Behavioral Differences Between Bass Species

[Catt]

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?

[Paul Roberts]

Again,

 

Those are not answers to my questions. (My answers are in parentheses below):

 

-Which of the variables I listed (or any others you can add) explain the variability in your (our) catch rates in the wild? (The answer is ... depends on the given day, or hour even)

-And does it tell us anything at all about whether bass can learn? (No.)

 

-If you wanted to find out if bass can learn, how would you go about it? (Fishing??? No. Enter a good university that has expertise in the field of fish behavior, acquire a good committee of those experts -you'll need em- and then do the work).

 

As to "none of "your" research has validation by the scientific community. WHY?" :

That's not the case at all. But don't take my word for it. I'm not one of those fish behavior experts. But I've done enough real science to know that we are not dealing with a bunch of fools in those fields. Go ask around in the right circles -those that have expertise in the field of fish behavior. Most are willing to chat a bit.

 

As to "Why does the Jitterbug work after all these years?" I'll play along ... What IS a "Jitterbug" to a bass? And why do you think that stays constant? If the "idea" of a "Jitterbug" is not constant, WHY? Therein lies your answer (see below).

 

As to WRB's, "This begs the question of why have thousands of lure choices for bass, when they have no memory?":

I'm going to disagree with this as well, for the same reasons: Ignoring the bait monkey (our predilection to obsessively collect stuff) the VARIABILITY IN CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES (my partial list above) is why we need multiple tools to catch numbers of bass consistently. Memory, conditioning, learning to SPECIFIC lures is not, or is rarely, involved. At least in my experience. Maybe on a very popular lake where boat after boat comes down a bank with white spinnerbaits, maybe. (You can be sure though that there are days (conditions and circumstances), and ways of handling them, however, when the ol' white spinnerbait on that same bank will still catch em.) The effects of angling are more subtle, and broader, than conditioning against a particular lure. In my present understanding, as an angler, memory/conditioning has more to do with a generalized wariness and discernment exercised by fish to anglers and their presentations. Cast to fish NEVER before fished to and you'll see -they are different animals than ones that have experience with anglers. Want to know the magic potion for replicating virgin fish on a hard fished lake? Take a deep overcast, stable temps (or inc/dec depending on season), add some chop, have most anglers home watching football, the right density of preoccupied prey fishes, your favorite res pulling water, ... etc ...and you'll come somewhere close.

[SENKOSAM]

A laboratory can be a lake but most likely a pond is better and I made one complete with thick weed bed, pads, fish (stocked per permit), depth of 9' maximum and even a hump. Of course I couldn't prevent my neighbor from adding some quality bass and other fish and most have thrived (except those eaten).  Over the last six years I've learned a few things from the fish regardless of species, especially bass.

 

1. Bass associate a bass boat hooked to my truck with getting fed. I like adding yellow perch to the forage to be able to feed my fish and those that grow from birth. At first I would just drop six or so into the water and pull away. The following week I noticed a bass looking at me from about 5' away with part of it's body in the weeds. I dropped in a perch and it was swiftly snatched and made off with.

 

A few days later, i did the same except now there were three bass waiting to be fed. Mind you these were not the stockies from the fish farm - too large. In the last three years, some bass always come when the truck and boat arrive parallel to the same shoreline, except when the water temp drops below 55.

 

Note that many of these bass have been caught over and over, but not only still bite lures, but are conditioned to be fed within the year of having been caught.

 

[SENKOSAM]

A laboratory can be a lake but most likely a pond is better and I made one complete with thick weed bed, pads, fish (stocked per permit), depth of 9' maximum and even a hump. Of course I couldn't prevent my neighbor from adding some quality bass and other fish and most have thrived (except those eaten).  Over the last six years I've learned a few things from the fish regardless of species, especially bass.

 

1. Bass were able to associate a bass boat hooked to my truck with getting fed in the early evening between 6 and 7 pm. I've added yellow perch to build a forage base to be able to feed my fish and those that grow from birth. At first I would just drop six or so into the water and pull away. The following week I noticed a bass looking at me from about 5' away with part of it's body in the weeds. I dropped in a perch and it was swiftly snatched and made off with.

 

A few days later, I did the same except now there were three bass waiting to be fed. Mind you these were not the stockies from the fish farm - too large. In the last three years, some bass always come when the truck and boat arrive parallel to the same shoreline, at the same time of day except when the water temp drops below 55. I've had as many as five bass at a time and one that is fully exposed no more than 3' from me. Even my wading border collies don't bother them when food is involved.

 

2. Note that many of these bass have been caught over and over, but not only still bite lures, but are so conditioned  by a stimulus, they lack fear or subdue the memory of the trauma being caught when I feed them. It's not as if there isn't enough fish swimming around - there are hundreds of all sizes. Besides, these fish are also caught through the ice on soft plastics even though prey fish are present in this tiny pond throughout the year. So, with so much food present, why would a bass even consider attacking a lure?

 

As far as lure burn out, some lures always get bit, more so by juveniles. But at times many older bass bite the same design in different areas (ie. punching a creature bait through heavy vegetation) on the same day.

 

Will future generations learn that a boat and truck mean an easy meal dropped  from above? Obviously not an inherited lesson because different generations are caught by just a few lures most times over and over, just as many bass are caught over and over on the same type of lures in large lakes and rivers. In my opinion, fish are not capable of communicating negative experiences or learning from another fish's negative experience.

 

All this tells me as that at times, a bass's priorities can be affected by anglers whether or not they are feeding and that lures are not usually attacked because of appetite.

[Catt]

I'm two semesters away from a degree in the philosophy of science; let me explain how it really works!

When research is done on wildlife where scientist;

Quote: control extraneous variables enough to tease something specific-such as that bass can "learn" and retain the experence.

In the scientific community under peer review the word "tease" is replaced with the word forced!

In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that proof and physical evidence are unneccessary to ascertain truth.

The rationalists thinks there are to many variables in the wild to obtain the results we want so we will simply remove the variables in a "scientific lab

".

[coryn h. fishowl]

The thousands of lure choices are to catch the fisherman!

The research referenced is over a 20 yr period. I have 42 yrs of research on Toledo Bend, my first bass caught was on a Ringworm & 42 yrs later I'm still catching them on Ringworms.

So my question is where is the learning?

Oh yea please explain a Jitterbug, Hula Popper, & other lures 50-60 yrs old.

Those lures weren't nearly as used/burnt out as spinnerbaits.   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. Let us not get to testy, for argumentative bickering that grows to be offensive would surely be the death of this topic.  Good night and joy be with you all.

[Brian Needham]

where is the proof of that Ian???

 

you are talking in circles again dude.

 

now the fish will not be caught again on a hula popper(at least not the same color pattern) but on the last page no study over any concernable lenght has shown this to be true.

 

Lab reports speak in circle, always "CYA"

 

Catt speaks of confirmation bias and it holds true here too. Yall want to prove something yet say there are too many variables to control. THATS THE POINT...... let nature be natural.

We are humans, we do not suppose to understand or figure out everything.

[SENKOSAM]

Has anyone considered the fact that some lures will never suffer from lack of strikes due to a shape and action that simulate a fish? Jones stated that bass and other predator fish (most freshwater species) prey on fish as the mainstay off their diet. The lures pictured fit the shape and action of fish, even the stick at the right. These lures always catch some bass as well as other species regardless of rig or presentation. My color choice never matches anything - I let shape and action do the talking. Seeing as how dependable they all year round (except in winter when downsizing is a given), is it a wonder that fish, even those hooked before, have no problem choosing them over live bait. 

 

These lures are not reaction type baits such as crankbaits, spinnerbaits, noisy surface lures or other in-your-face lures; they are subtle, slow and teasing - one of the best for heavily fished waters. They fit in perfectly with a bass's genetic disposition to target fish over any other animal. No learning or unlearning possible.

 

As far as colors go, few are all that are ever needed and never need to simulate actual fish species such as gills, perch or shiners. If anything, flash & contrast are my choice regardless of water color, appealing to the visual targeting ability of bass along with the stream-lined shape and quiver of body and tail. (Note the pearl nail polish painted on then bottom of the Rapala.)

 

Let the lab rats test these lures on over a hundred bass, over a year or two, and it's doubtful that fish will or can avoid attacking them, some more than others when fish are susceptible. (Small sticks work better more often than 5" baits and Rapalas least.)

 

Frank

[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....

 

Just throwing this little gem out there again.

[Catt]

I find it interesting that most of these studies that I've read mentioned a spinner bait as the #1 easiest to remember.

I also find it interesting that most support the proven theory that the plastic worm is only lure made that a bass can not remember.

With the thousands of lure choices out there I wouldn't hesitate to exchange "plastic worm" from any of todays plastic lures.

[WRB]

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?

You might want to research Mike Lembeck and Larry Botroff, both fishery biologist in the San Deido area who's bass behavior studies are accepted by the science and fishery management organizations.

The University of Illinios study referenced by David Phipp and his research teams study report appears to have been performed without bias. I have no idea if the science or fishery management accepts this report. Both reports were offered to satisfy your request for studies performed in the wild on wild largemouth bass verses captive tank fish.

You state that you have fished TB with the same lures on the same structure for 30 years successfully. I doubt that you are using the exact same lures, same types, different manufactures, sizes snd colors. My experience is similar, except the lakes I fish are much smaller, 2 miles long where TB is over 50 miles long. The jig I use is the same jig, the same colors bucktail hair and the same colors of pork trailers with the same shape, since 1971. Knowone else fishes the lakes with this jig combination and it has worked for me for over 40 years. So we agree that some lure classes work for decades. The more a lure replicates natural food sources it will continue to catch bass. If the anglers uses actual heathly live bait, the general bass population would never stop eating it.

Tom

PS; take a look at Science has lost it's way, LA Times.

[Paul Roberts]

Yall want to prove something yet say there are too many variables to control.

No, "Y'all" didn't say that, I said that. And It was not a blanket response to the entire subject. It was separating the reason why you cannot say much at all about the cognitive/memory abilities of fish with so many competing variables. Which variable affected your days fishing?? Well, that depends on the day, even hour. Which affected a bass' response to a particular lure? Would testing it in the dark compare against high noon, to take one extreme example? There are so many in nature that you would be left with nothing but "well it could have been this, or it could have been that or .... etc... That is exactly why this is not a question for anglers to answer. If anglers really think they can trust their own observations, powers of discernment, and memories over x number of years of fishing (that each contain multiple seasons and enormous variation in conditions and circumstances) to discern a single factor like "ability to learn" amongst all the rest, I'm ... shocked . You would then be right that there is no way to "know". So... why bother?? Tommy, Brian, is that your main point here?

 

Let's pretend that that is not the case and we can move on:

 

What might actually be done with the finding that yes bass in a lab CAN learn to avoid lures they've had experience with? Well, it certainly cannot be applied as the entire reason for the variability in our catch rates. But it's worth knowing. It becomes more interesting when we see multiple field studies that show that catch rates decline precipitously as virgin fisheries are fished. But, none that show that virgin bass fisheries get EASIER following experience with angling.

 

The Ridge Lake study is particularly compelling bc of its thoroughness. They actually quantified every catch, amount of angler effort, anglers catch rates, which fish were caught and how many times. They then drained the lake at the end of each year and counted every fish to be sure they had info on each. What they found was that bass became more difficult to catch over time and that individual bass varied in vulnerability to angling. Some were caught repeatedly, some never. Overall, catch rates declined rapidly following the introduction of angling. Basically "chuck-n-wind" began to fail. Anglers had to pay attention to the details of weather, water, seasons, and lure choice -conditions and circumstances -the fishing we know today. We all fish to experienced fish. As anglers we cannot compare this with a virgin fishery.

[Brian Needham]

but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.

 

 

"so many in nature you are left with nothing"

 

if you take away variables are you not left with confirmation bias? as you possibly drop the one variable that rules the mood of the fish one way or another?  

 

My main point, again I will state it, is we will never know because we are human, they are bass. And they aint talking. nature has mystified man since the dawn of time and that aint changing anytime soon either.

 

agree to disagree about the angle we come from

only question I am worried about is..............Your livewells full?

[Paul Roberts]

but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.

Exactly!! You nailed it!  There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time. Now...what are we going to do with this info??

 

My answer is ... nothing. Because I am not expecting virgin fisheries. What I glean out of this is that I know the bass know, to some level. At least emotionally that's worth knowing. And when someone writes that they finally got to fish a pond never fished before and it eventually "wore out" that learning plays at least some role in that. From there we must pay closer attention to the variables at hand that matter most at the given season, trend, hour. That's fishing.

 

 

we will never know because we are human, they are bass.

 

Bc we are human, would we try to catch largemouth bass and ... say ... chipmunks the same way? In other words, are we able to discern anything at all in the world out there? How about largemouth vs spots? Are there any differences? And how do we know -considering this deficit of being human and all?

[Catt]

The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.

I never said the research was useless, just interesting information. I do tend to believe bass remember lures but that memory last seconds to minutes not weeks to months.

WRB do we have comprehension difficulties

Clearly stated, 42 yrs, the same worm, from the same manufacturer, & in the same colors.

[Paul Roberts]

The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.

I never said the research was useless, just interesting information.

Yes. And said characteristically succintly. Thank you, Tommy. Phew! I knew this was becoming an argument for the wrong reasons. I just couldn't find exactly what was wrankling everyone. It's mostly about ... level of importance. Learning in bass is so hard to discern. And then, what can you do with the info. IME, with all the variables in wild waters, learning just lowers the vulnerability of bass to angling by some ... generalized factor. We are then left with ... the fishing we know -dealing with all those variables. The devil is in those details. that's fishing.

 

Pleasure hashing this out with you guys.

[Catt]

All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!

[WRB]

The difficulties arise when said studies are tried to be pasted off as scientific & thus the conclusions are scientific fact.

I never said the research was useless, just interesting information. I do tend to believe bass remember lures but that memory last seconds to minutes not weeks to months.

WRB do we have comprehension difficulties

Clearly stated, 42 yrs, the same worm, from the same manufacturer, & in the same colors.

you clearly stated 42 years, go back and retread #118. You didn't mention worms, colors or mfr's. we are both suffering from old timers. What is important we both fished 42 years with the same type of lures, worms and jigs, on similar structure with success!

Tom

[WRB]

All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!

Validated by whom? The studies were published, Nature and Science Journals, accepted by fishery biologist and management organizations across the country. What science community are you suggesting should approve a published paper?

We just need to agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

Tom

[Paul Roberts]

All 3 of y'all are definant to the very end, refusing to admit this research is not validated which leaves it only interesting information not fact!

The research, and there is a LOT of it, is peer reviewed. I've been through the process a number of times and can tell you it can be stringent. The reviewers are experienced in the appropriate field. They look at your experimental design, confounding factors, your statistics, and if it doesn't pass muster they throw back at you to revise, edit, or go back to the drawing board. What's odd here is how you can pass judgment so easily in a field you have no working experience in. You are not in position to judge the quality of this body of work. 42 years on a given lake does not make you an expert on the fields of study that apply to fish behavior. Do you really think that all those universities are full of ... idiots?

 

When repeated studies, looking at the issue in many creative ways from labs to natural waters, show bass respond negatively to angling and that it affects catch rates considerably, what conclusions would you draw? Ignore the whole thing? That is certainly your choice.

 

We just need to agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

Agreed.

[Catt]

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?

[Catt]

Quote: control extraneous variables enough to tease something specific-such as that bass can "learn" and retain the experience.

That Paul is where that type of research fails under peer review.

[Paul Roberts]

Ah! You are misunderstanding. Not fake or distort data. "Control" in this sense does not mean to actively distort things but to remove confounding factors. In this case (here we go again, and for the last time):

 

Brian Needham, on 05 Nov 2013 - 08:26, said:

but you still have to ask the bass that didn't bite whether he didn't bite because he has seen your lure before, or due to boat traffic.....lol.

Exactly!! You nailed it!  There is no boat traffic in a lab, nor are there temperature changes, schools of baitfish, cover and structure variations, wind, water, sky variables. It's just bass and your lure. You can regulate how hungry they are, temperature, lighting regimes, lure types, whatever your heart desires. One thing is consistent when this is done. Bass learn. And some have shown that they can hold onto it for considerable time.

 

And, Tommy, these studies didn't fail under peer review. It's understood that inferences and interpretations are made, and that there's lots more beneath that we cannot comprehend yet. But there's plenty of good work there -too much of it to ignore.

[SENKOSAM]

Paul pretty much echoed what many experienced anglers know for a fact - individual waters contain individual bass affected by different variables that affect fishing and for the most part lessen predictability and catch rates. What research does show are the biological attributes and limitations bass have as well as as well as how they relate to those variables which many anglers have been ignorant of and assume incorrectly reasons bass bite or not.

 

Knowing Bass, by Jones points out many facts about bass, lures and lab findings in controlled and uncontrolled environments, confirmed by other studies and experienced anglers. The book includes the variables we all encounter on a daily and seasonal basis filtered by bass senses for the most part but in conjunction with neural responses/reactions (aka unsophisticated cerebral ability).

 

So let's not bash science or research altogether, but appreciate findings that may clarify the why and how fishing is a sport and rarely a sure thing. Both research and anglers have room for error statistically and individually, indicating that a guess can sometimes outweigh massive research, but most important, disprove claims made by lure companies and sponsors promoting sales for one dumb reason or another. Match the hatch as well as other dogmatic generalities stated over and over in Bassmaster and BASS Times will always stick in my craw as fallacies that research and my own experiences over 55 years has challenged, refuted or modified!

 

In my opinion, I basically compare a bass's brain to that of a one month old child that instinctively exhibits certain automatic behaviors (the act of suckling, cooing, expressing discomfort and fear and when to fall asleep).  Bass by comparison suspend, feed when hungry or provoked, flee when alarmed and chose to touch, mouth or ingest objects it shouldn't, just like a curious human baby. The big difference is that when a baby is startled or awakened abruptly, it cries; a bass after a split second of composure,  will quickly analyze the sudden appearance of an object and then react to it one of three ways.

How much learning goes on? About as much as a one month old infant stuck with that IQ for the rest of it's life.

 

Again each to his own beliefs, but as long as individual anglers catch fish different ways on the same day in the same water or different nearby water, that's all the validation I need. And that is a constant!

[WRB]

We are trying to discuss bass behavior and apply scientific analysis to behavior that hasn't have enough funding to attract a broad base of information.

The 2 reports I referenced were funded by the city of San Deigo to determine if the goal of improving angler success Carch rate per hour of fishing and the bass being caught averaging larger size. This is what Orville Ball hoped to achieve by introducing pure Florida strain largemouth bass into San Deigo city lakes. Larry Botroff and Mike Lembeck, both DFG biologist, studied the bass and catch rates to make thiat determination. The results of the studies proved that FLMB were more difficult to catch and the angler per hour catch rate declined as a result. The FLMB introduction was considered a failure to meet the goals intended. The intend to introduce giant bass was not planned, it was a byproduct an unintended result.

This often happens in research, sometimes the unintended results far exceed the original goal, most of the time it fails.

One of the most outstanding study was a project named Alex. Alex was a African grey paroit that was trained to talk to determine the vocabulary a paroit could attain. Alex's vocabulary was astonishing, however the bird also showed the ability to comprehend the vocabulary. The scientific community is split on Alex ability to comprehend words. There is no debate that Alex was an intelligent bird. Birds, bass and humans are not all the same and this makes behavior studies subjective.

Tom