|
|
| I have heard that a musky feeds most frequently during the summer months when their metabolism is highest. Is this correct? If so, how often would a mature musky (35"-40") need to feed to meet the needs of its metabolism? During the fall when these fish put on the feedbag it is attributed to storing up for winter. I have also heard that musky will lie almost dormant for up to 30 days without food during the winter. Interesting. Does the metabolism almost completely shut down then? | |
| | |
| Hmmm, a biology question. One of my weak points. I'll need to "research" this one.... unless somebody else can chime in for me. Larry???? | |
| | |
| I checked out a link from www.esoxresearch.com and found this information
http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?ID=2711&genusnam...
It claims a musky will eat 1.7 times its body weight per year. That would mean that a 25 pound musky would eat 42.5 pounds of food in a year.... or 3.5 pounds per month. If we assume a typical meal for a musky is a 1/2 pound, than a 25 pound musky should feed 7 times per month.
Now, knowing that the metabolic rate of a fish increases with water temperature, lets assume it eats twice as much during the summer as it does in the winter. That would mean a 25 pound ski would eat 4.7 pounds per month in the summer and 2.3 pounds per month in the winter (6 month seasons).
That is 9.4 half pound meals per month in the summer... or about twice a week.
This is some interesting math... but certainly not an exact science. Bottom line, in order for a musky to survive... it doesn't have to eat very often.
But, what we CAN learn from this is that based on metabolic needs we may be able to learn a lot about LOCATION of the musky (there need for dissolved oxygen, optimal temperature zones, food souces, etc.). Also, knowing that a musky doesn't NEED to eat very often... then perhaps our presentations should account for that as well. Perhaps we would want to trigger a strike for some other reason than the fish is hungry????[:halo:] Just a thought.... | |
| | |
| J Long -You did some oustanding math in your post.It sems to coincide fairly closely with the long thought theory that a Muskie eats about every three days.As for triggering a strike out of aggression,territorial protection, etc.I just dont beleieve in it. Tony Rizzo , in one of His earlier books pointed out that if We could anger a Muskie into hitting there wouldnt be a fish left in the lakes.Im open to convincing though.Keep up the good work on your new Forum-HC Meyer Seven Islands Guide Service Presque Isle Wi. | |
| | |
| 7Islands,
So if a nice sized musky only eats every three days, we must hope that they are all on a different schedule if we want to catch a musky every day..... assuming we can only catch hungry or actively feeding muskies?
I feel a musky strike is always a feeding "reflex".... but they don't necessarily need to be "hungry" to strike. What do you guys think???
For example, if the "Digestion Theory" is legitimate and muskies that are done feeding move to shallow, well oxygenated water to increase there metabolism...... why can we still catch those fish even though they have a full stomach? Are we only catching the ones that are done digesting (empty stomach) but haven't vacated the shallows yet? Are the fish that repeatedly follow from a shallow water hang-out the fish that are "full".... and coming back on these fish later is just a way of giving them time to digest and get "hungry" again?
Doug Johnson says muskies strike our baits because they are hungry. Is he right? | |
| | |
| Dougs Johnsons theory is true, in a sense. I think I know what he means but I dont think that muskies FEEL hungry. We have the luxery of eating when ever we want. So when we are full we stop eating and pass on food that is still available. Take a bear for instance. It will eat until it throws up and then it will eat it agian until it throws up. Food is the key to survival. Muskies are at a different level, they are cold blooded and dont think. They have buttons and if the right buttons are pushed they will feed. How about that guy that caught a 40 pounder that had 2 full grown ducks in its belly? I would say that the muskie was pretty full wouldnt you?
MUSKY ILLINI
"Relax, my old man is a television repairman. He has an ULTIMATE set of tools........I can fix it" | |
| | |
| I agree with Musky Illini that muskies don't experience hunger as we define it. As John Maden says "they are eaten machines". I think that explaines why a muskie with a stomach full will still strike at a bait or grab a small minow.
However, I do think weather, season, time of day and even moon phase influence the feeding response of the muskie. At those times that they are on the feed they don't pass up many food opportunities. When the are in a negative mood all food sources are safe. | |
| | |
| HC just triggered a memory. The late Bill Tutt used to believe very strongly in the three day cycle theory. That is that his belief was that if you raised a fish in a particular location but didn't catch it, that spot should be fished again in three days. I can tell you from personal experience and fishing with Bill that, at least on his body of water, IT WORKED! Was it due to a three day feeding cycle? No way to know that, but it doesn't matter if it gets you a fish!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
| jlong: I believe as you do; "I feel a musky strike is always a feeding "reflex".... but they don't necessarily need to be "hungry" to strike. What do you guys think???", with perhaps the exception of when a lure splashes down and surprises them. I think they can react by striking, but can just as easily let it go.
As you probably know, I am a firm believer in the "digestion theory", as I felt this is what I was seeing during my muskie tracking work on Eagle Lake. I "believe" it to be just as you indicated in your post.
I would NEVER disagree with the Muskie Professor Doug Johnson, but I believe there are "additional reasons" for strikes besides hunger. When I "trigger" a muskie on a figure 8 (dozens over the years), I feel it was something besides hunger that finally got them to GO.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com | |
| | |
| I see my name mentioned at times, and that I’ve said with my tongue slightly in my cheek that muskies bite because they are hungry. This of course, is a slight over simplification of something we really don’t know much about. But much of what I think is really similar to others.
I feel that hunger/feeding (which is triggered by the fact that things have to eat to survive) is the response that is responsible for most of the strikes we get. When a muskie T-bones a 10” Suick or 10” Believer going as fast and as hard as they are capable of swimming that fish is feeding, and probably hasn’t had a meal in a little while. The same thing is true when a fish comes up on a bucktail and completely engulfs the lure up to the blade, that fish is feeding. I would guess that on the LOTWs, and most of the waters that I’ve fished this type of strike is responsible for 85-90% of the fish that I’ve caught. The fish is pretty much sure that what ever lure that is used is some sort of food, (if it moves it’s food) and they are feeding. This is true even though they may have just ate a sucker. The basic driving force behind the strike is that they need to eat to survive. These strikes are mostly from the side, at the front of the lure, which is where a fish must hit its prey to catch and kill it. The prey hit in the front also positions the prey for swallowing. Most large lures (large jerk baits, large crank baits, large bucktails) will create a strike that comes from the side toward the front end of the lure, most fish will be caught on the front hook of a jerk bait or large crank bait. I suspect that much of this is the very same techniques muskies use when eating a sucker or tullibee. From a lure standpoint if a muskie in this mood sees your lure it probably doesn’t make too much difference what lure it is, but the secret is to make sure the muskie sees or senses it.
This is done with motion, sound, size, color, speed, depth, flash, contrast, and who knows what else. This is all effected by many other things that we can’t really can’t do much about, such as water clarity, water temperature, water chemistry, time of year, time of day, weather, fishing pressure, bad luck, good luck, and who knows what else. The main thing seems to be to put a well made lure, that hooks well, that you can fish well in the area you are fishing, and you have a lot of confidence it, and keep it wet. It is also very important to be able to read water (were does a fish live), and cast the lure with a good deal of accuracy.
The fish that take a good hard shot at a lure and misses and then gets behind the lure and come to the boat are susceptible to being caught on a figure-8. If they don’t break water, and disappear, it is often possible to go back in a short while and catch this fish. If the fish breaks water, they are much harder to catch.
The other kind of strikes that I see are what I call territorial strikes (I’m not really sure about this, but it’s something other than pure food strike, could just be curiosity, but it looks to be more than that). Territorialism is also related to food, many animals in the wild establish territories (usually food or mating related). This type strike is usually a stalking type thing. The fish will come up, and get behind a lure, usually a bucktail, a spinner bait, or at times a surface bait, but rarely a jerk bait. The fish will flare its gills and at times nip at the back of the lure. Once in a while they will nip a little too close and they will get a hook on the retrieve. These fish are often caught by the skin on their lower jaw. These fish are also fairly easy to catch on a figure-8. It looks like once the lure (intruder) starts to go back into the area that it was just escorted out of is a little more that the old evolutionary system can take, and the next step is to bite the intruder. This is my own theory, and may not be correct, but I’ve seen this many many times.
I’m not sure if muskies truly feel hunger, but I’ll bet that the longer it is between meals the harder they hunt.
When you get all done with all this the most important thing of all is to fish were there are fish (location).
I’m not real sure if this has much to do with muskie research, but I think the 35 years of trying to catching these things is quite a bit of research!
Sorry for such a long post, but I had just finished my second whisky/coke, and on my third, it‘s happy hour!
Doug Johnson
| |
| | |
| Wow doug, GOOD Post! Intersting stuff about territorial strikes. I have long thought that follows are territorial behaviors. Although I havent thought about the possiblity of territrial strikes.Hmmmmm?
35 years of fishing IS quite a bit of research. I hope that I can respond to a punk like me with that some day. Nothing beats time on the water. My problem is that I spent the first 26 years of my life chasing BASS (bait). Now I am 28 and I am trying to catch up with reading and asking lots and lots of questions.
I think that aquiring all this knowledge will help me use my experiences on the water to excellerate my learning/experience curve. We will see?
By chance was that "JOHN DANIELS" you were drinking??
MUSKY ILLINI
"WHOOOOOOOOHAAAAAAAAA"[:p] | |
| | |
| DougJ, I consider "observation" to be a valid form of research. I'd have to say that with your 35 years experience... that is better than any PHD. You offer some interesting ideas for us to consider.... hope to see more.
I believe the "hungry" fish are the "easy pickings" and the not so hungry fish are the ones that take a little extra to get them to hit. The idea of territorialism is certainly a twist...
So, if a fish gets hungry about every 3 days.... what do you guys think it takes to catch those fish on the two days inbetween??? I don't know about you.... but I don't have the TIME to wait for them to get hungry!!! | |
| | |
| I was going to disagree with someone just to be disagreable [;)] . My musky experience is limited but I have had a great deal of experience fishing for fish that don't feed but can be goaded into striking....salmon....especially sockeye (reds) when they start up Alaskan rivers to spawn. Unlike coho and kings who will do some feeding while in freshwater....reds stomach shrivel and they are rarely seen "feeding". But I've sat and casted a fly to the same fish for 40 casts without him moving but on the 41st he takes a whack at it. This always looks like a "reaction" or "irritation" strike. I think he just gets pissed at this thing flying one inch in front of his nose. I have seen them smack the fly closed mouthed many times also. So I think most fish are prone to this type of strike. BUT, when fishing for reds, I may be casting to hundreds for 30 minutes to get one to react this way....certainly not a very frequent occurrence. Yet musky a far more territorial fish than salmon (except on spawning redds) and perhaps would be a bit more prone to this behaviour. And if you consider the low density of musky....Doug is most certainly correct most catchable fish are looking for something to eat. Once in a while, though, I think either irritation or territorial behavior can catch the odd fish.
At least true with salmon....not sure about musky....
BrianW | |
| | |
| Jason:
The theory that muskie feed every three days would indicate that 1/3 of the muskie population in a given lake is feeding. What I try to do is look for the feeding 1/3. As Doc Esox pointed out you can try to get 100's of fish that aren't feeding to bite, and only after much effort does one finely respond. It's much easier to look for the feeding 1/3 than to try and entice the non-feeding 2/3's.
Doug Johnson
| |
| | |
| Good point DougJ. And when fishing a huge lake such as LOTW... I'm sure that tactic works well. The 1/3 population that is supposedly hungry and feeding is much larger and you have more places to look than on a small 300 acre lake in Wisconsin. On a huge system, such an approach is probably the way to go... even if you just use probability and statistics to base that decision.
But, on a 300 acre lake with a high density of 0.5 legal fish per acre.... that means there are only 50 hungry fish that are potential targets. If you cannot find one of the 50 hungry fish.... but located a few of the not-so-hungry fish... wouldn't it be nice to be able to get one of those to strike?
Throw in some adverse conditions.. and the number of actively feeding fish gets even less. Suddenly the population of not so motivated fish become attractive targets. Not the PREFERRED target... but one we must consider at times. | |
| | |
| Jason:
And with all this research that you've come up with, what exactly did you come up with that forces these fish to hit?
Doug Johnson | |
| | |
| DougJ,
That is the million dollar question. If I knew the answer, I'd probably start my own lure business (sorry couldn't resist that one).
Seriously, that is a very difficult question to answer... especially with definitive proof. Digging through piles and piles of research (conducted by other people) I've come to realize that this is an extremely complex issue that probably will never be fully understood (even by the smartest biologists with PHd's).
I'm still trying to sort it all out (and probably never will)... but I do believe you can get a musky to strike "instinctively". Whether it is a reaction strike, impulse strike, reflex strike, or however you want to describe it... even if it is not "hungry".
I think that the observations made by John New in his laboratory studies and Sheryl Coombs' research into the function of the lateral line are key elements to the above mentioned types of strikes.
Dr. New believes a musky cannot initiate a strike without either visual or lateral line confirmation of their prey. I do not know how we can conduct a study on fish that are NOT hungry and still be conclusive that hunger is not a factor.... but I believe that there are certain visual and lateral line signals that "trigger" a muskie to strike.... hungry or not.
Flash is an obvious visual que. I think a musky inherently associates flash (whether instinctively or through conditioning.... your choice) with vulnerability of their prey and an easy opportunity. Even if they are full... they cannot pass up a "free" meal.
The lateral line is what really convinces me we can make a fish react (strike) in a REFLEX type manner. When guys are catching fish trolling at 8 MPH (with rumors of fish being taken at twice that... but I'm not sure how you keep a lure in the water at 16 MPH) you gotta believe that the presentation does not appear to be an EASY meal. But, the faster an object moves the easier it is to detect with the lateral line. So maybe it IS an easy meal from a muskies perspective... one too easy to pass up.
Throw in the occasional 40 pounder caught on a 1/2 oz. rattle trap.... and you have yet another piece of evidence that makes me believe you can catch a fish through a "reflex" strike. I don't think most fish hitting a rattle trap burned in at a high rate of speed ever even make visual contact with the lure. They feel its strong vibration..... and react.
Although I believe you can trigger a strike from a fish NOT actively feeding... I also firmly believe that a musky strike is a FEEDING response. They hit your lure with the intent to EAT. That is why I struggle with your question of getting a fish that is NOT hungry to strike... since I still feel it is a feeding behavior.
Furthermore, I still can't rule out the opposite viewpoint that the fish striking in the above examples were actually VERY hungry... and thus VERY aggressive... so they respond to an aggressive stimulus.
So, DouJ, to answer your question directly..... I've come up with nothing but MY opinion. No hard facts. Just speculation made from some of the best research today's technology can conduct. Unfortunatly, the question being asked will never be understood unless the MAKER himself explains it to us. Until then... all we can do is speculate.
In the mean time... I'll follow your advice and look for HUNGRY muskies[:halo:] | |
| | |
| Anyone buying this?????
Are we simply catching hungry fish like DougJ says... or is it possible to catch some of the not-so-hungry fish? | |
| | |
| Jason:
You and I both know (at least I hope you know) that any thing like this is impossible to prove.
The feeding instinct is the most basic of survival responses, why try to figure out if the fish is hungry or not? I'm pretty sure that there will never be a magic lure or magic presentation that will somehow "force the fish to strike" on a consistant basis. The percentage thing to do is to locate the areas that hold the highest number of fish. Then try different presentations, but there are no magic ones. One fish will respone to a slow presentation, one fish will respond to a fast presentation, one fish will like a bucktail, one will like a jerkbait, and this varies from day to day and probably from hour to hour depending on who knows what!
Here's what I do! I try to go where the fish live, put out your favorite lure (confidence). Stay out longer than anyone else and fish hard. Fish when it's hard (you learn lots when it's tough), go out under all kinds of conditions, and when things are good catch a lot of them.
Learn as much as possible about where muskies live at various tines of the year (this is not easy, and varies from year to year, some years I never get it completely figured out).
Also I think to really learn you need to fish where there are fish (this is probably hard at times), as you can't tell if you are doing things right if there are no fish. I suspect that some of the people who fish areas that have fairly high populations of fish with high fishing pressure are doing thing that I don't know about, and would like to learn. I might also say that Pete Maina say that whan he's been to the Angle the fishing pressure is simular to the lakes he fishes in the Hayward area (maybe worse) so it's not that I'm are fishing unpressured water.
Finely, yes I think I've fooled all kinds of fish into hitting my superbly presented Suick that really didn't want to bite. However. I'm really not sure if that fish was hungry or not.
Doug Johnson | |
| | |
| DougJ, I know it is impossible to know whether a fish is hungry or not... that is why I LOVE this kind of topic. Nobody can be proven right or wrong :halo:]
You ask, "why try to figure out if the fish is hungry or not?". Well, for me it is so I can determine how motivated a fish is. This helps me select the most EFFICIENT presentation for the conditions. If the fish are HUNGRY, they are most likely aggressive and willing to chase. In this case, I'll go with a topwater or bucktail so I can most quickly and efficiently comb the water for "hungry" muskies. It becomes a game of simply mastering location so you come in contact with MORE fish in the least amount of time. LOTW is perfect for this.
You also say, "I might also say that Pete Maina say that whan he's been to the Angle the fishing pressure is simular to the lakes he fishes in the Hayward area (maybe worse) so it's not that I'm are fishing unpressured water". I agree that LOTW is recieving lots of pressure. BUT, the pressure is concentrated on key locations. LOTW still has a far smaller number of fisherman per acre in comparison to any WI water. That also equates to less fisherman per fish. So I will still stick to my guns that the massive size of LOTW is still an advantage. It certainly is not any EASIER to fish.... but you have a better chance of finding "hungry" muskies on any given day because there are more of them. Thus the importance of location is magnified immensely... presenting yet another challenge for the fisherman. Its a trade-off.... more fish but more places to "hide". Believe me Doug, I'm not trying to say in any way that it is easier to catch fish from LOTW.
Doug, I love the way you keep people in touch with reality. You simplify... yet I complicate things. But, I only do that on this board to get people thinking. Once my boat is in the water, my philosophy is exactly the same as yours.... to fish hard. But I also think you need to fish "smart" too.
Getting back to the topic of musky metabolism.... what environmental conditions may make a musky HUNGRY? Warming water temps has to accelerate there metabolism. How about wind and increased oxygen? Do we catch more fish under these conditions because more fish are "hungry"? | |
| | |
| KEEP IT UP GUYS THIS IS EXCELLENT STUFF[;)] | |
| | |
| Jason: Zach must have gotten the glich fixed, as I can now respond after being unable to for the past three days.
Like the above discussion, and would like to toss in a slight curve. Using Muskie Professor Johnson's math that 1/3 of the fish are feeding daily based on a "feeding every three days" assumption (you know what "ass/u/me" can do), I question "who" decides which 1/3 gets to feed when. While I personally have seen the three day cycle work, I prefer to think that if "circumstances" (weather, pressure, water temperature, etc.) ALL of the muskies in the lake can "go" at the same time. Have, as I imagine you and Doug and others have too, had many instances of the muskies going wild and action at almost every (good) spot. Had one occurance on Eagle Lake where fish all over the lake were going just before the arrival of a cold front. We caught six (three in four casts at one point) up to 32 pounds, raised 11 others over 30 pounds, lost a mid forty pounder; another boat lost 4 big fish; yet another got two 20 pounders and lost a fish over 40 pounds, and the crowning glory was one guy who caught a 42 and a 50 pounder in a half hour-all during the same time frame!! (Man, that doesn't happen near often enough!)
At any rate, I believe "local weather conditions" have MORE to do with "feeding activly" than any other single factor. Might help explain those many days when it seems impossible to get anything going.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com
PS; When trying to respond to "Revolving door" and finding that I am again unable to do so, I tried an "edit" to this post. It worked. So, something I thought about for that response could apply to this thread:
I had stated previously about the 3 day cycle theory and how well it worked for Bill Tutt and I on "his" water. In thinking back to my Eagle Lake tracking days, our biggest fish made 10 round trips from shallow home range to deep home range in 30 days during July, averaging one every three days!! Hadn't thought of it in that regard before.
To answer your main question posed at the start of this thread about where the fish are when they aren't on the "spots", using the example of the above Eagle fish, they are likely TRAVELING!! She had multiple "stops/spots" on her "run" that covered thousands of acres. Lots of swimming! Ties into the "Revolving Door" thread and "Muskie Professor" Johnson's theory of overlapping home ranges. Don't you just love it when Doug speaks?? Here is a great muskie fisherman that was a fisheries biologist; has read and understood all the tracking studies and has over 35 years of experience on the largest muskie lake in the world. He makes it sound so simple, and yet it is so complex. Experience coupled with a little science is a wonderful thing. Thanks for sharing Doug!!
As for the overlapping home ranges and the fact that this contributes to a great spot, I found this to be true on Eagle. And, there were often multiple fish in the same spot at the same time...LR | |
| | |
| Hmmm, its too bad we can't control the weather!!!!! At least we can predict it fairly accurately.
So what do we do when weather is NOT in our favor? What other environmental conditions may influence musky metabolism and increase there need to feed? | |
| | |
| We have discussed theories behind oxygen content and water temperature to explain an increase in a muskies metabolic rate (ie. they get hungry more frequently), but what about the affect of egg development?
Photoperiodism (the shorter days of fall) promotes egg development. Does this explain the increased feeding activity as the water temperatures drop in the Fall? If Doug Johnson is correct, and we mostly catch HUNGRY muskies.... then that may explain the fall bonanza for big females. | |
| | |
| Remember JLong,
Luckily for us, predator fish don't always hit a lure or bait because they are hungry.....
Sean Hudson | |
| | |
| Sean,
Thanks for turning the subject back to why a musky strikes. I had another thought in regard to one of the Professor's (DougJ's) comments about a hungry musky (the one's that mean business) always striking from the side and at the head of the lure. Doug later said that those lazy "nippers" can often be triggered during the figure 8 due to territorialism (they strike because the lure is trying to return back to the territory they are protecting). He says this typically occurs when using lures with a straight retrieve and not with jerkbaits. Perhaps a jerkbait has something that TRIGGERS a strike from a not so hungry fish?
I think Doug's observation of committed fish (hungry fish?) striking from the side is significant. I have made the same observation. I feel that if a musky has not committed to a strike but pursues enough to be positioned BEHIND your lure... the best strike trigger you can offer is turning your lure perpendicular to its direction of travel. This offers the fish a perfect "angle" or broad side view or profile or target or however you want to describe an opportunity at a "head shot". Is this perfect arrangement what seals the deal? A twitched crankbait, a gliding jerkbait, or the turn of a figure 8 all produce this miracle "angle" that can turn a less motivated fish into an eater.
Secondly, I've noticed that aggressive fish that didn't commit immediately upon noticing your lure will still strike from the side. I hit a window on LOTW on time where 4 fish ate my Topraider after pushing a wake on the lure for a distance and then veered off to the side as if spooked..... only to return in an instant and inhale the lure from the side with total commitment. They were agressive enough to take the initiative to position THEMSELVES for the strike.
Thus, I feel we can increase our odds of triggering a strike by properly positioning our lures in front of the fish. Aggressive fish will do it for us.... but when the fish are sluggish I'll go with erratic lures and try to give them the right "angle".
This discussion has strayed tremendously, but I feel it is because it pertains to something that we will never be able to find in a textbook. No amount of "research" will prove WHY a musky strikes. I would think that if it could be proven.... DougJ would have done it by now. Which means this discussion will never end (which is good because this is great stuff... the fuel of our fire).
The real reason I felt compelled to respond again to this post is because I feel some of DougJ's and Larry Ramsell's observations need to be read again and again. Their experiences are precious and we all can learn from them. So I'll bring this back to the top for everyone to enjoy again. | |
| | |
| Jason- Thanks for bringing this back up to the top. Now a little bit of heresy. I think the 3 day cycle is wishful thinking. What if you came back every 8 hours? The Eagle Lake tracking studies tell me that there may be two different survival strategies- resident fish w/ limited home range (where you can repeatedly find them in the same spot's) and perhap's most importantly, the nomad fish that are roamer's, i.e., where they are utilizing a vast area of the available water volume. The resident's hang around the dinner table waiting for the food to appear. Whereas, the nomad's are actively hunting, i.e., dining out at multiple dinner tables.
Do the nomad's use the same routes? Maybe-maybe not. I think the fundamental problem with this wild theory is that the tracking studies were'nt designed to really follow the nomad's, etc. But certainly the Eagle Lake studies raise some good questions. Maybe that also explains the "Chip" bank fishing pattern. Maybe the "Chip" strategy works because it allows the angler to entice the resident fish , but also intercept the nomad's in their travel route.
I to firmly believe a side profile/flash of the bait is a "eat me" invitation. That also explains the huge sucess of Suick's, jerk baits and twitch baits. But, I also believe the other baits- buck tails, crank baits etc, all have significant value in the muskie anglers arsenal. But I also think the twitcher's probably provide the best opportunity for the muskie to position & attack. The down side is it's slow covering water- so I reserve it for "known spots or one's that smell like Muskies", meaning classic big Muskie structure.
Do they move shallow to aid their digestive metabolism, perhaps. I think warmer water may aid by increasing the flow of blood and increased production of digestive fluid's. But they also could be just seeking a thermal comfort zone. Maybe they're just nomad's who are roaming or resting.
Maybe they're like cat's, and they just like to lay in the sun.[:bigsmile:]
Al Warner
www.icantplayfindmyfoot.com | |
| | |
| Well, August is upon us and water temps will peak. As water temperature increases, so does a musky's metabolism. With that logic, August should be everyone's most productive month since they will need to feed much more frequently.... yet August is infamous for the tough to fish "Dog Days".
Is August typically a tough month to fish because we don't look for them in the right LOCATION? Are we missing an August FEEDING BONANZA by beating vacant structures that once were productive during cooler water periods? If so, where should we look? WHERE in the lake is the optimal temperature and oxygen level so we can capitalize on the PEAK metabolism of the season?
My first guess would be deep coontail...... | |
| | |
| If all fish strikes are related to hunger/feeding reactions, why would we ever catch a fish (musky or other) hooked anywhere other than in the mouth? Hunger/feeding may be the most prevalent reason for strikes, but surely some are just basic predator reactionary responses. | |
| | |
| I also agree nice posts. jlong great thougths.
as far as metabolism goes, in my opinion the greatest factor is Temp.
increased oxygen in the water doesnt cause the fish to consume more oxygen unless it is under the fishes critical point of oxygen intake. So what i mean is a musky under a waterfall at a temp of 70f isnt consuming more oxygen than a musky in a 70f bay. Increased Oxygen consumption is a result of increased water Temps.
as far as feeding, no disrespect to anyones thoughts, but i dont feel 1/3 of the muskies in a lake are feeding at any given time. some days ill have 8 follows and catch 2 fish and the next day I wont see a thing. Its all about Mother nature(water temp, barrometric pressure,wind,) when shes right most the fish will be feeding. I don't believe fish feel hunger, it is much more instict. When Mother Nature is right they are feeding machines, ever see a crafish pop out of a smallies mouth when reeling it in, or catch a muskie with a huge bulge from god knows what in its stomach? You got to get them in the window of frezy. But i do believe that like humans, each muskie is different when it comes to what mother nature aspect sets their trigger. I prefer Brunettes.
"Tah Da Gills"
jake | |
| | |
| I also agree nice posts. jlong great thougths.
as far as metabolism goes, in my opinion the greatest factor is Temp.
increased oxygen in the water doesnt cause the fish to consume more oxygen unless it is under the fishes critical point of oxygen intake. So what i mean is a musky under a waterfall at a temp of 70f isnt consuming more oxygen than a musky in a 70f bay. Increased Oxygen consumption is a result of increased water Temps.
as far as feeding, no disrespect to anyones thoughts, but i dont feel 1/3 of the muskies in a lake are feeding at any given time. some days ill have 8 follows and catch 2 fish and the next day I wont see a thing. Its all about Mother nature(water temp, barrometric pressure,wind,) when shes right most the fish will be feeding. I don't believe fish feel hunger, it is much more instict. When Mother Nature is right they are feeding machines, ever see a crafish pop out of a smallies mouth when reeling it in, or catch a muskie with a huge bulge from god knows what in its stomach? You got to get them in the window of frezy. But i do believe that like humans, each muskie is different when it comes to what mother nature aspect sets their trigger. I prefer Brunettes.
"Tah Da Gills"
jake | |
| | |
Posts: 155
Location: North Metro | Any more thoughts Jlong? How about some of those big "V" fish you caught at the tourney related to this thread? | |
| |
|
Musky Metabolism