|
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Having a discussion w a couple musky buds about this....one was saying in a particular season he had 71 total follows and caught, 55 fish...so he had action from 126 fish..almost a 1 to 1 ratio..which boggled my mind since the last 5 or so years I've been keeping track of follows, strikes, misses, lost, caught...and for my boat it usually ends up at the end of the season in the 5 to 6 fish follow for every one that hits the net...
ie, 600 follows, 125 in net...
best season was around 168 in net, but total action from 850 or so fish.
curious what others have seen for a season...could you get it to a 1 to 1 ratio? seems crazy for a caster to move 2 fish and catch 1 of the 2...???? again over the course of a season, not an hour, or day or week...averages...
Edited by BNelson 6/8/2011 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1245
Location: Madtown, WI | That is very hard to believe.... 1:1..... Not that there isn't some crazy stuff that happens in this sport, but 1:1 sounds out there!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how many chicks contacted for every one netted smellie? is there a potential corellation there? could you be onto something much more cosmic??
Editors Note:
Chickens?  |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Sled..funnny. I'm much better at catchin muskies! ;o) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| I Don't log follows but I know I'm at about a 1:1 ratio. Have lots of days with 2 or 3 boated with no follows. They either eat or I don't see much. Hearing guys like you makes me wonder whats up that I don't raise that many fish. I know guys who get 10-15 follows a day with not many in the boat and I'm sure they'd like to trade me lol. You've managed to get the best of both worlds though!
I count everything 30 and bigger and last 3 years my "average" has been right at about 45-46. Was thinking maybe that was a factor but I'm pretty sure some of you guys are running good average sizes and getting lots of follows so not thinking that's the reason. Weird.
Edited by musky-skunk 6/8/2011 1:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm at probably 7 to 1 lifetime, and it depends on the water quite a bit. One year we were literally 1 to 1 in my rig, but that was, apparently, magic caused by some cosmic interaction I can't repeat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2088
| Definately depends on water you are on and time of year! LOTW you can catch ALOT of the follows some weeks 80% ..Also, thinking of one lake in the fall... if you can get them coming it's usaually game over! 70-80% of the follows eat!....getting them coming is the hard part. On the other side... I was on a heavily fished MN lake one september week and had 20+ lazy follows every day - you were doing well to get one or two to eat!......it wasn't about technique the fish just saw the boat and did the "slow sink" out of sight ....even the ones I caught....4 just decided to spin back around and eat.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2088
| Other variable would also be baits used .....I assume 1-1 for a season the guy threw ALOT of 10's |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Depends a lot on fishing style as well. I am at a minimum of 1:1, but may be closer to a 2:1 or higher ratio but the other way of two fish to every one that follows. And the only reason for that is because of me heading shallow on occasion. If you do the deep water thing correctly you will get few follows in an entire year. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | actually no Justin, that was 06...pre double 10 craze...
yes, Travis I understand you don't get many follows out over the abyss but action and catching fish is fun...I guess there are more variables to the debate but let's just say casting, and not open water casting....
Edited by BNelson 6/8/2011 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2088
| I almost wrote blades .....my point being if your go to bait is a Weagle or glide bait I dont think you could carry a 1-1 ratio very long ...blades however you almost expect them to eat in the 8....its more of a suprise when they eat away from the boat to me.
to me some baits move a lot of fish but converting follows to strikes is a lower % ..take those baits out of your arsenal and 1-1 may be possible....I agree with you though that is a very high %
Edited by IAJustin 6/8/2011 2:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | How the heck can you just ignore a complete presentation method?   Does "confined" open water count? How about deep structure fishing?
Let’s just say what is your catch to follow ratio just using bucktails on Saturdays that fall on a full moon phase, and a slight southerly wind!
You should have known I would have thrown a curveball at ya!
Edited by CiscoKid 6/8/2011 2:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Travis, so you are saying that over the course of a season you and those fishing in your boat only get "a few" follow? I guess that seems a bit fishy..
I won't ignore your presentation preference but it's just another one to throw in the mix for an avg... I will agree that the open water fishing I have done I did get about a 1 to 1 ratio of hits to follows...not the same in shallower water
Edited by BNelson 6/8/2011 2:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi | Brad, I'm right there with Travis. While I do fish some shallower water, I tend to fish more deep breaks, structure, and open water, and my results have been the same. Either we're catching them, or staring at water. We do get some days where the fish will follow for some odd reason, but we usually get those to eat in the 8 as well (speaking of deep water fish).
Shallow water, we tend to "see" more fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | In general yes we get very few follows if any out suspended. Even when I fish shallow I get few follows. An aggressive approach of jerking cranks either triggers them or turns them off I feel. There are always exceptions on some lakes where the lake is notorious for followers suspended, but on the flip side there are some lakes I am not so sure I ever got a follow even though we have boated fish from the lake.
Sure I could get follows out deep, but what fun is that? Followers for the most part to me just mean I didn’t work the bait right to trip the trigger of that fish. That same presentation and theory is what I usually do while shallower as well, and likewise have similar results.
Also what is so "fishy" about not getting follows? What is there to gain in saying I don't get follows? Sometimes on the tough days we don't get a fish and someone asks how we did I would love to say "We saw 20 fish but none ate". Instead I get to say “ We didn’t get anything”, and when they come back with “did you see any fish” I get to reply “Nope".
To each their own I guess. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I guess it just seemed a bit of a stretch to say you could fish a whole season and only get "a few" follows...maybe I took it more literally than you meant...
open water is def different than shallow....I will agree that if all a guy is doing is getting follows and no strikes he's not figuring out what they want...but some days they simply won't open up....I know we've had lots of days we see 20 or more and no strikes...getting them to eat is important but finding where they are is also critical. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| It depends on the water and presentation, as has already been said here, quite a bit. I'm much closer to 7:1 follows:catches lifetime as well, if not even higher. I had a weekend on Bemidji last fall where we had 35 follows, and not one actually made it into the net. That is the worst ratio I've ever had by a long ways, but then again I've had several fall trips to LOTW with days of zero follows and 2-3 in the boat twitching DD and DDD's. I love it when they just crush it immediately or halfway back, and you don't have to worry about getting them to commit, and of course days of seeing AND catching nothing all day gets tiresome as well. Figure-8 strikes are amazing too though. Thankfully, they are muskies and ultimately do whatever they want to do, so sometimes its follow, and sometimes they only move to eat.
Ryan
Edited by Fishwizard 6/8/2011 3:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| So, far this year has been really weird for me. 8 fish in the boat and only 2 follows plus few that got off. Either they have been striking or just not chasing at all for me. Over the years it seems like totally the opposite for me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3926
| How do you factor in the deep follows that you don't see? These would be the big lazy fish that come in 6+ feet deeper than yer bait as you go into yer 8. Most people don't even know those fish were there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I think you count the deep follows you don't see the same as you count the fish that you don't catch, so they even eachother out in the ratio game.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3926
| Deep follows few folk watch for, follows you can't see due to turbid water, follows you can't see due to blooms and follows you don't see at night. Bunch of unmeasured contacts.
TQM drone: "data must be proven accurate, valid and reliable prior to evaluation and subsequent decision-making"
Still like the idea, just can't make it jive within basic stats rules. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | 6-8 follows/misses per catch i'd say. similarly to the rest of you guys, lots of lazy followers, or a miss on a WTD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | About 4 to 1 in Wi, 20 to 1 in Mn. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | IAJustin - 6/8/2011 2:13 PM
I almost wrote blades .....my point being if your go to bait is a Weagle or glide bait I dont think you could carry a 1-1 ratio very long ...blades however you almost expect them to eat in the 8....its more of a suprise when they eat away from the boat to me.
to me some baits move a lot of fish but converting follows to strikes is a lower % ..take those baits out of your arsenal and 1-1 may be possible....I agree with you though that is a very high %
That's interesting to me. I don't log physically log anything, but over time I would guess my rate of fish following blades to catching them on blades is in the 6-7 follows per fish rate, but my rate on jerks/dawgs is probably 2-1. Almost the opposite.
The blade rate is probably a little skewed though, since in the spring it seems like I have a lot of fish follow blades without going and come September and October they just slam them. |
|
| |
|
| I believe that this thread really has so many different factors that need to be figured in such as : Baits used, water temps, open water vs shoreline structure. The number one factor I believe is lure selection. People such as myself that use very high percentage lures that I am able to cut down on the overall amount of followers and turn them into biters! I may not have the action from nearly as many fish but my overall bite percentage is very high. Baits such as the Creeper, Hawg wobblers, Pacemakers and topraiders it seems that I have very few follow and many biters, whereas when I am bucktail fishing I may have 5-6-15 follows per bite. I look at just this last weekend up here in minnesota where many people were cranking bucktails or using jerkbaits and seeing many fish but couldn't get them to commit, whereas my boat partner and I changed to a different presentation where we saw literally 5 fish "FAR LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE" and had 3 of them bite and boated a 50 and a 46.5. There was a part of the summer last year where I literally wasn't getting any follows for a week but I did boat 8 fish from 45-52" while other people i know said they were seeing 20+ fish a day and not boating any. The best advice I can tell you is just look in your tackle box and grab the baits that you have had the most success with and let em fly. This will up your overall numbers of catches to follows guarenteed.
Another thing to look at is the mood of the fish, usually if I have 3 follows and no strikes I tend to change things up such as color, speed, lure depth....etc. Too many people get caught up in saying, "Yeah we saw a ton but they just wouldn't bite", and i always ask them what they used and most of the time it was the same bucktail of crankbait all day because the fish were chasing them. Where had they downsized or upsized, changed colors, speed, lure depth or just change all around tactics they probably would have caught some of those followers. I have had days on the water where I have seen 20+ fish screaming in on bucktails but not eating, so I switched up topwater or crankbaits and boated 6-8 fish. Don't be afraid to change tactics to trigger those fish,
To answer the original post, I believe yes there are baits out there that will get you down to that 1:1 Ratio, its just a matter of do you have the patience to fish them. In my opinion often it is the follows from those giant fish that keep people from not going insane on that water. I however would much rather have one shot all day at a giant fish than see action from 15 smaller ones. I hope that what I have shared will help many of you come in contact with more biter and less followers. Good luck fishing this summer and catcha monster!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| There's sooooo many factors to this.
When I'm fishing hardheads, I get near zero follows. Often I'm fishing deeper cover or am off the break. Its just a thud and a hookset. Hair and topwater.....lots of follows. Gliders....even more.
Level/amount of pressure on your body of water also factors in, majorly I'd say. I spent a short stint in NW Ohio and fished the lakes in NE Indiana. 20-40 follows a day is not uncommon there at certain times. Especially when Webster was in its heyday. But hookups were scarce, also depending on the day.
Interesting topic, but its like asking what the best muskie bait is....
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Mike,
agreed that you can choose baits that can get more bites than follows but then are you sacrificing simply catching other more active fish by doing so? food for thought...if you get your contacts/bites to 1 : 1 I would bet a lot of money the total number of fish you catch per seaons will go down vs. a higher # of fish moved.....and there is no way to say you will simply be catching bigger ones w/ the 1 : 1 ratio...in fact I think you'll catch more big ones the more fish you contact...when I look at some of my trip totals the last 3 or 4 yrs we contacted/moved and caught a lot of fish based on the hours on water and we also had a large % over 50" in there too...
imo you can have the best of both worlds...moving fish...and catching them when done right...
I'd argue that if you are not moving many but getting a bite or 2 a day you are missing lots of shots at other fish....?
I also agree, I shake my head when I hear a couple guys moved a ton of fish but couldn't get a single one to hit...we are out there to get hits, not follows..(unless they were using mantas, ha ha) .but finding them is half the battle imo.
Edited by BNelson 6/9/2011 11:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I don't know Brad who is to say because you have more followss that you are contacting more fish? Who is to say that me out in the basin jerking cranks isn't having a follow every other cast, but they peel away halfway to the boat. Or that they miss the bait, and don't keep coming to the boat after?
Follows are just a confidence thing. Some need it to stay in the game, and some don't. I am not the strongest minded, nor the weekest. However if I am in a tough stretch of not catching anything I may just stick a bait on that is good for follows in the basin and chuck it just to make sure I have the location factor correct. Usually I do.
I don't think there is anything that backs up the more follows you get through the year the more fish you will likely boat compared to if you get less follows. Quite the opposite for me actually. Way back when I decided to persue deep water fishing and change my way of retrieving baits I intstantly, and quite drastcially, increased the number of fish boated in a year. Quite conversly my numbers of follows decreased drastically.
Quite simply shallow water fish react differently than deep water fish. That is a huge factor here. I may just agree with you that if you fish shallow you will most definitely have to contact more fish to catch them. Or alter your presenation aay from the norm. Afterall these fish are usually the most pressured fish. Go out deep to the less pressured fish and you may just find that every other fish that you contact is an eater, or on some days it seems every fish you contact is an eater! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 551
Location: Columbus, Georgia | Converting follows into the net at a 77% ratio (initial post claim):
Can't say I have ever known anyone who could make that claim and still keep a straight face ...
Edited by cjrich 6/9/2011 12:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| The measurement of success is subjective to each person’s interest. Most would say the ultimate goal is to boat fish. Some are happy even on a day with nothing but a ton of follows. Some guys might only be happy if they put a +50”, or +50lber in the boat. Just cause one guy can’t be satisfied without catching Girtha every time he wets a line, doesn’t mean that the guy who is thrilled with a day seeing 15 fish and only putting hooks into one of them is a poor fisherman.
Two scenarios: One guy has a day with 3 hits out away from the boat that all make it to the net and one other deep flash off that he caught a glimpse of; The other guy had 25 follows and managed to convert 3 fish (similar sized to the first guy) into hitters and put them in the net. Who is more successful here? Well what if, among the 22 fish that the second guy couldn’t get to convert, a couple of them where supertanker +54” types? Who is more successful then? Finding out spots where the monsters like to frequent is a huge success in my book, even if I don’t ever see or contact that individual fish again. Sure I didn’t catch it, so I was ultimately “unsuccessful”, but where there’s one there’s often likely to be others sometime later.
Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.
By itself, the follow to catch ratio doesn’t say much of anything about muskie fishing success. Just like if all you look at is slugging percentage, or batting average, OBP, or the number of walks, etc., etc. without looking at the rest of the factors that make up the player, you can’t really say how good of a baseball player the guy is. If all you judged pitchers by is batting average, then the pitchers are the worst baseball players on a team, versus the reality that pitching wins championships, not a single guy’s batting average.
Back to the fishing, I want to catch big fish. There are days that I might catch 3 low 30” fish and be unhappy because I didn’t contact any bigger fish. Some days, and on some lakes, 3 fish in the net is 3 fish in the net. On another day, just having a good shot at a giant is what actually can make the whole trip worthwhile.
Ryan
Edited by Fishwizard 6/9/2011 1:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Travis, so since you fish mainly open water pretty much all the time, and I spend my time fishing quite a bit shallower on avg, (not over the basin)
you're good at what you do, I'm pretty good at what I do...
just hypothetically....if you were to spend 500 hrs per season and I spent 500 hrs per season could we simply look at how many we put in the net based on that same # of hours? or, have you looked at fish per hour in your boat? might be another way to figure that variable out.. you don't think that contacting more fish equates to more in the net by your above statement...if you put 80 in the boat and I put 160 isn't that argument settled and vice versa...if you put 160 and I put 80 then maybe I'd be out there over open water w you..but I doubt that is the case...just random thoughts about your comment that more contacts might not mean more in the net...I'd agree for an avg or below avg fishermen that is the case...but an above avg fishermen w more contacts will simply convert more into striking by a number of factors....of course no way of knowing with 100% certainty but imo it seems logical.
imo more contacts will equate to more fish in the net, if you are a good fishermen....
interesting tho to see that most are agreeing that 5 or more contacts for 1 in the net
Edited by BNelson 6/9/2011 2:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I don’t keep track of hours, follows, or anything for that matter anymore. I don’t see the point to. Just my opinion. So perhaps I am not at a 1:1, or a 2:1 caught to follow ratio. Just best guess here.
Not arguing Brad you are clearly a better fisherman. I don’t put the hours in anymore that you do. I don’t catch as many fish as you do either.
Would be interesting to see the results if we each put 500 hours in a season, and compared notes. However as others have mentioned the water you fish can make a big difference. It can make you look like a hero, or a zero. To me it don’t much matter.
I like Fishwizard's post on Ty Webb. It's what it comes down to for some of us.
Edited by CiscoKid 6/9/2011 2:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Travis, wasn't saying I was or wasn't a better fisherman...what would be interesting to me was more your claim that having more follows/fish contacted wouldn't correlate to more fish in the bag...to me, it does....
granted we fish differently, and you spend your time over open water and I'm a weedline/breakline guy...it's going to be a different ratio for us....
I don't buy the waters fished argument much...but that's a whole other discussion...
in any case... interesting perspectives by all....thx for posting
Edited by BNelson 6/9/2011 4:34 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "I don't buy the waters fished argument much...but that's a whole other discussion..." It sure is... I can tell you with absolute certainty that I've encountered an area in Canada where the fish almost never follow and there's almost no reason to figure 8. Basically every contact is strike with a very high percentage in the boat. This is not just a couple times/years either, and the sample size is very large. In some of the water I fish in Wisconsin though, I would guess that I'm closer to 10 to 1. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I wasn't saying the waters fish don't matter on follows..it was more aimed at something else...no need to go there in this debate.
i agree, some waters (usually high pressure waters) you get more follows than strikes, less pressure = more strikes.
Edited by BNelson 6/9/2011 4:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1309
Location: WI | Last season we boated 33 fish out of 117 contacted (follows, lost, strikes). That covers 3 bodies of water and 315 hours of fishing. I think I only counted fish that were 30" and up when I totalled that.
Even on the same body of water, I've noticed lots of follows 2 years ago, and fewer last season. I think the weather had more of an affect on that than the fishing pressure. I think when it was warmer (higher metabolism?) they would just eat instead of follow.
Edited by JKahler 6/10/2011 4:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I don't see that a follow,... equates into a contacted fish ?
A contacted fish in my( Old School way of thinking )would be a fish that actually "Contacted" or "TOUCHED" my bait..........Follows just don't count.
When I was single just because Chicks "Followed" me didn't mean squat,.... The only ones that really counted were the ones that I "hooked "
Sorry for the different twist,.......But you guys that "Count" follows really need to chill out.......... or...... get some, once in a while. Remember..... it's just a fish.
Jerome
|
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | That's good Jerome! I love the comparison... I wish I made as many "contacts" with the girls back in my day as I have with the skis. LOL! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Top H2O - 6/10/2011 8:10 PM
Sorry for the different twist,.......But you guys that "Count" follows really need to chill out.......... or...... get some, once in a while. Remember..... it's just a fish.
Jerome
Couldn't agree more Jerome! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 378
Location: Michigan | The last two weekends have been horrible for landing fish, using mostly jerkbaits... Last weekend, 20 hours on the water, raised 16, contacted/hooked 9, boated 4. Yesterday, raised 12, contacted 8, boated 2. The fish are spawning or coming off the spawn, and they are curious but not hitting hard, if at all. They are slapping at baits... This is much worse than "normal", but I would still have to say 4:1 overall. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 112
Location: Nielsen's Fly-In Lodge, on Rowan Lake | Who cares just go fishin and have some fun !!!!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Count me in the camp of wanting fish in the bag as opposed to sticking out my chest with a tattoo of the number of follows. A follow is a fish that didn't make it in the bag. To that fish your bait presentation wasn't good enough. The Pittsburgh Steelers aren't running around bragging about making it to the Super Bowl, they weren't good enough that day. Maybe just getting there is good enough if you are in Minnesota but it's about sealing the deal.
A few years back I severely altered the way I approach my time on the water. I broke away from the things that we all have read about fish location, where they should be in post frontal conditions, where they should be with wind blowing, etc. Those days I was consistently seeing fish all the time. When I changed I am no longer seeing as many fish but more are hitting the net. It's about working percentages. If you are on an edge where you have 20 muskies that are willing to follow but only 10% are willing to eat (that's 2 fish), is that better or worse than putting yourself on a different edge where you have 10 muskies but 40% (4 out of the 10 fish) are willing to eat? I began seeing fewer fish but more were making contact. I'll take the odds that work in my favor any day over what "should" work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | For me:
Follows to landed fish: about 15:1
Strikes to landed fish: about 4 to 1
I struggle at hook-sets sometimes.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Don Pursch - 6/12/2011 4:09 PM
Who cares just go fishin and have some fun !!!!!
Well spoken |
|
| |
|
| i've heard the same thing from Paul Klein as what Travis is saying: "contacts" just doesn't correlate into caught fish over open water...so it's really comparing apples and oranges when comparing fish that behave differently in pretty different environments. pointless, really. for fish that are on/near structure i think it's self-evident that more "contacts" equals more caught fish. if you're not contacting fish it's most likely because you're doing something wrong; you can't catch what isn't there! start doing something right and you start seeing fish; start seeing fish and you'll start catching fish. sure, some of the fish you "contact" aren't interested in eating, but eventually you'll get some of them to go if you make the right moves. imho, when fishing on/near structure if i'm not seeing fish i think the stupidest thing i can do is to keep fishing the same way whether that's structure type, speed, depth, whatever. if the fish aren't showing it's not time to move spots, it's time to CHANGE. for example, on Saturday i was out for 4 hours and was only catching pike over the shallow weeds. i always assume that's a bad sign for muskies, so rather than moving and doing the same thing in a different spot, i pushed out to deeper water on the same spot and almost immediately raised a muskie. i know that's not exactly rocket science, but i think it's very easy to fall into the trap of fishing in the same kind of way, same kind of spot over and over and over and over..."the fish are going to eat my bucktail over 5' deep weeds or else!" hey, guess what, sometimes they aren't in the weeds in 5' of water. it's true that better fishermen definitely contact more fish and then they also convert a higher percentage of those contacts into catches. what's surprising or even interesting about that? most people understand the idea of working a progression to try and contact fish; i think the challenge that most of us face is limited time on the water on a given day or over the course of a year to get better at contacting and staying on fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | So where do lost muskies fall into this whole deal?
Is it a follow, or is it a boated fish?
This all still boils down to waterbody you fish, and technique. Because both vary so much is the reason you see so many different answers here.
Edited by CiscoKid 6/13/2011 1:20 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | lost fish got into the you suck category....
yes, we get it Travis, you fish open water..neat. you don't get many follows...neat.
you also are missing out on chances at lots of big fish caught shallow too...
as I'm probably missing out on some opportunities over open water... 2 ways to get it done.
as to water body making a difference...to some degree yes, but it still boils down to the guys moving the most catch the most if they have half a clue...imo rarely is it the guys that come in and say "we didn't move any but caught 5"....as opposed to the guys that come in and say "we moved 20 and caught 5"....usually it's the latter...
if you look at the replies it looks like most are in the 5 follows for a fish in the boat ...which is what I have seen over about 5 yrs...and I fish on avg 15-20 bodies of water a year from metro lakes to potholes in vilas....
Edited by BNelson 6/13/2011 12:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | data is interesting and aids learning. take away the bias and consider the numbers and the source of the data and then either learn or not i guess. i'm one who doesn't keep track of much of anything but can draw from experience and comparing what i think my experiences are to the data presented gives me a gauge to compare to someone with more time and better developed skill ... it's a helpful gauge.
prior to learning some things from some experienced people (nelson on crank baits - herbie, cal and mikie boatside) i would say my confidence was neutral, now it's borderline cocky (i know that's hard to imagine) when a fish comes to the boat on a follow. there are more mechanics that have been converted to habits and i'd say from experience that my hit-rate has improved.
improving is a good thing especially when time goes away and opportunities are fewer than they were when i was a junkie.
still applaud those who go get their fix like smellie nellie and appreciate learning from it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Point is it appears if someone gets way less follows to muskies boated you find it hard to be true. Not sure why other than it hurts your ego. You telling me that “it seems a bit fishy…” is basically questioning my character and word. What reason is there to not believe those numbers?
I don’t just fish suspended. I also hit deeper breaks so lump me into a structure fisherman as well. However, I still get very few follows compared to fish boated/lost there as well. Yep more than suspended but not drastically more. Like you I have a lot of multi fish days. Lots in the 3-6 fish per day range. Most of those days I either got zero follows, or less follows than fish boated. At least half of those days fishing breaks. Like I said earlier if I wanted to have follows I would switch how I am fishing. But to me follows do nothing. Going aggressive triggers or turns off fish usually. I am fine with not getting a follow if I had an interested fish turn away because they didn’t like my cranks ripped, or Hardhead ripped away from them. I don’t need to see that fish. Lots of people that don’t post on the boards have similar mentalities to me, and they also do not get a lot of follows but catch a lot of fish, and big fish. All with a similar technique.
No way to prove more follows equals more fish boated. Not unless you had the same people fishing the same lake(s) at the same time. Only then can you start comparing number of fish caught to the number of follows.
What is your follow to catch rate in WI compared to MN?
How about the follow to catch rate on public vs private waters?
Do see much difference in these, or do they all seem to be comparable (asking in an inquiring way and not a prick way)?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Travis what I thought was fishy is you said "a few follows a year" I took it literally, I'm sure you didn't mean it literrally as I have friends who have fished w you quite a bit and both of them told me after they did you had multiple (more than 2) follows every time they fished with you ....so my point was...you do get more than a few follows a year if you want me to spell it out for you....
I agree, that fishing suspended a fishermen will get less follows...as would you also agree you are probably on avg contacting less fish as well? or am I off base there too....?
my follow to catch rate is fairly constant on all lakes I fish...same in WI as MN....could be that I tend to fish the same way both places ....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Would your perception be different if I would have said 10 or 20 follows a year, but still said a 2:1 caught to follow ratio?
I don’t get a “bunch” or “ton” of follows. Don’t get “a lot” either. Therefore I get a “few”, which is more than “hardly any” and “no” follows. Being I don’t log anything, especially follows (which I never logged even though I use to keep a log) I can’t throw a number of follows out there, nor a number of caught fish for that matter. Therefore I use the terminology of “few” or the like, and most that fish with me get it. Sorry for being so vague.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | keeping in-mind that you do fish suspended right? ... just feeling the need to clarify. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | BNelson - 6/13/2011 1:26 PM
I agree, that fishing suspended a fishermen will get less follows...as would you also agree you are probably on avg contacting less fish as well? or am I off base there too....?
No way to prove I or anyone else is contacting less fish suspended/deep. There are lots of fishies out in that deep water, just like there are lots of fishies in the shallows. Many days (more than 3) where there sure is more than a coincidence that we mark a fish on the graph when you go to make the next cast. Can this be counted as a follow although we didn't see it?
|
|
| |
|
| I think question of the original poster was fairly clear. I don't understand why everyone (or a few people) feel the need to play devil's advocate all the time. What if this and what if that... It WAS a simple question. Way to beat it to death though. Why even contribute?
Edited by Anonymous 6/13/2011 1:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jonnysled - 6/13/2011 1:45 PM
keeping in-mind that you do fish suspended right? ... just feeling the need to clarify.
Suspended the majority of the time just to clarify. Although you would have gotten that answer if you woul have read my first several posts. So what is your point? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| I care I just like the personal reminder to have some fun, sometimes I get so worked up about this sport I forget what I'm out there for in the first place... which is to have fun lol. I've already had to remind myself this again and the season just started.
I agree the more fish you contact the more fish you will boat over the season. I do think the population density/pressure and time of day can affect the ratio though. I fish some water that is definately low density and when you boat 3 fish and have 2 follows on the day (a person could probably be more efficient but fishing with a normal intensity) I don't think your missing too terribly much on these lakes. I'm also not as hardcore in that I only really fish early morning and evening/night and kinda go napping during the day, and prime times the follows don't decrease so much as the strikes increase.
As mentioned already by others since I backed way off of certain baits my follows dropped as well, and strikes went up and my number of lost fish went from way to stinkin high to only a handful. That said you can't go back on fish you never seen. Also while the fish that crush baits are my favorites missing out on the nippers that are more likely to come off (but some won't) has greatly improved my loss to catch ratio but very possibly dropped the overall numbers so some obvious cons to this approach. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Anonymous - 6/13/2011 1:49 PM
I think question of the original poster was fairly clear. I don't understand why everyone (or a few people) feel the need to play devil's advocate all the time. What if this and what if that... It WAS a simple question. Way to beat it to death though. Why even contribute?
Like |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | If you are going to come on as an Anon then why not call me out rather than saying “some people” as we all know it is me. I can handle it unlike Anon’s that can’t come on by their name and say how they feel about me.
Not playing devil’s advocate on this one. Just trying to understand, get more clarification, and explain my side of things that Nelson feels shouldn't even be considered.
He also asked if it could even be brought to a 1:1 ratio. Perhaps if some took my contributions as well as a few others to thought, then they could maybe get closer to that ratio. You need to ask questions and expound on even the simplest of questions to be able to start learning as there is always more to something than what initially appears.
So if you read most of my posts you may learn that going more erratic in nature, and possibly fishing deeper could bring down your ratio closer to a 1:1. That is if you can handle fewer follows in a day. Either that or get better at triggering fish.
Edited by CiscoKid 6/13/2011 2:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
| BNelson - 6/13/2011 1:26 PM
I have friends who have fished w you quite a bit and both of them told me after they did you had multiple (more than 2) follows every time they fished with you ....so my point was...you do get more than a few follows a year if you want me to spell it out for you....
. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | there are times i'd consider punting on 2nd down |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Anonymous - 6/13/2011 2:16 PM
BNelson - 6/13/2011 1:26 PM
I have friends who have fished w you quite a bit and both of them told me after they did you had multiple (more than 2) follows every time they fished with you ....so my point was...you do get more than a few follows a year if you want me to spell it out for you....
.
Point is???
Sure I fished with Grimm and Painter. Memory is sketchy but I don’t recall getting a “bunch” of follows with either any of the times I fished with them. Perhaps it is just my memory making me think I got less follows than I did.
Fished with Painter less than 5 times in a couple of years. Grimm the same. So a couple of outings with each friend makes it a “must be” the rest of the season I fish? Heck I don’t recall hardly any follows at all with Grimm.
Maybe both of them can give me a kick in the melon and set me straight if I am out of line.
Come on Sled what fun is it to punt on second down. That's just giving up...Something I don't do. I suppose I could just because you told me I should.
Edited by CiscoKid 6/13/2011 2:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3926
| Cisco I suspect I'm more the Anon target than you.
I said what I said because it is a mistake to make decisions based on flawwed data. And spending time collecting and studying flawwed data is a waste of resources plus the opportunity cost of not evaluating data that is actually valid and reliable.
If a guy wants to base decisions on the ratio of "follows seen vs. fish hooked" that's fine by me. But I know that guy isn't seeing all the follows that actually occur so I would never accept the end data as useful for anything. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| In all honesty, what could this data be used for besides, nothing.
Edited by MartinTD 6/13/2011 3:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
| is catch/hour more important than contacts/hour? in considering this, the primary reason i can think of that "contacts" help you is that each one gives you a bit more data about fish attitude, location/depth on structure, etc. in the shallower areas. since at least some of that data is more readily available electronically over deep water...is it possible that you don't "need" to see fish to be able to adjust out there? especially if the actual catch/hour rates were comparable? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | My last 2 years have been a little on the stranger side, and this year is also off to a different kind of start...Most of the fish I have been getting "action" from are eating or trying to eat.
As an example...Fish in Northern WI last week were extremely active and agressive in the heat wave, a LOT of fish were hitting the net, and I can recall only about 8-9 traditional "follows"...To go even deeper in this question, let's say you are fishing a jerkbait/glider/topwater and a fish literally jumps out at it and tries to eat, but misses or misses hooks..is that a "follow"? To me that's just a fish that tried to eat and in a diff. category...
If you fish a lot in the Northwoods, especially in darker waters, fish tend to be more agressive in my experience and a 1:1 ratio wouldn't be that outrageous of a feat as compared to fishing a season with a lot of time in Metro Mn lakes, Vermilion, Mille Lacs, So Wi etc.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1061
Location: Medford, WI | This data is not confirmed by any musky fishing official organization at all...but...
I would say around a 4 fish seen to 1 caught ratio would be about my guess.
-Jake |
|
| |
|
| Fish folks have a metric for this type of thing...CPUE (CATCH per unit effort). Catch is fairly obvious
Effort can be defined by a period of time, distance, number of casts, i suppose even by # of follows).
So why not compare meaningful data. Like number caught per unit time. It sounds like most here that keep records have that data. B_Nelson...THAT sir will tell you how good you are.
No two muskie populations are the same (regarding density) so trying to answer the question that was asked considering an extremely large geographic area is sketchy to say the leaast, and will not provide you the answers you seek anyway. Higher density waters will provide more follows and thereofre probably more bites per unit effort than waters with low density.
Too many variables here to make any educated hypothesis.
Regards, bad fisherman.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | I have kept track of follows, hits(contacts) and catches for a few years and what it told me at the end of the year(s) was I need to sharpen my skills a bit.
On a serious note, I mainly fish "deep" water in WI and follows are not that common. Do we see fish, sure......but return when conditions are favorable we probably catch the fish seen earlier. How does one count that as total action from multiple fish? I know more than one fish can hang on structure but previously assumed we were catching the fish that showed itself earlier.
Are fish following the bait and turning at the boat with the last rip up? Sure I guess, but I don't see them most of the time. Have had some great strikes right at the boat with pounders as the bait comes "into sight" with the rip up.
My last few years have been at most 3 to 1 with some years being a close 1 to 1 ratio. Main stay in the boat for me is pounders or big sues.....the days we are looking for numbers and don't care about size the ratio is heavily towards sightings vs catches. (shallow water, numbers lakes) But.......I rarely fish this way multiple days/trips during the season.
Side note: Jake, the night you and I went out was the most follows seen in one outing all year for my boat.......for the most part either the fish hit or they don't show. Why is that? refer to my first sentance.
Ha Ha |
|
| |
|
Posts: 618
Location: Michigan | Ranger - 6/13/2011 3:45 PM
Cisco I suspect I'm more the Anon target than you.
I said what I said because it is a mistake to make decisions based on flawwed data. And spending time collecting and studying flawwed data is a waste of resources plus the opportunity cost of not evaluating data that is actually valid and reliable.
If a guy wants to base decisions on the ratio of "follows seen vs. fish hooked" that's fine by me. But I know that guy isn't seeing all the follows that actually occur so I would never accept the end data as useful for anything.
But if one can't see the follows than how can it be proven that fish are actually following?? It's the old 'if a tree falls in the woods with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?' You can't just assume there are follows you miss as that could be flawed data itself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3926
| Exactly my point, JK and fellow thrasher of Michigan waters.
From another perspective, as you drive down a road and are counting only the mailboxes on yer right side for a particular distance, and then take an average and double it, the result will not provide you with a reliable measure of the number of the actual total mailboxes you passed. It would be an estimate and it would seem valid until it was proven invalid. And it would be proven invalid.
Enough, sorry. Juran is one of my favorite authors, you see. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | BNelson - 6/8/2011 1:00 PM
best season was around 168 in net, but total action from 850 or so fish.
curious what others have seen for a season...could you get it to a 1 to 1 ratio? seems crazy for a caster to move 2 fish and catch 1 of the 2...???? again over the course of a season, not an hour, or day or week...averages...
Since deep water approach doesn't apply to the thread read this article I found thanks to another thread. What does this have in common with what my other posts are trying to hit on...Presentation. Note author says they wouldn't get follows, but rather the fish just ate.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/blogs/121159718.html
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | yah well then I go back to thinking about the sucker hookup % threads, and the guys saying they were at 100% hookup ratio, but they fail to tell you they only caught 4. same could be said for this too...guy could say his follow to boated ratio is 1 to 1..but fails to tell you he only caught 30 fish for the year....as your total # of boated fish increases imo invariably so will the follows...ie, try boating 168 fish and only gettting follows from another 168. just sayin. i get your points Travis and I will not disagree that fishing open water or deeper on avg will result in less fish that follow that you actually see ..but in shallower water or shallower presentations you are simply going to see more w your eyes...just like getting follows you don't see w your eyes but see on the locator..it's still a follow....
whats your best season for number of fish in the boat approximately? In that season did you still just get "a few" follows?
I have no doubt there are guys that have a much lower ratio than me...no question...
but I do like action! ; )
Edited by BNelson 6/14/2011 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | So if you don’t want to consider any kind of recommendations on how to get to 1:1 like asked in your initial post, why even put this thread out there other than to boast your numbers and boost your ego? Perhaps leave out the how to get to 1:1 question, and if it is possible, next time.
Numbers to me mean nothing anymore. I’m not in it for numbers.
Perhaps numbers mean little to the author as well. Not too many guys writing articles throw out every stat there is. I posted the article because the dude is having high success on a shallow pattern, and now it is disregarded because he didn’t back it up with “I boated x amount of fish this year in x amount of hours”. Very few in this thread backed up any of their ratios with numbers.
Beginning to think you never had any kind of intention on learning in this thread.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | honestly Travis I didn't put up the thread thinking I would learn how to lower my ratio of follows to boated...I'm fine w the numbers I achieve...where did i ever say I wanted to learn from this thread .... it was more out of curiosity to see what most were seeing out there...imo backing stuff up with numbers puts some credibility to the numbers doesn't it? yes, some see it as bragging but then again, there are guys on here that will tell everyone who wants to listen how to catch fish but in reality simply aren't catching much per season ... but that's another thread...ever see the Pro Staff video on youtube..
you see it one way, I see it another.... good stuff in any case. good luck over the abyss this season....I won't see you out there!
Edited by BNelson 6/14/2011 12:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Whats wrong with only getting 30 fish a season?
Basically if you only make it out 15-20 days a year because your life consist of more than just fishing, but consistently year after year have a follow to catch ratio to give you an average you and your data suck to much to be credible on this thread?
Nice |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | nothing is wrong w 30 a season..it's all relative... i wasn't knocking 30 a season...I've had many seasons less than that...heck the way this season is going maybe I won't even hit that... just saying that any time someone rattles off percentages or numbers there is always more to the story...
Edited by BNelson 6/14/2011 12:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | BNelson - 6/8/2011 1:00 PM
...could you get it to a 1 to 1 ratio?
Sorry then I took this the wrong way. Seems pointless to just say yes.
Credibility comes from character and reputation not numbers. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | then I better order some shadzillas... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | musky-skunk - 6/14/2011 12:04 PM
Whats wrong with only getting 30 fish a season?
Basically if you only make it out 15-20 days a year because your life consist of more than just fishing, but consistently year after year have a follow to catch ratio to give you an average you and your data suck to much to be credible on this thread?
Nice
That's what I get out of it. Not sure how else to read into it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | Take my data with a grain of salt.....I don't get mad or really care what others think. Musky is a fish I enjoy catching but I'm only a 30 fish per season guy....
Years ago, before kids, I could break 50 but those were few and far between. Wish I could do better but it is, what it is.
Hours per catch hovers around 8 for each season since keeping track. Last June, which was one of my better Junes was around 4 hours per catch. July sucked with Late August, Sept and Oct picking up the slack.
Some don't believe the 8 hrs per catch (previous threads), others can do better than that. All the supplied data by myself and others here is not bragging in my opinion......it is just data. Use it if you want or not, again doesn't bother me either way.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Sorry that hit me wrong (obviously), I came back to delete but it's already been commented on.
I agree numbers DO add credibility. I also know with a 30 fish season (though not as good a comparison) you can still see trends on lakes over weeks/seasons. In my case I also agree 1:1 sounds kinda lame, but it is what it is. If compared to a few years ago and prior on major numbers lakes when I was trying to learn by trial and mostly error it was probably more like 15:1 which was the other extreme. As I think you already know my last season was spent on a some very unconventional bodies of water which I do think brought the ratio down and the rest of my time on other lakes was at night (same situation). This is only to explain a possibility as to how it could be possible to have such a low ratio. Under most normal situations I would very much agree with you that a 5:1 ratio would make sense. This year Lord willing with some new lakes in the mix I maybe will experience that ratio.
I hear you loud and clear on the season btw... I'm playing net man so far and that is not a job I'm used to |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | CiscoKid - 6/14/2011 12:12 PM
musky-skunk - 6/14/2011 12:04 PM
Whats wrong with only getting 30 fish a season?
Basically if you only make it out 15-20 days a year because your life consist of more than just fishing, but consistently year after year have a follow to catch ratio to give you an average you and your data suck to much to be credible on this thread?
Nice
That's what I get out of it. Not sure how else to read into it.
i don't miss the Oprah Show at all ...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| That's not what I heard |
|
| |
|
| I'm fine w the numbers I achieve...where did i ever say I wanted to learn from this thread... wow, Brad...step back a tad from the peeing match and listen to how you're saying things. sometimes i think some of your valid observations get lost in the style you use. fine with your numbers? no need to learn? is that really how you view things? Prince Fielder used to pose in the batter's box for too long after hitting a home run, and inevitably the pitcher would put a fastball into his back the next time he came up. and he deserved it. he's still as great as ever at hitting homeruns, but somehow he learned that etiquette matters and it isn't necessary to show up the pitcher as well. it's okay if that doesn't matter, no one's here to hold your hand - i'm just pointing out how it comes across. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | agreed Mike,,, I'm all about learning, just meant this particular thread I didn't put up here to learn....could I learn something from it, of course..but it was more out curiosity than putting it up to learn.... I learned if I wanted to get closer to a 1 to 1 ratio I should fish open water... but I don't enjoy that as much ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | is the counterpoint brigade immune to the consequences that come from self-promotion? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | We are now to the point where this is pointless, an obvious oxymoron.
We all learned something from this discussion. |
|
| |
# of fish contacted to caught ratio??