Lateral line

[Ronje]

First instalment on the role played by lateral lines when LMB fishing.

There's a fair bit in this subject as it also deals with lure action.

[D.W. Verts]

And you can get as technical and complicated as you want.

Dale

[merc1997]

And you can get as technical and complicated as you want.

Dale

yep.  bottom line the bass have to tell you what they want.  and, i have never figured out a sure fire scientific way to figure those critters out.  lifetime of experience helps a bunch if one paid any attention along the way.

bo

[Fun4me]

I enjoy hearing all perspectives...

It certainly breaks up the monotony of the cliches i've heard a thousand times. JMO

[Ronje]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

This stuff is meant as a way of giving the best chance of success by knowing the facts underpinning the techniques that have sprung up (and there are plenty).

The source of scientific info is from scientists who research subjects usually funded by grants.  So they need to keep busy to obtain income.

The results of that research is contained in a report at the conclusion.

The language of those reports is that of the industry.  The scientific industry.  Its written in scientific "jargon" seeking acceptance as the facts.  Basically its seeking peer review.

Its certainly not written in layman's language for the "great unwashed" in society (that's you and I).

Bass have been researched and reports written but what's been missing is a scientist (with a foot in each camp) to bridge the gap between science and bass fishing.  An interpreter of scientific jargon.

I know a couple who have had been in ideal situations to do that but either didn't understand the language/knowledge gap or didn't realise the significance to bass fishing of some of the research elements. 

So there's been a vacuum of facts.  Wherever there's a vacuum like that, other ideas will move in and not necessarily be based on fact.

These are the ideas based on credibility alone.  Been bass fishing for 30 years.  Been writing about it for 30 years.  Won bass tournaments.

But if what is being conveyed is not based on facts then its meaningless and simply adds to the confusion.

This stuff I'm putting up IS based on fact and its meant only to give a fisherman a factual starting point.  With a bit of luck that fisherman will utilise the info, perhaps modify current techniques to give themselves the best chance of success.

The two most used, vague and meaningless phrases we'll come across are "natural colors" and "contrast".  There's a place for particular types of contrast in the right context but I have absolutely no idea what "a natural color" is.  Color is a part of nature so all colors are natural.

[Ronje]

Further to the last posting, here's a report on research in relation to lateral lines (2003).

I didn't see bass in it (the researcher is russian, I think) but have a look at the scientific research industry jargon.

Interpreting this stuff is where there's been a "hole" in the factual base for bass.

There would be very very few fisherman who would last the distance reading this let alone understanding it.

It contains well researched info on the subject that applies in lots of circumstances.

[D.W. Verts]

I just like it when a bigmouth hawg jaw bites one of my baits.

Dale

[Ronje]

I'd say that there would be a lot of fishermen who'd agree.

Bit more on lures and how they are supposed to generate vibrations that lateral lines are best tuned to detect.  Not a lot of point in using a "vibration generator" that isn't designed to be detected by fish lateral lines.  Many are pretty hopeless at that role.

[Oldfart9999]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

This stuff is meant as a way of giving the best chance of success by knowing the facts underpinning the techniques that have sprung up (and there are plenty).

The source of scientific info is from scientists who research subjects usually funded by grants.  So they need to keep busy to obtain income.

The results of that research is contained in a report at the conclusion.

The language of those reports is that of the industry.  The scientific industry.  Its written in scientific "jargon" seeking acceptance as the facts.  Basically its seeking peer review.

Its certainly not written in layman's language for the "great unwashed" in society (that's you and I).

Bass have been researched and reports written but what's been missing is a scientist (with a foot in each camp) to bridge the gap between science and bass fishing.  An interpreter of scientific jargon.

I know a couple who have had been in ideal situations to do that but either didn't understand the language/knowledge gap or didn't realise the significance to bass fishing of some of the research elements. 

So there's been a vacuum of facts.  Wherever there's a vacuum like that, other ideas will move in and not necessarily be based on fact.

These are the ideas based on credibility alone.  Been bass fishing for 30 years.  Been writing about it for 30 years.  Won bass tournaments.

But if what is being conveyed is not based on facts then its meaningless and simply adds to the confusion.

This stuff I'm putting up IS based on fact and its meant only to give a fisherman a factual starting point.  With a bit of luck that fisherman will utilise the info, perhaps modify current techniques to give themselves the best chance of success.

The two most used, vague and meaningless phrases we'll come across are "natural colors" and "contrast".  There's a place for particular types of contrast in the right context but I have absolutely no idea what "a natural color" is.  Color is a part of nature so all colors are natural.

There are many fishery biologist who have turned pro, In-Fisherman has several on staff, read the book that came out of Berkeley, the book written by their chief researcher, I put a copy up for the charity UB puts on each Christmas season. Yep there is a ton of scientific writings out there, you can go to your state DEC or whatever they call themselves, good stuff but most of us don't have neither the time or inclination to try and wade through it all.
Many like merc1997 or Mr. Verts have shared a lifetime of experience, which is done by observation, also known as the scientific method. There are many who will make it up to make a buck but there are many, like the 2 I mentioned just like to share what they learned through their observation. That's why I mentioned taking notes, while they may not become part of academic peer reviewed papers they are a form of real scientific study that the note taker can use to real advantage.
Now, on to the lateral line; it tells a fish what's going on it's area, where the bait is, what it is, and is highly accurate, of course distance does play a part. It is the most important sense fish have and is worth learning a bit about.
Rodney

[Ronje]

Thanks Rodney.

Lets just agree to disagree about the usefulness of experience.  The bass fishing scene is brimming with experience.  I believe that experience based advice (being the major source of what moved in to fill the factual vacuum that the scientific brigade failed to fill) has been one of the major causes of much of the confusion.

A lot of the advice based on experience simply contradicts the facts so how does the average angler know which experienced advice to listen to? So much of it falls into the confidently wrong area.

That was the very question I asked myself a few years ago and why I started going down this path.  What I've come to realise in that journey isn't "who to listen to" but rather who not "to listen to".

Anyway, I believe that this approach is giving average Joe Angler a much better starting point than what we had early on.



   

[Bud Kennedy]

Ronje, At this point I have to ask a question that has bothered me from the very beginning of this academic exercise.  The simple question is......Are you a Bass Angler ?  If so tell us about your experience.  Then lets have a worth while discussion about the value of experience in this particular field of endeavor.  I for one believe that this sport is best learned by actually participating and not by academic application.  I await your response.

[D.W. Verts]

My education- went to school to study fisheries & wildlife biology ala Mr. Ken Cook. Worked for our Conservation Department and because of this I know way too much (worthless) Latin.  And 45 years of chasing these li'l green and brown fish. Man, I'm tired.

Dale

[FD]

Ronje, At this point I have to ask a question that has bothered me from the very beginning of this academic exercise.  The simple question is......Are you a Bass Angler ?  If so tell us about your experience.  Then lets have a worth while discussion about the value of experience in this particular field of endeavor.  I for one believe that this sport is best learned by actually participating and not by academic application.  I await your response.

As do I!

Questioning the validity of the experience offered by Dale, Bo, merc and Rodney, is a prime example of the world of academia and the inherent snobbery discounting real world qualitative analysis simply because the authors don't have a PhD. 

The phrase, "Those who can, - Do, and those who can't, - Teach," has never been more true than in this topic.

FDx Custom Rods
Arti-FISH-ial Entertainment
CPF Lures

[Ronje]

I don't have a phD either, my friend.  Academia I'm not.

When I decided to take on this task, I was well aware that there was going to be "pushback" from people who did not agree with what I had to say.

Knowing that facts are basic elements that comprise truth (and its hard to argue against truth), I knew that any pushback would most likely come from the opinion-based-on-experience brigade.

And here it comes.

Thank you for your kind invitation to start down that credibility/opinion/experience path, I must decline those discussions as they invariably  end up as a credibility competition.

By contrast, discussions about facts are easy to prove or disprove and don't involve a disruptive unrinating competition.

As I told Rodney, I'm not out to convince anybody of anything.

I'm simply bringing a fresh set of eyes to lay out facts for anglers to do with as they wish.  Make up their own minds.

No, I don't put much stock in experience unless its based on fact.  If you believe that your's is, I be glad to hear it after we've finished here.

Nor can I work out why you guys are as aggressive as you are about fresh ideas. 

There are members on here who do want to listen/look at different ideas and fresh outlooks.

How about you guys sit back and allow fellow members who want to hear about alternative views and ideas to do so?  Agreed?

[Fun4me]

"Those that can, do...and those that can't, teach"

I never understood why the "can" people have such an issue with the "can't" people, considering the "can't" people are somewhat responsible for the success of the "can" people.

[D.W. Verts]

I love academic discussion, especially about bass fishing. But. As I get older I've come to realize that sometimes we thinks too much. I went to school to maybe become a biologist, but I also wanted to learn about the fish themselves. College for me however  was more about the academia and less about the fish (and WAY too much about politics when it came to actually working for one of the agencies in charge of all things outdoors), or at least the real-life applications as to what makes them, and the things that surround them, work. I like practicality. Bass fishing is all about practicality.

However, my somewhat smart-ass contributions to your topic were also kind of rude, and I apologize for that. It did nothing to contribute to a discussion that may help someone.

But I'm getting to be an old guy. Not as old as Bud, but I'm trying. I've seen most (all?) of it, especially since the interweb thing started. And while bass fishing could arguably be said to be a thinking man's game I feel that sometimes we thinks too much.

Carry on.

Dale

[loomisguy]

I'd like to hear the answer to Bud's question. I believe I asked it as well..

[merc1997]

i would suppose that me being pretty much a meat and potatoes feller that a look at the things being discussed as more of a common sense thought process.  i.e. clearer water - bass feed more visually.  more color the lateral line comes into play and one would think that lures with more commotion would be the ticket.  NOT.  i learned a loooooooong time ago that many times in dead mud water bass can be caught on something with no noise.  such as a split shot french fry, or a gitzit, or a ned, and many will not be on the bank and will be caught 15 ft. deep.

how does a bass eat shad in dead muddy water, when the shad does not turn to an orange, red, or chartreuse color?  why do bass change preference for lure size, such as, a10 or 12 inch worm over a six inch worm.  why do you need to be throwing a soft plastic crawdad over a worm at times, and there again, the size of the crawdad will change during the year.

the first and foremost thing that will help anyone catch more bass is to understand the food chain for the body of water you are fishing.  this statement boils down to the fact that bass are always going to live very close to the refrigerator.  you can not catch the first bass unless you are putting a lure in front of them.  then you can use into the equation of getting them to bite using visual or lateral line into the equation.  but, even then, we can not get into that pea sized genetic computer of a brain of a bass.  they just have to react to their environment to survive.

if one truly learns from every trip fishing, time on the water is hard to beat.  always experiment with lures, size, vibration patterns, colors, speed, ect. until you unlock the key for that day.

it is darn hard to out think a bass because they did not go to school or read any fishing publications.  they move with the food, and will move to somewhere else in an hours time.  they will move 5 miles overnight.  one would ask, why would a bass move 5 miles overnight.  because the fridge moved and they moved with it.

individual strays are very hard to get to bite.  why, because there is no competition around for the food coming by.  that is why i always try to find a school of bass.  competition alone makes these bass easier to make bite.  true such as what is going on at the present time on table rock, bass are a bit scattered as they are finishing up the spawn.  daytime fishing is way better than night fishing right now, and that same thing happens every year.  this bit of info gets back to time on the water and remembering and learning from each trip.  these things that i am telling anyone that wants to learn are meat and potatoes things.  it is good to know about water clarities and how colors show up in the various clarities, and how bass use the lateral line.  but, to me these are merely fine tuners.  they are of no use unless you get the meat and potatoes.  the meat and potatoes is seasonally the food source of the waters you fish, and where that food source moves during the year.  the bass are always going to stay with the fridge.

fine tuners are fine, but if you miss the meat and potatoes, your catching might be pretty skinny.

one of the meat and potatoes problems that i need to get my head around is big boat docks.  here on table rock boat docks are going in faster than light travels.  they are taking up shore line.  at various times of the year, there are bass still using what is under the dock, plus they now have a umbrella of shade over their head and as the sun moves they just move to the other side of the dock.  i know this should be an entirely different thread, but this is still one of those meat and potato moments.  so, when every stall is filled with a boat and there is no room between the boat and the stall to get a lure in, how do you get at the school of bass living there?  keep in mind these bass will move when the fridge moves.  interesting problem that color and lateral lines will not solve.  any thoughts?

bo

[Ronje]

they just have to react to their environment to survive.
Exactly, bo.
The more you learn about that environment and how fish (not just bass) use the tools they possess to survive in it, the more accomplished and successful you become.
most of us don't have neither the time or inclination to try and wade through it all.
And THAT is what started this a few years ago.  It can be pretty difficult and confusing stuff to get your head around (if you can find it) and THAT is where the fishermen/scientists among us dropped the ball (by not acting as that "bridge" that I was talking about). 

A couple of those scientist names quoted on this thread still have the mistaken view about the penetration of color in turbid water being exactly the same as what happens in oceanic water.  Testing and observation about that was carried out in 1967 by the Navy Submarine and Diving section in Long Island Sound.

THEIR exercise and conclusions were confirmed by scientists 27 years later (in 1994) (and the scientist involved - John Kirk- only discovered it by accident whilst researching something else.  He noted and published it as incidental to his project at the time without realising its significance to the military and to the recreational fishing industry).

So that info (which would have been so useful in understanding a bass's environment and putting everybody so far ahead of where they currently are) has been in existence for 54 years yet the incorrect stuff is STILL being quoted and believed because the the "quoter" is either a scientist or a writer (with masses of experience) for popular magazines who simply repeats what he hears without testing the veracity of it.  Heresay is not fact.

Looking back at the utterings and/or writings of scientists and magazine writers was the test for me of their credibility.  If they still quoted that mistaken view about color in turbid water, I simply dropped them off the credibility list that I'd drawn up.  I had gone to the trouble of drawing up such a list from those large circulation and popular magazines (both writers and quoted scientists).  I also looked at tournament participant utterings, videos and articles.

Maybe 1 single pro might be interested in "refining techniques based on gaining a competition edge", so I offered ALL of the data to one free.

Didn't get a response.  Not even a "thanks but no thanks".

THAT'S why I'm wary of experience and experts and started doing this work by myself.  Practically.  Hands on.  Fishing.  Experimenting with fishing techniques based on my findings.  Real-water testing the factual basis for techniques.  I had a wry smile when the subject of academia was raised a few posts ago.  I'm just not that smart.

Attached is an image of the sophisticated equipment that we in academia land use in our well funded research.  Only the best of course.

Not being a scientist meant that initially I didn't even know enough to ask the right questions to find those ignored facts.  But I got better at it over time.

Having reached the point where I felt confident enough to share what I'd found with others, I pondered over the sure-fire reaction that I was going to get from the establishment.  Essentially, what I would be doing was challenging years of vested interests, egos, credibility and advice.  Not an easy task and one certain to draw "shoot the messenger" responses. 

Like a lot of you guys (I think), I have fewer years ahead of me than I have behind me so one thought foremost in my mind was "is it worth the trouble that's bound to come"?.

Frankly, I didn't think that it would be, so the path I chose was simply to put it up on a forum somewhere and aimed at people just (or recently) starting off.  They could make of it what they wanted but they'd have a much better and more informed starting point available to them than we did.  Maybe the thoughts might spread.

They could then hone their techniques from a factual base.  That base would allow them to look at other things (like those bo brought up and who had to learn them the hard way) and maybe work out "the why is it so" about those things at a much earlier time in their fishing interest.  Question commonly accepted views based on their experiences.  Learn from the process.

Anyway, it is what it is and when I finish putting up those views I can relax and go fishing again.

I still have a little bit to go to fill in a couple of gaps.

[FD]

I don't have a phD either, my friend.  Academia I'm not.

When I decided to take on this task, I was well aware that there was going to be "pushback" from people who did not agree with what I had to say.

Knowing that facts are basic elements that comprise truth (and its hard to argue against truth), I knew that any pushback would most likely come from the opinion-based-on-experience brigade.

And here it comes.

Thank you for your kind invitation to start down that credibility/opinion/experience path, I must decline those discussions as they invariably  end up as a credibility competition.

By contrast, discussions about facts are easy to prove or disprove and don't involve a disruptive unrinating competition.

As I told Rodney, I'm not out to convince anybody of anything.

I'm simply bringing a fresh set of eyes to lay out facts for anglers to do with as they wish.  Make up their own minds.

No, I don't put much stock in experience unless its based on fact.  If you believe that your's is, I be glad to hear it after we've finished here.

Nor can I work out why you guys are as aggressive as you are about fresh ideas. 

There are members on here who do want to listen/look at different ideas and fresh outlooks.

How about you guys sit back and allow fellow members who want to hear about alternative views and ideas to do so?  Agreed?

So we can participate as long as we agree with you?

I'm out.

FDx Custom Rods
Arti-FISH-ial Entertainment
CPF Lures

[Ronje]

You don't have to agree with me at all.

I simply want to give those people a fair opportunity to see/hear without an attempted hijacking of the thread subject.

Just give the people who DO want to see/hear this stuff a chance to do so. 

If you believe that your's is, I be glad to hear it after we've finished here.

Like I said, I'm happy to participate in a discussion with you then.

[FD]

"Those that can, do...and those that can't, teach"

I never understood why the "can" people have such an issue with the "can't" people, considering the "can't" people are somewhat responsible for the success of the "can" people.

There are exceptions to every rule.

I sleep next to one who is a college professor who teaches at both a state college and a private university while completing a PhD.  And I have met many of her colleagues, most of which have zero meaningful real world experience.  I on the other hand am a college dropout who has successfully run businesses for 25 years.  According to most of them I'm not qualified to teach anyone, anything.

I think I have a unique viewpoint where I can clearly see both sides of this fence.

Like I said, there are exceptions, but the rule stands.  And she agrees...

FDx Custom Rods
Arti-FISH-ial Entertainment
CPF Lures

[Fun4me]

"Those that can, do...and those that can't, teach"

I never understood why the "can" people have such an issue with the "can't" people, considering the "can't" people are somewhat responsible for the success of the "can" people.

There are exceptions to every rule.

I sleep next to one who is a college professor who teaches at both a state college and a private university while completing a PhD.  And I have met many of her colleagues, most of which have zero meaningful real world experience.  I on the other hand am a college dropout who has successfully run businesses for 25 years.  According to most of them I'm not qualified to teach anyone, anything.

I think I have a unique viewpoint where I can clearly see both sides of this fence.

Like I said, there are exceptions, but the rule stands.  And she agrees...

FDx Custom Rods
Arti-FISH-ial Entertainment
CPF Lures

Fair enough. I dropped out of college as well, so maybe I didn't understand how that saying related to ronje and this thread. Could you expound please?

[Oldfart9999]

So I'll bite; explain to me why at times bass will eat blue baits when they can't tell it's blue. I have no problem believing bass can't see blue so tell me what color they see it as. green? A shade of gray? They do perceive it as a color of some sort, just not as blue. Experience and observation tells me it happens but since i'm not a scientist I'm to believe it doesn't? By the by, I have a dozen or college credit hours and a diploma from a gunsmith school, does that count?
Rodney

[Fun4me]

So I'll bite; explain to me why at times bass will eat blue baits when they can't tell it's blue. I have no problem believing bass can't see blue so tell me what color they see it as. green? A shade of gray? They do perceive it as a color of some sort, just not as blue. Experience and observation tells me it happens but since i'm not a scientist I'm to believe it doesn't? By the by, I have a dozen or college credit hours and a diploma from a gunsmith school, does that count?
Rodney

I'm pretty sure he said bass see blue as black. So yes, they do see blue as a color, just not the color we see. Does that answer your question, or was your post really meant as a not so subtle dig, which seems popular now?