Your opinion - KIS or Details?
31 replies to this topic
Posted 28 October 2004 - 12:48 AM
Here's a photo of my seluang lure prototype for Ladyfish (or Pacific Tarpon - much smaller cousin of the Atlantic Tarpon), it catches fish after fish and as I made more I've added details, photo-finish etc just to try it out, they catch fish too but it got me thinking why do we put so much details in a lure (sometimes) when Keeping It Simple already catches fish.
But knowing I can do it, sometimes it just compels me to put in the details; scales, gills, fins, more than 2 contrasting colors etc. I'm begining to think I'm being bewitched and getting paranoid about not having details.
What do you guys think? Does adding details makes a difference? Maybe a pressured fishing ground needs that? or details just catches fisheman and not worth the trouble? . What's the catch here?
Posted 28 October 2004 - 01:48 AM
I think greater detail does make a difference if it increases your confidence. We tend to fish harder and more focused when we think that what we are offering may be successful very soon. Beyond that I think detail may be important when fish are keying in on a particular prey species or in very clear water. Finally, it's fun to make a bait that looks as good as you can possibly make it.
Posted 28 October 2004 - 08:18 AM
The details catch angler's eye IMO. I dont think the small details will turn a fish off if its a basic pattern that already works w/out the extras. Case in point is my personal favorite (ole Blue) is basically 3 shades of one primary color. I've fished it with just the color, with gill plates, fins, fleck and large shad dot added, and also with just eyes...either way I've tried it, they bite it fairly equal. I guess the old saying "less is best" holds some h20. I think as lure crafters we all to some extent probably get hung up in the "do it better" syndrome. I agree w/ RM that clear water offers the exception if fish are keying on a particular forage.
Posted 28 October 2004 - 09:20 AM
I think it depends on the fish. If the ladyfish you show is anything like the ladyfish we have in the Atlantic, then details don't matter, they strike anything that moves.
In the surf the preditor fish tend to be very aggressive and attack what ever moves, this is why spoons and white jigs are so effective. I am finishing up two lures for surf fishing now. One red head/white body, the other black, both are ugly but strong. I don't put a lot into making the baits pretty because they will not last and the snook don't care.
If I am fishing for bass in a clear lake then I think detail is more import. I often see bass following my bait or making cautious strikes. I feel I must coax a fish into an aggressive strike and the pattern lure makes a difference.
Posted 28 October 2004 - 12:35 PM
The fine lure details are for are for us in our primarily three-dimensional world. Fish however live in a mostly one and two dimensional world and depend on vibration and certain visual cues to alert them of the presence of other living things in a world where nature camouflages all its critters with countershading; light bellies, and dark backs. Shad and other baitfish don't school in hopes of making a better life for themselves, but to cast a large silhouette to discourage predators. Minnow-type lures like Rapalas, and a standard plastic "worm" catch fish consistently because they exhibit so few negative cues and appear natural in their environment, giving off maybe a subtle flash or light vibration but are basically showing the fish an "unsuspecting baitfish" silhouette telling the fish "easy meal, minimum effort", as opposed to lures that are heavy on attracting qualites; lures which really announce their presence with unusual or different vibration and visual patterns. As a rule of thumb, the heavy attraction baits work best in environments which are relatively unpressured, whether it is because of sheer size like an ocean, a virgin pond, or right at a seasonal transition in a fairly hard-fished reservoir. Any veteran bass fisherman knows that when the fish are really getting pounded, to really refine his presentation and/or try a finesse technique. by the same token, the more aggressive the fish are, the more heavy attracting qualities help us.
Okay. so how many of us have caught a bunch of bass on a crawfish colored wide wobble crankbait when the fish are on an obvious crawfish bite, and realized that our lure basically has its eyes on the wrong end of its body? We make lures with all these fine details and then put big nasty hooks on them? If predators relied on the 3-dimensional world like humans do, the spinnerbait probably wouldn't exist. IMHO
I did go on, sorry, Dean
Posted 28 October 2004 - 04:15 PM
Chip, I see you got your self a real Redneck hat. Traded in you 10 gallon hat on the bunny bomber?
I am with Chip and the guy?s More Detail = More $$$$. But, don?t guarantee more fish! I like KISS Keep It Simple Stupid! If detail was so important we would never catch fish with all those hooks dangling off a lure. What attracts fish to hooks? I don?t see any detail in that! Just my $.02.
The only time I could see detail is a plus is in soft plastic. Or any thing that you have to work slow and the fish gets a long look.
Posted 28 October 2004 - 04:55 PM
I believe that more fishermen than fish are caught on lures every year. Why do we have to convince ourselves that something with yellow sides, a green back and orange chin looks like a real bait fish? When is the last time any one of us has seen a minnow that looked like "FireTiger" in the wild? We probably would be hard pressed to find one in the Smithsonian.
yet the firetiger pattern can be found in just about everyones takle box.
The reason we go for the details is to diferrentiate our selves from the rest of the crowd. The next time you go to your local tackle store take a look at the shelves and see what catches your eye first then step back and see the rest of the items. more often than not the item that catches your eye first is the brand you will by.
Posted 28 October 2004 - 06:19 PM
Yah... LOL that hat was made by a farmer in Siberia who subsidizes his income through trapping and making these hats. I got this hat through a Russian friend for $40 American.
That FOX hat would cost close to $600.00 here. I just bought it for the looks it gets! LOL
Anyway, I sent the Russian farmer a whole Plano tacklebox full of lures... We now exchange emails when he has electricity.
Here is my take on ice fishing:
Click the link:
Grits On Ice
Its an anti cabin fever sanity thing!
We pay attention to detail because of the pride in craftsmanship we have. How real or convincing can we make it? I believe that sometimes detail may count at times.... but 99% of the time it is shades of color, BAIT ACTION, sound and castability are to key factors in catching fish.
It can be the prettiest lure in the world! You will catch a fsherman, but when he uses it and the action stinks...... well what good is it :oops:
On the other hand if its pretty and runs well... you will catch both fish and fisherman..... Thats why LuckyStrike is so popular and expensive... Those lures will CERTAINLY catch fish.... but they catch the fisherman for $17.00 a Plaster of Paris on a mass produced lure first.... Man...WHAT A PROFIT MARGIN!!!
I would be paying more attention in designing one really good running bait before I ever worried about the color pattern. Retrieve Quality Is Job One.
I mean this all friendly of course.... and it is just my opinion.
Take Care Friends!
Posted 28 October 2004 - 08:19 PM
Chip, I really enjoyed your story on ice fishing. I guess sitting in a tent on ice isnt that bad after all. I think I'll stay down here in NC where the water stays thawed year round....
Posted 31 October 2004 - 12:00 AM
Thanks for the input guys. You guys sure bring up some good points about details.
1. It sure adds confidence when casting a detailed lure, psychologically (Riverman). I'll work a lure harder if I'm confident of it going to catch fish. A lure that stays in the water more will eventually catch more fish. Who's heard of a lure that still in the tackle box catching fish.
2. Clear water needs details (Riverman, kellure, Mallard)
3. Maker's own satisfaction in having the details. (Riverman, kellure, cheesehead). It's true when I make a more detailed lures it just adds to the joy of seeing the end product which maybe boost the ego a bit when it shows the care & craftmanship that went into the lure.
When details doesn't really matter:
1. It doesn't really matter as action, vibration, pattern is the main factors we chould consider. (Mallard, Dean, Chip) Yeah! I think this is right on too.
2. It catches fisherman, $$$ factor (kellure, Chip, ckarren, cheesehead)
Addendum: I had a chance to harvest barramundi with rod and line this past Friday an it was an eye opener. It was a very clear brackish water commercial pond; we can see clearly to the bottom of the pond which is 3m deep. The fishes are not weary, will take anything moving. It's a one cast one fish situation. 20 angler took a total of 2000 fishes in 4 1/2 hours; averaging 2.7 minutes per fish. :!:
It offered some oppurtunity to test lures. This is what I found out:
1. Color makes a different. I tried a pink lure with black stripes and it takes presenting the lure properly to get the fish to strike. Too fast or too slow get no stirkes. Fire Tiger was more or less useless, red head was good when light level is low but the fishes wise up when the sun came up.
2. Lure profile. The best color combination for that day was black back, fading to translucent yellow side with cigaratte paper foiled belly. I was surprised it made such a difference. Of the various lure shape & sizes with the same color combination that I tried, the best was one that has a tail fin that I carved to have as close a profile to a bait fish as I can. Just throwing this lure into the water and let it sink a few inches will ellicit a strike; taking off the hooks - one retrieve I got 8 solid strikes. Non-fish like profiled lures (banana shape, fat wobblers) will only take fish on average of 3 cast per fish, the strikes are not as vicious & most are light pecks. Fish shaped lures is one cast one fish and if a strike didn't get a solid hookup the fishes will keep on hitting it until you get one.
IS the lure profile that important? I'll never get a conclusion from those pond fish. I'll try again when I meet with a wild jungle perch run.
Posted 31 October 2004 - 12:18 AM
i dont know if lure profile is too important. Definatly better for some species. For instance a yellowtail would raher have a diamon shaped piece of lead over a nice fish-looking plug but corvina and bass want a detailed bait. I think in fresh it matters a little more.
Posted 31 October 2004 - 12:30 AM
Some very interesting comments you added on fish behavior LaPala, thank you for posting them.
Posted 31 October 2004 - 12:33 AM
Most of the time if you have two lures one with details and one without, its not so much that you will only catch fish on one of them. Details that i mean are things like changing to better hooks on your lures, and using scent, and having the right rod for the lure your fishing, and yes detailed lures vs. simple patterns. Can you catch fish without taking care of details? sure and you could even do quite well, but if the details get you 1 more bite per day or one more fish in the boat every day then by the end of the year you would have boated a sizable number of bass that might have been more picky than the rest. Who knows it also seems to me that the largest fish seem to be wary and like a detailed lure more than something simple more often than not. So detail is not always necessary, but it definately has its place.
Posted 01 November 2004 - 10:25 AM
Dwain, I think you knocked the nail on the head. We can do the details; be proud of the craftsmanship put into it. And like Riverman said it adds to our confidance when throwing it; plus your statistic analysis, then why not. I've never experience adding details that discourages a fish from striking a lure.
Riverman: You're welcome, afterall we're all here to share. I've learn a lot here.
Siebler: I agree. My observations are not conclusive, it just apply to those pond bred barramundi. I'll have to test in more situations to find out if profile really makes a difference.
Posted 01 November 2004 - 11:45 AM
It's been said that certain fish prefer (lure) profiles similar to the profile of the fish itself. For instance, bass, a relatively round, football shaped species prefer baits that are similar in profile and more slender species like trout prefer more slender baits.
I know, what about plastic worms and bass for eg., there's always the exception. Muskies are the same way, they'll eat anything!
Posted 01 November 2004 - 12:37 PM
I have to disagree, I know someone that was in charge of feeding the fish at the Cobela?s store in Owatonna, MN. They have two muskies, a big female and a male. When they feed them he throws a sucker at the wall. As soon as it hits the wall the male is over before it hits the water. The female will not touch the suckers when she is hungry a 15? walleye will come up missing. So that is her size and choice of food not the bass, cats or any other fish in the aquarium.
I have a perch photo finish bait that looks so real in and out of the water and I have fished it so long the finish is coming off. I have never had one hit off the bait. And I have fished it when I could not keep the pike off. As soon as I put it on I just stopped catching the pike. Switched with another bait and the pike were back. This was also a very clear lake. The perch is the only think that would follow and hit it.
Posted 01 November 2004 - 01:13 PM
I'm not sure you're disagreeing, but rather prooving my point. A sucker is a long slender fish as are the muskies. Both have similar body profiles and hence the muskie like eating the suckers. This was what I was trying to suggest in my original post.
As for the perch bait, is it more round (ie. football shaped?) than slender? If so that could be why. Like I said before, there are always exceptions to every rule.
Just for the record, I've caught muskies on long and skinny baits as well as short and fat baits. These are just general assumptions.
If you look at rapala baits what kind to walleye prefer - longer and somewhat slimmer. How about bass, shorter, squatter and rounder? Again there will always be exceptions.
Posted 01 November 2004 - 02:08 PM
I think alot of predator species can be very forage-specific at certain times, such as post-spawn bass, and profile is one of the primary cues they utilize to differentiate between prey species. After the spawn, a bass is no longer the aggressive, territorial creature he or she was in early spring, but switches into an energy conservation mode. This is necessary to recover from the rigors of spawning, and to maintain their rising metabolism. To that end, bass learn to prefer high protein food sources, such as crawfish and soft-ray baitfish as opposed to sunfish, and feed in optimum "periods" to expend as little energy as possible. Not so coincidentally, this is the time of year when thin profile lures really come into their own, such as soft plastics, and bulky profile lures (bulky rubber jigs for example) which are more indicative of spiney ray forage, lose a bit of their lustre. Spiney-ray bait is neither as fat and protein nutritious as say shad, herring, suckers, and craws, and also takes longer to metabolize; and it is not dependable forage in the same sense that schooling soft-ray bait is, or migrating crawfish due to dropping summertime water levels. The fisherman who takes advantage of profile cues will catch more bass and other species as well.
Posted 02 November 2004 - 03:50 AM
Corey: I'm not sure if aquarium specimens can be used to predict much about fish behaviour. I have a 6 foot tank at home with a collection of my favourate sport fishes & they certainly don't behave as their wild cousins do. I think the artificial environment does change the fish's behaviour. BTW what are the size of those muskies you mentioned? The female is much bigger? If she is, it could explain her food preferance. I find that bigger specimens of fishes(predatory) don't eat as frequently, they take big preys or eat their fill in one go then go back to their hidy holes to digest & then only comes out to forage a couple of days later. This is from observations of the giant-snakeheads; which also explains why bigger specimens are much more difficult to catch - somedays they just don't eat when they are already full. I have tried dangling live bait-fish right in-front of giant-snakeheads (4ft, 12kg specimen) after they have just fed. You know what they do, they leisurely swim away!!!. Talk about agressive. They couldn't even be provoked to make instinctive stikes or territorial aggression. They are just couch potatoes when they're with distented stomochs.
Dean: I fish different species here but being forage specific at certain times seem like a universal thing. Is there a trigger to tell the fishes what to eat at certain times? Once I chance upon an irrigation canal for paddy fields where snakeheads has congregatted in a deep pool in front of an water inlet. Their usual forage are frogs, insects, small bait-fishes, worms. we can catch them with spinners, spinnerbaits, spoons, crank-baits, soft-plastics. But this particular pool of snakeheads will only take crickets (or wild caught grasshoppers) and only that. I practically threw everthing in my tackle box (and it's a big box - I had 2 weeks to fish that hole so I would say I've brought everthing I ever own to them) and inclusie of live baits like frogs, worms & bait-fishes to them but no takes at all. Any explainations? I'm still flabbergasted by it till today. Calling on Jed (Riverman):, maybe your scietific background can shed some light on this behaviour