|
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I noticed the last couple years an interesting opposite:
Baits smaller than the original, and baits much larger.
Baby/Magnum.
When do you feel conditions warrant using one or the other? | |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I have a really hard time using small baits. I guess its a confidence thing.
I always throw larger baits ( 8-12" ) or heavy baits.
The last 2 years the smallest fish I've boated was a 38" and all of the rest have been between 40"-49" which I atribute to throwing larger sized baits.
The smaller (6"or less) baits have never done much good for me, although some of my buddies have had very good success using smaller baits.
Jerome
| |
| | |
Posts: 880
Location: New Berlin,Wisconsin,53151 | I'm for small baits...when the time is right. Keopp and Sanks showed me the when and where to use small Rouge's and Rapalla and get big muskie. I still find myself reaching into the box for the 10" Jake or Ernie though...I'm a difficult learner.
Netman | |
| | |
Posts: 484
Location: St. Louis, MO., Marco Is., FL, Nestor Falls, ON | sworrall - 3/19/2007 8:47 PM
I noticed the last couple years an interesting opposite:
Baits smaller than the original, and baits much larger.
Baby/Magnum.
When do you feel conditions warrant using one or the other?
It took me a long time to learn the conditions perfect for throwing smaller baits:
1. When you are over 60.
2. When your back hurts like heck.
3. When the arthritis in your elbows, knees and hands is talking to you.
| |
| | |
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I know last fall in a heavily pressured situation I couldn't get fish to eat on 10" baits but if I went with 5-6" baits we caught fish. I picked up some smaller baits for early season mainly because of the pressure this lake gets on opening day. Hoping to get the season going on the right foot. Most opening days for us are all about throwing baits we picked up at shows and seeing how cool they look.....no spring training this year. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | rpieske,
AMEN to that! I found that the smaller versions of the Weagle did just as well for me moving really big fish as the larger, is there a rule of thumb anyof you use to select a large bait for conditions? | |
| | |
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | If the fish have lockjaw a change in size is always something I try. Some swear that going small in Spring and Large in Fall is the ticket but I believe that really depends on many more factors weather, moon, forage, water clarity, etc.
Typically after a classic June or July cold front rolls through and you go from 85 to 60 in 45 minutes I have observed a better success rate changing to smaller baits. | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| I still am married to the idea that big baits = big fish, or more accurately big baits = fewer small fish. Every season several people disprove my theory by catching an absolute monster on a tiny little bait, but I still feel that a 50"+ fish is going to follow a small bait and eat a big one.
I do throw the small stuff -- baby weagles/wabulls, X-raps, baby DR's in the Spring, water temps under 60, or extreme coldfront conditions. Another time I will downsize is when I'm getting follows and not eaters -- this is still a case of "maybe small is the key today" and I don't have any real basis for it other than something has to work...
It's more dictated by what the forage is than anything else for me. Small lakes with stunted forage = small lures.
Mid Summer/fall, 68 - 72 surface temps? I like the standard sized (7"-9") lures that I can work agressively without fatigue.
The stupid sized, giant, pounder/super mag/giant flasher size stuff? I get a kick out of them because they are stupid-big. Had some dinky little fish try to eat them, too. But I save them for times when I am in "big fish" mode. | |
| | |
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. |
when smallies hit 8" baits and big muskies eat leaches on a jig .... what to do? ... have a bait in the right water at the right time i guess
Edited by jonnysled 3/20/2007 11:13 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 85
| I fish 'tonka a fair amount and always ask the bass guys if they've had any muskie action. Their reply will tell you a ton about how the fish are relating to weeds, location, aggressive/passive, etc. Based on what they say and if they are hitting their bass baits I often go to a smaller presentation.
I'm still of the school of thought that come fall, go big. Earlyier in the season I'll throw more small to med stuff than I do later. | |
| | |
Posts: 724
Location: Southern W.Va. | I have a few small baits and probably should throw them more, however, other than rattlebaits in the spring at "the Cave", I never throw them. I feel that if you put a 7",8",9" bait or bigger , in a musky's face , it will hit it as quick as if it only 4" or 5" long. Maybe it's the "big bait, big fish" theory nagging in the back of my head, but I've seen it work when everyone else was working small baits and getting nowhere. The smallest bait that I throw is probably a 6" Reef Hog or 5 1/2" Phantom.Then only in the clearest of lakes and rivers. They may not be as big as some baits but I think that they "fish "big, move a lot of water and most of all, have a proven track record.
Last year at the outing up in "Worrell country" during early June , I got all my fish and for that matter all action from 8" baits, Reef Hogs and Mantas. In Sept. when Mikie , Papa Joe and myself was in Minn., Mikie cleaned our clocks throwing oversized topwater baits, including a 4 footer that sagged a lot in the belly.
Big baits vs. small baits????? I'll take the heavyweight..
Just my $.02 worth
Mauser | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| Another thing to think about:
I'd rather fish small baits well for 12 hours than wear myself out in 6 throwing really big stuff and spend the last 6 in pain and lacking focus/energy...
| |
| | |
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | esoxaddict - 3/20/2007 6:29 PM
I still am married to the idea that big baits = big fish, or more accurately big baits = fewer small fish. Every season several people disprove my theory by catching an absolute monster on a tiny little bait, but I still feel that a 50"+ fish is going to follow a small bait and eat a big one.
I do throw the small stuff -- baby weagles/wabulls, X-raps, baby DR's in the Spring, water temps under 60, or extreme coldfront conditions. Another time I will downsize is when I'm getting follows and not eaters -- this is still a case of "maybe small is the key today" and I don't have any real basis for it other than something has to work...
It's more dictated by what the forage is than anything else for me. Small lakes with stunted forage = small lures.
Mid Summer/fall, 68 - 72 surface temps? I like the standard sized (7"-9") lures that I can work agressively without fatigue.
The stupid sized, giant, pounder/super mag/giant flasher size stuff? I get a kick out of them because they are stupid-big. Had some dinky little fish try to eat them, too. But I save them for times when I am in "big fish" mode.
I know a guy who fishes almost exclusively with 6" Inline Spinnerbaits and also know he's put at least 10, 50" in the boat over the past 3 season with them. Musky fishing is less about the bait than being in the right place at the right time under the right conditions. Musky are predators at the top of the food chain put something in front of them under these conditions and they'll eat 95% of the time. | |
| | |
Posts: 52
| Experience has shown me at least that a big lure does not mean a big fish. I'm a fly rodder and if I throw a fly over 7-inches I am lucky and I've landed fish close to 50-inches. Also one day with a tackle shop owner we landed many fish on just a 7-inch plastic with him missing one we estimated at over 51-inches. I think bait activity and the time of year are part of it as well. | |
| | |
| It seems to vary by water body, but in general I like bigger baits and only use smaller baits when things get tough
The Rattle Bite is on right now down South, so at least time to give the little baits some time on the water | |
| | |
Posts: 21
| Very tricky question. I guess my answer is it depends, and let the fish tell you what they want. But as a starting point, I
look at the average size of fish in the water i am fishing and or trophy potential. Then maybe lean slightly towards larger
bait or midsize. Also there are times where the forage is generally smaller then maybe lean towards smaller and or midsize. But my problem is that I have to many baits and I switch to often. | |
| | |
| I there a Law of Diminishing returns you think with respect to going big, bigger, biggest and hooking percentage and/or throwing-hooks/leverage-percentage? | |
| | |
Posts: 101
Location: Northern Illinois | I stopped worrying about whether my baits were too large after 10" Northerns kept hitting my lures. Large fish prefer large baits, up to 1/3 their body length. I know some baits are hard to fish for longer than 10 minutes. Take a break with a nice slow moving surface bait. I know about the theory of small baits in the spring, but I do just fine with the big stuff too. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The largest bait I have caught a big muskie on was a Wabull. I'm going to be throwing a Baby Wabull alot this year. | |
| | |
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | I believe the baits should match the size of the prey. Most lakes with big forage will be big bait lakes. Lakes that have small forage will tend to be smaller bait lakes.
Sounds ok. Well why is it so hard to toss small baits. I have learned over the years to study the lake and its forage. Try to match that size with your baits.
If it's a bluegill forage a 10-inch Jake might produce but a 6-inch will get you more fish and even some smart large ones. Sometimes you have to fool those big girls. I am not a believer in big baits, big fish unless I am on trophy waters with large gizzard shad or some other large forge base. | |
| | |
| in Dennis Radloff's presentation this year about the Green Bay system he noted a big jump in success when he started DOWNsizing his baits to something smaller that more closely matched the size of the forage in that particular area (perch and smaller shad mostly).
he described more success in the numbers of fish caught with no impact on size - still catching a full range including big fish.
i'm not convinced that it's always as simple as "big baits = big fish" and the reports of guys like this who are catching tons of fish confirm it. (Dennis reported ~140 fish in a 21 day stretch this fall in his boat.)
i'm going to pay a LOT more attention to forage size this year and try to match that more than worrying whether i should go big or small.
| |
| | |
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Baits to match size of prey is something I don't understand completely. I know if fishing a lake with lots of small shad I'll go small. In wisconsin lakes this is not usually the case. You have perch,walleyes and panfish of all year classes. This is true in any body of water. You will have in spring I feel an abundance of smaller fish but they get picked off fairly rapidally so there numbers are reduced to. With fish of all the different variety and all the year classes I wonder what your trying to match up to. This just really does not seem to be of sound logic to me.
I do agre that there are weather conditions that occur that will drive me to smaller baits. Also certain types of cover at certain times of the years will dictate I go smaller.
Yes I know trout fishing if you have a certain type of bug hatch you try to match that but donot understand it applied to musky fishing.
Pfeiff | |
| | |
| Then what about the 'shocker' theory...make your bait stand out from the crowd? Way bigger, way smaller, totally different profile/colour scheme. I think there are more theories than there are muskies who care much about eating a 5.15 inch fish versus s a 9.21 inch fish! | |
| | |
Posts: 1530
| match the hatch. on st clair the main forage is smaller perch. average sizes are around 6-7 inches. fall is gizzard shad migration. i guess i could say its time of year and pressure. in august i swithch back to 5 inch baits. you would be surprised.. its like which is better straight baits or jointed. whatever works do it if its legal. the variables are endless | |
| | |
| You have perch,walleyes and panfish of all year classes.
yes...but what are they eating the MOST of?
my guess is that you want to represent whatever it is they prefer at the time.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| Every species and size of fish has a maximum size forage they will attempt to eat, and a minimum size that is more trouble than it is worth so to speak. In between that there is an "ideal" size, a preferred size that is a percentage of the muskies own size. (wish I could remember where that article was!!) That preferred size, combined with some of what we see them eating (ducks, loons, huge suckers, etc.) tells me that our lures are generally SMALLER than what would be an ideal meal for a big muskie.
BUT... It all comes down to efficiency. Presenting a giant lure in a way that can trigger strikes, and enough times to be comparable to what you can do with a lure half that size is not something you can do. If you can you certainly can't do it for very long. | |
| | |
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | I think it really depends. Sure, we all have examples of fish eating REALLY big stuff. When you see that it makes you think that maybe we should be using stuff half the length of our leg. BUT, I have caught a lot of big bluegills on jigging spoons meant for walleyes this winter (on purpose). I have also caught a few really tiny bluegills, like the 3" ones you can see through. The bait they hit was well over half the length of this fish, and probably closer to 90%. However, it surprises you, and you wouldn't really expect it right? Not saying that you target 3 inch bluegills, but would you have been targeting that fish with that bait? I doubt it. Up the scale to muskies. Sure, a 40 inch fish will hit a 20 inch bait, but is that really what we should be targeting them with for the most consistent action?
We have all caught really small fish on baits that are way too big for them, but for the most part that isn't common. I generally stick to the more standard sized musky baits, and at the time don't have anything that's a magnum, or supersized anything.
I like to use a small to medium sized bait, that maybe loosely relates to a lot of the forage that the fish I'm targeting are eating. Not that I necessarily am matching the hatch, just using baits I know are in general a common size for the fish to be eating.
A number 10 or maybe up to 12 Husky Jerk for walleyes that are probably eating perch or shiners of that size, a 2 inch curleytail plastic grub for crappies that are in areas with a ton of young of the year perch, and generally 6-9 inch baits for what I assume makes up a large part of a muskies diet in many cases.
Saying all that, I realize a lot of muskies are going to eat 12-15 inch suckers for a good part of their life, so Mag Bulldawgs and stuff like that aren't out of the question at all, and I might start trying some slightly bigger stuff. The HUGE stuff is still a bit much for me though. Maybe if you have a big fish spotted it would work, but I don't think you would be catching me fishing a 2 pound Bulldawg all day. Just seems to me like you would really be cutting your chances with a lot of the smaller fish.
curleytail
Edited by curleytail 3/23/2007 8:10 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Something to consider:
Muskies don't necessarily 'prefer' any particular sized prey, especially when the strike response is triggered.
The predator/prey relationship on any given waterbody won't always dictate what I'm throwing. I don't EVER try to 'match the hatch', too much competition there and just plain not possible. I do try to trigger a strike, and that's determined by how well the fish can see the lure and the overall signature that lure offers.
If, for example, Pelican has a Perch base and the strongest Perch year class is several years old and 9", does that mean that the fish will prefer that year class or simply exploit that year class until the availability is lessened by attrition? What if the next strong year class is 6"? Do they then 'prefer' 6" baits?
| |
| | |
| Muskies don't necessarily 'prefer' any particular sized prey, especially when the strike response is triggered.
aren't you drawing a pretty semantic difference there, Steve?
if muskies are "exploiting" a particular size of food, is it because it's readily available or because they're prefering it? or is it that they prefer whatever happens to be readily available?  there's no meaningful distinction there.
do the muskies _think_ "i like suckers better than bass"? No, they're incapable of that. but that doesn't mean they don't interact with their environment in a dynamic way and become trained by that environment to pursue certain food sources that ensure optimal survival.
if the muskies are turning their noses up at 5" baits, but hitting 9" baits is it because it "better triggers their strike response" or because they're showing a kind of "preference" for one over the other at the time? the bottom line is that one is working better than the other, and likely it's because one is a better representation of whatever it is they're accustomed to feeding on at the time?
would it make good sense to start by thinking about what the muskies are already feeding on, and then incorporate additional triggering aspects like you describe?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, it really wouldn't. I'd ask if the 5" bait isn't triggering the response because of it's signature and presentation not 'size'. Nothing we throw, not even a sucker in a harness, actually mirrors even a little what the muskies are actually eating.
The assumption is that we are matching the hatch, so to speak, and that assumption is loaded with anthropomorphism. A 9" perch makes VERY little noise, and in any possible comparison doesn't even sort of resemble a Perch Slammer or Wabull. Let's use a Weagle. Nope. Wabull? Never seen a Perch do that. Spinner? Uh uh. Topper Stopper? Crank Biat? Nope. All make noises and behave in a manner SO far from the prey the muskies are used to one should never catch a fish. it's because they DO NOT resemble anything natural they work. Stimulous/response.
Now, assuming you are moving fish on a 9" glier, and I'm not on a 5" crank. The signature is totally different. Would a 9" Crank work? Or is it the glider presentation 'working' for you? Would a different style glider work? Maybe, maybe not. | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| My feelings on matching the hatch are mixed -- on one hand, logic tells me to try to mimic whatever forage they are likely eating at any given time -- if its perch, use a more cylindrical perch pattern lure. If its crappies, than use a wider profile with black and white.
But I have some problems with this approach:
1. Then the only thing that differentiates your lure from the prevalent forage is its action. Given the choice betwween any one of a school of real fish and a lure that doesn't behave like a real fish, what is the fish going to choose?
2. I've caught too many fish on things that are orange, chartreuse, that don't look anything like fish (spinnerbaits and bucktails) to believe that matching the hatch with color or shape is really that important. Some of the most realistic looking lures I have have been completely ignored in favor of lures that look nothing like a fish.
I DO believe however that fish will respond to SIZE. If its twice the size of all the rest of the forage in the lake? You might get a fish to follow it, but eating it? Probably not. If it's too small, and there is larger readily available forage? They probably will not bother with it unless you drag it right past their nose and trigger a reaction strike.
Match the hatch, or contrast the hatch????
While my belief may change in the future, I curently believe that the most important things are:
1. choosing a lure that gets to where the fish are (most important)
2. triggering a strike (choosing the right action and working the lure well)
3. picking a size that is neither too large or too small
4. picking a color/pattern that is most visible
| |
| | |
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | Matching the hatch is being brought up frequently. In my previuos reply I might have hinted that I try to match the hatch. That isn't really the case for me. The size of baits I use are generally what I feel is a comfortable size for the fish to be eating, as well as a size comfortable for me to use. Sure, I use bigger baits and smaller baits, maybe depending on the mood of the fish, sometimes experimenting a little if the fish aren't biting. Most of the time though, I fish with the baits enough to see in general what size bait works most of the time, and pretty much stick with that.
Matching the hatch is NOT something I always try to do though. Sure I have walleye colored gliders, perch colored bucktails, ect. Maybe I am trying to match the hatch with those, maybe not. I don't think a fish looks at my perch Suick and thinks "that's a perch." I just feel that that color may be good in certain conditions. Sometimes a color might be "too much." Maybe some days in super clear water with super pressure fish a hot orange or chartreuse bait will keep them from biting, but maybe not.
One way I have always looked at trying to closely match the hatch: Baitfish are camoflauged right? If you buy into evolution, they probably got that way for a reason. None of the hot pink or orange minnows survived because they were easy pickings! I don't think most fish can look at a bait and think, or decide for itself if it's real or fake just by looking at it. I just can't believe that fish think that way.
Color, along with matching the hatch are way down the list on importance to me. I use a color, size and noise level of bait that I think will get noticed. I generally don't want the biggest, loudest, brightest thing out there, but I need fish to know it's there. In some clearer lakes that might be a perch, sucker, or white lure, in dirty water it might be orange, black, or chartreuse.
curleytail | |
| | |
| No, it really wouldn't. I'd ask if the 5" bait isn't triggering the response because of it's signature and presentation not 'size'...
Now, assuming you are moving fish on a 9" glider, and I'm not on a 5" crank. The signature is totally different. Would a 9" Crank work? Or is it the glider presentation 'working' for you? Would a different style glider work? Maybe, maybe not.
correct me if i'm getting this wrong, but you're basically stating that "presentation" characteristics go much beyond just the size of the bait (which, btw, is saying that the original question in this post is a bit over-simplified).
ie., that triggering a strike is a result of a whole host of factors, and that you believe that bait size is less important than other characteristics - particularly noise signature and action. did i summarize that accurately?
my question brings us back to the original "over-simplified" question in this post about when to go with small or large baits: where do you start when trying to narrow down the "right" triggering characteristics? assuming you've got no information about cranks vs gliders or fast vs slow, etc., what _size_ bait do you start your search with?
one possibility i consider is to start sorting through the other characteristics with a bait that is close in size to what i know the muskies are feeding on. run through a progression of bait styles within that size range. it helps you to eliminate one of the factors as a starting point.
another possibility is combining this with likely fish activity levels: ie., if it's summer and warm, go larger; if it's a spring cold front, go smaller. and then again work through the style progression. this is based on collective fishermens' experiences under similar conditions. no need to reinvent the wheel...
after seeing that video you posted this winter of the bluegill fleeing the pike (dead stop, fast flight, dead stop 10' away) i know why bulldawgs trigger strikes...probably action more than size in that case? but...when people report fish responding better to mag dawgs over standard dawgs is it the size? is it the noise? and when people report roughly equal results from mags vs pounders? is size irrelevent?
stupid fish.
| |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| Jeez Lambeau my head is spinning after reading that! This part, though:
"my question brings us back to the original "over-simplified" question in this post about when to go with small or large baits: where do you start when trying to narrow down the "right" triggering characteristics? assuming you've got no information about cranks vs gliders or fast vs slow, etc., what _size_ bait do you start your search with?
one possibility i consider is to start sorting through the other characteristics with a bait that is close in size to what i know the muskies are feeding on. run through a progression of bait styles within that size range. it helps you to eliminate one of the factors as a starting point.
another possibility is combining this with likely fish activity levels: ie., if it's summer and warm, go larger; if it's a spring cold front, go smaller. and then again work through the style progression. this is based on collective fishermens' experiences under similar conditions. no need to reinvent the wheel... "
The MH lure progession standard procedure that we all follow...
I think what you're asking is where we START, right? I start with a moderate size, average. Only time I start small is early spring, major cold front, or if I know from word of mouth that small has been key over the last day or so. I seldom start big. Big is a place I go after I've seen a big fish, or during active periods. I save big for late fall and big fish, mostly because of the effort it requres to work big lures. Why kill yourself throwing a pounder if a regular dawg will work just as well? | |
| | |
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I think if it moves it's food!
Doug Johnson | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doug pretty well summed it up. I throw a lure I can keep where I believe the fish are, and control the speed and depth of that presentation well.
Speed and depth control, contrast, and there you have it. Stimulate that fish's tiny little brain enough/correctly/whatever it takes, and you will get a strike response. Location is my main concern, where are the fish? How can I get a lure effectively in that fish's zone... | |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion |
But,
Doug, does the fish in your world like big food or smaller food.........??????
Jerome | |
| | |
| I think if it moves it's food!
true, the muskie IS the king of it's environment!
so what does it mean when Dennis Radloff describes such markedly different results while trolling in Green Bay based on the size of the lure? you often hear similar reports from LSC by the trollers over there. size matters to them.
all the lures are moving but the muskies respond more to the smaller sizes, and those sizes seem to correlate to the major forage fish in the system.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Trolling how fast with how much line out, with the lure running at what depth, with what pound test line.....and what would happen if one was to make absolutely certain that the baits were running at exactly the same depth and speed, and one bait is 5" and the other 9"? Is it the 'tighter' vibration the smaller bait is sending out?
Is it that those who are using smaller baits are very good at what they do, are catching more fish because of excellent placement, and have settled on smaller baits because of depth and speed control and contrast and because of that they work?
In other words, isn't it just as possible that what the bait does is why it works well as much or more than how big the bait is?
Remember, Waves On the Water Make The Wind Blow...
| |
| | |
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | Steve, this is all a matter of discussion so keep that in mind (I'm not trying to knock your replies). Didn't your original question ask when others favor the really big or really small baits? Others have told you that they have found that sometimes smaller baits excell in certain, probably relatively controlled conditions like trolling.
This is all speculation, but I'm going to guess that if a well known professional guide said smaller baits obviously outfished larger baits, he had the depth and location dialed in, made sure all baits were running the same depth and speed, and was likely using the same colors too.
So you argue that it may be the vibration signature given off by the baits that made the difference, and not the size profile at all? Isn't that getting into more detail than we will ever be able to have an answer for?
The fish can obviously eat a 5 inch bait or a 9 inch bait with no problem. Are we trying to argue whether the difference in preference relates to the vibration pattern given off by the small baits rather than what size we "feel" the fish want to be eating that day?
How will we ever know if it was the profile of the bait the fish wanted or the different vibration pattern given off by each lure? More importantly, what does it really matter? If fish are showing a preference for larger or smaller baits, do we really care WHAT it is about the bait, or just that one or the other works?
Most of us don't have access to swimming pools and underwater sound recording systems, so I don't know the vibration difference between an 8 inch Slammer or a 5 inch Big Game Twitch bait. What I might be able to know however, is if fish prefer one or the other.
If you really feel that it's the sound signature, what is important? The volume, the frequency? I would think that something like a slow, wide wobbling crankbait might have a low frequency sound. Would a small, flat sided glider fished slowly have a similar vibration/sound signature? are you theorizing that a high sided, short glider might be just as effective as a 13 inch Grandma when everybody says fish are going on big baits? That would be the "small bait that fishes big" theory.
I might have just talked myself into a circle, because I don't even know if I'm trying to make a point or ask a question any more. Just thinking and typing, which can be dangerous.
curleytail | |
| | |
Posts: 392
Location: KY | Wow. Lots of good reading on this thread!
Hear is a local favorite. The AC00 is only 3 1/2 “ long!
Attachments
----------------
 Threadfin w AC00.JPG (28KB - 107 downloads)
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I asked the questions because I am not 'speculating'. I didn't say the difference is 'sound signature' necessarily, I was talking total signature.
An assumption can be made when a pattern proves out and small, or conversely, large baits were used for that timeframe. Is it wise to leap to the most obvious and miss important pattern information in the process?
An assumption can be made when large, or conversely, small baits were used, in Perch color? Is it the color?
An assumption can be made when small, or conversely, large baits are trolled a 4.1MPH 13' down over 25. Is it the depth? Is it the speed?
Let's say I'm taking numbers of good fish trolling 4" cranks 18' down over 25. The cranks I'm using are long lipped deep divers, tight wobble pattern. Would a short lipped bait the same size trolled as fast work, if the adjustment to acquire the depth control can be made? Would that otherwise identical short lipped bait work as well if you used snap weights to get it to18'? Is it possible to find a big bait that will run that depth, that speed, and that action? | |
| | |
| I use what I am capable of using without killing myself.
Using a glider is pretty much universal, except for the cast. I've got gliders from 5-10 inches, and now that I made a 10"er that is as easier to throw than an 8" Shaker, I'll probably use bigger gliders mores.
Cranks is different. Big, deep diver just plain wear me out, so they don't get much water time in my boat. If fish are coming deep, I'll throw a jig or a Bulldawg.
Twitchbaits are pretty much the sam regardless of size until you get into the real big ones, so I'll throw bigger ones before smaller ones because I've had issues landing fish on the smaller ones. I'd rather throw something with a minimum of a 4/0 hook on it.
Guess if it was easy, all lures would come in the same size. I like to have the option of small, medium and large. As mentioned, muskies are oportunistic feeders, just like most all game fish, and won't turn down a small offering if they are hungry and don't have to expend a lot of energy to capture it.
I think that this is part of the reason that you see such huge trolling lures. If guys had to cast and retrieve 18" lures, I don't think that they would use them.
Having tackle adequate to cast something that big and heavy could be an issue too.
I'll stick with lures that are user friendly, and hope that the fish are never so picky that they will refuse to eat a six or seven inch lure. | |
| | |
| Match the hatch...lots of lakes have baitfish shaped like 9" Sledges in bubblegum of firetiger with 3 trebles off the belly that rattle when they swim in short jerks hahah. A lot of credit sure gets given to a muskie's brain and thought process. Dick Pearson nailed it, we have zero control over fish location and zero control over conditions, but 100% control over presentation. Any guesses which of the three gets overemphasized ha ha? | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So, big lures big fish? Small lures....big fish? | |
| | |
| Look at it this way -- you can use lures that are too big for small fish, right? Can you use lures that are too big for big fish? Uhhhhhhh, NO, you can't. Look at them, they're BIG. They eat stuff that's bigger than anything you can cast more than a few times. The guys trolling Georgian bay with those huge wishmasters, they're catching fish, aren't they? You think they'd be catching the same size fish trolling shad raps?
Big fish eat big stuff, it ain't rocket science. Take any animal, any person, any living thing on the planet... The bigger it is, guess what, the more it eats.
Looking at fish specifically, what will a fish eat? Any fish, man, what will it eat? That's right -- whatever it can fit in its mouth. If it can catch it and swallow it, it's gonna EAT it. So tell me again how big baits don't equal big fish??? | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't see where I said big fish don't hit big baits. So why so unfriendly, EA? I asked the question why the many of the BIG bait builders also introduced 'baby' versions of the same lure.
I never said a thing about Shad Raps.
Obviously, big lures AND small lures catch big fish.
Answer your own question; if the Georgian Bay anglers were all pulling 9" lures or 7" lures, can you honestly insist they would not be catching big fish? Or will big fish there ONLY hit Big lures?
I see big muskies keying on 4 to 6" shad in some waters, so would a Wishmaster NOT work in that condition? | |
| | |
| My apologies Steve -- not meaning to come across as unfriendly. 10:45, and I am still working, have been since early this morning, perhaps my patience is wearing a bit thin...
Let me start over... a fish, any predatory fish... It will eat anything it is physically able to eat. The bigger that particular fish is, the larger meal it will be able to eat. Does that mean it will NOT eat a smaller meal? Of course not -- it is a predator, it will eat anything. If a smaller meal presents itself as an easy opportunity at the right time? Dinner it will be. But a smaller fish? A smaller fish has a limit of what it is able to eat, and certain meals, certain lures, will be too big for a small fish. Perhaps this is a better way to put it: big fish, on average, will eat bigger lures than small fish will eat on average. I also believe that big fish will be less likely to eat the smallest offerings a lot more often than small fish will.
would the guys trolling Georgian bay catch as many large fish using smaller lures? I have to belive not. If they could, than what would be the point of using big lures?
Now... As for why lure manufacturers are offering smaller versions of their lures? Because people will buy them. It's the same reason they are offering magnum and the recent super magnum versions -- we are musky fishermen -- we'll buy it simply because we like the one we have, and therefore a small one or a big one is something we will want as well.
| |
| | |
| It will eat anything it is physically able to eat.
the stomach sampling research doesn't support this belief.
although the research showed that muskies at times will eat quite large prey, it showed that most of the time they eat more moderately sized food as well as small food sources. there was a strong correlation between the primary forage fish in the lake and the primary food found in the muskies' bellies.
this would suggest that muskies are more opportunistic feeders, eating what's available and easy to catch more than simply looking for big meals or small meals.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That, Mike, is exactly what I've been driving at. And, I was trying to get strike response discussed, because that for SURE isn't driven totally by the size of the bait. | |
| | |
| Manufacturers make changes to baits to offer the angler something different. We buy it and throw it. Enough people throw it and it catches fish. The next thing "fish are hitting huge baits!" or "fish are hitting small baits" and more people buy in to it, perpetuating the theory. If they weren't changing lure size, colour, finish, they would not sell as many lures to us. Fish have a brain the size of a pea and we give them too much credit for being selective. If it moves, it is a potential food source. I use what I have confidence in, typically smaller than what most throw. | |
| | |
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | Guys;
I love these kind of discussions, big or small, what colors, what depth, fast or slow. I'm with the smaller is better group. Most of my fish have come off small bucktails. The fish see them all the time and they still eat them. I think that having the brain the size of a pea pretty much limits their ability to think all these things out. Like Doug said, if it moves, it food!!! | |
| | |
| I think that having the brain the size of a pea pretty much limits their ability to think all these things out.
clearly they aren't "thinking" these things out.
but in order to survive a fish has to have adaptive abilities, that's what it's (albeit small) brain is there for - to help it successfully discriminate what's good for it to do, whether that's eating, resting, procreating, etc.
so if there is a readily available and good-to-eat forage food around, the fish gets trained by success to eat things that look/act/feel like that food. this is a universally known and studied animal behavior, not mere supposition. i'm not saying it won't eat other things, but it will mostly eat it's key food.
imho, using a bait size that is the most food-like is a good place to start.
i'd prefer one that feels/sounds the most but i can't know that without experimentation, but i can know food size ahead of time. | |
| | |
Posts: 292
Location: Minneapolis | I saw a very cool exhibit at the Monterey Bay Aquarium a few years ago that demonstrated to me why obnoxious, fluorescent colors (orange, pink, chartreuse, etc.) work well.
The exhibit had a school of pelagic, whitefish-like fish, that swam around and around a cylindrical tank. The fish always swam against an artificial, circulating current. A couple of the fish were dyed fluorescent pink. That whole school of fish looked like a big, amorphous blob, except the dyed fish. Those stood out like distinct beacons. If a predator was stalking the school, it would have a hard time picking a particular target out of the mass. Not so with the dyed fish; it's easy to focus on, and therefore easy to grab.
The Aquarium did that experiment in the open ocean. The dyed fish were indeed the first to get scarfed. Seeing that made me think its OK to use bright colors anywhere, anytime. They don't always work, but there seems to be a good reason to explain why they may. | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if the fish isn't relating to the bait in a 'feeding' posture? What if the strike or follow is in response to the lure's stimulus, thinking here about stimulus/response theory.
For example, the 'pink' fish in a school of silver fish kinda sticks out, no benefit to shoaling behavior for that one! | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| Obvious lack of cognitive thought ability aside, I do believe sometimes fish bite things out of curiousity... you're a fish, you have four choices when presented with a pink fish:
1. flee
2. ignore it
3. take a closer look
4. bite it
sometimes, whatever chemical and electrical signals make a fish do what a fish does, tell that fish "bite it"... | |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Strike Response. | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| what he said | |
| | |
| Obvious lack of cognitive thought ability aside, I do believe sometimes fish bite things out of curiousity
fish are incapable of "curiosity". that's an anthropomorphism.
if they're biting something it's for one reason and one reason only: the switch in their little brain is flipped.
if they're following or nipping, it's because the switch is kindof sortof starting to get tripped, but isn't all the way.
your goal? trip the switch all the way by making it flash "food".
now, how to do that??? i wish i knew better...
| |
| | |
| I think 'eating' or 'food' is only one of many reasons fish put something in or near their mouths. | |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion |
Dacron,
Whats the other reasons?? | |
| | |
Posts: 8865
| Mike
Mike, you asked how to trigger a feeding response.
The cues that trigger that response can be visual -- from contrast, to movement, to profile, to speed, and even flash.
They can also involve the lateral line - vibration, or in the case of the DC-10's, moving a lot of water.
Then there's the "reaction strike" -- the lure hits the water and WHAM, before you've even moved it it gets hammered.
Then there's sound... Now correct me if I'm wrong (I trust Lambeau and Worrall to be all over that) but muskies do have a primitive ear, and some ability to perceive sound, right?
And.... Smell. Not very well defined in muskies from what I understand, but still present, right?
So use a brightly colored noisy fast lure that moves a lot of water and has flash, vibration, stinks, and lands right on their head!
Being serious now, you need to narrow down which cues are going to trigger the feeding response at any given time, and I think that comes down to lure progression -- rule out the stimuli one at a time until you get a response.
But you already knew that..
Edited by esoxaddict 3/30/2007 2:34 PM
| |
| | |
| Maybe to kill it or move it, like largemouths do around a nest. Suck it in, crunch it a bit, carry it away, spit it out. Roland Martin has a great (old) book that talks about this in a bit of detail. Or maybe since they don't have hands or fingers, a fish might mouth something out of curiosity without necessarily needing or wanting the calories at that time. Maybe some baits just get fish angry that their territory is being invaded, and smack or spear the intruder. Reports of muskies bashing baits with mouths closed come up now and again, I've seen it happen. Just another theory in the pot. | |
| | |
Location: Northern Wisconsin | if you match the hatch isnt that just lowering the chances of getting your bait noticed? sometimes i might want my bait to stick out and get noticed but still want it to look like something they will eat and i try to let the fish tell me that.
when i fish bucktails i try to find what color hair and blade they want
when fishing jerkbaits/twitchbaits i use what im confident in.
just this year my mom and dad were going along a steep dropping shore line casting little pieces of worm up and catching bluegill and sunfish every cast. during this time i was casting off the other side of the boat into open water, well i wasnt seeing anything in the openwater so made a cast right into the area where they are catching all these blugils and panfish and i get a strike from a 40 inch fish on a 9 inch big game in white/black, it looked nothing like what the bait fish were in the area.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | f4m has it very close to right IMHO.
Believe me, we can't 'match the hatch'. NOTHING we do manages to match nature's evolving magic, and that.....
Is why it works. | |
| | |
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | I certainly believe, and agree with you that we can't match the hatch. I have a question you might be able to have a good answer for though, and I guess this is getting a little off topic from the original question but...
We can't make a bait that acts exactly like a perch, though baits can be made to look similar to, or even almost exactly like a perch.
Do you think fish ever get conditioned to a general size or color, and tend to favor that and ignore other things? Like you said, no bait in the water swims like a fish, so just the action alone would be unmatching the hatch to get it noticed. I'm not talking if you think it happens a lot, because we all catch fish on a lot of baits that look or behave like nothing natural. But say you have extremely clear water and highly pressured fish. Do you think using natural colored baits is possibly the right thing, or will you still go for contrast?
Do you believe a bait ever has to look fairly natural size or color wise, or do you always just pick the color that would contrast more with it's surroundings?
On a little side note/example. I have read from a few people, including a couple well known guides about bucktail choice on the Chippewa Flowage. A lot of people are saying that bucktails with a longer, slimmer profile work best. Do you buy into that, or is it just a few guys that started that idea and it spread, and now everyone uses slim tails when on the Flowage?
curleytail | |
| | |
Posts: 9
| I'm mostly a bass fisherman,walleye, and pike fisherman I don't have the patients to fish all day for muskies I like to catch fish so my heaviest Rod can only handle 1 ounce baits so I am forced to use smaller baits I'll probably buy a heavier rod for bigger baits this year. I have fished with lots of guys throwing big baits while I am throwing spinnerbaits and smaller bucktails. I catch as many muskies than these guys. I've boated some nice fish too. If you put a loud lure in front of a aggresive fish it will bite most times if it see's the bait. When I say loud I don't just mean sound it could be a bright lure or a big lure that fish can see from a distance or it could have flashy spinners. Just something that says hey over here. I do think bigger baits have there place though. A fish in warm water or a fish trying to fatten up for winter isn't going to waste energy chasing small food. From what I've seen alot of guys throw baits that are too big in my opinion. | |
| |
|
