Team9nine

Fishing is all a game of probabilities (at least, that's how I view it). On any given cast, with any given bait, you either will or won't get bit. Over the course of a day, if you can stack a few more probabilities in your favor (increase specific probability rates or percentages), you should end up with a more productive day. There are a lot of variables at play, all with their own probability. Color tends to rate fairly low on my list of probabilities. What do I mean by that? In another thread I mentioned that one of the 2 primary factors in why I own/throw whatever colors I have in my box for any given bait is largely based around what is pretty much "proven" as a standard color option. So, a black and blue jig is almost a universal thing. A green pumpkin soft plastic is too, as are things like shad or crawfish colored crankbaits, a white and chartreuse spinnerbait, or a black or white buzzbait. I'm sure you can name a few others. Day in and day out, those colors get bit most everywhere in the country. As such, I tend to have one of those standard color patterns tied on when I'm fishing, and I rarely change during the course of a day. But here's a logical way to think about lure color based on probabilities. If you're not getting bit, it's probably not because of color, but it also might not hurt your chances if you changed. Things can't get worse, right, so do as you like - I likely wouldn't change myself. I'd rather change locations, baits, depth, speed, etc. before changing color to try and increase my probabilities. On the other hand, if you are getting at least a few bites, changing color could go one of several ways - your bite rate might not change at all (neutral), or it could get better, but it also could get worse, and you actually might stop getting bit. In this case, which is likely the most common scenario for most while out fishing (getting a few bites now and then), I don't gamble and change my probabilities in that regard because there is a worse outcome if I'm wrong. Finally, if I'm with someone throwing a similar bait (different color) and they're getting bit and I'm not, then it doesn't hurt to change to whatever color they are using because your probabilities will likely either stay the same or go up - very little downside to changing color in that case. So that's my take on the matter. To stick with the OPs question; why do dark colored plastics catch fish in clear water? I say - Contrast. About everything swimming in the water (or tossed by anglers) throws shade/has a dark underside no matter what its actual color. Bass eyes are built to best see forward and upward. As such, black is a universal base color in my world - YMMV -T9

June 12, 2016 (according to MLF)

According to MLF, Swindle was the "missing person" due to personal reasons. I think Wesley just recently joined.

In actual muddy water I want my bait to be as "solid appearing" as possible, so I go old school with a Stanley blk/bro/red/orange original living rubber jig - silicone skirts need not apply. Stay shallow as that's where red, orange and brown colors will shine, and a bass' limited eyesight will help. The same goes for my trailer - old school pork in most instances. -T9

Would be a fun experiment. I've seen several pros argue they keep color selection simple, but I've also seen the garages and tackle collections of several, and they're anything but simple or selective. I've played around with such things on the water myself just for amusement. For instance, one day I brought only my shallow crank box with me. Tied on a snap (which I rarely use but wanted quick lure changes), then went fishing. The caveat being every time I landed a fish on a bait, I had to drop it in the boat (the bait) and change to another bait (color, size, brand). No using the exact same bait twice. I believe I ended up catching bass on 21 of the 23 different variations of baits/colors/depths/vibrations I got to try that day. It's a good way to prove to yourself that some of the small details aren't as critical to success as some make them out to be. -T9

My color philosophy/selection now comes down to pretty much just two factors. The first is, I buy proven colors for a given bait type, regardless of bright, natural or otherwise. So, for instance, I own bubblegum trick worms and green pumpkin variations in most soft plastics. The other factor (#2) is what catches my attention. If I like a particular color pattern for whatever reason, I'll buy it. I've never been one to overly obsess about color, in general, though. -T9

Yep, that's Bill McDonald. Look up his profile on the FLW website. Super nice guy. -T9

Oops, lol - wasn't intended that way. Apologies, Tom . I'm just an old schooler that gets bugged by all the modern reinterpretations of the "Ned rig." Go ahead and throw it into 25' of super clear water, but at that point, you are just "fishing a grub." I imagine Tom might feel the same if "horizontal jigging" suddenly took the Internet by storm and everyone and their brother turned it into something it was never meant to be...but referred to it as such anyway. -T9

Out fishing 1'-8' of lightly stained water where the rig was designed to be fished -T9

Holy cow, are we really going here again lol. I like Hackney's comments in his newest Bassmaster column which pertains to the color subject (YMMV): ...and on the UV subject, I've never seen a study supporting UV vision to any degree in mature bass, and I've read a few The best work being done in this area is by a guy on the East coast, but he hasn't tackled common freshwater fish yet. He has done several saltwater species as well as a few crossovers like striped bass. Again, doesn't mean that's an absolute, just that I'm not putting any stock (or $$) into sales pitches for UV baits of any kind for bass at this point in the game. -T9

Just sent you a PM with some links to avoid crossing any lines in regard to self-promotion on the site... -T9

GPS coordinates plus custom map of that whole area ? Won't be able to do morning, but might make afternoon.

If I get out, got any extra cut shad? I can keep us right on the hole ? If they'll actually bite bait, I wouldn't be opposed to trying. I'm 50/50 at the moment for Saturday.

Tourney fished for 25 years, then spent the next 10 writing about various aspects of the sport as well as being a personal friend/mentor to one of the current Elite/MLF guys... -T9

Definitely having some influence in the industry, and I expect more to come. It's putting some of the anglers in more of a position of leverage with the larger tourney orgs. I'm guessing BASS took a little offense to the initial moves, but has since accepted and is playing along. The pros tried something similar many years prior with the creation of the PAA (which ultimately failed). This go around, they got everything right, and created an ownership based and profit sharing vehicle very similar to the NBA and the NFL, albeit on a much smaller scale and with limited membership. The best part is MLF is a stand alone entity, so no matter what happens at BASS or FLW, it has no effect on MLF.

There were 14 (or 15 depending upon which story you read) guys that met and formed the initial company/organization back in 2009. That group, including KVD, Ike, Tak, E2, Ish, Skeet and Rojas, selected Duckett and Klein to be the leaders/representatives of the organization. Duckett worked the business side while Klein developed the tourney format. The actual "product" was launched a couple years later (2011).

The inch of rain we got last night isn't going to help the cause any. Creeks were flooded and rolling mud this morning. Might just end up leaving the boat parked this weekend ?

I went over 20 years with nothing more than a single micro barb embedded in a finger, but have put two fully barbed hooks into my hand the past two years, both while fishing alone...so yes, I've become a bit more pessimistic in my overall outlook ?

The whole concept was formed by a couple Elite anglers, so it isn't a huge surprise that most of the initial 24 were Elite anglers. Ehrler and Stone were the two exceptions. More recently with the Selects, they reached out more to the FLW side with guys like Christie (since moved to Elites), Birge, Ashmore, Lefebre, Rose, Wheeler (now Elite), Suggs and Strader now competing. Even Watson and Defoe were regulars on the FLW side for years. Keep in mind many of the others might have been offered a chance but chose not to accept for a variety of reasons.

I'm aware of about half a dozen studies done on largemouth and/or smallmouth. As you would guess, there are nearly a couple dozen more on trout/salmon, along with a handful of misc studies on walleye, panfish and various saltwater species. In total, around 3 dozen published papers. I've played with barbless off and on over the years, and haven't noticed a huge difference in landing rates. Have a couple friends that are 100% barbless on everything. As a side note, given the popularity of the "Ned rig," but even Ned himself is nearly 100% barbless with his fishing, too.

I've read a good many of the published studies comparing barbed to barbless hooks, and in a nutshell, here's what they've suggested; There is basically no difference in actual mortality of fish when comparing barbed to barbless Barbed hooks cause more tissue damage than barbless, in some cases up to twice the rate Barbless hooks result in about a 20% reduction in handling time of fish (time spent trying to remove hooks, etc.) On average, barbless hooks are about 10% less efficient in landing fish (you'll lose about 10% more fish) Certain lure types simply have higher landing percentages than others, so in some cases it's not the hook per se (barbed or barbless) but instead the lure type the hook is on More experienced anglers will land a higher percentage of fish on barbless lures than less experienced anglers The bigger effect on mortality is not barbed vs barbless, but instead seems to be the size of the hook. Larger hooks simply kill more fish. This is because they can reach/puncture deeper, penetrating vital organs or arteries that smaller hooks simply can't reach Despite the commonly thought idea that barbless hooks penetrate more deeply than barbed hooks, it is not quite that simple, as studies have shown that small barbed hooks with proper cutting edges will actually penetrate much easier (much less force required) allowing for deeper penetration than barbless hooks given the same force applied. When you do finally bury a hook into yourself, overall, barbless hooks will be much easier to remove -T9

Have had a lot of success on black/brown/red jigs as well as black/pumpkin/red. I usually prefer that combo in somewhat clearer waters, reserving the black blue purple or black yellow chartreuse variations for more stained waters. Just my personal preferences as the fish likely could care less.

Not many people Bass fish that way intentionally, though I could certainly fish that way with shiners for big bass. If expanded to fishing in general, if you can no longer appreciate or get even a little excited about seeing a small float go running off as it slowly gets pulled out of sight beneath the water, then you've lost a small part of yourself, a part that makes this sport so great. That simple fascination should never grow old. -T9

I think you pretty much have it to the degree that I'm aware of. The Selects now feed into the permanent side of MLF. The original concept before Selects was the pro anglers bought into a business model to produce a show/product, and revenue streams would come later as sponsors, advertisers and tv revenue grew. Selects were a way to expand the business, as well as a way to replace original "owner/anglers" as they left for whatever reason. I believe they now have a bump out format where the two lowest core group members get replaced by the two highest Selects after a two year points run. Select winners do get a check as I understand it, but I don't believe they pay down the standings at all. Same for Summit and Challenge Cup winners, at least if they come from the Select side (6 do for each event). I don't know exactly how the core group gets paid for investing in the business, but it is likely some form of profit sharing distributed on a regular basis.

Others were offered. It's who accepts first for the most part. And while I wouldn't term it an entry fee, I can tell you it is a lower 5 figure number that each paid to compete for 1 year. The entertainment part is a big component. This is made for TV drama trying to reach a large "average Joe" audience - almost reality TV in a sense. Obviously there is a learning component also, but that is secondary IMO. And personally, I'd lose a lot of interest in the format if they went to a best 5. What they're doing seems to be working and having some influence on the industry in general. I like the change and direction.