|
|
| The other threads got me thinking of some questions for you regarding your experience tracking those open water fish on Eagle.
I don’t know how much data was recorded when tracking these fish, but here are some question I would be curious to know the answers to if you have them and don’t mind sharing.
What were the depths these fish liked to hang out at when over open water? Was there a pattern? Was the depth different when it appeared the fish where actively feeding on open water forage? How did the thermocline usually relate to the fishes location in the water column if you noticed a relation?
Thanks Larry, just some stuff that has popped into my head with all the other discussions going on.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| Mike:
Inquiring minds want to know! First of all Mike, there was a LOT of data. I spent 4 months of my life tracking 20 muskies in two large NW Ontario lakes on a nearly daily basis.
As for the depth they liked to hang out in while in deep water is very complex. The depth they preferred was relevant to what they were doing. To illustrate, let us use the largest female in Eagle Lake (54 inches). July was a very active month for her and she made a round trip from the shallow area she preferred to her deep (very large) area on an average of every three days, covering a distance of up to 10 miles! This equates to a LOT of time spent swimming. When following structure, she preferred to follow the 18 foot breakline, but she also had the ability to travel thru water 50 feet deep without any apparent structure to follow (do they follow "magnetic" underwater paths as sharks do?). When not moving, she was ALWAYS near permanent or "living" (baitfish) structure. She and other deep feeders were often graphed at or near the depth level of the forage, occasionally breaking surface while feeding. I believe the above should also cover your "pattern" question, as well as your depth of feeding question.
Even though there was 50 feet of water in the deepest basin she used, it did not thermocline, so I cannot answer that part of your questions.
Hope this helps.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com
|
|
| |
|
| Larry is there any publication available on the Eagle Lake tracking study?? Did someone do a compilation of the data and is it available to normal peons like myself?? Would love to see the whole thing.
??????? BrianW[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| DocEsox:
The "tracking" on Eagle and Wabigoon Lakes that I was involved in was part of the field work done for Dr. Bernard Lebeau's Doctoral Thesis field work, and was done for purposes other than us muskie anglers learning what muskies (at least in those two lakes) do. The only publication resultant from that work (tracking done mostly by me) was articles that I wrote for IN-FISHERMAN and MUSKY HUNTER magazines. My stated goal in writing those articles was to look at the information available, through the eyes of a muskie angler and pass it on, with some conclusions arrived at by discussion with "scientists" and other well known muskie anglers, as well as drawing on my many years of experience.
To answer the question that is probably in the back of your mind, NO it was not a "scientific" tracking study that was "peer reviewed". Conclusions drawn were mine, based on what I knew from over 30 years of angling experience, compared against practically "living" with the transmitter fish for four months and getting "up close and personal" with them on a regular basis. Many of my previous thoughts and ideas were blown right out of the water shortly after tracking began! It is one thing to guess as to what is going on, but yet another to make educated, or as some like to call them, anecodotal conclusions based on dozens of observations.
The work I did (on a volunteer basis) involved long hard hours doing many things in addition to tracking, which in itself was at times very stressful trying to cover all fish in one lake in a days time, record all required data (time, location, depth, water temperature, air temperature, weather, activity, visual contact, try on occasion to recapture,etc.) when they were spread over 25 miles of water, and traveling 60 to 75 miles from base camp was not unheard of.
My only purpose in writing about that experience was to "share" the information I had gleaned and try to explain some of the behavior I "personally" witnessed.
Again, conclusions drawn/written about were mine. It is up to each individual angler to accept or reject what my experiences found and meant to me.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the reply Larry. But I am really quite interested in Dr. LeBeau's docotral thesis...if I could only find it. I have seen his name mentioned so many times I would love to see his work. Do you know anywhere I could obtain a copy of his doctoral thesis?? I have searched online and haven't been able to locate it...or maybe you know someone who could point me in the right direction?
I appreciate your observations and comments, especially those derived from your years of experience.
Thanks,
BrianW |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry, that is exactly the type of info I was looking for. And I greatly appreciate your willingness to come forward and share your experiences and educated conclusions with us here and in print. Last year I specifically ordered the back issues of Musky Hunter to get your full set of articles, the first issue of Musky Hunter I read had the last installment of your tracking related articles. Great stuff.
Couple follow up questions for you:
Did that 18 foot breakline have any significance that you noticed? Example, was it the toe of a slope leading to a flatter basin, was it the hinge point coming off a shallow flat breaking into the deep basin, or anything else that might be significant. Why do YOU think she liked that depth?
Also when she was just hanging near permanent structure how did she relate to the structure.
And one more. In a recent article about a NY tracking study the author made a familiar conclusion. That being that most of the fish studied over 40 inches spent the majority of their time in or at least over deep water. Did the Eagle and Wabigoon fish demonstrate this same type of pattern. I don’t remember the size distribution of the 20 fish you spent 1/3 of a year with, but I’m curious.
Thanks again Larry.
Nail a Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
| DocEsox: Dr. Lebeau's thesis used to be available on line, but I can't now find it. Sold for around forty dollars. It also used to be available on iner library loan from the Natl. Library of Canada. Perhaps your local library can help you out.
Mike: Some tough questions. There did not seem to be any particular relationship to flats or depths when she was traveling the deeper shorlines. When travel occurred along weedlines, she and others followed the outside edge, regardless of depth.
When she was near permanent structure, she (and also occasionally other muskies) could be suspended at any depth around the structure, usually not near the surface.
The muskies that used the deep water were the bigger males (over 20 pounds) and all females (ranged from 21 to 40 pounds). Answering off the top of my head without checking the data, I'm guessing that the time in deep and shallow was about the same.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Larry- This must be deja vu- I just finished re-reading your "Tracking Monster Muskies" article in Feb 92 issue of In-Fisherman and "Worlds Largest Muskies" in Apr. 92 issue.
Thanks, great info- yes I am insane! I read incessantly, but then again, aren't all the folks who fish Muskies slightly off a bit?[:knockout:]
Al Warner
www.icantplayfindmyfoot.com |
|
| |
|
| How often and for how long of a period of time would you loose track of a particular fish, and also how deep was the transmitter good too?
Did any of these fish hang together,(school) if so did they school according to size? |
|
| |
|
| Ah, more great/tough questions!
BrianF: Yes, my involvement did affect the way (locational) that I fish to some extent. I do spend more time checking out deep water structure, but baitfish is still the key to finding them "out there".
And yes, I certainly spend the bright sunny days shallow. This was the one thing that "blew me away" the most!
Obviously, limiting the use of the trolling motor can't hurt, but during tracking, it seemed to effect the males MUCH more than the females! I could easily get within 10 feet of the BIG gal using the trolling motor, but most of the time the males moved off.
As for "travel zones", I do spend more time hitting "holding spots" (structure) along travel routes, but not a lot, as long distance movements were fast and frequent in the summer and even when they stopped along the way between the deep and shallow preferred areas on occasion, they didn't stay put long.
jerryb: Once the summer home ranges of each transmitter fish were learned, it was fairly easy to relocate them, even if "spooked" and they changed areas.
The transmitters we used were very powerful, and distance they could be heard at varied with each lake. Water conductivity plays a large part in this. As for depth, I had no trouble finding them even in 30 feet of water. Obviously, you had to be closer to them at those depths, than if they were near the surface.
After spring seperation, none of the transmitter fish "hung out" together, although at times a couple of them could be in the same area briefly. On one occasion, while attempting to recapture one of them, I caught another, non transmitter fish of nearly the same exact size, within 3-5 feet of the one I was after! As for muskies "schooling", I believe at times, based on my general angling experiences, that muskies do at times "gang up" to herd baitfish. Had one occassion when fishing with Len Hartman where there were several fish from 25 to 40 pounds in an area no more than 100 yards, and the baitfish were pushed up against a rock shelf 8 feet deep next to 30 feet of water. The locator screen was "black" with baitfish from top to bottom. Managed to catch only one of them, but at 36 pounds, it was fun. We had them following from both ends of the boat at the same time! Had taken a break from trolling with Len to cast this favorite area of mine, and it paid off. Even Len was giggling!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Larry, great to see you back. I made a few changes, are you able to reply now? Is the problem fixed? Let me know.
Thanks,
Zach |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
I've heard that some muskies move away when an outboard motor begins to get near (in the shallows). At what depth do they NOT move away? If a fish is in 20' and a boat and motor goes over head do most stay put,, or move away? How's about 30'? Thanks Jerry Borst |
|
| |
|
| Larry, there is a BIG(22,000) acre lake here near the hootch that has some musky...perhaps I should troll/cast the islands + underwater humps that are near the main channel? There is one point that averages 2-6' + has deep water on 3 sides of it...I realize it's a drop in the bucket but would like to know your thoughts on this....quite a few reports of musky sightings w/in a mile or so in this general area! Thanks.....[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| jerryb: Sorry I missed your question earlier. Difficult to answer, but I believe that at times gas motors don't bother them at all, as I have backtrolled (actually casting while running the boat in reverse with the big motor) right over the top of one (couldn't have missed it with the skeg of the motor more than a foot or so) and it just lazily swam toward the direction I had casted, and when the two (lure and fish) came together, I caught it!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Sponge Bob: Very difficult to answer your question based on the given information. However, the point you describe sounds like a classic spot to spend some time on. On reserviors, nearly all of my spots are in close proximity to the original river channels.
Go for it, and good luck!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| Thanks Larry....I plan on hitting that area during diff. times of the day + evening over a weekend..looks too good + has alot of deep water around it![:sun:] |
|
| |
