|
|
Posts: 8865
| My feelings on matching the hatch are mixed -- on one hand, logic tells me to try to mimic whatever forage they are likely eating at any given time -- if its perch, use a more cylindrical perch pattern lure. If its crappies, than use a wider profile with black and white.
But I have some problems with this approach:
1. Then the only thing that differentiates your lure from the prevalent forage is its action. Given the choice betwween any one of a school of real fish and a lure that doesn't behave like a real fish, what is the fish going to choose?
2. I've caught too many fish on things that are orange, chartreuse, that don't look anything like fish (spinnerbaits and bucktails) to believe that matching the hatch with color or shape is really that important. Some of the most realistic looking lures I have have been completely ignored in favor of lures that look nothing like a fish.
I DO believe however that fish will respond to SIZE. If its twice the size of all the rest of the forage in the lake? You might get a fish to follow it, but eating it? Probably not. If it's too small, and there is larger readily available forage? They probably will not bother with it unless you drag it right past their nose and trigger a reaction strike.
Match the hatch, or contrast the hatch????
While my belief may change in the future, I curently believe that the most important things are:
1. choosing a lure that gets to where the fish are (most important)
2. triggering a strike (choosing the right action and working the lure well)
3. picking a size that is neither too large or too small
4. picking a color/pattern that is most visible
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | Matching the hatch is being brought up frequently. In my previuos reply I might have hinted that I try to match the hatch. That isn't really the case for me. The size of baits I use are generally what I feel is a comfortable size for the fish to be eating, as well as a size comfortable for me to use. Sure, I use bigger baits and smaller baits, maybe depending on the mood of the fish, sometimes experimenting a little if the fish aren't biting. Most of the time though, I fish with the baits enough to see in general what size bait works most of the time, and pretty much stick with that.
Matching the hatch is NOT something I always try to do though. Sure I have walleye colored gliders, perch colored bucktails, ect. Maybe I am trying to match the hatch with those, maybe not. I don't think a fish looks at my perch Suick and thinks "that's a perch." I just feel that that color may be good in certain conditions. Sometimes a color might be "too much." Maybe some days in super clear water with super pressure fish a hot orange or chartreuse bait will keep them from biting, but maybe not.
One way I have always looked at trying to closely match the hatch: Baitfish are camoflauged right? If you buy into evolution, they probably got that way for a reason. None of the hot pink or orange minnows survived because they were easy pickings! I don't think most fish can look at a bait and think, or decide for itself if it's real or fake just by looking at it. I just can't believe that fish think that way.
Color, along with matching the hatch are way down the list on importance to me. I use a color, size and noise level of bait that I think will get noticed. I generally don't want the biggest, loudest, brightest thing out there, but I need fish to know it's there. In some clearer lakes that might be a perch, sucker, or white lure, in dirty water it might be orange, black, or chartreuse.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
| 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'...
Now, assuming you are moving fish on a 9" glider, 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.
correct me if i'm getting this wrong, but you're basically stating that "presentation" characteristics go much beyond just the size of the bait (which, btw, is saying that the original question in this post is a bit over-simplified).
ie., that triggering a strike is a result of a whole host of factors, and that you believe that bait size is less important than other characteristics - particularly noise signature and action. did i summarize that accurately?
my question brings us back to the original "over-simplified" question in this post about when to go with small or large baits: where do you start when trying to narrow down the "right" triggering characteristics? assuming you've got no information about cranks vs gliders or fast vs slow, etc., what _size_ bait do you start your search with?
one possibility i consider is to start sorting through the other characteristics with a bait that is close in size to what i know the muskies are feeding on. run through a progression of bait styles within that size range. it helps you to eliminate one of the factors as a starting point.
another possibility is combining this with likely fish activity levels: ie., if it's summer and warm, go larger; if it's a spring cold front, go smaller. and then again work through the style progression. this is based on collective fishermens' experiences under similar conditions. no need to reinvent the wheel...
after seeing that video you posted this winter of the bluegill fleeing the pike (dead stop, fast flight, dead stop 10' away) i know why bulldawgs trigger strikes...probably action more than size in that case? but...when people report fish responding better to mag dawgs over standard dawgs is it the size? is it the noise? and when people report roughly equal results from mags vs pounders? is size irrelevent?
stupid fish.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Jeez Lambeau my head is spinning after reading that! This part, though:
"my question brings us back to the original "over-simplified" question in this post about when to go with small or large baits: where do you start when trying to narrow down the "right" triggering characteristics? assuming you've got no information about cranks vs gliders or fast vs slow, etc., what _size_ bait do you start your search with?
one possibility i consider is to start sorting through the other characteristics with a bait that is close in size to what i know the muskies are feeding on. run through a progression of bait styles within that size range. it helps you to eliminate one of the factors as a starting point.
another possibility is combining this with likely fish activity levels: ie., if it's summer and warm, go larger; if it's a spring cold front, go smaller. and then again work through the style progression. this is based on collective fishermens' experiences under similar conditions. no need to reinvent the wheel... "
The MH lure progession standard procedure that we all follow...
I think what you're asking is where we START, right? I start with a moderate size, average. Only time I start small is early spring, major cold front, or if I know from word of mouth that small has been key over the last day or so. I seldom start big. Big is a place I go after I've seen a big fish, or during active periods. I save big for late fall and big fish, mostly because of the effort it requres to work big lures. Why kill yourself throwing a pounder if a regular dawg will work just as well? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | I think if it moves it's food!
Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Doug pretty well summed it up. I throw a lure I can keep where I believe the fish are, and control the speed and depth of that presentation well.
Speed and depth control, contrast, and there you have it. Stimulate that fish's tiny little brain enough/correctly/whatever it takes, and you will get a strike response. Location is my main concern, where are the fish? How can I get a lure effectively in that fish's zone... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion |
But,
Doug, does the fish in your world like big food or smaller food.........??????
Jerome |
|
| |
|
| I think if it moves it's food!
true, the muskie IS the king of it's environment!
so what does it mean when Dennis Radloff describes such markedly different results while trolling in Green Bay based on the size of the lure? you often hear similar reports from LSC by the trollers over there. size matters to them.
all the lures are moving but the muskies respond more to the smaller sizes, and those sizes seem to correlate to the major forage fish in the system.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Trolling how fast with how much line out, with the lure running at what depth, with what pound test line.....and what would happen if one was to make absolutely certain that the baits were running at exactly the same depth and speed, and one bait is 5" and the other 9"? Is it the 'tighter' vibration the smaller bait is sending out?
Is it that those who are using smaller baits are very good at what they do, are catching more fish because of excellent placement, and have settled on smaller baits because of depth and speed control and contrast and because of that they work?
In other words, isn't it just as possible that what the bait does is why it works well as much or more than how big the bait is?
Remember, Waves On the Water Make The Wind Blow...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2686
Location: Hayward, WI | Steve, this is all a matter of discussion so keep that in mind (I'm not trying to knock your replies). Didn't your original question ask when others favor the really big or really small baits? Others have told you that they have found that sometimes smaller baits excell in certain, probably relatively controlled conditions like trolling.
This is all speculation, but I'm going to guess that if a well known professional guide said smaller baits obviously outfished larger baits, he had the depth and location dialed in, made sure all baits were running the same depth and speed, and was likely using the same colors too.
So you argue that it may be the vibration signature given off by the baits that made the difference, and not the size profile at all? Isn't that getting into more detail than we will ever be able to have an answer for?
The fish can obviously eat a 5 inch bait or a 9 inch bait with no problem. Are we trying to argue whether the difference in preference relates to the vibration pattern given off by the small baits rather than what size we "feel" the fish want to be eating that day?
How will we ever know if it was the profile of the bait the fish wanted or the different vibration pattern given off by each lure? More importantly, what does it really matter? If fish are showing a preference for larger or smaller baits, do we really care WHAT it is about the bait, or just that one or the other works?
Most of us don't have access to swimming pools and underwater sound recording systems, so I don't know the vibration difference between an 8 inch Slammer or a 5 inch Big Game Twitch bait. What I might be able to know however, is if fish prefer one or the other.
If you really feel that it's the sound signature, what is important? The volume, the frequency? I would think that something like a slow, wide wobbling crankbait might have a low frequency sound. Would a small, flat sided glider fished slowly have a similar vibration/sound signature? are you theorizing that a high sided, short glider might be just as effective as a 13 inch Grandma when everybody says fish are going on big baits? That would be the "small bait that fishes big" theory.
I might have just talked myself into a circle, because I don't even know if I'm trying to make a point or ask a question any more. Just thinking and typing, which can be dangerous.
curleytail |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: KY | Wow. Lots of good reading on this thread!
Hear is a local favorite. The AC00 is only 3 1/2 “ long!
Attachments
----------------
 Threadfin w AC00.JPG (28KB - 106 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I asked the questions because I am not 'speculating'. I didn't say the difference is 'sound signature' necessarily, I was talking total signature.
An assumption can be made when a pattern proves out and small, or conversely, large baits were used for that timeframe. Is it wise to leap to the most obvious and miss important pattern information in the process?
An assumption can be made when large, or conversely, small baits were used, in Perch color? Is it the color?
An assumption can be made when small, or conversely, large baits are trolled a 4.1MPH 13' down over 25. Is it the depth? Is it the speed?
Let's say I'm taking numbers of good fish trolling 4" cranks 18' down over 25. The cranks I'm using are long lipped deep divers, tight wobble pattern. Would a short lipped bait the same size trolled as fast work, if the adjustment to acquire the depth control can be made? Would that otherwise identical short lipped bait work as well if you used snap weights to get it to18'? Is it possible to find a big bait that will run that depth, that speed, and that action? |
|
| |
|
| I use what I am capable of using without killing myself.
Using a glider is pretty much universal, except for the cast. I've got gliders from 5-10 inches, and now that I made a 10"er that is as easier to throw than an 8" Shaker, I'll probably use bigger gliders mores.
Cranks is different. Big, deep diver just plain wear me out, so they don't get much water time in my boat. If fish are coming deep, I'll throw a jig or a Bulldawg.
Twitchbaits are pretty much the sam regardless of size until you get into the real big ones, so I'll throw bigger ones before smaller ones because I've had issues landing fish on the smaller ones. I'd rather throw something with a minimum of a 4/0 hook on it.
Guess if it was easy, all lures would come in the same size. I like to have the option of small, medium and large. As mentioned, muskies are oportunistic feeders, just like most all game fish, and won't turn down a small offering if they are hungry and don't have to expend a lot of energy to capture it.
I think that this is part of the reason that you see such huge trolling lures. If guys had to cast and retrieve 18" lures, I don't think that they would use them.
Having tackle adequate to cast something that big and heavy could be an issue too.
I'll stick with lures that are user friendly, and hope that the fish are never so picky that they will refuse to eat a six or seven inch lure. |
|
| |
|
| Match the hatch...lots of lakes have baitfish shaped like 9" Sledges in bubblegum of firetiger with 3 trebles off the belly that rattle when they swim in short jerks hahah. A lot of credit sure gets given to a muskie's brain and thought process. Dick Pearson nailed it, we have zero control over fish location and zero control over conditions, but 100% control over presentation. Any guesses which of the three gets overemphasized ha ha? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | So, big lures big fish? Small lures....big fish? |
|
| |
|
| Look at it this way -- you can use lures that are too big for small fish, right? Can you use lures that are too big for big fish? Uhhhhhhh, NO, you can't. Look at them, they're BIG. They eat stuff that's bigger than anything you can cast more than a few times. The guys trolling Georgian bay with those huge wishmasters, they're catching fish, aren't they? You think they'd be catching the same size fish trolling shad raps?
Big fish eat big stuff, it ain't rocket science. Take any animal, any person, any living thing on the planet... The bigger it is, guess what, the more it eats.
Looking at fish specifically, what will a fish eat? Any fish, man, what will it eat? That's right -- whatever it can fit in its mouth. If it can catch it and swallow it, it's gonna EAT it. So tell me again how big baits don't equal big fish??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't see where I said big fish don't hit big baits. So why so unfriendly, EA? I asked the question why the many of the BIG bait builders also introduced 'baby' versions of the same lure.
I never said a thing about Shad Raps.
Obviously, big lures AND small lures catch big fish.
Answer your own question; if the Georgian Bay anglers were all pulling 9" lures or 7" lures, can you honestly insist they would not be catching big fish? Or will big fish there ONLY hit Big lures?
I see big muskies keying on 4 to 6" shad in some waters, so would a Wishmaster NOT work in that condition? |
|
| |
|
| My apologies Steve -- not meaning to come across as unfriendly. 10:45, and I am still working, have been since early this morning, perhaps my patience is wearing a bit thin...
Let me start over... a fish, any predatory fish... It will eat anything it is physically able to eat. The bigger that particular fish is, the larger meal it will be able to eat. Does that mean it will NOT eat a smaller meal? Of course not -- it is a predator, it will eat anything. If a smaller meal presents itself as an easy opportunity at the right time? Dinner it will be. But a smaller fish? A smaller fish has a limit of what it is able to eat, and certain meals, certain lures, will be too big for a small fish. Perhaps this is a better way to put it: big fish, on average, will eat bigger lures than small fish will eat on average. I also believe that big fish will be less likely to eat the smallest offerings a lot more often than small fish will.
would the guys trolling Georgian bay catch as many large fish using smaller lures? I have to belive not. If they could, than what would be the point of using big lures?
Now... As for why lure manufacturers are offering smaller versions of their lures? Because people will buy them. It's the same reason they are offering magnum and the recent super magnum versions -- we are musky fishermen -- we'll buy it simply because we like the one we have, and therefore a small one or a big one is something we will want as well.
|
|
| |
|
| It will eat anything it is physically able to eat.
the stomach sampling research doesn't support this belief.
although the research showed that muskies at times will eat quite large prey, it showed that most of the time they eat more moderately sized food as well as small food sources. there was a strong correlation between the primary forage fish in the lake and the primary food found in the muskies' bellies.
this would suggest that muskies are more opportunistic feeders, eating what's available and easy to catch more than simply looking for big meals or small meals.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That, Mike, is exactly what I've been driving at. And, I was trying to get strike response discussed, because that for SURE isn't driven totally by the size of the bait. |
|
| |
|
| Manufacturers make changes to baits to offer the angler something different. We buy it and throw it. Enough people throw it and it catches fish. The next thing "fish are hitting huge baits!" or "fish are hitting small baits" and more people buy in to it, perpetuating the theory. If they weren't changing lure size, colour, finish, they would not sell as many lures to us. Fish have a brain the size of a pea and we give them too much credit for being selective. If it moves, it is a potential food source. I use what I have confidence in, typically smaller than what most throw. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 253
Location: On the water | Guys;
I love these kind of discussions, big or small, what colors, what depth, fast or slow. I'm with the smaller is better group. Most of my fish have come off small bucktails. The fish see them all the time and they still eat them. I think that having the brain the size of a pea pretty much limits their ability to think all these things out. Like Doug said, if it moves, it food!!! |
|
| |
|
| I think that having the brain the size of a pea pretty much limits their ability to think all these things out.
clearly they aren't "thinking" these things out.
but in order to survive a fish has to have adaptive abilities, that's what it's (albeit small) brain is there for - to help it successfully discriminate what's good for it to do, whether that's eating, resting, procreating, etc.
so if there is a readily available and good-to-eat forage food around, the fish gets trained by success to eat things that look/act/feel like that food. this is a universally known and studied animal behavior, not mere supposition. i'm not saying it won't eat other things, but it will mostly eat it's key food.
imho, using a bait size that is the most food-like is a good place to start.
i'd prefer one that feels/sounds the most but i can't know that without experimentation, but i can know food size ahead of time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 292
Location: Minneapolis | I saw a very cool exhibit at the Monterey Bay Aquarium a few years ago that demonstrated to me why obnoxious, fluorescent colors (orange, pink, chartreuse, etc.) work well.
The exhibit had a school of pelagic, whitefish-like fish, that swam around and around a cylindrical tank. The fish always swam against an artificial, circulating current. A couple of the fish were dyed fluorescent pink. That whole school of fish looked like a big, amorphous blob, except the dyed fish. Those stood out like distinct beacons. If a predator was stalking the school, it would have a hard time picking a particular target out of the mass. Not so with the dyed fish; it's easy to focus on, and therefore easy to grab.
The Aquarium did that experiment in the open ocean. The dyed fish were indeed the first to get scarfed. Seeing that made me think its OK to use bright colors anywhere, anytime. They don't always work, but there seems to be a good reason to explain why they may. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if the fish isn't relating to the bait in a 'feeding' posture? What if the strike or follow is in response to the lure's stimulus, thinking here about stimulus/response theory.
For example, the 'pink' fish in a school of silver fish kinda sticks out, no benefit to shoaling behavior for that one! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| Obvious lack of cognitive thought ability aside, I do believe sometimes fish bite things out of curiousity... you're a fish, you have four choices when presented with a pink fish:
1. flee
2. ignore it
3. take a closer look
4. bite it
sometimes, whatever chemical and electrical signals make a fish do what a fish does, tell that fish "bite it"... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Strike Response. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| what he said |
|
| |
|
| Obvious lack of cognitive thought ability aside, I do believe sometimes fish bite things out of curiousity
fish are incapable of "curiosity". that's an anthropomorphism.
if they're biting something it's for one reason and one reason only: the switch in their little brain is flipped.
if they're following or nipping, it's because the switch is kindof sortof starting to get tripped, but isn't all the way.
your goal? trip the switch all the way by making it flash "food".
now, how to do that??? i wish i knew better...
|
|
| |
|
| I think 'eating' or 'food' is only one of many reasons fish put something in or near their mouths. |
|
| |
