So, as I’ve been going through these lures I wanted to step out of my comfort zone and test something I’ve never used before. I’m left scratching my head a little with this one because it is an extremely popular lure that I see lots of support for on social media. The frog lure is one that many professional bass guys seem to endorse. Plenty of other amateurs seem to even divide their lures into two categories: Frogs, and everything else. So with such an avid following behind this lure, I thought to myself, perhaps I was missing out on a great secret to bass fishing. I tested it, as did my fishing cohort Amanda, and to date we have recorded very little measureable success.

Let’s start with the frog. We purchased a three-pack of Lunkerhunt frogs as shown, for the bargain price of about $15. Single frogs from the same company were available for slightly more mark-up, so we went for the deal. In the pack are two smaller frogs, one white, and the other black, with some grey and yellow coloration. The large frog that was in this pack was a very traditional bullfrog with a green body, hosting various markings, quite accurate to an actual frog. All three of the frogs were made of a hollow rubber, with twin hooks exiting the rear and curving up along the haunches of the frog, laying flush with the body. Should a fish bite down on the lure, the rubber body below the hooks would easily compress and the hooks would become more exposed as they sink upwards into the lip.

The frogs also had rubber legs, which are intended to extend backwards as the frog is pulled through the water, then retract back to the frog as the lure is stopped, thus creating a swimming motion. The body of the frog is fairly hydrodynamic and remains straight with a normal retrieve; however it can be walked like many other top-water lures, meaning it will swim alternating left and right with the corresponding retrieve. Upon my use of the frog, I noticed the legs were not extending as advertised on the smaller frogs. Perhaps it was a matter of breaking them in, but compared to the larger frog, which is about twice the size or more, there was a clear difference in how they performed.

That said, with the smaller frogs, the most action I received while using them was some small panfish strikes which were futile because they couldn’t get their mouths around the lure. All three frogs were used on sunny days, humid days, rainy days, open clear water, murky water, shallow water, shady overhangs, duckweed, algae fields, in and around structure and both our small testing pond and the larger Duck Harbor lake. On our most recent morning of testing, the larger frog did receive two non-committal strikes within an hour of fishing, but again no success. I will be following up next week with another brand of frog and see if another style of frog is more productive.

I would express that not having fished with the frog before, there is room for error on the part of the user here. It may also be true that the frog is a regional lure and performs better in other areas. I am not inclined to believe this considering we have an abundance of frogs even in both bodies of water we tested, however another possibility is that the design of this lure is not as well matched for its purpose as other frogs. Read next week’s Lure of the Week to see how they compare and how we did with testing.

*If you have any luck with the lure of the week, feel free to email your pictures to events@riverreporter.com for an opportunity to share them on our website. If you have a favorite kind of lure we haven’t reviewed yet, feel free to send that lure to our office at PO box 150 Narrowsburg, NY 12764. We will add it to our weekly reviews and share the results. Check back each week on Mondays to see the new lure of the week!