Behavioral Differences Between Bass Species

[WRB]

It's a mistake to compare the thought process of the human brain to that of animals that survive by instinct in lieu of intellect. Good examples are migratory animals like insects, fish and birds with tiny brains that travel thousands of miles, make round trips one time in their lifetime. The Monark butterfly for example migrates from the Midwest to Mexico and California, winters on fir trees, then returns to where it was it started. Monarks only live as butterflies for 8 month and have no prior experience to learn how to do this.

Bass have instinctive intellengance to help them complete their life cycle and reproduce the species. How a bass learns to stay out of harms way hasn't been scientifically proven. There have been tracking studies with LMB in the wild, San Diego biologist Mike Lembeck studies in the mid 70's suggest we know little about bass migration habits, their survival instincts indicate a high percetage of big bass are rarely caught. Bill Murphy quotes Mike Lembeck in his book In Pursuit of Giant Bass and by Homer Circle in his book Bass Wisdom.

Google or Bing: Mike Lembeck, biologist, interesting scientific facts about bass behavior in the wild.

Tom

[coryn h. fishowl]

There are many lures that always work regardless how many anglers use them depending on the water, which kind of negates the lure burn out idea. A few I can always depend on most times of day:

jigs and trailers

soft plastics in different designs (creature baits, grub minnows, drop shot plastics)

Now there is an effective class of baits that really can get burnt out.

[Brian Needham]

coryn.......... it is your assumptions that makes your rebuttal invalid.  

 

You can't simply mix assumptions and a lab.

 

Which I believe is Catt's point..........do whatever you want in the lab, it aint nature, and never will be nature, which is why you have to study it in nature.

 

My point would be, do you think Goodall's research would have reached the level it did if she simply went to a "controlled" zoo?

 

agree or disagree?

[coryn h. fishowl]

coryn.......... it is your assumptions that makes your rebuttal invalid.  

 

You can't simply mix assumptions and a lab.

 

Which I believe is Catt's point..........do whatever you want in the lab, it aint nature, and never will be nature, which is why you have to study it in nature.

 

My point would be, do you think Goodall's research would have reached the level it did if she simply went to a "controlled" zoo?

 

agree or disagree?

It is the very basis of much scientific testing to allow us to make educated, scientific predictions as towards the outcome of situations that we cannot yet test, in much the same way the Einstein's Theory of Relativity made the prediction that mass bent light, one that would be tested years later via an eclipse.  Indeed, those actions are integral to the definition of the word theory, the heart of science, "a law or principle about the workings of the universe that is both testable and makes verifiable predictions."  No, Goodall's research could not have been conducted in a controlled zoo, but, as more accurately relatable to my analogy, her findings were used to spurn new theories of animal behavior that would be tested/ observed in the field. However, I predict, that as long as I keep catching them with my methodology, that I'll be happy; which is something I can easily test.

[Brian Needham]

I understand that.

 

I see your point, and I hope you see mine.

 

The theory of relativity and bending of light has nothing to do with wild animals.

 

You can not, no matter how controlled the environment is, study a wild animal in a captive lab. This is proven through the sole fact a lab is not a natural environment. and via pack animal experiments, even psychological stress testing/environmental testing on humans, rats. conditioning vs instinct ect ect.

 

In a lab, you have to feed the animal.......animals do not get fed in the wild

In a lab , you have lights.....animals have the SUN in the wild, and many base instinctual movements around the sun, not a fluorescent bulb. 

In a lab you have boarders and cages......in the wild you do not

In a lab you have controls and variables........in the wild everything is a variable (you can make a lab report say anything you want, and continue to prove it  )

 

Animals, bass, nature have been on this planet long before we ever figured out the technology to study it in a lab. and no matter how strong our advances, we as humans will not figure out nature. Why? Simply because we did not create nature, and there is no way to reverse engineer nature as a whole.  

 

Now, I think we all agree Steve Parks (BigO) is one if not the premier bait makers in the industry...... send him a PM and ask this question:

What produces more results and produces more useable information to create/design a bait, lab reports or in the field testing from the front deck of your boat?

 

JMO, and yours may differ.

[WRB]

Because this thread is about bass behavior, I choose to reference Mike Lemark's studies for 2 reasons, 1 they are scientific. 2, they where performed on wild bass in their natural environment.

These studies changed they way I perceived bass behavior and adapted this knowledge to help me become a better angler. A few things stood out, big bass have lived long enough to avoid anglers and tend to locate near deep water sanctuaries. Observing the San Diego bass anglers like Bill Murphy that were successful catching these bass, it became apparent keeping quite, blending into the environment and waiting for bass to return to an area that they had vacated when I came into that area, was important in catching the wary bass.

One of Mikes bass would leave the area it was located during the closed fishing season the day the lake opened to fishing each spring. This big bass swam straight into the buoyed off area by the dam closed to fishing, stayed there until the lake closed agian in the fall. Several bass would leave areas they stayed in as soon as boats started up each morning, moved out into deep water and returned when the lake closed each day. This study included about 150 big bass that were electro shocked, with radio tracking devices surgically inserted and lasted a few years, exact time period I need to look up.

Tom

[Brian Needham]

wow thanks for bringing the Lemark studies to the table WRB. I will have to round these up if still available.

 

 

your last post outlined something that is simply impossible to replicate in a lab, and probably provided tons more info to educate with.

[KyakR]

The study of wildlife in cages or an aquarium is not science.

You can not have human interference & call it science.

Disagree. It depends what kind of research method you're using. Research studies come in different forms. 

Goodall was using a different method than say, a geneticist trying to get at the reason some people's eyes are blue and some brown. One is observational, where controlling variables (zoo) distorts the results, the other involves asking one specific question (forming a hypothesis) and testing it. In this form the fewer variables the better.

Science always involves human interference (Heisenberg Principle). The simple act of observation changes things. But you're so right when you point out the inadequacy of science in some matters! I think true wisdom in fishing and other things comes from living many experiences and having them in your gut beyond words and test tubes. Not to be too touchy- feely (he!) but I call that love, whether for fishing, people or science itself.

 

The proof will always be in the catching and catching consistently.

Interesting that of all the pros that have made it to the top, very few use the same lures, colors and presentations in the same cover or on the same structure to be in the top ten in any given tournament. Could a co-angler have done as well using something different? Many have, many haven't.

 

Science falls short trying to predict what a bass will strike, when and where it will strike or how often. Many pros fail to make even the top 40 in many tournaments, which suggests that knowing thy water is as important as what to cast and that luck, in many instances, is the deciding factor, all things being equal.

 

Boxing oneself into a corner because of any information source ultimately limits one's success and today's truth may be less than accurate or false tomorrow. Flukes happen!

 

That pretty much says it all.

I like this

And pbizzle, good question! 

But anybody know from their personal observation about different bass strains? I only deal with the Northern so I actually really know zip    

[Mainebass1984]

This is quite an interesting topic. I think there certainly is a behavior difference in smallmouth and largemouth bass. I have dissected hundreds of bass stomachs. A smallmouths diet up in in New England consists mostly of crayfish and yellow perch.  A largemouth will eat just about anything. I have even found a bird as well as rocks in a largemouths stomach. Heavily pressure fish do become more wary then in lakes that receive less pressure. I have experienced days when a color change can make the difference between catching two fish and twenty fish.  I think that most of the time smallmouth are more aggressive.  Most of my experience is with northern strain largemouth. Southern strain is an altogether different fish.  When it comes down to it  when a fish is hungry it will eat.  Maybe science cant predict what a bass will strike when and where but experience can. Science can tell you a lot about bass behavior.  Science along with experience allows me to follow bass year round.

 

Oh and to get back to one of the original posts about bass not eating salamanders in the northeast. They sure do eat them in Maine. Black is my favorite color.

 

Check out this salamander a bass had half way down his throat when I caught him:

 

[webertime]

Sure a professional biologist has to step in and ruin my learnin'. Lemark's research (or something very similar) was in an issue of Bass Angler Magazine ~2 years ago. Very cool stuff.

[PABASS]

My point with man-made lakes versus natural lakes are simply man can create an environment that becomes "wild" or "natural" to a bass, without being a scientist logic lets me believe that something replicated in a "aquarium" must also be reproducible in the wild depending on what we are trying to learn.  I am not saying that everything we learn is 1:1 however if your telling me what we learn in a controlled environment is nothing like in the wild as it concerns bass then show me the proof...  I believe this very site had an article from several biologist whom used a pond in NY I believe as a controlled environment due to no fishing allowed, no "man" interference although its a man-made pond is this the "wild" is it "natural"?  And if we have a hard time discerning the difference why then would a bass automatically know the difference?  Take a 1:1 species of Bass and I would imagine Bass out west behave differently than a Bass in the east and I also imagine a bass in a lab out west acts similar to a bass in the east.  The key here is controlled environments, which allows us to predict and learn regardless if its a wild bass or not.  We can create environments solely on the goal of what we want to learn, can we learn everything from a controlled environment of course not but its a tool, please tell me why it isn't?

[coryn h. fishowl]

 

Now, I think we all agree Steve Parks (BigO) is one if not the premier bait makers in the industry...... send him a PM and ask this question:

What produces more results and produces more useable information to create/design a bait, lab reports or in the field testing from the front deck of your boat?

 

JMO, and yours may differ.

Both, but the proving ground is the field.  Good comment.

[coryn h. fishowl]

 

 

Oh and to get back to one of the original posts about bass not eating salamanders in the northeast. They sure do eat them in Maine. Black is my favorite color.

 

Check out this salamander a bass had half way down his throat when I caught him:

 

They eat them alright, but given a choice, they would most likely eat hellbender salamander than a less appetizing spotted.

[coryn h. fishowl]

My point with man-made lakes versus natural lakes are simply man can create an environment that becomes "wild" or "natural" to a bass, without being a scientist logic lets me believe that something replicated in a "aquarium" must also be reproducible in the wild depending on what we are trying to learn.  I am not saying that everything we learn is 1:1 however if your telling me what we learn in a controlled environment is nothing like in the wild as it concerns bass then show me the proof...  I believe this very site had an article from several biologist whom used a pond in NY I believe as a controlled environment due to no fishing allowed, no "man" interference although its a man-made pond is this the "wild" is it "natural"?  And if we have a hard time discerning the difference why then would a bass automatically know the difference?  Take a 1:1 species of Bass and I would imagine Bass out west behave differently than a Bass in the east and I also imagine a bass in a lab out west acts similar to a bass in the east.  The key here is controlled environments, which allows us to predict and learn regardless if its a wild bass or not.  We can create environments solely on the goal of what we want to learn, can we learn everything from a controlled environment of course not but its a tool, please tell me why it isn't?

My point exactly. 

[Brian Needham]

a pond and an aquarium are not the same. Never can be as one is made by nature, God, X, verus an aquarium made of glass.

Even a man made pond is not an aquarium, and IMO an aquarium can not replicate weather, sunlight, barometric changes(if fully controlled), natural temp changes.

 

but lets go full Socratic method:

 

what are you trying to learn?

[PABASS]

a pond and an aquarium are not the same. Never can be as one is made by nature, God, X, verus an aquarium made of glass.

Even a man made pond is not an aquarium, and IMO an aquarium can not replicate weather, sunlight, barometric changes(if fully controlled), natural temp changes.

 

but lets go full Socratic method:

 

what are you trying to learn?

 

My use of aquarium was just a generic term, we clearly as pointed out in my post can make a controlled environment much more advanced then a simple glass aquarium to meet the needs of what we are trying to learn.  And that's my point, we humans introduced bass to our human made ponds, lakes, rivers and streams yet we call it natural and wild, is it?  I agree there is nothing better then learning true reproducible facts in the wild but lets be realistic here you cant always do this, again controlled environments are a tool and when its "reproducible" in a controlled environment the "wild" is the proving grounds which also means all things considered its reproducible in that environment as well.  I have a question about "natural" and "wild" the Florida strain of bass why is it still not in Florida?  How natural is it to have an unnatural fish in a man-made lake?

[Brian Needham]

If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?

 

You have to have a “control” in this process you have to be able to fully replicate one or the other, the lab or nature… you cant do either, but you can however use nature as a “given” as it is already provided.

 

I use science/ lab reports daily. They provide me what I need to know. I use them for soil test; they are great for telling me WHAT. What elements are in the ground, and at what concentrate… they cannot tell me however, HOW to grow the grass.

 

I also use path labs. The microscope or a growth chamber can tell me what pathogen the grass is infected with, however it can not tell me HOW to get rid of the pathogen.

 

Science cannot tell you the how or why, it can tell you the what. Sometimes it can tell you the how, but not the why and what. And so on and so on. Science is not complete in its work, nature however is.

 

Really when you boil it all down, you cannot answer a “why” question.

Needham how can you not answer a why question?

Two reasons

1.      Is simple…its called the “why game” Keep asking the why to every answer the person gives you, go through all the permutations and you will always arrive at “cause it makes me feel good” so the “answer” to a why question is 100% without fail, “cause it makes me feel good”

2.      Now for the complicated end… To answer a “why something happens?” you would have to explain everything that has happened and every cause and effect since the creation of time. And that is something no human, scientist or otherwise can do. Our minds are not built to that capacity.

 

 

I will end this post with a quote;

 

“Many men fish all their lives without realizing it is not the fish they are after.”

And a lab cant prove that either  

[webertime]

They eat them alright, but given a choice, they would most likely eat hellbender salamander than a less appetizing spotted.

So there's science that proves what's appetizing to a bass?

"Hmmmm I'll bypass that fat, protein packed, spineless and scaleless little treat because I prefer the hints of maple and Bacon in that other salamander I MAY come across later..." that's a bit too much brain power attributed to them.

[KyakR]

[PABASS]

If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?

 

You have to have a “control” in this process you have to be able to fully replicate one or the other, the lab or nature… you cant do either, but you can however use nature as a “given” as it is already provided.

 

I use science/ lab reports daily. They provide me what I need to know. I use them for soil test; they are great for telling me WHAT. What elements are in the ground, and at what concentrate… they cannot tell me however, HOW to grow the grass.

 

I also use path labs. The microscope or a growth chamber can tell me what pathogen the grass is infected with, however it can not tell me HOW to get rid of the pathogen.

 

Science cannot tell you the how or why, it can tell you the what. Sometimes it can tell you the how, but not the why and what. And so on and so on. Science is not complete in its work, nature however is.

 

Really when you boil it all down, you cannot answer a “why” question.

Needham how can you not answer a why question?

Two reasons

1.      Is simple…its called the “why game” Keep asking the why to every answer the person gives you, go through all the permutations and you will always arrive at “cause it makes me feel good” so the “answer” to a why question is 100% without fail, “cause it makes me feel good”

2.      Now for the complicated end… To answer a “why something happens?” you would have to explain everything that has happened and every cause and effect since the creation of time. And that is something no human, scientist or otherwise can do. Our minds are not built to that capacity.

 

 

I will end this post with a quote;

 

“Many men fish all their lives without realizing it is not the fish they are after.”

And a lab cant prove that either  

 

If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?  Then its just a bass, right?  And isn't that the point of controlled environments?

If you are implying that what I am saying is that science tells me how to catch a bass then I don't think we will ever come to an agreement because we are not communicating on the same level.

Back to your grass, so with those results you know that grass based on the soil elements will grow well or might need some human assistance, about how fast it will grow and what grass does for soil, humans and many other animals, you know that grass will help prevent soil erosion and consume c02 to create oxygen.  Do you think all these reproducible results were performed in the wild or in a controlled environment?

[Brian Needham]

So there's science that proves what's appetizing to a bass?

 

good point

I say  nature does it for them.

[SPEEDBEAD.]

I've said it numerous times here....

 

I just fish.

 

 

Cool that there is so much quotable info out there but it just isn't my thing. Life is complicated enough....

[Brian Needham]

If a western lab bass acts the same as an eastern lab bass is it really a western bass then?  Then its just a bass, right?  And isn't that the point of controlled environments?

If you are implying that what I am saying is that science tells me how to catch a bass then I don't think we will ever come to an agreement because we are not communicating on the same level.

Back to your grass, so with those results you know that grass based on the soil elements will grow well or might need some human assistance, about how fast it will grow and what grass does for soil, humans and many other animals, you know that grass will help prevent soil erosion and consume c02 to create oxygen.  Do you think all these reproducible results were performed in the wild or in a controlled environment?

I think the grass grew better in the wild on its own before I started to mow it, introducing stress, coercing it to grow for playing conditions (golf) instead of growing for health of the plant. Plants, animals they adapt.

 

That adaptation is what makes the lab flawed for behavioral experiments.

. Is a bass by any other name still a bass?

Western/Eastern bass have totally different water, food chains, ect ect.

 

Perhaps they all revert back to “just being a bass” in the tank. I say that for the fact anything done by man nature will undo in time. I see it in grass…. We have “made” new grasses by genetic breeding. Issue is over the long term, everything reverts back to its original state. It may take 5, 10, 20, 50, 100,1000 years but nature reclaims it all.

 

We can see the changes man makes while studying wild animals. Look at the mortality rate of captive animals once released back into the wild. The animals have become so dependant on their captors they forget how to survive in the wild and die.

Knowing that, can we really say bass being studied in a tank are giving us a “natural look”.

Which is why I firmly believe any wild animal studies needs to be done in the natural habitat, not in a lab. 

 

There are just some things we are meant to enjoy and not study. The study can be futile because we are humans, not creators. BUT if we were going to study it, it needs to be done in the environment the creator/nature has provided, not four walls in a microscope.

 

We are never going to fully understand it, so let’s just fish!

 

I am sure we can all agree to disagree but it is an interesting topic nonetheless and makes for good conversation I suppose.

[Brian Needham]

 

but lets go full Socratic method:

 

what are you trying to learn?

 mispoke here.

 

what are WE trying to learn?

[PABASS]

Brian I think we are on the same book here, we know certain things because of science and we know certain things from time spent on the water and personally that's where I want to be..