|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Just going through some of the old "off season" threads here in the forum. One was a recent WR debate thread on the O'Brien fish. Looks like I missed a good one--but I won't resurrect the O'Brien issue, as that horse is long-since buried. However, I would like to comment on one argument against a 60-pound musky; one that I hear quite frequently. I posted this here in the Research forum, but the moderators can certainly move it as they feel it is appropriate.
Anyway, it has been mentioned several times in this forum by people who I have great respect for, that one argument against a fish growing to well over 60 pounds is that we would have seen once by now. In other words, despite having more anglers looking/fishing for them, we have yet to find a TRUE specimen of that size. But with all due respect to all those who believe this, I vehemently disagree.
The first counterpoint I have is that it is pretty much agreed that the largest water bodies have the largest forage bases...and thus have the greatest potential to produce fish of true record size. With a few exceptions, history seems to bear that out. So then I have to wonder--if these areas are so big, with so much forage, how are many of these truly "super-giant" fish even being targeted? How many are out there that have never tasted a Depth Raider? I realize that huge muskies are caught each year in shallow water, but just think of the sheer number of large muskies never even exposed to angling pressure. In Green Bay, it is a rare occurrence to even see an angler in the main basin...much less targeting Muskies routinely. So unless one of these slobosaurii happens to wander into an area easier to fish, what chance is there it will ever even SEE a lure...much less get hooked?
Furthermore, how many fish of potentially record size get hooked and never seen...but instead get off the hook, or break the line before being captured? The WR fish could have been hooked several times in its life, but never landed. So then it doesn't exist, I guess? Or those fish don't even recover their true growth potential for that season because of the event (if they are are caught and released, for instance), thus sacrificing their true potential. Or they are harvested before reaching that magic size. Or any number of other plausible scenarios that could perhaps explain why we have yet to see a "bonafide" 65 pound fish. There are many who think that Ryan Dempsey's April 2005 hog caught in the Fox River here in downtown Green Bay, was that 65-pound fish. At about 56x33 (from memory), that fish was as close to a 65-pound fish as you're like to see for a while. While it wasn't caught in season and therefore would not qualify as a valid WR fish, it DOES provide evidence that these fish can truly attain massive dimensions. And if that fist came from the 1989-1990 early re-stocking effort, for instance, then it was only about 15-16 years old. So if it lived for another few years, who knows how big it might have reached? Using the growth model published for this population in 2005, I determined that a female Green Bay muskellunge was still growing at an average rate of just over 1cm (1/2" for you non-metric types) per year. So if that fish survives to this day, chances are that it is pushing 58 inches, with a well-established history of obesity. I'd like to see the calculations on that weight estimate...
So I would love a chance to sit down with Mr. Thorpe and discuss his theories on the maximum size potential of a female muskellunge (or of humans, for that matter). I've not met you Marc, but I truly respect and admire your accomplishments in the sport--and when we do meet one day, dinner is on me. But I should forewarn you that I don't necessarily share all of your theories on the maximum growth potential of these fish. While (in my humble opinion) these theories might be true for the *average* fish in the population, we aren't talking about the average fish by any means. We're talking about the Yao Ming or the Manute Bol of muskies here--those that are so long that they cannot help but sustain "critical mass" for a potential record. Is that 70 pounds? Maybe not... But I'll bet that there are plenty of 60+ pound fish out there, happily chowing on fat-laden forage. And from what I've heard from reputable people in recent years here in lower Green Bay, there are indeed fish of lengths greater than 55" being caught. With the incredible girth we see here, it's only a matter of time before the 60-pound mark gets surpassed. Kevin Kapuscinski's 2005 paper on the Green Bay fish indicated that the (admittedly incomplete) model built on a limited data set of fish did indeed have WR potential, in terms of weight. And that was at the 69-15 mark. So without disrespecting anyone here in this thread, I would humbly point out that the absence of evidence (of a 60+ pound musky) does not mean that evidence doesn't exist. Of course it doesn't mean it *does* either. But at least in the case of the Green Bay population, it seems more and more to be a reasonable possibility.
Finally, one of the other intangible factors here though is that our season ends 11/30; and in some years the water temperatures may still be warm enough to support increasing egg mass. So in fact the fish might well put on several more pounds in December, especially given the abundance of forage in our system. However since the season has ended, no one will be legally chasing them. While I am not at all advocating a longer season here in Wisconsin, I would simply point out that an additional month to chase these fish might well show us more of what is truly swimming around out there. So I guess what I am really saying is that we have to be careful to differentiate between a maximum theoretical size these fish could attain, and a maximum realized size. The former is what the fish CAN do, but the latter is what we can see them do. I'll bet there's a difference.
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2015
| you are correct that there are "freak" fish out there. Most adult female muskies will never obtain weights over 50 lbs its above the average. An honest 55 pound fish is a freak - a Yao Ming. When they find a human 10 ft tall I'll believe there are 70Lb muskies. How many millions of muskies have been caught the last 10 years? - I think we have a great idea how big they get.... to say: "but I bet there are plenty of 60 lb+ fish out there" is wishful thinking! We have facts from a million samples - can an ultimate freak show up?...hey some day we might see a 10 footer play for the Bulls? | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Ever hear of a bell-shaped curve? Like Mr. Ming, we are talking about the top 0.001% or less of individuals. But unlike him, these largest fish don't seek out the attention. They just go about their business...
The other thing is that the VAST majority of anglers don't weigh their fish before releasing them. So all we have are *estimations* based upon length and girth. Trust me when I tell you I know a little about the various equations out there, and how inaccurate they are. Do a search here on the site under my name, and take a look at the calculator application Larry Ramsell and I wrote.
Simply put, I'll wager that there have been more fish pushing 60 pounds caught in the past 5 years than you reallize...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2015
| I understand a bell curve and like I mentioned a 55 pound muskie would be an extreme outlier. Look at the recent MI state record 50Lb 8oz. I not buying there are numbers of these nomad muskies swimming the middle of green bay that are 10 pounds heavier than that fish. I like to base opinions on facts not speculation. We have had one human on record reach 8 feet 11 inches...so why cant one be 10 feet tall? One muskie out of millions has reached 61 pounds the last 30 years..so why cant they reach 70 pounds? The human is less of a percentage increase... | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well first of all, I do not believe in a 70-pound muskie. Not in 1945, and not in 2012. I might be crazy, but I'm not that nuts. But I don't see why it's so hard to accept the fact that there are potentially more fish in the 60-pound class that many people think? Go download my calculators, and run the numbers. It isn't that hard to see that a fish of significant length doesn't need an unbelievable degree of girth to reach the magic 60-pound mark. And I *really* don't understand how or why you keep equating a 60-pound fish with a 10' tall human? I don't have Larry's book in front of me at the moment, but last I heard there was pretty strong evidence that some (as in, more than zero) specimens have generally been accepted as having achieved that weight. But your 10' human has never been documented at all as I think you mentioned...so it's really "apples and oranges" in that sense, as far as I can tell.
Now if you are comparing that mythical fellow to a *70* pound musky, then that's another story. But again, the growth model published for the Green Bay fish in 2005 clearly shows that, even with very limited data (only one or two fish over 50" included in the model), it is possible. We're not talking quantitative here...we're talking about qualitatively possible. Oh, and this was for a musky of WR weight here by the way, as in 69+ pounds (the "record" at the time of publication). So while I am going to have to see a 70-pounder to believe it, I don't really have much problem believing one or two exist in the 60-65 pound class.
Call me crazy, I guess.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/23/2012 5:42 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2015
| tcbetka - 3/23/2012 5:39 PM
I am going to have to see a 70-pounder to believe it, I don't really have much problem believing one or two exist in the 60-65 pound class.
TB
That I do believe! One or two is different, "plenty of 60+" to me was implying dozens...... There have been one or two people over 8 ft tall 
And I was always comparing 10 ft humans with 70 lb muskies - not any evidence we will see either anytime soon.
Edited by IAJustin 3/23/2012 5:53 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Let me be clear--I think there are more 60+ pound fish than most people think there are. And I *definitely* think it is more than one or two. In the biggest waters with the best ecosystems to support such growth, I do indeed think there are way more than one or two...depending upon time of the year.
You are free to disagree of course.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/23/2012 7:01 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 57
Location: Janesville wi | How about Lake Superior? Could a giant be leaving there that has never even had a musky lure casted within 5 miles of her? Maybe some place in Lake Michigan other than greenbay where they aren't targeted or farther north in the bay like Door County? Other great lakes in areas they aren't targeted? Some freak that is where they aren't really even supposed to be. | |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I like the Lake Superior thought. In the first ever fish survey done in WI in 1923, muskies were found in the Apostle Islands. Know anyone who fishes for them there? I don't. I know from personal experience that at least some of the tributaries on the south shore contain 'lunge in the west half of the lake and have heard of several on the east end of the lake. Who knows what evil might lurk in Superior or connected waters!
I know too, that there are some areas on the north end of Lake Michigan that contain a fair population of muskies...always been there. Seem to disappear after spring spawning. Probably out in the lake chasing bait fish.
How about Lake Huron besides the known and fished Georgian Bay area and the North Channel? Anyone chasing the "greens" on the south side of Mantoulin Island?
We're talking HUGE waters here. Would take you all summer to cast from one end of Mantoulin Island to the other!
Tom "may" be right that there are many 60+ pounders out there, but history says otherwise...but who knows? Still some "last frontier's" out there. GO! | |
| | |
Posts: 3
| There a musky in Lake Superior. I questioned it until I got a series of photos from some people who went out of Bayfield. I am going with them this year. Their top fish was 55-inches. Its a little known fishery and will stay that way since no photos are being released. One tributary is hot. My bigest fish was 54.5 inches on a fly rod. I thought it was bull but the fish are there. I have the GPS locations and have several othere places I will hit. The big pike are also back. I went over 52-inches (fly rod) last season after chasing an area for 3 years. NO PHOTOs whatsoever to keep this some of the best clandestine fishing up there.
Good luck...they are out there. | |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| No surprise they are in Lake Superior; there's already existing populations in the tributaries (e.g., St. Louis, Bad River). Sounds like a similar situation to what occurs in L. Ontario/St. Lawrence. Resident lake/river populations along with migratory populations going into either the Larry or Ontario. I'm sure the same occurs in Huron. | |
| | |
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Creel2 - 3/28/2012 11:35 AM
There a musky in Lake Superior. I questioned it until I got a series of photos from some people who went out of Bayfield. I am going with them this year. Their top fish was 55-inches. Its a little known fishery and will stay that way since no photos are being released. One tributary is hot. My bigest fish was 54.5 inches on a fly rod. I thought it was bull but the fish are there. I have the GPS locations and have several othere places I will hit. The big pike are also back. I went over 52-inches (fly rod) last season after chasing an area for 3 years. NO PHOTOs whatsoever to keep this some of the best clandestine fishing up there.
Good luck...they are out there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, that not that many guys fish it . But I think your wrong in the effect that I know of a lot of guys that fish it for muskies almost every year. IMO the lake is so large that there are spots everywhere so people think that is kinda kept secret... I think the main reason for guys not fishing it is mainly because of the vast size of the lake and how deep it gets. There are so many spots to hit you could be out there everyday for a year and not even see a fish. Then there are guys who know the lake and have slightly better success. But trust me.... more people are aware then you may think.
Edited by FAT-SKI 3/28/2012 1:25 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right. There aren't many people who have the time (or the guts) to head out onto Lake Superior, or even the BIG part of Green Bay for that matter, in search of a needle in a haystack. But I would bet the ranch that there are indeed big fish out there. How many and exactly how big...is anyone's guess. There's really nothing I can point to (in terms of published data) that supports an argument that the "biggest fish in the lake are in water where no one ever targets them." Just read Larry's two-part article in In-Fisherman from years back, and you can see that these fish are in fact vulnerable to angling--if someone takes the time to study the water, and then fish for them. The open water guys will tell you that these fish ARE catchable, and some do it routinely. And of course just because a fish is in open water, doesn't mean that fish has to be a super-tanker. I'd bet there is a size distribution, just like there is in the more traditional spots in a lake. But the problem is that there can be so much of this hard-to-fish water in a large fishery like Green Bay, that's it is just not very practicable to fish it effectively--so we're just not sure what's out there.
That all being said however, my opinion (at least when it comes to the largest fish caught in Green Bay) is that it seems that there is a much greater concentration of the largest female fish in the lower bay, in the Fall. So it's then that we tend to see most of them being caught. Guys will report catching fish in the Summer, but it doesn't seem to be as productive--although you don't see the same amount of effort being applied during those months either. So who knows--a person might catch 55" fish like crazy in the southern bay in July, just like in November. You might just need to try. But something tells me (and most guys I've talked to tend to say the same thing) that they just aren't there in the same quantity in the warmer months. So where are they then? There's really only one place that they might be...deeper water. They are looking for that optimal range of water temperature, and big water is where they'll find it. But if you go read Larry's articles from the 1980s, we might have every reason to believe that these fish are feeding on whitefish, perch or shad in the large basin all Summer; but then slide shallow to rest and digest. There are about 5 great potential research projects in there, lol...
I guess the main reason I am so interesting in the migration patterns of the fish in Green Bay, is because of the 54" size limit we are still waiting to get implemented there. If we knew that there are 100+ fish of 50-54" (or more) in the waters within 10-15 miles of the southern bay (where most fish are caught in the Fall), then a harvest of 5-10 fish wouldn't really be much of a concern because we might expect that much loss due to natural causes anyway. However if we knew that there are far fewer of those fish in those same waters, then the potential to do significant harm to the population is much greater. And therein lies the problem...we don't know what we don't know, in that respect. I certainly don't want to re-hash the whole 54" Green Bay size limit debate, as that has been beaten to death. Go search for it, and you can spend the next week reading all the arguments for and against. But I *do* want to make sure that we continue to expand our knowledge on the population structure in that fishery (and in similar fisheries like Georgian Bay and Lake Superior even!)--and discussions like this are a great way to hear/read how others feel about the idea.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/28/2012 8:00 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 2024
| tcbetka - I guess the main reason I am so interesting in the migration patterns of the fish in Green Bay, is because of the 54" size limit we are still waiting to get implemented there. If we knew that there are 100+ fish of 50-54" (or more) in the waters within 10-15 miles of the southern bay (where most fish are caught in the Fall), then a harvest of 5-10 fish wouldn't really be much of a concern because we might expect that much loss due to natural causes anyway. However if we knew that there are far fewer of those fish in those same waters, then the potential to do significant harm to the population is much greater. And therein lies the problem...we don't know what we don't know, in that respect. I certainly don't want to re-hash the whole 54" Green Bay size limit debate, as that has been beaten to death. Go search for it, and you can spend the next week reading all the arguments for and against. But I *do* want to make sure that we continue to expand our knowledge on the population structure in that fishery (and in similar fisheries like Georgian Bay and Lake Superior even!)--and discussions like this are a great way to hear/read how others feel about the idea.
TB
Sounds like an interesting way to apply acoustic telemetry. Pressure sensing transmitters (to determine depth) and deploy curtains or arrays of receivers ($$$) to position the fish and collect the depth data. Might be able to fit transmitters with temperature sensors or iButtons/thermal loggers, though the latter requires the thermal loggers to be retrieved. | |
| | |
Posts: 3
| I can tell you that I do not guide, write books or have any financial gain when it comes to pike or musky fishing. I can also tell you that many people wanted to know and have tried to find out. I took some serious advice from friends and biologists not to share any of it or put it into the media or Internet machine. “Keep it under raps” was the motto. In fact, it was “stay quiet”.
There always have been musky in Lake Superior but they fell with the last of the coaster brook trout and the netting of Lake Superior for commercial fishing. Since the Lake is cold, it is more suited to northern pike, lake trout, formerly coasters, and windego. My challenge has been to fish for trophy musky and pike with a fly rod that I began 14 years ago after seeing 3 of the biggest fish tails in shallow water that I ever saw. I followed some old canoe notes, began fishing several tributaries, and ended up with my biggest fly rod musky at 54.5 inches—released. The biggest historical fish I could find was over 71 inches and documented through another source. (Information on file and not for release.) I suspect that bigger fish might have come out of the Lake during that part of the Lake’s history. Records are scant because most sports fishermen were after the coaster like the Roosevelt family and others. Historically, the 50s to mid 60s was a heyday for big fish. They are coming back.
Let me explain the big pike. First off, do not tell anyone details or openly post photos on the Internet. You will get writers, guides and everyone else who have something else at stake than just fishing. I gladly leave all of them at the boat landing. It is stealing someone’s experience. The fish was over 52 inches. I used a 10-weight fly rod that throws boulders, a modified 450-grain T line with extra running line and my usual reel. It took us several seasons to finally get it. Photos were on a private forum, and viewed by friends out of this area. A few locals have seen it. Several bays I fish have spawning fish that then hold in weed structure. You need to learn how the big females migrate and when, where they spawn and where they pod after the spawn. Next are the long nose sucker runs that the females target for food. There is nothing like a river mouth with big pike tearing suckers up. You need one key and essential factor. That is for you to learn.
By the middle of June, the big fish go out for colder water. Next, the pike come back in for the deep-water ciscoes or tulibee that spawn on shallow shelves. Normally we used Invaders or silver/black Raps and trolled off the edges and points. I use the Jimmy Dale trick of broom sticking weed beds like a guide in Green Bay in the early summer. Take a section of broomstick, and pull it behind the boat. You can weight it you want and add propellers. Then go over the same area with a fly rod and 3/0 to 5/0 streamer and a 300-grain T line. The Lake has current and tides so you need the extra running line. It really turns pike ugly for some reason as it does musky in some rivers. I thought it was nonsense until I tried it.
Here are some facts on musky. The Brule does have a small population at the mouth that run up into the Log Jam hole. Nothing really big yet because the pike dominant that area. The area where I got the big fish takes a long, long boat ride for most people because of access. Several people sent along photos of 54-57 inch fish that I did not believe until I talked with them. They were well out in the Lake some 10-12 miles. The last trip up we hit a walleye gravel flat and lost a fish that acted not like a big pike, leaving us with one scarred up walleye. We plan to go back this season. Big pike will hit a fish up to four times before it finishes it off. It was not the time of year for the big fish to be around. If we had to guess it was over 50-inches. I started in on musky about the same time as pike.
Lake Superior is daunting. It is not Leech Lake or the big Minnesota lakes. It is big and gets ugly. There are many places to go. I prefer a northeast to southwest wind and watch the runs and spawning baitfish. Herring get big in the Lake and so do ciscoes. I went out with a friend who was a captain. We pounded back and forth in the waves in his big boat so be careful. You might have to camp over on an island if it is bad. You are going to need gas, If there are waves have more gas and a radio. I have come out of one tributary at night more than once so I know how safe it feels to get to an island or landing.
I know of only a few people locally who know these spots and most of them only a couple of places. One guy speaks the language. No doubt, others do since no one is an island. You get many looks in the Lake and multiple species of fish. Is there a record out there? I know of one and perhaps the depths have one musky everyone wants.
The big fish are coming back.
Otherwise good hunting…
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Excellent stuff...thanks for sharing!
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A good 80 page read with data on how to calculate this topic. When calculating maximum growth potential it’s interesting the samples they tossed out because they were upper outliers. I understand why in a report like this they need to do that but it’s interesting none the less.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/FaustFinalThesis.pdf
If that link doesn't work the report is found with others at the following website.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/muskymanteam_products.html
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Also interesting after a quick review is:
Table 2: Makes a very good case for a 50 inch size limit in certain waters;
Figure 1: Omitted the 1923 survey of the Apostle Island muskie waters.
I also found it interesting that the spearing data did NOT include winter spearing and therefore did not calculate the additional damage done. For instance, the huge number of muskellunge speared by one tribal fisher this winter on Lac Court Orillies was devestating to the lakes trophy population, but would not be used to calculate the damage. At estimates/claims of somewhere from 15 to 30 fish taken by just this one person, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how those additional numbers would have affected this researchers limited data, and this is just from one Northern Wisconsin lake! | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | MRoberts - 3/30/2012 9:34 AM
A good 80 page read with data on how to calculate this topic. When calculating maximum growth potential it’s interesting the samples they tossed out because they were upper outliers. I understand why in a report like this they need to do that but it’s interesting none the less.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/FaustFinalThesis.pdf
SNIP...
That PDF link worked for me, and I am in the process of reading it now. I also read a bit (in the first 15 or so pages) about how they seemed to disregard the extremes for length--but it appeared as though those (excluded) lengths were in excess of 65". I'll need to read through the entire paper to get a better feeling for their methods and result presentation, but that's the impression I got while reading the first 10-15 pages anyway. And that seems reasonable by the way, if they excluded those fish in excess of 65"...as (unless I am entirely mistaken) there haven't been any fish even claimed to be longer than 65", other than some folk lore fish.
A great find though Mike, and thanks for posting it. Definitely one to add to my library, and a very relevant paper! I'll try to read through it this weekend.
TB | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | I finished reading this paper (thesis) today, and thought it was very interesting. In particular, I found a few statements quite intriguing...although I haven't tried to pull any of the references cited yet however. I don't have these immediately available to me, so I'll have to "beg, borrow or steal" them whenever/wherever I can.
Lake size is positively correlated with growth potential of several species of fish (Shuter et al. 1998; Purchase et al. 2005).
This basically supports what we've been talking about, in terms of where (we think) the largest fish will consistently be found. Although there are of course exceptions to every rule, big water means big fish. No rocket science there.
A higher growth potential in large lakes may be caused by elevated levels of species richness, which may provide a broader range of forage sizes (Eadie et al. 1986; Matuszek and Beggs 1988; Post et al. 2000).
I found this very interesting, as I've read a couple things in the past about fish with "trophy potential" needing forage of the correct size to fully realize that trophy potential. So then this could very well explain why places like the St. Lawrence River, Georgian Bay and Green Bay seem to be producing extremely heavy fish for their lengths; while other places with plenty of *smaller* forage (but muskellunge of similar genetic lineage) don't seem to produce many fish with the same girth or weight for a given length. These references will definitely be something I'll be investigating more.
Muskellunge population size structure declined as angling and spearing mortality increased, similar to other studies simulating the effects of exploitation on population size structure of various species of fish (Beamesderfer and North 1995; Quist et al. 2002; Holley et al. 2008; Makinster and Paukert 2008).
This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments I can think of for higher minimum length limits (MLL), when you really aren't sure just what the population is capable of. In the case of the Green Bay fishery, we really haven't yet seen a stable population structure established. The issue of poor (or nil) natural reproduction notwithstanding, the more fish that get harvested while waiting to see just how big the fish might get, the smaller the population size structure will be biased...at least that's the way I interpret this information. Maybe someone can correct me if I've made an error in the interpretation of these data, in that regards.
Similarly, simulation modeling predicted that even low (< 10%) levels of exploitation may reduce numbers of large (> 24 in) speckled peacock bass Cichla temensis by 30-50% (Holley et al. 2008).
There were several examples of this sort of thing given in the thesis, but I found this statistic to be particularly alarming. For those who've argued that allowing harvest of large fish on the basis of there being "more fish than we can catch" (for ANY musky population, I mean), you should especially take the quotation here to heart. Obviously, harvesting 1 in 10 trophy fish from a species, yet seeing such a (seemingly) disparate reduction in the prevalence of trophy fish, indicates that there is likely some other reason for this apparent discrepancy. Whether it's angling-inducted mortality, an increase in generalized morbidity in these fish (leading to a more insidious demise), or simply a "failure to thrive" of the trophy specimens, something else is obviously going on in such instances. I would be curious to know whether or not, compared to other anglers of other species, muskellunge anglers are better at catching (and then successfully releasing) large fish? Put another way, is the angling-associated mortality less significant for muskellunge than speckled peacock bass, for instance? It makes you really wonder--what else is going on there...?
TB
Edited by tcbetka 3/31/2012 6:40 PM
| |
| | |
Location: 31 | tcbetka - 3/28/2012 7:53 PM
That all being said however, my opinion (at least when it comes to the largest fish caught in Green Bay) is that it seems that there is a much greater concentration of the largest female fish in the lower bay, in the Fall. So it's then that we tend to see most of them being caught. Guys will report catching fish in the Summer, but it doesn't seem to be as productive--although you don't see the same amount of effort being applied during those months either. So who knows--a person might catch 55" fish like crazy in the southern bay in July, just like in November. You might just need to try. But something tells me (and most guys I've talked to tend to say the same thing) that they just aren't there in the same quantity in the warmer months. So where are they then? There's really only one place that they might be...deeper water. They are looking for that optimal range of water temperature, and big water is where they'll find it. But if you go read Larry's articles from the 1980s, we might have every reason to believe that these fish are feeding on whitefish, perch or shad in the large basin all Summer; but then slide shallow to rest and digest. There are about 5 great potential research projects in there, lol...
TB
I think this “where do they go in the summer ” subject is pretty interesting and applies to many other large bodies of water that have a similar shallow water migration starting in late October like Green Bay.
The $100,000 question you raise most likely applies to other large migrations that winter in basically the same fall location, and then disappear after spawn like Green Bay. Some of these other migrations have been known about a lot longer, and the anglers that I know who have been fishing it simply wait for the fall migration because nobody has been able to find a summer pattern.
I suppose this deep water theory is as good as any for these migrations, and who knows. Maybe some of these Green Bay fish fish migrate all the way up to or maybe even further than the deep water by Sturgeon channel? This theory would certainly explain the reason for the nonproductive (almost nonexistent) summer fishing on the bay, or like you say the people you have talked to say they just aren't there in the same quantity in the warmer months.
I think some contributing factors are that the Bay itself is a formidable adversary, lots of time and lots of open water, especially out by Sturgeon. For me there is simply lower summer fruit available elsewhere, and if I'm going to swing for the deep water fences, I'm waiting until the fish are at their heaviest.
Now that you're retired Tom, this sounds like the #1 “great research project” for you this summer?
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Heh--I don't really *feel* retired. And I don't have a fishing boat capable of really fishing that water, other than on a nice day. We are in the process of getting a 17.5' boat now, but that's really just to use in inland lakes in northern Wisconsin. It really isn't a "big water" boat, in the sense that you'd want to go out onto the bay for any length of time. But when it's nice out there, it'd be fine. Otherwise, I'm afraid my rough-water Green Bay fishing days are probably over...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 3
| I agree and the success in this is not to open up the CB fishery or any other spots until these populations build again. The lamprey fished them off. It will take time but bruins came out of the Lake and bruin northern pike. The best place is L'anse Michigan for pike or Keweenae (sp?). I would rather keep things quiet as I have. I am guessing--and guessing only--that a river-mouth population enters out of the Bad River or maybe the Montreal. The net surverys at the CB have no musky and they put miles of nets out. Like the coaster brook trout, resident brook trout will leave their streams and enter the lake so a musky is not different. It is amazing because the mouth of the Bad gets a lot of Tribal netting. The pike I posted had that deep blue Lake Superior cast to it. Lake Superior is putting out 30-pound pike in Michigan. You can tell a Bad River fish.
Good luck....I'll drop off some information later. | |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Tom, I sent you a PM.
Edited by ESOX Maniac 5/1/2012 4:06 PM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | ESOX Maniac - 5/1/2012 4:04 PM
Tom, I sent you a PM.
Cool...got it, and replied!
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Creel2 - 4/9/2012 10:33 AM
I would rather keep things quiet as I have.
And yet, here you are, with your first three posts on a well known musky board, publicizing this amazing secret information, your amazing secret catches, no pictures available of course because that would start the gold rush, however those pictures are available to your small group of friends and locals who have managed to keep it all secret. 
| |
| | |
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I also agree with the deep water summer theory. We have some proof over here in Michigan as a Musky was caught a couple years back in 150 feet of water off Muskegon by salmon fishermen using salon lures. It was a Green bay fish that crossed the lake according to fin clips or tags. I cant find the original article. I have often thought of fishing the November/December Whitefish run around the break walls in Muskegon and White lake Channels. I am thinking this move of Whitefish in to spawn brings those roamers in close where they can be trolled. The Whitefish move in every night to shallow water to spawn but they stage just off the break walls in 20 to 30 feet of water. | |
| | |
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I found this article about a 50 inch fish caught off Grand Haven 50 feet down on a spoon. This fish looks like a Northern barred strain. Could have come from Lake Macatawa or right out of the Grand River.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/99482774.html
Im still trying to find that Green Bay tagged fish article.
I have tried but was not able to find the article of a 44 inch spotted that was caught off Muskegon several years back. But anyway this other fish was in 150 feet of water and 50 feet down locating on bait fish schools just like the Salmon.
| |
| | |
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Mr. Betka touched on something that I believe is happening and is now lasting longer due to warmer late season water temperature...there are populations or partial populations of muskies in Great Lakes waters that have never seen a lure. And it is becoming more and more likely that they never will, as many late fall migrations of muskies from open lake basins back into tributary streams and rivers are happening later and later in the season.
The St. Lawrence River is a good example. This past early December, the water temperature a few miles downstream from where the river begins at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, was 43-degrees. Not too many years ago, perhaps five, I can remember during a similar time frame when the water temp was in the low 30-degree range. Similar trends have been and are being seen on the Niagara River. The migrations there from Lake Erie are later and later each year and on the NY side of the river are happening after the close of the muskie season and in fact for some warm years are happening even after the December 15 close on the Ontario side of the Niagara.
So, if, as Tom suggests, there are "several" muskies out there in excess of 60-pounds, the odds of them being caught are getting less and less and are likely to stay that way as few will venture "out there" in search of them during the open season. | |
| | |
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | We are a little more lucky here in west Michigan in regards to late season and warmer waters. Our Whitefish runs have been normally starting around November 15th but the last few years have been a couple weeks later. We have no closed Musky season in Lake Michigan so we can try here in say December right up until hard water. I think if there ever was a chance at a Lake Michigan monster it would have to be taken when the Whitefish or Lake trout come in to spawn bringing miss piggy with them. Otherwise to look out in a abyss during summer months is a fools errand. HOWEVER, If we stock enough spotted muskies in the drowned river mouths over here we could see areas out in front of the bigger rivers become fishable waters. Most likely not in my lifetime. Mike | |
| |
|
Maxmium size potential?