Big Indiana Bass

Just Added: Articles

I sat down over the weekend and figured out how to add separate pages as links within the site. So I copied several articles that I have either written or contributed to from various sources and added these as clickable links. They are located on the right sidebar of the page under "Articles" after the solar data graphs. Just click on any article to read and it should appear. Use your return or back button when finished reading to get back to the main site page. Unlike a standard post, these are not categorized anywhere and they also don't allow for comments. I hope to add several more as I either come across more stuff I have written, or as I take the time to write some new ones.

Hardness, Depth and Bottom Material

In response to the question of signal strength relative to depth from the previous post, the answer is depth accounts for a little extra strength in the return, but not as much as you might think. Soft bottoms return soft echos, and just moving them closer to the transucer won't turn them into hard bottoms (relative to the sonars way of thinking). Hopefully the picture above will help explain this. Keeping in mind that I never make adjustments (outside of depth) to my sonar settings once I'm dialed in for the day, this somewhat blander hump actually tops out 2 foot shallower than the hump in the previous post. However, you can clearly see the transition to a much harder bottom that occurs right at the back edge of the hump as I start to crest it and proceed down the back side drop. Everything up to that point, including the rise and part of the top left of the hump is just typical return strength for this lake. Not necessarily silty or soft, but certainly not anything overly solid and firm.

A large part of this is simply controlled by the content material of the bottom. Hard bottoms are hard bottoms and they will reflect as such regardless of most settings. I also believe a small part is the nature of humps, that being rises in the bottom that tend to A.) be shallower and potentially subject to more 'washing' either by natural or man made currents, hence silt not being as likely to get settled, and B.) being more vertical objects (esp. the 'sides') , much like dust doesn't settle nearly as bad on the sides of your furniture, neither does silt settle comfortably (angle of repose?). Last, most of these type structures in our lakes tend to be found on the lower end of the lakes where the majority of silt is least likely to settle. Most material falls out in the first available location with minimal transport power, i.e. really calm water. Areas like the back of creeks and the headwaters of impoundments. The material that clouds water way down on the lower end of the lake is usually the lightest material suspended and subsequently the least likely to fall out in the first place.   

Another Screen Shot

Here is another screen capture from last weekend. This one is a great example of settings for distinction of hard bottom areas. Notice the bright, wide yellow band under the hump, all the extra orange in the return as well as the 'arching' red and magenta well underneath the hump. There is also an easily discernable double echo in the shot. This whole thing being in stark contrast to the relatively benign flat bottom leading up to and following after the hump.

We can see a lot of small scattered fish that are represented by the small blue arches more or less suspended through the wid water column. And that clump on the left before reaching the hump would most likely be some type of sunk wood such as a small stump with fish hanging around it. If I had to guess what type fish, my first thought would be crappie due to the pyramidal (Christmas Tree) shape to the school, a very common crappie return signal.

The New Phone Book is Here!

Any of you remember the movie "The Jerk" with Steve Martin? That is the kind of glee many anglers feel when the new BPS catalog arrives each year. I just received my copy of the 2008 Fishing Master Catalog, all 729 pages of it. My first thought was man this thing is huge. Then I scrolled through the pages while sitting in an interstate traffic jam and was impressed by the graphic work that has gone into this edition. But as I continued to sit in traffic, my thoughts soon turned to reflection on the incredible marketing that goes into our sport. Is it any wonder that most of us have garages full of more tackle than we could ever use? Or how easy it is to understand why people have difficulty catching fish when there are so many bait and tackle options available, all of them "great" and "the hottest thing" for 2008?

So that got me pulling out my 2007 Master catalog and doing a little comparison, and I was intrigued by what I found. This years catalog is actually nearly 8% "thinnner" than last years, which was a whopping 790 pages. So I looked at sections for differences and found increases/decreases in the following categories:

• Rods, reels, line (8% less)
• Lures (6% less)
• Marine (8% less)
• Auto/Camping (21% less)
• Clothing/Footwear (10% less)
• Tackle & Accessories (20% more)

Then I started doing some price comparisons since I have an order with BPS "in transit" as we speak. The good news is that reels and electronics have basically stayed put with no increase in prices from 2007. However, it will cost you more to buy lures this year with an average increase between 2-5% per bait. The interesting exception to this being that most all BPS/XPS brand baits have not increased in price at all (coincidence? I think not). Rod prices have increased an average of 10-20% from last year, along with a 6% increase in the cost of tackle boxes and tackle management systems. The biggie turns out to be "metals", or lead and hooks. Here increases typically range between 10-95% more than last year. Most will be obvious if you compare item to item, but some will fool you if you don't look close. For instance, many sinkers look like they've actually dropped by a dime per package, that is until you look at the weight counts per bag. In some cases the price has dropped a dime, but the count you get has been halved!

I went through my own small order item by item. There are only 15 items and they are all terminal tackle like weights, hooks, and swivels. I just ordered on Christmas Day online and got 2007 prices which are good through Dec. 31 of this year. Had I waited until next week to order, that exact same order (not including shipping which has stayed constant) would have cost me 10.6% more than I just paid.

Most people remember the "Tech Bubble" and the stock market crash from several years back. Currently we're now seeing the "Housing Bubble" burst as the sub-prime mortgage debacle continues. I have to wonder if we aren't seeing the start of an "angling bubble", that while maybe not bursting, is definitely starting to lose air. Tourney participation around here has been down considerably this past year, and circuits have raised entry fees in many cases to offset some of the loss while maintaining historical payoffs. The angling population in general has taken a significant hit recently, as documented in several news articles such as the one in the link. THE Catalog of all fishing catalogs is considerably thinner, but the prices continue to rise. Is this the beginning of the end?

Depthfinder Screen Shots

I've got a series of shots I captured off my Lowrance graph this past weekend I wanted to share. They are all good examples of settings or readings that should be helpful for those still trying to dial-in or read their units. You'll be able to click on any of these pics to get a larger view.

This first one is a good example of several different things. Notice the nice double echo readings indicative of hard bottoms under the "humps". At their peak there is actually a bit of a triple echo even. Also notice the object on the left side of the right hump. The fact that is is largely colored the same as the bottom (yellow/orange) suggests that this is a pretty solid object, most likely a stump or cut-off tree. Now contrast this with the fish and brush showing as the blue and magenta clusters down in the trough at the right side of the second hump. The color of return clearly suggests that these are less dense objects and they don't blend in with the bottom in any way like the stump did. This is how you can tell things apart based upon the color (strength) of the reading. On a black and white unit, you'd get really light colored banding of the stump making it look like the bottom, and a more darker and mottled gray for the fish and brush.   

Understanding Shad Dynamics

If you're going to spend any amount of time fishing reservoirs in Indiana, then you really need to have a good understanding about the relationship between reservoir ecology and gizzard shad. There is probably nothing more dynamic and inherently tied to everything that happens in our reservoirs. I run into so many anglers that don't have a good understanding about gizzard shad, their biology or their affects on a fishery. So many decisons made by our DNR are tied to this very thing, yet so few people understand the big picture.

• Why does the DNR go in and renovate a lake trying to eliminate shad?
• What happens when the renovation fails or when anglers go and illegally introduce shad into a body of water?
• Why does it seem like hybrid striped bass get stocked in most reservoirs of the state?
• Why do we have so many shad in the first place and are they really bad?
• What does any of this gizzard shad stuff have to do with water clarity, zooplankton, blue-green algae or bass and bluegill abundance or population characteristics?

Forget all the articles you've ever read about shad in a bass magazine. I've read them all too, and they're pretty much worthless. The following paper falls into my "Top-5" category for research papers every angler should read. Understand this and you'll know what is happening in Indiana waters better than most every other angler out there.

Linking Landscapes and Food Webs: Effects of Omnivorous Fish and Watersheds on Reservoir Ecosystems   

Last Bass of the Year

Caught what will probably be the last fish of the year for me today. Stayed close and hit a local reservoir. Spent nearly 6 hours out there and could only scrounge up this one little bass, along with a few white bass. Very disappointing in light of the fact that I ran into a couple friends out there in another boat that ended the day with 11 bass, including several nice fish over 4 pounds. Sucked to be me today, but at least the weather was great for this late in the year. Severe front hits tonight with snow tomorrow and 20-40 mph winds. Then lows into the 20's for a few nights so things are going to freeze quick. Water temps today were pretty much 38.6 degrees most everywhere.

On another note, Rich sent another news bit along with a write-up to go with it, but it has already made it onto the BFHP with some good comments added by a couple posters, so I'll just direct you there: Dead Zone Post.   

Some Days You Win...

And some days you lose. Today, we lost. But it wasn't for lack of effort. Cold snap has refroze most everything, though things started to unfreeze a bit yesterday. So with a day off work, I drove the 45 miles one way to try and get a shot at those bass over at my friends house. When I got there though, everything was pretty frozen in except for tiny areas around the docks. So what to do? After some time we got the boat turned around in its little space and rocked and waved our way down one side of the lake and back, breaking up much of the ice (see my friend in boat in pic - click to enlarge).

So we loaded everything into the boat and went back out into the sea of ice and water, hoping to catch just one bass. It was kind of weird, flipping small baits into holes between ice sheets like you'd flip vegetation. In some places you could even skip your bait across the ice and right under a dock into a pocket of open water. Here we'd let the bait fall to bottom and basically vertical jig it using the ice as the stationary object. I'd love to tell you that we caught one, but alas it wasn't to be. It wasn't a total skunk though as I managed the yellow perch in the picture (LOL). Tomorrow sunny and 49 (figures, I'll be working) so I bet it will open up more. May have to take another run Saturday and give it one last try as they call for 53 degrees. Everything freezes back up on Sunday.

On a fish related topic, Rich sent me this interesting link (Fish Use Human Reasoning to Determine Social Rank). In particular, while reading through the article it mentioned that even fish that were in an adjacent tank but could see the other fish fighting were able to ascertain who was the bully and who was the weakling. The first thought that crossed my mind - We've all heard the theory that bass not hooked could "learn" not to hit certain baits by association of others being caught around them. Maybe there's something to it after all? 

Good Winter Read

While on the subject of Florida strain bass, California, Share Lunkers and the like, some very entertaining reading giving you some insight into the California big bass rush a decade ago. From the May 1995 issue of Outside Online -

"Big Bass and the Men Who Love Them."

Texas Lunker Bass: Genetics Part 2

Some really cool findings fom the published paper "Admixture Analysis of Florida Largemouth Bass and Northern Largemouth Bass using Microsatellite Loci appearing in the May 2006 issue of "Transactions of the American Fisheries Society." Researchers used microsatellite DNA variation to ascertain the ancestry of 37 largemouth bass greater than 13 pounds that had been submitted to the Texas Share Lunker Program between 2004-2005. I expected to read about F1 Hybrids, the first generation offspring that results from mixes between two genetically diverse populations and often results in what is referred to as hybrid vigor. Those F1's have been theorized to compose the majority of the really huge California bass you've read about. Turns out not to be the case in Texas. Here are some findings:

• As you would expect, the majority of the genetic contribution was from Florida largemouth bass.
• Furthermore, a majority of the trophy fish showed no significant influence from northern largemouth bass (65%).
• It was determined that these fish were original remnants of, or direct descendents from, Florida largemouth bass stocking events at least a decade in the past.
• Admixed trophy fish (35%) were largely influenced by southern lineages of northern largemouth bass (85%), a majority probably having a grandparent or earlier relative in the southern-latitude northern largemouth bass cluster.
• Researchers found "no evidence of a heterotic effect (in terms of size) resulting from first-generation crosses (F1 hybrids) between Florida largemouth bass and northern largemouth bass. The majority of trophy-sized fish with an admixed genome were later-generation hybrids with a larger percentage of Florida largemouth bass alleles."
• Ultimately it was determined to be "a unique combination of climatic and anthropogenic influences that have provided Florida largemouth bass with favorable environments in Texas. In fact, each trophy fish examined was obtained from an artificial lentic system, and it is not likely that these same results would be replicated in many environments."

Patoka L. Bass Tourney Statistics: Part 2

Again, my thanks to Brian Schoenung, Southern Fisheries Supervisor and Dan Carnahan, District 7 Fisheries Biologist for forwarding the following Patoka L. historical graphs to me to share. Click on the thumbnail pics to enlarge each graph for easier viewing.

Fig. 6 is the actual and maximum weight of the total pounds of largemouth bass weighed-in at Patoka Lake tournaments. Average poundage is trending up, about as much as I would have expect since you have to take into account the doubling of tourneys and anglers reporting starting around 2000-2001. Maximum weight on the other hand has had a much healthier spike consistant with a growing and healthy bass population.

Fig. 7 is CPUE (catch per unit effort in #/hr) of legal largemouth bass weighed-in at Patoka Lake bass tournaments. This figure has nearly tripled, suggesting a lot less time to catch a keeper bass in a tourney at Patoka now as compared to the "rough" days back in the early 90's. I'm guessing stats from the 88-92 might have even been worse as that seemed to be the toughest years that I recall.

Fig. 8 is the total hours to catch one legal largemouth bass at Patoka Lake tournaments. As expected and in a mirror reverse from the previous chart, there has been a 3-fold decrease here. In another words, where it used to take around 30 hours or tourney angling (on average over the entire field) before you'd catch a keeper bass, it now is down to 10 or less hours.

Fig. 9 is CPUE (#/hr) of largemouth bass greater than or equal to 18 inches weighed in at Patoka Lake tournaments. Interestingly enough, this stat is also about a triple increase similar to the "keeper" statistics above. This suggests that growth of bass across the board is consistant and that larger fish continue to be maintained and recruited into the population.

Fig. 10 is the total hours to catch one largemouth bass greater than or equal to 18 inches in Patoka Lake tourneys. Again, we've gone from about 125 hours on average to catch an 18" or larger bass in a tourney down to around 50 hours.

It will be interesting to see how these statistics trend over the next 5-6 years from their current positions. From previous state surveys, it was looking like bass recruitment was starting to suffer as exemplified by the PSD (Proportional Stock Density) number exceeding 60 a couple years ago. The 2006 (I believe) survey showed this PSD number to decrease back into the healthy range (40-60) thanks to a recent crop of small bass that started showing up in the most recent surveys. Will that year class be enough to sustain the good fishing at Patoka Lake? Was that the start of some favorable reproductive years and we'll see more little bass continue to be recruited into the population? We'll have to just wait and see.

Backwards Size Limits? Genetics Part 1

This wasn't the original piece I was going to post, but I came across it in research and thought it was more appropriate to some of the ongoing discussions we're having pertaining to "growing" trophy bass. I spent several years doing genetic work in an agricultural background setting, so I'm always interested in cross-over applications to fisheries. I remember first hearing about this piece which came out in 2002. I thought it was kind of cool at the time. From the whyfiles on possible backward fishery regulations: Something Fishy

The original article "Sustaining Fisheries Yields Over Evolutionary Time Scales" appeared in the Journal Science on July 5, 2002, pp. 94-96.

As you'll see from the article, by allowing the smallest 90% of fish to be harvested, mean weight of harvested fish is maximized after several generations while remaining fish are significantly larger when compared to the other two simulation groups. While testing is argued from a commercial fishery standpoint, this type approach tends to contradict the more common minimum length limit (MLL) strategy we see applied to our fresh waters. And a similar study, "The importance in fishery management of leaving the big ones" from Trends in Ecology and Evolution (Jul 2005) adds additional supporting knowledge to the argument.

Pic courtesy M. Walsh