|
|
Posts: 2037
Location: lansing, il | Stay thirsty my friends. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Kingfisher - 3/27/2010 11:04 PM
Guys like Ramsel and Lazarus, Doug Johnson and many others seem to base their careers around 8 to 10 inch lures.
I can't speak for these guys, but if I had to guess I think these gentlemen would disagree with this statement. They are "basing their careers" on understanding fish location and behavior at given times of the year. It is freaky how dialed in some guides can get, and until you experience it firsthand it is hard to appreciate. That is what separates the men from the boys, not a regular or Magnum Bulldawg.
Put a lure in front of a hungry, aggressive fish and it's not going to matter what color it is, how big it is, whether it has holoform tape or a plastic tail, or one painted blade and one unpainted blade. IMO, fish behavior and location should be in the forefront of the angler's mind. Lure choice (and size) should come 2nd.
So to answer the original question, no I do not think size really matters. I think location and behavior is first and foremost, followed by lure choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | esox50, I couldn't agree with you more.
I am most concerned about where/when the fish are active. Secondly, I am concentrating on boat control so as to not spook the fish and present the lure in the best way possible. Lure choice is a distant third.
As others have gone to larger lures, we have actually down-sized in my boat. We now throw spinner baits in the 1-2 oz range more than any other lure and our catch rate has gone way up. And its not like we're catching only small fish either.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1425
Location: St. Lawrence River | For most, trolling big baits is strictly where its at here. I dont know any serious guys who troll anything under 10-12", specially not in fall. Occasionally 8-9". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I consider Bill Sandy in the same elite group as Lazarus. And I will say that Bill catches alot of fish on Double tens and 10 inch jakes/14" jakes, and 13" grandmas but Bill has put just as many musky's in the boat using the smaller mepps marabous and smaller crane baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2076
| Good post Sean, I would say at least 70% of the time i/we throw 8"+ baits in my boat.... everyone prefers to catch big fish ...so throw big baits right? My records actually show I should quit listening to the "big bait theory" and start throwing more 5-7" baits! - Well other than a Dbl-10
Edited by IAJustin 3/28/2010 10:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I believe that when I looked at the muskie incs list of 50 inch caught this last year I was surprised that there were not that many caught on yhe really huge baits. I don't have it handy to check but I believe thats what I remembered. There were alos not many caught on the soft plastics and that really surprised me.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | esox50 - 3/28/2010 12:34 PM
Kingfisher - 3/27/2010 11:04 PM
Guys like Ramsel and Lazarus, Doug Johnson and many others seem to base their careers around 8 to 10 inch lures.
I can't speak for these guys, but if I had to guess I think these gentlemen would disagree with this statement. They are "basing their careers" on understanding fish location and behavior at given times of the year. It is freaky how dialed in some guides can get, and until you experience it firsthand it is hard to appreciate. That is what separates the men from the boys, not a regular or Magnum Bulldawg.
Put a lure in front of a hungry, aggressive fish and it's not going to matter what color it is, how big it is, whether it has holoform tape or a plastic tail, or one painted blade and one unpainted blade. IMO, fish behavior and location should be in the forefront of the angler's mind. Lure choice (and size ) should come 2nd.
So to answer the original question, no I do not think size really matters. I think location and behavior is first and foremost, followed by lure choice.[/QUOTE
Well of course they rely on fish location but each one of them has expressed the opinion that anything over 10 inches is too big. They base their careers on lures 10 inches or smaller AND they know when AND where to put them ha ha ha . Maybe I should have said they built their careers on lures 10 inches or less. Edited by Kingfisher 3/30/2010 9:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | to some degree one has to look at the % of the time each size bait are used...obviously if the majority of the time the baits in the water are "big" ...well duh they are going to account for the biggest % of fish in the net..if they only throw say 5-8" baits well guess what...same story...I don't question big baits working...i love my pounder and 12" cranks but if everyone on Mille Lacs threw mepps Marabous guess what...big fish would get caught...one has to look at the % of the time each size bait is in the water to cleary say if they are that much better... I know before big baits were all the craze there were hundreds if not thousands of 50 plus inch fish caught on LOTW/Eagle/Lac Seul etc etc etc etc....
I will agree though the larger baits will probably catch bigger fish..but it is amazing how many huge fish each year get fooled on little baits...
Edited by BNelson 3/30/2010 10:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | Hooking and landing percentage haven't been mentioned yet. A certain size of bait might very well get a fish to bite it. But can it stay on long enough for you to land it? Leverage, weight and the mass/bulk of a bait contribute to how well it hooks and holds. I always think of the "o" word when describing a muskie or pike or any predator: Opportunist. If there's an easy mess of small food around, it might well focus on gorging on it. I doubt that if a forty pound fish sees a sick inch sucker on the ropes that's easy to get it will pass it up. If that same forty pounder meets a dying or messed up six pound lake trout and an easy opportunity is there, it will take it also. I've always thought that an easy opportunity is an easy oportunity, whether the food is small, med, large, xl etc. Killing, turning and swallowing a big meal might actually be too much work for a fish. Maybe chasing multiple small fish is too much work. There's no answer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Nordeast Minneapolis | I seem to keep increasing my lure sizes... bucktails get bigger, crank baits get bigger, etc. etc. Then I go fishing with my father, who has steadily downsized his lures. He'll be throwing a Mepps #5, or standard size Reef Hawg, and consistently outfish me. Which just goes to show.... I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.
As a side note, I once caught about a 16" smallmouth trolling a 10" Jake on Mille Lacs. The smallie didn't seem to care much about scale. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Gus, do consider a 10 inch Jake to be a big bait? From what I am Gathering 10 inches seems to be the jumping off point. Anything over 10 inches is big anything under medium to small. I think a 10 inch lure is pretty big in fact many 10 inch lures are bigger than the fish they trying to mimic. For instance my 12 inch Deepthreat next to a 12 inch Jumbo perch is much bigger in profile. Hook setting qualities were mentioned a few threads back. I cant see where huge baits can possibly hook and hold as well as smaller ones unless the angler employs super heavy tackle and knows how to use it.
But Im not trying to shoot down any type of lures just doing some honest research. I value every opinion on this post. Knowing what areas we need to improve in helps us to build and field better and better lures every year. W e just found out yesterday once again that on at least one certain lake in Indiana that small lures get bit and big ones dont. We had 8 contacts and boated one fish all on baits under 6 inches. Not a sniff on anything over 6 inches. These fish also preferred lures with a bluegill profile and coloration. But like the stubborn man I am I tossed dawgs and double #8,9 and 10 Bucktails 9 inch glides and my weagle all to no avail. My wife meanwhile hooked and lost two fish on a 5 inch crane and a new prototype 4 inch shallow suspending Rippin Shad. Her fish in the net came on a standard deep diving 4 inch rippin Shad and we lost two others on the same lures. I could have left 5 tackle boxes at home. But on the same token maybe that lake changes and by summer bigger baits work there. I know I wont be getting rid of my big stuff but I might be using lures 10 inches and under more often than not. Kingfisher
Edited by Kingfisher 4/2/2010 1:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| A time and place for everything. I've caught big fish on small lures and small fish on big lures. I tend to go bigger as the season progesses, and on some lakes throw nothing under 8" just because of the trophy potential. I still don't think that a properly presented lure on the small side would be passed up by a big muskie in the right state of activity, it happens every year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 102
Location: Bowling Green, KY | I thought I'd chime in here. I mostly fish the rivers here in South Central Kentucky and personally feel that if you fished around here with nothing smaller than an 8" lure that you would be firmly convinced that every musky around here had died. I know, I've tried. I told myself, "a musky is a musky no matter where it swims" but theres only so many beatings a man can take by your partner in the back of the boat throwing a J-13 rapala.
Edited by Performance_Tuned 4/6/2010 8:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | "Lots of macho guys out there willl tell you go biig or go home."
There is a time and place for both large and small baits. A perfect example is Lake St. Clair....Been fishing LSC for 10 or so years now and Wiley's been shipping plugs out there since the late 80s....the hottest lures out there are the 5.5" and 6" plugs. WHo knows why!?!?!? I've tried running bigger baits in the spring and summer...they just DO NOT produce like the smaller ones do for me and most others. Now come Fall, the fish will start hitting those bigger baits, but the 5.5s and 6s clearly outproduce. The Kawarthas, on the other hand, seems to be the place for the bigger baits all year round...funny thing, but being prepared for whatever is the key.
Oh by the way, the hog that was caught by my partner on Good Friday was caught on a little 5.5" jnt'd lure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| ShutUpNFish - 4/7/2010 1:03 PM
"Lots of macho guys out there willl tell you go biig or go home.
I live near Chautauqua lake, NY, and have been fishing this lake hard for muskies since 1969. The lake is good for numbers but not much for size. The average fish here is 35-36". Through trial and error when trolling, have found small lures, (5-6") to consistently out produce bigger baits from opening day thru the end of the season. My two all time favorite trolling lures here are the J-13 rapala with the rings, hooks, switched out to size 5 Bucher rings and eagle claw 2/0 374's. The other is the rapala shad rap with a 2/0 eagle claw tail hook and a 3/0 belly hook. These two lures are 5 1/4 and 5 1/2" respectively and have produced several hundred fish for me up to 52" over the past 20 yrs. I fish alone a lot and small lures are a joy to troll with especially when you have a floating weed problem like we do here, running two rods and pulling lines every 5 minutes.
I guess the whole point of this is, you really don't need big lures to catch a big fish, especially on numbers lakes where the odds of catching a nice fish, say 48" plus are remote.
Edited by swen swensen 4/8/2010 11:08 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The best lure size is probably dependent more on the common bait size than anything else. If the Muskies are typically foraging on larger baitfish, then larger lures may be more productive. If the Muskies are foraging on smaller or mid-sized baitfish, then lures in that size range may be the most productive. And then maybe a different size will get their attention better just because its different.
The worst thing one can do is to decide that one will never use a larger lure (10 inches or larger) or never use a smaller lure (under 8 inches). Either way one is most likely limiting their chances of being successful.
The truth is that whenever you have a lure in the water, no matter what size or color, you have a chance of catching fish. For instance, I have caught many more Muskies while fishing in the middle of the afternoon in sunny skies than I have while watching my kids play soccer in perfect fishing conditions.
Edited by Herb_b 4/8/2010 12:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | But lakes and rivers have food available 365 days a year that ranges in size from small to med to large to xl etc. A muskie in LSC could have four inch shad, twelve inch perch or a four pound walleye/sheephead. A fish in Georgian Bay might eat 6" smelts, 12" bullheads or an eight pound whitefish. On prime spots, all sizes, shapes and colours of food will be present to choose from. The meal that happens to make the mistake or be the easiest will get eaten. Muskies eat based on opportunity, as do all top-end predators. When a grizzly gets on bugs or berries, a 2000lb bear will eat berries. If an elk is sick and weak, the 2000lb bear eats the 500lb elk.
A fish's #1 coice is usually gonna be the most opportunistic option at any given time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | JBush - 4/8/2010 12:29 PM
But lakes and rivers have food available 365 days a year that ranges in size from small to med to large to xl etc. A muskie in LSC could have four inch shad, twelve inch perch or a four pound walleye/sheephead. A fish in Georgian Bay might eat 6" smelts, 12" bullheads or an eight pound whitefish. On prime spots, all sizes, shapes and colours of food will be present to choose from. The meal that happens to make the mistake or be the easiest will get eaten. Muskies eat based on opportunity, as do all top-end predators. When a grizzly gets on bugs or berries, a 2000lb bear will eat berries. If an elk is sick and weak, the 2000lb bear eats the 500lb elk.
A fish's #1 coice is usually gonna be the most opportunistic option at any given time.
You would think exactly that....and in most cases, I would agree 100%. However, I fished for enough years to know that there are certain places/times where big vs. small baits just do not produce for me. I don't even take my bigger baits to Lake St. Clair anymore because I know that I would only be wasting my time....not saying they WON'T catch fish....just saying that the smaller baits will catch more and big fish as well. (I told a little white lie....sorry...I still carry a small box with just a handful of larger baits hidden away-just in case ) So hard to resist running them when things get slow out there, but have yet to have any consistant action on them at St. Clair....Why? Who the Hell knows...I just go with what my experiences have taught me. Just my .02....Tight Lines. |
|
| |
