I am not sure if there has ever been anything in bass fishing that has been more divisive than forward facing sonar. Live bait may be the closest, and it is such a distant second it is not even in the same discussion.
From everyday fishing to open tournaments, and even the pros, FFS has its ardent supporters and opponents. Seldom does it seem there is someone in the middle.
The argument has gotten so continuous that some even blame a decline in tackle sales on the technology.
Forward facing sonar, for the three or four fishermen who have not heard of it yet, is the latest technological breakthrough in fish finders. It is as different from the original flasher units of the 1960s as crank phones are from today’s cell phones.
First introduce in 2018 by Garmin in its Panoptix series, FFS allows fishermen to see what is in front of their transducer, whether it is fish or submerged structure, in real time.
Previously, as someone else described it, what fishermen were seeing on their screen was “history,” something already under the boat or behind it.
With FFS fishermen can spot casting targets 60 to 100 feet out from the boat depending on conditions.
The technology has proven beneficial in freshwater to a variety of fishermen including those seeking bass, crappie and catfish. It is especially beneficial to crappie fishermen for finding fish in timber, but also aids bass fishermen because they can begin casting to fish long before they are close enough to disturb them, along with helping skip over unproductive waters.
But there are three big issues with FFS that while maybe not negatives, they are realities. For all it can do for fishermen, it still cannot make the fish bite if they do not want to, but maybe more importantly is it is not a technology easily adopted by everyone, or that fits everyone’s style.
Finally, is cost. For fishermen on a budget FFS can start at about $1800, but for those with deep pockets you can easily spend up to mid-triple digits.
While the first point is an equalizer and the cost is a big argument between locals, the skill level and its use seems to have become a point of contention, not as much for weekend fishermen, but certainly for tournaments whether they are local events and the top levels of professional bass fishing.
It has become such an issue that Major League Fishing changed its rules for last season allowing fishermen on its Bass Pro Tour to only be able to use it for two of the three fishing periods in a day.
BASS just announced it will only allow its use on the Elite Series in only five of its tournaments, with a recent random drawing determining where it would be allowed. It also only allows fishermen to have a maximum of an amazing 55-inches of video screens for the FFS.
It had become a heated debate among the pros with guys like Texan Clark Wendland tv being adamantly against it saying it takes aways from traditional fishing skills of basically trial and error with baits, and being able to read a lake, while others like BenvMilliken opposed the ban saying he does not agree in stopping the growth of bass fishing technology nor that it does not require traditional skills.
There are guys like Takahiro Omari, who have told me they have FFS, but it does not go along with his preferred style of fishermen. Jeff Sprague has said there are times he relies on it, and times he does not.
Then there are guys that are going to be looking down at a screen from first light until quitting time. I do not think there is any argument that on tour FFS technology benefits the younger fishermen, those from the video game era. That is not to say some of the older, more computer savvy fishermen are not also good with it, but the rise in young fishermen to the top ranks of both MLF and BASS is evident those guys are good with it.
And not only have electronics manufacturers like Lowrance, Garmin and Hummingbird benefitted from the demand, but so have lure manufacturers who have accepted it and come out with lines of bait specifically to couple with FFS bass fishing.
I am not trying to weasel out, because while I understand both sides of the argument, I have no problem with the technology. I hate to see young fishermen not learn the basics of bass fishing. Going straight to FFS without having to look for creeks coming into a lake, flats or holes, and not learning solid techniques with a variety of baits, I do not want to see FFS stall if it helps bring a new generation to the lake.
Thus far, despite the concern by some, FFS has not caused a depletion of fish on any lake and is not expect to.
With tournaments, especially the local ones, I can see the concern for a competitive imbalance when conditions favor FFS’s use.
On the pro level, I see it a little differently. To quote Arkansas angler Stephen Browning, who has competed on both the BASS and MLF tours, “We are here to catch fish, not to cast at them.”
I agree. As a bass fishing fan if given the option, pre-restrictions, to watch an MLF event where fishermen got credit for every bass caught as opposed to BASS where the goal was to get five to the weigh-in stage, I would watch MLF every time. I do not know how the sales of FFS systems compare to other types or what percentage of new boats are equipped with it, but the industry is bullish on its future.
Jeremiah Clark, VP of product management, Electronic Solutions for Navico Group, parent company of Lowrance, says the launch of its lower-cost Eagle Eye option has exceeded sales expectations.
“Ultimately, live sonar has earned its place alongside other essential sonar technologies, empowering anglers to refine their techniques, make smarter decisions, and maximize every moment spent on the water,” Clark said.
So where do we go? Probably nowhere for individual fishermen, or at least hopefully not.
The pros have addressed it at the highest level, so that is at least temporarily resolved. The final step, and I think it would be fair, or at least argument ending, is to create two divisions for local events, one for those with FFS and one for those without.