In Part I, I expressed my thoughts on why I feel Indiana hasn't been the best of locales for creating professional bass anglers. Primarily, I attribute this to the fact that we rank dead last when it comes to looking at catching lots of bass, i.e. limits, from our tourney waters when compared to other states or divisions. But, we live where we live, and so we have to deal with it somehow. Here's how I chose to do so.
Keep in mind, that this is simply my thought process and plan I developed in response to my stated belief from Part I. Everybody has to have some approach to how they fish, some game plan or strategy when they compete. Thing is, there are no rights or wrongs. It's a highly individual thing. A lot of guys have had a lot of success in this state, and they certainly all have their unique style or approach. So what I'm going to present is my approach that worked well for me, and may or may not work well or fit your style, thought process or belief.
So at the core of this is the dilemma of needing to catch a lot of bass in order to learn, from a state that doesn't necessarily give that up so easily. So lets start with non-tournament related bass fishing. I simply spent as much time fishing bodies of water that I knew had good, if not great populations of fish, regardless of size. Patoka back around 1990 was one of those lakes. Tons of little fish, very few keepers. But, if you want to learn a specific pattern, and catch 40-50-75 bass a day or more, it was a great lake to be on. Whether it was learning how to fish traps on weedy flats, crankbaits in shallow timber, or topwaters among standing timber, you could catch a lot of fish doing any of those things and a dozen other patterns.
When you catch lots of bass, not only do you build a lot of confidence in a technique, you also quickly learn what works and what doesn't. Everything from retrieve speeds, bait size, proper rod and reel setups, how line diameter affects things, and on and on. You can't really learn that stuff from catching 7-10 bass in a days worth of fishing. You need numbers to validate and compare everything. Going to lakes with high populations of bass does that for you. Additionally, high populations usually mean good numbers of fish in open water, as well as deeper water. You can fish traditional patterns and techniques that you read about in magazines and online, and that pros employ on larger bodies of water. This becomes very important.
Other examples I could give include Turtle Creek in its prime, Glenn Flint back in the late 80's, Boggs after the renovation, Waveland the past 5-6 years. There are more, but by simply searching DNR surveys, or keeping a good ear to the ground, you could easily find a lake that was loaded with bass. Even farm ponds, strip pits and retention waters in housing communities could provide you with an opportunity to fine tune techniques while catching tons of bass. Based on the info provided in Part I, obviously going north was a good option, too. It's why I spent most of my time fishing the Federation, which went to Wawasee or the St. Joe back then twice a year, as opposed to the Redman/BFL circuit which was very heavy on the Ohio River. It was the learning and the confidence from catching that was/is important, not the size of the fish, in my book.
So what about when you have to fish a tournament on these tougher bodies of water. Early on, I decided that I was going to be a numbers person. Many guys are successful by fishing for just big fish, fewer bites but bigger payoffs if you catch them. The flip side is greater risk. I was never a person who could live with fishing all day for just a few bites, even if they were quality. I wanted numbers, because numbers bred consistency. With numbers, I might not win as many tourneys, but I'll rarely go home skunked. In most clubs or tourney circuits, a lot of the good stuff is based on points. Things like Angler-of-the-Year titles, Top-6/8 qualifying tourneys, and end of year Classics. No fish means no points, and it also means no check, all bad in my book.
So here I established an approach based around survey data. If you look at the typical electrofishing survey data such as in this recent Lake Monroe example, what you'll see is that on average, and this rings true with a lot of 'tough' reservoirs in the state, only about 5-8% of the bass population is 18" or greater, the type quality you'd want to win a tourney and mimic in other states. But what that means is that over 90% is less than 18", and about 50-60% of that falls in the 11"-17.5", that area under the peak of the population lines (dotted). In other words, there are about 10X more fish in that mid-size range to fish for than in the larger size range. I specifically targeted that mid-size bass range when I could.
It didn't matter that many of them will be below the 14" limit, because among those fish will be several "keepers" that are. If I can get 5 of those in a tourney, I'm practically guaranteed a check and good points. Remember from the date table in Part I, that on average, only 9% of the field in any Indiana tourney is going to weigh a limit. A limit is gold. Top 10% of the field pretty much guarantees a decent check and a lot of points - that's what I wanted. I never really concerned myself with the bigger payoff of a win, but rather covering all my expenses with a solid check. In my eyes, at the state level, fishing for free (in essence) was as good as I could ask for. Beside, getting enough points to ultimately make sure I fished in whatever year end event that might ensue was where the real money was at.
So how specifically do you target that population of smaller but more abundant bass on a difficult lake? Pretty simple really, by using smaller, more universal presentations. Smaller cranks, smaller topwaters, smaller spinnerbaits, down-sized worms, more compact jigs, etc. For the longest time I never even owned a buzzbait larger than 1/4-oz., or a jig more than 3/8-oz. I'd replace Beetle spin swivels with Sampo bearings, and high quality needle-point jigheads for the stock jighead to achieve a down-sized and less bulky, but high quality spinnerbait. I threw the smaller, mid-size Big-O a ton, or would toss a 4" craw worm or Stud Fry if fishing plastic. Small baits don't discriminate, they catch all sizes of bass, and the occassional big fish. Keep in mind that down-sized doesn't necessarily mean finesse, though adding that option, especially in a tourney situation can really pay off. You can throw smaller, more compact baits on today's standard bass tackle very easily.
Lots of bass means lots of action, it keeps your head in the game, and it lets you use the bump board a lot. But there was more to it than just throwing small baits. This is a game of efficiency, of playing the odds. I've already decided to target the largest population of bass in the lake, those mid-sized fish. Where do I find all those bass? Go back and read my post on 'the biggest lie in bass fishing' to find out. At the core of this system is survey data, which is predominantly collected via electrofishing. Electrofishing is pretty much a 0-10' depth game within 30' of the shore - location already 80% figured out. This is where Rick Clunn and his process of patterning and elimination steps in.
I now simply have to fish and establish a pattern in that 20% area of the lake. Put the trolling motor down, turn up the speed as fast as you can learn to fish efficiently, and cover water. Eliminate all the banks and cover types where they (the bass) are not. Find the stretches, learn the cover, pick the lures, the specific pattern that will get you bites. The more water you cover, the more likely you are to find biting or active fish, or at least a bank with lots of fish on it. Cover massive amounts of water with spinnerbaits, buzzbaits and crankbaits. You don't even have to catch them, you simply want bites or reactions - them giving their location or themselves away. Come back and catch them in the tourney. It's a game of efficiency and a process of elimination at this point. Fish slow and thorough in the tourney if you have to, just not in practice.
If you have enough practice time or experience on a lake, take the time to learn the deeper water holding areas or the off-shore stuff. It's a learning experience all its own, and a great way to upgrade a stringer if you get on an early roll and can put 3 or 4 keepers in the boat fast. There is a place and a time for bigger fish, but I want numbers, points and a check, first. My rule of thumb was that I always needed enough weight to at least match the expected big fish of the tourney. On Monroe or Patoka, that usually meant keep chasing the numbers and the "keepers" until I had 7-9 pounds. After that, I could decide whether to chase quality and go for the win, or to try and finish out the limit.
So there you have it. Remember, this is a way of dealing with the tough fisheries predominantly in central and southern Indiana. Can't say whether it is right or wrong, but its served me well over the years.
Comments