|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Joe spends 20 hours fishing a body of water over the weekend and posts his results on Muskiefirst. If that’s all we know about Joe, which makes him a better fisherman in your eyes?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'd go with 2 34" fish. If he was able to get two of them he was obviously fishing in the correct spot where active fish were at. If he continues to do this someday he will contact a 50".
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Neither. Joe is muskie fishing, obviously knows what to do to get a lure in front of the fish, and was fortunate enough to be rewarded with a pin up or two. Fish where there are lots of 50's, and you will catch 50's now and again. Fish where there are few, and you probably won't. To me, a muskie is a muskie, no matter the size. Yes, I'm after the biggest fish in the lake, but if she won't surrender, I'm sure hoping a couple 34's might. | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | loaded question....there are so many variables on what makes "joe" a good musky fishermen...I would say consistency on many different bodies of water catching fish of all sizes is what makes "joe" a good fishermen...anyone can go out and stumble upon 2, 34's in a day...it's not hard...now catching a 50" ? well that all depends..Like Steve said, maybe he did that on some 200 acre pot hole in northern WI..still a great accomplishment but does that make "joe" a good fishermen? can he do it again and again?
Did he get the 50" on known waters with lots of 50"s with a guide? so many variables on what makes "joe" a good fishermen..but one thing I think that seperates the good from the avg. is consistency...some have it..some don't...
| |
| | |
Posts: 199
Location: Nebraska | Speaking strictly on my limited experience. This year I caught 8 muskies between 32 and 44, I was no where near big fish. For our regular group, there was a 46 (his only one in 10 days) a 49 (one of two). I feel that I am a better fisherman than the others in our group. Sure, they happen onto a big fish here or there, but they do not CONSISTENTLY put fish in the boat, thoughout the whole weater pattern. I was blanked on four days of 10. They were blanked on 8 or 9 of 10. This happens most years that we go up there. I will usually catch 2-3 times more than the next closest, but I am sitting 6th in largest (44 to their 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50.5) Most of the time they caught their biggest as the only fish of the year, or maybe biggest of two. Last year was the same, 8 fish, 6 over 36. None of which was the biggest, but the next person only had 3. Not trying to brag. One can't brag when he fishes only10 days a year on one trip. But the question was who do you think is best. I vote for the 2 34's. Besides, we don't know if Joe caught it walleye fishing. Chances are not if he caught two. | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| That's not enough information to make a decision in my opinion. 20 hours, two 34's... On some lakes that would be considered an accomplishment. On others that would be considered "what you could expect before lunch"
And the 50? On some lakes that's a pretty common occurrence. On others it's a fish of biblical proportions.
Personally I'd rather catch the 50. But if it was two 42's? I'd really have to think about it. How fat did you say that 50 is??
 | |
| | |
| Joe is a good musky fisherman if he catches a musky once in awhile. If Joe consistently catches more and bigger muskies than everyone else then he is a great fisherman. Joe will only get better if he continues to learn about the mighty musky, and continually assembles insights and acquires confidence from patterns that keep producing successful results. Joe will only become great if he explores new waters and figures out how to succeed under various circumstances and facing various conditions. Joe must continute to work hard, because it isn't fun to talk about on websites or seminars but musky fishing comes down to plain hard work. Just fish, and just fish smart to accelerate your learning curve | |
| | |
Posts: 194
| I really don't care. Joe should be the judge of Joe's ability. Who is anyone else to tell Joe how good a fisherman he is either way. I know I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I caught a 50" vs. a couple 34". Catching any muskie is never an easy thing, but let's face it, 50" Muskies are much more difficult to catch, IMO. They take more dedication and skill. That doesn't mean that folks won't get lucky from time to time and land a 50" as their first fish. I recently met a guy who said he caught a 50" fish within his first 5 casts chasing muskies. I think that would qualify as luck, but, I wouldn't know for sure without seing him fish. I just don't think it really matters. Boy, did I use a lot of words to say nothing. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi,
I'm with Mr. Worrall on this one. I have seen some really good sticks have some very tough streaks and would love to stick a couple of 34's. The one thing is anytime you're on the water you're becoming a better fisherman. The big girls will come if you're fishing waters with 50's. Its the things you learn when you catch the 34's that put the 50's in the boat. My choice would be the two smaller fish.
Dave | |
| | |
Location: Northern Wisconsin | a musky is a musky. you should be happy to catch any size. i would still go with the 50 though.
i have caught enough 30's i need some 45+. | |
| | |
Posts: 723
| are we talking bout JoMusky? What makes him a better fisherman? THE HAIR FOR SURE!  | |
| | |
Posts: 7117
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Here's my take on what makes Joe a better, or worse fisherman. Since no one but Joe should care about Joe's numbers, what really counts is what Joe gives back to the musky community.
Does Joe take newer muskie fisherman out to help them with their learning curve?
Does Joe share information on lake patterns?
Does Joe work to actively teach muskie and other species fisherman about the benefits of catch and release?
Does Joe work to positively impact the muskie community as a whole?
I guess here's MY take on all of it: you can catch a zillion 50" fish, and boat fish just by looking at the lake while sitting in your truck, but if you never pass on the positive aspects of the sport, and further the cause of great muskie fishing for all, then this Joe isnt much of a muskie fisherman. Guys who fish good (numbers of size) waters alot seem to catch a lot of good fish. OBVIOUSLY there are tactics, levels of attention to conditions/structure/fish moods, that make it such that one muskie angler catches more fish than another, but being a good muskie fisherman SHOULD be about more than catching more or better fish than the next guy.
There seems to be a movement in different circles to horde information, to horde locations of where the "hot bite is", but really does that contribute to the whole? It helps those individuals in the short term, but by placing themselves OUTSIDE of the community, only furthering their own causes, they're not contributing to the whole. They probably catch their fish on their waters at as good or even better paces than some others, but while others are helping the community in terms of education, stocking effots, etc., those who are hiding that info are just taking from the community.
Great muskie fishing HAS TO BE ABOUT MORE THAN BOATING GREAT FISH. If Joe boats great fish, but doesnt help others and help the cause then he's not much of a muskie fisherman in my estimation. But, if he helps the whole, regardless of his fish numbers and size, then he is. | |
| | |
| i don't think this question shouldn't be interpreted as suggesting that one person is better than another, or that therefore someone is "bad".
i also think this question isn't intended to be about "what makes Joe a good person?" over a season or over the course of a fishing career, but rather, during a SHORT period of time (ie., a tournament) should the "winner" be based on numbers or size?
here's a good example: for the Vermilion MMTT my partner and i hadn't pre-fished, and i hadn't been on Big V this year before the tournament.
we had a good general idea of what we wanted to do: hit some unmarked humps, then fish shorelines around a certain island complex that received very little fishing pressure. this resulted in us raising many follows (not just the lazy, sitting on the rocks fish). we went away thinking, "we had some shots" but couldn't trigger the fish.
we fished hard, we fished skillfully, but not skillfully enough as we didn't do the exact "right" thing to trigger the fish because we hadn't invested enough time to figure out what that was going to be.
the eventual winners spent the entire tournament working the exact same island complex as us, catching three large fish, including 2 over 50". they were dialed in on a specific pattern and they fished differently than we did, gaining different results. they were throwing small bucktails over the same spots we were throwing large spinnerbaits and topwater.
because of this, they were better than us, and better than the rest of the tourney field.
lets' say, just for the sake of argument, that my partner and i had boated one of the 50" fish that we saw. we would have felt pretty dang good about this, and pretty dang good about ourselves. we were in the right area, and a big fish cooperated.
however, it wouldn't have even put us in the top 10. why not? because there were so many teams who were fishing better!
imho, the Vermilion MMTT was an ideal tournament because it required both size and numbers to win. there is no way you could argue that it was simply "luck" that won the tournament with results like that. it was skill that determined the better fishermen that weekend.
however, the reality of muskie fishing means that most tournaments are not like that, and many are won based on very limited results. in this case, luck plays a larger factor. one big fish? two medium sized fish?
again for example, my partner and i placed 6th in a tournament earlier this year with a single fish. i think we made a good decision to fish where we did since no one else was there and we optimized the fish/boat ratio in our favor. 1" longer would have put us in 5th, 2" longer meant 4th, 4" longer meant 3rd. which team was "better"? none. with fish in the 36"-40" range, it was luck that one fish was bigger than the other.
however, the winning team that day caught both the biggest fish and doubled. hmmm...skill? they also made and placed in the trail's championship. definitely skill demonstrated over the long term.
long story short, i think the best results are those which emphasize ability to catch both numbers of fish and better sized fish over the longest possible period of time. a league (such as Rhinelander, Madison, or Matchfishing here on MuskieFirst) or the season-long "top gun" standings of the various tournament trails are the best measure of consistent skill over time.
for short-term events, i'd like to see tournaments that were expanded to run 3 full days of Friday-Sunday rather than the more common 1 or 1 1/2 days Saturday and Sunday morning.
failing that, i like the Muskies Inc style scoring (like we use in Matchfishing as well) which has a minimum size to start earning points, rather than total inches.
there are lots of people who never fish competitively, who give and give and give to the fishing community, and are GOOD PEOPLE. in fact, i believe many of them are better people, and probably often better fishermen than many tournament or competitive fishing winners.
but for those of use who are going to step in the ring during a tournament, i like scoring systems that emphasize production over time. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| HI,
Mike and Andrew that is very well stated. Catching fish is the icing on the cake.
Dave | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The question seems to be if its better to catch more small Muskies or fewer large ones.
That seems like a personal preference thing and everyone will have a different opinion.
For me, a day with one 45 incher is better than five 30 somethings. And one 50 is better than a hundred 30 somethings. I forget the 30 somethings soon after they are caught (often before I get off the water), but the +40s I remember and the really big fish keep me awake at night. I still can't get an upper 50 inch fish that I almost had last year out of my mind. Just one more foot and it would have been in the net. 
For me, the small ones are fun and OK if thats all that is in a lake, but big fish are what I'm after. I certainly didn't buy the new boat, new rods, and all the new lures to catch three footers. I can catch those with my Northern Pike rod, 14 lb mono, and an inexpensive Bass sized spinner bait.
To each his own. | |
| | |
Posts: 31
Location: Hoges Store, VA | My opinion, that no one asked for, is that persistence catches fish.......luck determines the size....sure, everyone wants to catch "the big one".....sorta like Bill Gardener, you put in the time, eventually you'll catch a big one.....to me, that was the whole point of "Time on the Water", the last line that said "and once I caught a big one". | |
| | |
Posts: 1636
| Kazmuskie - 9/26/2006 4:57 PM
I really don't care. Joe should be the judge of Joe's ability. Who is anyone else to tell Joe how good a fisherman he is either way. I know I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I caught a 50" vs. a couple 34". Catching any muskie is never an easy thing, but let's face it, 50" Muskies are much more difficult to catch, IMO. They take more dedication and skill. That doesn't mean that folks won't get lucky from time to time and land a 50" as their first fish. I recently met a guy who said he caught a 50" fish within his first 5 casts chasing muskies. I think that would qualify as luck, but, I wouldn't know for sure without seing him fish. I just don't think it really matters. Boy, did I use a lot of words to say nothing.
I agree. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is time spent on the water. I know plenty of GREAT fisherman that just can't spend as much time on the water as others so they do not get the amount of fish some get. I know they are great fisherman and so do they.
Not to mention some bodies of water just have more fish than others. Take webster for instance. A guy that fishes webster regularly opposed to a guy fishing a lake with a lot less fish... The guy fishing webster might catch more, but whos to say he is the better fisherman. But then again, whos to say he isnt just because there are more fish?
You still have to know what you are doing, but webster seems like the place for beginners and where people can get lucky. Not so much for size, but for a musky in general. Anyone can go out and cast musky lures and get lucky... That is pretty much what we all do. In my opinion the best fisherman are those who constantly ask themselves questions, pay attention to weather, pay attention to past experiences, plan ways to work an area, get the job done when it comes to getting the fish in the net, etc. But then again, an average JOE can catch a 50 inch muskie, but whos to say it was pure luck because it was his first muskie. He could be an accomplished bass or walleye fisherman... that knowledge and experience helps a ton and you can use it muskie fishing, I do.
Wow I too just typed a lot to say pretty much nothing.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:14 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 7117
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | And, to redirect my answer towards what LAMBEAU thinks I should.....
If you're in a tournament, and you win, you're the better fisherman for that tournament. In THAT tournament, if you win with two 34s, versus a 50, then you were a better fisherman. If you lay your money down for that tournament, knowing the rules for THAT tournamen, then Joe needs to fish it to win it, otherwise why are you fishing a tournament? Very few muskie fisherman would rather have two 34"ers, versus a 50"er. But very few tournament fisherman would rather have a 50"er and 2nd or 3rd place, than those two 34s and first place. You're fishing a TOURNAMENT to WIN THE TOURNAMENT, right?
Or am I still answering the wrong question? | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | One other thing: One has to take into account how much time an individual fisherman has both for fishing and contributing to the sport. Many have lots of time on their hands. Perhaps they are single with no kids or their kids are grown or whatever, but they have a lot of time to get on the water and lots of time to contribute. Then there are those, who for various reasons, that have very limited time on the water and very limited time to contribute. They are often people married with small children or they have to drive a significant distance to the nearest Muskie lake or Muskies Inc chapter.
One can't really compare two fishermen when one has a lot of time and one has little. The one with more time should be able tio catch more and larger fish and contribute more while the one with very limited time will most likely catch far fewer fish and may have a hard time just getting to a few Muskies Inc meetings a year.
The amount of time people have for their hobbies will change for most during their lifetime. There will be periods of plenty and periods of little. That is life. Deal with it.
And furthermore, for some to get up on their high-horse and say all should be fishing x amount or contributing so much is neither helpful nor realistic. It only shows that some forget that others are in a different place in their life and just don't have the time right now.
Some day I'll have more time to fish and contribute, but until then I'm just going to do what I can. 
Good day all. | |
| | |
Posts: 1636
| Herb_b - 9/27/2006 10:07 AM
Some day I'll have more time to fish and contribute, but until then I'm just going to do what I can.
And thats all you can do. In a perfect world we all could fish everyday. What a beautiful world that would be But then again, as much as we may say it, as much as we may want it to be, fishing isn't life...even if you are a guide.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:33 AM
| |
| | |
| BIG Fish hang out with BIG fish....Joe isn't a "better" fisherman if he catches two 34"ers vs. a 50"er...he happens to catch those fish because he is fishing in the zone where it seems the smaller fish are. As Worrall mentioned, it is surprising....big fish fisherman fish for BIG fish on big fish spots, where there are 50"ers!! Yes, small fish will inhabit BIG fish areas...but more often then not, if you're fishing for big fish, the big fish will come, in the big fish spots...on a regular basis.
KEY: Find out where the BIG fish spots are, on a regular basis...then fish for BIG Fish!
Did I just ramble on about nothing too??
Just my 2 cents worth!
Donnie
Edited by Donnie3737 9/27/2006 10:42 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I seriously doubt Andrew is saying anything more than do what you can. I have a hard time picturing a person less high on a horse. Maybe riding along on little burrow spreading goodwill among the musky fishing masses.
That being said, I certainly do like his theory. As I stumble along toward becoming a musky fisherman, I could care less whether I'll ever be better or worse than anyone else. I'm going to keep doing it because it's fun and less stressful than golfing, a sport where I always tried to be better than most people. I also think the fish are pretty, and their sharp teeth are scary.
Like Blanche DuBois, I've always relied on the kindness of strangers.
Kevin
P.I. Pre-fishing Photographer | |
| | |
| P.I. Pre-fishing Photographer
please make sure to take lots of pictures of sunrise/sunsets, colorful leaves, other people and boats, the occasional pretty fish, and any burro-riding goodwill-spreaders we happen to encounter!
| |
| | |
Posts: 1636
| Donnie3737 - 9/27/2006 10:41 AM
BIG Fish hang out with BIG fish....Joe isn't a "better" fisherman if he catches two 34"ers vs. a 50"er...he happens to catch those fish because he is fishing in the zone where it seems the smaller fish are.
This makes sense and on certain bodies of water it is obvious where the bigger fish will be. However, big fish will also be found in the same areas as the smaller ones at certain times of the year. So if your a fisherman that doesn't get to get out much, what would you rather do...
a. target mainly big fish and (possibly) catch less
or
b. target smaller fish, catch more, and have a chance at a big fish?
Im a believer in with the more fish you catch the more you learn. I target muskies, not big or small and I'm not dissapointed in sizes I have caught this year averaging 40" in Illinois. And to be honest, I would not know as much as I do without fishing with other people and getting out in general experiencing things myself. I have yet to catch a 50 incher. Do I consider myself less of a fisherman because of it? No way. Do I consider someone who has caught a 50 incher a better fisherman who hasnt? Nope.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:58 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Consider it done. I'm in it for the relaxation, beauty, companionship, and the occasional fish.
Kevin
The Plan does not include stress. | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| I'm at a weird place in my "evolution" when it comes to big fish vs numbers.
Sometimes I'd rather catch a few small fish instead of a big fish.
Sometimes I'd rather not bother with the small fish and would rather chase big fish even if it means I may not catch anything today.
Sometimes I just want to fish
Still other times I might want to throw a certain bait even if it's not the best choice at the moment, like I'd rather not catch a fish on lure X right now than catch a fish on lure Y... | |
| | |
Posts: 40
Location: NEW LENOX | Went out to day didn't catch any!!!!!! But I did see a rainbow at 6:30 in the morning, enjoyed a nice cigar in the afternoon. So I think I'm the better fisherman. Who cares I could be Working!!!
Remember turn your passion into your buisness and you'll never work a day in your life, but many a passion have been killed by work. | |
| | |
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Are talking about me?
Just kidding.
I think 1 - 50" is much more valuable then 2 or even 3 - 34" fish. That is why I perfer a contest format which gives 34 points for a 34" and 1 point for every 1/4" over 34. Should a tournament be won by a guy with 2 - 34" fish or 1 - 50" fish?
OK the question was better fisherman. I feel 50" are manny times more harder to catch the to double on 2 low 30" fish. That is why a 50" fish is the trophy mark for most. | |
| | |
| It is all the same, there are just more 34's than 50's...That is why people catch more 50's in lakes that have more 50's...One is not harder to catch than the other...just percentages.... | |
| | |
| there are just more 34's than 50's...One is not harder to catch than the other.
imho, the bigger the fish, the harder it is to catch.
even if we ignore the debate on whether or not big fish are harder to fool into biting, at a bare minimum smaller fish are much easier to land successfully after hookup.
after getting hit, i've lost my share of large fish, but it's very rare for me to lose a small fish. | |
| | |
Location: Northern Wisconsin | bigger fish are usually harder to catch, they got that big for a reason. they are smart, they have
been seeing lures there whole life. | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Joe is obviously the better of the two.
Kevin will take his picture. And it will turn out, then Joe will post the pics and people will second guess the length anyway.
One or two fish per 20 hours of angling...I'd take that most of the time.
S. | |
| | |
| I loved Slamr's reply --made me feel great --I'm a dang musky god according to those 4 criteria he put up !!! BTW-I even catch my fair share too. Really good post , good to think about something new. MD | |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I went to the new Cabelas last night. Talked with young Esox2Hart who works there in the musky isle (note I said isle, not isles). He has decided to take pity on this older gentleman and take me as his partner for the IMT.
Soooo, I have now changed my mind. When I catch two 34" fish, I will definitely be a better fisherman than Joe, who only catches one 50". I am entering this tournament to show what a good fisherman I really am.
When I finally catch a fish casting, you can expect me to soon be making highly opinionated posts regarding important issues such as transport tournaments, scoring, genetics, vertical holds, spot camping, and many other controversial issues. I will also be making declarative statements regarding the length of fish posted in pictures here on this website.
I'm sure everyone here will greatly appreciate what I bring to the table as a tournament fisherman.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin
I've always relied on the kindness of strangers.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Lots of things that go into this question....
Can't answer it with the information given.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Now that this has run awhile, I have another observation more to the original question. Let's say you do not KNOW this guy at all, have never heard of him and have no idea of his skill level. He posts a 51. Or, he posts two 34s. The automatic response by most would be 'stronger' to the 51, and JUST because the fish was caught assumptions will be made about this fellow's skill level different from assumptions about the same angler if the fish were 34".
In other words, big fish a great level of skill might not reflect. Exactly the same thing might be said for small fish.
I think I know what Mike was trying to get to... | |
| | |
| Why are bigger fish harder to land in your opinion? I can see no difference, but people tend to panic when they hook a big fish especially if they are not used to catching them....that could be where the larger fish are lost...but that is angler error. | |
| | |
| Why are bigger fish harder to land in your opinion? I can see no difference, but people tend to panic when they hook a big fish especially if they are not used to catching them....that could be where the larger fish are lost...but that is angler error.
i don't "panic" with larger fish, but i do tend to lose more over 40" than under 40".
my belief is that this is because:
- it's harder to bury the hooks in their mouth
- stronger fish can more easily get themselves into a branch, buried in the weeds, into a trolling motor, etc.
- larger fish can more easily create a moment of slack line with a quick burst or move
as you say, all those things can be moderated by the fisherman, but the likelihood of something going "wrong" is higher with a bigger, stronger fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1939
Location: Black Creek, WI | Why do people lose big fish? Its been my experience that they fight a big fish.... as if it were a small fish. They eventually learn that you cannot "muscle" a big musky like you can a dink. You also learn that a big fish has more leverage.... so allowing them to change directions usually ends up with a lost fish. You can get away with letting a smaller fish change directions.... which then tends to "teach" an angler that it is OK to do. Then when that precious moment finally comes... and you get to dance with a big girl... you release her too soon.
Guys that stay in one spot in the boat and battle fish usually lose more fish than the guys that run laps around the boat trying to stay in front of the fish.... and never letting it change directions. Its a line angle thing.... and a tension control issue.... in my opinion of course.
And... its those kind of experiences/skills/whatever that make Joe a better fisherman. Not how many... or how big a fish he reports catching. A guy who catches a 50 incher on his very first cast for muskies is nowhere near as skilled of an angler as a guy who had to fish 30 years before boating a 50. | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Hi Mike,
You are absolutly correct in your reply to BenR thread. One thing I would like to throw out here is this. With the non-stretch lines and the stiffer and longer rods and drag set to the limit like I know a lot of do. That we maybe are own worst enemy by not so much of bad hookset but rather putting to much pressure on these larger fish once they are hooked?
I'm sorry, do you understand what I'm to trying ask or get at here with this?
Thanks
Dave
Edited by Hunter4 9/28/2006 2:38 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Hey great posts guys, lots of interesting stuff.
Steve you nailed the exact point why I posted this topic.
I thought it very interesting how many people like the straight total inches system for determining a winner in a tournament, but when you look what happens on a regular basis on Musky message boards big fish almost always get more attention than a multiple fish day or weekend. Hey there’s nothing wrong with that, because personally we all eventually end up at the same place, WE WANT TO CATCH BIG FISH. Catching fish any fish is great fun and the day I don’t have fun going out and putting even just one 34 incher in the boat is the day I quit fishing musky, but eventually the goals change in favor of big fish. Many will give up chances at smaller fish in search of a big girl.
I guess that’s why I prefer a scoring system that gives extra points as the fish gets bigger. In the Hodag and PMTT two 34s are worth a 41 ½, two 38 1/4s are worth a 50 incher, and two 40s are worth a 53 ½. In MY opinion that seems fair, as that pretty closely relates to how people would feel if they where fishing on there own. At least until you hit the magic 50” mark as many would rather go over that bar than catch multiple any size smaller.
Nail A Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| I would have to disagree with you folks...I fish two bodies of water most of the year...On one body of water...a 48 is considered a "shaker" and shook off without photos(not my rule, but I deal with it)...the other is your typical chance at a 50 with most of the fish in the mid 30-40's inch range. You can say a larger muskie's mouth is harder, but he also bites with much more force. The bait fits in their mouth much nicer, they tend to jump much less. We have 80-100lb line 8 to 8'6" rods razor sharp hooks...nets that are big enough for a great white....I think perhaps I will stick with panic or lack of experience with big fish...Muskie Fever...that is what it is all about...Ben | |
| | |
| disagreement within the context of a good discussion is actually what makes us all better!
You also learn that a big fish has more leverage...
jason, in your experience with loads of big and small fish, would you say that this makes them more "difficult" to catch, after hookup?
Guys that stay in one spot in the boat and battle fish usually lose more fish than the guys that run laps around the boat trying to stay in front of the fish.... and never letting it change directions. Its a line angle thing...and a tension control issue...in my opinion of course.
jason, again, in your experience with lots of fish, does the fact that you believe you need to do this for bigger fish indicate an underlying belief that they are more challenging to fight?
it's also my understanding that you hit free-spool when a big fish makes a run. why do you do this?
| |
| | |
Posts: 476
Location: WI | MuskyHopeful - 9/28/2006 8:55 AM
Soooo, I have now changed my mind. When I catch two 34" fish, I will definitely be a better fisherman than Joe, who only catches one 50". I am entering this tournament to show what a good fisherman I really am.
I'm sure everyone here will greatly appreciate what I bring to the table as a tournament fisherman.
Kevin
Ahhh but Kevin....Joe catches a 50" in the IMT and wins the 50" Big Fish contest and $10,000 he may be smarter???
Good Luck!
GotOne | |
| | |
Posts: 1939
Location: Black Creek, WI | lambeau - 9/29/2006 12:57 PM
disagreement within the context of a good discussion is actually what makes us all better!
You also learn that a big fish has more leverage...
jason, in your experience with loads of big and small fish, would you say that this makes them more "difficult" to catch, after hookup?
Guys that stay in one spot in the boat and battle fish usually lose more fish than the guys that run laps around the boat trying to stay in front of the fish.... and never letting it change directions. Its a line angle thing...and a tension control issue...in my opinion of course.
jason, again, in your experience with lots of fish, does the fact that you believe you need to do this for bigger fish indicate an underlying belief that they are more challenging to fight?
it's also my understanding that you hit free-spool when a big fish makes a run. why do you do this?
Mike,
My point was that people have more experience landing smaller fish. You simply catch more of them. Thus, MOST of their experience is with small fish. My experience has been that what works for small fish won't necessarily work for big fish. Thus, I'm not saying its easier to land big or small fish.... I'm just saying the requirements to do so are different. So... using the hypothesis based on POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT.... if you successfully land a bunch of small fish by standing in one spot and horsing them in (which works well with small fish) one may conclude it is a good method for landing big fish too. After learning the hardway..... I disagree.
For example. If you muscle a small fish a little too much... you simply drag them through the water. But... if you muscle a big fish just a little too much... you potentially could straighten a hook, tear off, etc. In this case, landing a smaller fish is "easier" and actually over-powering the fish helps reduce the risk of slack line. However, if you have a large fish hooked well and with heavy tackle.... its actually "easier" to keep tension on the fish (just load the rod and reel as needed)... since it won't drag through the water as easy as a smaller fish would. Thus, the risk of slack is reduced.... potentiall making it "easier" to land than a smaller fish hooked in the same manner.
As for freespooling a fish. Same deal. That last thing you want is to get caught off-gaurd with a locked-down drag. Thus, I have my reel in freespool AT ALL TIMES... except when I'm reeling of course. If a small fish bolts and pulls your rod down in the water as you fratically try to feed it line.... you have a better chance of stopping them before something gives. If this happens with a big fish... you had better hope its hooked well and you have heavy enough hooks and terminal tackle. I still freespool as stated... but I no longer lock-down my drag. When I set the hooks on a fish over 10 lbs.... my drag now slips a little. I seem to pin up better with that "safety net" adding some cushion to our now super strong hooksets created by long rods, fast actions, and no-stretch line. | |
| | |
| not to get too semantic here...;-)
would you agree that if you have to make the technique changes you describe, it's because a bigger fish is less "forgiving" of mistakes that a person can "get away with" when fighting a smaller fish?
if so, wouldn't that suggest they are "harder" to catch?
ie., if big fish are more likely to take advantage of my mistakes, i've got to make fewer mistakes ("be better") to catch them consistently?
imho, people who catch numbers of big fish are the best fishermen, not simply lucking into the rare trophy.
if i want to get better (and i do, and i think we all do!), i think a good place to focus is on the kinds of techniques you're describing.
what other advice do people have for successfully getting larger fish in the net (after hookup)? | |
| | |
Posts: 1939
Location: Black Creek, WI | Mike,
No... I'm not prepared to say that big fish are less forgiving or more difficult to land. What I am suggesting is that the MISTAKE many people make is with what they THINK is the best way to play&land a big fish. So.... if you are trying to land a big fish with the same technique you use for small fish.... then YAH... big fish are more difficult to land.
The way I fight fish... it seems like smaller fish are more difficult to land... as its harder to keep the rod loaded to avoid tension without feeling like you are "horsing" the fish. Big fish can hold their ground while you keep decent pressure on them.... and it seems to help calm down the entire situation. When you try to keep the rod loaded on a smaller fish... the come through the water towards you.... forcing you to keep reeling to avoid slack line. Before you know it... the fish is at boatside and still plenty green. With a larger fish... you can play them to the boat in a more controlled manner... so when they finally do get to your feet... they are ready for the net.... in a calm, organized, and hopefully predictable location. | |
| | |
Posts: 956
Location: Home of the 2016 World Series Champion Cubs | "What makes Joe a better fisherman?" Ask Joe. It should only matter in Joe's mind what makes Joe a better fisherman. Not in your mind, not in mine.
Karl | |
| | |
Posts: 3926
| I have a sorta different view than above....
From my view..
From the start, you set your drag as to fight and land a big fish. And you make sure your drag system is perfect, as you can easliy do with Smooothihes on Abu reels. With this approach, you can surely muscle in smaller fish, but you can also be sure that a larger fish will engage the drag system, pulling line out as it fights away from the boat. Keep the rod tip up, ready to catch sudden slack by throwing the tip down while you reel fast to mainain pressure, etc. Fish wants to run, the drag system lets her go, play the fish. Never an open spool, i.e., tumbing the spool, as I don't have confidence I can manage that approach successfully. I want both hands ready, on on the rod/reel and one on the reel handle, all the time.
Where I live the min size is 42", so little mid-30"s are not considered as I set up my rods. I'm fishing for a upper 40"s and my reel drag is set such. Always, I replace the drag washers with Smooothines. | |
| | |
| its harder to keep the rod loaded to avoid tension without feeling like you are "horsing" the fish. Big fish can hold their ground while you keep decent pressure on them.... and it seems to help calm down the entire situation.
what role do you see the rod playing in this equation?
i've been moving away from x-hvy power rods (when i don't have to use them for certain baits) and more to moderate power rods which assist in applying constant but not over-forceful pressure. is it reasonable to assume that this will help with more loaded rods and less frequent slack line? | |
| | |
Posts: 2323
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Jlong,
I had a very decent fish on this past weekend that was probably pushing well over 45' more like maybe 46, 47 and the fish came flying around the other side of the boat and I started chasing her around the boat. But all of sudden the fish kinda went limp, and what I mean by that the fish kinda just started giving in or just taking a break in other words. But what I'm trying to get to is the rod tip was high but the pressure on the fish wasn't like I am use to when I have dealt with other fish of this caliber. What do I do or do you suggest in this situation from lettting the line go somewhat slack but not literally slack? I feel that after analyzing the situation and trying to figure out what went wrong and why I lost the fish that when I hooked her on a topraider she came up and did two very good headshakes and I thougt well I have her pinned pretty good if I was able to keep her on through that, but after about two minutes of fighting her, the topraider came flying back at me and I didn't quite understand it until I started analyzing the situation a little. I'm not sure why exactly I lost her but after reading this post, I'm beginning to really think that by not trying to keep more pressure on her caused me to lose her. Any thoughts anyone? Need more info just ask. | |
| | |
Posts: 3926
| Lambeau - what do most Steelhead rods look like? They're 9' spincast rods with LOTS of give; they have to be that way because the openface reels are loaded with only 6# mono. For 10-15# fish that are really strong runners in strong current, 6# line is pretty light, but you can't go more or you won't get bit. It's the long whippy rod that saves yer a$$. Plus time and luck that the fish doesn't tangle in river wood/debris, those steelies are tough and they run. But that's the deal. So, broomstick-stiff muskie rods are....dumb. Longer, lighter action from mid-point to the end, but no lighter than you need to work the bait right, are the order of the day. | |
| | |
Posts: 350
Location: WESTERN WI | Bringing this thread back to the topic: I feel that it is what you value more. I value 1 50" over 2-34". The 34" may have not been exposed to as many lures/techiues/etc. as the 50" that is one decade or perhaps two decades old on some waters. That fish is more elusive and has more "wisdom" than a 34" thus making it harder to catch. It is obvious that anyone can "luck" into a musky (Accidental Musky) from time to time but even when a 50" is "lucked" into more skill on the anglers end is required to land the fish.
If this were a tourney situation, whatever scenario, 2-34" or 1-50" that would register more points would get the nod from me.
| |
| | |
Posts: 331
Location: Stevens Point, Wisconsin | I think this ties into a post a while back. If Joe is catching 45-inch fish in a body of water that only grows mid 40-inch fish, he's a darn good fisherman. But if he is catching 34-inch fish all day long on LOTW’s he is a sub par fisherman. Just because a guy is not putting 50-inch fish in the boat doesn’t mean he is not a skilled angler. If the angler is limited to fishing bodies of water that don't hold large 50-inch fish yet he is consistently catching the adult population, he is a great fisherman in my book. What's the saying....it's not always length that matters but what you do with it! LOL
Ed
| |
| | |
| I've mentioned what I thought about the 2-34's versus the 1-50". Here is my belief on the evolved thread.
JLong & Lambeau have some good points. I feel I've been in contact with a number of big fish. set your drag accordingly, keep your hand on the front cork...and REEL, REEL, REEL! It was mentioned that someone lost a mid to upper 40" fish. I think he was exactly right...after two minutes, or any amount of time, your chances of losing Mrs. BIG are greatly increased.
A good bend in the rod the whole fight is imperative. With over 70% of the big fish coming in a figure 8 at boatside, to go freespool would be scary and possibly dangerous. The BIG fish we are dealing with move at over 40 m.p.h. A burst at that spped will mean backlash, thumb stuck under spool, or rod going for a swim...I've seen them all by some very good fisherman!! As well, with fish at the boat, most of the time, setting the hook down is a good bet! Keep a good bend in the road with her head down.
Is a small fish easier to get in the boat once hooked? Most of the time....do I lose a number of small fish? YES...my drag is normally set tight, and I lose small fish because it is tough to get hooks into a small fish, when you're setting the hook HARD! Sometimes you drag the fish through the water, and pull the hooks free.
So, I agree with just about everyone's opinion. BIG fish are easier to bury the hooks home. BIG fish are easier to keep a good rod bend, as long as you REEL, REEL, REEL! But, DON'T FREESPOOL, unless you are very, very experienced...of which I don't feel I am that experienced yet.
Sorry for rambling,
Donnie | |
| |
|
What makes Joe a better fisherman?