The Benefits Of Realism?

[iabass8]

But does one work, any better or less, than the other? 

In a Vacuum, no. One can out fish the other in different conditions. 

 

So now let me mix it up with this....

 

I spoke earlier if "certain" conditions.  So with that, are there any conditions, to your knowledge, that would make a bait of high realism, more productive than a bait without? 

The answer to this question is going to be redundant ....clear water.  

[MassBass]

I snorkled in a clear river and fed bass live crawfish then tried to catch them with a plastic crawfish on a hook and short piece of light line. They knew the difference and would not bite . Personally, and I may be wrong , I think they see the string.  I know I can see it and they see much better in the water than I .I can see fluorocarbon under water easily too. 

I did the same thing. but in a lake. I had the time of my life. And I learned alot. I think a tube is the best crawfish imitation, much better than a plastic craw dreamed up by a lure maker's fantasy. There were times when I would feed the bass with craws I caught and then drop a black and blue tube and they would INHALE it. Also caught them on live craws. But the whole feeding bass then trying to catch them is kind of un-sporting, even tho u will learn alot. 

[Heron]

In a Vacuum, no. One can out fish the other in different conditions. 

 

The answer to this question is going to be redundant ....clear water.  

Thats the answer I was expecting, and on the surface, I would agree with that.  But nonetheless, my experience has shown that to be inconsistent. 

[Matthew2000]

We don't know what bass see. That being said if they have the same vision as us isn't it better to buy the realistic pattern just in case. Depends on the bait fast moving cranks and spinnerbaits no I don't think so there eye most likely cannot follow the lure. To see what it is just like when someone throws a punch at you, you react to it immeadlty. In the fishes case because they have no hands they use their mouths. Then you set the hook.

[Heron]

We don't know what bass see. That being said if they have the same vision as us isn't it better to buy the realistic pattern just in case. Depends on the bait fast moving cranks and spinnerbaits no I don't think so there eye most likely cannot follow the lure. To see what it is just like when someone throws a punch at you, you react to it immeadlty. In the fishes case because they have no hands they use their mouths. Then you set the hook.

Actually we do know what bass see.  Its been studied.

[cyclops2]

Can NOT resist a answer to this question !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I have caught more HUGE fresh water bass & pike on a SINGLE  Flicker Spinner    gold #2 spinner blade. 1/2" long with a single #12 hook on it.

 

18" smallies 24" LM  + 40" pike......................Many many many times.   While pitching for perch.

 

Spinners ARE FRIGGIN DEATH on almost any fish.

 

Yeah......I bought 12 new Rebels & Rapalas 1.5" long,  in perch pattern & Emerald Shiner.              But the fact remains.  The single gold blade WILL catch fish also in bright light levels .

[cyclops2]

Best times was........ Had 2 nice perch on a double spinner line . Rod bends down. Drag on the 4# roars strong.

[Blues19]

Its an interesting thought.  I have never thought about it like this.  I think if they are hungry they are going to eat whatever,  But maybe if they see something that is not so realistic and an interesting color, maybe they bite it out of curiosity.  Who knows what those little jokers think. 

[nascar2428]

I caught hundreds of Bass last Summer using one bait. Is it realistic looking? Not to me, but the Bass obviously think it is. Senko's and all of its impostors all catch fish.

[Matthew2000]

Heron until you can literally see through a basses eyes no we don't know there are therories as to what because of the fishes behavior. They may not even see color like we do.

[cyclops2]

I think people do not separate the fact that a hungry fish goes RIGHT AFTER THE BIG NOISEY lure from a farther distance.

 

                                                                           

The 1/2"  Flicker Spinner is not NEARLY as productive as my 8 to 14 " lures on large fish.

[cyclops2]

Perch ARE VERY canabalistic !!  I have caught many 6" perch on the very skinny 8" Rapala floater. Real strikes 2  of 3 hooks in the little guys mouth.

[F14A-B]

Ive used them since about 78 also. We obviously have different experience. I still have a texas rig tied on 100 percent of the time but I catch a fraction of the fish with them as I use too. But this is off subject. Would make a good thread though.

I wouldn't disagree with it being off topic either, however in post #12 you brought up the plastic worm along with the educated largemouth bass.

So what level of education do you believe the largemouth bass has aquired to the point of plastic worms being more effective in the 70's & 80's?

[Heron]

Heron until you can literally see through a basses eyes no we don't know there are therories as to what because of the fishes behavior. They may not even see color like we do.

Actually they do see color...at least as good as we do,   The conclusions about this actually are not based on behavior, but instead on the fish's biology and anatomy.  Meaning, someone who gets paid to research these things, took a fish, pulled out its eyeball, sliced it open with a scalpel, and studied it under a microscope.

 

But youre more than welcome to express your concerns to any one of the fish biologists who study this species.

 

Also, when you get a chance, feel free to reference "rods and cones" and their importance in vision. 

[Catch and Grease]

Lol ^

[Matthew2000]

They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.

[F14A-B]

Lol ^

Lol^^

[RSM789]

I agree 100 percent. The 70's and 80's were much better times to catch fish on a plastic worm than todays educated fish. 

 

There are a couple of things that make me think twice before I agree with that.  First, in the 70's, nearly all bass that were caught were kept.  That means the only fish left in a lake to reproduce had the disposition of being more difficult to catch.  Now with the popularity of catch & release, the most gullible bass can get caught 30 times, yet still end up with old age being his cause of death.  Having those willing to bite fish in the gene pool seems as if it may balance out the increased angling pressure.

 

Second, the plastic worms of today are a far cry from the Crème worms & Mann's jelly worms of the 1970's.  I remember the first time I saw a Mister Twister worm with a 4" curly tail, I thought that I would catch every fish in my lake.  With the addition of scent, specialized hooks, softer worms that the fish hang onto, tungsten sinkers and more sensitive line & equipment, catching a bass with a 6" plastic worm is much easier now.  Remember how good you used to have to be to even feel a strike with a fiberglass rod, monofilament and a lead sinker?

 

I may be swayed by personal experience on this.  I added up some totals for 2014 from my fish logs & over 1/3 of my bass were caught on T-rigged plastics, with another 1/3 caught on wacky rigged Senkos.  Some of that may be experience I have gained over the years, but it sure seems like using plastic worms now (& catching bass) is much easier than it was 40 years ago.

[Heron]

They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.

They do this with all species, son.  

 

Well then.....since you had no prior knowledge of the science involved (until I brought it up) whatsoever....what is your basis for saying the science is flawed?  How do you know what considerations were/were not accounted for? 

 

You ask good questions, and the answers to those questions are available.   So with that, now would be a good time for you to stop posting on here, for the time being, and go read some documentation on this subject.   It would surely benefit your fishing. 

[aavery2]

They took 1 fish out of how many ? Of how May different species ? Realism means nothing. We are using 2 inch blue gill baits when is the last time you saw a 2 inch bliegill with a full adult coloration. Yes I do get what you are saying about the anatomy perspective. But out of the lakes I fish none of them are like going outside during the day. They are murky, how do the fishes eyes respond to that? Can they still see the bait or is it just a silloutte. The science behind it has many variables that are not taken into consideration. This is where it is flawed they would need to take at least 50 fish from each species to get a down right true answer. The comparison to the human eye isn't very valid lie in my book. We never walk through dust storms with are eyes wide open. We squint at best, do the fish squint I highly doubt that. So the fish and our eyes are indeed differnt.

I'm with you, I don't think fish squint there eyes in dust storms either......

[Catch and Grease]

Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"

Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.

[Heron]

Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"

Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.

Pleeeeze.  There is no need for us to be biologists ourselves, so long as we are able to reference work that biologists have made available.  

 

Besides, all of my nonsense is just regurgitated from what biologists and others have concluded from their studies.  

[cyclops2]

....deleted

[Catch and Grease]

Pleeeeze. There is no need for us to be biologists ourselves, so long as we are able to reference work that biologists have made available.

Besides, all of my nonsense is just regurgitated from what biologists and others have concluded from their studies.

I'm not saying you have to be a biologist to believe in it, I'm saying you need to be a biologist to PREACH IT BROTHA!

[RSM789]

Heron, you can believe whatever you want but don't go around saying "I KNOW FOR A FACT, that bass see this way!"

Unless your actually a biologist and understand the theories very well don't go around acting like you are 100% without a doubt correct.

 

I may not be a biologist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night...