green head,

I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to focus the discussion on a "full" predator vs a "not so full" predator, to address the original question regarding amounts to feed on this thread.

Certainly there are many factors, spawning, competition, and genetics perhaps being the foremost among them, that influence the decision to eat or not. The thread, however, was about feeding artificially, not those other factors.

A common engineering approach to answering a question is to isolate only on the variable directly involved in the question. Thats what I meant by "all other things being equal".

If you could take all the other variables out of the equation, e.g. genetics, etc. is a "full" predator more likely to bite lures than a "not so full" predator? Does a "full" predator bite lures better than a "not so full predator" becasue it has more energy from being fed as Greg stated?

Maybe what you guys are saying is that it is impossible for you to take the other variables out of the equation and I can accept that. But I simply can't accept that, all other things being equal, a "full" predator will bite lures better than a "not so full" predator because it has more energy from the artificial food. Nope, just don't buy that. Don't shoot me, but I just don't buy it.