Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: sworrall, Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] More Muskie Fishing -> Muskie Biology -> How far can a Musky see |
| Message Subject: How far can a Musky see | |||
 |
| ||
| For this question let's just say that the water is clear. So how far away can a Musky "SEE" a lure, not detect, but see. Often times when out on the water and retrieving a cast you get a fish that just comes out of nowhere, not even in the path of the bait, they come from way off to the side or something. I think where the hell did that fish come from, how far away did he see my lure. | |||
|
| ||
| Ralph, That is a good question. But... we can only speculate on that one since we can't communicate with muskies. First, I think the lateral line is more sensitive than we give them credit for.... so there are times when a musky may be initially approaching your lure because it FEELS its presence before it can see it. I've made casts that were behind a musky (didn't see 'em until I already fired off the cast) and then watched that fish turn and begin its assault after giving the lure one pull of the rod. In this case, I believe the fish felt my lure before it ever saw it. Now... how far away can a musky "feel" your lure???? That is a tough one. To me, it all depends on how much water you displace (speed, size, shape, etc.) and how long the fish's lateral line is (theoreticaly, a longer lateral line should be more sensitive). How far can a musky SEE should be a little easier to answer. I would think they can see as far as the environment allows them to. This is mostly related to light intensity (sunny, high noon, cloudy, night, etc), surface conditions (is it windy or calm), and water clarity (tannic stain, algae bloom, sediment, etc.). If a lake has a secci disk reading of 15 feet that means light can travel 30 feet through the water before it is "filtered" out by the water enough that you can no longer see the object. Assuming a musky can see equally as well as a human... that means a fish can spot your lure from 30 feet away under those conditions. That is a long distance in my opinion. Almost like hitting the broad side of a barn....... jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Fish vision has been studied extensively, enough I think, to make some pretty strong assumptions. First, the fish's eye is similar to a 35mm SLR camera with the shutter open all the time. The fish cannot rapidly filter out light by opening and closing the iris as we can, as the fish's iris is fixed. Good reasoning is that the available light underwater in most waters is so low that this is a benefit to the fish. Second, from what we know about lenses, retinas, and optics, the muskie cannot focus as we do. In short, the muskie is seriously 'nearsighted', and anything in visual range under clear conditions is probably a pretty nasty blur from anything beyond a couple feet. The muskie CAN move the lens closer to the retina to assist in focusing on an object further away, but this is time consuming, and not an effective option for a pike or muskie. Trout are better equipped for this because of the differing shape of the eye, and better retractor lentis muscle control. At rest, the muskie's eye is set for close range. Third, the fish's eye is placed on the sides and top of the head, unlike ours. The fish has about 178 degree vision or so, with a small blind spot behind. Stereoscopic or binocular vision is only available at about 45 degrees of the forward vision. This is the only visual plane where the fish has any depth perception. But! Sharpness of vision is sacrificed here because the image is focused out near the periphery of the retina. The sharpest vision is available when the object is at a right angle to the eye, where monocular vision occurs. I have always felt that this is a possible reason some muskies frequenty seems to be swinging back and forth behind the bait when following, trying to get a clear picture of the lure at right angles and a better focused attack path, which is straight ahead. Also keep in mind that a large muskie will have a blind spot off the nose as well, due to the placement of the eyes and distance between them. If the fish has, for example, a 5" wide head, and one looks at the angle of eye placement, there may be as much as a 6 inch area in front of the fish where they cannot see anything well at all. The closer the object, the narrower the stereoscopic field, and the poorer the attack path if the bait is erratic. I have felt for some time this process is why muskies hit gliders on the pause most of the time, as the lure image stabilizes soemwhat, and triggers the final attack. Couple these items with usual poor visibility caused by light absorption, refraction, particulate, reflection, and more: detail on the bait becomes more of a marketing issue than anything else. Keep in mind also that water is a very effective prism, and removes the longer bands of light quickly, making colors as we see them in our environment moot. In most waters at high noon, red is nearly gone in a few feet. Knock the light down because it is at an angle to the surface, say at dawn, dusk, and varying degrees to both from high noon, and adding seasonal sun angles, it is pretty murky down there compared to what we see topside most of the time. My favorite accent color is orange. How does one create orange? Mix red and yellow. Which is the base color on any given lure? look at the bait in low light, and if the orange appears dark, red is the base color. if orange appears lighter, more toward a bright grey, then yellow was the base. And this hasn't even touched on UV.... | |||
|
| ||
| Here's a link to a good article on muskie vision. http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol07.html One of the points that Dr. New makes that I think is interesting is that the muskies vision seems to used more for orienting than actual object identification and I quote. "Furthermore, the optic tectum seems to be primarily involved in the organization of "orienting" responses (turning towards an object) rather than complex analysis of form or shape such as we routinely do in our forebrains." Some of this would explain why things that don't really look like their natural prey is still very effective as a lure. Doug Johnson | |||
|
| ||
| Great reference; thanks, sir! I think that there is still much to learn here, if one is crazy enough to want that badly to know about the subject. I guess I am nutz. | |||
|
| ||
| Got to thinking here, and the article Doug gave us the link to also covers another sore point of mine, whether the fish is capable of looking for, seeing and targeting particular shapes and then 'processing' the shape as a cognitive recognition. I am going to mess with that concept some next season.[:devil:] | |||
|
| ||
| I will throw this experience out there not sure exactly how relavent. I was fishing a lake a couple years ago and seen a musky hugging the bottom in 12ft of water. We moved passed it and was waiting to be in a position to cast back at it. I casted a squirko out and basically way from the fish. The fish was facing away from the lure and the squirko satyed up near the surface. That fish spun around, had to be at least 35ft from the bait to come up and have a look see. I doubt they can see as far as they can feel or hear. | |||
|
| ||
| Steve, Great info[:p] So is it safe to say that a Musky would probably see just what we would see if we were under water with no goggles in clear water, like in your swimming pool. Blurry, but you can make out objects. I know or "think" I should say, that the initial reaction of the Musky is not site in most cases, but rather they react to the disturbance in the water, like JLong said the lateral line. Just was sitting here wondering just how good the ol eye site was. [8)] | |||
|
| ||
| Actually Ralph, if I was to experience vision as a fish does, I would immediately crash my truck! The most important information in the literature to me is still in investigative stages. The papers I have read so far tend to strenghten my belief that the muskie is plain too stupid due to simple lack of processor ability to look at an objest in the blurred, somewhat color deprived, murky environs of the average lake or river, cry 'EUREKA!! A MINNOW!!' in brilliant recognition, dashing forward (totally outsmarted by our presentation) to eat the lure. I have been at constant odds with some in the muskie world because of this idea, and what it logically leads to. The combination of adequate, but radically different vision than what is commonly assumed, poor color availability in contrast to the surface world, and the fact the muskie is working with a brain with infinitley less thought processing ability than a field mouse, should strongly suggest we look at a lure a bit differently than the bait builder wishes. This has been argued many times before; I stand my ground. The color pattern on any lure, details of the paint job, and perhaps the advertised purpose of the 'action' of any one lure are built in to sell the bait. Muskie anglers are a bit more adveturous than most anglers, but no one wants to buy an ugly lure. Make 'em pretty, and play on the average angler's belief that the lure has to 'trick' or 'fool' the fish into some belief the offering represents something 'natural', and you have the old standard in muskie bait marketing. The new custom paint jobs and many patterns now accepted in the business are a complete reversal of the old marketing standard of making a lure look like a familiar fishy to the buyer, which I find refreshing. Case in point, the Red Dragon Slammer. I have NEVER seen a fish that looks or acts like that lure, but catch many muskies that pattern and lure did. Some of Durst's customs are so radical, and incorporate so many contrasting patterns, I MUST buy a few! I have never seen a fish look like the patterns I want to buy, and that is exactly the point. What the muskie sees in the lure may just represent the standards that a bait builder sets for any bait they expect to be successful. The lure must hold good depth and speed control for the presentation the lure is designed for, and provide contrast for visual orientation. The rest is explained only by the muskie's actual behavior. | |||
|
| ||
| Actually it's pretty simple...if it is dusk, and you are sitting on your deck, and you hear a pig squeal in the woodline, you're instinctive nature says "What the"...and you immediately jump up out of your folding lawn chair and peer in the direction of the sound; at first you may not see the pig, but you know it is there. You are not concerned why the pig squealed, just the fact that something is there and you wish to check it out. The color of the pig and it's location will determine the speed w/ which you locate it. Lets say the pig is a bright color, and w/in sight, then it will be easier to spot; a darker pig farther away will be harder to spot, but you will try to spot it anyhows. And depending on the degree of your hunger, you'll chase down that pig no matter what color it is and eat it! So in conclusion, my view is not so much as to how far they can see, but their ability to sense(feel) the presence of an object, and that their degree of food needability is the determining factor in partaking of the bait offering....[::)] | |||
|
| ||
| Sponge, Your example is both interesting and entertaining. However, there are times where vision is the long range sensory. Let's say you are in the mountains of Montana and stalking trophy mule deer or Elk. When you sit on the hillside looking for your quarry with your binoculars.... I'd bet you SEE your target long before you can HEAR it. Thus, all this stuff is totally dependent on the environmental conditions the musky must adapt too. When I am fishing for suspendos in gin clear water... I believe that many strikes I induce are purely visual so I go with what LOOKS the best. But... when I'm fishing shallow rocks in either muddy water or heavy algae bloom situations... I'd go with what "feels" best. Also, I'd argue that maybe there are times we want our lure to be LESS visible??? Just a thought to consider. One I raised on the "camoflage" post a while back. Oh yeah... I have one other observation to make. I've noticed that calm conditions usually favor a good looking presentation and windy conditions favor "loud" presentation. Give me a Reef Hawg when its flat and a bucktail when the wind starts blowing and I'll be happy. I feel the waves on the surface break up light penetration thus turning a potentially "high visibility" condition (sunny day or clear water) and turns it into a "low visibility" condition. Just something to consider.... jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Glassing mulies/elk...IF the weather is clear enough...but sitting on a ridge is basically like still fishing, waiting for the quarry to come by! Most fish are camo- if not, they are history...baitfish anyhows. Basically, if the water is clear, sight can play a major part I feel; discolored water, sight is limited,therefore sound probably plays a more major role. Forgot to add, I think black shows up decent in muddy water! | |||
|
| ||
| Yes Sponge you are correct.......Muddy Waters is black I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS THOUGH!!!![;)] | |||
|
| ||
| Actually nothing Ralphster, just another thread to weave into the post tapestry, and perhaps entice Jason back into the fray![:0] | |||
|
| ||
| Sponge... first off... if I glass a giant Elk in the same valley I am watching over... I'm gonna get on my feet and stalk him. Thus, I am a metaphor for a musky. The predator. This example in no way depicts still fishing for muskies. I am suggesting that a musky is laying in ambush and is keeping watch over its strike zone. The question of whether the fish will see, hear, feel, or smell your lure first is the question. I say it is totally dependent on the environmental conditions surrounding the musky. Since deer hunting is a popular metaphor (more popular than Pig hunting in Viginia - haha)... let's try that one again. Let's say you are set up in your deer stand and it is dry with no snow. You are sitting in an area with lots of underbrush. I would bet you would hear the deer approaching (rustling leaves, twig snaps, etc.) long before you can see them. If the wind starts to blow... you may not ever hear them... and possibly not even see them pass through your shooting area. This would equate to a poor day of fishing. But... lets say that night it snowed and you return to the same stand. Now you will probably SEE the deer long before you can hear them. Secondly.... you may even see MORE deer since you can notice there movement against the snow at a much GREATER distance. Some of those deer may actually be out of your shooting range. Thus... I say this would equate to a day where you saw a lot of fish (follows) but didn't boat any. Considering how the environment changes for a musky by the season, day, hour, and even minute can influence your presentation. Anything you can do to make your lure more visible (in a non threatening way) MAY increase your chances of getting bit. This may include things like giving your lure more contrast against the surroundings, making it brighter, moving it faster, or making it louder. But... these are muskies... so nobody really knows. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Try this: find a musky in clear water, then throw a bait from a distance that you feel he/she can't hear, but throw in such a manor that you perceive he/she might see the bait...BUT-- unless we know how far sound waves travel in accordance w/ water clarity, and the amount of waves a given bait will give off, it may be difficult to know whether the fish SAW or HEARD the bait first! Until these factors have been determined, I can offer little else w/ which to make your hair stand on end![;)] I guess in reality, as far as their distance perception, we'll never know....[::)] | |||
|
| ||
| Sponge, John New suggests from his studies done on small, captive muskies that they can detect their prey WELL ENOUGH to initiate a successful strike when the target is at a distance no further than twice the fish's body length. Now... this does not mean they cannot FEEL your lure when it is further away than that.... but how will we ever know for sure? But... we do know that they won't initiate a strike on feel alone unless the lure is at least that close to them. When a musky can see your lure at a distance greater than twice their body length... they can still launch a successful strike. So... when visibility exceeds the range of the lateral line (clear water) I would think a lure that optimizes FLASH as an attractant and CONTRAST to provide a good target would be more effective than one that moves a lot of water to stimulate the lateral line. I love the idea that the lateral line is the route to triggering a strike.... but why force yourself to place your lure that close to the fish? That makes the game all that much more difficult. So.... with that said. Why do you think Burnin' Bucktails is so effective in clear water... but less effective in stained water? I always thought that the SPEED associated with this type of retrieve increased the distance a fish can "feel" the lure... but if that were true... than why wouldn't it also work just as well in stained water? Is a fast moving lure also easier to SEE? When you jump up a buck... it sure is easier to see than when it is sneaking through the brush... isn't it? Fun stuff.... that we can debate for eternity.... cause nobody will ever know [:halo:] [:bigsmile:] [:p] [;)] jlong | |||
|
| ||
| It (the musky) came...[a follow] It saw......[the bait] It heard....[the bait] It smelled..[the bait] It perservered...[sank from sight without a strike] Musky fishing in it's simplest form....[:)] [;)] [:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| Small CAPTIVE muskies...lets see...this tells me that if the muskies were bigger, then the bigger they are, the farther away they can "feel" something...perhaps being "captive", their senses are somewhat dulled, much like a pet duck, or perhaps a squirrel raised from birth! a buck sneaking through the brush is much easier to nail than one that sprints through the brush, of course, depending on woodline clarity![;)] Like you said, we may never know, but topics such as these keep our senses honed and our minds sharp![:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| Ok why not? Jason how do you know a SUCCESSFUL strike isn’t 100% related to lateral line. If I am not mistaken those little muskies where blinded that is how they new they would not LAUNCH the strike unless the prey was closer than 2 body lengths. If a fish launched a strike from say a distance of 20 feet on site alone, it still has to adjust as it gets closer to the bait more so depending on the speed of retrieve. When considering the blind spots created by eye placement wouldn’t it make the most sense that the last adjustments before the final commitment be made using the lateral line, not site. Steve’s example of the fish swinging back and forth behind the bait could also bring the lateral line into a better position to get a read on the prey. Could this by why a blunt nose glide bait that pushes more water, or a crankbait that acts like a glide bait with a big lip pushing lots of water, is more successful, at least in our boat, than a bait like the Manta? Which, as we have talked about may actually have bit of lateral line camouflage, because it glides so smoothly. Could this be the reason that every fish I have had try to hit the Manta, either missed or didn’t get hooked? They didn’t make a successfully strike. Don’t get me wrong I don’t mean to rip on the Manta it is a great bait with awesome action, but I just cant hook fish on it and as a result I go back to the Jerko and Reef Hawg where I have a much better hook up ratio. I am just trying to find a good excuse as to why I can’t make it produce like my other favorite glide baits. Back to site I think the most important aspect of color is flash. Wether you create it with a multi color pattern, on a bait with body roll or you contrast it against the back ground. Some kind of flash is going to get more attention than no flash. Why do radio towers have flashing lights and not just a light that is always on? Because that flash draws your eyes to the light. Getting their attention is the first variable in the equation to landing a fish. And don’t forget sound. Sound is a pressure wave and if I remember correctly it moves 9 times faster under water than in the air. The fish may be able to detect movement at a distance of only 2 times it’s body length, but what about sounds and pressure waves that are moving towards it. Is the lateral line and ear capable of stereo detection, if so that means mister musky can home in on a sound just like you can find your alarm in the morning. I believe this is the explanation of the fish 30 yards away turning on a dime and heading to a splashed down lure. Well I rambled enough for now. Nail a Pig! Mike | |||
|
| ||
| Mike makes some great points. I just want to add some more comments about the observation made about the distance at which the lateral line can detect vibration. John New's study observed twice the body length to initiate a strike. But, lets not read any further into that. First off... the signal they were striking at was very small... basically a motionless minnow just finning to hold its position. Not a suick getting ripped at Mach 10. Big difference in the amount of water displacement.... and potential "strength" of the signal emitted. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm beleiver in the importance of the lateral line. I even suggested at one time that it would be possible to could catch a musky on an invisible crankbait.... just to make a point. But, I don't think anyone would challenge the idea that a highly visible crankbait would be more effective than an invisible one at catching fish. Oh yeah... and I love MRobert's "blinking light" theory. jlong | |||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1937 Location: Black Creek, WI | Ironically, I just purchased the new 10" Manta this weekend... and after reading MRobert's comments above about the original Manta... I couldn't help but wonder. If the 10 incher starts catching me more fish... do you think it is because it is a larger target that is easier for the fish to SEE.... or possibly that it displaces more water and thus is easier for the fish to feel? Chicken or the egg so to speak? jlong | ||
|
| ||
| Seems we have been down this road before--but the subsequent responses were lost? Forget about elk---they don't live in water (usually)! So how far can a musky see? Far enough to survive. Steelhead can be spooked in clear water from 50-60 feet away. And muskys probably do not need to see that far in order to feed. In fact, they do not need to see a lure at all, in order to hit it. Fish do not "see" the same as humans, nor do they sense the same color spectrum (Worrall is pretty straight about this). I always try to remind people to think of the senses as part of a perceptual system. These fish have nostrils, lateral line, vision, taste, and probably can sense electrical impulses. Sharks, that other topline predator, have the same equipment and use it the same way. Wanta guess which fish have the longest lateral line? Wanta guess why fish "cast about" from side-to-side when attempting to locate prey--just like a dog or wolf? When a predator fish moves senses prey from a distance, they do this, then likely switch from one sensory device to another as the attack distance closes. In dark water, apparently the lateral line is enough for prey catching purposes. My German Shepherd can find a treat anywhere, anytime. He doesn't need to "see" it. As to whether blunt nose lures are 'better' than pointy-nose ones, that's probably a matter of user preference. Most bait fish are rather sleek, streamlined, and pointy on the nose--right? Those poor predator fish must have a heck of a time getting a daily meal, huh? The sleek glide Manta argument above doesn't hold. If it did, Bomber Long-A's, and many others wouldn't work either, or maybe a brick would work. But maybe that notion refers to another agenda, because plenty of fisherman have reported good results on them in these pages. It's really the change of direction that triggers the strike--and alternately stimulates the fish's senses. If you're not getting fish on a Manta, it's not because of the lure shape--or size, for that matter. There are too many successful fisherman using them in regular size all over the world, some of them on TV--to conclude that they don't catch fish. Got to be another reason. Will Jason be happy with his big Manta? Probably, because Tony Grant just reported a 51" on a big one in March. But back to the point about musky vision: it's really not too important how far musky's can see---because those sensory systems are designed for feeding. And they use them all, all-of-the-time, and in succession. We've observed large muskys successfully nailing Mantas, Jackpots, and other erratic lures in total darkness, on the same night, back-to-back. Pitch dark, where a human could not see the reel, or the rod tip, or his hands, let alone the lure. When these fish make up their mind (?) to hit, it makes little difference how far they can see. But I suspect that most "follows" turn away because they do see the fisherman (jumping around, waving his arms, jerking his lure, pointing proudly to the logo on his boat....acting human)! And some followers exhibit extreme caution because they have been hooked lately.... I have a friend who looks like a stump, and is a pretty good musky fisherman. It took me a long time to figure that out... | |||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1937 Location: Black Creek, WI | Some good thoughts from Rex. Thanks for sharing your ideas! I agree with most of what Rex is saying, but I'd like to discuss the idea that the trigger for some lures is the "change of direction". Is this "change of direction" a visual or lateral line trigger??? If it is purely visual, than the Manta should get munched every time... rather than bring up follows... since it has the ultimate glide!!! Thus, I personally feel that the ACCELERATION of the lure as it glides, swings, darts, or whatever is a key element to triggering a strike... with any lure.. not just the Manta. I admit that I have been one of the Manta skeptics the first year they came out. Why? Well.... ehem... possibly... Operator Error?!!! After a few lazy lookers and countless foul-ups with my original Mantas... I donated them to my Dad's tacklebox. Well... wouldn't you know it... he starts poppin' fish on them. So... I tried to learn something from that humbling experience. First, I analyzed the problems that I specifically had with the lure. One... my old "reef hawg" habits of hitting the lure HARD to get it to dart/turn simply overpowered the Manta. The Mantas glide so easily that it takes a long time to STOP gliding. That was my problem. I feel the FASTER you can get a burst of speed out of a lure... the better the trigger. However... when you do that with a Manta the darn thing glides about a mile before stopping. Well... I feel the need for a pause when using glidebaits... so I don't quick hop them. My old man had the patience hit the Manta hard... let it glide the country mile... then let it stop and hang for an ungodly amount of time... and often got bit doing this. Other friends of mine that fish glide baits fast (quick hopping) were also getting bit. The connection? They were working the bait harder to get those good bursts of speed (quick hoppers didn't wait for it to stop before hitting it again... and my Dad had the patience to let the bait come to a stop and let the fish hunt it down). I'm hoping that the Hang 10 Manta will allow me to hit it harder due to its size and get a good burst of speed from it. The bait also does not sink as fast as the smaller original Manta and pushes more water so it slows down faster and makes it easier to get the long pause that I like without gaining excessive depth. I also picked up some shallow Mantas as well for the same reason. I think I can work them harder without fouling. And lastly... I came up with a cool tinkering trick that might add one last twist to help improve my success with the Manta (I wanna test it first before spilling the beans). Now... I may be way out in left field with my ideas... but the boys at River Run are a few bucks wealthier as a result of my impulsive buying habits (haha). And if I'm wrong... I know where to buy another Reef Hawg. Long story short... I feel its the BURST OF SPEED that's the trigger... not the "change of direction" that gets glide baits munched. Although I also feel including BOTH is an even better option (heh heh).... but look at the Suick... that lure catches countless fish, has tremedous stop&go speed and doesn't need the lateral movement to do it. Thank God spring is almost here (for some it already is) and we can get out and test some of these hair-brained winter theories..... | ||
| muskyone |
| ||
Posts: 1536 Location: God's Country......USA..... Western Wisconsin | Made myself dizzier than usual reading all of this. Some great things and info here to ponder. I would like for you to consider this: On many occasions in clear water I have cast a Jig to visable fish (sight fishing) some of these fish have been shallow 1' to 4' others in deeper water 12 ' etc. others still have been in 12' to 15' of water but not on the bottom. Many times when the shallow fish are cruising all that is required is to get the jig out ahead of the fish and slowly drag it along when the fish gets close 5' to 8' to the bait. These fish often bite, do they see the bait or feel the bait? With the deeper fish they often will swim up to meet the jig, they do not bite as often as the shallow fish however. Sight or feel? I have also had the fish that are cruising shallow over deeper water follow the jig down as it sinks. They have then on occasion tipped up on their nose so that only the tail is visable and taken the jig off of the bottom. Sort of standing on their head so to speak. This has happened to me several times. Sight or feel? Doesn't realy matter that much I guess as long as the darn things bite. I just feel that using the more subtle jig presentation that sight has a lot to do with whether you get bit or not. | ||
|
| ||
| Hah! I knew we could melt jlong out of his icy domain! Listen to your old Dad, Jason, he's on to something. Remember the story about the old bull and the young bull? Mike surely makes an interesting point about how fish react. I did have the opportunity to observe one on Lac Seul once while drifting up in its blind spot---saw it turn immediately to "look" directly to the splash of a lure, watched it sense by turning to-and-fro the approach of the lure, cock itself into the classic "S" curve, flair its gills and begin to launch its attack...as the lure approached. Fantastic. I would have given up some big prior fish for a tape of that episode. Unfortunately, we had drifted too close before seeing this suspender--and it looked over it's shoulder--and panicked at the last moment. It ran straight to shore in a panic--and almost beached itself. Really funny. Jason--try not to sink someone's boat with that big manta--they can glide for extreme distances. Just relax and let the lure do the work. Like us old guys... REX | |||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |