Does Forward-Facing Sonar Help Anglers Catch More Bass? A 2026 Study
Forward-facing sonar helped professional anglers catch more bass in some lakes, but did not consistently help them catch heavier fish. A 2026 peer-reviewed study of eight Major League Fishing events found that the technology’s effect depended strongly on the fishery and habitat. The clearest catch-rate increases occurred at Lakes Conroe and Murray; deep and relatively open water favored sonar-assisted catches.
Source: Ryan A. Gary, Joseph W. Love and Steven Bardin, “Influence of live-imaging sonar on black bass catch: A multifishery analysis of professional tournaments,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, published September 2, 2026. Read the published study and abstract (DOI).
Critical distinction: Live-imaging sonar use was more beneficial in deep, less structured water, but did not generally increase the average weight of bass caught. The study did not directly measure annual population-level mortality. Peer-reviewed study · Maryland DNR study summary.
What did researchers actually test?
The researchers analyzed competition catch data from eight Major League Fishing tournaments held in 2025. The events restricted when anglers could use live-imaging sonar (LIS), also widely called forward-facing sonar (FFS), to one of three daily competition periods. That rule structure provided a way to compare periods with and without the technology among highly experienced anglers.
The statistical approach accounted for differences among individual anglers, event days and fisheries. Researchers asked whether catch rates and average bass weight changed when sonar was available, and which habitat characteristics were associated with sonar-assisted catches.
The study therefore addresses the effect of live-imaging sonar in professional-tournament fishing under those rules. It was not a randomized study of every recreational angler or a direct experiment measuring annual lakewide fish mortality.
Did forward-facing sonar increase bass catches?
Sometimes. The authors found that the sonar effect varied among fisheries. They reported notable catch-rate increases in Lake Conroe, Texas, and Lake Murray, South Carolina. The study did not support the claim that the same increase should be expected everywhere.
Fish caught during periods of sonar use were not generally heavier than those caught without it. That is an especially useful distinction: more fish caught is not automatically equivalent to larger average fish caught.
Where was live sonar most helpful?
The strongest habitat pattern concerned deep, open water. Sonar-assisted catches occurred more often in still-water lake environments than in rivers and creeks, and where cover was less complex. Anglers catching fish in deep water were nearly three times as likely to be using sonar as anglers catching fish in shallower habitat.
The researchers concluded that live sonar appeared to have more limited utility in shallow, structurally complex shoreline habitat. That makes biological sense as a possible interpretation—fish and lure returns can be harder to separate from clutter—but the research measured fishing outcomes and habitat associations, rather than proving a mechanism for every individual capture.
Does this mean forward-facing sonar is bad for bass populations?
The study cannot answer that by itself. It identifies situations where catch effectiveness may increase, which matters to fishery managers considering fishing pressure. But catch rate is only one part of exploitation: the consequences also depend on harvest rules, release survival, effort and how anglers change behavior.
The authors discuss the possibility of greater exploitation in deep, less-structured fisheries or when fish are pelagic. That is a management consideration, not a finding that all sonar-equipped fishing causes population declines.
By the same logic, the data do not demonstrate that forward-facing sonar is harmless. The reasonable conclusion is that local habitat and angler behavior matter, and that policies need fishery-specific evidence.
What this means for bass anglers
These findings are consistent with the practical experience that live-imaging sonar can be especially informative when bass or their prey occupy open offshore water. They are less persuasive as a blanket explanation for every shallow-water catch in heavy vegetation, wood or rock cover.
The study also illustrates why headlines such as “sonar makes anglers catch more bass” need a qualifier: where, when and compared with what? The answer changed among the fisheries included in the data.
Established results and important limitations
- Supported: Across the eight professional events, sonar use was associated with variable catch-rate effects; notable increases occurred at Lakes Conroe and Murray.
- Supported: Average fish weight generally did not significantly differ between sonar and non-sonar periods.
- Supported: Deeper, less-complex habitats showed a stronger association with sonar-assisted catches than shallow shoreline cover.
- Not established: A universal increase in recreational catch rates, annual harvest, fish mortality, bass abundance or trophy-fish size across North American lakes.
Primary source and related reading
Gary, Ryan A., Joseph W. Love, and Steven Bardin. 2026. “Influence of live-imaging sonar on black bass catch: A multifishery analysis of professional tournaments.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/najfmt/vqag064. Published September 2, 2026.
Continue reading: Bass Research Library, why electrofishing misses bigger fish, bass fishing technology timeline and glide bait presentation.
Source review: November 4, 2026. The publisher’s abstract was available for this review; the restricted full text was not independently examined. Numerical statements and findings above are confined to information reported in that abstract.