Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> The Crappie Guys Know Livescope |
| Message Subject: The Crappie Guys Know Livescope | |||
kap |
| ||
Posts: 557 Location: deephaven mn | Electronics will keep getting better they always have. GPS mapping was a huge change, side imaging was huge now live scope. All where huge advancements. next will be tv quality images. technology is out there just have to get to a lower price point. you can see fish on live scope but it dosen't mean they will bite your bait. Like Steve said live scope helps me know where weeds and rocks are what kind of weeds. I also shows how fish respond to your presence and how they react to your presentation. catch and release helps all species. promote it | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 8/25/2023 7:34 PM Angling Oracle - 8/25/2023 10:07 AM I certainly didn't intend to talk anyone out of the fight. Just pointing out that it is exactly that, a fight. Our primary heavy lifters have been doing this for a long time. They have sacrificed careers, family time, and energy, spending time in hearings at the Capitol, going to DNR workshops, testifying before committees, and really need a break. While they are in need of pulling back, they have realized that they just can't do that at this time, because there really is nobody capable of filling their shoes. They have agreed to stay on until they can mentor their replacements. If you have an amenable work and family situation, and have an interest in the political process, they will take you under their wings. They will introduce you to their network, help you get familiar with the process, and make sure you have the tools to succeed. This is not left/right, red/blue politics. This is the process as it is supposed to work. You will find supporters and detractors, on both sides of the aisle. We also have a quality paid lobbyist to assist. If you have an interest and a passion, and would like to make an impact, feel free to PM me, and I will connect you. I am still 2 to 4 years from retirement, and am buckling down at work, to make sure that I can retire sooner rather than later. Once I do retire, I will be able to spend much more time devoted to our cause. In the mean time, fresh blood would be happily welcomed. Apologies, TCESOX, I composed that poorly having cherry picked that bit from your response (which was dead on as to what is required, some point folks that are well networked to take a collective want forward) and then put that other bit with it with the word "you" - I should have said "if folks" I was responding to several responses in the thread that generalized that getting regs put in place is really hard, "they" are the ones who decide, etc, implying don't try. Not specifically directly at your thread, which I think pointed out exactly what the process is, which is actually getting inside of the process and getting to know the folks who push this stuff through. In our case and I'm sure in yours, there is a point where it is out of the hands of the stakeholders and with bureaucrats and you need those to believe and vouch for the proposal as much as those that started the idea. As far as being involved and getting nose into this stuff, I can say that although in a situation similar to yours work-wise, I am doing that up here (at the idea stage mostly at this point), and my musky and hunting partners more so at the other end given they are well situated. Our influence in NW Ontario (re. muskies) is not where we want it to be, but we are working on it. It seems to me that you have some folks down there that have a similar bent with regards to sharpshooting with live imaging - just need them to find each other and work on regulating it. I say ban entirely - this a hard negotiating position which allows leeway to move closer to a perceived middle. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/26/2023 8:43 AM | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8785 | Not out to poo-poo the technology or anything like that, but... Think about your average day muskie fishing. How much water do you cover? What do you consider the distance of lure to fish at which point they won't bother? I realize that changes based on the fish's mood. We've all seen them come screaming in from quite a distance. We all also seen them just sitting there not moving when you throw a lure right in front of them. My point is this: How many fish do you think see/feel/are aware of lures going by on any given day? They know your lure is there. If they wanted it, you'd have caught them. But you often don't. They don't even move. All the technology in the world ain't gonna make a muskie eat of it doesn't want to eat. And how much time are you wasting trying to find a fish on your livescope and cast right at it over and over and over vs. running and gunning trying to find one that's active? I can see it being a problem with schooling fish holding really tight to a brush pile. Played that game. One crappie after another after another. Cast 10 feet off that pile and you get zero. But for muskies? I don't see it being as effective as one might think, because finding the fish is a small part of the deal. | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 99 | I will openly admit to trying sharpshooting. Maybe I suck at working baits, but what esoxaddict said above is so true. You'll see them, often times they'll follow for 10 feet, and they just stop. Sometimes they still won't move at all. Won't do anybody any good to just keep casting at them. You know if they're active on a single cast, same as casting shallow structure. Like anything else, it's all about bite windows being open. What I've really enjoyed about having livescope is having it in the water while I'm casting structure. There's been times I've seen follows on there that haven't come all the way to the boat so I could see them with my eyes. Helps me know there's fish around. As a guy with a full time job and limited time to fish, this information is invaluable. The technology is amazing, but by no means has it made musky fishing easy. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1415 Location: Brighton CO. | When my grandpa was alive he had about three places on the lake he would fish. He had a 14 foot row boat with a 7 1/2 horse motor no fish finder and he and grandma each had a Cane Pole and Spinning Rod and fished with Crappie Minnows or worm. He would motor out to his spot, line up land marks by way of Rifle sighting and start fishing and if the wind shifted grandma would lift the anchor off the bottom and reposition the boat. They would catch Crappies, Perch, and a rare Walleye or Northern. They would go out the same time everyday then if a storm or cold front went thru then he would have to mix things up. We had fish twice a week all summer long. By the end of the summer on the second fish night it was get me a Tombstone (Frozen Pizza). | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Respectfully disagree. In my view, the most difficult thing about fishing for muskies is finding them. The effectiveness is not theoretical, the PMTT have banned it for this reason, and basically for any tournament where it is allowed for other species, it is a must-have - or you are probably wasting your time and your entrance fee. Probably most guys in high $ tournaments are supported by live imaging from whichever electronics they are sponsored by. To wit, guy from up this way won Bassmasters effectively using it: https://humminbird.johnsonoutdoors.com/us/blog/gustafson-wins-bassma... I don't want to put up any scenarios or results or how-tos to encourage folks to buy it (you can see how it can be used on YT if you want), but the bottom line is you are very much mistaken as to how effective it can be. I will say the answer to the question when "how much time do you want to waste..." is exactly the same amount of time you would waste on any lazy follower - which is not much. Again, don't want to tell anyone what they need to do with this tech to be really effective with it. What I would intend to ban this for is not what you guys are doing with it (I am assuming you are fishing on relatively shallow structure or shoreline, 20 feet and under, Wisconsin type lakes), let me put it that way. Can it be deadly there? Sure, but if you are wasting your time staring at screens the guy who is not wasting time deploying and is making more casts and covering ground with confidence is probably going to do better than you are. Ban would be intended in Lake Vermillion, MN type lakes (and rivers), open water and deep water scenarios, cisco or other deep forage. Your guides can see what is going on with it, they just need to make a stand on it by getting a few folks together. I would imagine this is a very difficult thing to do now; should have been done earlier. It is hard to predict from afar what the long-term consequences are for lakes such as Lake V, but if you weren't stocking regularly I would say very dire. It is not like this tech is not going to get a whole lot better, cheaper and more user friendly. I hear carp are very smart and hard to catch. Muskies may not bite all the time, but I would classify pretty low on the wary of lures scale. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/28/2023 11:28 AM | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 99 | Is targeting a fish 10 ft below the surface but over 40 ft of water any different than targeting fish on a 15 ft hump? I would bet that most if not all of us here are leaving fish 40 ft below the surface alone. Banning the tech outright is never going to happen. Like Steve has said previously, you can alter behavior in other ways and it has been done over time with CPR being the gold example. I don't believe there's anything wrong with targeting open water fish with livescope, so long as you are only targeting that top section and not getting a tube jig way down deep. June is a great scenario where it can be effective. Most fish are in open water, and not deep at all. | ||
| Baby Mallard |
| ||
| Always knowing where fish are in open water and harassing them 24/7 will take its toll on the fishery. Numbers have declined dramatically in the last 10 years and will continue its downward trend. | |||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Tommy - 8/28/2023 10:56 AM Is targeting a fish 10 ft below the surface but over 40 ft of water any different than targeting fish on a 15 ft hump? I would bet that most if not all of us here are leaving fish 40 ft below the surface alone. Banning the tech outright is never going to happen. Like Steve has said previously, you can alter behavior in other ways and it has been done over time with CPR being the gold example. I don't believe there's anything wrong with targeting open water fish with livescope, so long as you are only targeting that top section and not getting a tube jig way down deep. June is a great scenario where it can be effective. Most fish are in open water, and not deep at all. Most? That's reassuring... The fish in open water are the same ones that are sitting on the top of the reef - so basically musky fishing will be for those that have the tech and f-- the ones that don't. The fish on a reef can only come up from 15 feet to hit a bait at 10, whereas if your are fishing a lure at 10 or 15 over deep water, a fish can come from any depth, including unintended ones from 40 or more (in literally two or three seconds). "Oops, killed than one, but I was fishing ethically. Not my fault, the fish messed up." We have regulations because good intentions and "we strongly suggest" are not good enough to keep the game hogs and narcissists and nitwits under control. The more I hear stuff like this from the "for" crowd the more convinced I get that it needs to banned. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/28/2023 12:40 PM | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2330 Location: Chisholm, MN | Angling Oracle - 8/28/2023 11:43 AM Tommy - 8/28/2023 10:56 AM Is targeting a fish 10 ft below the surface but over 40 ft of water any different than targeting fish on a 15 ft hump? I would bet that most if not all of us here are leaving fish 40 ft below the surface alone. Banning the tech outright is never going to happen. Like Steve has said previously, you can alter behavior in other ways and it has been done over time with CPR being the gold example. I don't believe there's anything wrong with targeting open water fish with livescope, so long as you are only targeting that top section and not getting a tube jig way down deep. June is a great scenario where it can be effective. Most fish are in open water, and not deep at all. Most? That's reassuring... The fish in open water are the same ones that are sitting on the top of the reef - so basically musky fishing will be for those that have the tech and f-- the ones that don't. The fish on a reef can only come up from 15 feet to hit a bait at 10, whereas if your are fishing a lure at 10 or 15 over deep water, a fish can come from any depth, including unintended ones from 40 or more (in literally two or three seconds). "Oops, killed than one, but I was fishing ethically. Not my fault, the fish messed up." We have regulations because good intentions and "we strongly suggest" are not good enough to keep the game hogs and narcissists and nitwits under control. The more I hear stuff like this from the "for" crowd the more convinced I get that it needs to banned. People will justify it any way they can. Throw logic at them and they come up with any other reason why you’re wrong and it’s ok. | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 99 | Angling Oracle - 8/28/2023 11:43 AM Tommy - 8/28/2023 10:56 AM Is targeting a fish 10 ft below the surface but over 40 ft of water any different than targeting fish on a 15 ft hump? I would bet that most if not all of us here are leaving fish 40 ft below the surface alone. Banning the tech outright is never going to happen. Like Steve has said previously, you can alter behavior in other ways and it has been done over time with CPR being the gold example. I don't believe there's anything wrong with targeting open water fish with livescope, so long as you are only targeting that top section and not getting a tube jig way down deep. June is a great scenario where it can be effective. Most fish are in open water, and not deep at all. Most? That's reassuring... The fish in open water are the same ones that are sitting on the top of the reef - so basically musky fishing will be for those that have the tech and f-- the ones that don't. The fish on a reef can only come up from 15 feet to hit a bait at 10, whereas if your are fishing a lure at 10 or 15 over deep water, a fish can come from any depth, including unintended ones from 40 or more (in literally two or three seconds). "Oops, killed than one, but I was fishing ethically. Not my fault, the fish messed up." We have regulations because good intentions and "we strongly suggest" are not good enough to keep the game hogs and narcissists and nitwits under control. The more I hear stuff like this from the "for" crowd the more convinced I get that it needs to banned. The scenario you laid out is exactly why I think using Livescope is appropriate in open water. You can set the max depth that you see at 15 ft. Even if I'm in 40 ft of water, I won't even see a fish way down there and won't be casting in the open water scenario. People open water troll all the time with lures at 15 ft and this is widely viewed as acceptable from what I can tell. My point is that fish at 40 will see that bait, and they will not see my bait if I decide to give sharpshooting a try. There's been articles galore in Musky Hunter about fishing open water and its effectiveness, and I haven't noticed any kind of pushback on it. The pushback against livescope as I understand it is targeting those deep fish in as efficient of a manner as has ever been possible. My viewpoint is that it's incumbent on the angler to know about barotrauma and to leave deep fish alone. If they're right under the surface, say in Head o' Lakes bay on Vermilion in June where 50 boats are casting at them with or without Livescope on any given evening, what's the difference between using it or not? I'd argue that deeper fish would not see a bait with the angler using livescope because they should not be looking that deep for fish. The angler fishing blind will have no clue where it came from. If they using it to cast at fish that deep, then yes it's a problem. I hope I'm not coming off aggressive or anything. This is just a topic I find very interesting and I like to hear things that can challenge my opinion, as well as offer my own to challenge others. World is hardly black and white right. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Tommy - 8/28/2023 1:20 PM I hope I'm not coming off aggressive or anything. . No, that's fine. I think you echo the views of many, which frankly is being naive and sucked in by the hype. Kirby is correct, you have fallen into a trap of self-serving justification. Instead of looking at this issue from the point of view of what's best for you, view it from what is the best in terms of the long-term fishery and enjoyment of the musky fishery for you and everyone else in the future. That scenario with the 50 boats - yuck!! Stay home and save up for a trip for Canada, that is horrible. You do realize that muskies are 4, some close to 5 feet long? They can travel 30 feet in about 2 seconds and their lateral lines and pores give them a much larger awareness zone than what their vision provides. Most boats are 20 feet long - not that far really when you kind of envision going down in the water - it's not that far to go from super cold water to super hot -- from feeling okay at depth, to dead and bloated and belly up. The problem is livescope, period. Harrassing, catching muskie in general over open water or at depth. Detrimental to the overall fishery and enjoyment for everyone and sustainability of the fishery due to issues with excessive mortality, be it from barotrauma, temperature stress, or simply being having been caught and hooked somewhere fatal or some nitwit dropping fish in the boat while taking hero shots. There is also the issue of only so many fish being available to be caught - learned avoidance - which affects the overall musky fishing quality of the water body. Livescope is simply too efficient and effective in terms of overall catch rates compared to everything else. You are not doing anything illegal, but you are part of the problem. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/28/2023 2:41 PM | ||
| Tommy |
| ||
Posts: 99 | If I could spend more time in Canada I would lol. Vacation time goes quick. Anyhow, I appreciate the insight. | ||
| nar160 |
| ||
Posts: 419 Location: MN | Angling Oracle - 8/28/2023 2:25 PM The problem is livescope, period. Harrassing, catching muskie in general over open water or at depth. Detrimental to the overall fishery and enjoyment for everyone and sustainability of the fishery due to issues with excessive mortality, be it from barotrauma, temperature stress, or simply being having been caught and hooked somewhere fatal or some nitwit dropping fish in the boat while taking hero shots. There is also the issue of only so many fish being available to be caught - learned avoidance - which affects the overall musky fishing quality of the water body. Livescope is simply too efficient and effective in terms of overall catch rates compared to everything else. It seems like you've admitted your actual problem with it: effectiveness (or the perception of it at least). The open water fishing arguments all apply to non-livescope open water fishing. Dropping a fish in the boat obviously has nothing to do with live sonar. Muskie fishing getting harder as more fish are caught applies to essentially any innovation, any piece of information that makes people better at fishing, or anything that popularizes muskie fishing. Targeting very deep fish is a bad idea, but that also doesn't only apply to live sonar - you shouldn't jig or troll for those fish either. It's not clear to me at all why live sonar being effective in some use cases is crossing a boundary that every other equipment innovation has not. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8785 | Baby Mallard - 8/28/2023 11:25 AM Always knowing where fish are in open water and harassing them 24/7 will take its toll on the fishery. Numbers have declined dramatically in the last 10 years and will continue its downward trend. Is harassing them in the weeds or on the rocks without livescope any better for them? | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | nar160 - 8/28/2023 3:52 PM Angling Oracle - 8/28/2023 2:25 PM The problem is livescope, period. Harrassing, catching muskie in general over open water or at depth. Detrimental to the overall fishery and enjoyment for everyone and sustainability of the fishery due to issues with excessive mortality, be it from barotrauma, temperature stress, or simply being having been caught and hooked somewhere fatal or some nitwit dropping fish in the boat while taking hero shots. There is also the issue of only so many fish being available to be caught - learned avoidance - which affects the overall musky fishing quality of the water body. Livescope is simply too efficient and effective in terms of overall catch rates compared to everything else. It seems like you've admitted your actual problem with it: effectiveness (or the perception of it at least). The open water fishing arguments all apply to non-livescope open water fishing. Dropping a fish in the boat obviously has nothing to do with live sonar. Muskie fishing getting harder as more fish are caught applies to essentially any innovation, any piece of information that makes people better at fishing, or anything that popularizes muskie fishing. Targeting very deep fish is a bad idea, but that also doesn't only apply to live sonar - you shouldn't jig or troll for those fish either. It's not clear to me at all why live sonar being effective in some use cases is crossing a boundary that every other equipment innovation has not. Yes, sounds like what I thought was simple math but lost you somewhere along the way. Recruitment are fish that come into the system, either natural reproduction or stocked. We are only concerned here with muskies that are catchable. Lake V for example only has stocked fish. For what we are talking about here, we can consider natural mortality to be fish that die from things other than fishing, disease typically. Spawning, otters, ospreys, snapping turtle could be some others I suppose for adult (recruited) fish. In the case of Lake V, even if no one fishing, your numbers will drop simply due to natural mortality. Lost you here. Fishing mortality. Guy dropping fish in boat, etc. The more fish caught, the higher this goes. It is simple math. More fish caught, more dead fish. Livescope we are simply talking straight math - lots more fish caught, lots more dead fish (guy dropping included). There is a rate for it, we just don't know what it is. Nobody was doing this before - so you ADD this Livescope mortality to whatever was going on before. The f--ing the fish up for everyone else doing it oldschool, that is another story and perhaps not compelling for you, but it is a truth that fish learn and they are less likely to be caught again. So any fish that are caught during this open water period with Livescope would be less likely by some percentage to be caught by Bob and his uncle on classic structure like a reef or weedbed. Again, straight math and percentages and additive fishery pressure that did not exist before. You are questioning why I'm so adamantly against livescope and not against other things - it is just basic mathematics. Livescope = unsustainable additive fishing mortality of large muskies to the detriment of the overall quality of the musky fishery. If the mortality exceeds recruitment, then your fishery if f--d. People also do not consider that if you f over a large predator population another (ie pike) may takes its place given suitable conditions. Stocking more many not be a panacea. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32887 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Angling Oracle - 8/28/2023 2:25 PM Tommy - 8/28/2023 1:20 PM I hope I'm not coming off aggressive or anything. . No, that's fine. I think you echo the views of many, which frankly is being naive and sucked in by the hype. --- I should say the same of you. Kirby is correct, you have fallen into a trap of self-serving justification.---This is not a fact, it's an assumption. You may offer your opinion here until you begin the downhill slide of accusing all who do not agree are idiots. If every dire prediction about tech and fishing had been dealt with by ban, we'd not have sonars. Or spot lock, either. Instead of looking at this issue from the point of view of what's best for you, view it from what is the best in terms of the long-term fishery and enjoyment of the musky fishery for you and everyone else in the future. --- I will decide what's best for me, thanks. I'm sure others will as well. That scenario with the 50 boats - yuck!! Stay home and save up for a trip for Canada, that is horrible. You do realize that muskies are 4, some close to 5 feet long? They can travel 30 feet in about 2 seconds and their lateral lines and pores give them a much larger awareness zone than what their vision provides. Most boats are 20 feet long - not that far really when you kind of envision going down in the water - it's not that far to go from super cold water to super hot -- from feeling okay at depth, to dead and bloated and belly up. The problem is livescope, period. Harrassing, catching muskie in general over open water or at depth. Detrimental to the overall fishery and enjoyment for everyone and sustainability of the fishery due to issues with excessive mortality, be it from barotrauma, temperature stress, or simply being having been caught and hooked somewhere fatal or some nitwit dropping fish in the boat while taking hero shots. There is also the issue of only so many fish being available to be caught - learned avoidance - which affects the overall musky fishing quality of the water body. Livescope is simply too efficient and effective in terms of overall catch rates compared to everything else.---nitwit? Come on, man. Get real, you won't convince anyone being a cyberbully. You are not doing anything illegal, but you are part of the problem. -- The man said clearly he feels a ban is impossible, uses the tech, and will treat the tech and the fish with due respect. Ease up. And watch your language too. I'm not giving up my Mega Live for you or anyone else unless it IS banned. I'll do my best to see that doesn't happen, WAY too slippery a slope. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 8/28/2023 5:28 PM [ I'm not giving up my Mega Live for you or anyone else unless it IS banned. I'll do my best to see that doesn't happen, WAY too slippery a slope. Where do you stand on refuges during certain periods of time on specific waterbodies? Assuming data supports that there is additive mortality that is a detriment to the musky fishery quality long term. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/28/2023 5:39 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32887 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Logic states it's not the tech you rail against, it's the anglers misusing it. Reality says the tech isn't going anywhere. What to do? Celebrate those who DO use the tech responsibly, and educate those who do not. Perhaps discussing this issue reasonably may get the area fisheries managers in MN back into the 'we need more stocking' table. That's another subject we beat to death here over the years, with some MN Muskie anglers going from "WE have the BEST forEVER!! ' to "What the heck happened?' I already posted my views on how we accomplish the goal we all should be after. I don't see the refuge idea getting passed in MN, and won't happen in WI, most of the lakes are too small. I do like it, seems Wabigoon used to have an area no one could fish at certain times of the year, am I correct there? ( I think was directed to Walleye) And the Goon was closed to muskie harvest for a long time too. I personally think more stocking and perhaps a closure (shorter season) of muskie fishing for a while in Vermilion would benefit the fishery, but hold no hope for it at all. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2330 Location: Chisholm, MN | I agree Steve, I think the northern half of the state could open muskie season July 1st. I know that would break a lot of hearts but would aid in reproduction and help fish recover. I absolutely love the idea of closing head of lakes all of June at least. Those poor fish need a break. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2016 | Livescope is 100% not for me, but I'm also not going to waste energy complaining about how others want to fish. One example comes to mind, I only bow hunt deer... if you like killing deer 500 yards away over a bait pile and its legal - go for it, not my thing. Sure, fishing is tougher when fish get caught a lot..wasn't that long ago nobody fished suckers in MN either...another way to catch them I just don't/won't participate in. Fish today are completely harassed open to close and in my state ice out to freeze.. I've actually embraced the idea of tough fishing, but the hunt and challenge is why I started muskie fishing anyway. You can still kill just as big of deer with a bow if you perfect your craft,,,, My results are just fine the last few years without livescope. | ||
| CincySkeez |
| ||
Posts: 644 Location: Duluth | Shorter seasons would be the right move but also accelerate the arms race."I only have so much time to fish, anything that helps cut time to contact and reduce learning curve." Etc. Weve all heard those arguments and shortening season only makes that mentality seem more justified. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8785 | We've been having this argument since... well... Disco. Paper graphs I think it was. Went all the way to the MN legislature if I remember correctly. One side said it was going to kill the fisheries, the other side said nobody can afford a $500 graph for their boat... Here we are 50 years later, still catching fish and still wanting to ban the newest technology because that will end it all. 50 years from now if there is even such a thing as a muskie, someone will be complaining about how other people catch them. | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | sworrall - 8/28/2023 6:26 PM Logic states it's not the tech you rail against, it's the anglers misusing it. Reality says the tech isn't going anywhere. What to do? Celebrate those who DO use the tech responsibly, and educate those who do not. Perhaps discussing this issue reasonably may get the area fisheries managers in MN back into the 'we need more stocking' table. That's another subject we beat to death here over the years, with some MN Muskie anglers going from "WE have the BEST forEVER!! ' to "What the heck happened?' I already posted my views on how we accomplish the goal we all should be after. I don't see the refuge idea getting passed in MN, and won't happen in WI, most of the lakes are too small. I do like it, seems Wabigoon used to have an area no one could fish at certain times of the year, am I correct there? ( I think was directed to Walleye) And the Goon was closed to muskie harvest for a long time too. I personally think more stocking and perhaps a closure (shorter season) of muskie fishing for a while in Vermilion would benefit the fishery, but hold no hope for it at all. As you suggest, only real issue with it is the specific scenarios laid out numerous times with muskies only. I don't have supporting data available, but there is data on mortality rates for muskies (or pike) for all the issues mentioned with regards to deep water, thermal shock, handling in general (mortalities per fish caught). I would say my hypothesis is sound based on historical studies. Folks are continuing to counter my points with tech arguments - it is not the tech, it is the catch rates and where and how the catches are occurring as a result of the the tech. If four hundred boats were out there jigging bondys blindly the results would probably be the same (numerically) as 20 using live imaging, but that is not what is happening, it is folks doing it efficiently with livescope. In both cases it would not good for the sustainability of the fishery wiith more fish caught and harmed than the fishery could support. The "effect" is the issue, not the cause. Do you have a limit on what size muskies can be harvested from Lake Vermillion? Whatever that limit is is irrelevant if they are dying from just fishing for them rather than being actually kept. I'm not trying to convince a majority or even a minority of folks that this is an issue. Not even really trying to convince anyone opposed to my position. I'm only providing a supporting viewpoint to those already realizing that something needs to be done on the issue (open/deep water sharpshooting of muskies) to get a handle on the mortality issue and take it up with the fishery folks to delve into it. You need to deal with folks that actually have a fishery science background and strong in fishery stats - harder row with perhaps folks outside of that background. The data to back this hypothesis is probably very difficult to collect, so really needs the kind of collective creel census honesty that Pete Maina showed when talking about the same issues with trolling. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/30/2023 9:27 AM | ||
| Pikebait |
| ||
Posts: 105 Location: Alberta Canada | Personally I am not overly concerned about tech and not a big user of it. Sure it can help but it doesn’t make fish bite More than anything I see poor fish handling as probably the biggest factor when it comes to C&R. This by far is a bigger issue than tech. As pressure increases so does mortality One just has to go through the gallery of the lodges and you will see plenty of pics of poorly handled fish that were released. In some cases majority of the pictures show poor handling It may not be popular but I would support a training course to purchase a license like is done in some countries over a live scope ban and I will never own live scope | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Pikebait - 8/30/2023 10:02 AM Personally I am not overly concerned about tech and not a big user of it. Sure it can help but it doesn’t make fish bite More than anything I see poor fish handling as probably the biggest factor when it comes to C&R. This by far is a bigger issue than tech. As pressure increases so does mortality One just has to go through the gallery of the lodges and you will see plenty of pics of poorly handled fish that were released. In some cases majority of the pictures show poor handling It may not be popular but I would support a training course to purchase a license like is done in some countries over a live scope ban and I will never own live scope Probably a large number of handling mortalities are from folks not even fishing for muskies, novice anglers without the proper tools likely high (per fish) and then the lowest per fish caught experienced folks. The issue here is the where and the how many caught by experienced folks sharpshooting in open water (additive to mortalities of all the other factors of mishandling, bad luck with hooks in vital areas for those fishing the usual areas and methods and then adding in natural mortality). It is not yet a significant issue up here in Canada, but I have been provided worrisome reports from some lodge folks. Barbless and/or single hooks in the situation I described would also achieve a reduction in mortalities, so another option outside of the ideas of a refuge or closure. The tech contributes directly to the issue, but the tech overall is not some superior revelation that makes fishing easy. It is only a significant issue in this scenario given it was a relatively untapped niche that now is heavily targeted on species of fish that is very rare and large fish even rarer. In answer to why you are seeing what you have seen in regards to the photos and handling, is that it is a rare catch and people can't help themselves. The majority of folks have not handled large fish like these and do not have experience with fish such as pike like we have. Lodges should provide all the tools folks need and a lesson or two. You should listen to the Ugly Pike podcast interview with Gord Pyzer which will give some insight into the musky story in NW Ontario (and he goes into the Wabigoon history as well which is enlightening) . Edited by Angling Oracle 8/30/2023 10:54 AM | ||
| Pikebait |
| ||
Posts: 105 Location: Alberta Canada | Angling Oracle - 8/30/2023 10:32 AM Pikebait - 8/30/2023 10:02 AM Personally I am not overly concerned about tech and not a big user of it. Sure it can help but it doesn’t make fish bite More than anything I see poor fish handling as probably the biggest factor when it comes to C&R. This by far is a bigger issue than tech. As pressure increases so does mortality One just has to go through the gallery of the lodges and you will see plenty of pics of poorly handled fish that were released. In some cases majority of the pictures show poor handling It may not be popular but I would support a training course to purchase a license like is done in some countries over a live scope ban and I will never own live scope Probably a large number of handling mortalities are from folks not even fishing for muskies, novice anglers without the proper tools likely high (per fish) and then the lowest per fish caught experienced folks. The issue here is the where and the how many caught by experienced folks sharpshooting in open water (additive to mortalities of all the other factors of mishandling, bad luck with hooks in vital areas and natural mortality). It is not yet a significant issue up here in Canada, but I have been provided worrisome reports from some lodge folks. Barbless and/or single hooks in the situation I described would also achieve a reduction in mortalities, so another option outside of the ideas of a refuge or closure. The tech contributes directly to the issue, but the tech overall is not some superior revelation that makes fishing easy. It is only a significant issue in this scenario given it was a relatively untapped niche that now is heavily targeted on species of fish that is very rare and large fish even rarer. A little different in my part of Canada as we have the least amount of water and highest angler numbers per body of water because of it. The pressure on our waters in Alberta have increased a lot with the growth of the population Here in Alberta I am definitely seeing an issue with our pike and it is from people for are targeting them. Majority of our waters are now C&R for pike now in central and southern Alberta. I could go through a fair number of stories regarding issues I have come across and mortality do to poor handling. Some pretty disturbing things on some popular lakes during ice fishing with an aqua view for starters This is not inexperienced fishermen with by catch What I have experienced has me far more concerned about angling practices and handling Of course the true diehard anglers with respect for the species will be more prepared but there are plenty of avid fishermen who target all species musky included that assume things are unnecessary or fish are tougher than they are. It’s not just by catch and there is a ton of guys heading to lodges to fish musky DIY that are unprepared or from the just don’t care crowd I am in 100% support of seasonal refuges or even all year and often fish barbless already Maybe it’s what I have experienced that has my concerns elsewhere that have me less concerned about tech But I am also limited on musky experience so I am looking at this as fishing in general too | ||
| Angling Oracle |
| ||
Posts: 355 Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Hi Pikebait, get where you are coming from. Probably mentioned it before, but youth spent fishing Alberta lakes up in the Athabasca region - caught some monster pike (by Alberta standards in those days) in the Athabasca proper. We've had the same issue with big pike and certainly folks wanting to do hero shots on YT with big ice pike not helping. I would say even fishing too deep for them, but good news is with ice fishing is they are often able to equalize (unlike getting hauled up quick with muskie size gear). As you know, we do have full barbless here in Manitoba. We do have lots of water compared to you guys so not the same sorts of pressure on pike that you have. You are wise enough to realize that your muskie experience is limited. Musky are very rare and kind of almost a miracle that they coexist with pike in some of the best waters. Big fish are extremely rare. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are 300 lakes and river systems in Ontario with muskie, compared to 200,000 lakes that have pike. Musky are in the Winnipeg River on the Ontario side of the border, and with no barrier in the way can drift to the Manitoba side, less than 15 miles away (maybe less) but there are zero confirmed reports of any caught on the Manitoba side. In other words, not just another fish, they are something very special. When you speak to the folks that have them just out their door off the dock, they have absolutely no clue what a rarity they are. I just heard a friend of a friend story of some folks canoeing in the experimental lakes area that had musky for shore lunch - the non-musky crowd is generally clueless as to what musky represent. I focus on Lake Vermillion in this thread as it is a shield lake with characteristics similar to some of the lakes (or parts thereof) that have the same predator-prey interactions up here. It is not just muskies doing the open water thing, pike, walleye, smallmouth are all out there too. Lake Vermillion is a stocked musky lake (it is a native pike lake). The livei imaging sharpshooting pressure on the lake is a bellweather for what could happen up here - except we don't stock, and nor should we. In fact, our lakes (and river systems) have less resilience given they are natural reproducing. Do not focus on the tech, focus on the pressure that the tech is creating in certain situations. By necessity I need to be very coy on what those are up here, although can be found on YT in edited forms (for example Uncut Angling). I highly recommend you do listen to Pyzer and you will get some insight on historical musky management up here overall. Edited by Angling Oracle 8/30/2023 11:54 AM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32887 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | As fisheries techs across the Muskie range complete creel and other studies over the next couple seasons, this should, one way or the other, come more clearly into focus. There's an interesting video on the Andy Myers Lodge Facebook page showing how Livescope actually saved a 4 footer. Crazy stuff. Here's an example of how I'm using the tech. I know the cribs are there, I simply use Mega 360 to get to them, then switch to Mega Live to hold the boat where I want it and watch the fish movement. I'm not selecting specific fish and trying to catch them, not even for pannies. Attachments ----------------  20230715_074528nlo.jpg (179KB - 61 downloads) 20230715_082522mm.jpg (74KB - 61 downloads) | ||
| Pikebait |
| ||
Posts: 105 Location: Alberta Canada | Angling Oracle - 8/30/2023 11:37 AM Hi Pikebait, get where you are coming from. Probably mentioned it before, but youth spent fishing Alberta lakes up in the Athabasca region - caught some monster pike (by Alberta standards in those days) in the Athabasca proper. We've had the same issue with big pike and certainly folks wanting to do hero shots on YT with big ice pike not helping. I would say even fishing too deep for them, but good news is with ice fishing is they are often able to equalize (unlike getting hauled up quick with muskie size gear). As you know, we do have full barbless here in Manitoba. We do have lots of water compared to you guys so not the same sorts of pressure on pike that you have. You are wise enough to realize that your muskie experience is limited. Musky are very rare and kind of almost a miracle that they coexist with pike in some of the best waters. Big fish are extremely rare. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there are 300 lakes and river systems in Ontario with muskie, compared to 200,000 lakes that have pike. Musky are in the Winnipeg River on the Ontario side of the border, and with no barrier in the way can drift to the Manitoba side, less than 15 miles away (maybe less) but there are zero confirmed reports of any caught on the Manitoba side. In other words, not just another fish, they are something very special. When you speak to the folks that have them just out their door off the dock, they have absolutely no clue what a rarity they are. I just heard a friend of a friend story of some folks canoeing in the experimental lakes area that had musky for shore lunch - the non-musky crowd is generally clueless as to what musky represent. I focus on Lake Vermillion in this thread as it is a shield lake with characteristics similar to some of the lakes (or parts thereof) that have the same predator-prey interactions up here. It is not just muskies doing the open water thing, pike, walleye, smallmouth are all out there too. Lake Vermillion is a stocked musky lake (it is a native pike lake). The livei imaging sharpshooting pressure on the lake is a bellweather for what could happen up here - except we don't stock, and nor should we. In fact, our lakes (and river systems) have less resilience given they are natural reproducing. Do not focus on the tech, focus on the pressure that the tech is creating in certain situations. By necessity I need to be very coy on what those are up here, although can be found on YT in edited forms (for example Uncut Angling). I highly recommend you do listen to Pyzer and you will get some insight on historical musky management up here overall. Maybe my opinion will change with experience on the subject but presently I can only only use the knowledge/experience I have for my personal opinion on the subject | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |