|
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I noticed the last couple years an interesting opposite:
Baits smaller than the original, and baits much larger.
Baby/Magnum.
When do you feel conditions warrant using one or the other? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | I have a really hard time using small baits. I guess its a confidence thing.
I always throw larger baits ( 8-12" ) or heavy baits.
The last 2 years the smallest fish I've boated was a 38" and all of the rest have been between 40"-49" which I atribute to throwing larger sized baits.
The smaller (6"or less) baits have never done much good for me, although some of my buddies have had very good success using smaller baits.
Jerome
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 880
Location: New Berlin,Wisconsin,53151 | I'm for small baits...when the time is right. Keopp and Sanks showed me the when and where to use small Rouge's and Rapalla and get big muskie. I still find myself reaching into the box for the 10" Jake or Ernie though...I'm a difficult learner.
Netman |
|
| |
|
Posts: 484
Location: St. Louis, MO., Marco Is., FL, Nestor Falls, ON | sworrall - 3/19/2007 8:47 PM
I noticed the last couple years an interesting opposite:
Baits smaller than the original, and baits much larger.
Baby/Magnum.
When do you feel conditions warrant using one or the other?
It took me a long time to learn the conditions perfect for throwing smaller baits:
1. When you are over 60.
2. When your back hurts like heck.
3. When the arthritis in your elbows, knees and hands is talking to you.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 512
Location: Appleton | I know last fall in a heavily pressured situation I couldn't get fish to eat on 10" baits but if I went with 5-6" baits we caught fish. I picked up some smaller baits for early season mainly because of the pressure this lake gets on opening day. Hoping to get the season going on the right foot. Most opening days for us are all about throwing baits we picked up at shows and seeing how cool they look.....no spring training this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | rpieske,
AMEN to that! I found that the smaller versions of the Weagle did just as well for me moving really big fish as the larger, is there a rule of thumb anyof you use to select a large bait for conditions? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | If the fish have lockjaw a change in size is always something I try. Some swear that going small in Spring and Large in Fall is the ticket but I believe that really depends on many more factors weather, moon, forage, water clarity, etc.
Typically after a classic June or July cold front rolls through and you go from 85 to 60 in 45 minutes I have observed a better success rate changing to smaller baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| I still am married to the idea that big baits = big fish, or more accurately big baits = fewer small fish. Every season several people disprove my theory by catching an absolute monster on a tiny little bait, but I still feel that a 50"+ fish is going to follow a small bait and eat a big one.
I do throw the small stuff -- baby weagles/wabulls, X-raps, baby DR's in the Spring, water temps under 60, or extreme coldfront conditions. Another time I will downsize is when I'm getting follows and not eaters -- this is still a case of "maybe small is the key today" and I don't have any real basis for it other than something has to work...
It's more dictated by what the forage is than anything else for me. Small lakes with stunted forage = small lures.
Mid Summer/fall, 68 - 72 surface temps? I like the standard sized (7"-9") lures that I can work agressively without fatigue.
The stupid sized, giant, pounder/super mag/giant flasher size stuff? I get a kick out of them because they are stupid-big. Had some dinky little fish try to eat them, too. But I save them for times when I am in "big fish" mode. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. |
when smallies hit 8" baits and big muskies eat leaches on a jig .... what to do? ... have a bait in the right water at the right time i guess
Edited by jonnysled 3/20/2007 11:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 85
| I fish 'tonka a fair amount and always ask the bass guys if they've had any muskie action. Their reply will tell you a ton about how the fish are relating to weeds, location, aggressive/passive, etc. Based on what they say and if they are hitting their bass baits I often go to a smaller presentation.
I'm still of the school of thought that come fall, go big. Earlyier in the season I'll throw more small to med stuff than I do later. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 724
Location: Southern W.Va. | I have a few small baits and probably should throw them more, however, other than rattlebaits in the spring at "the Cave", I never throw them. I feel that if you put a 7",8",9" bait or bigger , in a musky's face , it will hit it as quick as if it only 4" or 5" long. Maybe it's the "big bait, big fish" theory nagging in the back of my head, but I've seen it work when everyone else was working small baits and getting nowhere. The smallest bait that I throw is probably a 6" Reef Hog or 5 1/2" Phantom.Then only in the clearest of lakes and rivers. They may not be as big as some baits but I think that they "fish "big, move a lot of water and most of all, have a proven track record.
Last year at the outing up in "Worrell country" during early June , I got all my fish and for that matter all action from 8" baits, Reef Hogs and Mantas. In Sept. when Mikie , Papa Joe and myself was in Minn., Mikie cleaned our clocks throwing oversized topwater baits, including a 4 footer that sagged a lot in the belly.
Big baits vs. small baits????? I'll take the heavyweight..
Just my $.02 worth
Mauser |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Another thing to think about:
I'd rather fish small baits well for 12 hours than wear myself out in 6 throwing really big stuff and spend the last 6 in pain and lacking focus/energy...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 699
Location: Hugo, MN | esoxaddict - 3/20/2007 6:29 PM
I still am married to the idea that big baits = big fish, or more accurately big baits = fewer small fish. Every season several people disprove my theory by catching an absolute monster on a tiny little bait, but I still feel that a 50"+ fish is going to follow a small bait and eat a big one.
I do throw the small stuff -- baby weagles/wabulls, X-raps, baby DR's in the Spring, water temps under 60, or extreme coldfront conditions. Another time I will downsize is when I'm getting follows and not eaters -- this is still a case of "maybe small is the key today" and I don't have any real basis for it other than something has to work...
It's more dictated by what the forage is than anything else for me. Small lakes with stunted forage = small lures.
Mid Summer/fall, 68 - 72 surface temps? I like the standard sized (7"-9") lures that I can work agressively without fatigue.
The stupid sized, giant, pounder/super mag/giant flasher size stuff? I get a kick out of them because they are stupid-big. Had some dinky little fish try to eat them, too. But I save them for times when I am in "big fish" mode.
I know a guy who fishes almost exclusively with 6" Inline Spinnerbaits and also know he's put at least 10, 50" in the boat over the past 3 season with them. Musky fishing is less about the bait than being in the right place at the right time under the right conditions. Musky are predators at the top of the food chain put something in front of them under these conditions and they'll eat 95% of the time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 52
| Experience has shown me at least that a big lure does not mean a big fish. I'm a fly rodder and if I throw a fly over 7-inches I am lucky and I've landed fish close to 50-inches. Also one day with a tackle shop owner we landed many fish on just a 7-inch plastic with him missing one we estimated at over 51-inches. I think bait activity and the time of year are part of it as well. |
|
| |
|
| It seems to vary by water body, but in general I like bigger baits and only use smaller baits when things get tough
The Rattle Bite is on right now down South, so at least time to give the little baits some time on the water |
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
| Very tricky question. I guess my answer is it depends, and let the fish tell you what they want. But as a starting point, I
look at the average size of fish in the water i am fishing and or trophy potential. Then maybe lean slightly towards larger
bait or midsize. Also there are times where the forage is generally smaller then maybe lean towards smaller and or midsize. But my problem is that I have to many baits and I switch to often. |
|
| |
|
| I there a Law of Diminishing returns you think with respect to going big, bigger, biggest and hooking percentage and/or throwing-hooks/leverage-percentage? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
Location: Northern Illinois | I stopped worrying about whether my baits were too large after 10" Northerns kept hitting my lures. Large fish prefer large baits, up to 1/3 their body length. I know some baits are hard to fish for longer than 10 minutes. Take a break with a nice slow moving surface bait. I know about the theory of small baits in the spring, but I do just fine with the big stuff too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The largest bait I have caught a big muskie on was a Wabull. I'm going to be throwing a Baby Wabull alot this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2691
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin | I believe the baits should match the size of the prey. Most lakes with big forage will be big bait lakes. Lakes that have small forage will tend to be smaller bait lakes.
Sounds ok. Well why is it so hard to toss small baits. I have learned over the years to study the lake and its forage. Try to match that size with your baits.
If it's a bluegill forage a 10-inch Jake might produce but a 6-inch will get you more fish and even some smart large ones. Sometimes you have to fool those big girls. I am not a believer in big baits, big fish unless I am on trophy waters with large gizzard shad or some other large forge base. |
|
| |
|
| in Dennis Radloff's presentation this year about the Green Bay system he noted a big jump in success when he started DOWNsizing his baits to something smaller that more closely matched the size of the forage in that particular area (perch and smaller shad mostly).
he described more success in the numbers of fish caught with no impact on size - still catching a full range including big fish.
i'm not convinced that it's always as simple as "big baits = big fish" and the reports of guys like this who are catching tons of fish confirm it. (Dennis reported ~140 fish in a 21 day stretch this fall in his boat.)
i'm going to pay a LOT more attention to forage size this year and try to match that more than worrying whether i should go big or small.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Baits to match size of prey is something I don't understand completely. I know if fishing a lake with lots of small shad I'll go small. In wisconsin lakes this is not usually the case. You have perch,walleyes and panfish of all year classes. This is true in any body of water. You will have in spring I feel an abundance of smaller fish but they get picked off fairly rapidally so there numbers are reduced to. With fish of all the different variety and all the year classes I wonder what your trying to match up to. This just really does not seem to be of sound logic to me.
I do agre that there are weather conditions that occur that will drive me to smaller baits. Also certain types of cover at certain times of the years will dictate I go smaller.
Yes I know trout fishing if you have a certain type of bug hatch you try to match that but donot understand it applied to musky fishing.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
| Then what about the 'shocker' theory...make your bait stand out from the crowd? Way bigger, way smaller, totally different profile/colour scheme. I think there are more theories than there are muskies who care much about eating a 5.15 inch fish versus s a 9.21 inch fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1530
| match the hatch. on st clair the main forage is smaller perch. average sizes are around 6-7 inches. fall is gizzard shad migration. i guess i could say its time of year and pressure. in august i swithch back to 5 inch baits. you would be surprised.. its like which is better straight baits or jointed. whatever works do it if its legal. the variables are endless |
|
| |
|
| You have perch,walleyes and panfish of all year classes.
yes...but what are they eating the MOST of?
my guess is that you want to represent whatever it is they prefer at the time.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Every species and size of fish has a maximum size forage they will attempt to eat, and a minimum size that is more trouble than it is worth so to speak. In between that there is an "ideal" size, a preferred size that is a percentage of the muskies own size. (wish I could remember where that article was!!) That preferred size, combined with some of what we see them eating (ducks, loons, huge suckers, etc.) tells me that our lures are generally SMALLER than what would be an ideal meal for a big muskie.
BUT... It all comes down to efficiency. Presenting a giant lure in a way that can trigger strikes, and enough times to be comparable to what you can do with a lure half that size is not something you can do. If you can you certainly can't do it for very long. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | I think it really depends. Sure, we all have examples of fish eating REALLY big stuff. When you see that it makes you think that maybe we should be using stuff half the length of our leg. BUT, I have caught a lot of big bluegills on jigging spoons meant for walleyes this winter (on purpose). I have also caught a few really tiny bluegills, like the 3" ones you can see through. The bait they hit was well over half the length of this fish, and probably closer to 90%. However, it surprises you, and you wouldn't really expect it right? Not saying that you target 3 inch bluegills, but would you have been targeting that fish with that bait? I doubt it. Up the scale to muskies. Sure, a 40 inch fish will hit a 20 inch bait, but is that really what we should be targeting them with for the most consistent action?
We have all caught really small fish on baits that are way too big for them, but for the most part that isn't common. I generally stick to the more standard sized musky baits, and at the time don't have anything that's a magnum, or supersized anything.
I like to use a small to medium sized bait, that maybe loosely relates to a lot of the forage that the fish I'm targeting are eating. Not that I necessarily am matching the hatch, just using baits I know are in general a common size for the fish to be eating.
A number 10 or maybe up to 12 Husky Jerk for walleyes that are probably eating perch or shiners of that size, a 2 inch curleytail plastic grub for crappies that are in areas with a ton of young of the year perch, and generally 6-9 inch baits for what I assume makes up a large part of a muskies diet in many cases.
Saying all that, I realize a lot of muskies are going to eat 12-15 inch suckers for a good part of their life, so Mag Bulldawgs and stuff like that aren't out of the question at all, and I might start trying some slightly bigger stuff. The HUGE stuff is still a bit much for me though. Maybe if you have a big fish spotted it would work, but I don't think you would be catching me fishing a 2 pound Bulldawg all day. Just seems to me like you would really be cutting your chances with a lot of the smaller fish.
curleytail
Edited by curleytail 3/23/2007 8:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Something to consider:
Muskies don't necessarily 'prefer' any particular sized prey, especially when the strike response is triggered.
The predator/prey relationship on any given waterbody won't always dictate what I'm throwing. I don't EVER try to 'match the hatch', too much competition there and just plain not possible. I do try to trigger a strike, and that's determined by how well the fish can see the lure and the overall signature that lure offers.
If, for example, Pelican has a Perch base and the strongest Perch year class is several years old and 9", does that mean that the fish will prefer that year class or simply exploit that year class until the availability is lessened by attrition? What if the next strong year class is 6"? Do they then 'prefer' 6" baits?
|
|
| |
|
| Muskies don't necessarily 'prefer' any particular sized prey, especially when the strike response is triggered.
aren't you drawing a pretty semantic difference there, Steve?
if muskies are "exploiting" a particular size of food, is it because it's readily available or because they're prefering it? or is it that they prefer whatever happens to be readily available?  there's no meaningful distinction there.
do the muskies _think_ "i like suckers better than bass"? No, they're incapable of that. but that doesn't mean they don't interact with their environment in a dynamic way and become trained by that environment to pursue certain food sources that ensure optimal survival.
if the muskies are turning their noses up at 5" baits, but hitting 9" baits is it because it "better triggers their strike response" or because they're showing a kind of "preference" for one over the other at the time? the bottom line is that one is working better than the other, and likely it's because one is a better representation of whatever it is they're accustomed to feeding on at the time?
would it make good sense to start by thinking about what the muskies are already feeding on, and then incorporate additional triggering aspects like you describe?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, it really wouldn't. I'd ask if the 5" bait isn't triggering the response because of it's signature and presentation not 'size'. Nothing we throw, not even a sucker in a harness, actually mirrors even a little what the muskies are actually eating.
The assumption is that we are matching the hatch, so to speak, and that assumption is loaded with anthropomorphism. A 9" perch makes VERY little noise, and in any possible comparison doesn't even sort of resemble a Perch Slammer or Wabull. Let's use a Weagle. Nope. Wabull? Never seen a Perch do that. Spinner? Uh uh. Topper Stopper? Crank Biat? Nope. All make noises and behave in a manner SO far from the prey the muskies are used to one should never catch a fish. it's because they DO NOT resemble anything natural they work. Stimulous/response.
Now, assuming you are moving fish on a 9" glier, and I'm not on a 5" crank. The signature is totally different. Would a 9" Crank work? Or is it the glider presentation 'working' for you? Would a different style glider work? Maybe, maybe not. |
|
| |
