Behavioral Differences Between Bass Species

[coryn h. fishowl]

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference review, & journal publication.

coryn h. fishowl, Paul Roberts, & WRB, none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?

There are not very many popular experiments concerning bass behavior.  Most studies are observatory research, not experimentation to be be reviewed, nor are there many who study bass specifically in the scientific community (as compared to say physicists) to review and accept hypothesis.  Now, if you wanted to talk about behavioral research concerning the effectiveness of enclosed environments among in mostly instinctual animals, (e.g. fish as a whole, as opposed to a chimp, which learns more behaviors) then yes, I'm sure you could find more peer reviewed studies.  I wish this were a more popular animal for biologists to study, so that we might have more scientific information concerning this vexing little mascot of ours, and, seeking to be an animal biologist myself one day, perhaps I can be one to do so myself.

[coryn h. fishowl]

I never thought this topic would grow to be so large, haha.

[Paul Roberts]

For the record, there are quite a few peer reviewed studies pertaining to largemouth bass catchability and responses to angling. And a lot of anecdotal stuff from good theorists such as Keith Jones, Ralph Manns, Rich Zaleski, Bob Underwood, and Doug Hannon. Bass can learn, but how that plays out in angling is mostly lost in the myriad environmental variables. And any comparison with "virgin fisheries" is pretty much moot considering that we all fish angler impacted waters.

 

Getting back to the fishing, and where I think some of the contention in this thread lies, is the idea that a given lure can be learned to the point that it would be excluded by bass.

 

If a bass gets caught on a hula popper (one of my favorite baits by the way) it isn't likely to get caught on it again, at least not in the same color pattern.

 

This doesn’t tend to be born out, IME, at least so drastically. But let me tackle the idea in this way…

 

I asked: What IS a "Jitterbug" (or “Hula Popper”) to a bass? And does that stay constant? It’s certainly not the same Jitterbug known to the angler or lure collector. If the "idea" of a "Jitterbug" is not constant to a bass, then WHY NOT? My answer is that it is NOT constant and that bass get a different read on its signature depending on conditions, circumstances, and that bass’s mood.

 

This thread begs the question of just what the nitty gritty of lure presentation actually is. Again, lures are NOT food. And rest assured they all look pretty silly under good scrutiny. They have to be disguised as food, you literally are duping fish with them. This is easier done in some conditions and circumstance than others, and why we anglers pretty much rely on providence to offer them up to us. The pride we can take in angling skill revolves around our abilities to recognize opportunities and take advantage of them.

 

Catt brought up a good question as to why spinnerbaits are so often singled out as the bait most apt to be learned and avoided by bass. My guess is it’s twofold: There’s a historical context in that SBs became hugely popular at a time when expendable income went through the roof and hordes of anglers began using them and there weren’t all the options available then as there are now. Secondly, the SB is a classic chuck-n-wind lure apt to be mis-applied by the hordes of newbs and weekend warriors chucking them. A few things happened: Fish did get hip to them at some level. I’ve seen this myself in “virgin SB fisheries” I got to fish. Fairly quickly though, the times and conditions when the bass are susceptible to a new lure begins to narrow after they’ve been consistently exposed to it. But … and more practically speaking, anglers simply discovered that there are real limits to chuck-n-wind presentations -PERIOD!

 

Lots of anglers still make mighty good use of SBs. It’s how, where and when you apply them that makes the vast majority of the difference. Once again, as I’ve offered this up many times before and many experienced anglers have agreed, if you are relying on some inherent magic in a given lure to do the work for you, you are fooling yourself. Much of the time we must take “lures” to the fish, not expect the fish to come to our lures.

[SENKOSAM]

Excellent Paul!

 

First, I like the idea of using the word theorist. Too many times we forget that much of our decisions are based on our own preconceived theories or that of someone else.  Most times I would speculate that more than half all anglers ignore the variables that take into account bass physiology, the physics of light in water and the best lures for the job that do not ignore those variables.

 

As Jones said in  knowing Bass,

 

Designing artificial lures may have been turned into art, but it's not much of a science.

and

 

Isn't it possible that the facts we rely on are really misinterpretations based on ignorance? Some currently accepted lure appeal  to bass is not necessarily what we think it is and you need only to listen to a few tournament speeches to realize that even some pro anglers have serious misconceptions .... What they believe bass see and what is likely the bass sees are often miles apart and it's ironic that bass anglers choose lures based on what we think bass might like to see. When matching the hatch (not always the best approach by any means), anglers have no reasonable idea about the best lures to use and all too frequently our choices are based on what looks good to us. We can only hope bass agree.

 

When the facts of bass vision, motion and vibration detection, water clarity, light and a few other variables are taken into account, what appears complex is really far more simple when understood from a the perspective that other things matter. Lure choices become simplified because previous assumptions fall short when we start  including the changing variables we know that can exist on any different day that should not be ignored.

 

It's nice and exciting buying lures based on their eye candy appeal or magic-like  qualities and to brag about how fantastic they were after the first outing, but the truth is is that lures are just one key that fit the lock-of-the-day but often fail from then on because time and place apply always. Just the fact that most lures are unrealistic looking in the extreme should make one stop and think, in what world does a jig look like a crawfish or that a spinnerbait resembles a shad or blue gill? To suggest that they do to a bass, first of all ignores what most lures look like in typical algae filled water early or late in the day. Second, and more important, is that to insist that bass translate one lure's appearance into being a specific animal species. It's not even a reasonable assumption and makes me wonder the original source and whether there was self interest involved

 

Bass aren't logical though anglers should be, and though visual hunters, bass by no means put much thought into an object moving a few miles per hour and hopefully a few feet away though a visual filter. What's more is that the fast moving lure the bass gets caught on, most times can't be remembered because it never got a good look at it when it attacked it in the first place, plus a bass can't see what's in its mouth.

 

Nice discussion that hopefully many will give serious thought and consideration to. Illusions are nice, but they can be damned frustrating and any bass would tell you that if it could after it was caught!

[WRB]

Bass vision is another whole new can of worms or pandora s box. Stick with Kieth Jones on this topic as he maybe closer to factual data on this subjective topic.

Tom

[SENKOSAM]

Jones is my main source.

[tatertester]

I still say spoonplugs prove that bass are suckers for a reaction bait.

[WRB]

I still say spoonplugs prove that bass are suckers for a reaction bait.

Spoon plugs proved bass related to structure away from shore. During Buck Perry's era trolling plugs was as common as casting crankbaits today, it was the accepted fishing technique. Deep diving plugs were limited to River Runts, Whopper Stoppers Hellbenders and Bombers. Perry's metal version of a Flat Fish proved a controlled depth diving plug trolled over mid lake structure elements like humps caught bass that few new existed.

Tom

[tatertester]

Spoonplugs with their various depths and trolling technique surely catch bass , but, not nearly as enjoyable fishing as current methods IMO.

[coryn h. fishowl]

Bass vision is another whole new can of worms or pandora s box. Stick with Kieth Jones on this topic as he maybe closer to factual data on this subjective topic.

Tom

It still surprises me that anglers use so many stained to muddy patterns featuring so much blue and purple, e.g. blue and black jigs, with the idea that these are "flashy colors," when these are the colors that bass are worst at seeing.

[SENKOSAM]

Cory, I think anglers can only speculate about color, but not about lure contrasts that include sound/vibration, lure brightness or shadowing and lure action, which account for all strikes lure related beyond angler manipulation. Constants rarely exist in nature which makes fishing so challenging.

[Catt]

Jigs imitate crawfish which are black, brown, blue, green, white, orange, red & combinations there of.

[coryn h. fishowl]

Cory, I think anglers can only speculate about color, but not about lure contrasts that include sound/vibration, lure brightness or shadowing and lure action, which account for all strikes lure related beyond angler manipulation. Constants rarely exist in nature which makes fishing so challenging.

we know based on studies of their eyes how they see the world.  For example, they see red and greens the best.  

[Catt]

we know based on studies of their eyes how they see the world. For example, they see red and greens the best.

ROFLMAO no you don't!

[Brian Needham]

ROFLMAO no you don't!

took the words out of my mouth Catt.

[Catt]

Cory is the funniest dude that's been on the site in years!

[Paul Roberts]

Well... we do know what wavelengths of light bass are sensitive to, and at what proportions. And there are some really good ideas out there on what induced the development of those color vision capabilities. But making much use out of that info as an angler is the rub. Too many confounding intervening variables. Dunno about you all, but I've never been able to make much use of specific wavelengths (color), or at least seen anything that proves anything concretely. I have collected a number of anecdotal stories about anglers and their pet color theories. Pretty amusing stories many are that tell me that most of them have little to do with reality -what's going on for the fish. Doesn't mean we should stop looking though.

[coryn h. fishowl]

ROFLMAO no you don't!

Yes, scientists have in fact studied their eyes and through cellular studies of the organ itself have determined how they see there world.  this is not a whimsical guess, it is science, precise science!  do not slander the credibility of research based on your unfounded opinions!  

[coryn h. fishowl]

Cory is the funniest dude that's been on the site in years!

Am I to assume this to be an insult, if so then I would like to maintain the civility that this site is known for without the tasteless mocking taunts of typical youtube comment worthy banter. Lets not get this thread killed

[Brian Needham]

who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?

 

not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.

 

I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.

[Catt]

Yes, we have in fact studied their eyes and through cellular studies of the organ itself have determined how they see there world. this is not a whimsical guess, it is science, precise science! do not slander the credibility of research based on your unfounded opinions!

Dude you aint got a clue what science is

[Brian Needham]

back to the topic....... I have read more than one "study" that says blues are readily more seeable. yet you seem to think it is a mythical color based on your earlier post.

[coryn h. fishowl]

back to the topic....... I have read more than one "study" that says blues are readily more seeable. yet you seem to think it is a mythical color based on your earlier post.

Oh no, just that blues and purples are further on an end of the spectrum that they have trouble discerning.  It would look somewhat grayish to them.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uKBd85BhyQYC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=largemouth+bass+vision+blues+purple&source=bl&ots=E2CyX8wsDu&sig=oVoWga8RmsIU7N0PFGD6iA2FkkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0uCCUrKdKeKs2wXX_YDIBA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=largemouth%20bass%20vision%20blues%20purple&f=false

 

http://aaronlesieur.com/bass-fishing-articles/through-the-eye-of-the-bass/

[Brian Needham]

who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?

 

not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.

 

I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.

[coryn h. fishowl]

 

who is "we"....... I thought you were 17?

 

not that you cant help with research, but I have an issue with someone that would "help" yet pass it off as their own.

 

I am not meaning to be rude, just wanting a clearer picture of your background at such a young age, and your intentions.

 

The "we" was a grammatical error.  However, my major in college will be wildlife biology with a specialization in predatorial behavior, and as such would one day love to study the animal I devote so much time to chasing.