|
|
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: 1162
| 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. |
|
| |
