wish to say. The areas I need to look at even before starting would be what constitutes big? What constitutes deep and is this even a discussion for large parts of the country? Now I believe I saw along the way on here that we would be limiting ourselves to a depth discussion on fishing for LM and not SM. That is probably a good thing as the issus surrounding SM and depth can get quite interesting and probably deserves a seperate thread of its own. What say RW? Should we at some point tackle that can of worms? B I G? I fear that for some of us this isn't conceptually a good topic, the reason is that there seems to be a mind set that anything less than 10 pounds does not qualify as big or even as a trophy and that more likely most are of the opinion that one needs to be talking in the teens before they have standing. Well that is fine for some but it eliminates a good part of the country and those that fish there so let me put forth a concept. I live in a state that has had for some time a LM record of 11-10 and other places like Minn. have just recently seen their LM record go up to 8-14. Other areas in the Northeast and Northern tier of states have similar records and by connection opportunities for big fish what this translates into is a whole different set of parameters. Let me share a concept. In California with a state record of about 22 pounds one seemingly has to be hooking up to a 16-17 pound fish before they are considered to be in the realm of the giant catchers. Now if the state record is approximately 22 and it take s a 16 to be considered then we are talking a fish of approx. 75% of the weight of the current record. Ok then if my state record is 11-10 and I should be shooting for a 75%er or better to meet my self imposed guide then I am talking a fish in the 8-9 pound range. And if you look at Minnesota level numbers. an 8-14 record would translate into about a 6.5 or better 75%er. Now these figures are all rough ones but they are in the ballpark enough for me to show what I wish to show. Folks I have talked to in Minn. seem to reflect that a LM over 6 is something to write home about and I can state that my experience up here in the great state of Maine fishing that goes back to my first bass on July 4, 1954 and now pushing 16 years of tourney fishing I have seen less than 10 fish better than 9 pounds brought to the scales and never one better than 10. Does not mean there are not new records out there or some more 9's or 10's but the whole size pyramid thing says there are not many. This has been how I have set my own bench marks and I would be curious if some of you folks in your states have similar numbers. RW I know you have taken some fine LM in your area are these numbers workable with you as well? So if we are saying we want to target big bass in our areas that would constitute fish equal to approximately 75% of the current state record what then would constitute deep. Ok, kind of like asking how high up is but for some of us it is probably a number that can be determined. For some of you others I'm not even sure it is a question worth asking. You Florida chaps catch some wonderfull fish but from every thing I read or hear you talk about I don't see where this depth question is a factor. For a Doug Hannon to be able to make blanket statements about big fish being shallow and then doing most of his fishing in Florida or the deep south is disingenuous at best. And even for some California anglers to say they are catching their fish in under five feet of water when they don't tell you that it was really 5 feet deep over 60,70 or way more water is equally out of the equation. I frequently catch smallies and even LM acting in a pelagic manner out over the deepest water in the lake and catching them nearly on the surface but I think what we are discussing is LM that are close to or relating to the bottom. So if we take Southern tier weedbed fishing out of the equation (don't take this as a knock guys because our way North boys don't do all that well frequently in your weedbeds a fact that was reinforced with the recent Federation championship when a lad that can eat your lunch up here on any given day was run through the Florida wringer and was far from the first but this is a discussion of depth. So I am going to limit myself to that which I know or at least thing I know. Which all probably means we are talking LM lakes that may be Oligatrophic or early Mesotrophic over other forms. Now if we are even more limiting and take Oligatrophic lakes out for some of the same reasons we might remove some southern water but on the opposite end of the scale (too deep, too cold and too barren and not generally where one would go hunt big LM) then we are probably going to need to just talk those lake and resivoir types more common to the majority of us, or early to late mesotrophic. If we get the size defined and the lake type defined we still have issues of forage base and seasonality or climactic varriabilities. What this means in general is that there are probably lakes where a given predominant forage base can and will to some extent dictate optimal depth at which good fish may be found. So too would factors such as length of the season. Those of you with water that does not freeze for 4-5 mounths of the year are going to find bass doing things I can not relate to any more than you can relate to my fishing the edges of ice sheets as a form of cover. So those of you that have significant thermoclines for a considerable portion of the year have a built in depth limiting factor to start with those of us that have short term thermocline issues generally don't except in certain situations. So if I narrow all this down where do I find what I consider good fish in water that at least a number of you can relate too? Well I suspect there will always be some good fish caught shallow because that is where often they must come for good feed and that is where most of you spend your fishing time so chance factor of a hook up increases but is not probably indicative of where the largest number of big fish in any body of water are at any given time. I have the paradox of my PB having come out of 2 feet of water last year and the fact that most of my good fish of the last few years having come out of 10-12 feet my next most productive depth has been 12-18 feet with 15 having been quite good. The commonality has been accross the board that 2 feet or 18 feet I have always been within little more than a cast or a cast and a half of some of the deepest water in any given body of water. I have found fish the last couple of years that I would like to catch at depths to 25 feet and more but have not reached the point where I am consistantly able to catch them. Fish that stack up off main lake humps and points will frequently be found during periods of the day at the transission point of drop to lake bottom or drop to secondary shelf and if these depths coincide with prefered depths for a given forage base then can be quite good spots for bigger fish but like I said I have not founf it to be consistantly productive as often times these fish seem to be inactive or in a neutral mood. I'm sure it is more a lack of skill on my part over what the fish are doing but can't say I understand it all yet. If I had to gamble it all right now on most of the water up here that I hunt the big ones on I would be fishing deep weed edges right next to major drop offs to deep water. Yes I know comments on here have raised questions about some of Buck Perrys concepts but it was his book that got me to the point where I started to catch bigger fish and I still think many of his concepts are at least starting points in the chase for big fish. I just don't beat the bank anymore for big fish. The odds are just not in your favor. I don't always go D E E P but the farther I can get off the bank and find the conditions I want the more better fish I catch and where probably 70-80+% of my 70-75% trophy bass come from.

I need to retire so I have more time to read and digest all the information that has been on here lately and then have the opportunity to try and apply it. I'm not even totaly sure at this point what info we are dealing with on this particular thread at this moment as folks have made some quite appropriate links between this thread and some others to the point where I'm more than a little confused so if I wander off topic my appologies but I also feel the need to tie some pieces together if for no other reason than it is how I process and I am so random abstract it is the only way I function real well. If we are talking intelligence in fish we are probably not dealing with the equal of a finny Albert Einstein and the works of Pavlov and others have been mentioned but a better comparison might be made with the work of B.F. Skinner and his efforts with rats and operant conditioning. Pavlov made the connection with dogs and a bell rung at feeding time. A logical connection to this and our bass quary is probably the process that bass go through that allows them to "learn" that certain vibrations in the water indicate the presence of food or that certain smells/tastes indicate things they might want to eat. With Pavlov the process was then manipulated in such a manner that getting a drool reflex for the sight of or presence of food and the association of a bell sound to the point where the sound of the bell not in association with the presence of food would also evoke the drool reflex. This is in a nut shell what lure manufactures have been trying to do for years. If they can get a feeding reflexive response from fish without the presence of actual food all they are doing is playing off a naturally occuring conditioned response. Does this of and by itself indicate any level of intelligence as we would relate to it? No probably not but it is still a "learned" trait that we can and do exploit. Now this is mostly wrapped up around a process of positive reinforcement where certain stimulae can be exploited by the fish to gain feeding impulse satiation. The flip side of this might be to look at Skinners work with rats and a process whereby rats were Taught to respond in a certain way either through pushing a certain lever or bar and being rewarded with food or pushing a different button and getting a mild shock through their feet and a charged wire floor in the bottom of the cage. Through a process of trial and error most rats learned to avoid the dreaded tingley feet and were able to keep themselves fed. This mixture of positive and negative reinforcement is probably what we deal with for the most part when we are talking bass beahavior. Why are hatchery reared fish so fragile when put into the natural environment? The simple answer is that they have not "learned" what stimulae in the wild translates into food or for that matter danger because they have been insulated from the need to "learn" beyond the fact that a hatchery worker walking along the raceway with a bag in his hand and a splash on the water means it is din din time. I have seen hatchery trout actually come to the surface in a feeding type mode when a small handfull of gravel was thrown across the surface. Now this impulse goes away quickly as these fish "learn" that in their new homes other things indicate the presence of food or danger but even with a fairely steep "learning curve" the vast majority of stocked fish do not survive long or well in the wild, a fact that makes put and take fisheries of questionable value in most places unless they become prime elements in the food chain of bass. Can you say California? Now these "learned" traits and their subsequent retention or memory factor is where some of this gets very interesting. On this we are some what hung up on a process we as humans employ to understand the natural world. It is difficult for many of us not to give fish and other wild critters human like characteristics as a means of understanding their behavior. This process of anthromorfication can be both a good and bad thing because it can lead us correctly to mimic a fishes favorite food and feel with confidence that we are putting just what they want to eat on the ole fishy dinner table but can at times lead us astray when we try to give the fish traits and abilitis they probably do not possess. But hey we have all grown up with animal cartoon characters that talked and acted like humans so why not bass Thank you Walt Disney. And so it is that we would like to asscribe memory as we understand it to fish. When it is much more likely that what we are dealing with is a series of conditioned responses that have varying levels of validity and strength from fish to fish and from situation to situation. Are some fish "smarter" than others or are we just dealing with fish with varying levels of conditioning? I suspect that for the most part big ole bass are those that for what ever reason made the correct choices early on and continued to make those correct choices through life through a process of positive and negative reinforcement. And yes even big old "smart" bass can make some pretty poor choices at times. I would guess that most really good fish are caught not because we found a one with a lapse of "memory" but because we presented a particular bait in a particular manner at a particular time in a particular place that for some reason fell out side of the bass's operant conditioning and ended up saying to the fish "hey that odd looking piece of plastic thats smells like something faintly familiar and that is moving in a manner sort of like other food I have eaten and is where I normally eat must be ok so I will give it a try" so if we can present something that does not by itself alarm the fish and that fits into its conditioning we have the chance to get bit. I suspect a large part of this especially for larger fish is the avoidance of danger. If we can present to it and not elicit a flight impulse then we are half way there. The Murray book and those huge worms of his probably are in this genre. A big hunk of plastic moving ever so slowly across the bottom didn't register as a threat so moved into the could be food column. What does a 7" Senko look like to a fish? Probably little in the real food chain but put one down in the right area all gooped up with something like Smelly Jelly and deadstick it until you find youself talking out loud about how long it has been since you last moved it and you are doing exactly what I am talking about. In nature slow movement is most often interpreted as safe or maybe edible. I know this does not explain the good fish caught on reaction types of baits but if we consider the entire capacity of a fish to "think" through a situation a bass in a position of ambush that has a bait flash by is given very little time to apply any kind of "thought" process. In any given situation there will be fish that will or will not react in the manner we would wish. I fish a pile of very clear water and sight fishing can be a season long situation. I have put fish in a react or lose the opportunity situation and had them crush the offering. I have had many more situations where I have for some reason elicited a leave it alone or head for cover reaction. It is probably why most serious trophy hunters opt for closely mimicing known food items than opt for reaction bites. I also think that those of us in more Northern climes have another interesting element many of you do not have. I have noticed that after several years now of Senko type baits cleaning up on fish that the hey days may be behind us for some of those fish. Yes I know the bait type still produces but on some water it isn't what it was. B U T our fish do not get pressured by open water fishing all year round. A good cover of ice sees to that. And I have noticed that right after ice out I can still have some real good days with Senkos but the window of opportunity is not what it once was and the great early Senko bites would seem to indicate that there is a factor in the equation that shows there is a loss of "learned" response but apparently it is one that can be reinforced all to quickly. This I have to admit is just a guess on my part but it is what I have observed. I think ultimately what we are dealing with though is less inate intelligence but the fact that those fish that do make it to larger size may simply have been among the few that made the right early choices and might just be more naturally wary to start with than their unluck brothers and sisters. Is it possible that bigger fish are those with better developed senses? I have often wondered why it seemed to be so much easier to spook big fish than say smaller ones. Are those fish that get bigger simply endowed with better sensory capabilities leading them to be able to make better responses.

Not from the area but I believe a guy named Charlie Nuchols (spelling?) invented the Float-n-Fly and was later quite tragecicaly lost in a fishing drowning accident) now I suspect the Jerry Mac has fished all over the smallie domain including up in the great state of Maine and might just have some bone fides for his judgement. Billy Westmoreland was a gentelman and inovator in the sport of smallie angling, is there anyone out there of his stature?

This whole temp thing is a puzzle on a whole bunch of lakes. The info passed here has been great and I had to stop and do a little digging before I would send this. When you are working with some of the temps you were talking it would have been good to know the ambient air temps you had been experiencing. A few days with very cold temps and steady wind can really screw a lake up when it is at certain temp points more so than at others. It has been mentioned that the top layer of the lake can actually be cooled enough by the air temps to do a wind current driven convection current against a bluff wall. A couple of things need to be remembered. Number one if indeed a convection current of sorts has been set up what goes down will come up some where in that lake. So if you have a wind aided convection current sinking on one side of the lake there should be a corresponding upwelling of at least marginally warmer water maybe across the lake, but there has to be some corresponding action to the low found on one area. Even a small lift in temps in an area under conditions such as you describe can trigger some fish in that area to be active. Also keep in mind that water is at its densest point at I believe 36.9 degrees and at certain times of the year this temp point induced sinking of surface water cooled by the air above it can create what could be refered to as micro convection currents in a lake. Too much of this and you get what many of us experience in the spring and fall as lake turnover and you don't want that. Seems to really mess up the fishing until the water restratifies again. It is conceivable that you have some warmer water pockets in the lake that you are not seeing. I carry most of the time one of the old Color Selectors with the probe on the end of a 50 foot cable that will along with other things tell you what the temps are down to that depth. I am guessing you had some warmer areas in your water you just were ot able to find them with your boat mounted temp indicator as you were getting only surface localized readings. In conditions such as you describe you can either stay home or play detective a little more and you might find some fish not put off by the surface chill.

I don't know I guess it depends on the lake. There are days I will spend a considerable amount of time just slowly motoring around watching my electronics to see where the bait are and how they are relating to the structure. If you find bait and you find where their path will intersect with a depth where bass can be expected to hold eventually you are going to catch fish if the bait you are throwing and the manner in which you are fishing it coincides with what the bass are expecting. It is all matter of percentages. The percent chance of getting bit increases as you fish where fish hold and fish hold where there is easy access to food. In lakes with bait species that are pelagic in nature you will most always have some fish following those schools and those fish are quite often catchable. I think this might be more true with Smallie than Largemouths but I have taken bass of both species out from under or in proximity to these moving schools of bait. In lakes with alwive populations this can be especially true and from what I have read is also true with shad lakes at least some of the time. I guess wind or no wind I would stay on the area of the lake that presents the fish with the most feeding opportunities.

The smaller prop baits are are all good. The Heddon Tiny Torpedos are a great bait but as has already been said the first thing you need to do is take the prop as configured when you buy it is bend it forward seriously and put a heck of a lot more pitch into it. Then spend some time spinning that prop until you get a noticable tinny fluttering sound. One good way to do this is to clamp the lure into a fly tying vise in front of a room fan and let her rip. After a bit the old girl will loosen up and you will start to get that sweet sound. Now once you get the sound take her to the lake and pitch her out in what should be good water. When she hits have the patience to let het sit, and sit and then maybe a little more sit time. Now it is twitch ever so gently time. First couple of times you don't even want to get the prop turning. Just a twitch. If nothing then do a reel down of slack line and with a raise of the rod tip slide it forward a foot to 18 inches so you get a good splattery squirrely sound. Then find out just how good your patience is. Sit and wait again then twitch etc. The more chop the moer active the resentation.

Oh Dan. Dan, Dan, Dan. You poor poor soul. Only one of us from the frozen north could truely understand your angst. There is ice fishing Dan. Otherwise you could find yourself sneaking into your tackle storage more and more this winter to rearange tackle. But we will know the truth. Remember it isn't good to sniff Power Bait alone so get some buddies over and have a group huff, ah er tackle sort, that's it a group tackle fest and when all seems lost pop open a couple packages of Chompers Techno Tubes and drift off to a garlic scent induced fishing hallucinat.....er dream and...... no, better you take up ice fishing Dan.