Wider/fatter vs longer

[WRB]

FCPhil,

Off topic, jigs can be fished effectively in areas without any cover or in heavy cover, a very versitile lure. Where I fish jigs the lakes are deep rock structure with sparse cover, usually no cover. The bass are hunting crawdads or baitfish that hide in the rocks.

Tom

[Fishingmickey]

I'll argue presentation and strike zone. Presentation being how closely it matches the forage the bass are feeding on and if it has the right speed, action and vibration.  If it is presented properly and in the strike zone (being the distance the fish is willing to go for a meal) It will get bit. The strike zone varies depending on how active the fish are.  

FM

[GReb]

One thing seems certain from my experience. Clear water bass feed visually even when the water dirties up. Murky water fish feed off sound and vibration even when the water gets clear. 

 

Im also a big believer that fatter trailers are better for nearly every skirted bait. It helps push out the skirt and seems to increase the pulsating effect. 

[WRB]

LMB where I fish feed on Threadfin shad as the primary baitfish. The bass have learned that Threadfin are there best choice for food since juvenile size predators. When our lakes surface water warms to about 75 degrees the Shad spawn starts and that coincides with post spawn to summer transition. The bass population tends to focus their feeding activity on the Shad and it can be very frustrating trying to catch theses bass on artifical lure of any type. In fact using live Shad for bait with line over 6 lb test and hooks over size 2 sqiude style drop shot tends to kill the swimming ability of the Shad and bass tend ignore the those semi live shad, preferring the more lively free swimming baitfish.

My point is we don't know enough about the feeding preferences of bass to make broad statements about prey size, sometimes it's all about movements.

Tom

[Tvm]

1 hour ago, WRB said:

A fat bass can't move as fast as a skinny....false. A fat bass is in prime physical condition where as a skinny bass is a starving bass in poor health. 

Don't make the mistake that fish and people have any similarities. A fast lean athletic person verses a slow out of condions fat person isn't the same as a fish.

Another factor to consider is fish can't deterime there own size verses the prey they target and often make a mistake trying to swallow something that is  too big.

Matching the hatch is actually matching the prey movement and coloration the bass are focused on at that moment, not necessarily the lure size as we are often told.

Adult size bass can fit nearly any size soft plastic lure we use for bass fishing into thier mouth, unless it's too wide. Width is what prevents a bass from swallowing prey, not necessarily length. A 1 lb bass can eat a 12 inch worm with ease but not a 5" bluegill.

Tom

 

i understand a skinny bass is in poor health...

[Paul Roberts]

2 hours ago, Team9nine said:

Your argument is totally plausible. The difficulty in proving it's vibration and larger water movement that makes big baits attractive is you need to eliminate vision to do it IMO. That isn't easy to do. A scenario of turbid water or night time/deep water where light is largely eliminated seems like the only viable option. To your point, maybe they do prefer larger items, but if they instead choose to eat whatever they can get in low visibility situations, I'd argue that supports my side of the discussion, that they only prefer big when they can SEE big - not when they can feel big.

 

This can be supported with existing studies. More specifically to the OPs original question/premise, I'd add this statement from the (Hambright, 1991) study: "The relationship between prey body depth and piscivore mouth width clearly sets constraints on maximum prey sizes that can be ingested by gapelimited piscivores. These two factors also may play an important role in the selection of prey by piscivores within the range of ingestible prey sizes. Because many factors that influence prey selection by piscivores may also be associated with prey body depth, it is impossible to assign a singular role to body depth. Nonetheless, my results suggest that body depth is more useful than the traditional measure of prey length as a common measure for prey size selection by gape-limited piscivores feeding on an array of deep-bodied and shallow-bodied species."

 

I'd agree...

 

5 hours ago, FCPhil said:

It might just mean in the muddy water they catch anything they can.

^^^ This!

 

Trying to make sense of such things from an ecological viewpoint is darn difficult, bc of the sheer # of variables at play. I believe at least some of that research on bass feeding in turbid waters suggests that bass are taking what they can get:

-The most abundant prey.

-Prey they can physically get close to. The larger the body the more surface area for detection of water movement; This is not conjecture.

-Prey they can physically handle. For bass to take large prey, esp those with spiny defenses, they need everything they've got to make that capture, handle, and ingest. Bluegills, in particular, are very adept at avoiding capture, and even avoiding ingestion after capture.

 

I'm coming at this from a "lateral line" mechanics perspective. Vision is critical for feeding for bass the majority of the time. But... when they close, it's all about the cranial neuromasts. And this is in swimming pool clear water as well as turbid water. Vision is about targeting a prey item (identifying, aiming); The kill is seen through by feel.

 

5 hours ago, FCPhil said:

I think the “unwilling to chase in order to conserve energy” is a bit overhyped. They still are predators.

I disagree. Tracking energy expenditure is very important to all living things, including fish. That's what life does, for a living -quite literally. Energy flow is... what life is!

 

I would agree, if: All the calculations that a predator makes (what I've come to call "economic negotiations") to determine whether a potential prey item is a worthwhile target, have already been done. In other words, they've already decided to, or are able to, expend that energy to attack. This most often means -"vulnerable" prey. Predation is a two-sided coin. Prey isn't food, until it's been caught... and handled... and swallowed.

[Team9nine]

9 minutes ago, Paul Roberts said:

 

^^^ This!

 

Trying to make sense of such things from an ecological viewpoint is darn difficult, bc of the sheer # of variables at play. I believe at least some of that research on bass feeding in turbid waters suggests that bass are taking what they can get:

-The most abundant prey.

-Prey they can physically get close to. The larger the body the more surface area for detection of water movement; This is not conjecture.

-Prey they can physically handle. For bass to take large prey, esp those with spiny defenses, they need everything they've got to make that capture, handle, and ingest. Bluegills, in particular, are very adept at avoiding capture, and even avoiding ingestion after capture.

 

I'm coming at this from a "lateral line" mechanics perspective. Vision is critical for feeding for bass the majority of the time. But... when they close, it's all about the cranial neuromasts. And this is in swimming pool clear water as well as turbid water. Vision is about targeting a prey item (identifying, aiming); The kill is seen through by feel.

 

I disagree. Tracking energy expenditure is very important to all living things, including fish. That's what life does, for a living -quite literally. Energy flow is... what life is!

 

I would agree, if: All the calculations that a predator makes (what I've come to call "economic negotiations") to determine whether a potential prey item is a worthwhile target, have already been done. In other words, they've already decided to, are able to, expend that energy to attack. This most often means -"vulnerable" prey. Predation is a two-sided coin. Prey isn't food, until it's been caught... and handled... and swallowed.

Sounds like in your response to me, you are basically supporting my side of the argument. If bass aren't selectively choosing larger prey items, or selectively ignoring others, then the water displacement serves no purpose other than to guarantee feeding success, which is largely a primary function of lateral lines anyway.

 

On the latter comment, I took it more along the lines of the big fat bass can't chase down fast prey as efficiently per previous posts more so than an absolute statement of bass conserving energy.

[Deleted account]

6 hours ago, FCPhil said:

It seems like there is a variety of things going on here. 

A lure can be “bigger” both visually and in vibration/displacement. A glidebait is quiet, but visually larger than most lures, a buzzbait is average size visually, but creates lots of displacement and vibration. 

Even though an anaconda is long and skinny, and creates less vibration and displacement, it still is a big lure. It’s may be smaller “vibrationally” but it is big visually.

The big swimbait scene seems to have made it pretty clear that big lures catch bigger bass and more bigger bass. The big baits do deter small fish so they catch a lot less fish, but they do catch giants more often then the average person throwing a senko. Some of these guys have built there reputation on how many double digit bass they have caught and bring back livewells full of huge bass in just one day.

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems like bass having a large variety of food sizes in their stomach does not necessarily means they don’t prefer bigger prey. It might just mean in the muddy water they catch anything they can. They might still prefer larger pray and be drawn to larger lures with more “thump”

Do you fish jigs with craws and jigs with paddle tails the same way? In my experience people generally fish jigs with paddle tails more like a swimjig and cover more water. On the other hand jigs with craws are often used more to pitch to specific pieces of cover. Could the difference in size bass you catch be more to do with using them differently. Big bass certainly prefer the best pieces of cover in the pond. 

I agree jigs certainly are a good big bass lure. Although how much of that is due to the presentation itself and how much is due to the way they are fished? Jigs are textbook lures for pitching into thick cover and big bass usually get the best, nastiest cover in the lake. Is it the jig itself or is it the way jigs are fished? (I’m asking because I’m really not sure). 

I think the “unwilling to chase in order to conserve energy” is a bit overhyped. They still are predators. Buzzbaits are known to catch big bass. The lure that produced my PB and has produced the most big fish for me is a Whopper plopper with a steady retrieve. With noisy, fast moving lures, big bass don’t necessarily have to chase them down, they can hear them coming from a long way away and intercept them as the approach. Also, even the fastest moving lures are nowhere near as fast as both bass and baitfish can swim. Chasing a buzzbait is probably like a slow jog for a bass. 

Is it the altitude? It's gotta be the altitude....

[roadwarrior]

#1 presentation for the last 3 years has been a Rage Blade with a Structure Bug. White on white.

 

[FCPhil]

21 hours ago, WRB said:

FCPhil,

Off topic, jigs can be fished effectively in areas without any cover or in heavy cover, a very versitile lure. Where I fish jigs the lake are deep rock structure with sparse cover, usually no cover. The bass are hunting crawdads or baitfish that hide in the rocks.

Tom

When you catch bigger fish on jigs, do they tend to come when fishing heavy cover? Or do you catch big fish just as often fishing other areas with jigs?

21 hours ago, Tvm said:

if this was true you could use a top water and fast retrieves at low water temperatures 

 

theres no telling how far the bass traveled as well the assumption of it chasing the lure might be correct but id say it was a quick move like a lineman in football they make sprints not long runs

 

a fat bass cant move as quickly as a skinny bass of the same length  

 

i even said that the mo state record was caught with a spinnerbait... 

I’m not saying conserving energy is not a factor, it just seems to me if it was this overriding factor we would only catch large bass on slow lures, but plenty of large bass are caught on fast moving baits. So they are willing to chase at times, especially for a large meal. 

[WRB]

1 hour ago, FCPhil said:

When you catch bigger fish on jigs, do they tend to come when fishing heavy cover? Or do you catch big fish just as often fishing other areas with jigs?

I’m not saying conserving energy is not a factor, it just seems to me if it was this overriding factor we would only catch large bass on slow lures, but plenty of large bass are caught on fast moving baits. So they are willing to chase at times, especially for a large meal. 

Sparse cover means very little vegetation with a few isolated brush or small scrub oak tree, mostly steep rock areas. It's rare to catch big bass on unnaturally fast moving lures, this doesn't mean big bass are lazy swimmers. Big bass are very fast for short burst of speed and can turn quickly to capture faster swimming prey like trout agianst structure or the surface. Predators like pike or musky are fast forward swimmers with poor turning ability for example. It's not a mater of energy conservation, it's success rate and big bass group together to hunt fast prey like trout to increase the success rate .

Tom

[FCPhil]

13 minutes ago, WRB said:

Sparse cover means very little vegetation with a few isolated brush or small scrub oak tree, mostly steep rock areas. It's rare to catch big bass on unnaturally fast moving lures, this doesn't mean big bass are lazy swimmers. Big bass are very fast for short burst of speed and can turn quickly to capture faster swimming prey like trout agianst structure or the surface. Predators like pike or musky are fast forward swimmers with poor turning ability for example. It's not a mater of energy conservation, it's success rate and big bass group together to hunt fast prey like trout to increase the success rate .

Tom

I guess the more I think about it you are right. My PB came on a fast moving bait but most of my top 10 were on slower lures or were right after a pause when the lure had stopped for a moment. 

 

I’m sure another part of it is a “big bass” is different for us. Where I live anything over three pounds is a big bass but your PB is over 15!

[WRB]

To me female LMB bass over 4 lbs is an adult size bass, over 7 lbs is a big bass and Florida strain LMB over 15 lbs is a giant bass in California, 12 lbs is the national bench mark. Adult size 4 lb bass can hunt and kill any prey size in the lake, thier head and mouth is fully developed to handle whatever they choose to eat. Female LMB continue to grow whereas the majority of males max out at 4 lbs, very few get bigger but there are exceptions.

Tom

 

[Paul Roberts]

20 hours ago, Team9nine said:

Sounds like in your response to me, you are basically supporting my side of the argument. If bass aren't selectively choosing larger prey items, or selectively ignoring others, then the water displacement serves no purpose other than to guarantee feeding success, which is largely a primary function of lateral lines anyway.

Yeah, we are on the same page in saying that bass appear to be less discriminatory in turbid water. I also would add that they may actually face a greater challenge capturing larger prey under turbid conditions, for reasons listed above. 

 

But, this does not mean that bass won't take larger prey in such conditions -if only they could get close enough to them to target them effectively. Large prey -bluegills in particular- need to be grabbed by the head, and wrestled down. This can be difficult enough under good visibility conditions. I have come to this from both research in hunting/feeding mechanics, and also from a good number of video observations. Bluegills, the critters I get to watch most often, are no push-overs. And large-ish ones can't be simply or easily inhaled, or over-run, like small prey fishes can -or many lure presentations allow. 

 

There is a big difference between actual prey and lures. Lures are blind, deaf, dum, and lateral line deficient! A lure's "behavior" is... what we do with them.

 

I don't know if big lures are more effective in turbid water. I just don't have enough experience there. What I'd come to was to maintain a straight, slow retrieve (with regular sized lures) -that is, avoid erratic motion that might be more difficult for bass to catch when vision is impaired. And, there are studies that show that bass switch to feeding by lateral line when vision is impaired. Apparently, they may also make the best of lighting by holding in cover where they can see out into brighter "spacelight". So... I often use black lures in turbid water.

 

That's an interesting comment by Rick Clunn, about bass being spooked by "noisy" lures in turbid water. I could see that, esp with fish that aren't used to feeding in turbid water. Apparently bass can adapt to living in turbid water, becoming more "feel" oriented.

20 hours ago, Team9nine said:

On the latter comment, I took it more along the lines of the big fat bass can't chase down fast prey as efficiently per previous posts more so than an absolute statement of bass conserving energy.

Yeah, I get that now. Doh! Apologies, @FCPhil

 

40 minutes ago, FCPhil said:

...most of my top 10 were on slower lures or were right after a pause when the lure had stopped for a moment. 

This is a very common event in bass fishing. It's true for bass of all size, but seems esp important for large bass. 

 

3 hours ago, FCPhil said:

When you catch bigger fish on jigs, do they tend to come when fishing heavy cover? Or do you catch big fish just as often fishing other areas with jigs?

WRB's answer was excellent. In fact, there's a LOT in there that could be unpacked, esp in terms of how bass hunt, and how they make kills. My present understanding is that bass cannot, very often, kill at will.

 

One thing you should be aware of when comparing waters is that bass can make good livings in many water types. If the food is there, bass can grow well, even get big, in waters with little cover.

 

[jimmyjoe]

43 minutes ago, Paul Roberts said:

One thing you should be aware of when comparing waters is that bass can make good livings in many water types. If the food is there, bass can grow well, even get big, in waters with little cover.

  So true, so true. Some people can't believe the bass I pull out of the rivers around here. They think that bass are, literally, not there. El wrongo.     jj

[Paul Roberts]

If anyone has "Knowing Bass" by Keith Jones, there is a section on their research into what lure shapes interest bass. Long and thin -but not too thin- received the most interest from bass (strikes). That shape was essentially a cigar shape (think Senko, or Ned). I always tended to, naively, think of slim worms as "wormy" and therefore attractive to fish. And, they are, but apparently that cigar shape shouts "food" even louder to bass.

 

They also looked at crayfish shapes, and found... essentially the same thing. The configuration that drew the most strikes was a craw with all the appendages plucked off! Essentially a cigar shape again. It seems we tend to think that legs make a bait look more enticing, and pincers make a craw look more realistic. But, apparently, the bass's response showed that those things just got in the way of what they consider the "food".

 

These were done in clear water so we can assume that visual cues were primary there. How about in low visibility conditions? Who knows? I suspect thought that we most probably would have to separate lures from actual live prey, bc we don't really know what kinds of "hydrodynamic signatures" lures produce, or what bass might be respond to.

 

In my fishing, I've come to think that the turbulence lures create is very important to fish -maybe especially so for bass- for identifying a lure as "food" or not, and, I suspect for how bass perceive the size, or... significance, for lack of better, of a potential prey item.

 

[Team9nine]

1 hour ago, Paul Roberts said:

These were done in clear water so we can assume that visual cues were primary there. How about in low visibility conditions? Who knows? I suspect thought that we most probably would have to separate lures from actual live prey, bc we don't really know what kinds of "hydrodynamic signatures" lures produce, or what bass might be respond to.

 

In my fishing, I've come to think that the turbulence lures create is very important to fish -maybe especially so for bass- for identifying a lure as "food" or not, and, I suspect for how bass perceive the size, or... significance, for lack of better, of a potential prey item.

 

There is some really cool research being done in the area of wake tracking and hydrodynamic imaging in fish. A lot yet to be learned there, but the only angler I've seen discuss the subject is Clunn. There's a whole world yet to discovered and unraveled in this regard, especially concerning largemouth bass and lure design.

 

From one of those papers:

 

Wake height and the lateral distance between vortices correspond to the size of the tail fin and thus of the fish. The specific structure of the wake provides information about swimming style. The sense of rotation and travelling direction of the vortices and the direction of the dragged water give information on swimming direction of the prey. A wake shows distinct structural changes when ageing. Thus the hydrodynamic structure could inform a predator if the creator of the wake is suitable prey (size, swimming speed), in which direction it went and if the wake is fresh enough to be worth following.

 

We know that there are both hydrodynamic and chemical signatures left in the vortices of these wakes. We also know that in this regard, the lateral line is key in predators detecting and utilizing these wakes, much more so than the chemical/olfactory aspect. Some catfish have been proven to be able to track 1-2 inch long guppies in total darkness up to 10 seconds after they have passed, and from distances of 1-2 meters apart. As such, I think your observation and premise on the turbulence lures create and their importance to fish is spot on.

[Paul Roberts]

23 hours ago, Team9nine said:

There is some really cool research being done in the area of wake tracking and hydrodynamic imaging in fish. A lot yet to be learned there, but the only angler I've seen discuss the subject is Clunn. There's a whole world yet to discovered and unraveled in this regard, especially concerning largemouth bass and lure design.

 

From one of those papers:

 

Wake height and the lateral distance between vortices correspond to the size of the tail fin and thus of the fish. The specific structure of the wake provides information about swimming style. The sense of rotation and travelling direction of the vortices and the direction of the dragged water give information on swimming direction of the prey. A wake shows distinct structural changes when ageing. Thus the hydrodynamic structure could inform a predator if the creator of the wake is suitable prey (size, swimming speed), in which direction it went and if the wake is fresh enough to be worth following.

 

We know that there are both hydrodynamic and chemical signatures left in the vortices of these wakes. We also know that in this regard, the lateral line is key in predators detecting and utilizing these wakes, much more so than the chemical/olfactory aspect. Some catfish have been proven to be able to track 1-2 inch long guppies in total darkness up to 10 seconds after they have passed, and from distances of 1-2 meters apart. As such, I think your observation and premise on the turbulence lures create and their importance to fish is spot on.

Yeah, just from my fishing alone... all I can really say is... I think there's something going on with the turbulence lures produce. Lots of experiences, especially in terms of observed rejections, and what it is about some lures, and fly-fishing "fly" designs, that just plain trigger bigger fish.

 

Jigs are one, and it's not always that they are slower or closer to the bottom or cover (although that can certainly help too), bc I see this with swim-jigs too, fished higher in the water column. Slim plastics, many trebled lures, take a lot of bass. But at the end of the day, the jigs (and creatures, spinnerbaits and buzzbaits, and big lures) tend to tally the bigger fish.

 

I've been aware of Rick Clunn's interest in wakes, mostly from comments he'd made about some of his crankbait designs that sported texturing that was supposed to create turbulence. I say "was" bc I don't believe they ever lit things on fire. I never bought in (although I agreed with the premise) bc... I sort of feel that there are other things that do the job better. There's a reason wood plugs have stood the test of time, and it's not just nostalgia.

 

Thanks for chatting.

[813basstard]

Placebo effect, is always in effect as well....if you think it works, and it has worked, well...

[Paul Roberts]

16 hours ago, 813basstard said:

Placebo effect, is always in effect as well....if you think it works, and it has worked, well...

Yes, we are "belief machines", as it's been put.

 

It works, until... it doesn't work. Then, we are head-scratching again. And thinking, there has to be a better explanation... And so it goes. 

[txchaser]

On 1/25/2019 at 12:13 PM, Paul Roberts said:

If anyone has "Knowing Bass" by Keith Jones, there is a section on their research into what lure shapes interest bass. Long and thin -but not too thin- received the most interest from bass (strikes). That shape was essentially a cigar shape (think Senko, or Ned). I always tended to, naively, think of slim worms as "wormy" and therefore attractive to fish. And, they are, but apparently that cigar shape shouts "food" even louder to bass.

 

They also looked at crayfish shapes, and found... essentially the same thing. The configuration that drew the most strikes was a craw with all the appendages plucked off! Essentially a cigar shape again. It seems we tend to think that legs make a bait look more enticing, and pincers make a craw look more realistic. But, apparently, the bass's response showed that those things just got in the way of what they consider the "food".

 

These were done in clear water so we can assume that visual cues were primary there. How about in low visibility conditions? Who knows? I suspect thought that we most probably would have to separate lures from actual live prey, bc we don't really know what kinds of "hydrodynamic signatures" lures produce, or what bass might be respond to.

  

In my fishing, I've come to think that the turbulence lures create is very important to fish -maybe especially so for bass- for identifying a lure as "food" or not, and, I suspect for how bass perceive the size, or... significance, for lack of better, of a potential prey item.

 

Read this post a few days ago (and some recollection of a similar one) and it has been bugging me. Does this mean (if true) a Fat Ika would be more effective with no skirt on it? That varying blob color and size may make a difference but all the legs/arms/skirts etc aren't helping, at least with a craw presentation?

[Paul Roberts]

On 2/3/2019 at 10:29 PM, txchaser said:

Read this post a few days ago (and some recollection of a similar one) and it has been bugging me. Does this mean (if true) a Fat Ika would be more effective with no skirt on it? That varying blob color and size may make a difference but all the legs/arms/skirts etc aren't helping, at least with a craw presentation?

Ah! Good question. And it's a doozy, too.  

 

There's more involved in the identification of "food" than visual shape, of course. There's also size, color, sound, movement, water displacement, scent, and who knows yet. By the time they get to taste... I suppose that may be the end of the line. But by then it's already in their mouth. That's when our "experiment" ends, with a hook-set. Since fish don't have hands they "sample" with their mouths, whereby taste and texture probably make the final call. But there's a list potentially to cover, before a lure even gets to a sampling.

 

What was tested in the Berkley Lab was presumably mostly vision, in a lab setting: a large test tank, clear water, consistent background, and lighting. In the wild there is LOTS more at play, in terms of environmental conditions, which likely means that a greater range of senses might need to be called upon to make the call. Then there's all the ecological and economic (energy-wise) circumstances that play into how a given fish might operate in that particular space -other predators (fisherman included), competitors, prey types, ... 

 

These challenges have shaped bass, leaving them with physical and behavioral tools that have survived the tests of time, to operate from. From here, fish can and do learn. The idea of such experiments in the Berkley Lab was to reduce conditions and circumstances to control for that cloud of variables that could obscure the basic question: Do bass gravitate toward basic "Search Images" that say "food", more readily than others?

 

The experiment I mentioned was meant to test (interview) bass about shape from a visual perspective -bass being primarily visual hunters. They also experimented with size, color, scent, and taste -the last two is where PowerBait, Gulp, and others came out of.

 

So... the Ika. I would guess no, a skirtless Ika would not be a great improvement -exceptions could be during winter when bass are more apt to take smaller and less active, prey, or if a given group of bass are hip to your Ika! This can and does happen. Also, the skirt changes the size of the image (size is still one of the categories bass use to assess "food"), motion, speed, and water displacement.

 

But, given either a change in conditions & circumstances (like those listed above), location, or time (as fish can and do forget), and you could still be in business with that lure. Some lures are likely tougher to remember (read identifying -bad- cues off of), and the Ika probably is in that niche. How long can fish remember? Potentially a long time it's been found, but this varies with the species, the circumstances under which the fish grew up in, the event, the object, and... probably other stuff too. The Berkley Lab apparently found that bass (LM) could learn to identify a certain lure as "not food", and hold onto that negative, or indifferent, search image for months -as long as the test went.

 

Even, further... (phew!), fish, like all living things, are individuals. Some it seems have a penchant for certain lure types, or even specific lures, perhaps. The reasons are likely buried in each individual's "psyche": sensory and motor abilities, search images, personality, locational preferences, ...

 

Phew, is right. It's a big world down there. Hope this helps. For me, this kind of stuff doesn't always help tell me why I caught the fish I did, but does help me understand a bit better why I didn't catch them all. And there's a lot to be said for that. In fact, I sometimes think -esp on the tough days- that if we could see what's actually going on down there around our lures the vast majority of the time, I think a lot of us would be finding something else to do with our time.  Tennis anyone? At least there you can be sure to get to hit the ball around some.

 

[txchaser]

The lack of complexity on senkos and TRDs seems to support the featureless idea. 

I'm looking forward to seeing a bite on and chopping up something with parts and seeing what happens. 

I recall (perhaps from another post?) that Berkely also concluded that no one would buy a lure that looked like a thumb.

 

One of the fun things about all this is mostly we are blind, and occasionally get glimpses of something that might work, but no one's really sure, because the data is sparse, and there are too many variables to get clear pictures. 

[Paul Roberts]

19 hours ago, txchaser said:

The lack of complexity on senkos and TRDs seems to support the featureless idea. 

I'm looking forward to seeing a bite on and chopping up something with parts and seeing what happens. 

I recall (perhaps from another post?) that Berkely also concluded that no one would buy a lure that looked like a thumb.

 

One of the fun things about all this is mostly we are blind, and occasionally get glimpses of something that might work, but no one's really sure, because the data is sparse, and there are too many variables to get clear pictures. 

Yes, I've read that somewhere too. Well, it took a while to figure out empirically, but an awful lot of us find ourselves -at times- resorting to thumbs and fingers (Ned and Senko).

 

Very well put. It's cool that you are recognizing the fun in such a big challenge. The complexity is daunting, if you look it square in the eye. However, lotsa courageous (and curious) people have been chipping away at figuring things out. And quite a bit of headway has been made -with plenty more to come. "The Great Mystery" is enormous. But, at least in terms of fishing, understanding the challenge better makes those tough days quite a bit less frustrating, and the successes -the contact with those fish- all the more appreciated.

 

Great thread.