To make a long story short, a tourney friend who spent quite a bit of time fishing in Indiana recently moved to Tennessee. He posted back about what a big difference he’s noticed between TN reservoirs and catch rates versus Indiana reservoirs and catch rates. Indiana of course being much tougher, and so the question posed was why? He threw out a few theories as did several others, and there was the DNR management finger pointing, too. This led to a great discussion of which I wanted to “transcript” my responses here.
OK, the big difference between (Monroe, Patoka, Brookville, Cataract, Raccoon) and (Lemon, Boggs, Geist, Morse, Eagle Creek, Waveland, Glenn Flint)? The former are all flood control and as such, Corp of Engineers and flood control purposes are 1st and foremost on the list. All recreational purposes including management by DNR are secondary.
What about the latter? Non-flood control. They all have simple overflow type dams that keep water levels pretty stable over the course of the year, especially around spawn time. Stable or higher water levels create great LMB spawns and typically high recruitment. This then yields good catches, at least for fish up to keeper length for several years down the road.
Studies on Lake Chickamauga show a pretty good correlation between reservoir retention time and LMB juveniles (recruitment). The more they have to “flush” the system the worse the bass pops tend to be for a given year. The same can be correlated to our big waters. The more our waters are fluctuated in an attempt to keep stable water levels or prevent flooding, the greater the likelihood of a screwed up spawn.
In the big picture, DNR and management have very little to do with the productivity (and subsequent “good” or “bad” fishing) of the lake. That’s just a convenient excuse for anglers to point fingers at for their lack of success. DNR doesn’t control water levels, they have only slight control over angling pressure, they have very little control over habitat, and the tools at their disposal (size and creel limits) are really just for trying to fix a screwed up fishery once it is out of whack. The rest has very little effect on Mother Nature. Like a friend of mine has stated before, “greenies” breed like rabbits when given the right conditions and opportunities. If your lake doesn’t have the right conditions, there is not much the DNR can do about it.
Two good examples are Geist and Morse. IDNR hasn’t done a thing management-wise on those two bodies of water for the past 15+ years due to the exorbitant launch fees. There are no restrictions (permits) on tourneys, no special size limits and no special bag limits. No stocking what-so-ever. Their way of showing displeasure to that whole situation. Yet despite all the pressure mentioned, they’re two of the best lakes in the state for bass. Why? Stable water levels, great shallow water spawning habitat and great shallow water cover, plus limited harvest by “meat” fishermen due to the high launch fees.
Here are two other important points; pressure and conditioning. These things have an effect when you don’t have high bass populations to begin with. If you had high bass populations (good spawns and good recruitment), you’d be catching plenty of fish. For bass up to legal size of 14-15” it has been shown that there is good correlation between number of fish and angler success. Need Indiana examples? Remember Boggs in 2000-2001 (313 bass per hour electrofish rate), Patoka in the early 90’s (175-357/hr), Waveland before the fish kill last year (169/hr), Glenn Flint before the renovation (143/hr), Dogwood (195/hr), Westwood (183/hr). Get the picture? All of these were “numbers” lakes where getting 40-80 bass per day was routine. What is Patoka now...(87/hr). How about the Ohio River Cannelton (5-15/hr). I haven’t tracked down Monroe’s but I was thinking about 70/hr. for the last survey I saw.
So that just means less fish to be caught which makes for tougher fishing. You better figure something out to be able to consistently catch fish on these bodies of water. This ties in with the conditioning. Admit it, how many of you guys “kill them” in practice on Wednesdays and Thursdays? The fish are still there, but conditioning, pressure and traffic have an affect when population levels are low. Fish definitely will change their feeding habits and patterns in response to increased pressure!
Some of the other factors not often considered:
Private waters often get mentioned but they get much less pressure, especially tournament pressure, and less harvest. Boggs...no tournaments allowed through the summer. Lemon...no tournaments allowed on Sundays. Eagle Creek and Dogwood...no big boats due to the 9.9 hp limit, so very little tourney-type pressure. Getting the picture yet? From now through September, every 8-10 hr tourney will kill between 20-30% of the bass weighed in via delayed mortality. Depending upon all the other combined factors discussed, this may or may not make a difference on some waters.
Lastly, a few other things to consider.
- Longer growing seasons to the south.
- Practically no spotted bass in Indiana reservoirs. This makes up a bulk of the catch in some Southern tourneys.
- Most Southern states have a 12” size limit.
- No threadfin shad, bluebacks or alewife in Indiana reservoirs for food, only gizzard shad which can quickly outgrow consumption size.
- High pressure on small surface acres
So while DNR may have some control with your overall “experience” as a tourney angler at a state property, they have very little control over what you’ll actually catch or how good fishing will be. They have to work within the watersheds Mother Nature has given them and the limited authority over properties owned by the Corps. If you watched the All-American last week on the Ohio River out of Louisville, or if you’ve seen the BassMaster Classics from Pittsburgh, Louisville or Cincinnati, then you’ve seen that even the best anglers in the country can’t overcome a crappy fishery. You either have to pick and choose the lakes you fish based on where you can catch lots of fish, or just tough it out with the rest of us on our Indiana bodies of water.
On Reservoir Hydrology:
It really does vary among waterbodies. Maceina studied 4 reservoirs along the Tennessee River (Ky. L, Wheeler, Guntersville, and Chickamauga) and concluded that weak year-classes were produced during wet early-summer conditions after largemouth bass hatched, whereas stronger year-classes were produced during dryer early-summer conditions. This was because wet summers resulted in increased discharge from dams and heavy flushing of the reservoir.
Sammons et al. studied Normandy Reservoir but found that combinations of hydraulic factors (reaching full pool early in spring; maintaining full pool for at least 90 d) allowed largemouth bass in Normandy Reservoir to hatch early and experience rapid growth and good survival. In this case, high water levels were a good thing. Aggus and Elliott (1975) documented that the strongest year-classes in Bull Shoals Lake, Arkansas, were produced in years of high inflow and high summer water levels, too. High summer water levels were also linked to high survival of age-0 largemouth bass in West Point Lake, Alabama–Georgia (Miranda et al. 1984).
So as usual, your results might vary. What appears to be an answer or explanation in Indiana might not be the correct answer in Kentucky or Tennessee. I still think a lot of this has to do with the overall flushing regime for a particular reservoir, along with how high a reservoir is allowed to flood and what cover options are available at a given flood level. It may turn out that flatland type impoundments have a much different requirement than narrower, river-type, rocky impoundments.
There are also definite differences in spawning success under such conditions between spotted bass and largemouth bass that ultimately may make a difference in the fishery. For instance in your neck of the woods, Center Hill tourney catches are usually made up of 70% spotted bass whereas at Percy Priest, 85% of tourney catches are largemouth (Kaintz et al. 2005). Normandy is more split being 60% largemouth and 40% spotted bass. So depending on the prevailing weather patterns, certain reservoirs down that way would probably be much more (or less) affected compared to ours which are almost 100% largemouth weigh-ins.
Whatever the answer, it all makes for some interesting reading.
On how long a fish will hold an unsalted or unscented piece of plastic, it just depends. I've actually timed this for myself before out of curiosity. I've had fish hold on as long as 45 seconds or more before finally getting my bait back, all the while that fish is happily carrying that piece of plastic, hook and monofilament all over the damn cove. That's an awful long time! Sit at your desk and stop reading this post and time off 45 seconds on your watch before coming back and reading the rest of this...it's an eternity. I think there are numerous reasons or theories that could affect the length of time including individual preferences among bass, immediate competition from other bass for that item, pressure, taste, weight, realization of it being non-edible, or any other unnatural component. 
From the time I bought my first Daiwa baitcasting reel, I've always felt that they have had the best magnetic braking system in the business. Apparently, I'm not the only one to think so. Regardless of whether you agree or not, do yourself a favor and drop on over to 
The 'Eyes' Have It
Trips: 39 Hours: 86.0 Bass: 507 No. > 5#: 1
Update: Just found another nice argument (counter-point) from over on the NYBass archives that I'm adding to this post below.
Do the eyes have it?
A lot has been said about the ability of fish to identify a lure as one prey or another which leads one to believe that fish, by instinct or intelligence, can 'prefer' or target one species over another. Lure companys, (via their spokesmen), compare the details and of a particular brand of lure to the real thing. You may want to consider the following example before you lay down your cash based on the 'matching philosophy' of lure fishing.
Past articles written in magazines, suggest painted eyes indicate the 'head' of a lure. This supposedly helps a fish to decide to kill it's prey more effectively, based on it's realistic 'interpretation' of a color or natural pattern. This brings up the question of how much of one's confidence is based on good 'ol superstition, versus validation and duplicate experiences? A few definitions to keep in mind whenever you hear someone relate an absolute concerning fishing lures are the following:
Superstition is defined as, 'a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.'
Anecdote is defined as, 'a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life.'
Eyes and other realistic lure characteristics can never be said to always make a difference in the number of strikes we get in a day. Therefore, we can never know when they really do make a difference. Senkos don't have eyes, yet they can beat the pants off 95% of all lure types, (regardless of realism), and in a large number of situations.
Granted, sight and sound lure qualities are important stimuli to the strike, but that which catches a fisherman, may not equate into that which makes a fish bite. Even if a certain lure had craw b.o., gills, eyes, fins and slime, I doubt the bait would be any more effective than your run-of-the-mill plastic worm or creature bait.
How well a particular species learns or solves problems and responds to positive or negative stimuli, often turns out to have more to do with sight, motivation and species-specific ecological adaptations than with underlying intelligence. Maybe a fish prefers to kill it's prey head-first, but how does it determine the 'head'? Is it the forward motion of the target or is it the larger 'end' that indicates the 'head and nothing-but-the-head'?
Do fish realize instinctively that prey try to escape by turning around or darting in a different direction, versus the unnatural movement of any prey moving backwards (unless it's a crayfish), to escape a digestive track. It appears that the 'direction' of escape' is paramount versus 'eyeballs' on a minnow or a lure. Therefore, the 'head' is expected to move in the direction of an attempted escape, with the tail following close behind. The profile of some baits may indicate the head, by it plumper end; not always, but sometimes!)
Surface detailing of the realistic-kind, became a non-issue for me after the first time I caught smallmouth on firetiger, and largemouth, on red crankbaits; ditto for the success of purple/firetail Phenom worms and bubblegum Slugos. I've owned and used a Bagley baby-bass immitation for 10 years and have yet to get a strike on it.
'Eyes' matter if you want them to matter, the same as any number of lure finishes that are confidence-based positives. The fact that our expectations of a lure's effectiveness may be based on the build-up of superstitions by the pros and ourselves, is usually not considered when we dream of catching 'more and bigger'. Being in the right place, at the right time and casting one of a hundred, effective lures, usually explains the bite.
The grand thing about fishing is that it's 99% anecdotal and 1% real concerning successes and failures. If it weren't, we wouldn't be able to tell about the big ones that got away or the patterns that won the day. But more importantly, the clearance tables would be empty!
If it works for you .....
Frank
(P.S. a painted eye is nothing but a dot that breaks up a solid color pattern, just like a stripe. In a sense the dot is saying, 'watch me as you sing along and then, bite me!! '
Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | Tweet This!