Go to the seminars, read the magazine and Internet articles, query the pros and you'll hear one mantra repeated over and over again..."Catching fish is easy; finding them is the hard part."
Bull crap!
Now, I'm not going to say this is the case all the time, or even everywhere, but for bass fishing here in Indiana, which is what a lot of this blog is about, by and large, it just isn't true. In fact, it's actually the reverse, and you know I have some data to share with you to support this opinion.
First, a quick fishery terminology lesson. 'CPUE' or "catch per unit effort." It's a very common term that you'll find in most every lake survey dealing with fish populations. The 'catch' in this case will be bass, particularly numbers of bass 'caught' during a lake survey. The 'unit effort' in most instances is 1 hour, which comes from the total length of time spent electrofishing, and then adjusted using some simple math to get a catch rate per hour, or CPUE. For example, you shock up 300 bass in 2 hours of surveying, and your CPUE is 150. So lets look at the CPUE from the most recent data available for many of the popular Indiana bass waters.
The first thing you'll notice is that for the most part, every lake listed falls into just 1 or 2 basic categories. They are either in the higher range with CPUE's around 150, or they are in the lower range with CPUE's around 50. So what does this actually mean? It means when a team of biologists pulls along a bank on one of those listed lakes and does their survey, they are shocking up, on average, either 50 or 150 bass every hour. Now when you consider that a survey boat is moving along pretty slowly so that all the fish shocked can be netted and counted, you're really talking about hundreds, more likely hundreds and hundreds of bass down any given mile or two of shoreline. It means finding the fish is easy - they're concentrated pretty well on most every bank you might think of pulling up to to fish.
The fact that you're not whacking them doesn't mean they're not there. They don't bite for lots of reasons. Many are probably neutral or negative - only a few may be feeding at any given time. Perhaps you scared them with your sloppy approach or your poor casting. Maybe they're not impressed with your new $50 swim bait. Who knows exactly why. The point is, the fish are there, around you, under you...you've found them - it's the catching that is difficult!
Need some more data? IDNR biologists recently completed a lake survey and population estimate of the number of potentially catchable bass (those >8") in Lake Monroe. Do you really want to know what their models came up with?
22,797 bass! That's right. There are over 20,000 bass swimming in Lake Monroe at any given moment, and you can't even catch 5 of them to bring to the scales. Want more data from smaller lakes? Surveys and modeling combined to give an estimate of 16,754 bass swimming around in Hardy Lake down to the southeast. Over to the west, Sullivan Lake has an estimated 12,243 bass roaming its waters. Still not convinced? At Brookville Res., there are about 137 smallmouth bass per mile of shoreline, and another 307 largemouth in that same 1-mile stretch. That's over 400+ bass per shoreline mile at a lake fondly known as "the Dead Sea." Still having a hard time finding those bass?
So lets look at the catching side of the axiom. IDNR has researched catch rates for all the reservoirs that are part of the tournament permit system. Here are some of the results. The catch per unit effort (in this case number of legal bass caught per hour) was highest at Hardy Lake (0.42), followed by Lake Wawasee (0.21), and Brookville Reservoir (0.19). The lake with the lowest CPUE for legal bass was Salamonie Reservoir (0.04).
If you want to think of these numbers in a different context, the number of hours needed to catch a legal bass was lowest at Hardy Lake (2.4 h), followed by Lake Wawasee (4.8 h), and Brookville Reservoir (5.4h). The lake with the highest number of hours to catch a legal bass was Salamonie Reservoir (23.0 h).
When you look at not just tourneys, but instead creel survey data for all anglers fishing for bass at many of these lakes, you get very similar catch rates. For example, at Monroe, the most recent creel survey showed a catch rate for all bass anglers for all sizes of bass caught at 0.13 bass per hour. Even in some of the best waters such as the Bluegrass F&W area, overall bass catch rates only run in the 0.5-0.7 fish per hour rate.
The bottom line is, catching bass really is the hardest part of the equation. It's why we're so focused on purchasing new and better lures. The tackle manufacturers thrive on this same set of data. If catching was so easy, we wouldn't need to be buying the latest and greatest holographic, sexy, japanese-imported, Touring Pro touted 'whatchamacallits'. Would the brand of rod or the type of line truly matter? Isn't it why we attend seminars, go to bass university, subscribe to magazines and read everything we can on the Internet from all the newest and greatest sites?
The fish are right there in front of you, every time you pull up to the ramp, or set down on a bank. You found them when you arrived at the lake. Now you just need to figure out how to catch them!
I totally agree! There are too many cliche-isms in fishing (and life) that are cute or coy, but not universally true.
Another one I've found frustrating, because it just hasn't worked for me, is "big fish, big bait". As you admitted, "catching fish is easy; finding them is the hard part" may be true in some cases, but not all, same with "big fish, big bait".
I've scored more big bass on 4" worms with finesse presentations than any crankbait, spinnerbait, swimbait, I've used-ever. That's my experience, maybe not yours. But when Bill Dance trumpets that "ism" on TV, it smacks more of commercialism than really catching fish.
Similar surveys by biologists have been done at my local reservoirs suggesting that there aren't enough days in the year - or fishermen - to catch all the bass they've found present.
End rant.
Regarding your note, I'm still going to buy a fish finder for my canoe. For me it is more about finding and locating structure and such. I want to know locales where bass typically hang out - off shore.
Great article. Thanks.
Posted by: Darren | January 27, 2011 at 11:39 AM
This is great stuff Brian. Fascinating analysis of the data and I'm still trying to absorb all of it. You might be trying to stir up a little debate, so I'll bite.
My initial thoughts centered around your example of Monroe. Estimated at 10k acres, that puts a concentration of roughly 2 catchable fish per acre. This assumes a rather unnatural 'equal' distribution of fish across the lake. So, if we account for schooling and seasonal patterns, we could safely assume that not every acre will hold fish. The numbers just aren't there to support it. Since we are also talking about surface area, you have to consider that Monroe has an average depth of say 25 feet. This greatly expands the volume of water we are dealing with in any given acre. Beating the bank for a mile or two, or even 20, and expecting to pass in front of hundreds of fish just doesn't seem to add up. If you fish 40 feet out from shore, that makes an acre about 1000 feet long. Roughly 6 acres per mile in this case. Can we expect hundreds of fish to be there, or somewhere around 12? 12 fish in a mile of shoreline is a very small target to consider. Again, this assumes equal distribution so you might be fishing truly dead water or you might be on a good school. I would agree that catching is harder than finding since we can presumably eliminate water before we even launch. I'm just taking a different approach here and looking at total surface area, which makes the distribution/concentration of fish seem a little less optimistic for this lake at least.
I've got a lot of new water on the club schedule this year (and I'm up against some good sticks who know these lakes well), so I'm very interested in the finding part but do agree that catching is often the hardest. Countless days of watching fish on a finder with only a bite or two solidifies that, but I am confident that I at least had a good population located.
Of course, we could further this research by taking a couple of lakes I haven't been on, but ones that you have a gps full of waypoints. We can fish blind for a bit and do a survey of sorts per acre or mile, and then we can hop some of your holes to see what works best. I promise I won't make note of where we have the most success :) I've got the boat, lunch, and some Dr. Peppers. Just let me know when you want to go.
Posted by: aaronb | January 27, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Good comments Darren. If you haven't already seen it, check out the BIB Articles section for "Big Baits. Big Bass. Big Myth?" It fits right in line with your points above.
Aaron - Love the math and discussion. You make very good points, but I think it can be simplified even further, at least in my mind and relative to the point I'm trying to make. Keep in mind that almost all electrofishing is done within 30' of the bank, and is effective to not much more than 5'-6' in depth. Therefore, when IDNR is shocking (say) 300 bass in 2 hours (rate = 150/hr) on a given lake, while they won't be completely evenly distributed along a shoreline, the bottom line is 1.) those are actual numbers/rates, and 2.) the target area is really defined.
In other words, if you were moving ahead of them in a boat, staying 50'-70' from shore and throwing to the bank and fishing back to the boat, you would actually be fishing past and through 300 bass. Moving at their same slow speed, and regardless of whether you cover 500 feet or 1/2 a mile in that same 2 hr time period, you've still presented your bait to 300 bass. You know that because that is exactly how many bass they shocked up right behind you in that same time frame. You don't have to "find" the bass because the limits of, and standard protocols used in electrofishing have already defined their (the basses) location for you.
I can't speak to how many more are behind you out in open water, or deeper than electrofishing can efficiently survey. I assume that the modeling program they use to calculate total populations in a lake somehow accounts for this. I know they are tagging fish and going back through areas at a later time point to see what percentage of tagged fish show up a second time. Those factors are all part of the equation. Still, it is to some degree irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. There are a whole lot of bass here in Indiana that are shallow water/shoreline-cover oriented.
As I mentioned at the start of the article, when speaking of just Indiana waters, I think this probably holds true around here for about 3 seasons of the year; spring, summer and fall. Winter probably changes things quite a bit, as you mention, due to some seasonal location changes. Still, I'm betting that on any given day, on most any given Indiana lake, anglers probably don't want to know how many bass a DNR boat would shock up going behind them down any given bank :)
And yes, we'll have to try and hook up this year out on the lake. I'm always game for a local fishing trip if we can get schedules to jive. Hopefully we'll catch enough to make a nice site post :)
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | January 27, 2011 at 05:10 PM
I could be wrong, but anecdotal evidence tells me it is possible many of these cliches hold more water outside Indiana. Over the last couple years I have experienced ah ha moments where "so that's what they mean when they say..." has come to mind. I don't know what or why but Indiana sure seems to fish a lot different than north, south, east or west. Fishing pressure is the first to come to mind as far as a reason... ?
What I do know is that I am looking forward to 4 to 6 week-long non-Indiana experiences this year.
Posted by: RS | January 27, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Agree 100% Rod. Indiana is just a lot different, not too dissimilar to Ohio. Lots of pressure, lots of stained, shallow water, and no big reservoirs (Monroe/Patoka are just oversize creek arms on Kentucky/Barkley/Guntersville/Toledo Bend/etc. size lakes). My strongest word of advice to Jacob about becoming a professional bass fisherman is to get out of Indiana as fast as he can :)
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | January 27, 2011 at 08:19 PM
Brian - have you ever participated in one of these surveys, or know if it is possible to volunteer to help with one?
I think this pretty much sums it up no matter how you look at the numbers - "Still, I'm betting that on any given day, on most any given Indiana lake, anglers probably don't want to know how many bass a DNR boat would shock up going behind them down any given bank"
The numbers for Monroe estimate the entire lake, not just the actual survey numbers, so I think some of the math is still compelling, but the CPUE for most of these lakes is just scary because, as you mention, they are real numbers and the area is very defined.
Posted by: aaronb | January 28, 2011 at 10:13 AM
I've assisted with electrofishing demos before on 'field days' where they present to local land owners at a workshop. I have also both watched and helped out with stream surveys using tote barge electrofishers. Haven't actually done a public lake survey with IDNR, as they generally won't let you directly assist in most cases due to liability concerns. That said, they don't mind you following along in your own boat and observing the process from a close distance. It's pretty fascinating.
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | January 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM
This is great, goes back to when Chitwood and I fished a section of the river where the greatest fisherman of all time was following us up a 500 yard stretch of bank.
His name was Bob, and he was doing DNR surveys in a shocking boat.
Needless to say Bob kicked 100 percent of our asses that day although we did have him beat on big fish on that stretch. I dont remember the exact numbers as it has been at least 6 or 7 years since this ass kicking but what I do remember is that it was embarassing!
Goes back to what I have always said about Indiana bass fishing and fishermen. Its so easy to say they arent biting or they arent there rather than saying I just plain sucked, rationalization is a bassers best friend at times!
So if you are ever fishing with me and its tough you will hear me say "do you realize how many bass have seen our baits today?" Ive always used the number 500 and it looks as though I wasnt too far off, just might need to add another zero to that number from here on out.
Thanks Brian, great information here.
Posted by: Josh McDermott | January 28, 2011 at 04:24 PM