Knowing Bass: The Scientific Approach to Catching More Fish

[J Francho]

Science can tell us almost without a doubt what is possible.  What is probable when you get to the lake is another story - there's more to it than what has been tested n a lab that we haven't figured out.  Just because an experiment proves that braid is more visible to the fish doesn't mean fluoro will get you more bites.  But it might next Thursday.  The book is an interesting read, and I especially like the sections dealing with fish vision.

[Sam]

On 8/30/2020 at 7:40 PM, garroyo130 said:

Try to temper your enthusiasm. I may be alone here but this book was a bit of a let down for me. Much of it read like a biology book about sunfish with bits and pieces related specifically to bass and bass fishing. There were some interesting sections for sure but certain things such as 20 pages dedicated to whether or not bass feel pain didnt provide particularly useful information. 

Bass are part of the sunfish family.

 

I thought Dr. Jones brought in the bass species a lot in the book.

 

Just my two cents.

On 8/31/2020 at 8:41 AM, Catt said:

If you believe there's a scientific approach to bass fishing then read it.

 

I would suggest learning your ecosystem & predator-prey relationships.

 

But then I'm just a dumb Cajun ?

Hey Catt, all OK after the storm?

 

Let us know.

[Tennessee Boy]

I think the book is a must read if you are serious about understanding bass.  The title of the book should be just "Knowing Bass" as he does not suggest an approach to catching more fish just a lot of evidence on bass behavior.

 

As for his methods.  Some experiments can only be performed in a lab and others can only be performed in the wild.  None can be accurately performed without controls.  For those of you who have criticisms of the book,  have you read the book? and can you give specific examples where you take issue with it?  Many angler's want to immediately jump to a conclusion based a single observation.  It just doesn't work that way.  Consider this quote that I pulled from the book by just opening it to a random location (page 130).

 

"Do rattles increase lure appeal to bass?  Not always.  In one positive test,  soft plastic crayfish, each loaded with four glass tube rattles,  garnered 20 percent more strikes from bass than the exact same plastic crayfish without rattles.  In another test,  however, an assortment of crankbaits equipped with rattles actually scored 25 percent less overall than a similar assortment without rattles.  Both test were run in clear water where the lures were easily seen.  Running the test in stained or muddy water would have probably yielded results more favorable for the rattling baits."

 

I find this type of information very valuable but it does not give me absolute guidance on wether or not to use rattles.  It's just further evidence on the subject which he presents in an honest way.  It simply suggest that rattles can make a small but significant difference both positive and negative in some circumstances.  Interpreting this information and deciding how to apply it to the way one fishes is up to each individual angler. It's a life long journey.  The question is do you want to make that journey with as much information as possible or not.  If you prefer to make informed decisions, I recommend this book.

[Catt]

1 hour ago, Sam said:

Hey Catt, all OK after the storm?

 

Let us know.

 

Other than a tree leaning on the house it's all good ?

[J Francho]

15 minutes ago, Catt said:

 

Other than a tree leaning on the house it's all good ?

That's called feng shui

 

[Jermination]

12 hours ago, Catt said:

@BayouSlide 

 

The more human influence the less accurate the results.

 

How does the bass eat?

Does the researcher feed them?

Do the bass have to compete for food?

 

Are other predators present?

 

What about vegetation or structure?

 

Is the aquarium affected by weather?

Is the aquarium affected by barometric change?

 

Shall I continue?

what he said--let us also not forget about how big of a difference LOCATION makes. Take a look at smallmouth. I've taken several guys who have moved down south from up north and i more or less tell them to throw everything they know out the window. Same species, a lot of the time same forage(minus the goby's here) and completely different fish. The structure they relate to is different, the depths they are located at any given time of year are different, the baits they consistently bite are different, the type of weather they consistently eat better in is different. The book is probably helpful in some ways, but I would say going to your local tackle shop & checking out the items that are regularly sold out(not during a pandemic) would be more beneficial when it comes to actually putting fish in the boat

[Catt]

4 hours ago, Tennessee Boy said:

"Do rattles increase lure appeal to bass?  Not always.  In one positive test,  soft plastic crayfish, each loaded with four glass tube rattles,  garnered 20 percent more strikes from bass than the exact same plastic crayfish without rattles.  In another test,  however, an assortment of crankbaits equipped with rattles actually scored 25 percent less overall than a similar assortment without rattles.  Both test were run in clear water where the lures were easily seen.  Running the test in stained or muddy water would have probably yielded results more favorable for the rattling baits."

 

That's common knowledge since the 70s ?

 

Some of us old timers lived the the "alphabet" bait craze, rattles vs silent, balsa vs everything else.

[Dens228]

5 hours ago, J Francho said:

Science can tell us almost without a doubt what is possible.  What is probable when you get to the lake is another story - there's more to it than what has been tested n a lab that we haven't figured out.  Just because an experiment proves that braid is more visible to the fish doesn't mean fluoro will get you more bites.  But it might next Thursday.  The book is an interesting read, and I especially like the sections dealing with fish vision.

The first part of what you said reminds me of a time last summer when me and a buddy were in our kayaks fishing under "perfect" conditions and were both struggling quite a bit.  He looked at me and wondered out loud why the fish weren't biting when they really should have been going crazy.  I replied, "They obviously haven't read the same articles as we did"   

[txchaser]

If you are patient, put this book on your amazon price watch. Eventually one will pop up for a non-crazy price. 

 

For me, I just take books like this as an interesting starting point. Maybe they help me ask new questions, or notice things in a different light. Build your own hypothesis, and test it for a while. 

 

I don't recall if it is the same study @WRB mentioned (BTW please post a link if you have it), but there was one where a big fish they were tracking would always scatter at the sound of a motor. And then you start noticing guys with big big fish talking about long casts or multiple anchors, etc. Gee maybe I should get off this TM or spot lock on a really high-percentage spot?? Only my personal experience, which isn't that much... but the % of the > 5lb fish I catch at least 15 minutes after anchoring are something like 75-80%. Of course my PB breaks the pattern, as I was on spot lock. But it was also a 30-40mph wind, so probably masked a good bit.  

 

Lots and lots of clues and patterns and possibilities, but today is a special snowflake with new clues too. 

 

[TnRiver46]

Disclaimer: I haven’t read he book and I never will. 
 

The only books about fishing I have any interest in reading are ones where people just tell fish stories. Books about fish behavior or instructional books about catching fish are beyond useless (for me). 

[Carolina Rig]

I have a copy I’d sell.  However, I’ll admit to having paid a ridiculous price for mine and would want to recover that amount by selling it to an equally insane person.  I’d never let it go but I’ve moved to Alaska and won’t be doing much bass fishing ever again, so it’s probably better off on someone else’s shelf.  Shoot me a PM if interested.

[CountryboyinDC]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:49 AM, Sam said:

Cowboy, I understand your logic. However, Berkley and other bait manufacturers have clear, open pools that they test their baits for movement, vibration, color, shine, etc. before releasing them to the public. Give the book a read and then let us have your input

I agree, it isn't fair to put something down until you try it.  After seeing the Amazon prices, I only read the description and formed an opinion.  I will still say I agree with Catt: The things that anglers are most concerned with are best studied in the environment we are likely to fish for them.  Without going to far into the weeds, Berkley is studying what is feasible.  Studying fish in their usual habitat using a scientific approach is orders of magnitude more difficult and correspondingly expensive.  Think of the effort of Jane Goodall to study chimps, and then consider that all she came away with were observations (amazing ones to be sure) - she did no experiments!  Laboratory research has it's place, and if this book has made you a better angler, then the research wasn't a waste at all.  Me, any time I have these days isn't probably going to be spent looking for things to read.  I'm only getting a few minutes a day to read The Good Book; every other reading pursuit has been abandoned.

I understand traffic is not so bad these days here in our nation's capital.  I wouldn't know.   I have been working from my corner lot since March.  That I could get used to, but coronavirus also has us managing 7 hours a day of virtual class with my 2nd grader.  I'm ready to sit in traffic again.

[Mat_ski]

I have not read this book but I read “high percentage fishing” by Josh Alwine when I first got into fishing. I highly recommend it despite its focus on live bait fishing. It is basically a statistical analysis of the available big bass records. 
 

 

[txchaser]

2 hours ago, Mat_ski said:

I have not read this book but I read “high percentage fishing” by Josh Alwine when I first got into fishing. I highly recommend it despite its focus on live bait fishing. It is basically a statistical analysis of the available big bass records. 
 

 

+1. great book. Includes great nuggets like which wind speed gives the best results, and which baits are statistically more likely to get bit. Preview on the wind - big wind makes for a better shot at big fish. It costs something like two bags of senkos, and the knowledge will never get shaken off by a dink.

 

[Carolina Rig]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:06 AM, Catt said:

 

So you're saying I can do research on Mule Deer in my barn in south Louisiana.

 

To properly study wildlife it needs to be do in the wild.

Yes, you can study mule deer in a barn in south Louisiana.

 

No, wildlife doesn’t need to be in the wild to be studied properly.

On 8/31/2020 at 4:41 AM, Catt said:

If you believe there's a scientific approach to bass fishing then read it.

 

I would suggest learning your ecosystem & predator-prey relationships.

 

But then I'm just a dumb Cajun ?

Learning the ecosystem and predator-prey relationships IS a scientific approach.  It’s called studying their ecology. ?

On 8/31/2020 at 6:49 PM, Catt said:

@BayouSlide 

 

The more human influence the less accurate the results.

 

How does the bass eat?

Does the researcher feed them?

Do the bass have to compete for food?

 

Are other predators present?

 

What about vegetation or structure?

 

Is the aquarium affected by weather?

Is the aquarium affected by barometric change?

 

Shall I continue?

All of this can be manipulated to mimic nature.  True, there are far more variables involved in nature and you’ll likely never find an apples to apples comparison from a lab to a lake.  However, results are no less accurate because a human is involved.  Perhaps they’re less applicable to bass fishing, but saying they aren’t accurate isn’t, well, accurate.

[Catt]

21 minutes ago, Carolina Rig said:

All of this can be manipulated to mimic nature.  True, there are far more variables involved in nature and you’ll likely never find an apples to apples comparison from a lab to a lake.  However, results are no less accurate because a human is involved.  Perhaps they’re less applicable to bass fishing, but saying they aren’t accurate isn’t, well, accurate

 

Dr Jones's book was peer reviewed as junk science because of to much human interference.

[Carolina Rig]

23 minutes ago, Catt said:

 

Dr Jones's book was peer reviewed as junk science because of to much human interference.

Doesn’t make the results less accurate.  Might make them irrelevant, refutable, biased, abnormal, etc.  But, the accuracy of an experiment isn’t inherently affected by human influence.  In fact, I’m struggling to visualize a scientific experiment without human influence.

 

Regardless, do you have a link to any of the peer-reviews?  That could prove to be equally educational, specifically if they’re refuting his information based on their own research/experiments and elaborate on their methods, findings, interpretations, etc.

 

Also, I replied because your responses seemed to indicate the concept of scientifically studying fish as a whole, not specifically Dr. Jones’ book.

[BayouSlide]

Something that is getting lost in all the give and take, especially by those who have never cracked the covers of the actual book, is that the book focuses heavily on the biology of the bass and uses that biology as a jumping off point to hypothesize how a bass's actions/reactions/behavior could be affected by it's biological makeup, with experiments based on how it's underlying biological structure might ultimately influence behavior. The biological underpinnings of a bass's senses was fascinating to me and the reason I found the book worth the money and the time to read.

 

Whether one agrees with the experimentation and its interpretation is one thing, the underlying structure of this fish's nervous system, vision, sense of smell and vibration would seem to be rather straightforward science.

[Carolina Rig]

6 minutes ago, BayouSlide said:

Something that is getting lost in all the give and take, especially by those who have never cracked the covers of the actual book, is that the book focuses heavily on the biology of the bass and uses that biology as a jumping off point to hypothesize how a bass's actions/reactions/behavior could be affected by it's biological makeup, with experiments based on how it's underlying biological structure might ultimately influence behavior. The biological underpinnings of a bass's senses was fascinating to me and the reason I found the book worth the money and the time to read.

 

Whether one agrees with the experimentation and its interpretation is one thing, the underlying structure of this fish's nervous system, vision, sense of smell and vibration would seem to be rather straightforward science.

 

 

Agreed and well said.

[Dirtyeggroll]

1 hour ago, Catt said:

 

Dr Jones's book was peer reviewed as junk science because of to much human interference.

While I’m not sure what the term “junk science” means, I would not call the book a thesis project and I don’t think it was designed that way. There are a few pieces of data presented that seem to be pretty solid from a scientific perspective, particularly the data related to strike frequency on artificial bait size and whether or not the bait had appendages and the data presented on color of baits influencing strike frequency to name a few. Actually, if anything these experiments are the antithesis of “junk science” because all of the other variables are controlled in these tank studies. Now, whether or not these tendencies are strong enough to overcome environmental variables is an entirely different experimental question.
 

In general, the book is a commentary (Dr. Jones’ theories) on how bass biology might affect bass behavior in relation to bass fishing. 

[Catt]

1 hour ago, Carolina Rig said:

Also, I replied because your responses seemed to indicate the concept of scientifically studying fish as a whole, not specifically Dr. Jones’ book

 

I have a minor degree in the Philosophy of Science & understand quite well how the process works. The reason most do not want to study wildlife in the wild is because it takes years. 

 

Reference the study @WRB was talking about, it took yeas to do. There's a lot of research done by Clarence Bowling of Texas Parks & Wildlife. Ken Cook's 13-year career as fisheries biologist for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation. Texas's ShareLunker program has done research since 1986.

 

I have no problem with Dr. Jones or Berkley, the invention of Berkley Gulp is ridiculous...that stuff works.

[Carolina Rig]

37 minutes ago, Catt said:

 

I have a minor degree in the Philosophy of Science & understand quite well how the process works. The reason most do not want to study wildlife in the wild is because it takes years. 

 

Reference the study @WRB was talking about, it took yeas to do. There's a lot of research done by Clarence Bowling of Texas Parks & Wildlife. Ken Cook's 13-year career as fisheries biologist for the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife and Conservation. Texas's ShareLunker program has done research since 1986.

 

I have no problem with Dr. Jones or Berkley, the invention of Berkley Gulp is ridiculous...that stuff works.

 

Then you clearly know that the reason most don’t want to study wildlife in the wild is that there are far too many variables to execute the scientific method and account for variables.  You also understand, then, that manipulating one variable in a controlled environment with subsequent research/experimentation being done on an identical control specimen is far superior than what nature has to offer in regards to supporting a hypothesis.

 

Regardless, I know what you’re trying to say, I just don’t think you articulated it very well.  No - one can’t take information from a laboratory and go out on any lake in the country and guarantee more and bigger bass.  However, one can use a laboratory environment to determine biological, ecological, and physiological tendencies and apply that information to fishing to increase odds.

 

But like I always say, as soon as we figure out the answer, they change the question.

[Catt]

5 minutes ago, Carolina Rig said:

You also understand, then, that manipulating one variable in a controlled environment with subsequent research/experimentation being done on an identical control specimen is far superior than what nature has to offer in regards to supporting a hypothesis.

 

 

Nope it is not, not when talking wildlife study.

 

Y'all are confusing Laboratory research with the study of wildlife. 

 

One can not take out weather, food hunting, length of sun light, barometric pressures, structure, cover, thermoclines, turn overs, or any of the natural variables & get accurate results...period.

[Catt]

After 26 days I now have power & my work load tripled.

 

Will continue this discussion later ?

[Carolina Rig]

2 hours ago, Catt said:

 

Nope it is not, not when talking wildlife study.

 

Y'all are confusing Laboratory research with the study of wildlife. 

 

One can not take out weather, food hunting, length of sun light, barometric pressures, structure, cover, thermoclines, turn overs, or any of the natural variables & get accurate results...period.

Not at all.  You said we can’t learn anything in a lab that relates to the wild and that’s bogus and if you have this degree, you’re well aware of it.  Believe me, I understand the difference between lab work and field sampling.  But to imply that a correlation can’t be drawn between experiments conducted in a laboratory and what happens in the natural world is foolish, at best.