Scientific approach to bass fishing

[Daniel My Brother]

The deeper we get into the science of bass fishing the more I want to just sit in a boat with a bucket of minnows, a cooler of beer, and tell dirty jokes while watching a bobber go under.

8-)

btw...I like your last post RW.

[Catt]

I'll answer with the following since Mr. Hannon nailed it perfectly People often respond to failure and frustration by over-complicating theory and technique. As much as it helps our egos to regard a difficult task as complex, this type of thinking is often the biggest obstacle between you and your fishing success.

Quote #1: It can't be explained any simpler

Quote #2: Never will fish be found that are not related to structure in some manner; this is why it is said that 10% of the water holds 90% of the fish.

Cover is what makes structure key or prime structure

Movement of prey; I'll give you links to post found on the site

Quote #3: one can over analyze it to no end but time on the water is the only teacher

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got

[fishfordollars]

This is outstanding. Keep it up. Some of the best discussions ever.

[FD.]

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-)

I think it is really that simple, however, determining the "right" bait and the "right location" for any given day, water temp, season, weather conditions is what constantly drives me mad.  I occasionally get it right and get on fish, only to go back the next week under similar conditions, or so it appears, and get skunked.

Paul, it appears to me that this is the perfect research location for your writing endeavor.  I would pay a lot of money for something that passes the scrutiny of this group.

Being a relative newbie to this sport and an information  junkie, I am constantly searching for the why as much as the how.  Maybe I have a chemical imbalance, but the fact that something worked is not as important and why it worked.   Recently I have been searching for information on fisheries biology and ecology and what I have found is scattered at best and nearly unreadable even with my college and engineering background.  A one stop source of coherent and accurate information on the where fish live and why they bite would certainly be a valuable tool for someone like me. Yes I know that this site is full of wonderfully informational threads, but, finding them is not so easy.

I have spent over 150 days on the water in the last year and have kept a log.  I can tell you what did and did not work (mostly the later),  weather conditions, temp, water levels and where I was.  I could tell you what might work next week on a given lake, but I can not, with any certainty, tell you why.  The lack of "'why" is the reason it is not always repeatable.

I  know that "somedays they just aint bitin" and maybe I'm not entirely stable, but those are my thoughts on the subject.

Keep them coming guys

FD

[WRB]

Once you know where the bass are located and what they are feeding on, catching them should be simple and some times it is.

If you fish only one lake and fish it regularily, determing where the bass are located and what they are eating shouldn't be a big challenge to anyone, some times it can be.

However if you don't accept the fact that bass locate at specific areas and feed on different prey based on the seasonal periods, you may never become consistant at catching bass. Some science is a good thing, too much can become an over load, there is a balance for each individual to achieve.

My routine when launching my boat is to check the weather, look around the dock, check the water temperature, then meter the marina to determine if any bait or bass are there and at what depth. With the marina information and knowledge of the seasonal period, I will have a good idea where the bass should be located, what they should be feeding on and at what depth to start fishing.

Scientific, yes to some degree.

I have used this technique for at least 35 years and fished in nearly every state where bass live and caught bass successfully on lakes that I have never fished before.

You can rent a tin boat, go out on the lake and catch bass without any knowledge, some of the time. With the basic knowledge of bass behavior and seasonal periods, you can up the odds and catch bass the majority of the time, anywhere you fish.

WRB

[Brian_Reeves]

When bass ghost me, especially after I've been on them, I move to an area that I know is full of cover or structure.  From there, I work deep to shallow, then shallow to deep.  I'll search for them the same way you'd search for a TV remote in a poorly lit, messy room.  I just kind of wander around and start hitting structure and cover with a variety of lures and rigs.  Usually this "lost in the sauce" method (as my dad calls my wandering) will put me back on the fish.  Of course there are those days when they just disappear altogether.  

I don't know how much science that involves, but I know that if I can locate bait on the graph or start combing deeper structure, usually there are fish there.  I REALLY hope dad gives me his bass boat this summer when I get out of the Army.  I'm putting a side search sonar on it if he does.  That should help control my nomadic tendencies.

[Catt]

Bass fishing's scientific facts:

Bass will be anywhere they want to be & are

The best time to go fishing is any time you can

The 2 days the bass bite the best are the day before you get there & the day after you leave.

The bait the bass want the most is the one you left at home

You can't catch if your bait aint wet

Scientist & Biologists catch less bass than anyone

Some days are diamonds, some days are stones, some days you're better off never leaving home.

[Randall]

Knowledge Constipation and Detail Head. I heard a motvational type speaker use these two terms years ago and he called them the worst two failure diseases. This applys to all things we do in life and not just fishing. Being a biology major in college and trying to learn all I could about bass biology since then I have a lot of knowledge about bass and their ecosystems. There is nothing wrong with that and I have used that knowledge along with a lot of trail and error while fishing to come up with a simple system that I use to catch fish to catch fish. The thing is that my system is simple and none of the complicated details of bass biology are running through my head while I am fishing. It all comes down to forage and bass location and how they relate to each other at different times of the year. If you try to make it more complicated than that then your head will be so full of crap that you will not be able to get any information out to use and your confidence suffers as you fail.  You will be confused and thats called knowledge constipation. You can also be so consumed with unimportant details that you will be confused and not be able to do the simple things right and that is called detail head. Both things will lead to failure.

My other problem with the scientific approach to bass fishing is that much of the science you hear from biologist is just wrong. If you listen to all of it you will fill your head full of lies that will hurt your fishing rather than help it.

Fishing as I know it is nothing more than a belief system that we use to try to catch fish. The more simple you can make your belief system the better. There is nothing wrong with taking new knowledge to refine your fishing belief system to make it better as long as it stays simple.  There is something wrong with making your system so complicated with biology it confuses you to the point you can't catch a fish.  

[Fishin247365]

To each his own!  I personally find the scientific side of bass fishing intriguing, and am constantly looking for articles and other resources that feed this curiosity.

This post is what makes this forum so great. So many different levels of knowledge, perspectives, likes/dislikes, but all containing the same passion.....we all love bass fishing!

Tight lines to all!

[Paul Roberts]

Paul, it appears to me that this is the perfect research location for your writing endeavor.  I would pay a lot of money for something that passes the scrutiny of this group.

Thanks for the encouragement, FD. Remember, it's a fishin' book (or might be someday). A lot of money won't be needed.

Scientist & Biologists catch less bass than anyone

Guess I'm one of the anyone's. Tom, is that a cheap shot?

My other problem with the scientific approach to bass fishing is that much of the science you hear from biologist is just wrong. If you listen to all of it you will fill your head full of lies...

????? Does your "major in biology" qualify you to make such a statement?

There is something wrong with making your system so complicated with biology it confuses you to the point you can't catch a fish.

Yes, there is something wrong there. Don't blame the what-you-call "biology".

Sounds like this thread has run it's course.

[CJ]

Shucks I was hoping to hear some more takes on this. The key to the whole thread really isn't biology but the "mindset" that some angler's acquire due to over complicating the task at hand.

I think a lot of the posters here are just giving their thought on the subject and not pointing fingers at those who pursue the scientific approach.

I'm enjoying reading these takes on the subject.

[Randall]

I think a lot of the posters here are just giving their thought on the subject and not pointing fingers at those who pursue the scientific approach.

Exactly, Just my feelings on the subject.  If anyone wants to go learn all thay can about the scientific side of things then thats fine with me. I am just relating my experience from both sides of things.

[Catt]

Scientist & Biologists catch less bass than anyone

Guess I'm one of the anyone's. Tom, is that a cheap shot?

No sense of humor  

[paul.]

i try to apply basic bassin' knowledge to my fishing, but only to a point.  when my "trying to figure things out" becomes so tedious that it overshadows my enjoyment,  it's time to simplify.  yeah, i try to adhere to a system that works for me, but i am not going to analyze things to the point of stress and frustration.  at one point in my fishing a couple of years ago i did that and i had to step back and realize why i fish.  i fish to escape stress, not to cause it.  

i guess because i'm in the mental health field, i tend to analyze the mental aspect of things sometimes.  fishing is no different.  here's how it works with a lot of guys, and how i used to be as well.  an angler goes out on the water and what he's doing is not working.  so he attempts to "apply science" and he figures out what he's doing wrong, or so he thinks.  he makes some changes, and then lo and behold, that don't work either.  so he goes back to the drawing board.  once again he blanks or comes up short.  this happens again and again until he's exhausted all the "scientific explanations" for his lack of success.  then he starts to question the "science" itself.  so he reads and researches more and he becomes more confused than ever with all the conflicting and contradictory information that's out there.  one "expert" says fish shallow.  another says fish deep.  one pro says that "x" is the right bait for a given situation.  another says that you should be using "y".  

then comes the epiphany.    he realizes that all the while he's been focused on science and what the so-called experts say, he's been ignoring the priceless information right under his nose - what his graph says, baitfish activity on a nearby grass flat, the brushpile that he somehow missed before, the swirl of a large bass beside a stump, a 4 degree difference in water temp from one part of the lake to another, and so much more.  these things come sharply and vividly into focus in a mind unclouded by "how you're supposed to fish".  and what comes next?  you guessed it - success!  all because the angler learns to  pay attention to what is going on around him and blaze his own trail with a mind unencumbered by preconceived notions of what he "should be doing".  

i had to learn the hard way that the best "science" is paying attention to what is going on around me at that given time on the water instead of what i read or saw on tv the night before.   once i did, my fishing became better and much more enjoyable.    

[Randall]

My other problem with the scientific approach to bass fishing is that much of the science you hear from biologist is just wrong. If you listen to all of it you will fill your head full of lies...

????? Does your "major in biology" qualify you to make such a statement?

A degree in biology alone is really not that impressive to me. There are total idoits that get a degree. Just because you get some knowledge in school doesn't mean you can use that knowledge well to perform in the real world once you get out. I don't think it would qualify me for really anything other than to go apply for a job somewhere that just wanted that piece of paper. I chose not to go that route and do something that depended more on performance. I have learned much more about fish and their enviroment since leaving college as well as the fact that much of what was taught as fact was not true or just unproven theory. My job every day depends on the fact that I can help my clients catch fish under all conditions in all seasons in many different types of lakes. Rarely do I fail at this and I have been doing it for a while now. It's been my experience that most fisheries biologist just use what they have been taught and take it as fact whether it is right or wrong. Blueback herring would ruin all the Ga lakes they were in according to biologists in GA just a few years ago. They just based this on what they were taught and told. Now if you were to fish Lanier or Clarks Hill before the bluebacks and after you would realize how ignorant the biologist who made the statement was. Lanier became the best spotted bass lake in the US after the bluebacks were introduced. And Clarks Hill became a great LM bass lake. I could go on and on with example after example of unproven stuff that is taught and used by biologists that is just as wrong. From all my days on the water I see and learn way more than they could about catching fish and how fish live in their enviroment than most can at their job. I am not saying this is true about all biologist but it is true of many of them. Most, unless it is in a competitive enviroment, don't have to perform well to keep their job. So, they just keep doing things the same way whether it is right or wrong.

[Paul Roberts]

The key to the whole thread really isn't biology but the "mindset" that some angler's acquire due to over complicating the task at hand.

I can definitely see where anglers, especially new ones, could be confused by all the fishing information and advice out there, especially if there isn't a really good framework to fit it into. In-Fisherman built such a framework (F=L=P=S, water body classification, calendar periods, and activity levels) that offers a pretty good start.

i had to learn the hard way that the best "science" is paying attention to what is going on around me at that given time on the water instead of what i read or saw on tv the night before.   once i did, my fishing became better and much more enjoyable.

Yeah, you sure can't chase someone else's fishing. Paul, that's a great post. About the epiphany thing though you didn't have that until after you'd read a lot. You need some basic knowledge before you can get there. But, experience is what brings it home.

So, all, what's your take-home here?

Here's one of mine:

Keep it simple and enjoyable, expand at a comfortable pace, keep your expectations in check, don't close your mind.

Good thread, Tom.

[senile1]

This has been a great thread.  I don't think anyone here is bashing science.  Most of us who are avid anglers try to take in as much knowledge as we can.  But as Randall stated, you use that knowledge to develop a simple system to use on the water.  There is a point where the more detail you try to incorporate into your system on the water, the more you will encounter diminishing returns.  At what point that occurs may be different for each of us.

[Catt]

Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification  

[tyrius.]

The "scientific approach" seems to be about answering "why".  Why do bass react the way they do after a cold front, why do they prefer certain presentations during certain seasons and other presentations during others, etc, etc.  Answering these why's doesn't necessarily mean that one will catch more fish but the angler will have a better understanding of the bass and that could help them squeak out an extra fish here and there.    

The ability to consistently catch fish seems to be dependent upon taking the variables of the day (time of year, weather, location, etc) and translating that into what areas within the lake will likely hold fish.  Will they be spawning, buried in vegetation, staged on points, deep structure?  Veteran angles seem to refer to this as common sense.  Beginners have no idea what it all means, but as they start putting the basic pieces together their ability to catch fish regularly will increase even if they never understand why bass react they way they do after a cold front or why they act a certain way during the spawning cycle.

[Matt Fly]

I would say, the less experience you have, the more science you try to use.  Specially to those trying to take bassing to another level, and that don't have to mean going pro.

    Wind, temp, barometer, seasonal pattern, and observing on the water whats happening are all forms of science, just as understanding the food chain for bait fish.

To the experienced guy, that science is like tieing your shoe!!!   You just do it with out thinking of the knot.

       It becomes common sense to guys with time on the water.

     

[Ellesar]

Once you know where the bass are located and what they are feeding on, catching them should be simple and some times it is.

If you fish only one lake and fish it regularily, determing where the bass are located and what they are eating shouldn't be a big challenge to anyone, some times it can be.

However if you don't accept the fact that bass locate at specific areas and feed on different prey based on the seasonal periods, you may never become consistant at catching bass. Some science is a good thing, too much can become an over load, there is a balance for each individual to achieve.

My routine when launching my boat is to check the weather, look around the dock, check the water temperature, then meter the marina to determine if any bait or bass are there and at what depth. With the marina information and knowledge of the seasonal period, I will have a good idea where the bass should be located, what they should be feeding on and at what depth to start fishing.

Scientific, yes to some degree.

I have used this technique for at least 35 years and fished in nearly every state where bass live and caught bass successfully on lakes that I have never fished before.

You can rent a tin boat, go out on the lake and catch bass without any knowledge, some of the time. With the basic knowledge of bass behavior and seasonal periods, you can up the odds and catch bass the majority of the time, anywhere you fish.

WRB

Whlie I agree that it all can be a bit confusing, science is what got you to the point of knowing what to do. Throughout your bass fishing career you've developed various theories, tested them, and stuck with what has empirically worked while abandoning that which doesn't. IT may seem like there are a few simple things to focus on, but what I think is getting lost here is that science, or atleats the application of the scientific method is what derived this list of specific things that matter. All sorts of things have been posited and discarded after "testing/expirimentation" has shown them to not be true. If the science was never applied, we wouldn't have this nice concise list of things that matter.

Ultimately, making something simple is often the most complicated thing that you can do, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to remove many of the possibilities to distil something down to the basics.

So further scientific study made lead to a few more "gems" of fishing knowledge that are easy to understand and can help you catch fish.

[Ellesar]

My other problem with the scientific approach to bass fishing is that much of the science you hear from biologist is just wrong. If you listen to all of it you will fill your head full of lies that will hurt your fishing rather than help it.

Fishing as I know it is nothing more than a belief system that we use to try to catch fish. The more simple you can make your belief system the better. There is nothing wrong with taking new knowledge to refine your fishing belief system to make it better as long as it stays simple. There is something wrong with making your system so complicated with biology it confuses you to the point you can't catch a fish.

If its been proven wrong then its not science. Thats what the scientific method is all about.

I don't agree that fishing is based on faith. Its based on empirical evidence. You do what works for you and you don't do things that don't. When you see something that works, you will continue to do that. Thats not a "belief" or is it based on "faith". Its based on 100% empirical evidence, and that's what science is all about.

[Raul]

You can dump al your scientific knowldege about water clarity, air temperature, water temperature, oxygen level, redox potential, CO2 level, water conductivity, salt content, etc, etc, into the equation one fact remains: you can 't control the variables of nature, you can 't change the weather ( and how it affects those water quality parameters ), you can 't change the wind direction and speed, you can 't do anything about the moon phase or the water current or the lack of it, etc.

The only sciencie you can apply because it 's the only one under your control is how you adapt your baits and fishing techniques to those conditions, depending upon on how good you are at it you will obtain success or not, that knowledge is obtained by being on the water.

[Ellesar]

You can dump al your scientific knowldege about water clarity, air temperature, water temperature, oxygen level, redox potential, CO2 level, water conductivity, salt content, etc, etc, into the equation one fact remains: you can 't control the variables of nature, you can 't change the weather ( and how it affects those water quality parameters ), you can 't change the wind direction and speed, you can 't do anything about the moon phase or the water current or the lack of it, etc.

The only sciencie you can apply because it 's the only one under your control is how you adapt your baits and fishing techniques to those conditions, depending upon on how good you are at it you will obtain success or not, that knowledge is obtained by being on the water.

But understanding how that effects fish can help you determine how to adapt your baits and fishing techniques to those conditions. And, based on your understanding of those things that you do know, it will determine your success or not.

Ultimately you go out fishing and try various things. The things that work, you stick with. And those things that you try were initially concienved by understanding how fish act under different circumstances. Much of this initially came from fisherman, not necessarily scientists, but the principles are the same. Having knowledge, and the ability to apply that knowledge is never a bad thing.

[Paul Roberts]

Wow. Truly great stuff everyone.

Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification

Ultimately, making something simple is often the most complicated thing that you can do, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to remove many of the possibilities to distil something down to the basics.

You don't know what you know until you try to explain it. That's a big part of the great challenge of teaching, and writing. Similarly, trying to organize and explain stuff often brings out glaring holes in your thinking. It's separating the faith and opinion from the knowledge. The former keeps you going the latter, hopefully, comes over time.

Opinion is easy, everyone has one. But knowledge takes one hell of a lot of work. paraphrasing Carl Sagan.

You can dump al your scientific knowldege about water clarity, air temperature, water temperature, oxygen level, redox potential, CO2 level, water conductivity, salt content, etc, etc, into the equation one fact remains: you can 't control the variables of nature, you can 't change the weather ( and how it affects those water quality parameters ), you can 't change the wind direction and speed, you can 't do anything about the moon phase or the water current or the lack of it, etc.

No, you can't control em, but you can control yourself. You can learn what they mean, and how to avoid, work around, or work with them.

Your brain is the most amazing computer there is. It's all about potential. Maybe that's what the faith part is.