Posted
by Gregg on 2002 AM:
Another age old
argument
Well its winter and we
have the age old argument about scents going so I thought I start a new one
about “eyes”. Do baits with eyes work better then baits without? I’m firmly
entrenched on the side that scents don’t work, but eyes I’m not sure about. A
comment by Hugh Crumpler in one of his Fl. Fishing
reports got me thinking. He uses live bait a lot (something I’m not
knowledgeable about) he said
"A bass eats a shiner head first every time"
If that’s true wouldn’t eyes on baitfish imitating lures make a difference?
Would like to hear what people think.
__________________
Gregg
Posted
by JPBass on 2002 AM:
Well there's
an awful lot of productive baits out there that don't have eyes or heads for
that matter.
I don't think the fish are taking a close enough look for it to matter. Certainly not on a crankbait zipping
through the water. Those fancy paint jobs are better at catching
fishermen than fish.
I believe if you can present an artificial in a lifelike manner a bass will
take it in it's mouth then decide if it might be worth eating.
The initial attack of a bass on a shiner isn't always head
first but it must SWALLOW it head first or it will choke on the fins. If you
run your hand over a shiner (or most any fish) backwards you'll get the
picture.
__________________
http://www.renegadebassmasters.com
Posted
by Charlie on 2002 AM:
If a lure comes with
eyes, we can only assume that the manufacturer has some test data to conclude
the need.
I have added eyes and "enhanced" eyes with magic marker, with some
success. So again, its a personal choice.
I say the "EYES" have it!!!
Tight Lines!
Charlie
__________________
Naturalized American (yeah baby)Tournament Angler,
Journalist and New York State Guide # 2803
"Come with me and I will make you Fishers of Men"
Posted
by AKO on 2002 AM:
Charlie,
quote:
If a lure
comes with eyes, we can only assume that the manufacturer has some test data to
conclude the need.
Do you
think that they tested the Hover Lure with and without eyes? To assume that
manufacturers REALLY test products extensively IMHO is- WRONG! Maybe, some do
but, the majority? I have caught my share of fish w/o eyes because it was
presented to the right fish @ the right time! I haven't really done any
extensive research but, I have put in quite some time on the water and my
results have not shown there to be much of a difference.
Posted
by bobn on 2002 PM:
on most surface lures (jitterbugs,hula poppers,crazy crawlers, rubber frogs and etc) the eyes and
fancy paint jobs are above the water line-most of what the fish sees is the
drab underbelly and the hooks-what kind of natural forage has the coloring of
our favorite baits?-you have to hook the fisherman before you can hook the
fish--bobn--12/27--1:10pm
Posted
by Charlie on 2002 PM:
Hey Guys!
Thats why I used the word
"ASSUME".
I cannot imagine for a moment that 
As for the line. 99% of line in the
The Hover Lure was a great marketing excercise and
over 100,000 sets were sold. People bought into the idea that the bass eats
dragonfly. Well its a fact, but it's only the smaller
ones that have the speed and agility to catch them, so guess what, you catch a
lot of small bass with it! Senior members of this site will rememebr
that I was sent one because of my articles on Top Water Fishing.
I guess CABIN FEVER has come early this year!
Tight Lines
Charlie
__________________
Naturalized American (yeah baby)Tournament Angler,
Journalist and New York State Guide # 2803
"Come with me and I will make you Fishers of Men"
Posted
by AKO on 2002 PM:
quote:
The Hover
Lure was a great marketing excercise and over 100,000
sets were sold. People bought into the idea that the bass eats dragonfly. Well its a fact, but it's only the smaller ones that have the
speed and agility to catch them, so guess what, you catch a lot of small bass
with it! Senior members of this site will rememebr
that I was sent one because of my articles on Top Water Fishing.
Again,
MOST of these lures are those who are looking for the "majic
pill". Do they catch fish? Probably, SOMETIMES, but...
on a consistent basis
. I doubt
it! As far as eyes go.... I know someone who only throws unpainted jig heads
and does it quite consistently!
Posted
by Charlie on 2002 PM:
OK, now you are talking
about jig heads. I personally never had a jig head with eyes unless it was a
saltwater bucktail jig. At those depths I would
imagine ANY difference in contour or light refraction would add to the
attraction, but personally for freshwater bass, a black or unpainted jig head
seems to work just fine.
Tight Lines!
Charlie
__________________
Naturalized American (yeah baby)Tournament Angler,
Journalist and New York State Guide # 2803
"Come with me and I will make you Fishers of Men"
Posted
by Charlie on 2002 PM:
n.b. Personally, I think the
"magic" is in the magician not the illusion!
__________________
Naturalized American (yeah baby)Tournament Angler,
Journalist and New York State Guide # 2803
"Come with me and I will make you Fishers of Men"
Posted
by mikeD in NYC on 2002 PM:
i think the question should be: why would you NOT want eyes
on your bait?... travis, can you expound on your
"wide -eyed" idea?... isn't the bait suppose to look as lifelike as
possible?... a common practice when ice fishing for perch is to tip your hook
with a perch eye.. .someone once told me that the perch "look for the
eye" of their prey... i don't know about that,
but it seems to work.
__________________
Mike D in NYC
Webmaster NYBI
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
check out your NYBASS buddies at: NYBASS_ILLUSTRATED
---------------------------------
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 AM:
eyes, weight, etc. etc.
Travis and i are on the same page when it comes to eyes.
I ignore them on the few hard baits which i use, because a hard bait is a fleeing bait and the bass
may reflexively attack seeing zip but bulk, flash, motion.
Eyes are probably neutral in such a case.
Eyes on soft baits that are selected by neutral fish?
NO.
Hang a jig under a float as in "float n fly" without eyes.
I paint over the eyes if they are conspicuous, as crappie, bass and bluegills
seem
much more likely to take a jig suspended under a float in clear water if it is
without an eye.
I move my rifle when the deer is looking away NOT when it's staring at me.
A small jig with big eyes MAY simply seem less vunerable??
As to wanting a bait to be lifelike? Not me.
I want it vaugely representative of food, slow, of
the right general size and shaped in a way that bass are hard wired to respond
to as easy to swallow.
In a related vein, lm bass take baits differently than sm.
Lm. engulf, and a small lm. can suck in a surprisingly
large bait.
Sm. on the other hand tend to grab baitfish of above
about 4 inches crosswise in the mouth as a dog carries a bone.
This is why i place my bent shank worm hook in all
soft stick baits so that the hook when texposed exits
the bait very close to the center of the bait.
Now to weight.
A baitfish in the water has no weight. It is neutral.....as is the bass.
It has been my experience tht length of hold with a
soft plastic is directly related to how lightly it is weighted.
I always use the lightest weighting i can get away
with.
If a soft stick like a Fin s must be weighted, i
suggest strategically placed lead nail types. Less is more.
A Senko is heavier than neutral but not "too much" heavier.
It sinks and feels nothing like it's quoted scale weight of 3/8. It's sink rate is a practical compromise beetween
action (neutral bouyancy) and castability
unweighted.
It gives off no negative clues on the drop nor does it overeact
if a twitch is employed when resting on bottom. The shape is correct for swallowability.
All in all a very effective bait that could be better if they were using
titanium powder to achieve weight INSTEAD of salt. Salt makes for rust and i could do without it. No doubt however the Senko using
salt is costly enough for most anglers and alternative weight mediums would
increase cost.
Best
dick.
Posted
by JPBass on 2002 AM:
Re: eyes, weight, etc.
etc.
quote:
Originally
posted by mr jig
A baitfish in the water has no weight. It is neutral.....as is the bass.
A Senko is heavier than neutral but not "too much" heavier.
It sinks and feels nothing like it's quoted scale weight of 3/8
Good point. Never thought about it that way. But now
that I have I gotta say you're right! 
__________________
http://www.renegadebassmasters.com
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 AM:
"you're right"
BUT OF COURSE!!!
Posted
by Bassin Dude on 2002 AM:
Great post Dick!
That didn't sound right did it?
Anyway, I was typing away for half the morning to explain the
"weight" thing and after about a billion words I wasn't quite happy
with it then I see that you succinctly and concisely explained the subject to
what I believe will be most everyone's understanding.
As for the eye thing, I feel that next to attractants, this is the most
over-rated facet of bass fishing.
Personally, I never want "eye's" on a slow
moving lure or a lure offered up vertically. On quicker horizontal
presentations, I feel the lure's eyes are a non-factor.
__________________
Tony
"As my own fishing seasons wind down to a
precious few, it's nice to know I'll be there, be there as long as I can. As
long as I can bait a hook and make a cast, as long as I am living, I intend to
be fishing."
-Ron Schara
Posted
by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:
I think the
"magic" is in the magician not the illusion!
Charlie, excellent line!!! I will use it again if you don't mind!
I don't consider eyes on hard baits. I do put 3-D eyes on all of my blades and
I also put eyes on all of my new hairjigs that I am
tying. I've always used eyes on F+F jigs. Maube they
do not get attention for being eyes, but I feel they are a focal point like a
false eye on a shad near the tail. That is supposed to direct preyfish strikes away from the head. On a
bait, wouldn't that direct strikes to the head and closer to the hook.
__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 AM:
EYES
Earthy.
I know you add eyes to your f+f jigs and i peel them off!
Even a 9 inch crappie can wholly engulf a 1/16 oz jig under a float, not to
mention a bass, so directing a strike is moot.
Jigs SELL better with eyes but get bit better without.
dick.
Posted
by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:
Dick, all of my Phil's
jigs have eyes too, and we both know that fish will eat the heck out of them as
well. Actually, my newer jigs have either painted or epoxied
eyes to prevent YOU from peeling them off! It like an anti
Mr. Jig theft deterent feature. LOL My point
about directing a strike on a small bait is that the
eyes can't hurt. Next you'll be telling me that kirbing
my hooks would create better hook ups ratios???? Sheesh!
please detect friendly the sarcasm
__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 AM:
Eyes again.
I SWIM a Phils jig so i
don't mind eyes.... BUT if i hang one under a jig,
off come the eyes.!!!
dick.
Posted
by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:
All kidding aside, you
come from the notion that the Eyes can be detrimental when F+F'ing.
i'm sure you explained it
before somewhere but could you enlighten me? I am very curious. I've been
successful with eyes on F+F jigs to the point where I can't see having no eyes
being an advantage but am willing to put your theory to the works!
__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 AM:
Jigs under floats :
A jig hung under a float
is normally a cold/clear water presentation.
The jig when used for smallmouth is of course downsized... usually not over
1/16.
It is dangling (hopefully) just above eye level and subject to close
examination, hence the effectiveness of craft hair which produces a
translucent, dare i say insubstantial effect? That
jig also tends to rotate on it's base (the float).
The absence of the eye may convey to the bass's hard wiring that the minnow is
unaware of the bass's approach and therefore easy.
This COULD of course be baloney but there are those who have found it
profitable to try my idiot notions.
Good luck.
dick.
Posted
by JOHN G on 2002 PM:
good thread guys...Gregg thanks for
starting this potboiler!! JOHN G
__________________
"and a new Commandment I shall give you.....that you shall love one
another"
---------------------------------
> email
- DrBass2@aol.com
> Forum Moderator aka:
Head Honcho
---------------------------------
Quote: "coming
soon"
---------------------------------
Posted
by Scully on 2002 PM:
oy vay!!!!
eye,eye,eye,eye eye,......I see eye to eye with
m-eye old friend Mr Jig.......Eye Dick, how are you? Eye just couldnt resist.
Ray
Posted
by joe pido
on 2002 PM:
eyes or no eyes
works out fine for me. My strike King
Premier jigs comes with eyes and catches fish. My Bass Stalkers come w/o eyes,
and catches fish.
Slow moving plastics weeeeellll.....Ive fooled around with magic markers and putting dots for
eyes on my worm weights..and
theyre pretty effective..especially during the SPAWN..when bass attacks something that looks life
like...old Hibdon trick...
joe
Posted
by postcard on 2002 PM:
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!! '
Posted
by JOHN G on 2002 PM:
Frank,
that was a
magical reply! excellent....
here's some food for thought: we are held to the principles that we ourselves
purport...
Okay, let me put that in fishing terms: if a lure is attempting to be a rather
exacting duplicate of the natural, then the bass might hold it to an even
HIGHER order of scrutiny......if it looks EXACTLY like a so and so, but
DOESN"T behave exactly like the so and so, then that might be a red flag
to the fish....
something bizarre, however, like the senko, unlike
virtually anything in nature save an Earthworm, which on the bottom in the
water would surely not be mistaken for a senko, this senko or any other ridiculous lure, might not be held to
any standards whatsoever, since it does not exactly duplicate anything in
nature, and hence, the bass has no conditioning or trigger devices in play, and
then might simply treat it to an instinctual reaction.
JOHN G
__________________
"and a new Commandment I shall give you.....that you shall love one
another"
---------------------------------
> email
- DrBass2@aol.com
> Forum Moderator aka:
Head Honcho
---------------------------------
Quote: "coming
soon"
---------------------------------
Posted
by Marty on 2002 PM:
My instincts tell me that
the eyes don't matter. BPS and Cabela's have had eyes
on their plastics and I don't hear anything about them outfishing
eyeless baits.
Lure manufacturers are always making their baits more "lifelike",
with the eyes, the amazing finishes, shapes, etc., but that is predicated on us
believing that fish strike our lures because of their imitative properties.
I don't claim to know anything about why fish strike, but I'm much more
comfortable with the idea that they instinctively react to movement, rather
than perceiving that our lures are something to eat. There may be some
exceptions, but I can't bring myself into the "match the hatch"
school of thought.
Posted
by postcard on 2002 PM:
Marty and John 
Frank
Posted
by Scully on 2002 AM:
nice post
A very nice bit of
banter.....Marty, I quite agree with your conclusion. Spinerbaits,
Crankbaits, Buzzbaits et
al., are reaction baits. The bass have very little time to make the choice to
eat it or not. Eyes on these baits are non-sequiter.
Let us not forget that the bass feed by sound as well as sight. Under less than
ideal conditions (poor water clarity), if a bass had to look for the eyes on
their prey to eat that prey, chances are they would starve.
Matching the hatch IMHO, is overated. More bass
(largemouth)have been caught on a rubber worm than all
other artificials combined. Biologists agree, worms are not part of the diet of a largemouth bass. So
how does matching the hatch equate in this instance? Interesting
isnt it.
Frank, one thing you mentioned I have always found extreemely
interesting. I hear this expert ,or that expert claim
a particular species (as an example a smallmouth) will always take their prey
from behind.
I have watched as smallmouth crashed a school of bait and saw that they took
that bait from below, from the side, and just about any way they could catch
them. I have also witnessed smallmouth "stare down" a rather large
crawfish before stunning it. Once the crawfish had been
killed. the smallmouth ate it tail first. I
have also watched them inhale a small crawfish on the move, crush it and exhale
it. Then eat it tail first. It is my belief that the bass will catch and kill
the bait from whatever direction is most opportune. How they swallow that bait
is of little interest to me as an angler.
Good thoughts guys...
Scully
Posted
by Gregg on 2002 AM:
quote:
How they
swallow that bait is of little interest to me as an angler.
Maybe it should be? We have all had a bass strike a lure more then once, is it
striking more then once because it missed the first time or because it thinks
it stunned it and is moving into postition to eat it,
and what should our reaction be as an angler?
Also in my limited experience it seemed to me that LM prefer to attack the head
of a bait fish lure instead of catching it from behind they get even with it
then curl and strike.
Does any of this play into it?
__________________
Gregg
Posted
by postcard on 2002 AM:
You said it all in a
nutshell, Scully. If the bait fits, you must aquit !! (Couldn't resist.)
Bass and other predator fish get it any way they can and swallow things that
even a boa constricter would gag at
, proportionally speaking, concerning prey length.
Greg, underwater videos of bass striking all types of lures as well as frogs
and bait fish, show a tail-first bite most of the time or a broad-side attack
of a large jerkbait, then a major gill-flare to
complete the capture. (I don't use the word inhalation since that involves
lungs and a diaphram.) The final step has been said
to reposition the animal head first.
Makes you wonder whether the writers who spoon-fed us facts all these
years, believed in half of what they wrote, or had back-up sources. Of course
much of what has been written turned out to be true but for totally different
reasons then first suggested.
Frank
Posted
by Gregg on 2002 AM:
quote:
Originally
posted by JOHN G
good thread guys...Gregg thanks for starting this potboiler!! JOHN G
Just helping the ol' spin master
__________________
Gregg
Posted
by Scully on 2002 PM:
set the hook....
Greg
I DONT wait for the bass to hit a second time. They dont have any hands, so when you feel the tell tale
"tap", the bait IS IN his mouth already.....set the hook. If you
miss, pitch back. If you still cant hook the fish,
modify the bait (color or add or remove a rattle...etc.) or change the profile
of the bait entirely.
Scully
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 PM:
I don't "WONDER"at all.
"Makes you wonder
whether the writers who spoon-fed us facts all these years, believed in half of
what they wrote, or had back-up sources. Of course much of what has been
written turned out to be true but for totally different reasons then first
suggested."
AMEN.
What the more gullible among us have been fed and accepted is lousy conclusions
from good observations.
These conclusions are prevelant among undisiplined or duplicitous thinkers.
For several years as a "favor" i re-wrote
old seasonal articles by several MAJOR writers to try to re invigorate the
material for new readers or those with short memories.
AWFUL experience.
The quantity of pure bullc.ap "gracing" the
pages of our outdoor magizines borders on the
criminal.
Those who accept uncritically the posturings of their
favorite professional anglers and fishing writers are in for a long and painful
journey.
Perhaps the biggest challenge i face in my feeble
efforts to help others with their fishing is to wean those interested in
smallmouth away from the largemouth "education" they have extracted fom the pages of Bassmasters.
The generic "Bass" leads many astray as these are behaviorally quite
different fish.
dick.
Posted
by markG on 2002 PM:
Eyes and weight
Frank, very well said!
Wow, eyes are a hotly debated topic for sure. I tend to think the use of eyes
or not tends to be mainly a matter of what you're confident
in thorwing, and maybe a little bit realted to the mood of the fish. I find that what might
trigger lots of strikes on one day, may not get you any the next…assuming the
fish are there. You all have
have seen it. One day they’re all over the buzzbaits and the next day they’re spooked by it. But turn
right around and throw a 3 in. (fat) smoke/pepper Senko in there and they can’t
get to the lure fast enough. I guess what I’m getting at is that there don’t
seem to be any absolutes when it comes to fishing.
I know successful fishermen that’ll paint or attach eyes, match baitfish
colors, put spots, etc. on everything. I think sometimes they are looking for
triggers. But who’s to know if that eye, or lack there-of, or perhaps that
subtle shade of pinkish orange meant to match the sunfish was the main reason
for the strike? Could be those big bug eyed baits will trigger a bite one day,
and turn them off the next. I also agree that many of the larger companies do
research on their baits. But if they do nothing else, they certainly do market
research on the fisherman! Still in the end, it comes to on-the-water trial and
error.
Here’s a link with yet another opinion on eyes:
http://www.chesapeake-angler.com/jul00eyes.html
The question of lure weight is just as interesting as the eyes. The weight of
the lure in the water along with the drop rate, is a
function of the lure density, buoyancy, and the resistance. After all, a 1oz. Zara spook floats right? Aside from lures that trap air,
consider the aforementioned Senko. A 7 in. Senko
weighs about 1 oz., which is far more than a 3 in Senko, yet they fall at about
the same rate. And as mentioned, it’s that salt concentration that gives the
bait it’s density.….35% salt I think for the Senko and Kinmai
baits, I measured quite a few of these various baits once for comparison.
The use of salt in the plastics has a somewhat sorted history. When Gene Larew first patented idea of
using salt in soft plastics many tried to discredit the idea. The fact
that the salt impregnated plastics tore easily was one criticism. But once the
salted plastics caught on, a few sued to get in on the action. Much of the
initial popularity of salt came from the idea that it was an attractant. Now it
seems useful as filler for weight. Salt is an very very cheap and color-less filler, although you’d never know
if by the price of a pack of Senkos! lol The problem with many other
high density fillers is that they would be prohibitively expensive and because
they are not colorless, it would be nearly impossible to control colors. Glass
is an option, but it can be difficult to injection mold. But now I’m way off
topic!
I’ll just say this much about weight. I’m in full agreement that it’s wise to
use only as much as needed. Sometimes I think lures that suspend or fall slowly
will get the tough bites, but just as in the case of eyes on lures, I’ve often
found that there aren’t any absolutes. I flip a lot of 1+ oz. jigs in milfoil
here on Lake Minnetonka, and also drag some fairly heavily weighted spitshot/Stick-Os off deep weedlines,
and there are many days where you’d be hard pressed to get the fish to drop
even the heaviest of these baits. On the other hand, I’ve had days were the
fish will hit even the lightest of plastics/jigs and drop them before you can
even think about setting the hook. I sometimes think the holding “tenacity” is
often a matter of mood and competitive feeding.
markG/MN
Posted
by earthworm77 on 2002 PM:
"Spinerbaits,
Crankbaits, Buzzbaits et
al., are reaction baits. The bass have very little time to make the choice to
eat it or not. Eyes on these baits are non-sequiter."-Scully
Scully, I totally agree with you on this point, although I do prefer spinnerbaits with eyes. But back to the
point. A F+F is not a reaction bait and in the season it prevails in(colder temps) One would think that a bass approaches it more
carefully. Thus making eyes more important in order to make a
more realistic bait. I just can't see it making a negative cue for bass.
__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com
Posted
by mr jig
on 2002 PM:
Trust me earthy.....
Better still
, don't trust me but TRY what i'm telling you.
From around 4/1 to 5/1 i catch each year
approximately 3000 mixed panfish and bass, most under
a float. I enjoy the luxury of having the time to experiment as i choose, without time constraints.
Under a float you CAN catch fish on eyed jigs.
On many days you WILL catch more on eyeless jigs.
Best.
dick.
Posted
by postcard on 2002 PM:
"I know successful
fishermen that’ll paint or attach eyes, match baitfish colors, put spots, etc.
on everything. I think sometimes they are looking for triggers."
Good point Mark.
In my opinion, a painted eye is nothing but a dot or a dot within a circle. It
serves only to disrupt a solid color pattern with a basic geometric shape. Dots
are good as are chrome-textured scales of the classic, Rebel minnow and the
coachdog pattern of many a crankbait, to name a few.
I grew up with 'eyes' and cannot develop confidence in crankbaits,
jerkbaits or topwaters that
don't have them. Old superstitions are hard to break.
I do not believe that the realistic paint jobs on willow leaf blades are
anything but another marketing ploy of an expensive spinnerbait
manufacturer. (It's not what the car looks like, but what's under the hood
and who's behind the wheel that matters in the final analysis. )
I stopped using painted leadhead jigs 10 years ago,
and have caught over a thousand fish and many species on bare-lead jigs for the
better part of every year. This includes lunker bass
and pickerel over 4 lbs. and recently, a 28" pickerel. A painted head may
be more effective at giving a 'visual-lengthening' of a soft plastic body, but
serves no purpose over the long haul. (Ditto for painted
bullet weights.) But again, each to his own!
I've experimented with white, black,
Another good point,
"The weight of the lure in the water along with the drop rate, is a function of the lure density, buoyancy, and the
resistance. "
If nothing else, Gary Yamamoto proved once and for all, that the vertical lure
speed/ presentation is as important at times as the
horizontal. In fact most of my strikes on Senkos and Stik-Os, come long before the lure ever hits the bottom.
(The 'vertical' isn't just for jigging spoons.)
Movement is the key and everything that affects it (including buoyancy). The
lightening reflexes of a fish are tuned to it, yet an agonizingly, slow drop
may beat the faster drop or horizontal swim of a lure, on any given day,
especially if the 'zone' is only a foot from the fish's mouth.
Good thread and replies by all!
It's sure got me thinking! 
Frank
Posted
by Bassin Dude on 2002 PM:
Mark G...
I thought I may have been the only angler in the world that did lure buoyancy
tests (just to mention one "test" many others would view as a waste
of energy)...
I visited you're website and now realize that I'm not
alone...
I feel like I just found out that I have a long lost relative.
Are you by chance, an Engineer of some discipline?
__________________
Tony
"As my own fishing seasons wind down to a
precious few, it's nice to know I'll be there, be there as long as I can. As
long as I can bait a hook and make a cast, as long as I am living, I intend to
be fishing."
-Ron Schara
Posted
by TVal on 2002 PM:
First,
excellent post.
This is exactly the type of discussion I envisioned when I threw out the
thought of
Tim
__________________
No phone, no fax, just fishing.
Posted
by markG on 2002 PM:
Bassin dude, We
think alike then! I'm one of those "un-decideds"
so my education is in Chemisty (Polymer + Analytical)
and Materials Science as well. My job is in materials research and
characterization for a fairly large MultiNational
Corporation.
I don't think I have much of the more interesting stuff up on the site anymore,
it's really just a place for me log pics and I've
pulled some stuff off.
Earlier this year I did a set of experiments whereby I measured and compared
the density, drop rate, and % salt content of a number of the senkos and knock-offs, and the results correlated very
nicely. I could send you the graph, if you'd be interested?
mark
Posted
by Bassin Dude on 2002 PM:
Oh yeah Mark... you bet
I'm interested!
I think you'll find, in a second or two, that a bunch of other guys will be
interested too!
bassindude@adelphia.net
Thanks much!
__________________
Tony
"As my own fishing seasons wind down to a
precious few, it's nice to know I'll be there, be there as long as I can. As
long as I can bait a hook and make a cast, as long as I am living, I intend to
be fishing."
-Ron Schara
Posted
by markG on 2002 PM:
Drop rates
Bassin dude, you got it! Stand-by and
I'll post the graph and give an explantion with it.
I've got a 6 yr. old buggin me to go to Grandma and
Grandpa's right now, so I'll dig this up a later tonight.
mark/mn
Posted
by Scully on 2002 PM:
look at the original......
For you gentleman who
enjoy fishing the "senko", you should take
a look at the original senko style bait, the Jersey Rigg. This bait was developed and marketed in the late 80s
by Jeff Camerino of
It is my opinion that the Jersey Rigg stands alone
for applications in 1 to 3 feet of water. Its sink rate is "agonizingly
slow" compared with the senko, and though not
salt impregnated, the bass wont let it go, in fact if you dont
set quickly enough, they swallow it.
There are a "legion" of you out there who know excatly
what I am talking about....the "golden jewel" (as some of us refer to
it) was the deal long before the senko arrived to
steal its thunder.
While I will fish a senko texas
rigged, when faced with conditions that demand a "wacky style"
presentation, its the Jersey Rigg,
hands down.
Scully
Posted
by earthworm77 on 2002 PM:
Dick, my problem is that
I DO believe you and now must get jigs w/o eyes! Thanks for the advice.
__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com
Posted
by joe pido
on 2002 AM:
yes..the golden jewel
Crawdaddy made me a believer....Ray...
joe
Posted
by dodgeguy on 2002 AM:
i have beat up jigs and spinnerbaits
with eyes worn off that catch just as many fish as when new.also,we
have fished soft plastics for years without eyes with no problems.lure
manufacturers are getting as bad as car salesman!!!like i've stated before,prove to me it works in real life and then i will buy it!!!
__________________
chrysler master technician
and avid fisherman