Every year I seem to focus on something a little different in my fishing. I never know what it will be until I get attached to an idea, but there is usually always something to track. Several years it has been all about numbers of bass, but then last year was about numbers and variety, every fish I caught. Other years I've never tracked, preferring to just fish for fun. One thing I haven't really done yet, largely because I'd much rather catch a lot of bass than just a few bigger bass, is to focus on trying to target "big" bass. Seems kind of ironic given the name of the site.
Back in December 2006, I examined tournament reports from six states, which consisted of 18,000 tournaments and four million angling-hours of competition, and concluded that the average time that it took the anglers in these tournaments to catch a five-pound bass was 495.5 hours. That data was assembled just a few years after the largemouth bass virus had affected many of the southern tourney waters (primarily 1998-2002). I later looked at more recent data (2008-2010) for these same states, and the fisheries had rebounded somewhat. It still took on average 148, 189, and 288 hours to catch a five-pound bass in Alabama, Oklahoma and Mississippi, respectively. Additionally, data showed it took about 106 hours to catch a bass over 20-inch (4.5 pounds) in Kansas, and 211 hours to catch a bass over four pounds in Tennessee.
That four pound mark is somewhat cemented in my mind as the dividing line between what is a "big" bass and what isn't. In his book, "In Pursuit of Giant Bass", the late Bill Murphy stated, “When bass reach a size of about 4 pounds, they normally undergo a change in personality – they begin to lose the habits of smaller bass and take on the characteristics of adults.” Bill went on to state that any time you caught a bass that was 4 pounds or better, the bass and the bait/color he hit meant something.
So I've decided that this is the year I focus on primarily trying to catch these 'above average' bass. I plan on only posting photos and details of the bass I catch that exceed the four pound mark. Not "eye-balled" fours, either. Everything gets confirmed on either of the two calibrated scales I keep in the boat. Who knows, that might make for a pretty boring site as far as my fishing reports go :) but I'd like to think that as much as I fish, I would have a few things figured out by now, or at least some theories or approaches to try. I guess we'll see.
And, just to get things started off on the right foot in 2016, here are the first fish to begin the quest. The following fish went 4-02, 6-02 and 6-04 and were caught on a trip this past Friday. The smaller of the three was caught on a jig, the larger two were caught on jerkbaits.
Just curious: are you going with a "lower hurdle" for Smallmouth? I suspect that 4-lb SM is a pretty old fish for IN...(?)
Posted by: Matt | March 29, 2016 at 10:34 PM
Matt, I hadn't really considered a criteria for smallies since I don't fish for them much through the year. Wouldn't seem to be fair to hold them to the same 4 lb. standard. Back in the 1980s there was a paper published that proposed the concept of a "Length Categorization System" which has been widely adopted by state DNRs. It is based upon world record length by species. "Memorable" fish are the largest size category of fish with the exception of "Trophy" fish. For largemouth, the memorable length minimum is 20" which doesn't fall too far off the 4 lb. criteria I've set for this challenge. For smallmouth, a memorable size is considered 17 inches. That actually seems a little small to me, so I guess if I were to set a smallie size limit for me, 18" seems like a more appropriate size minimum. Based on that, I would have had two such fish last year, a pair of smallies that both went a bit over 19"
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | March 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM
BTW, awesome LM pic's, above. Those would certainly be "memorable" for me. Also, I like the "effects" - can you share how you did that? mlg
Posted by: Matt | March 30, 2016 at 11:30 PM
Matt, pics were "adjusted" in photo editing software using a process called HDR photography. HDR is short for High Dynamic Range. Pretty easy to Google up tons of info on it. I'm short-cutting the process by using a single picture and then just adjusting specific areas inside that picture as opposed to the "long way" which is taking 3 different exposure shots of the same pic and then overlaying them to bring out certain specific characteristics. I'm guessing most photo-editing software probably has this type ability.
Posted by: Big Indiana Bass | March 31, 2016 at 08:35 PM