Photo courtesy of Bassmasters, used with permission by Maryland DNR
A recent study conducted by Maryland Department of Natural Resources biologist Ryan Gary and colleagues illuminates how a new fishing technology impacts the catch rates of largemouth bass and smallmouth bass—collectively called black bass.
The study, published this month in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, found that while live-imaging sonar can help anglers catch more fish, it does not necessarily help them catch larger bass. Additionally, the effectiveness of the technology depends on the specific waterbody and habitat being fished.
Sonar has long been used by anglers to gain a better understanding of the waters they fish. Early versions relied on acoustic “pings” to show depth and display shapes that could represent individual fish or schools. As technology has improved and become more affordable, anglers now have access to advanced versions.
Live-imaging sonar (LIS) can be pointed in any direction the angler chooses, providing a constantly refreshing, video-like image of the underwater environment. Under ideal circumstances, this allows anglers to clearly identify fish, underwater structure, and sometimes even their own lure. As this technology becomes more accessible, anglers, fisheries managers, and tournament organizations have raised concerns about its ethics and potential effects on fish populations.
Researchers used data from Major League Fishing’s Bass Pro Tour in 2025. Photo courtesy of Bassmasters, used with permission by Maryland DNR
To evaluate the impact of live-imaging sonar, the researchers used data from Major League Fishing’s Bass Pro Tour in 2025. They examined results from 73 professional anglers across eight different tournaments. This research represents the most complete analysis of the technology to date. Tournament rules restricted anglers to using LIS during only one of three daily competition periods, allowing researchers to compare angler performance during periods of live-imaging sonar use against periods when it was not used.
The results showed that live-imaging sonar significantly increased overall catch rates, but this advantage was not universal across all locations. For instance, anglers saw notable catch increases at events on Lake Conroe in Texas and Lake Murray in South Carolina. Conversely, the technology provided no statistical advantage in average catch rates on the Potomac River in Maryland or Lake Guntersville in Alabama. Additionally, the study found that the anglers did not catch larger average fish during live-imaging sonar periods compared with nonuse periods.
This research also linked the success of LIS to specific environmental characteristics. A greater percentage of black bass were caught using the technology in deep, open water areas with little habitat cover. Anglers who caught fish in deep water (greater than 9 feet) had nearly three times the likelihood of using the technology. In contrast, use of the technology was not as prevalent in shallow areas with abundant structure and habitat.
These findings suggest that the effectiveness of live-imaging sonar is tied to a waterbody’s depth and available habitat. By making it easier to locate offshore congregations of fish in deeper waters, LIS exposes black bass that anglers might not have been able to target previously. As a result, the shift in angling pressure toward deeper water and the increased catch in these waters may necessitate a greater emphasis on safe handling and release practices to mitigate injuries.
Fisheries managers can use these biological and environmental insights to evaluate how a waterbody’s depth and habitat influence the effectiveness of advanced sonar technologies. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for maintaining resilient fisheries as innovations in angling continue to evolve.
