|
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Being that we are all high on the idea of catch and release, I am curious to find out if there have been studies done on the locational patterns of fish after being caught.
I am not looking to bring up bad memories of the CFMS a few years ago, but I do think the question of locating fish after they have been captured is very relevent in terms of how we fish. (on an off note....had the CFMS been done by non-biased, biologists with no interest whatsoever in catching muskies did the study, with a peer review, many positive aspects of the study would have been the result)
My home waters are high density lakes of medium sized fish, and have always been curious if I have recaptured the same fish off the same spot, or within close proximity to the same location within the same year or smaller time frame.
What are your thoughts on this idea? Do the fish change their habits entirely, or for a short period of time? Do they immediately become conditioned to the sounds, visual influences and vibrations around them that got them captured to begin with? I know much of this is stimulus-reaction based, but is this an area of study we should look further into?
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | VMS,
First, don't even GO there with the CFMS. There was no real scientific study done at all, no controls, no consistency, no....so there wasn't any data worth/qualified to put to peer review. The whole thing was a mess, a disaster, and let's just leave it at that. For a really good study, look to the Milwaukee Chapter of Muskies Inc. They did it right.
I do have some insight about released fish, as i tagged over a hundred with MI tags and hand made tags back in the 70's and 80's. My recapture rate was pretty high, and an awful lot of them were very close to the original capture point. Key is to release the fish at point of capture, not let the boat drift WAY out into deep water, or into VERY shallow water unless the fish was taken from same.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I agree on the CFMS stuff....not even worthwhile to begin with..
Any other thoughts out there from others? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1189
Location: Bagley,MN 56621 | I thought I saw Larry Ramsel post once about a study on Eagle Lake where fish caught and fit with a transmitter didnt do near that area again. cant remember teh whole story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Greg,
Look at the Milwaukee Chapter Study. That was a carefully conducted study, and the results are available from the Milwaukee Chapter Website.
Believe me, I have caught numerous fish that were recaptured in near exactly the same spot. I think if you look at all the DATA, not opinion, DATA, you will find that many muskes seem to go right on with their business after capture and release, and don't seem to go anywhere. Others take off for points unknown, seemingly for no reason what so ever. Again, see the Milwaukee Chapter Study. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1936
Location: Eau Claire, WI | For what it's worth:
Our chapter tags and logs catch/release on local waters.
Overall they don't move very far whether it's the same year or years down the road.
Example:
1. A 35 incher caught 3 times in 2003.. Once in Feb through the ice and twice between May and June. All three within 1/2 mile of each other.
2. I caught a 42 incher in Sept. that was tagged 5 years ago 1/4 mile from where I caught it.
3. A 41 incher with a messed up jaw was caught 4 times between Sept. 10th and October 31st on the same weed bed that is roughly 200 yds. wide by 1/4 mile long. The last time it was caught was by a guest in my boat and when it pooped on the deck of my Ranger there were feathers in the poop... That's one seriously hungry fish. The messed up jaw and skinny body of this fish lead us to believe that it had a hard time "holding" on to the prey it went after so we believed it to be striking at anything that looked like a meal. I will be curious to see if ol' jaws shows up again this season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I don't have a lot of data for this, but we caught the same fish this year not a month apart. The first time the 42" was caught was by me on May 25, 2003. The second occurance happen on June 21, 2003. My bro Shawn caught the fish roughly 50 yards from where I caught it the first time. It was caught on a Triple D both times, with the paint patterns being very similar. The reason I know it was the same fish is because when I caught it there was a very distinct bulging eye.
That's all I can offer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | According to the older tracking studies conducted on Leech Lake and Okoboji, SOME fish caught and released would vacate the area and not return for the duration of the study. However, I've re-captured fish on the same spot with the same lure (MI tagging days)... so my personal experience contradicts the studies. Obviously, many others have had the same experience.
My take on it is this. If you catch a fish on a good spot and it decides to run and hide on the other side of the lake after you release it... other ski will use that spot too. So, whether the same fish or a different fish continues to use that spot really doesn't concern me. Secondly, the smaller the lake the more likely that fish is to eventually return to that spot. Heck, perhaps we should want the fish to vacate after release in hopes that a BIGGER one will move in and replace it (ha ha)? Let the fish come to us?
Cool topic VMS!
jlong |
|
| |
|
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Hey Travis you forgot about the story of Golden Eye that's another one. Bizarro World but never-the-less another example.
catch ya later,
Krappie |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | The reason I didn't mention that incident is: 1) I'm trying to forget the Golden Eye incident :(, and 2). I'm not sure it was the same fish at all.
The story goes that I caught and lost a high 40" musky with a gold eye in late July on a particular spot. The fish was lost when she broke out the bottom of the net and swam away! New net time! The next encounter was an catch of a 49" that was on the almost exact spot later that year in November. Now the 49" didn't have a gold eye that we saw, but did have 2 gold marks on it's belly.
I'm not sure if this was a same fish encounter, and never will. However, I think this leads to more of what JLong was saying. A good fish spot is a good fish spot. This was a 2 time encounter with a 30# fish in the same year on the same spot. It's interesting to note that I never saw a fish on the spot before, or after those two fish. I just keep fishing it because it looks that good, and I hope the stars, moon, planets, and sun all align perfectly again when I fish it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I have a strong opinion with no empirical data that water released fish rarely vacate the area, and quick boatside realeases seem to be treated by fish as a "bad lunch" episode. Also have strong feelings that fish in areas I fish, desert the area if handled much when brought to the boat, but both these situations are specific to this water, and on the same water have photographs of a 40" caught 5 hours apart within 75 feet of where it was caught previously, and on the same bank, so I don't think there is a hard and fast rule on this behaviour. There was a Chippewa
Flowage tagging study, years ago, that showed some fish both staying put, and some moving out of "Dodge" after capture. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Boy...now there would be something interesting to explore....time spent handling the fish, and what happens then...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | Last year I caught a 38-inch muskie trolling a steep break with a crank bait. No pictures were taken and the fish was released at boat side very quickly. (She has a bad jaw scar)
4 days later my PMTT partner Dan caught the same muskie on the same bait. He was trolling the same line length(depth) and almost the same exact time of day 1/2 hour later.(This one had the same jaw scar, I was next to him as he caught it)
I think firstsixfeet is correct about quick release fish. Why would this muskie do the same think over 4 days later? Hungry, ya I will agree with that. Maybe he likes the rush of being caught. Ya, sure wish that was the case.
I also know of a 48 1/2 incher that we caught last June. We were after that fish for two weeks. I raised it, 2 of my client raised it, Shep had it up and a few others knew about it. That fish was was caught trolling during a thunder storm and released. I was the one holding the fish during the hook removal and release. This fish was not stressed or hurt, but she was never seen again last year.
I can't wait to see her this year. I bet she will be back on that same weedbed around the same time as she was last year. She will go 35# if she stays healthy. One of the fattest muskies I have ever held at 48 1/2 inches.
Boat side releases are the best choice if a picture is not needed. Second best is all work done in the net and lifted up for a picture then back to the water. Like Jason Smiths 10 second rule. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 507
| update |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1137
Location: Holly, MI | On a week long pike trip 2 yrs ago way up in Quebec the same pike was caught 5 times in 6 days! He was about 15 lbs and had a beat up lower jaw that was all red on the tip. One guy caught him 3 times and two others caught him once. He never moved from his little opening in a submerged brush pile. No one could resist casting at him as they drifted past his little spot. Aggressive little bugger.
There was just recently two different posts about a 53 incher from Cave Run that was caught in the same area only days apart.
They must not remember what hooks look like very long. |
|
| |
