|
|
| Been seeing a trend going on here...
Pounder Dawgs, 12" + jerkbaits, crankbaits, etc.
Makes me wonder...is the concept of "bigger is better" overall, or are we just over-doing it? Keeping in mind smaller lures work early in general, with many exceptions out there, but when/if are we going to over-kill mode?
Thinking here is that there has to be some basic idea of limits here. As a very crude example, the use of a mega sized driver in golf. Head size is now limited to some 460 cc and COR to .83 but...there becomes a limit to what a club can do as size gets larger due to factors such as wind resistance, shaft strength, etc.
Would we not see the same things in the muskie world if baits continue to become larger, forcing bigger, more stout equipment to handle the baits...getting to the point where the stresses, bulkiness, your own fatigue from trying to throw the stuff, etc out-weigh the benefits? Are we really going to see more fish and bigger fish caught because of the general trend here of increasing size?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | Smaller works all the time. If you consider a 47" fish taking a 4" tube jig in northern WI during the last few days of October. I am not discounting the big bait = big fish theory, however just stating that smaller is not limited to spring. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't subscribe to the idea as a constant anyway. I catch as many big Muskies on an Undertaker or Castor as I do on the Wabull. I think it's having the bait in front of the fish taht counts most times. You won't see me throwing any megabaits, but bucktails and spinnerbaits to 10" are fine; that's just alittle more hair or living rubber. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi all,
This is an interesting topic. Last season some of my biggest fish came on spinners made by Todd Minor. The thing was not one of these baits was over 6". Look at how many huge musky have been caught on Mepps musky killers. I definetly think that small lures have there place in any musky fishermans arsenal. My question to some of you is at what point is it more beneficial to switch to smaller baits outside of early in the season and on pressured waters.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: Munster, IN | I often switch to smaller baits during cold front conditons.
One of my concerns with the "mega" baits is how hard it is on your equipment.
I do often troll larger baits (13" plus ) in open water but rarley do I cast with them.
Like Steve, I'll throw BIG bucktails at times but that is mostly hair and not very heavy.
When you hit the big 50 you are looking at ways to catch fish with less effort not more ;).
I have a hard enough time dragging a 10" suick around all day let alone a monster crank bait.
Edited by PFLesox 1/12/2006 9:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Hence my question of this, and my curiosity of what you all think. Maybe it is the popularity of some of the newer and larger baits that is catching on...but I don't personally feel they will make a difference in the overall size or number of fish caught. Heck...I spend much of my early summer throwing nothing but 6" twitch baits.
It's been stated that a 20 pound fish would prefer somthing about 20% it's size. We'd be throwing 4 pound baits that are 20 inches long if we followed that thinking.
|
|
| |
|
| I watched a 12-13 inch muskie eat a 8-9inch muskies this summer in my friends tank. I know it sounds crazy, but he really did. They both went after the same bluegill, and the bigger one bit the smaller muskie I think on accident. He did not let go even when hit with the little bait net. eventually turned it and ate it. I troll bigger baits or smaller ones at a very fast speed. When casting I really don't cast anything over 9-10 inches, because I am out to enjoy myself. It is not fun throwing giant baits all day...BenR |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1504
Location: Oregon | A big fish will expend less energy if he can catch one big meal. Therefore, biologically there is a benefit for big predators to eat big meals. However, in waters that are heavily fished, I think fish learn be cautious of what they choose to eat. There is less "risk" involved in taking something small over something large. Some of the largest fish of various species I have caught have been on the smallest of baits...steelhead on 1" and 1/16thoz plastic minnows for example. There is far less risk and committment required for a musky to quickly scoop up a crayfish and go about his business than there is to chase, capture, and swallow a 16" sucker. Of course there are those fish that will eat "anything" when the time is right. I think the key is to try both, some real big baits and some very small baits that may be getting over-looked by the majority of anglers.
Jed V. |
|
| |
|
| Here's my take on this. I think even a "smaller" bait gives a fish the impression of being larger than it actually is. A musky lure puts out more flash, vibration and noise than a fish swimming through the water. A musky's lateral line picks up the vibration which is certainly more vibration than a fish of the same size of the lure would give off. Therefore, the musky thinks the lure is a bigger meal than the size of the lure. Another point is muskies are negative or neutral most of the time. Sure a musky will eat a giant bait if it is hungry and it's stomach is empty. How often do you come across a musky like this? I think regular sized baits do a much better job of triggering when a musky is negative or neutral whick is most of the time.
P.S. My largest musky this year came on a "pounder' Bulldawg so yes big baits do work in the right situations. There's a tool for every job. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 480
| My guess is that muskies don't know what measurements are. Food is just food, we know the sizes differences but to them it's just a meal. I caught a 34" pike on Mille lacs this past summer that had fresh teeth marks across the body near the tail and the bite marks were 9" across. A bigger fish bit that pike. I feel that the bigger fish would have no problem eating an 18" bait. Muskie baits looked big when I first started muskie fishing. 10" jakes looked huge, no way a fish will eat that.
Now I smile when I see 10" jakes compared to 18" cranks in 3D. We see the differences, but I don't believe the fish have that kind of mental capacity. |
|
| |
|
| I feel like it is just a marketing thing for more folks to get a piece of pie. Keep it simple and enjoy every minute you get to spend on the water. Too many people are trying to make rocket science out of time on the water an occasional dumb luck. Throw whatever bait feels right....your time will come! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 324
Location: Bloomington, Illinois | I was fishing early in 2005 with a guide who was dragging a 14 inch sucker on a quick-strike rig...A 39 incher took it no problem...
matt |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | There are studies (I can't find them right now, but used to read them) that showed that large predator fish prefer lunch that's about 10% of their weigth. That means a 20lb muskie would like a 2lb sucker (13"-15" or so), and 30lber would like one in the 15"-17" range. There is no doubt that big fish prefer big prey, however, that doesn't mean that they won't eat small lures.
I catch fish on all sizes of lures, I don't know what that means except that they will eat when they are feeding, and will eat almost anything at times! However, I have caught more big fish on big lures than small lures (>=10" or so).
Doug Johnson |
|
| |
Is bigger better overall?