Behavioral Differences Between Bass Species

[WRB]

Fishbowl be aware of Internet info, pay attention to valid published papers and printed books by recognized experts in this field. Kieth Jones, Knowing Bass is a good resource for example.

What is known about how LMB see colors underwater where they live is an ongoing science experiment.

Bass can see seveal times better in low light than a human can see above water in bright light conditions.

Bass have the ability to change their vision for long distance verses close up and change the flutter rate to look at fast moving objects in slow motion. What is unknown is there ultra violet color range that the human eye can't detect unaided. There is lots of things we don't know about how bass see their world. When you get our age, you may LOL at what we think we know. Until that time keep an open mind, some of us have been bass fishing longer than you dad has lived. When I was 17 I knew everything, then discovered at 35 I actually was confident of a few things, at 70 I have forgotten more about bass fishing than most people will ever know.

You posted a good thread that has brought out some very good exchanges, some are getting personal and that isn't positive and time to accept the fact it's better to agree to disagree than win a point.

Peace.

Tom

[Catt]

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by obsevation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

For something to be considered "scientific" it MUST meet all four of the following principles.

Observation: the action or process of observing something in order to gain information; someone had to have observed it at least once in their life time.

Testable: involves two componts

1. The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability.

2. The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series.

Repeatable: The ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently (peer review). It is one of the main principles of the scientific method and relies on ceteribus paribus (all things being equal or held constant).

Falsifiable: A hypothesis or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Example, all swams are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.

[coryn h. fishowl]

 When I was 17 I knew everything, then discovered at 35 I actually was confident of a few things, at 70 I have forgotten more about bass fishing than most people will ever know.

You posted a good thread that has brought out some very good exchanges, some are getting personal and that isn't positive and time to accept the fact it's better to agree to disagree than win a point.

Peace.

Tom

If I believed myself to know everything, I would not devote my time researching the behavior and biology of predators, bass included.  Yes, it is an ongoing challenge, seeing the world through eyes of bass, but some things we know already, such as their color perception.  However, I do appreciate the manner in which you have approached topics.

[SENKOSAM]

Putting all BS aside (including my own), answer this question: what are YOUR favorite crankbait colors?

 

Putting the question into perspective: a human's choice is most times not scientific! It's based on opinion, based on simplified knowledge and beliefs. Opinion is supported by experiences, successes and failures, but mostly bias.

 

I have a bias for pearl sided crankbaits. Why? Because they flash more light the deeper crankbaits are used and contrast with all backgrounds viewed from the side.

 

Does anyone actually use purple, pink, blue or aquamarine crankbaits? Years ago the Color C Lector had them on the meter which took into consideration water qualities and depth. But how long did that go over? How many of you use solid colored crankbaits with no details such as eyes, gills and scales? Do they promote strikes happening? (BTW, I've used solid white and pearl crankbaits and caught bass.)

 

Again, bias, opinion, experience or inexperience decides our lure choices, colors, sizes, etc. and where they are used. Location is by far #1, but to suggest that one size fits all when it comes to chosing artificial baits under all or specific situations is in itself telling.  Such is constantly demonstrated by bait company propaganda that exercise sophisticated methods to dismiss reason and logic to sell and to take their word for why we should buy this or that lure in different colors. Their schills have lost credibility, except to the clueless novice that are drawn in by imagery of big bass, big tournament wins and 50 bass days. We know better.

 

I'm apt to believe that many of you that replied to this topic have experience and have limited your choices based on many outings on different waters under different conditons. Science is nice, but taking chances on a whim and being surprised when they catch fish are so much better!

[coryn h. fishowl]

Putting all BS aside (including my own), answer this question: what are YOUR favorite crankbait colors?

 

Putting the question into perspective: a human's choice is most times not scientific! It's based on opinion, based on simplified knowledge and beliefs. Opinion is supported by experiences, successes and failures, but mostly bias.

 

I have a bias for pearl sided crankbaits. Why? Because they flash more light the deeper crankbaits are used and contrast with all backgrounds viewed from the side.

 

Does anyone actually use purple, pink, blue or aquamarine crankbaits? Years ago the Color C Lector had them on the meter which took into consideration water qualities and depth. But how long did that go over? How many of you use solid colored crankbaits with no details such as eyes, gills and scales? Do they promote strikes happening? (BTW, I've used solid white and pearl crankbaits and caught bass.)

 

Again, bias, opinion, experience or inexperience decides our lure choices, colors, sizes, etc. and where they are used. Location is by far #1, but to suggest that one size fits all when it comes to chosing artificial baits under all or specific situations is in itself telling.  Such is constantly demonstrated by bait company propaganda that exercise sophisticated methods to dismiss reason and logic to sell and to take their word for why we should buy this or that lure in different colors. Their schills have lost credibility, except to the clueless novice that are drawn in by imagery of big bass, big tournament wins and 50 bass days. We know better.

 

I'm apt to believe that many of you that replied to this topic have experience and have limited your choices based on many outings on different waters under different conditons. Science is nice, but taking chances on a whim and being surprised when they catch fish are so much better!

Hallelujah! Darn good post man.  When nothing works I always throw a wildcard bait in some strange color, and oftentimes it works!

[KyakR]

This may very well be my favorite thread on BR so far! Passionate exchanges full of years of knowledge and experience......questions worthy of a philosopher (ie "How can we know?").......clashes between age and youth! Not to mention the overall effort of everyone to remain open-minded and civil even when there's fire in the eye!

My 2 cents has to with what Science is and why I love it. I think that each of us has an interior "mental model" of the world around us. As we grow and learn, this model comes more and more to approximate our "reality," if you think of reality as the great machine of the universe with all it's laws and consequences. We each have different "models" and each of them is inadequate alone. Each person survives more or less according to his and how accurate it is......everyone's "model" includes information about gravity. If not life can be hard.

Science is the "mental model" of the entire human race created over centuries to help us negotiate our world.  To continually refine what we know! We conquered our planet because Science, through our shared bank of experience, has modeled "reality" ever more adequately, even past the limits of our senses. It's not perfect! But it is the best model we have, and it's as good as it is only because real scientists labor to hold tightly to the scientific method, which has been, happily, well described here. Science is called a discipline for a reason. To "do" it properly requires enormous discipline, not only by one, but by groups of people together. By people who love it, know what it means to humanity, and for whom forsaking the scientific method is unthinkable and unethical. 

Science gives us a less adequate model of bass behavior than we'd like partly because, as Tom said, the funding isn't there. And I think Brian said some important things implying (to me anyway) that the science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior. All it means is that the big gun of Science hasn't been pointed in that direction. IMO 

Second to last thing: I think it's good to remember that amazing things have been done and said by people under 25. Most of major advancements in many fields come from young people about that age.  But it's also true that us old folks often have wisdom difficult for youngsters to grasp. My son Brian tells me now that he's in his mid-thirties that I'm getting smarter every year

Lastly, I love this thread because it's really given me such a great idea about everybody's personality! What interesting and cool people! Would be neat to get a topic like this going at the roadtrip after a few beers! 

                           

 

[SENKOSAM]

 

science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior

Maybe if skin divers followed bass around for weeks in the wild non-stop, could they begin to see locations, feeding behavior and responses to various lures (similar to Glen Lau and Doug Hannon videos). But that most likely will never happen and most important, not happen on the thousands of waters across the nation. Habitat defines bass behavior and anglers that fish different waters have to figure out what differences there are that habitat defines which dictates trying different lures and presentations that find susceptible bass.

 

Sure, science can predict chemical reactions and (sometimes) the weather, but wild things that turn on and off at the drop of a hat - maybe not so much, otherwise certain anglers who owned predictive  informations would always win whatever tournament they were in. Reading the standings in BASSMaster Magazine tells me no one does because few veteran pros are in the top forty all of the time.

 

The scientific method and logs have helped me define bass behavior as chaotic, as all those who have been skunked might agree. Granted, bass may show a predictable pattern that can last for a few days or weeks, but the following year be totally different, even as far as the lures they strike in certain locations. Other than that, science has helped me organize my experiences into facts that are a bit more reliable over time, minus the fallacies and misinformation I mentioned earlier.

 

No model is perfect nor could it be when it comes to wild life, but an angler needs  a frame of reference to at least have somewhere to start from when trying different things to save time versus snoozing on a bank with a bobber and live bait attached to the big toe with a bit of string while snoozing under a large straw hat hoping for a tug on his big toe alerting him to a bite.

 

When, where and how to use lures will always be the challenge that no model will ever predict 100 %.

[WRB]

The only B.A.S.S. tournament pro that was also a scientist was the late Dr. Loren Hill, professor U of OK. Father of Keyon Hill, Elite pro.

Dr. Loren Hill had written about 50 papers on largemouth bass and we tend to debate his knowledge, bass anglers are a study unto itself, self proclaimed experts . Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.

Tom

PS; agree with KayakR, this was an interesting thread and everyone who interacted added their opinions and experiences, sharing is what this is all about. Have a good Thanksgiving day to all.

[KyakR]

Happy Thanksgiving !

[SENKOSAM]

 

Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.

So true! An open mind leads to discovery and surprise, insuring the ebb and flow of learning. Sharing our experiences opens volumes of ideas to at least consider just as being on the water does.

 

Thanks Giving

A day for giving thanks and counting our blessings such as good friends and family (whoever and wherever they may be) and praying for those less fortunate. 

Enjoy and don't over eat!

 

Frank

[coryn h. fishowl]

 

Enjoy and don't over eat!

 

Easier said than done

[coryn h. fishowl]

This may very well be my favorite thread on BR so far! Passionate exchanges full of years of knowledge and experience......questions worthy of a philosopher (ie "How can we know?").......clashes between age and youth! Not to mention the overall effort of everyone to remain open-minded and civil even when there's fire in the eye!

My 2 cents has to with what Science is and why I love it. I think that each of us has an interior "mental model" of the world around us. As we grow and learn, this model comes more and more to approximate our "reality," if you think of reality as the great machine of the universe with all it's laws and consequences. We each have different "models" and each of them is inadequate alone. Each person survives more or less according to his and how accurate it is......everyone's "model" includes information about gravity. If not life can be hard.

Science is the "mental model" of the entire human race created over centuries to help us negotiate our world.  To continually refine what we know! We conquered our planet because Science, through our shared bank of experience, has modeled "reality" ever more adequately, even past the limits of our senses. It's not perfect! But it is the best model we have, and it's as good as it is only because real scientists labor to hold tightly to the scientific method, which has been, happily, well described here. Science is called a discipline for a reason. To "do" it properly requires enormous discipline, not only by one, but by groups of people together. By people who love it, know what it means to humanity, and for whom forsaking the scientific method is unthinkable and unethical. 

Science gives us a less adequate model of bass behavior than we'd like partly because, as Tom said, the funding isn't there. And I think Brian said some important things implying (to me anyway) that the science hasn't kept pace with what an experienced angler knows and intuits after many years on the water. But that doesn't mean Science itself is less a method of knowing and predicting bass behavior. All it means is that the big gun of Science hasn't been pointed in that direction. IMO 

Second to last thing: I think it's good to remember that amazing things have been done and said by people under 25. Most of major advancements in many fields come from young people about that age.  But it's also true that us old folks often have wisdom difficult for youngsters to grasp. My son Brian tells me now that he's in his mid-thirties that I'm getting smarter every year

Lastly, I love this thread because it's really given me such a great idea about everybody's personality! What interesting and cool people! Would be neat to get a topic like this going at the roadtrip after a few beers! 

                           images-1.jpg

Come on, now that's not even fair, how do you keep one up(ing) everyone with your thoughtful responses and insight. How can we compete.

[KyakR]

Come on, now that's not even fair, how do you keep one up(ing) everyone with your thoughtful responses and insight. How can we compete.

Mroohohaha! Hurry up and turn 18 so you can debate me at the Road trip!

[Catt]

The only B.A.S.S. tournament pro that was also a scientist was the late Dr. Loren Hill, professor U of OK. Father of Keyon Hill, Elite pro.

Dr. Loren Hill had written about 50 papers on largemouth bass and we tend to debate his knowledge, bass anglers are a study unto itself, self proclaimed experts . Keep an open mind and you may surprise yourself and learn a little here.

Tom

PS; agree with KayakR, this was an interesting thread and everyone who interacted added their opinions and experiences, sharing is what this is all about. Have a good Thanksgiving day to all.

Ever heard of Ken Cook?

Oklahoma Fisheries Biologist & one of the top Professional Angler!

Want me to name more?

[WRB]

Ever heard of Ken Cook?

Oklahoma Fisheries Biologist & one of the top Professional Angler!

Want me to name more?

How soon I forget.

[coryn h. fishowl]

Mroohohaha! Hurry up and turn 18 so you can debate me at the Road trip!

If I go, I'll turn 18 halfway through the trip. B-day's on May 2. Sounds like an incredible opportunity, I would love to attend.

[KyakR]

If I go, I'll turn 18 halfway through the trip. B-day's on May 2. Sounds like an incredible opportunity, I would love to attend.

It would be mighty fine if you could! 

[KyakR]

But you'd have to give me your beers 

[Brian Needham]

Btw: Brian is not implying anything.

 

My statement is clear: It is nature and we are human. Nature will never be "figured out", for the fact we are human.

It is not our place to understand. Mother Nature will always be "king", always one step in front of humans.... as that is the way it was designed.

 

If it wasnt we would still be using penicillian for everything but things change for whatever reason. Kyakr, from what I gather you come from a nursing background. You would have had to seen it yourself.

with that said we still catch fish on the same spinnerbaits in the same colors and the same worms...... it is a circle; a circle that will not be broken or figured out in any lab or study method, IMO.

 

Sure the lab and studies will always come close, but nature will always change, add another variable. Then humans will make new studies on new lures, and think we have it figured out, only for nature to turn it upside down again.

Sometimes you just got to look up and enjoy what you are seeing, and not worry about the WHY so much, just be glad it is.

There is a reason they are called mad scientist......they went mad trying to figure out the impossible, LOL.

 

and that argument has never been broken, and most likely never will.

[Catt]

Just out of curiosity coryn h. fishowl since January 1 st to December 5 th how many bass have you caught?

50? 100? 250? 500? 1,000? More?

How many over 5? Over 8? Over 10?

Science is about information...more importantly the interruptation of that information!

You have a lot of knowledge but no wisdom!

[KyakR]

Btw: Brian is not implying anything.

 

My statement is clear: It is nature and we are human. Nature will never be "figured out", for the fact we are human.

It is not our place to understand. Mother Nature will always be "king", always one step in front of humans.... as that is the way it was designed.

 

If it wasnt we would still be using penicillian for everything but things change for whatever reason. Kyakr, from what I gather you come from a nursing background. You would have had to seen it yourself.

with that said we still catch fish on the same spinnerbaits in the same colors and the same worms...... it is a circle; a circle that will not be broken or figured out in any lab or study method, IMO.

 

Sure the lab and studies will always come close, but nature will always change, add another variable. Then humans will make new studies on new lures, and think we have it figured out, only for nature to turn it upside down again.

Sometimes you just got to look up and enjoy what you are seeing, and not worry about the WHY so much, just be glad it is.

There is a reason they are called mad scientist......they went mad trying to figure out the impossible, LOL.

 

and that argument has never been broken, and most likely never will.

Nursing background....true! I've seen many lives saved, much human happiness because Science intervened. I do agree with you here, Brian Our knowledge will always fall short, and will sometimes even take lives or make them worse (H-bomb, bacteria resistant TB, etc.) But it is our place as human beings to understand if that means acquiring widom (**** sapiens means wise ape). Science is only a tool to accomplish this. It's the human heart that really "knows." Nature and people aren't separate either......we are nature too. But, as you imply, if people in science or otherwise ever forget to have humility before the unknowable, to bend a knee and bow a head to the things of the spirit that are in us and in Nature, tragedy often follows! The Greeks called this "hubris" and I often loved the stories of this in dad's mythology books when I was a kid! 

Anyhow, I do recognize the truth in what you're saying. Even if you mentioned Yakburgers that one time 

[A-Jay]

Experienced bass learn from their time on the water what bass prefer on the lakes they fish and become good anglers that consistantly catch fish or they don't learn and repeat what other good anglers are doing. The 90-10 rule where 10% of the angers catch 90% of the bass hasn't changed in my life time. The fact that the top anglers catch their bass using different lures and presentations then the 90% who struggle is an interesting topic and gives us a clue regarding bass behavior. The common denominator to solving this problem is food verses bass feeding activity, the top anglers are catching active feeding bass, the unsuccessful are not.

Bass don't eat all day long and they are not laying in ambush waiting for your lure to swim by as most anglers believe. Cover enough water and you will catch bass is another mistake most anglers make. You may stumble into active bass by covering a lot of water where bass are located, this is a hit and miss technique.

If you could go directly to where the bass are located and time your fishing to when the bass are active feeding, you will consistantly catch more bass. Learning about bass behavior helps, discovering what the bass are eating and where they are located = success...as long as your presence doesn't alter the feeding activity.

Tom

 

I had not been following this thread from the beginning.

I did just read all 14 pages; living in the snow belt, I've got time.

Much of this may not directly answer the OP's questions but there is an abundance of very interesting info and views here; most of which is way above my pay grade.

However, Toms quote above is one I can wrap my head around and routinely attempt to implement.

 

Perhaps the single most impressive aspect of this entire thread - Is The Passion.

 

A-Jay

[Brian Needham]

welcome to the fray A-Jay!!!

 

it has been a wierd ride......I have learned so I suppose that's all that matters.

[SPEEDBEAD.]

Just trying to make LongMike proud here but shouldn't the title of the thread be "among" since there are three species of bass tagged under the title?

 

 

I'm better with grammar than biology.

[WRB]

Thank you A-jay. Interesting thread that has covered a lot of philosophy and some differences between bass species. The title could have been the science of bass and man behavior.

Put another log on the fire and enjoy the Holidays.

Tom