|
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | In this day of huge lures of every type and shape how many fish do really catch on huge baits? What is the biggest bait you cast? What is the biggest bait you troll? As a lure builder this information might help me target certain lure sizes more so than others. It seems to me that 9 to 10 inches is the most widely used size for big fish. Does this make sense to you? How many of you use lures over 20 inches? Wishmasters? 14 inch Jakes ? My large Talonz lures? 2 pounder Bulldawgs? And last but not least Where do think it stops? How big is too big? Thanks for your help. Mike King |
|
| |
|
Posts: 433
Location: Cedarburg, Wisconsin | If all you use is big lures all your fish will obviously come on big lures. Same deal for small lures.
All I know is when I trolled them both at the same time in Ontario at the end of August a few years back when the bigger Jakes and Believers were "new/hot" the 8-10" lures got all the action and the 13"-14" lures got nothing. Now that wasn't BIG fish, just low 30 pound class fish on the top end of what we were catching.
I ran oversized Slammers, up to 18" long and never had a sniff on them. I gave them a fair chance running simultaneously against the smaller baits and the smaller baits outperformed them so I just don't see the need for bigger baits than 10" for trolling.
Maybe just the water I fish or the time of year but until I see them outfish the 10" baits I'll be an anti "big" bait fisherman .
Maybe if I was on different water there might be a need and different results. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1086
| I think it all depends on the water each person fishes.
In the waters I fish, I've caught smaller fish on big lures, ie, pounders and 8" to 10" Cranks, and then I've caught big fish (big for the waters I fish) on small lures. As well as the other way around. Not all small fish come on small lures...not all big fish come on big lures.
There's a time and a place for all shapes, sizes and colors of baits...I don't think there's a true, defined answer.
As for where do you think the size stops? Or where should it stop? People will buy anything. You build a 24" lure or larger, you know someone will buy it. Will they fish with it? Possibly? Otherwise, might just be wall-art behind the bar for bar talk. I think as long as rod manufactures, line manufactures and reel manufacture continue making larger, stronger gear to withstand the riggers of the big baits....there'll be a select few that use the huge baits. It'd be interesting to see the stats on the lure as it's used though, ie, hours of use per fish, size of fish, etc, etc.
Edited by MACK 3/26/2010 12:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I won't throw anything over a pound. Dragging suckers or trolling is different story but for me the reward is not worth the stress on my body and equipment. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 956
Location: Home of the 2016 World Series Champion Cubs | Small lures.....yes
Big lures.........yes
Large lures.....yes
The question should also be what percentage of your arsenal AND methods is large baits. Lots of macho guys out there willl tell you go biig or go home. Of that group how many truely practice what they preach and for how long?
I think theres a place for baits in the 14-18" class but peronally would not likely employ them much myself if at all.
Edited by KARLOUTDOORS 3/26/2010 1:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: MN | I've got 10 2pounders 10 mamouth sues and 8-10 14" jakes I don't use them all year but when they want to eat big I know I'll have the tools to get the job done. Also I just feel cool hucking giant baits. In my little corner of MN giant baits rule for a few months of the year.
Kingfisher if you make a 20" crank bait I'll huck it till I get a 50" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | If we are talking about what lures to make in order to maximize sales, then I would recommend making all sizes. But I would lean more towards larger lures because that is where the largest share of the Muskie lure market seems to be right now. If it was me, I would put a solid half of the effort into larger lures and the rest into regular and smaller sized lures.
Why make big lures?
1. Because many experienced Muskie fishermen already have an arsonal of small to mid-sized Muskie lures and are more interested in enhancing their large lure selection now.
2. The "big lure" craze is still going strong and large lures, like the DCG, are still considered the "hot"lures.
3. Many Muskie fishermen, especially those new to Muskie fishing, are more inclined to spend large sums of money on the so-called "hot" lures.
Why make smaller and mid-sized lures?
1. The large lure craze will eventually fade. As people continue to throw those large lures and wear out their reels and bodies, they will eventually go back to smaller and mid-sized lures that are much less demanding. And they will re-discover that the smaller lures can catch fish too.
2. Some fishermen never bought into the big lure craze and aren't even interested in large baits. You will need smaller and mid-sized lures for that segment of the market.
Just my opinion.
Edited by Herb_b 3/26/2010 2:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | I agree with Herb kind of but when it comes to sales my number one seller is a 7" second is 6" with 8" being a distant 3rd. But with the HardHead the large one outsells the other 2 by a lot. Also when I make a few 10" versions of my other baits and people find out they disappear quickly. I have also come to conclusion that Wisconsin is the 7" market (my home state). Minnesota likes bigger. Michigan, New York and Canada likes bigger yet. Illinois and Ohio seems to be all of them. I do not sell that many to base the market on my sales but that is what I have observed along with the bigger bait thing seems to be be growing also.
When it comes to me personally I start with 7" size and if I go larger I would jump into the 10" range (that's why I am working on them). If they do not want a snack give them a meal kind of thing. But really it depends on the food source size and the size of fish I am targeting. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| If your not concerned with numbers and are truly looking to catch the biggest fish in the system, then sizing up makes sense, especially if there are large bait fish present in the body of water you are fishing.
In the April/May issue of Musky Hunter, Tony Grant's article "Early Season Upsizing" talks of a photo from LAX Taxidermy of a 27" carp that came out of the Kentucky state record muskie's belly.
A bait half of that size at 13 or 14 inches, then should really not present a problem for big fish. It's typically a fisherman's equipment that is the limiting factor regarding lure size.
For guys that predominately cast, it's not like you have to throw that big bait all day. But, like what's already been said above, it's nice to have that beefed up option when the big girls want a big meal.
Edited by kyle@bigwoodmuskylur 3/26/2010 4:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 155
| Alot of good input on this thread thnx Mike!Might add some stuff 2maro..But I can tell you I,ve gone >12... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Here is my imput...so take it for what ever you want....
In the past few years I looked at the number of fish over 45 I have, or clients have caught on a regular BullDawg....the numbers were very low...low enough that I don't even have a regular dawg in my box any more....
No matter if it is pressured waters or virgin waters....size does matter. Muskies would much rather eat ONE TIME than eat 6 times and expand that much energy. Bigger baits catch bigger fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | I think there is a time and place for all sizes of baits. I have seen distinct preferences for certain size lures at different times of the year. I have had fall trolling bites where the 10" Jakes in the spread weren't getting a sniff and all our fish came on 14" Jakes. I have had outings where only Supermodels turned fish, then days where it was only 10's and others where it was 8's. The best approach for me has been to keep switching up sizes until the fish show some preference. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | MACK - 3/26/2010 12:43 PM Not all small fish come on small lures...not all big fish come on big lures. There's a time and a place for all shapes, sizes and colors of baits...I don't think there's a true, defined answer. +1 to this. not sure if there's anyone defined answer. I want my arsenal of lures to be versatile for all conditions and that means a variety of shapes and sizes. 3/4 oz. baits up to Pounders. Nonetheless, I think there's some fantastic information in this thread!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| size does matter. the norm on lsc is 6 inch. fall 8-10 inch. thru years of testing thats proven. on a side note action is key.even on the ottawa we did the test. smaller 6-7 inch lures seem to be the ticket mike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Wow!!, a real wide diverse spread of opinions. Kind of what I figured would be the case. I know that very rarely does any one on St. Clair for instance troll anything over 10 inches and even in the fall we get big fish on 6 and 7 inch lures. No one can argue with the double 10 bucktails like the Cow girls but those lures are not really that big. I have several and they are not near as big as a 2 pound bull Dawg.
I scratch my head sometimes in wonderment when I get an order for a 21 inch lure as I used to when I would stand in front of of Rolfs Wishmaster booth at the shows . I have had several of the best Muskie fishermen in the world tell me that they wont fish a bait over 12 inches and that 10 inches is the best all around size for big fish. I too saw a picture sent to me by Johnny Dadson of a 22 inch lake trout taken from the belly of a 54 inch Musky. At first I thought only trollers were big bait users but I think that is no longer the case. Those two pounders are freakin huge!! I saw Dadsons 18 inch Hughes River glider. I guess it will always be a choice each guy will make. I guess Ill just keep making them all from the little 4 inch ones all the way up to 21 inchers. Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I think another question is in order on this subject. What do guys consider to be a big lure? 7" 8" 10, 12 etc? Mike |
|
| |
|
| time and place for everything..some days big baits simply do not catch fish but they will hit and eat a small bait...if you only throw big baits all the time imo you are simply not going to catch as many fish, and big ones, if you would be throwing and trying smaller baits if big baits are not working... muskies can never be pigeon holed to only one size bait ...that kind of thinking is pretty close minded imo... time and place for all sizes of baits... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I sort of think as in economics there's a law of diminishing returns. On certain bodies of water big lures will be a good choice, but in general my experience is that once you get to around 10"-12" you slowly start to eliminate some fish and your catch rate will drop. Real big fish will hit real big lures (unfortunately there not a lots of them), and some smaller ones (not many) will also. But is general once I start to get over the 10" or so size my catch rate starts to drop. I've done a lot of trolling with big lures and haven't catch much even on the LOTWs. Tried casting some real big stuff, but gave up as it's too hard, and didn't catch much. I really think that from a casting standpoint the lure has to be at least something you can throw without killing yourself. 10" suicks, 10" Jakes, or a DCG (and the like) are pretty big lures that can be casted most of the day with proper equipment. Lures of this size seem to get plenty of big fish interested. I've also caught a good number of big fish on lures smaller than these, but none on any bigger. I've trolled with some of the bigger Jakes, Believers, and Grandmas with some success, but never catch any fish bigger than what I've caught with a standard 10" version of the same lure. I sort of think that it gets down to what you can handle with out killing yourself while casting, and pretty much what you have confidense with when trolling. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | I would never say somebody is wrong for throwing any size bait, but I do believe that if you're looking to catch bigger fish, bigger baits are the way to go. I'm not trying to say that you'll only catch big fish on big bait or that you won't catch big fish on small baits...I along with most others have proven this to themselves.
My biggest fish came on a 2-pounder and I've thrown that 2 pounder a total of probably 10 hours...hardly at all! When there's two of us in the boat, we probably spend 80% of the time throwing 11" Curly Sues (around the size of a Pounder). Similar to Mike H, we used to throw regular dawgs and we have one fish over 45" on that size and many under 40". Started throwing more and more magdawgs/9" curly sues and started to catch quite a few fish in the lower 40" range...started throwing pounders and 11" curly sues and have gotten more fish in the mid 40" range along with many from 30" up to 49.5".
As far as the "where does it end" - to me it's not really a question as to whether the equipment can handle it...equipment will always be improving and be able to handle heavier, bigger, more resistant lures. Rather, I think it comes down to the hooking ability of the lure. I do believe that lures could get "too big" for the sole purpose of hooks not covering a large enough portion of the bait or being so big that it's hard to get hooks into a fish.
This being said, I would never tell anyone "go big or go home"...way too much evidence to believe that.
Good topic and glad to hear the differing opinions.
-Jake Bucki |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | After reading Mr. Johnson's reply, I thought about crankbaits. While I don't spend nearly as much time casting cranks as I should, I don't have any experience with cranks larger than 10" but would love to hear if anyone's done well with the 14" Jake, 13" Grandma, any of Mike's baits (Kingfisher), or any other large cranks. So far, it seems like the general consensus is medium to medium-large cranks.
-Jake |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1030
Location: APPLETON, WI | I'd be curious, as well as far as casting the larger crankbaits... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Well, Ive had some interesting reports on a few of the big lures Ive sold. Again some of these make me scratch my head and ask why. For instance one guy who bought a pair of 21 inch Deepthreats called me and then emailed me a couple pictures of 43 and 46 inch muskies that he caught on the same day with one of the 21 inch deep divers. Those fish were barely twice the length on the lure. I have to guess that those fish would have hit anything that went past them but it still makes me wonder. One of my big bait clients caught a 54 inch 40 pounder trolling the shipping channel in Lake St. Clair on a 21. Now that one made perfect sense to me. Another client sent me a picture of 24 inch pike that hit a 14 inch Wishmaster. That one makes no sense at all.
Johnny Dadson got me into making big baits. Its fun to build them and hour for hour I make more money on big baits. I dont mind building them and as long as guys ask for them Ill do it. But still , I have to ponder these questions. Guys like Ramsel and Lazarus, Doug Johnson and many others seem to base their careers around 8 to 10 inch lures.
I agree with one thing that has been touched on here. I dont see how huge lures can possibly hook fish as well as smaller baits. UNLESS , the guy is using heavy enough tackle and the hooks are so sharp they cut with very little pressure.
Muskies are a funny fish. They can be finicky followers and only eat tiny little bass baits on one day and the next day they try to eat their parents. I guess as one of my good friends told me today keep building them all and using everything in your box. I guess I am going to have to get me a 2 pounder bulldawg. I think Ill freak if a fish eats it but it will be real cool ha ha ha . Mike
Edited by Kingfisher 3/27/2010 11:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Wisconsin | anyone know where the photo of the 27 in carp that was in the ky fishes stomach is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Sorry "BN" but I was simply talking about averages....not the 5 to 10 fish a year over 45 that I or clients catch on smaller baits. I didn't say that I ONLY THROW BIG BAITS, I simply said that a musky would rather eat a large meal vs. a small meal. Sure I catch fish on Rat-L-Traps, 6 inch gliders, etc....but when you take a few thousand fish and add up the numbers of fish over 45....a very large percent of them were caught on baits over 8 inches long. Again, I am not talking about the few big ones that ate bigger baits, I am talking on average. Sorry to misinform anybody. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I guess it goes back to what someone else said and what is a "large bait". Mike a 9" bait isn't exactly large imo or to a 50 musky....
reg dawgs are 11" with the tail outstretched...your Shadilac is 11" right? just sayin.
and have you actually asked a musky what it prefers to eat? haha.
I think it can also be a time and place thing too..a few examples..how many fish over 50" have been caught trolling on baits over 9" in the fall up in Green Bay? small cranks rule the roost up there don't they!?!
Look at the size of the cranks that catch the most and biggest fish on Pewaukee...Jeff Hanson in Madison, trolling 6" cranks put 2 over 50 including a tank 52 in the boat last May over open water ... what if he had only been going by your averages MIke and put on 10" jakes...I'm betting he may not have had those 2 over 50"...time and place for em all
look at where and when bigger baits are used for bigger fish...mostly warm water months when I will agree on average a bigger bait is going to catch more fish...but again, going back to DougJ's post and others there is a time and place for small baits...could be the fish in the water you are fishing prefer small forage so small baits will get bit more often or it could be the time of year where a smaller bait may get bit more ...or just the conditions and muskies are not hitting big baits...
size does matter...sometimes a 5" bait is going to get that 50 to hit and 10" jake will only produce a follow
anyway interesting discussion...I like DougJs idea of law of diminishing returns...to me using baits over 14" imo isn't going to put any more or any bigger fish in the boat day in and day out so they don't get used...
Edited by BNelson 3/28/2010 9:12 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | MikeHulbert - 3/26/2010 7:18 PM
Here is my imput...so take it for what ever you want....
In the past few years I looked at the number of fish over 45 I have, or clients have caught on a regular BullDawg....the numbers were very low...low enough that I don't even have a regular dawg in my box any more....
No matter if it is pressured waters or virgin waters....size does matter. Muskies would much rather eat ONE TIME than eat 6 times and expand that much energy. Bigger baits catch bigger fish.
Mike, I pretty much agree with you - especially on the regular bulldawg thing, but I have a question. While you've noticed that not many big fish are caught on the reg. Dawgs, what percentage of time would you say they were being thrown in your boat?
The year before last my size average increased by a lot from previous years. That year I was using a lot of Mag Super Ds and 11" Curly Sues. Before that, I stuck to stuff I could throw with a 1-4 ounce rod. It's not apples to apples though - I started throwing the bigger rubber in deeper water too, and I've started to believe that bigger than average fish spend a lot of time in deeper water for much of the year.
Last year I used the same bigger plastic, and added Pounders to the mix. I didn't catch hardly any fish on big rubber last year but last season was also a rough one on me...
Anyway, I've caught a lot of fish on smaller baits like Mepps Musky Marabous. I've also caught some pretty small ones on Double Cowgirls. I have definately seen an increase in average size when using bigger baits, and it seems like quite a few guys that catch a big average size fish are using big baits a lot (Scott Keiper, Badfish Boys, etc.). I know Jake (Medford Fisher) has been catching a lot of big fish in northern WI the last few years, and he seems to be using 11" Sues and Pounders quite a bit.
I think sometimes you need to use smaller baits to catch any musky, but a lot of times, bigger baits will catch a larger average fish, and won't limit the numbers of fish too much if you use Mag Dawg to Pounder size baits.
I also think WHERE you are fishing the baits can make a difference. I feel that out in open water it often pays to use a bigger baits that moves water and generates more calling power. In weedline type fishing, where you (hopefully) have an idea of where the fish are located, you might not need a bait that gets their attention from 20 feet away.
Interesting topic, and I'm sure we could all think of situations where one size or the other worked better.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Northern IL | Size should be taken into consideration with the weather and water condition at the time. We use a guideline that says more or less, the more active they are, (good conditions) the larger and faster the bait. Big baits will keep smaller fish from striking. Small baits will catch all sizes. When inactive or post cold front a smaller slower bait may save the day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2068
Location: Appleton,WI | one word.wishmasters!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | MikeHulbert - 3/28/2010 3:18 AM
Sorry "BN" but I was simply talking about averages....not the 5 to 10 fish a year over 45 that I or clients catch on smaller baits. I didn't say that I ONLY THROW BIG BAITS, I simply said that a musky would rather eat a large meal vs. a small meal. Sure I catch fish on Rat-L-Traps, 6 inch gliders, etc....but when you take a few thousand fish and add up the numbers of fish over 45....a very large percent of them were caught on baits over 8 inches long. Again, I am not talking about the few big ones that ate bigger baits, I am talking on average. Sorry to misinform anybody.
Mike, what do consider to be a big bait and what is the biggest lure (length) that you cast? The biggest stuff that we fish with(Michelle and I) are the mag bull dawgs. Biggest lures we troll with are 15" but troll mostly 6 through 10" baits. Also do you find that you use bigger baits in Minnesota than Indiana? My sales records show a definate regional preference for smaller baits the furthur south my clients are. I have never sold a lure larger than 12 inches to anyone who fishes south of North webster unless they were going to Georgian bay or the Larry. Even though I would think Brookville would be a great spot for big trolling lures no one has asked for any for that purpose.
My records show that The St. Lawrence and Georgian bay areas account for 96% of all my big bait sales. So does anyone else think that there is a regional preference of southern fish for smaller forage? Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Cannot imagine any justification to apply an "absolute " to bait Size. Be a hero and go big or be versatile and adjust to conditions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | Stay thirsty my friends. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Kingfisher - 3/27/2010 11:04 PM
Guys like Ramsel and Lazarus, Doug Johnson and many others seem to base their careers around 8 to 10 inch lures.
I can't speak for these guys, but if I had to guess I think these gentlemen would disagree with this statement. They are "basing their careers" on understanding fish location and behavior at given times of the year. It is freaky how dialed in some guides can get, and until you experience it firsthand it is hard to appreciate. That is what separates the men from the boys, not a regular or Magnum Bulldawg.
Put a lure in front of a hungry, aggressive fish and it's not going to matter what color it is, how big it is, whether it has holoform tape or a plastic tail, or one painted blade and one unpainted blade. IMO, fish behavior and location should be in the forefront of the angler's mind. Lure choice (and size) should come 2nd.
So to answer the original question, no I do not think size really matters. I think location and behavior is first and foremost, followed by lure choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | esox50, I couldn't agree with you more.
I am most concerned about where/when the fish are active. Secondly, I am concentrating on boat control so as to not spook the fish and present the lure in the best way possible. Lure choice is a distant third.
As others have gone to larger lures, we have actually down-sized in my boat. We now throw spinner baits in the 1-2 oz range more than any other lure and our catch rate has gone way up. And its not like we're catching only small fish either.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | For most, trolling big baits is strictly where its at here. I dont know any serious guys who troll anything under 10-12", specially not in fall. Occasionally 8-9". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I consider Bill Sandy in the same elite group as Lazarus. And I will say that Bill catches alot of fish on Double tens and 10 inch jakes/14" jakes, and 13" grandmas but Bill has put just as many musky's in the boat using the smaller mepps marabous and smaller crane baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2076
| Good post Sean, I would say at least 70% of the time i/we throw 8"+ baits in my boat.... everyone prefers to catch big fish ...so throw big baits right? My records actually show I should quit listening to the "big bait theory" and start throwing more 5-7" baits! - Well other than a Dbl-10
Edited by IAJustin 3/28/2010 10:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I believe that when I looked at the muskie incs list of 50 inch caught this last year I was surprised that there were not that many caught on yhe really huge baits. I don't have it handy to check but I believe thats what I remembered. There were alos not many caught on the soft plastics and that really surprised me.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | esox50 - 3/28/2010 12:34 PM
Kingfisher - 3/27/2010 11:04 PM
Guys like Ramsel and Lazarus, Doug Johnson and many others seem to base their careers around 8 to 10 inch lures.
I can't speak for these guys, but if I had to guess I think these gentlemen would disagree with this statement. They are "basing their careers" on understanding fish location and behavior at given times of the year. It is freaky how dialed in some guides can get, and until you experience it firsthand it is hard to appreciate. That is what separates the men from the boys, not a regular or Magnum Bulldawg.
Put a lure in front of a hungry, aggressive fish and it's not going to matter what color it is, how big it is, whether it has holoform tape or a plastic tail, or one painted blade and one unpainted blade. IMO, fish behavior and location should be in the forefront of the angler's mind. Lure choice (and size ) should come 2nd.
So to answer the original question, no I do not think size really matters. I think location and behavior is first and foremost, followed by lure choice.[/QUOTE
Well of course they rely on fish location but each one of them has expressed the opinion that anything over 10 inches is too big. They base their careers on lures 10 inches or smaller AND they know when AND where to put them ha ha ha . Maybe I should have said they built their careers on lures 10 inches or less. Edited by Kingfisher 3/30/2010 9:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | to some degree one has to look at the % of the time each size bait are used...obviously if the majority of the time the baits in the water are "big" ...well duh they are going to account for the biggest % of fish in the net..if they only throw say 5-8" baits well guess what...same story...I don't question big baits working...i love my pounder and 12" cranks but if everyone on Mille Lacs threw mepps Marabous guess what...big fish would get caught...one has to look at the % of the time each size bait is in the water to cleary say if they are that much better... I know before big baits were all the craze there were hundreds if not thousands of 50 plus inch fish caught on LOTW/Eagle/Lac Seul etc etc etc etc....
I will agree though the larger baits will probably catch bigger fish..but it is amazing how many huge fish each year get fooled on little baits...
Edited by BNelson 3/30/2010 10:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | Hooking and landing percentage haven't been mentioned yet. A certain size of bait might very well get a fish to bite it. But can it stay on long enough for you to land it? Leverage, weight and the mass/bulk of a bait contribute to how well it hooks and holds. I always think of the "o" word when describing a muskie or pike or any predator: Opportunist. If there's an easy mess of small food around, it might well focus on gorging on it. I doubt that if a forty pound fish sees a sick inch sucker on the ropes that's easy to get it will pass it up. If that same forty pounder meets a dying or messed up six pound lake trout and an easy opportunity is there, it will take it also. I've always thought that an easy opportunity is an easy oportunity, whether the food is small, med, large, xl etc. Killing, turning and swallowing a big meal might actually be too much work for a fish. Maybe chasing multiple small fish is too much work. There's no answer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Nordeast Minneapolis | I seem to keep increasing my lure sizes... bucktails get bigger, crank baits get bigger, etc. etc. Then I go fishing with my father, who has steadily downsized his lures. He'll be throwing a Mepps #5, or standard size Reef Hawg, and consistently outfish me. Which just goes to show.... I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.
As a side note, I once caught about a 16" smallmouth trolling a 10" Jake on Mille Lacs. The smallie didn't seem to care much about scale. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Gus, do consider a 10 inch Jake to be a big bait? From what I am Gathering 10 inches seems to be the jumping off point. Anything over 10 inches is big anything under medium to small. I think a 10 inch lure is pretty big in fact many 10 inch lures are bigger than the fish they trying to mimic. For instance my 12 inch Deepthreat next to a 12 inch Jumbo perch is much bigger in profile. Hook setting qualities were mentioned a few threads back. I cant see where huge baits can possibly hook and hold as well as smaller ones unless the angler employs super heavy tackle and knows how to use it.
But Im not trying to shoot down any type of lures just doing some honest research. I value every opinion on this post. Knowing what areas we need to improve in helps us to build and field better and better lures every year. W e just found out yesterday once again that on at least one certain lake in Indiana that small lures get bit and big ones dont. We had 8 contacts and boated one fish all on baits under 6 inches. Not a sniff on anything over 6 inches. These fish also preferred lures with a bluegill profile and coloration. But like the stubborn man I am I tossed dawgs and double #8,9 and 10 Bucktails 9 inch glides and my weagle all to no avail. My wife meanwhile hooked and lost two fish on a 5 inch crane and a new prototype 4 inch shallow suspending Rippin Shad. Her fish in the net came on a standard deep diving 4 inch rippin Shad and we lost two others on the same lures. I could have left 5 tackle boxes at home. But on the same token maybe that lake changes and by summer bigger baits work there. I know I wont be getting rid of my big stuff but I might be using lures 10 inches and under more often than not. Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 4/2/2010 1:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| A time and place for everything. I've caught big fish on small lures and small fish on big lures. I tend to go bigger as the season progesses, and on some lakes throw nothing under 8" just because of the trophy potential. I still don't think that a properly presented lure on the small side would be passed up by a big muskie in the right state of activity, it happens every year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 102
Location: Bowling Green, KY | I thought I'd chime in here. I mostly fish the rivers here in South Central Kentucky and personally feel that if you fished around here with nothing smaller than an 8" lure that you would be firmly convinced that every musky around here had died. I know, I've tried. I told myself, "a musky is a musky no matter where it swims" but theres only so many beatings a man can take by your partner in the back of the boat throwing a J-13 rapala.
Edited by Performance_Tuned 4/6/2010 8:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | "Lots of macho guys out there willl tell you go biig or go home."
There is a time and place for both large and small baits. A perfect example is Lake St. Clair....Been fishing LSC for 10 or so years now and Wiley's been shipping plugs out there since the late 80s....the hottest lures out there are the 5.5" and 6" plugs. WHo knows why!?!?!? I've tried running bigger baits in the spring and summer...they just DO NOT produce like the smaller ones do for me and most others. Now come Fall, the fish will start hitting those bigger baits, but the 5.5s and 6s clearly outproduce. The Kawarthas, on the other hand, seems to be the place for the bigger baits all year round...funny thing, but being prepared for whatever is the key.
Oh by the way, the hog that was caught by my partner on Good Friday was caught on a little 5.5" jnt'd lure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| ShutUpNFish - 4/7/2010 1:03 PM
"Lots of macho guys out there willl tell you go biig or go home.
I live near Chautauqua lake, NY, and have been fishing this lake hard for muskies since 1969. The lake is good for numbers but not much for size. The average fish here is 35-36". Through trial and error when trolling, have found small lures, (5-6") to consistently out produce bigger baits from opening day thru the end of the season. My two all time favorite trolling lures here are the J-13 rapala with the rings, hooks, switched out to size 5 Bucher rings and eagle claw 2/0 374's. The other is the rapala shad rap with a 2/0 eagle claw tail hook and a 3/0 belly hook. These two lures are 5 1/4 and 5 1/2" respectively and have produced several hundred fish for me up to 52" over the past 20 yrs. I fish alone a lot and small lures are a joy to troll with especially when you have a floating weed problem like we do here, running two rods and pulling lines every 5 minutes.
I guess the whole point of this is, you really don't need big lures to catch a big fish, especially on numbers lakes where the odds of catching a nice fish, say 48" plus are remote.
Edited by swen swensen 4/8/2010 11:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The best lure size is probably dependent more on the common bait size than anything else. If the Muskies are typically foraging on larger baitfish, then larger lures may be more productive. If the Muskies are foraging on smaller or mid-sized baitfish, then lures in that size range may be the most productive. And then maybe a different size will get their attention better just because its different.
The worst thing one can do is to decide that one will never use a larger lure (10 inches or larger) or never use a smaller lure (under 8 inches). Either way one is most likely limiting their chances of being successful.
The truth is that whenever you have a lure in the water, no matter what size or color, you have a chance of catching fish. For instance, I have caught many more Muskies while fishing in the middle of the afternoon in sunny skies than I have while watching my kids play soccer in perfect fishing conditions.
Edited by Herb_b 4/8/2010 12:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | But lakes and rivers have food available 365 days a year that ranges in size from small to med to large to xl etc. A muskie in LSC could have four inch shad, twelve inch perch or a four pound walleye/sheephead. A fish in Georgian Bay might eat 6" smelts, 12" bullheads or an eight pound whitefish. On prime spots, all sizes, shapes and colours of food will be present to choose from. The meal that happens to make the mistake or be the easiest will get eaten. Muskies eat based on opportunity, as do all top-end predators. When a grizzly gets on bugs or berries, a 2000lb bear will eat berries. If an elk is sick and weak, the 2000lb bear eats the 500lb elk.
A fish's #1 coice is usually gonna be the most opportunistic option at any given time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | JBush - 4/8/2010 12:29 PM
But lakes and rivers have food available 365 days a year that ranges in size from small to med to large to xl etc. A muskie in LSC could have four inch shad, twelve inch perch or a four pound walleye/sheephead. A fish in Georgian Bay might eat 6" smelts, 12" bullheads or an eight pound whitefish. On prime spots, all sizes, shapes and colours of food will be present to choose from. The meal that happens to make the mistake or be the easiest will get eaten. Muskies eat based on opportunity, as do all top-end predators. When a grizzly gets on bugs or berries, a 2000lb bear will eat berries. If an elk is sick and weak, the 2000lb bear eats the 500lb elk.
A fish's #1 coice is usually gonna be the most opportunistic option at any given time.
You would think exactly that....and in most cases, I would agree 100%. However, I fished for enough years to know that there are certain places/times where big vs. small baits just do not produce for me. I don't even take my bigger baits to Lake St. Clair anymore because I know that I would only be wasting my time....not saying they WON'T catch fish....just saying that the smaller baits will catch more and big fish as well. (I told a little white lie....sorry...I still carry a small box with just a handful of larger baits hidden away-just in case ) So hard to resist running them when things get slow out there, but have yet to have any consistant action on them at St. Clair....Why? Who the Hell knows...I just go with what my experiences have taught me. Just my .02....Tight Lines. |
|
| |
Does size really matter?