Scientific approach to bass fishing

[Catt]

This is in no way taking a shot at Paul Roberts or any one else; it is an opportunity for the amateur and intermediate anglers to put every thing in prospective. I have received several PMs concerning the necessity of knowing all the scientific whys of bass fishing.

This was my response:

To some people understand all the scientific data concerning all of the whys of fishing is fun and interesting to them but it is not critical to understanding the locating and catching of bass.

I understand all the whys I just don't dwell on them because they are the parts of fishing I can not control so I concern myself with the things I can control; this is the key to consistently catching bass in numbers & size. It takes the using simple techniques to perfection to consistently catch numbers of bass and numbers of big bass. With simplicity of techniques I am not talking about just lures but the simplicity of locating bass holding areas as well.

[CJ]

Interesting thread. It could get deep!

I feel there is a basic knowledge for bass science if an angler is wanting to excel in his/her results out on the water or off the bank. Though there are days you can take all the "text book" info and throw it out the window cause bass don't know the rules. There are too many factors and elements to try to find an equation for which one will dominate the bass' location or feeding mood. In other words, what will turn them off, what will turn them on, what makes them migrate, etc.

Yet with good bass education, you could salvage a bad day. But I don't think it takes a genius to figure it out. Just an open mind, confidence in yourself, patience, and perseverance.

You can read all the articles and books in the world but nothing will top your own "on water experience". Yet, even I want to know "why" when I do good or when I don't. Problem is, there's usually a handful of reasons and the question then is, which factor was the main reason?

JMO, CJ

[Low_Budget_Hooker]

I'm with you Catt.

I see it as over thinking.   I have confidence in many things, mainly myself.  I have deduced what I can and have figured I'm in the "better" places of the lake according to what I've read and learned.  Now, I just FISH!

I am pretty confident that there are a number of presentations, colors etc that will all work when placed properly, in the right location.

That's about as deep as I'll let it get.  There are so many variables, you could never narrow it down to one flawless combo.  If that were possible, tournament fishing wouldn't exist.  In my opinion, the trick stick, jig and rubber worm have come the closest to being the "cure all" but guess what,...there are days when even those won't work.

JUST FISH

[Sam]

Based on your knowledge and experience all you have to do is think like the fish.

Seriously, just think how the fish will react based on your knowledge and experience.

Some of us put too much into every bait or technique or reel or rod or line we read or hear about when in actuality every situation differs from body of water, time of year and by the day and hour.

This is what makes fishing so much fun. Trying to outsmart a fish in the fish's environment.

Catt, good post.  You make a lot of sense but it is still fun educating yourself on bass behavior and tackle.

[FD.]

HEY OLD GUYS!  What ya'll don't realize is that you already have that scientific knowledge programmed in your crusty old brains....So to you "Just Fish" comes with all those years of knowledge included.

To us new guys it can get overwhelming.  I often get home and ask myself why I did not do this or that to catch more fish.  So all those ins and outs can help us new guys to better understand how to locate and catch more fish....Just a thought.

[paul.]

well catt, not sure if this is a scientific approach or not, but here's my .02 on one of the key elements in successful fishing.  to me, success in bassin', especially success targeting big bass, comes from the the continual effort to try and master a key set of both internal and external variables.  in my continual learning process as i try to target a larger than average class of fish, i have settled on a formula that has served me fairly well.  (lunker locations + lunker times + lunker presentations + lunker attitude = lunker success).  sounds simple enough, but a whole book could be written on any one of these variables.  i certainly do not claim mastery of any of them and i continue to learn each trip.  but one thing that has become readily apparent is that of all these variables, a change in angler attitude and mentality is arguably the most difficult, at least for me.  you see all the other adjustments are external in nature.  but a change in attitude requires an internal adjustment.  comparatively speaking, it is relatively easy to change the spots you fish in, the times you go, and the baits and tackle you use.  but changing the way you think, now there's a challenge!

to me the key ingredients of "lunker attitude" are as follows.

1.  open mindedness - in making the transition to lunker hunting, you have to be willing to throw away most, if not all of "the book" on bass fishing.  the principles we grew up learning and mastering such as pattern fishing in many cases are useless when targeting bigger fish.  the angler must be willing to re-think their style and preferences and abandon prejudices or pre-conceived notions about things such as live bait, deep water fishing, and big baits.

2.  patience- when you seriously target big fish, you shouldn't be in a hurry to do anything.  hopefully there's no tournament money on the line or clock to beat.  if so, it is that much more difficult to be patient and achieve positive results.  often trophy fishing is a waiting game.  you simply must slow yourself down mentally.

3.  confidence - i have found that for me success is not about being adequate with many techniques.  rather, it's about being proficient  with a few.  in particular, fishing offshore structure and cover with plastics and jigs have produced the majority of my big fish, along with a select few other baits and tactics depending on the season.  so i have a tremendous amount of confidence in those and that's how i fish.  other folks may have had results with different things and therefore, confidence in those methods.  regardless of your fishing preferences, i think confidence breeds success and success breeds confidence.  i think it's impossible to be successful with big fish (or even small fish) if you are continually second guessing every fishing move you make.

4. tunnel vision - an angler has to be almost single-minded in their goal of producing big fish.  he/she cannot be a "bite junkie" like i used to be.  the ability to leave small to average-sized fish behind is difficult if not impossible for many anglers.  this takes a lot of discipline, especially when you have gone all day without a bite and you know you could be whacking small fish left and right.  i will admit that i have come up short on this single minded focus many times.  i still become frustrated and willing to take what the lake will give me sometimes.  but at the same time, i think this has helped me avoid becoming "burned out" on trophy hunting.  nevertheless, over the long haul, you have to be focused on quality over quantity.  you just have to realize that the lunkers are gonna win most of the time. this brings me to the last point.

5.  perseverance - a trophy hunter has to be willing to accept failure, but only temporarily.  you have to have a short memory for mistakes, miscues, poor choices, and less than successful outings.  in the pursuit of big fish, there will be plenty of these bumps in the road and if an angler is not prepared mentally, their trophy hunting career will be short-lived.  they simply will not be able to handle or adjust to the negative.  you have to realize that you are after one fish - the fish of a lifetime - and that one fish, when you catch it,  will be more than worth all the failure and heartache.  sometimes you have to find motivation in even the smallest success and build on that.  i realize that if i'm lucky, the bites i am after are only going to come a few times a year.  but i also realize they are not going to come at all if cannot handle the times they don't and quit trying.

well i just thought i'd throw that out there.  maybe it'll help someone.  hope it does.  maybe other folks have thoughts on the changes in angler mentality necessary to target bigger fish.  good luck out there.

this was a a great topic you started catt.  can't wait to see some of the other replies.

[CJ]

I see where ya'll are coming from but, how well will that work for someone who is fishing different types of water? I'm not saying I disagree but there has to be more to it.

Over thinking is a problem with myself sometimes. But for me it's not as simple. I fish thousands of acres of water. The migration routes are more than a mile.

Last year scientific facts that I had learned on this website got me back on fish. We had a drought. The current was very little for a few months. The once stacked ledges were dry. Yet Ky. Lake's grass has been making a tremendous comeback. It was actually simple, the bass had moved into the deeper grass. Maybe because of the D.O. levels there or the bait went there? Then in October I had found a great grass flat out on the main lake. It was loaded! Come tournament day the lake had risen 2 ft. Where I was sitting in 18 ft. was then 20. Where I was casting in to 6 ft. was then 8. I had to move the boat back up to 18 ft. and get back to casting into 6. The bass had moved on up to stay at the depth they were adapted to.

I'm still with ya though. You can't do the science and always get the answer.

[Paul Roberts]

Catt,

Good post One that needs to be addressed.

To some people understanding all the scientific data concerning all of the whys of fishing is fun and interesting to them...

That would be me!

...but it is not critical to understanding the locating and catching of bass.

Agreed.

I think for a lot of people, without a strong foundation in biology/ecology, it would be difficult to apply a lot of scientific research to their fishing and have it make a huge difference. It might make it more interesting, to some, which I believe is your point, Tom. But, I'll stretch FishinDaddy's point some and suggest that, beyond experience, we modern anglers take for granted what scientists have brought to our understanding of bass and bass fishing. That said, I also acknowledge the enormous inroads anglers have made empirically in the catching end of things why's be damned.

A lot of my allotted fishing time is not about putting as many bass in the boat as possible. I'm out there to learn about how aquatic systems work, and often this means spending time just taking water temperatures, netting and keying out aquatic insects, superimposing observations onto weather data, reading seemingly esoteric research articles, or... I'm into the discovery, and it is not necessarily all fishing.

In fact, I've spent the last two spawning seasons not fishing at all, just taking temperature profiles and observing spawning behavior. It's fascinating all by itself, but the practical aspect for the angler in me is that I can now look at trends in conditions, and bass in the water, and quickly know where in the spawn they are which is important since different water bodies spawn at different times. In fact, I can ascertain the seasonal window present in one water body and extrapolate pretty accurately where the bass will be in the behavioral sequence in other water bodies in the area. This affects where I will start my search for bass, and what lures I'm going to have with me in the ballpark as I put it.

Beyond the spawn, I'm darn curious about cold front effects, how bass respond to light intensity, heat, what controls insect emergences, plankton regimes, and other stuff. This isn't fishing, or putting bass in the boat, at least for the moment maybe never.

So, Catt, you are right on. No one needs to ask why, really, to catch some bass. But I do, for my own often esoteric reasons. And there are certainly much simpler ways to go about enjoying fishing.

On the other hand, I know a guy who fishes only a black buzzbait and a black plastic worm. He says that's all you need, and then, "Some days they bite and some days they don't." My guess is there are some water bodies he doesn't revisit anymore (good ones), and I never see him before the spawn (during which time he's likely to say, "Too early yet. Things'll pick up when the water warms".)

[Paul Roberts]

I see where ya'll are coming from but, how well will that work for someone who is fishing different types of water? I'm not saying I disagree but there has to be more to it.

We all know different water bodies fish differently. We also know that there are things that work better than others under certain seasons, conditions, and situations. Why?! Many ask How? Where? When? Great, if you can get someone to tell you, or better, show you. But what if you are going it alone like most of us on any given weekend? What if we fish waters that don't have a huge following, with guide services, and lots of buddies, even discussion groups?

I'll bend a proverb here:

When helping out a novice angler, I not only tell them where, when, and how, but why. If I told someone to go to such and such a spot, at such and such time, tie on this lure, cast in this way, and retrieve it this way, I would have showed them how to catch a fish. If I told them why that spot, why that time, why that cast, why that retrieve, I'll have given them the tools to find similar situations, and adapt to similar but altered ones, regardless of water body.

[senile1]

I see where ya'll are coming from but, how well will that work for someone who is fishing different types of water? I'm not saying I disagree but there has to be more to it.

Over thinking is a problem with myself sometimes. But for me it's not as simple. I fish thousands of acres of water. The migration routes are more than a mile.

Last year scientific facts that I had learned on this website got me back on fish. We had a drought. The current was very little for a few months. The once stacked ledges were dry. Yet Ky. Lake's grass has been making a tremendous comeback. It was actually simple, the bass had moved into the deeper grass. Maybe because of the D.O. levels there or the bait went there? Then in October I had found a great grass flat out on the main lake. It was loaded! Come tournament day the lake had risen 2 ft. Where I was sitting in 18 ft. was then 20. Where I was casting in to 6 ft. was then 8. I had to move the boat back up to 18 ft. and get back to casting into 6. The bass had moved on up to stay at the depth they were adapted to.

I'm still with ya though. You can't do the science and always get the answer.

CJ, I don't see much complex science in this.  You just used your common sense.  

I agree with Catt and LBH that we overthink fishing.  I am interested in the science, but I have found for myself when I try to overthink it, my success decreases.  And I think this is why some newbies to the sport feel overwhelmed.  We present all of these scientific theories on where fish will be and why and it is too much to try and put it all together on the water, because some of the factors that effect fish location contradict each other.  Get down the basics, observe the environment and use your common sense to determine likely locations, and then go fish with lures that tend to work under those conditions and in those locations.  It's really pretty simple, though that doesn't mean you'll catch fish every time just because its simple.  

[senile1]

If aliens were trying to catch humans they would have missed me yesterday.  I was in a john boat on a pond with no anchor and no trolling motor, in 35 mph winds.  All of the science stated that humans wouldn't be located in this environment under these conditions.  So much for science.

[Catt]

Bass are confusing creatures but if you've spent any time on the water you already know that. I'm not advocating ignoring how a bass relates to the ecosystem but one must start with a basic understanding and as your experience on the water expands so will your understanding of the relationship between the bass and his environment. In this age of information it is easy for the newbie/intermediate angler to go into brain overload.

[Ellesar]

Science may make you overthink but application of the scientific method to your fishing is a good approach IMO.

[fishfordollars]

Ya'll are getting over my head with some of this.

I adheer to the rule that a bass is a bass. If you understand the four seasons of the year and how the bass relates to each you are way ahead of the game when it comes to locating.

I will take time on the water over a career in fish behavior and water ecology anytime. All of my experience comes from the school of hard knocks from 30+ years of making the mistakes that have led to last place finishes and zero weights. I still try to learn from each day on the water. I firmly believe that you always learn more on the tough days than the days that you load the boat

[Paul Roberts]

If aliens were trying to catch humans they would have missed me yesterday.  I was in a john boat on a pond with no anchor and no trolling motor, in 35 mph winds.  All of the science stated that humans wouldn't be located in this environment under these conditions.  So much for science.

Cute, (really!), but I wouldn't wave off the powers of science so lightly. And realize, those aliens may not have caught you but they'd do pretty darn well "fishing" in downtown NY -especially at noon with a pizza for bait. Fishing for exceptions is not good advice. But, then again, how would one know what's an exception? Cast, cast, cast, cast, CATCH!! Was that one an exception??

I am interested in the science, but I have found for myself when I try to overthink it, my success decreases.

Me too. But realize, I don't read some (typically obscure) journal article and go out and make direct use of it. It's a cumulative thing. Ecologists, limnologists, physiologists, and others have been working on a better understanding of how nature works, and it's worth knowing. There is order in nature.

Interestingly, Catt's comment:

how a bass relates to the ecosystem

is THE definition of ecology -how livng things interact with their environment.

What these sciences have brought to the table is worth adding to your mental arsenal, if you really want to get a better handle on the overwhelming amount of information that comprises an understanding of nature. Will it make you a better fisherman? I think so but not without the proper approach.

Here's an analogy that describes the way some people approach nature: Say you want to learn your wildflowers. You can get a book that shows pictures of flowers, organized by colors. You might find your specimen in it, or one that looks a lot like it (???), and then the book spits out a name. Over time you might have a collection of flowers you recognize, but, and here's the problem: Arranged by color (and maybe season) in your mind, you end up with an awful lot of disparate things to remember. Eventually it gets unwieldy. There is a MUCH better way.

Botanists, on the other hand, take a phylogenetic (evolutionary relatedness) approach, having recognized patterns of plant structure, and are able to break plants down into categories which share characteristics. Thus, you don't have to look through a vast array of pictures to get to one that looks like the one you picked. Instead, you see alternate leaves and flowers in a raceme and know that it's of the mustard family. From there the key further separates the mustards until you get your specimen. Interestingly, this works great because our minds handle hierarchical categorizations easily, in tiers like computer menus. Hence, pattern fishing, calendar periods, and other such attempts at understanding fish.

If you know the infrastructure you are more able to recognize things for what they really are, ask more enlightened questions, and make better decisions.

The problem is much of science literature is dense material, written in lawyer-ese like jargon, and in general it just isn't easily accessible to people without the background, access to research libraries, and the fishing experience to make it relevant.

I'm in process of trying to better put all this great information together into something useful. I've had a long and serious interest in teaching fishing, and other outdoor related stuff. This is why I do all the writing end of this; I'd like to put a book together, or two, that gleans from the sciences and offers a framework for understanding aquatic systems for anglers.

This is no small task, and knowing my penchant for process over product, and need for depth, it may be my son that finishes it LOL. But I'm plugging away, and all these discussions here help keep me focused on what's important.

Who knows, maybe Catt and others will convince me such a book doesn't need to be written, or that I'm not the guy to do it. If so, that's fine, I'll just keep the process going for myself. I'm too enchanted to stop, practical enough or not. Guess they'll just have to peel my cold stiff fingers off my nets, binoculars, microscopes, books, and fishing rods someday LOL.

[senile1]

Paul Roberts stated:

Cute, (really!), but I wouldn't wave off the powers of science has so lightly. And realize, those aliens may not have caught you but they'd do pretty darn well "fishing" in downtown NY. Fishing for exceptions is not good advice. But, then again, how would one know what's an exception? Cast, cast, cast, cast, CATCH!! Was that one an exception??

I agree, Paul.  I actually get into the scientific discussions but my post about the aliens was too much fun to pass up.     I've always been into science no matter what it pertains to.  I just believe that much of the time, when it comes to helping others learn to catch fish, we "muddy the water" by covering every scientific variable that exists in the equation.

[fishfordollars]

I would buy it. With my limited education(two years of college) not sure how it would help me due to my limited education. Reading and understanding how it relates might be over my head. In fact it most surely would be. Depending on how it is worded someone like myself may have a real problem putting the two and two together. JMO

Paul, keep coming with your post. Even though I lose tract on some of them I enjoy reading your thoughts.

[senile1]

Paul Roberts stated:

Botanists, on the other hand, take a phylogenetic (evolutionary relatedness) approach, have recognized patterns of plant structure, and have been able to break plants down into categories which share characteristics. Thus, you don't have to look through a vast array of pictures to get to one that looks like the one you picked. Instead, you see alternate leaves and flowers in a raceme and know that it's of the mustard family. From there the key further separates the mustards until you get your specimen. Interestingly, this works great because our minds handle hierarchical categorizations easily, in tiers like computer menus. Hence, pattern fishing, calendar periods, and other such attempts at understanding fish.

But, I believe, if you know the infrastructure you are more able to recognize things for what they really are, ask more enlightened questions, and make better decisions.

I commend you for your ideas regarding writing a book and pulling all of the disparate ideas concerning catching fish into one integrated whole.  I would definitely read such a book, as I already read just about everything I can get my hands on.  However, we must remember that we are talking about a book on the behavior of a species that we cannot interview or talk to.  There are a number of books that try to tie a number of the variables together, but none will eliminate the occasional bad day on the water.  Your's would not be the first, nor would it be the last on the subject.  Some days the fish may not be biting.  The fact is, no matter how much we learn or think we know, we'll never be 100 percent (or even 80 percent) certain if they just weren't biting, we didn't fish the right lure in the right place, etc.  Otherwise, if we could know these things, the challenge would be gone.  There always has to be room for us to wonder if we solved the puzzle that day.  

This isn't to discourage anyone from being scientific but if I go to the lake trying to get a fix on every single variable, when all I need to know is it is early summer period, there have been no recent cold fronts, water is being pulled at the dam, and shad are the baitfish of choice so the fish are positioned on points to eat, then I'm wasting my time with variables that don't matter.  Granted, this is science as the scientific method involves observation leading to a hypothesis to be tested, but it isn't deep science.  It is common sense and common sense should be scientific, but it isn't too complicated.  

[Paul Roberts]

when it comes to helping others learn to catch fish, we "muddy the water" by covering every scientific variable that exists in the equation.

Not all of them matter, or at least all the time. The idea is not to get lost in minutiae, but know the big foundational pieces for what they are, and use them to ask better questions and make better more confident decisions.

Depending on how it is worded someone like myself may have a real problem putting the two and two together.

This is a huge part of the challenge the writing (which I revel in). I've got to take this stuff to ground meaning relate it directly to fishing scenarios anglers can relate to. Helping a varied audience stay with me is going to be a real challenge. I...think...I can do it.

all I need to know is it is early summer period, there have been no recent cold fronts, water is being pulled at the dam, and shad are the baitfish of choice so the fish are positioned on points to eat, then I'm wasting my time with variables that don't matter.

When it's easy, that's great! But...

Some days the fish may not be biting.

Why? We can't always answer this, but I like to at least have some REALLY good ideas as to why, based on some good work. In fact, I want as many such good possibilities as I can get, so that I can weigh their likelihood and make some decisions on how to adapt, before I call it a day. Since we cannot often see what's going on down there I look at fishing scenarios as a set of probabilities. I want as much good information on my side as I can get. I know I can't eliminate all the I dunno's.

I have no illusions about creating a panacea, nor even an integrated whole. Maybe part of the issue lies there; I don't believe there is an integrated whole, as each of the players in any system are individuals, not cloned robots. And those individuals are responding to environmental forces they, in turn, do not control. They have it tough too! It's not just us fisherman that are up us against the lake, the day, or the hour; it's the fish's problem too. They want to eat, we want to give them something (fake) to eat. What's the problem? A lot as it turns out, from both sides of the fence. Fishing is often about finding some threads of sense in chaos. Sometimes it's easier, or more obvious than others.

BTW: The writing I'm working on is not about scientific fishing. It's just my own ideas on what's going on with fish, and I have some useful background in the sciences, as well as fishing, to call on. I think, from anglers I've met and conversed with, that many could have a better understanding of the environments they fish in, the limitations living things have, and what their lures actually need to be doing down there in relation to the former.

I think it's very astute of Tom to question the merits of bringing too much esoteric science into our fishing. It may lead people to sore heads rather than sore arms! Tom's experience is considerable, it shows, and he's smart to raise the question. My simple answer is: Science is simply a powerful tool to be used along with your common sense (what you already know). It's not the focus.

[George Welcome]

Muddied waters - it's not that difficult.

There is an adage in the scientific community: publish or perish.

Their is an adage in the magazine industry: Meet the deadline or you are dead.

What this produces is mounds of gobbly-**** that must be sifted, strained, and discarded.

It's just not that complicated and the sooner you learn to simplify rather than look to complicate it further, the better fisherman you will be.

[Catt]

The confusion I've ran into in my mind at least is how far is it necessary to break down the ecosystem as it relates to being productive at fishing? With my years of experience on the water, countless hours of reading, endless conversations with veteran anglers along with Biologist I've drawn the conclusion the only relationship worthy of establishing is that of the bass and its prey. The rest becomes only interesting information adding entirely too many variables not worthy of consideration.

The conclusion drawn is what our veteran angler discovered years ago simplicity to key to consistency. For one to become a successful angler they need to master the simple techniques of basic lure presentation to perfection, mater the art of reading/understanding structure, have an understanding of types trees/aquatic vegetation in relationship to lake bottom composition and lastly the seasonal movements of prey.

The conclusion I've drawn concerning the relationship between a bass, the weather, and solar/lunar phases is the same don't over analyze it.

[George Welcome]

And that my friends is what makes a good fisherman. Remember what these critters are. Remember where they live. Remember what and how they eat.

Learn the mechanical skills. Catch fish.

[Paul Roberts]

master the simple techniques of basic lure presentation to perfection,

Do you fish the same stuff in the same way all year round? Why, or why not? Would you suggest the exact same stuff to everyone, everywhere, in all seasons? Why, or why not?

If you wanted to describe lure presentation in a nutshell, that could help someone year round, all around the country, in all water types, what would you say? If the only book on presentation is just a list of recipes, how do you know when to apply which? And do you just go through the ever enlarging recipe boxes every day; buzzing, burnin, bulging, ripping, walking, waking, twitching, yo-yoing, swimming, slow-rolling, ..etc...ad finitum? Or, are there some times and places where these things might make more of a difference than others. Why? Realize these are presentation (retrieve) techniques, not presentation methods.

Is there anything that ties these things together?

master the art of reading/understanding structure, have an understanding of types trees/aquatic vegetation in relationship to lake bottom composition and lastly the seasonal movements of prey.

Hmmmm, doesn't sound so simple to me. Can you explain all this, and have it exportable to varying waters around the country? Might there be anything that ties some of this together? Might that be helpful?

The conclusion I've drawn concerning the relationship between a bass, the weather, and solar/lunar phases is the same don't over analyze it.

I don't know anything about solunar, but weather matters, to both fish and the fishing -but not in equal proportion LOL). We can't control it, we can work around, or with it, but it matters -sometimes a lot.

If an angler had a choice, and you were offering advice, would you suggest they fish before a front or after and why. In early spring in the north? In summer in the south? In a spring lake in Florida? In mid-summer in a muddy pond in Pennsylvania? A clear one? Why? Does the why matter? Again, I see an ever fattening recipe book here -a lot like that wildflowers by color book I mentioned above.

It's early spring in a small pond in Maryland, and again in a large reservoir in Kansas. It's about to snow. What advice would you give? (Stay home isn't an option).

It's mid-summer in a small pond in Maryland, and again in a large tree-filled reservoir in Texas. What advice would you give?

Etc...etc...

Is everything time and place specific? Do we really have to re-invent the wheel every single day? Or are there some recognizable patterns? And how do you go about discerning them? Might any of these even become predictable?

This isn't a test, or in need of immediate answers. Just stuff to think about. Or should we just not think about such stuff?

Maybe the advice we should offer newbs could be just one article: It might say pick three lures, choose one water body, (preferably a small one), and fish it (mechanically) for life. The empirical approach might suffice there -eventually.  

Last questions: Was all your reading helpful at all? Was some better than others? Do you think that the IF calendar periods and lake classifications were helpful to anglers?

There is an adage in the scientific community: publish or perish.

Their is an adage in the magazine industry: Meet the deadline or you are dead.

What this produces is mounds of gobbly-**** that must be sifted, strained, and discarded.

Yeah, those scientists really are fools, just playing their silly games. It's actually all a conspiracy to make nature seem more complicated then it really is.

I think the issue here is more about avoiding complication, rather than trying to understand nature. The issue is confusion, not that nature is complicated.

Lost in complication is confusing. When you are not lost in it, it's power. Describes science to a tee.

[George Welcome]

"Yeah, those scientists really are fools, just playing their silly games. It's actually all a conspiracy to make nature seem more complicated then it really is."

No Paul, all scientists are not fools, however, much that is written does not stand up to scrutiny.

It takes little knowledge of scientific data to be a real good fisherman. It is not necessary to read Odum to know enough to have a good time fishing, nor is the Kreb's Cycle a necessary part of a fisherman's knowledge.

This sport for the most part breaks down to two applications: Location and presentation. Expertise in both areas comes with experience. The more time you spend on the water, the better you get. If you look for a short cut in this program you usually get cut short.

[roadwarrior]

Back to simple:

The "right" bait in the wrong place never works,

but the "wrong" bait in the right place sometimes does!

"Location and presentation", it really can be that simple.

8-)