|
|
| Some people believe that the "king of the lake" lives in very deep water, only feeds in deep water, and only comes into the shallows to digest its' food. The big bait = big fish theory is the way to catch them. Your thoughts on whether this is true, and if it is true, how do you catch them and how deep are these fish? |
|
| |
|
|
----------------
On 9/10/2001 4:15:00 AM
Some people believe that the "king of the lake" lives in very deep water, only feeds in deep water, and only comes into the shallows to digest its' food. The big bait = big fish theory is the way to catch them. Your thoughts on whether this is true, and if it is true, how do you catch them and how deep are these fish?
----------------
Well I cannot go into to many details here as I have not figured all of this one out yet and if I did I would not want to tell anyone. LOL [:bigsmile:]
But I will tell you that yes it is true that some of the bigger fish stay deep all the time and that big lures can catch them but you don't want to fish with your lures deeper then 30' anyways because it's not to good on the fish.[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| With a certain degree of reservation, this is probably true on many lakes. HOWEVER, I qualify that by adding that such a comment is no where near 100% accurate ALL of the time, and certainly is directly related to the characteristics and depth of the body of water you are fishing. Water temperature, available forage, water clarity, current, and oxygen levels may all play a part in this as well. Seasons also have an impact on fish location and activity. On Georgian Bay or some very deep Northern Ontario lakes, this is likely closer to the norm. The studies that were made on Wabigoon and Eagle Lakes that Larry Ramsell reported on in In Fisherman some years back clearly did support this statement. BUT, like anything in muskie fishing, there are no absolutes. For every rule, there is an exception. Don't rule out big fish suspended high in the water column if the food is there. And certainly, don't rule out steep breaklines, current breaks, and deep weed edges. Too many fish have been caught in these locations for it to be just a fluke. Don't get hung up on absolutes - keep your options open, and be versatile.
Steve Wickens |
|
| |
|
| Great comments and info. I'm finding out as a fairly new Muskie fishman of six years, that what you are saying is true. Thanks - this a great learning site! Tom |
|
| |
|
| I WAS AT LOTW ABOUT A WEEK AGO AND I MARKED A FISH IN 50' OF WATER AND IT WAS SUSPENED AT ABOUT 38'AT THE BOTTOM OF A BAITFISH CLOUD WHICH RAN UP TO ABOUT 22".IT WAS THE LARGEST FISH I EVER SAW ON A LOWRANCE 85. |
|
| |
|
| In My area I STRONGLY believe this to be true 98% of the time especially in the spring, summer, and early fall. Late fall is the total opposite I.M.H.O.
Chuck Altamore
MuskieFIRST Pro-Staff
www.altamoreguide.com |
|
| |
|
| Could I ask why big fish would move up in shallow water to digest? Is their any evidence for this from musky studies that have been done?
Still Learning,
BrianW |
|
| |
|
| Doc,
There is little actual evidence/data that supports that idea. The concept came out of several studies that were interpreted by average fishermen to mean something other than what was actually happening. I believe I am correct in saying that most fisheries managers would consider the idea a 'myth'.
I think muskies spend time in deep AND in shallow water, depending primaily on the water conditions and prey location. So much depends on the body of water and predator/prey relationships there, weather and water conditions, and many more variables.[:0] |
|
| |
|
| DocEsox,
Steve Worral is correct about the origination of the idea. But, to answer your question... the belief is/was that muskies would feed deep and then travel to warmer water (shallows) to accelerate their metabolism for digestive benefit. If I recall... the telemetry study showed that these fish would spend the majority of their time (especially when mobile) in deeper water and then spend some time in very shallow/warm water in a fixed location.
Curious if the opposite may have actually been occurring. You know, the fish is sitting in an ambush location (ie. shallow cover) and then travels deeper to more slowly digest its meal at optimal water temps. I believe the conclusion was that they were NOT actively feeding since the people doing the study actually tried to catch the fish and were usually unsuccessful, despite knowing their exact location. Don't quote me on this... but that is what I remember. This might also explain why some people believe presentations that trigger some sort of a "reaction" strike are more effective in shallow water.... since they believe the fish are not actively feeding.
Its a cool concept (and sounds credible) but has not really been proven. The question is... HOW do you prove such a theory?
jlong
|
|
| |
|
| Hey Doc, I have know scientific fact to back up this theory just tons of time and observation on the water. jlong explained it perfectly and I totally agree with his explanation. As I said I base this on my observations and watching how BIG fish act when there shallow as compared to when there deep along with with other traits. [:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Wow, this is an interesting topic that would do well on the open forum page...Sworrall I am curious as to how you come to your conclusions, and that fish managers think this shallow to digest theory is myth? Not trying to prod you on this but it seems like you have a pretty definite opinion. To me the science of it looks sound. Quick digestion would have a positive growth and fat deposition value in an area with a limited growing season. The idea though, would be very lake specific. Doesn't count for much when the majority of the forage is shallow and lacks the suspended forage concentrations which would seem to be needed and the oxygenated cool water zones.
I'm sure there is a optimal digestion temperature for muskies, due to the nature of the chemistry occurring, and it would make sense that they find that temperature when bellies are full. Having said that, I have no clue as to what that temperature might be.
So standing here with that "duh" look on my face I will still keep fishing the first six feet.
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the responses. I asked due to my backgroud which was in zoology--took a bunch of comparative anatomy also. From my understanding of fish physiology it didn't necessarily follow that musky would want to digest as quickly as possible. This means having to go out hunting again and expending more energy. If the quick deposition of weight, i.e., fat was so important to their overall size then wouldn't the fish in the southern range (like Cave Run) get bigger much faster. I may be mistaken but I think studies show they don't get as large and don't live near as long as fish in colder climes. Just wondered if any of this was based on empirical data. Still learning loads about skis and I feel like I still don't know nothin yet---sheesh!
May All Your Musky Eat Hearty,
BrianW |
|
| |
|
| From what I have seen and read,my conclusion is we must break down fish populations and where they reside.
One must understand ,there are shallow water and open or deep water populations.Each behaving and interacting in its enviroment differently.
It is my notion that once a fish attain's a certain size its needs change and I suspect they go about living in their environment as individuals.Yes some big fish may relate the same as others but not all.
I beleive the shallow water populations use weeds or other shallow structure as ambush and may very well go way back in the shallowest waters to digest or stay in the warmest water to speed digestion.
As fall comes around and dying weeds disapear they are forced to move out.In some water sheds,turnover is a factor but in free flowing waters,a cooling factor is the prime initiator of migration from shallow to deep.
As far as deep or open water roamers,I beleive some may move up in the water column during warm days to speed digestion or feed on suspended forage.
Some open water roamers will use shallow weed beds or back bays to digest.I suspect as long as the fish has not been harrased in its shallow water digesting area,it may use it for long periods.I beleive fish that no longer use these areas are changing their ways due to pressure or growth needs.
My thoughts on increased weights and digestion,fish need gonadal growth to increase in weight.They can feed all they want in warm water but this does not mean they will increase in weight,colder water and retention of body fat along with gonadal growth are the main factors to increased weigth.
Understanding a fish's enviroment and growing needs in a particular body of water is what is important.I beleive not all fish behave the same in all waters.Depending on its enviroment and availibility of food and peacefull resting areas will dictate what fish do on a particular body of water.
marc thorpe |
|
| |
|
| DocEsox,
It is my understanding that muskies in the southern regions have been shown to grow "faster" but have shorter life expectancies. They still get BIG down there.... but just don't hang around as long. Kind of a crash and burn life-cycle. It is my belief that to grow a true MONSTER of a fish... they need slower growth rates, which usually equates to a longer life. The longer they live... the bigger they can get.
I'm not sure what the objective of a big muskie would be.... to enjoy her large meal as long as possible (seek cooler water) or digest it as quickly as possible (seek warmer water). Which is a more efficient means of survival?
Seems to me that humans with high metabolisms eat lots of small meals... and not one big feast. If this "shallow water" theory is correct... I'd have to believe it is like me after thanksgiving dinner. Pack your belly full with a HUGE meal and then plop on the couch and watch football while you try to digest it all. A shallow weedbed could be the musky's couch?
The interesting thing about this discussion is to determine if the fish moving shallow are FULL or EMPTY? I would think that is something that could be measured... if you could capture the fish in some way. Maybe the radio transmitters we put on 'em should also have a "shock collar" so we can stun them and capture them whenever desired. When they move shallow... zap 'em and see if they are full or empty. That might help prove if they are up to feed or up to digest.
Bottom line... I just want to know WHEN they are shallow so I know WHERE to look for them. If we know WHY they move shallow it might help us better predict their pattern.
So, who can develop a shock transmitter to conduct this non-controversial telemetry study?
jlong |
|
| |
|
| Jason if I remember my old articles correctly they postulate that southern muskies die due to lack of dormancy. As far as needing longevity, probably to a point, but my guess would be that all record proportion fish grew fast throughout the lifespan, and may be abnormal metabolically to get so far off the bell curve, ie there are several instances of old fish that never pass 50 inches and young fish that pass it remarkably soon...so my bet is on a modest aged fast growing individual, probably in the 16-18 year span for the next record. And Marc Thorpe, your comments about weight gain are true for seasonal weight gain to aid egg development, but you have to remember that some fish are definitely in the energy plus situation throughout the season, for example the pig fish that occasionally show up, any time energy intake exceeds energy use the by product has to be growth and weight gain, spring, summer, or fall I think. How would fish regain condition after spawning if this were not the case? They aren't really building reproductive equipment then are they?
The digestion water temperature relationship may explain why muskies seem to bail out of the shallows at 76 degrees(or at least most of the ones I fish for seem to be absent at that water temperature). |
|
| |
|
| Firstsix feet,I agree with your comments.One thing have noticed and we are talking 50 plus only.Weed fish are weed fish and I have not seen significant weight gain during the summer on these fish,when august comes around and some cooling happens then I start to see a weight gain on weed fish.
Open water roamers or Square Tails as I like to call them are definatly more bulky season long.Why,not sure.My perception is they feed more than shallow fish.Does stress due to water temps or angling pressure influence this,not sure.
I agree,genetics is the main factor,some fish fluctuate more in weight,I have noticed weed fish do so,Square tails are heavy most of the season and hooking them is either in deep or close proximity to deep water.They too increase in weight but remain bulky most of the year.My time has shown that these Square Tails venture in shallow water on specific moments or times,weather has a major role to them moving shallow.Thewy seem not to remain shallow very long.
In southern bodies of water,high water temps and you mentioned dormacy is most problably a factor.We must consider sterile fish wich ingest their own eggs like Williamson's fish.
Although a unique situation,it may be more prevelent then we know.
My perception is built on a few years of watching and exchanging info on my local big fish populations,with some 15 or more 50 plus per year,you build a good base on individuals and where they live,eat and rest over years.My conclusion is understanding where they frequent and why will give you a better idea of your own ecosystem.
Interesting info here
Take care
marc |
|
| |
|
| Jason your question to fish weeds and when,my answer is the warmest period in the day or pre frontal.I know its kind of wide span time.
Late after noons when sunny days abound,the warmest water and wind creates some activity.
Pre frontal days with a little cloud cover seems to bring big Square tails venturing closer to shallow water.
I beleive seasons have a major role to do with this.In spring ,definatly shallow is the way to go or suspended pockets in open water where fish go to hang.As summer settles,I beleive early mornings and evenings in shallow water are prime,with some stability mid afternoon can be good.Basicaly I rely on fishing it all,shallow and deep.Understanding the feeding windows comes to play also.
If you are on to a pattern shallow stick with it,if things are happening deep ,then work deep.At different points during the season one works better than the other and at other times they both are on.
I beleive its realy an idiosecracy of the bodie of water you are fishing you must learn.
One thing I will say,if you are targetting good ones,then your are not expecting many,if you expect many fish,then dont expect big ones.Some unique days do arise with both in hand but it is not the norm from my time on the water.
take care
marc |
|
| |
|
| Doc,the answer to your question of why they move shallow or up in the water column is a cold blooded theory.
Fish being cold blooded need warm water or the sun's heat to help speed up digestion.
Fish dont necessarly use weeds ,they can use rocks wich retain more heat from the sun than weeds do.Yes weeds give off oxygen but if a lake or river is well oxygenated,rocks or just moving up in the water column to speed digestion is adequate.
I would not say that all fish do this.Some may never venture shallow or up,they may just wait out the digestion period in the areas they feel most comfortable in.One thing I do know,they move and move alot.Some may venture to feed shallow or digest,the exact reasons they move shallow to deep or vice versa,we will problably never know because it is on a individual basis that this research must be done and our telemetry has shown that they dont all behave the same way on particular days or areas.
Hope I confused more
take care
marc |
|
| |
|
| I'm finding this discussion fascinating...why don't we have some well versed musky fisheries biologists in this forum...Steve, Jason???? They could probably really help direct us to any pertinent research and enlighten our "amateur" fish study minds.
Marc...true that gonadal growth adds seasonal weight (as fsf states) but does nothing for the overall weight of the fish with time (like weighing a women when she is pregnant...that's not really the true weight of the person). As a matter-of-fact I believe development of the eggs and sperm take tremendous amounts of energy which otherwise could go into muscle and skeletal formation. Case in point, in the early 70's a company developed the "super trout" in California. It was a genetic mutant, had a triploid genome instead of diploid, but the fish was sterile and developed no sex organs. The darn things averaged 18 inches and 3 pounds in only 12 months--regular growth rate was about half of that.
Tigers are sterile and I don't believe fully develop any sex organs (I'm speaking out of hand, I'm not sure--where are those fisheries biologists!!!!!!)and they seem to grow quite large, especially if managed for the water. Look at Pineview in Utah...it is putting out large numbers of big tigers, that I believe are younger on average than a true musky (I could be full of crap here but it sounds good).
Ultimately, where is actual, real biological information which indicates in any way these fish are up in shallow water digesting. We have observation but do biologists actually put forward this theory of shallow water digestion. I ain't arguing guys I just would like to be able to refer to some solid scientific information (residual effects of having read the CFMS [:devil:] )
May All Your Pigs Have Be Full of Roe,
BrianW[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| I just emailed Dr. Anderson the fish biolgist for the Pewaukee lake study. If he is in his office today, he should be able to help you guys out.
Dr. Anderson said two weeks ago he would like to jump on site from time to time and help with the discusions. So Doc Esox I am already ahead of you on that..LOL[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Doc, we all are speaking of what we have experienced and know about some studies that already have been done. None of us know for sure but when I see a big girl in the shallows and all she does if follow or try to get rid of my lure from her territory. Was she in there digesting? or was she just not hungry.
I fish the same waters as Marc and I see the same thing as he does and I have caught many deep water pigs in shallow water but they never were back in the weeds but on the edge of the deep water. As for weed fish you can catch them in or around the weeds and even deep sometimes.
I believe that forage as a lot to do with the deep water fish getting fatter even tho they do spend more energy living and feeding in deep water. You would think it would be the other way that the fish resting in the weeds waiting to ambush it's next meal would be the fat ones. Now is it that deep water fish eat that much more and that their forage is more of a fatty base?
I actualy believe that we have a sub specie of the deep water fish that I have never caught in shallow waters or casting. They are also real fat pigs and I recognize them by their different color. I was also told that deep water forage was the cause of their color as well as their fat.
Man if we knew all the answers we would be catching but all big fattys. But I can tell you that understanding what environmental factors make these fish tick is what lets us get into many of the big girls every year.
I once again say that if you want the bigger fish you need to go deep even tho you can catch mid 50s in the shallows at times. You can't expect to catch large numbers of fish when your going after the queen of the bay.
Anyone else has something to add to this great tread?
|
|
| |
|
| Doc,my speakings with Bernard where,not all fish do this.Some may go shallow to digest not all.
This is what I have been getting into in my replies.Each fish depending on its own personal needs will behave differently.Some go shallow weeds or rock or up in the water column to digest others dont.
Why some dont,not sure.As far as gaining weight,comes with age and I dont mean to sound bad but maybe not getting any does not help either[:bigsmile:] ,Sorry had to crack one.All kidding aside maybe a factor to consider wich we have no basis to found this is sterile fish!
My fish have row all the time cause I spawn with them!
[:p]
Free swimming for ever
marc |
|
| |
|
| Marc,
Is it possible that the square tails as you call them are feeding deep and digesting shallow(possibly selecting better forage types)while the weed fish are living the party life in the shallows with their motors always running? I have noted many times even in limited small environments that not all fish of the species behave the same, so I have no doubt that there would be fish in each niche, but I am curious, is the genetic strain in your fishing area pure, and do you consider or wonder whether these are genetically "different" muskies?
I read with some astonishment the article, and can't remember the exact # of generations involved but believe it was 12, that talked about landlocked salmon stocked in a west coast lake and tributary system. They were remarking that within that time the population which had started as a homogenous strain, had differentiated into 3 separate spawning and habitat selecting populations of which 2 looked like they would survive and the third looked like it would eventually disappear. No idea if it would be valid carried into musky genetics or not but it was an interesting study.
Oh and another question, what kind of shallow water temps do you see in your water where the square tails live and have you seen temps at which they all seem to disappear from the shallows? |
|
| |
|
| Doc,re read Bernard Lebeau Thesis about reproduction.He gave a copy some years ago.
It seems as when the female spawn,stage v and second spawn stage IV are deposited.
Stage II and stage III are non developped eggs for the following year.According to what I read these eggs wich are at stage II and III developpe and the ovaries developpe swelling from mid July to mid September.My understanding is eggs developpe partialy from mid july to mid september(warmest water period).A greater developement happens from mid september until freeze up when they more or less go into dormancy.
Fish grow aprox 1 to 2 inches per year,add the developement of eggs and you have a continous weight gain throughout the year.
The possibilities of sterile fish growing faster or larger is still a realm of possibility in my mind.Its proven with tigers and we have seen this on our local stocked brown trout and raibow population.(Yes we have brownies and rainbows in Mtl)
What I read on reproduction kind of tells us eggs take many months to developpe not only in the fall but aprox about a month or two after spawning,wich would explain the gradual weight gain.I also beleive some fat retention may occur during colder water periods,the weight gain from what I understand is not only from developping eggs but from growth and body fat retention.
Another tidbit
Out to catch some ROE
take care
marc |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys, don't get me wrong. I am not discounting your experience at all...much of what gets "scientifcally" studies is a result of astute observation. And all of you certainly have much more practical experience than I.
Another thought could be the big fish come up to sit in the shallows to warm up...period. When you are cold blooded (like my ex)you take heat where you can find it. Maybe they are full or not. Where are those biologist types Jason[:(] ??
Richard, I remember you telling me about the weed fish and the deep fish. The first ones we caught over the weeds were much more heavily marked than then the bigger girl. A related question, Richard. Do you think the body coloration of the musky can change depending on whether they live up in the weeds or in deep water. What I mean is if a primarily weed fish decides to relocate in deep water will the heavier markings fade on his/her side??
BrianW |
|
| |
|
|
Brian, I believe that fish coloration is definatly determined by it's surroundings. Yes our weed fish and nicely marked and our deep fish are mosly plain but there is always an exeption to the norm. We caught a nice 38 pound 52 incher last fall down 30+ in 70+ feet of water and she had some nice markings. Now was this fish in the weeds all summer then decided to cruse the deep water in the fall or just that day. I think that a weed fish will lose it's markings over time once in the deep water.
Now I may be wrong and all that determines whether they are marked or not is genetics and nothing else. That would just indicate that we have 2 different fish or maybe even more. There is a DNA analysis going on right now all over Ontario and we should be getting some results soon enough as to whether our fish are one or many different breads.
Man if only we could spend a year in the water with them.[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| FSF,Square tails have Shamu like bumps on their tails wich indicates to me consistent swimmers.I am not sure if they venture in shallow to feed or digest.
They could be coming in the warmer water to digest wich to me would would make sense when we catch them in a clump of weeds and it does happen.But not sure what or how to explain when I catch them roaming over flats of weeds not hanging in a clump.Are they venturing into a shallow feast?Are they coming in or out?
I have caught some of the same ones down deep near forage.I am one that firmly beleives big muskies do feed deep.It makes sense to me.Catfish and other slow moving forage are my beleif to be prime forage.You dont get big by running down your meal.Following their food is a way of life.Feeding is most problably done upon their need or opertunaty.
As far as genetics,there was stocking for many years.We do have riverine fish.Coloration vary from clear to spotted to barred.Although coloration or how heavy they appear is structure realated.You can get clear and spotted fish in shallow or deep water together.Most problably some genetic alteration have occured.I suspect they must use the same bacic areas during spawn so possibly some alterations have occured.I dont beleive it has affect the quality of the fish.Interestingly they are spawning.We have not had stockings more 6 or 7 years and the young of the year and p... cutters are abounded this year.
As far as water temps,from 68 to 81 the fish are traveling through and to and from weeds.
The Square tails seem to be selective on venturing shallow.Pre frontal or overcast seems to be a pattern.Sometimes if the back side of the front is not to severe they can also be caught.Interestingly they are clear or bloched fish (cross betwen spotted and clear,almost panther like).
It seems as when the stable sunny days get into place the Mighty Joe Youngs get going.They are much more skinny and have distinct heavy markings wether it be barred or spotted.
Take care
marc |
|
| |
|
| FSF,the heavier fish do seem to establish themselves deep quite ealier on in the season.Once the first weeds growth is established.Their gone!
You start trolling suspended in mid july and you come across them.The only only thing about hunting Luke Skywalkers is it takes confidence and where abouts,if not you are aimlessly trolling for nothing.They do go deep that early.
Come to think of it around the 76 degree mark,they move a hell of alot.My assumption is they set up earlier for their summer patterns and most problably dont feel safe in the shallows.
I have seen some real pigs in water totaly unfishable on occasion but I have also seen them feed over 55 feet of water at the surface.From the different telemetries I have read.Seems as they all point in the same direction.As they get bigger their needs change and deep seems to be the common grounds.Now they are not along the bottom ,they can be suspended wich in most part is my beleif.I suspect they follow the food around,feed when the time is right.They do frequent many places in a given body of water.Maybe to eat or rest.
You can mark suspended muskies,funny thing is getting those guys to eat is a different thing.Is it to much food and artificials stand out to much?I beleive this to be a factor.Fishing solid structure and living structure is 2 arts on their own.
I personaly feel fishing shallow or solid structure is an element of surprise or agravation presentation.Fishing living structure is more of a trigerring presentation.
Fact is you can get em shallow or deep,what realy is the focuss point in my perception is lenth or girthier fish.That is what realy dictates what you are trying to catch.When and where is next in line.
My biggest question to the world,
How come they all turn on at once and then shut down?
Good exchange,gets my brain working a little.
marc |
|
| |
|
| One things someone did bring up.I beleive it was jlong.
Are they full or empty when up in shallow water?
My guess and as crude as it may be is,if the fish takes a dump and seems full,my guess she is eating or agravated.One thing I have found,repeated passes over a PARKED fish,a fish sitting in a clump of weeds are normaly agravated into bitting.Fish cruising along seem to be on the feed as they do seem more filled.This what I can recolect from my thoughts.
marc |
|
| |
|
| Doc,your questioning is not taken wrong.
My reply on the egg developpement was info that was studied by Dr Lebeau for his thesis.
This thesis was based upon reproduction.They also discovered they spawn twice.The study was conducted on the St Lawrence in MTL and a lake in northern Quebec.Many factors contribute to weight gain,developping eggs during the major part of the season is one of them,getting fat is another!
The study Dr Lebeau conducted on telemetry,He did mention to me that not all fish used these shallow water sanctuaries,but one used it often.Others did behave similar but some never ventured near the shallows.That study if I am not mistaking it was for his masters.It may not be scientific in the manner we can perseeve the word.It is research.
He also mentioned,that when fish were barfed,their stomac content contained many deep water forages.Wich would alood to the fact in that region that fish activly feed deep.I do beleive it can be aplied to many other bodies of water.
The fish they observed in the shallows,seemed weary and nonchalant to presentations.
I do beleive fish most problably use the shallows for both,they got eat no matter where they are.Some individuals may use the shallows for different reasons or purposes.
The Scientific fact,We will never KNOW!
Jason where is the bio,we are talking big fatties here! [:bigsmile:]
marc |
|
| |
