|
|
Posts: 63
Location: Indiana | Curious if anyone keeps stats on fish every year. I keep a pretty detailed spreadsheet, documenting all fish over 30”
Going back to 2018 our average fish is 40.12” ranging from 30-53.5
Some years are better than others but always seem to be within an inch of the 40” bogey. Had our best year ever last year in terms of number and got a 53.25 but still stuck at the 40 and change average. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| I do the same as you as far as a detailed spreadsheet. I’ve found some variances in time of year on overall length (early season smaller average length compared to fall). I’m more of that 38-39 for average, but one year was 42 (been going since 2007). I’ve found some correlations between moon phase / wind direction, but that’s another story. I’ve caught one that went 11 inches…not a typo and on a hellhound no less! That can skew the numbers for sure. On the other hand the year I caught a 54”, the average length for that trip was 35.08”. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
Location: West Central WI | I go to Mylies every year. A month before I go, I log into the Muskies, Inc Lunge Log database and do a copy/paste of muskies caught in the last 30 days. After pasting to my own spreadsheet, I'll do a few sorts like bait type, color, length, etc to see if there are any trends that are worthy of my attention. I cherry pick my baits for each trip, starting with my past success and add a few baits/colors that seem to be the hot ones. I also sort by length and then calculate percent over 50", percent over 45", etc. Not sure any of that has really helped me but that exercise is always fun and part of my process of getting fired up for my trip. The length part of that is usually what gets me going and I always send that to those going with me. |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | See if this helps. m
http://www.redwinglodge.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Red-Wing-Lod... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Interesting stuff.
I have a concerning trend the last few years.A declining number of small fish-say under 35 inches.Hope it's just me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3504
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya!!
I'd say on my trips there that trend has been the same. Not catching many fish at all under the 35" mark.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 63
Location: Indiana | Dick, just got a copy of your book and can’t wait to dive in. On the topic of smaller fish, I took a look at the numbers and on LOTW the last two years 8 out of 61 fish were under 36”. Not sure how that compares to your numbers or what you would expect. The numbers of fish from 39-41 are crazy high. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1536
Location: Brighton CO. | I was at Lake Of The Woods once back in September 93 we stayed at Redwing lodge and they had catch records for every year and at the time they said the average was 38.5 and I got one and it was 38.5. When we were there a week after Labor day there was a big temp drop and the air temp was in the upper 30's and rain and drizzle every day and all day. The last day the sun came out and was nice and I lost two fish both around 40 inches. We fished around a bad Algee bloom. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 63
Location: Indiana | I go crazy with a spreadsheet too. I have everything broken down by time buckets, spots, baits, and have plotted all catches against the moon phase. 2019 and 2023 highly correlated to moon phases—2024 not so much. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2305
Location: SE, WI. | dickP - 2/12/2025 8:10 AM Interesting stuff. I have a concerning trend the last few years.A declining number of small fish-say under 35 inches.Hope it's just me. yep Dick, getting pretty concerning that we rarely catch a fish under 38-39” anymore. That said, we rarely bump fish unless near that magic mark! Less handling the better…. I do bump pike to take a few home for a fish fry  JD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Gruney your percentage of 'smaller' fish is a bit higher than mine but good news imo.
Jim yes am quite concerned.A few years back was concerned about high waters during spawning and it's possible long term affects but those affects shouldn't have shown up yet.Not sure what,if anything,is going on.
On handling,totally agree!!!!!The pics and measurement thing is wayyy out of control. |
|
| |
|
Location: Athens, Ohio | If you open the link to the Red Wing chart- above - you will see that starting in 2016, 2017 the numbers of fish in the 0-29, 25-29.5 and 30-34.9 inch ranges drop quite a bit. I couldn't get the chart to copy here. Makes you wanna go HMMM??? m |
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Good info Mikie, thanks.
Not an alarmest n sure as heck not a scientist but i am concerned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1536
Location: Brighton CO. | It can be concerning not seeing smaller fish meaning we are losing year classes, weather during the spawn?, over development?, water temp.? or fishing pressure?, maybe with people using larger lures the fish don't show themself or move out and join the fleet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2305
Location: SE, WI. |
dickP - 2/13/2025 8:24 AM Gruney your percentage of 'smaller' fish is a bit higher than mine but good news imo. Jim yes am quite concerned.A few years back was concerned about high waters during spawning and it's possible long term affects but those affects shouldn't have shown up yet.Not sure what,if anything,is going on. On handling,totally agree!!!!!The pics and measurement thing is wayyy out of control. No Dick it’s more Like WWWWWAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY…OUT OF CONTROL Every year I see good fisherman holding 25”- 40” fish up for pictures when I know they’ve caught hundreds of fish! Even on 80-90 degree days…….WHY? What was even more concerning was the amount of boats I saw last fall fishing in 30-45 feet of water, doing the Wee Screen fishing thing. Just not sure how well those deep fish are releasing;( Rarely even Net fish anymore unless there’s concern on the fishes welfare. BUT; it’s pretty cool to see these Muskies Bolt out of the Net with a video going in Fall, or anytime for that matter! All I can say is my numbers have gone way down the past 2 years. JD
Edited by jdsplasher 2/13/2025 12:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8823
| Comparing apples to yellow apples here, as I fish Eagle and not LOTW...
Average size: 42.07"
Size caught most often: 37" - 38"
Smallest I've caught was 34"
I've got one spot where I catch a 37" almost every year. I know it's not the same fish after a dozen trips, it just seems to be the place where 37's like to go....
Despite our best efforts to find them (yes, we've actually tried to find and catch little muskies just to figure out where they go) there just don't seem to be any. It's been enough years where we'd not be seeing the 37" - 38" fish if there was some sort of recruitment issue. We've tried downsizing, fishing shallow bays, shoreline weeds... They've gotta be somewhere. |
|
| |
|
| On another fishing forum, saw folks taking shots at Pete Maina for his blunt criticism of guys measuring and taking multiple photos of small fish. Their main focus seemed to be it was easy for him, as a veteran fisherman and former guide to not measure or photo smaller fish, but that for the average Joe it was a big deal, regardless of size. I had watched a video where Pete shared his views on it and thought he made good points. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
Location: Bemidji | Interesting topic! We always referred to the mid-30" fish as LOTW standard issues, now it seems closer to the 40" mark.
I still seem to be catching plenty of smaller fish, but probably spend too much time fishing smaller water areas up there with a lower percentage of larger fish present.
Here's some recent stats without pulling out my old notebook & going farther back:
2024 - 19 fish with 3 under 35" (16%)
2023 - 29 fish with 14 under 35" (48%)
2022 - 24 fish with 11 under 35" (46%)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | jdsplasher - 2/13/2025 12:17 PM
dickP - 2/13/2025 8:24 AM Gruney your percentage of 'smaller' fish is a bit higher than mine but good news imo. Jim yes am quite concerned.A few years back was concerned about high waters during spawning and it's possible long term affects but those affects shouldn't have shown up yet.Not sure what,if anything,is going on. On handling,totally agree!!!!!The pics and measurement thing is wayyy out of control. No Dick it’s more Like WWWWWAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY…OUT OF CONTROL Every year I see good fisherman holding 25”- 40” fish up for pictures when I know they’ve caught hundreds of fish! Even on 80-90 degree days…….WHY? What was even more concerning was the amount of boats I saw last fall fishing in 30-45 feet of water, doing the Wee Screen fishing thing. Just not sure how well those deep fish are releasing;( Rarely even Net fish anymore unless there’s concern on the fishes welfare. BUT; it’s pretty cool to see these Muskies Bolt out of the Net with a video going in Fall, or anytime for that matter! All I can say is my numbers have gone way down the past 2 years. JD
Agree with sentiments here. Catching small muskies is not something we want or care to do (won't go back on a small fish follow from a secondary/tertiary spot, not what we are after), and don't also don't net unless we have to (but usually safer to do so). Seeing a really big fish or catching a really big pike makes for a good day for us compared to a small musky or two, but to each their own as far as what makes you happy. As far as bumping, don't do it unless we are thinking it is getting close to a personal best. The more time out of water, the worse it is for the fish.
Impressing someone else or strangers by a count or bump is not a good reason for going that route - and the "data" really is not useful to anyone if not taken with some sort of design in mind and consistency. The catches of big fish are going to be skewed to very experienced anglers who are less likely to care about show and telling with anyone else, never mind putting to paper. Why potentially hurt the place where you like fishing? You wouldn't do that for your deer, grouse, pheasant, turkey or duck marsh, why do it where you go musky fishing?
The flooding a few years ago will have caused a number of species to have a banner year. I am guessing pike, walleye and perch the biggest beneficiaries in terms of boost in survival and growth of the fry. Hard to say what effect on musky but given I think there is strong homing to natal waters and the fact that their eggs are not sticky and sink and potentially smothered by debris, possible that they may not do well, although this may be countered by abundant food (plankton and minnow larvae) for all species' fry, including wee muskies and may reduce predation effects on them from pike (but could be the opposite). We will find out pretty soon.
As far as the current numbers of small fish, I personally think a very hard thing to get a grip on given the rusty crayfish effect on cabbage and other weeds. Musky distribution has changed and in our experience it seems to be a pattern for big muskies to displace small ones off of your typical spots - ie if a big one takes up residence, you are less likely to see some smaller ones there. In weed beds one could find a mix. We are seeing a fair few smaller muskies in random shoreline spots when prospecting. Just a short term observation over a few seasons of fishing areas with very little cabbage. Curious as to whether others observations match ours, as just some musings as we have been fishing.
Edited by Angling Oracle 2/15/2025 12:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1296
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | DickP: Could it be that because your increasing knowledge of BIG fish spots tends to keep you going there and thereby increasing your size percentage?
When I first started fishing Eagle Lake in the 60's and 70's i kept track for a while. Of the first 54 fish caught, only ONE was under 40 inches. Strange I thought at the time. Fast forward to 1986 when I spent the summer and early fall there every day, I learned a fact that may lean toward the "why" of not catching "dinks" normally. In talking to walleye fishermen throughout the season, I learned that they were catching a fair number of small muskies in the 20 to 30 inch range...from water over 20' feet deep. Were they there to stay away from the larger muskies inhabiting traditional spots in shallower water and limiting their capture from muskie anglers (who weren't fishing deeper water in those days)?
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/16/2025 1:31 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2305
Location: SE, WI. | I make it a point to talk with journey-man walleye guides with many years experience to get a beat of what depth the musky R using. The couple I know tell me ( the past 5 years), every year they have more and more musky grabbing their eyes. Which is telling me the musky, probably because of this added pressure to the fisheree, seem to be using deeper water. Maybe the bait is also using deeper water with the lack of shallow cover? And with the addition of 2-3 musky schools going on in a 30 day window , with 15-20 boats pounding a designate area is down right putting fish down! And 1 of the walleye guides, with the addition to live 360* sonar, R now guiding musky.
Edited by jdsplasher 2/16/2025 3:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 356
| Larry no doubt locational choices are a factor as is the ‘cabbage’ issue raised by AO. However i have tried to factor those things into my concerns somewhat. While my main ‘focus’ areas for the most part likely never did have many smaller fish my daily ‘routes’ always include old ‘ numbers’’ spots, slop spots, few SMB rubble spots and reeds. I just am not finding them as in the past.
In the early 2000s i had an article or 2 in my Esox Angler column where we discussed the effects of the cabbage ‘thing’, the dispersal of the huge bait concentrations and resulting need to fish Meso water on the Woods more like one would fish trout water. Clearly things changed with the near lakewide ‘cabbage’ issue but i still caught numbers of smaller fish. Not so much now. Not even when i look for them. Not even follows. Suppose part is or could be pressure but as to those sizes not much imo. Big lake and my small mind don’t help but i am concerned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | dickP - 2/16/2025 3:39 PM
Larry no doubt locational choices are a factor as is the ‘cabbage’ issue raised by AO. However i have tried to factor those things into my concerns somewhat. While my main ‘focus’ areas for the most part likely never did have many smaller fish my daily ‘routes’ always include old ‘ numbers’’ spots, slop spots, few SMB rubble spots and reeds. I just am not finding them as in the past.
In the early 2000s i had an article or 2 in my Esox Angler column where we discussed the effects of the cabbage ‘thing’, the dispersal of the huge bait concentrations and resulting need to fish Meso water on the Woods more like one would fish trout water. Clearly things changed with the near lakewide ‘cabbage’ issue but i still caught numbers of smaller fish. Not so much now. Not even when i look for them. Not even follows. Suppose part is or could be pressure but as to those sizes not much imo. Big lake and my small mind don’t help but i am concerned.
I think good long-term personal observations like this are about as reliable of data as one can get. Given the temperature preferences of musky, I don't think the smaller muskies are going to be going deeper as a a refuge from bigger ones as an explanation for the lack of encounters, it does sound that whatever LOTW subpopulation you are fishing has had some recruitment issues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 197
| Muskies Canada has logs from members (As long as they submit them) that will have all this information... Pretty cool to look at. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | I took a quick glance at my trip logs over the last 10 yrs. As a % of fish caught my boat has caught about the same # under 40 the last 10 yrs. One year in a week my boat partner and I had 29 fish we did catch 7 under 40 that was the highest % caught under 40 which was 2017, but we also had 11 over 48" that year. Since 2021 we have caught 2-4 under 40" every trip. In all the trips I don't really recall having many follows under about 38" ever since I started going there in 2011.. with the lack of cabbage and just general weed growth shallow I don't know that we should be too concerned, or at least I hope... seems to me we still see/catch the same # of 38-42s or so every year so they have to be doing ok.... |
|
| |
|
| Interesting discussion. Does anyone know if the Ontario natural resources authorities do any kind of sampling like they do here in WI? The chain I live on was sampled a number of years ago and it involved fyke nets right after ice out then electro shocking later in the spring, giving them a good idea of population and size structure.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 401
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 2/19/2025 6:27 PM
Interesting discussion. Does anyone know if the Ontario natural resources authorities do any kind of sampling like they do here in WI? The chain I live on was sampled a number of years ago and it involved fyke nets right after ice out then electro shocking later in the spring, giving them a good idea of population and size structure.
In NW Ontario muskies are not a high priority (compared to walleye for example) and I am not aware of any dedicated sampling as far as getting a handle on musky year-class structure or anything like that. Definitely not the budget for it. Realistically if one wanted to learn more probably a few outside funded student research projects supported by the Ontario DNR would be the way to go about it. At present creel surveys is how the musky fishery health is assessed as far as I am aware in my interactions with the Kenora district.
NE/Southern Ontario I think there is more data collected and a significant amount from actual direct research projects on musky and musky recovery in a number of different systems, plus issues with pike introductions in Kawartha Lakes that probably have monitoring in place
Dick's observations are concerning in the sense that long term observations like that sort of level out some of variation that one gets with year-to-year observations that are confounded by all kinds of uncontrolled variables. It will be concerning if the median size of fish starts to move up which would imply failures in some of the younger year classes. One needs a fair bit of data, but these kinds of observations create the questions and then one can work on getting answers,
As to BNelson's point, if you are continuing to see a fair number of fish that are still recruiting in the lower end of the range, you are clearly getting the recruits from somewhere - 40 inch fish this year were likely high thirties fish the year before, and mid-thirties the year before that. I fish a completely different area where we are getting a mix of all year classes, including some really small fish. Limited data but implying successful spawns. LOTW is going to have many subpopulations of muskies homing to spawn in variety of different areas of the lake and successful recruitment affected by different variables, so there is going to be some subpopulations that may have a bad year in one part of the lake where others way do okay or do really well. Some may decline for a number of years - has happened to the subpopulation in the extreme NW part of the lake in the past.
The best thing to do at this point is just keep providing these observations as a group with regards to whether small muskies seem to be declining in some areas. As per my usual handling preachiness, not important to get an actual measurement, just "not seeing any" as per DickP's report is useful.
As far as really "good" musky size data from LOTW, the Nestor's Falls Cup I think gives as good of data as one could get given the anglers are trying to catch any size fish to get their first two for the day. Overall for me what stands out in that series of data is how few really big fish are caught when one is specifically fishing for numbers with big fish being secondary. The data is localized to some extent to the Nestor Falls area and accessible basins of course, but a fair few small fish caught.
https://muskycup.2cat.com/index.php/tourneyrsults
Edited by Angling Oracle 2/20/2025 12:57 PM
|
|
| |
