|
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | IAJustin - 4/6/2012 9:20 AM
addict - 4/6/2012 9:02 AM
If there were no conditioning, the double ten would have never been invented and we'd all still be using red and white daredevils and there would never be a need for anything else. If you don't like the word conditioning, then call it a negative reaction to a stimulus, call it a bad experience.....call it whatever you want. Fish behavior changes because of what anglers do, and where we are, and what fish experience based on that. I don't know how that fact could even be argued. There's an article in pretty much every single issue of MHM about fishing "pressured waters." What does pressure mean? What is the result of pressure? Why?
Couldn't disagree more. The double 10 stimulates a strike response like few (if any ) lure ever has. The same fish will eat 10's every year...year after year. I bet there are individual fish on Mille Lacs that have ate 10's half a dozen times in their life! ... Does pressure effect fish, sure....100 boats going over a great ambush spot tends to put a fish in a negative mood..but they eat or die - muskies are not conditioned to lures I've caught the same fish on the same lure dozens of times. One individual "stubby" has ate a weagle 4 times!
Justin either I took Addicts post wrong or you did. I think what he was getting at is if fish didn’t get conditioned there would be no need for the constant evolution of baits. We would all still be chucking #5 Mepps. What is funny is I have heard that the puny little Mepps, and other small tails, have become increasingly more productive the last years which falls in line with the big double 10’s not being as productive as they once were when first being fished.
Again you will always have some fish that continue to not “get it”, and eat the same bait over and over. No different than a person that gets the runs something fierce when eating at McDonalds, but they continue to do it.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | That's really the issue here then, as I see it...what the fish remember. Whether or not a musky eats the same bucktail (or any other lure) several times in their life, sort of depends on their memory of it, right? I'd have to review the neuroanatomy of the muskellunge (or any fresh-water fish in general), but if they don't have much of a hippocampus, then they likely aren't going to be able to convert short-term memory into long-term memory. Thus they simply might not remember falling for the same lure before, lol.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Oh so now some fish get "conditioned" and others don't? Some are smarter? That kind of funny. Small blades have always been productive no more today that 10 years ago ..... Fish ate 10's just fine for me last year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| And why do lures evolve? Why don't you fix everything with a hammer? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think lures evolve for the anglers who *buy* them, as much as anything. It's certainly why they are painted in such vibrant colors much of the time. For instance, blues. As I recall, research into the vision of muskellunge has reported that they do not have the ability to distinguish blue/purple colors, and apparently perceive these as shades of gray. Certainly it could be the vibration factor causing some lures to be better than others; that's a very real possibility. And that may well be the reason lures evolve so much, as much as color...or style.
But I suspect that it's as much about appealing to the desires of the anglers who buy the lures, as it is about appealing to the fish.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I understand where both Justin AND Travis are coming from, and while they seem like their on different pages, both points of view go hand-in-hand IMO. So, for the longest time smaller blades with bucktail were the meal ticket. Fish have been caught in them consistently through the hands of musky fishing time, but what is "consistently"? We didn't know that something else, like bigger blades, could stimulate even more action from even bigger fish. Sure biggies are caught on small blades, that's not what I'm saying, I'm simply saying that the number of giants caught on super blades after they went mainstream was definitely noticable, and so went the craze.
So in Addict and Travis' point, it's not to say fish became conditioned to small bladed baits to the point they stopped eating them, it's that when the big blades came spinning through, it stimulated the fish perhaps even more for scientific reasons - more vibration/water displacement. There's also the notion that the blur affect of the dazzling flashabou skirts flowing like Medusa's hair in the vortex of those super blades eliminated visual acuity, which some believe decreased opportunity for fish to identify if what their chasing truly is prey or artificial. > And NO, I'm not saying that fish are smart enough to know what "artificial" is all the time, but if we get knit-picky...
To Justin's point, small blades certainly DO continue catching fish, and here's where Travis' point coincides about how the Big Blades productivity is potentially pumping the brakes while smaller blades are picking up in catch rates.. IMO, the potential reasoning of Travis' point could fall in line with the same notion that has folks believing Black and Nickle are the most productive colors.. You catch more on one color versus another if you cast the "hot" color more often than the other. Similiarly, perhaps it's our notion that conditioning to big blades is occuring, which drives more of us to toss smaller blades, hence catch rates between the two fluctuating.
***
Edited to add a couple points.
Edited by Sam Ubl 4/6/2012 10:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | this is just my personal opinion..... But I feel fish (regardless of species) do get conditioned and even sometimes it works in our favor, though most may not think so. For example. I fish Lake Minnetonka A LOT in fact I would say 80 - 90% of my time is spent on that lake alone. Could any of you think of a more "pressured" Minnesota Metro lake... Cause I can't. That being said, there are fisherman, pleasure boater, kids swimming ect..ect. There is constant boat pressure on the lake and not just fishing pressure. We all get upset when a stupid "pleasure boater" goes in between us and the shore and we think to our selves that it just screwed up any chance of catching a fish that we may have had. Now I will say that this happened to me a few times last year... BUT before I would move I would always throw at least a few more casts to the same spot the boat just went by. Most of the time, the theory stands and I catch nothing. But twice last year I did. Caught a nice 40" and a nice 41" within 5 to ten minutes of the boat passing through.
I thought hmmmmm... Maybe the fish got 'conditioned' to all of the boating pressure on the lake. They had become so used to hearing and seeing boats pass by on a regular basis that they don't even bat an eyelash anymore. I could see where this would happen, especially on a lake like Tonka. Constant boats all the time left and right and never stopping.
I see what Travis is saying about the different days of the week, some of my best days last year whether it be catch rates or sightings came on days that there was less boating pressure.... but it didn't necessarily mean there were less fisherman, just less pleasure boaters.
With the ridiculous amount of different lures on the market I like to try a little bit of everything. Some I use a lot and some not so much. I am a big believer in the 10s and 13s though. I have raised the same fish 3 or 4 times at one spot. If she doesn't eat, I will leave and come back to the spot maybe an hour later (or less). and hit the spot hard. Usually when this happens I will raise the fish again or catch the fish. I tend to catch more often then not if I spotted the fish first... however I only tried this tactic a hand full of times.
Now If I take "conditioning" into consideration I realize that the SAME fish saw the SAME lure or a different variation of the SAME lure about 15 times before she decided to eat it. So why did it take so long. I would also notice other anglers (using blades) hitting the same spot as I previously had. Not sure if they caught any fish or not. However I know that fish saw a variety or different types and colors of blades... Maybe Mine just made a better grinding noise ;-)...
Either way I know there are different types of conditioning, some may or may not help us in certain ways. But either way I know that the fish can MOST DEFIANTLY be "conditioned". It just all depends on how the angler reacts to such issues... that is what will separate the guys who catch and the guys who don't |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Tom - I agree for the most part but there are lures that have come out in the last 10 years that were significantly different than any predecessor, different "tools". Don't get me started on paint jobs - lures should be white, black or black and white  |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Good points between you and Travis on the boating pressure..
I know my favorite times to hit my area lakes is when "No Wake" rules are temporarily applied to the entire lake, like some springs or after many days of heavy summer rains. Fishing pressure relents and voila, sightings go up in normally pressured community spots.
On the other hand, much of this discussions points play a hand in why I moved "out there" in the last few years  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| I'd venture to say the evolution of lures is more a result of conditioning of ANGLERS than the fish themselves. No doubt when they see the same thing going through the water all day long (i.e. double 10's) they eventually will respont to it to a lesser degree. But... I do not believe this conditioning lasts very long. Explain to me, why, after what, 30 years? Why is a suick still a great lure? Certainly every fish everywhere has seen one at some point. Success of a lure is due largely due to how it stimulates the lateral line, and how it offers visual cues that trigger a feeding response. The success of the double 10 has to be all about the water it displaces, because it sure doesn't look like anything they would normally eat. Some lures look just like fish, but they rarely move or displace water like an actual fish would. Others have the movement and/or the water displacement, but when you look at them? Looks nothing like a fish. Conditioning? Yes. Long term? Probably not. I've experimented throwing various things - a leaf, a stick, a piece of chewing gum, small dry flies, among others into a school of bluegills. The first few times they all eat it, and promptly spit it out when they realize it's not food. After that, they will completely ignore it. But if you come back an hour later, they all will do exactly the same thing. I happens with all species of fish, and it happens with muskies. I raised the same fish 13 times over a period of four days on Eagle a few years back. She'd come in hot on the first cast, then I'd throw something different, and she'd follow that, but not as agressively. Then we'd leave, and come back a few hours later, and it was the same thing all over again. This went on for four days. As I said earlier - you can't argue that conditioning takes place. To what degree, and how long it lasts is what's important. I can't imagine a fish has the capacity to remember something long term, whether it's being caught, or this or that lure. If it's reenforced on a constant basis, day after day after day (i.e. pressured lakes) you may have to change things up to fool those fish. But in places where any given fish hasn't seen a lure in a week? I'd venture to say they are just as dumb as they have ever been when it comes to lures. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | IAJustin - 4/6/2012 10:51 AM Don't get me started on paint jobs - lures should be white, black or black and white :) I partly agree New thread?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Sam Ubl - 4/6/2012 10:55 AM
IAJustin - 4/6/2012 10:51 AM Don't get me started on paint jobs - lures should be white, black or black and white :) I partly agree New thread??
----------------------------------------------
Oh you know the people on here could go all day on a color thread... |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | I've observed what I perceive as conditioning with lures and even with livebait. I've seen where lure X gets eaten for a period then it's not working for everyone but if you change the retrieve, voila, it starts catching fish again. Fish that used to eat livebait like crazy just stop but by changing the type of livebait those fish are caught again. If that's not a conditioned response I don't know what you would call it. Pressure might have an impact on the mood of the fish but that's a conditioned response as well. IMO it can also work in our favor. I fish one pressured water that the fish seem to get conditioned by mid-summer that it's safe to eat when there's tons of recreational traffic. My BST is that the fish are conditioned to avoid feeding when the rec traffic is low because that's the only time they're fished for and caught.
The obvious statement is when overall pressure is low, angling and rec traffic, there isn't enough negative reinforcement to condition them. Fish on low pressure waters like Lake of the Woods probably don't ever get conditioned. This is what saves us when we fish those ultra low density waters (1 fish per 5000 acres), no pressure, no conditioning = "stupid" fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | EA, I think you're onto something there--that fish, unlike humans (for instance), really don't have any significant ability for long-term memory. And why would they need it? They don't have to process information to anywhere near the level that humans do--they basically worry about eating, not getting eaten, and then reproducing. One could argue that these things, at their most basic level, are instinctual by nature. There isn't much thought that needs to go into any of them--and most people will show you this, if you just watch them (LOL).
But from the little bit of research I've done on the matter, it's the hindbrain that is responsible for basic instinctual function. And although I haven't read the studies because I don't have access to them, I've found references that indicate that the lateral line system information in fish is interpreted or "processed" by neurons in the hindbrain. This suggests to me that they are indeed primarily driven by instinctual (rather than cognitive) function, at least in the fishes possessing a lateral line system. For smaller fish without a lateral line system, maybe it's as simple as just "following the herd." Instinct tells them to school up for more safety, and there isn't one actual "leader" in the bunch. Just watch YouTube videos of bait balls getting attacked by any number of predators--they move in every imaginable direction, almost instantaneously. So how could there be one "leader" in the school, and what would happen to the rest of the bait ball if that leader gets munched? Certainly is has to be instinct-driven, the way I see it.
So put another way, if my thinking is correct (no pun intended), fish aren't "thinkers" as much as they are "reactors" on a more instinctual (i.e.; primal) level. While I am by no means an expert in the neuroanatomy of fish, this does make sense to me. But I'll have to dig out my fish physiology text today, and see if I can find some more information on the neuroanatomy of fishes.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/6/2012 11:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| Exactly - And why long term I believe there is almost no lure conditioning. You catch a fish its probably not eating anything for a week - the fish was stressed. But 4 months later the fish is now so hungry it finds a meal or dies you cant tell me its smart enough to turn down the same lure going by its face - that why lures trolled or cast with speed are so effective - the fish charges eats or dies.
Edited by IAJustin 4/6/2012 11:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | "1 fish per 5000 acres"
LOL @Will... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Absolutely Jake! All aspects of conditioning, and not just ones we associate with a negative result. There are some lakes that when it came to suspended fishing you needed to be in that basin before any boat traffic to have a chance at fish. However dynamics changed and now those fish don’t mind eating amidst all the boat traffic. That’s where we as anglers need to keep an open mind, and don’t get conditioned ourselves. Gotta keep checking different avenues to see what new patterns may have developed. Another possible example of pressure, and conditioning, is this. A lake was notorious for a very early morning bite. We would fish no longer than 8:00 am as after that it died significantly. Sure fish were caught after that time, but not to the extent as before. However others took notice of the early morning success after a few years, and the pressure at that time increased significantly. That pattern died, but there was still a period that the fish had strong activity. The time period just shifted. Point of all this being what as anglers can we do about it? Don’t get stuck in a rut. Don’t just assume that because a pattern died that the fishing on the lake has gone down hill. That early morning bite may have become a midday bite. Switch up when you fish the lake if you are expecting different results. Does this example pertain to conditioning of fish and how smart they are? I don’t know but something definitely changed their attitude and what they react to. To be successful we need to realize what is happening when it is happening.
Sam summed up my thoughts well! I also agree with Will’s statements, and the reason we all look for that hidden gem of a lake. There is a reason for Lake “X”.
Betka you are a breath of fresh air when it comes to threads like this, but I will challenge your comments about memory and thinking. Let’s not forget anthropomorphism. I respect your intelligence as well as others, but we continually try to find the need to compare animals qualities to that of humans and we shouldn’t. We are programmed differently.
Why do BIG fish get harder and harder to catch? Is it because of the population density of trophy fish, or is it based on instincts which are formed through what has been “learned” over that fish’s lifetime?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Not trying to compare fish and humans...just contrasting their two neuroanatomies. Anthropomorphicizing them would be injecting subjectivity into the mix. My intent was to remain objective, while hypothesizing how each animal might make use of the tools it has been given.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Justin you are right Suicks are still a great lure. However remember the story of success of that bait when it first came out? Has that kind of success been seen since with a Suick? I am not saying a lure quits producing all together. I am also not saying a lure, or presentation, will ever produce great results ever again. However what I am saying is we need to think about “cool off” periods of where we need to find the BETTER pattern. There is a reason we all go away from that “hot” lure we once had and maybe never really threw it that much again. I am suggesting perhaps blowing the dust off of some of the lures and you may be surprised at the results.
Tom I should have known better to even question your thinking. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | By the way Travis...
Your comment about big fish being harder and harder to catch is very interesting. Do you think this is because they just aren't as aggressive as smaller fish, and (as such) get beat to the lure by them? Or is it something else? Are they more cautious by nature? If fish truly have no (or limited) long-term memory, then do their instincts change as a result of past experience? Are there certain fish that are "smarter" than others, when it comes to being more cautious or skeptical (how's that for anthropomorhism, lol) when it comes to chasing a lure?
Another random thought--why do some deer get hit by cars, while others don't? Is it because those deer who get hit/killed on the road weren't smart enough to stay away from the road, while the others were? Or is it simply chance?
I pose these questions not because I am trying to be difficult--but rather because I've wondered about them many times before. And then along comes this discussion, and I get to throw them out there for consideration...
GREAT discussion, btw.
TB
EDIT: Tom I should have known better to even question your thinking.
I admit that I can be somewhat of a "mental Cuckoo clock," now and again. I just am thankful that you guys indulge me...especially when I go off on one of my math excursions!
Edited by tcbetka 4/6/2012 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| The last 5 years I average 300-400 hrs a year on a single 450 acre lake (only muskie lake near me). Its eye opening to spend that much time in a "fish bowl" Do fish react to certain situations sure, but so do ants....ants might be smarter than muskies.
Edited by IAJustin 4/6/2012 12:02 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | CiscoKid - 4/6/2012 11:32 AM
Why do BIG fish get harder and harder to catch? Is it because of the population density of trophy fish, or is it based on instincts which are formed through what has been “learned” over that fish’s lifetime?
Maybe that basin dwelling trophy fish never ate a 9" Grandma, triple D or Hard Head even once in its life. Might not have seen one. Perhaps it lived a life eating mud minnows in 29' of water, coming into contact with hook and line once or twice in 26 years, breaking the hearts of 2 twelve year old girls on a dock in 1988, and one tournament walleye angler who was just glad to have it over with, when he finally got his jig back after the fish wrapped him around the drift sock.
What I'm saying is, there is a faction of fish in some waters, that we, the ultra intelligent Musky anglers, never target...
With that said, I beleive there is some type of avoidance response over time among some fish in highly pressured situations. Do they remember from year to year what happened? No. They might just enjoy/get used to their new feeding/living pattern, and tend to take part in same the next season..?.. Survival.
Edited by Reef Hawg 4/6/2012 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| CiscoKid - 4/6/2012 11:48 AM
Justin you are right Suicks are still a great lure. However remember the story of success of that bait when it first came out? Has that kind of success been seen since with a Suick? I am not saying a lure quits producing all together. I am also not saying a lure, or presentation, will ever produce great results ever again. However what I am saying is we need to think about “cool off” periods of where we need to find the BETTER pattern. There is a reason we all go away from that “hot” lure we once had and maybe never really threw it that much again. I am suggesting perhaps blowing the dust off of some of the lures and you may be surprised at the results.
Tom I should have known better to even question your thinking. ;)
Why did you stop throwing the lure to begin with? - I've never seen a lure "cool off" - fish may have moved to a different depth..so there is a better tool.
Edited by IAJustin 4/6/2012 11:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Interesting point Justin. When I was actively fishing musky, I didn't stop finishing the same old baits. I fished the same old Shallow Raiders, Jakes and Depth Raiders (trolled) all the time, because they still produced. I also injected a select few newer lures into the mix though, when I tried to expand the envelope again. But the old standby lures seems to produce just as well as the new types did, so I completely agree with you in that respect.
In my experience, a person doesn't really need nearly as many lures as he thinks he does to catch these fish. Many times he just needs to believe in the ones he's using, and keep it in the water.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | tcbetka - 4/6/2012 11:25 AM "1 fish per 5000 acres" LOL @Will... Fishing low density populations isn't actually as daunting as it seems Tom (and Reef Hog), because like Will says they're pretty stupid and once you find them, they are fairly easy to catch. Finding them is obviously the key and I say them because whatever is attracting one muskie will attract others for the same reason, I disagree with a giant loner theory. The bonus with low-density is that you are typically dealing with large adult fish (why else fish it?) that have very little competition for food from other muskies, obviously very little competition from other anglers too.
I'll give you some food for thought… on the lowest density population system I have ever fished, my boat was lucky enough to have a doubleheader from two large fish. Not only that, the heaviest fish in my boat ever was on that same super low-density system… I believe Will’s largest was also captured there. Sometimes less is more, but only if you're willing to pay the price. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| tcbetka - 4/6/2012 11:48 AM
Your comment about big fish being harder and harder to catch is very interesting. Do you think this is because they just aren't as aggressive as smaller fish, and (as such) get beat to the lure by them? Or is it something else? Are they more cautious by nature?[...]
I'd venture to say there are three factors at work here:
1. There are far fewer numbers of big fish. It's more a case of being difficult to find them that it is catching them.
2. The largest fish in the system are inhabiting different areas, and chasing other larger meals. They still relate to structure, but not in the ways we normally think of.
3. Biology - a big fish has to expend a lot more energy to eat a meal. If it's going to expend the energy, it will be for something subtantial the provides more energy than it expended catching said prey. Chasing and eating everything that moves no matter the size like a smaller fish would is counterproductive. Would you run around the block for a cracker? What about a deep dish pizza?
Are they more cautious? Maybe. But I think it's much more a result of them spending their time in areas we don't fish, spending time farther off the structure in deeper water, and eating things that are larger than the lures we typically use.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Fair points, EA...
I will say though that, at least in the Green Bay system, the big fish seem to be very willing to chase small lures. In fact in the Spring, several 50+" fish are caught by Walleye anglers in the southern bay--sometimes these are even the longest fish caught that entire year! But even in the Fall, smaller lures (7-8") have traditionally worked just as well as 9-10+" lures. In 2007 when we had a GREAT year here in the bay, every one of my six 49+" fish was caught on an 8" Swimmin' Joe. I caught lots of other muskies on larger lures, but the biggest fish were on the SJ. A few other anglers had great success with them as well, although (as I'm told) they haven't been as good since.
But these fish here at least are not afraid to chase down the shad we have schooled-up all over the place; nor are they afraid of chasing down small gobies. So while it seems as though people think that very a large musky might not want to expend that much energy to catch a meal, it doesn't seem to be the case here.
There are those anglers who insist on "big lures for big fish," but I am not necessarily one of them--at least not in the Green Bay system.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/6/2012 12:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| CiscoKid - 4/6/2012 11:48 AM
Justin you are right Suicks are still a great lure. However remember the story of success of that bait when it first came out? Has that kind of success been seen since with a Suick? I am not saying a lure quits producing all together. I am also not saying a lure, or presentation, will ever produce great results ever again. However what I am saying is we need to think about “cool off” periods of where we need to find the BETTER pattern. There is a reason we all go away from that “hot” lure we once had and maybe never really threw it that much again. I am suggesting perhaps blowing the dust off of some of the lures and you may be surprised at the results.
What great success do you refer to???? 30 legal fish in 30 days? Well since the legal length limit was 28" back then .....I'd say heck yes that has been duplicated!!! ...I'd go so far as to say someone had way more success with a suick last year that that???? They eat what you throw...when they want to eat... if you have your lure at the depth they are feeding, some lures trigger stikes better than others and continue to do so year after year.
Edited by IAJustin 4/6/2012 12:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | 30 28" fish is pretty good for some guides. The ones that are no longer in business. Seasonal patterns change all the time, from where they feed to where they recover after feeding, to what they want to eat and how big. You can blame pressure and conditioning, but it sounds to me more like seasonal movements and feeding behaviors. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I wish I knew why some of my baits/patterns died. Could have been just me, but I know it isn’t the depth the fish are at as I would still catch them in the same area but with a lure with a different footprint. Some lures get hot again for me while others never have. For instance I had a clown depthraider I tore the fish up on for a couple of years. The pattern has never come back for me, but catching fish in the same area with a different lure at the same depth has worked. May not be conditioning, but what the heck happen?
Lets not forget that not all the BIG fish are found deep. On the contrary, so I heard ;), some giants are found very very shallow. It’s the instances of finding fish of large proportions in spots that just don’t make sense. Places most anglers don’t or wouldn’t look. Is it because of what the fish are finding there, or a case of what they are not finding there? EA said that large fish aren’t contacted due to the density of that population. I currently disagree. Like Jerry said it is becoming more readily acceptable to find several large specimens together. I think there are a lot more trophy fish, of most species, out there than most of us realize. Last year I stumbled across a bunch of large walleyes in a lake that is widely known to have them. It just so happens that the conditions were right at the time I targeted them that I found out the true potential of the fish in that system. I got lucky in that the fish just got done spawning, recouped, and were feeding heavily on big perch. Again point being is I don’t think the thought of the population of the trophy sized fish is always going to be very small. Everyone I tell about what we ran across on that lake is pretty surprised.
Muskies are the apex predator in the water world we fish. It is said over and over again that the largest fish are found on the best structures available. So in all reality they should be pretty easy to find
|
|
| |
