|
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | Years ago on another board long since gone away, there was speculation by some that angling pressure actually affected the behavior of muskies. The BST was that angling pressure, including CPR, was effecting musky foraging and that fish subject to intensive angling pressure, for example on a lake like Minnetonka, were actaully thinner than average. The BST was that the fish had become more tentative and cautious as a result of near relentless angling encounters, reducing the foraging efforts on natural and wild prey, thus reducing overall body condition.
Well, the most recent In-Fishermen just published a summary of a study undertaken on pike that addressed this very subject. The results seem to collaborate the BST that had been discussed previously. Pike subject to angling pressure, showed a noticeable lack of movement generally than their counterparts not exposed to angling pressure. They also tended to become much more cover oriented. Overall, the condition of the pike exposed to angling pressure were not as robust as the pike which were not exposed to angling pressure.
I'm not presenting this material as a concerned PETA member, but look at this study from an anglers perspective. I'd be willing to bet that musky also experience similiar effects from angling pressure. I like fat fish that bite. Don't we all. So, the research suggests to me that it is more important to find bodies of water/areas/spots that are seldom fished by the rank and file musky crowd, if you want to find the most robust fish around. Heck, just look at the photos of muskies taken in the early days of the Lac Seul musky discovery to see examples of robust, unpressured fish. I think there are other lessons in the study that can be extrapolated to muskies.
Thoughts?
BrianF. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The way your framed this is interesting to me. I fish the Metro, specifically Minnetonka, and I for the most part ASSUME that pressure does impact fish and fish behavior. Perhaps the most noticeably area that can be commented on with certainty is what you can get away with on a figure 8 on a lake like Tonka vs. lakes in Greater MN. On Tonka your 8 had better be clean, consistent and BIG or you can forget about even getting a fish to make the turn. On lakes to the north I find the fish to be much more forgiving of mistakes.
Perhaps an extreme example, but there is a video I saw of Bob Mesikhomer fishing Stork Lake. The guide he is with misses a follow by taking his lure out of the water. He then puts the lure back in the water and the fish eats it. Would this ever happen in the Metro? I'm sure someone somewhere has some extreme example, but it is probably exceedingly rare vs. Canada. IMO, this is likely highly related to angler pressure.
Edited by Brad P 9/18/2014 1:01 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | Interesting stuff Brian...I will have to read that article... I'd agree, if it effects Pike it surely effects muskies... since you fish V quite often I'm sure you've seen the effects 1st hand, secondary spots becoming better?
Lakes like LOTW fish might not get caught too often, an example like the one above, I stung a fish 2 x on the 8, literally setting the hook, stung the fish, then fish came back and ate it again, set hook, lure came up out of the water w the hookset, I slapped it back into the water and got the fish to swing around and eat it a 3rd time... 47"er no less....I fish some lakes in MN where 3-4 yrs ago fish seemed to come into the 8 with more frequency... now are more boat shy ... how do we adjust... well to me getting down in their face might get more bites.. ie, the strike zone most of the time is smaller vs. the days before pressure... this year it seems most I know have had off years, just not seeing the # of fish per hour or getting the # of hits per hour we use to... all I know is I hope this year isn't the new norm or I'm taking up smally fishing full time! 
Edited by BNelson 9/18/2014 1:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | Interesting indeed...
From a thread five years ago, Marc Thorpe wrote some very sage thoughts about this very topic when discussing maximum size attainable by muskies. To wit:
"We must also factor in angling pressure,many fish have shown signs of sulking and ceased feeding for a period after being angled and displayed avoidance afterward. I suspect that this experience of angling may impact a fish feeding behavior which would equate to lack of growth. From my observation on the Big O and Big Flo and many other regions of fish pictures I have observed,this is a important factor and determining factor which is an addition to all other variables which would allow for maximum growth." - Marc Thorpe, 2009
Perhaps there is value after all in the keen observations of folks who are on the water alot. Marc Thorpe didn't need research to reveal what his experience was telling him.
Want bigger and more willing fish?? Don't go where other anglers go.
There's even more to this story though, IMO.
Brian
Edited by BrianF. 9/18/2014 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 455
| That is why certain places are so good in the fall. Sometimes fish that were buried in a ten mile weed bed all summer head out to where you can now get them. Same with open water fish moving shallow or to structure. Problem is on smaller waters and heavy pressure waters the fish see a constant parade of baits all year. No place to hide. Marc sure does have a lot of ideas and theories. I don`t think anyone who ever lived spent more time thinking about muskies than he does. To the point you wonder how he handles the rest of life that's not Muskie related. I mean he can`t spend more than 10% of his time thinking about stuff that's not Muskie related. |
|
| |
|
| This is a great topic. I too fish the metro and it is a wonder to me that I/we can catch any at all with all the pressure on these lakes Yet somehow feel I do pretty well considering pressure and even manage to get a giant or two every year. There are still places up north where muskies have never seen a lure and believe those are far less timid and likely to bite.. I get lots of follows in the metro but they often bolt away when they see the boat. Brad hit the mark when saying your mechanics best be good on the 8 and such to be successful in the metro. I also have to agree that the fish do seem thinner on the pressured lakes. Not sure if its due to less forage (probably not as tonka is loaded with forage) but there is something to this pressure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| It stands to reason that over time lures going by would just become part of their environment, and they would be less apt to follow and eat anything that moves. It's been said a million times - "If it moves, it's food." In lakes with little or no angling pressure, that's entirely true - anything that that moves through the water is edible. As angling pressure increases, there are more and more things "swimming around" out there that are not food. Whether that affects their normal feeding patterns? I guess it could. It makes sense that it would. You've altered their natural environment.
I think a more important question is how long they retain that information. That conditioned response, or lack of it in this case... Are we talking about the rest of the day, a few days, a few weeks? A month?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | EA, I don't have the answer to your question about how long the memory is retained, but my experience and other related research done on fish tells me that it's a long time. Much longer than most anglers realize. Years perhaps. We already know that fish make seasonal movements in anticipation of seasonal foraging opportunities in the body of water they happen to inhabit. So the 'memory' is long. We also know from research done on other animals that negative associations are held much deeper and longer than positive associations, probably due to the more immediate threat to survival than positive experiences. I can't explain why the same fish is caught in the same location a day, week, month, or year apart - and on the same bait - except to say some fish are more dumb than others. The Research done on bass in Texas seems to suggest that is the case. That same study also suggests certain other fish learn very well though and that a few in the population are so wary as to be completely uncatchable, even with live bait. Same with muskies? I'd bet 'yes'.
A famous baseball slugger once said, 'Hit em' where they ain't". I think the same can be said for improved musky success.
Brian
Edited by BrianF. 9/21/2014 3:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| One challenge is that it is very hard to isolate pressure as a factor impacting angling performance. Hard to rule out other factors.
The best example I've seen in my own fishing was last November where fish on some of the high pressure fall spots on Tonka started becoming very timid around suckers. Unless you were there at the exact window, those fish wouldn't hit the minnow where in October the challenge was mostly finding a fish.
A similar experience with a Monster on a spot where it probably had seen more suckers than just about any fish in the lake. I got her to move twince, but very neutral, even to an active 20" minnow.
I can't say for sure that these experiences were solely the result of pressure, but it seems like the likely cause.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | This thread is gravitating towards a discussion on whether fish get conditioned or not. However, I'm more interested in the physical ramifications of C&R. If a fish feeds less after a negative C&R experience, does their health suffer? Not so much in regard to mortality, but in overall weight? I often hear people remark that a fish was CLEAN.... suggesting it had not be caught recently. Often times, these fish are thicker, stronger, and just plain healthier looking specimens. Is this just a myth or truth? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| jlong - 9/22/2014 11:53 AM
This thread is gravitating towards a discussion on whether fish get conditioned or not. However, I'm more interested in the physical ramifications of C&R. If a fish feeds less after a negative C&R experience, does their health suffer? Not so much in regard to mortality, but in overall weight? I often hear people remark that a fish was CLEAN.... suggesting it had not be caught recently. Often times, these fish are thicker, stronger, and just plain healthier looking specimens. Is this just a myth or truth?
This is just speculation:
A fish expends a tremendous amount of energy between chasing down a lure, the catch, the fight, and when it finally gets released. I'm not sure what has to happen to eliminate the lactic acid buildup, or how long that takes, but I suspect it's even more energy expelled in the recovery process.
I would expect that the act of "normal" feeding requires a LOT less energy. And "normal" feeding usually ends in a meal. In that case the amount of nutrients obtained from a meal are likely to be greater than the amount of energy (i.e. nutrients) used in the process. They'd be extinct if they were not efficient predators...
I don't know of any studies on this, but a musky that spends its time chasing and eating lures is apt to be less nourished and presumably less healthy than one that's not-as-easily fooled.
On the other side of the coin, maybe the "smarter" ones are just better hunters, and are healthier because they have a greater rate of feeding success and therefore have less reason to chase lures around. Maybe the dumb ones just aren't as good at catching prey and those are the ones we catch because they're dumb. And hungry.
The fish that show no signs of being caught do seem to be heavier, I can't deny that.
Interesting topic.
Edited by esoxaddict 9/22/2014 1:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | A couple friends and I have been observing/discussing jlongs very concerns for a few years. There is no doubt that Muskies on a few particular bodies of water I fish, used to run, on average, much heavier/cleaner. Some of these lakes were either created or resurected fisheries. A couple bodies of water we fish have a much higher density of Muskies than they used to which is another topic. However, where a few of us used to have a low density/fledgling population of fish to ourselves in the late 90's-early 2000's, and have seen the uptick in intelligent angling over the past decade, there are fewer and fewer big clean fish(supported through weight analysis in surveys). I believe I have played a role in this, and I know my release techniques are at least as good or slightly better than average. I am okay with our findings because I'm an advocate of CPR. Knowing a decent faction of the fish we catch have been handled before only supports the practice of release. Believing(my personaly experience based opinion) that even the best CPR practices does indeed take 'something' out of the fish, only reinforces the need to do everything we can to put the odds in the Muskies favor during the capture and release process. Finding those big 'clean' fish that still exist on our favorite lakes is still the goal. Hoping a few show themselves in the coming weeks!
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/22/2014 8:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | Here's a big 'clean' one from a couple of falls ago that my friend, JLong, caught swimming - and feeding - in amongst spawning whitefish. Even this beautiful clean fish had been CPR'd before, judging by the healed over split fins she had. So, where are these unpressured giants lurking in the heavily fished waters we ply? I think the answer is in 'fishing the fishermen', if you know what I mean.
Edited by BrianF. 9/22/2014 10:00 PM
Attachments
----------------
 image.jpg (54KB - 494 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | That the pressured pike in the research study not only moved around less, but became more cover oriented is also important IMO. But how? That's what I'm curious about.
Is it over-reaching to say, based on extrapolating the pike research, that cover oriented muskies are prone to be pressured fish, harder to catch, and somewhat less robust than their more open water counter-parts?
Just wondering where we are better off spending our valuable on-the-water time if searching for the biggest fish in the lake.
Brian
Edited by BrianF. 9/22/2014 10:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | BrianF. - 9/22/2014 10:17 PM
That the pressured pike in the research study not only moved around less, but became more cover oriented is also important IMO. But how? That's what I'm curious about.
Is it over-reaching to say, based on extrapolating the pike research, that cover oriented muskies are prone to be pressured fish, harder to catch, and somewhat less robust than their more open water counter-parts?
Brian
Was the study conducted during the summer period? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | I think the Basin Dwellers have the best chance of going extended periods of time without angler contact/capture. Lakes with large basins and good forage should tend to reduce angler contact for many fish. Establishing when/where these fish make their infrequent contact with structure ups your odds of being the lucky dude to bag the beast. If these spots are more obscure or perhaps only seasonal, even better.
Community spots that have the right stuff will still produce some of these clean specimens as they cycle through them. But its these types of locations where I've encountered some of these fish that seam to be "skinny" from multiple angler captures as well. You know.. the local or resident fish of those spots.
I'm certainly an advocate of C&R and am confident that it benefits the fishery. But, if I'm looking for the biggest fish in the lake... its most likely one that hasn't seen a lure in quite some time. And considering that... I may change up my game plan a little in an effort to find her.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Jlong brings up a good point - there are "resident fish" that just hang around and get caught again and again. There are fish that transition through areas, move up onto spots and off again. There are fish relating to that structure that aren't necessarily right on top of it. There are fish that might move up onto that spot under the perfect conditions, once in a blue moon. I also think there are fish that have grown large enough where the usual forage in the usual places where we usually see and catch fish just doesn't cut it anymore. On larger bodies of water, those are the fish out there eating lake trout and whitefish, living their life around the schools of pelagic baitfish. You're just not going to find them were we normally fish.
Back to Brian's question... I'd say that being caught multiple times would make a fish less apt to chase prey. As anglers we've created a negative experience in response to a behavior that they need to nourish themselves. Feeding should only have two results. #1 is a meal, and #2 is missing your prey. When you add in being caught to the possible outcomes, how can that not influence their behavior over time? Having to be cautious when feeding is not in their makeup, especially when it's a larger fish.
About the only thing one could do beyond what we already do is keep a few fish in the livewell and feed every musky you catch. That sounds pretty silly. |
|
| |
|
| Curious if you guys would agree that these clean fish overall hit the lure much harder than what we would consider pressured and caught repeatedly fish? I've noticed over the last few seasons that these pressured fish may often bump my lure and or take" test nips " that often turn them off/away. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | RH...I don't know the answer since I haven't read the details of the research, only the brief summary as published by InFish. I don't know what season or how long the research lasted. I do know that pike were placed in a pond and seperated, with one group of fish angled for regularly and the other group of fish left completely alone.
MnMusky, I think you are onto something.
Brian
Edited by BrianF. 9/23/2014 2:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| mnmusky - 9/23/2014 11:49 AM
Curious if you guys would agree that these clean fish overall hit the lure much harder than what we would consider pressured and caught repeatedly fish? I've noticed over the last few seasons that these pressured fish may often bump my lure and or take" test nips " that often turn them off/away.
Not from my experience, I catch the same fish a lot - my home lake is 400 acres. One fish I've caught 5 times (confident there are others I've caught that many times too but this one is easy to recognize)....early in its life 34-38" range it setup shallow ( liked to eat a weagle) ....its now a plump 44.5" fish and seams to prefer to roam open water now ...the last two times was caught trolling open water both times it had most of a 10" bait down its throat. What I do notice is shorter intense feeding windows. You get plenty of "nippers" from unpressured fish too (like LOTW) ,,, I think that's just muskies being muskies ... early 2000's many days I never saw a muskie boat all day on LOTW and these fish still had to be "tricked" into eating many days...- rarely are they "super aggressive" ..when they want to eat they EAT ... I get crazy strikes fish engulfing baits on my home water when they are "on"
Edited by IAJustin 9/24/2014 5:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1283
| Very interesting and I was just thinking about this. I found a nice back bay on my river that has very little pressure a lot of nice pike. Early this sprig is was simple to catch them but as the months went by it started becoming harder and harder some days not even getting a follow or bite. I know they are there still because you can see them swimming by. They have just become not interested. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 410
Location: With my son on the water | This is very interesting and I have one more observation/twist to add.
This year up on LOTW we noted that when we saw or caught a fish, we rarely if ever saw or caught another fish on that spot. Oh not 100%, but for the most part it was almost like we scared them away.
Yes it was a weird year and lots of other factors could have been in play but that is what our network of guys saw.
Did anybody else experience that?
Have a happy day.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 239
Location: Elroy, Wisconsin | With exception of one spot (9 fish 49" the biggest) had exactly the same experience. A spot would have nice fish follow, no business, then hit the spot a dozen times and never see another fish. Frustrating to say the least. Hard to get any pattern established. Couple hours before dark produced 90% of our action all summer.
Your mileage may vary
Mudpuppy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 284
Location: Eagan, MN | btfish,
This is really out there, and totally unproven relative to muskies, but do an internet search on the schreckstoff response in fish.
I have often wondered if my own angling pressure - hooked fish, caught fish - on little, unknown spots which I tend to be the only angler fishing, had killed the spot over time. Little spots that I used to refer to as 'the best spot on the lake' and were nearly automatic for fish are now devoid of them, or the response from the few fish remaining there is very, very tentative. Has my own angling caused a negative response from the fish that cycled in and out of these little sweet spots?? I tend to think so.
A friend of mine often refers to revolving door spots in which fish tend to use a spot routinely as part of their home range. I have come to believe that is true. However, the number of fish using a spot on a revolving door basis is finite. Large spots have a larger population of fish that revolve through them. Smaller spots have a smaller population of fish revolving through them, generally speaking. If we find a sweet spot, with say, 12 fish that commonly cycle in and out of that spot, and you hook/lose or catch/release all or nearly all of them over a period of time, that spot may dry up. That's been my experience. Could the schreckstoff response be at work on these little spots?? Or, is it more of an individual fish experience that, over time, causes the spot to eventually dry up. I don't know the answer to any of this, but sure have lots of unproven theories.
BrianF
Edited by BrianF. 9/30/2014 11:38 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | A variable one needs to consider very seriously with this BST is how many repetitions of an 'event' (capture, hit and miss, etc) it takes to gain a negative response to a similar stimulus in any one fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Has anyone bothered to determine the sex of fish caught?
A guy doesn't have to fish pressured water to catch skinny, scarred fish. Nor does he have to fish unpressured water to catch chunky, clean fish.
As to their aggression, I would assume it has more to with bait size and speed and forage abundance than anything else, although I do believe we in WI are reaping the rewards of having spent the last 100 years removing the most aggressive fish from the gene pool. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | When I started fishing an extra cast or two out from the suructure that most would fish, I noticed a lot of the fish I caught were clean, and girthy compared to most of the structure related fish I caught. I assumed that the clean factor was from catching fish others weren't catching, and the girth came from cooler water temps in deeper water, and possibly different/better/more forage.
Maybe, possibly, their health has something to do with not being caught often? Hard to say. These fish also tend to not follow, they just eat. I thought there might be other reasons for that too, but I've always imagined one of the reasons is from a lack of pressure that the shallow structure fish tend to see.
If at least bits and pieces of this are true, I read this as:
1.) Avoid lakes that are highly pressured
2.) If fishing highly pressured lakes try to find secondary, less pressured areas
3.) If everything is pressured heavily, dry digging them out of the weeds.
So, heavily pressured lake - do you look for suspended fish if nobody else is fishing them, or do you clip on a spinnerbait and grind them out of the slop? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
| I've also noticed open water fish to have a cleaner look and little/no hook scars on the jaw. Fish that I've caught on/in the weed line or other popular areas are a different story. The Twin cities metro lakes that I fish regularly have generally declined in numbers as well, but it actually seems to have made some of the fish better looking. That could be a result of many other factors though. Fish farther North that I've seen have this same thing going for them, at least all the ones that I know of. With better handling practices on the rise, it may even nearly negate the effects of increased pressure brings. Be it angling pressure or new lake syndrome, eventually things even out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Must have missed this thread last fall while I was in Canada. Just want to through in a few of my observations.
1). I was fortunate enough to fish Kentuck Lk in N.WI for many years before it became well known. 5-6 fish afternoons were common. Fat chunky dumb fish. Then a southern guide ruined that. Fish are still there, verified by DNR population estimates. But not so easy.
2)I was also fortunate to be in on the beginning days and years of the Fox River and Green Bay fisheries. There is nothing like dumb fish!!!! True 25+" girths were common. As were double digit days. I could list spot after spot from the Ft. Howard up the east bay side that "were" great.......but not anymore. Not as many fish and still fat, but definitely thinner.
3)back in my sucker fishing days, I was lucky enough to fish a lake, which hadn't been seriously sucker fished in years. 4 suckers wouldn't last long, but now you get a lot of followers. You have to be there when all the stars are aligned.
4) I have been fishing LOW since 1986. Always same time in the fall. There are spots where we caught fish early and have never caught fish again. And many places which aren't what they used to be. Sometimes near secondary places with less pressure are still ok. But some of our old honey holes haven't been any good in years.
Anyone who says fishing pressure doesn't effect the fish......I don't believe. |
|
| |
