Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Fish Conditioning or Fish Smarts |
| Message Subject: Fish Conditioning or Fish Smarts | |||
Herb_b |
| ||
Posts: 829 Location: Maple Grove, MN | I don't know about Muskis being so smart. I had the laptop along a few years ago and was doing a little work while the kids swam. A Muskie comes along, looks up at my screen and asks why I'm not coding in C#. Silly fish. My compiler only supports C and C++.  | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Herb_b - 4/6/2012 1:06 PM I don't know about Muskis being so smart. I had the laptop along a few years ago and was doing a little work while the kids swam. A Muskie comes along, looks up at my screen and asks why I'm not coding in C#. Silly fish. My compiler only supports C and C++. :) Heh...you should be using Mono.  TB | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | esoxaddict - 4/6/2012 12:05 PM 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These reasons are exactly why (though hard to swallow at times). We all try to go outside of our "comfort zone" and fish a spot that we had never tried or even seen a fish before. For example last year my brother wanted to go out musky fishing with me. He had gone once before and caught one, but wanted to continue his conquest of these elusive beasts. We tried a few spots and didn't see a darn thing. He then brought me to one of his "secret" crappie spots on the other side of the lake that I have never tried before for muskies... not only have I never tried it, but have never seen any other musky angler trying it either. We were there for five minutes, I raised two and he caught a nice 46". I guess it just goes to show that you just never know. I will be trying that spot again this year. Did pretty well the other day there for craps too.. had some fun.. nice be out on the water again | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | I read those documents about the CFMS last night. The year 1 summary report was very interesting--especially the information about the post-catch activities of the radio-tagged fish. I also found it very interesting that over 95% of the fish survived the catch and release process. And the one fish that died was caught on a single-hook sucker rig, and the hook was left in the fish at the release...something well-proven to cause a high degree of morbidity and mortality. What I found most interesting is that this is a far cry from the nearly 30% mortality found by Beggs (et al.) in his 1980s Nogies creek study. I hadn't read the summary on the first year before, but I wish I had--as this would have been very good information to have. But I found the information on the CFMS very interesting indeed. TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Tom, None of that information has any validity what so ever. The entire 'study' was a patchwork of make believe and bad to non existent data, and conclusions arrived at in year one were based on assumption. It's interesting, but just as a piece of fiction. I have all the 'tracking' data here still. There were times the tracking boat would have had to be in two places at once and miles apart, and other times the 'readings' put the fish a mile up in the woods. The elapsed time recorded in locating and tracking fish was absolutely impossible to accomplish with the equipment used. Conclusions were made before data was even recorded much less interpreted, what data was actually recorded was presented in several conflicting formats, and seminars were being presented and articles written on the behavior of those fish that were entirely make believe as a result. I obtained an interview with Tribal elders after the piece now at TNB and the Weird Science piece written by Robb and I for EA was released. Information offered during that interview proved the entire year one, and much of the year two study to be complete fabrication. Musky Hunter has actually published much of the study 'results', and those flew in the face of known muskie behavior dramatically. Jason Smith and I began a two year process of gathering information in order to test the data and either confirm or refute the stories behind this thing. It's bunk. A few folks who had very good intentions were involved in the peripherals, but the study itself...wasn't. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | So none of the data can be considered valid? I am most interested in the qualitative aspects of it, rather than quantitative (for lack of a better comparison). Basically I am most interested in the post-catch tracking information, because although I don't ever plan to fish those areas reportedly used by the fish after being caught, I find the fact that the trackers COULD track the fish most helpful. Put another way, if the fish were trackable...then they weren't dead. The fact that they "went deep" (true or not) was interesting, but I don't necessarily agree that it's the normal behavior. It certainly might have been true there, but I've heard numerous reports of the same fish being caught days apart, in nearly the same spot. So I know that not all fish "go deep" after being caught, although some may well do so. What I was most interested in, to be honest, was the fact that the fish were trackable after being caught. Where they went and what they did, is of less importance right now. TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Absolutely none of it. Quite a bit was very simply fabricated. The authors actually eventually admitted the 'data' was not actually available to them and would never be available for examination. Why? Because for the most part there was little or none in any form that could be used. Nothing published about the CFMS by the study 'authors' can be trusted to be anything but entertainment. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/7/2012 8:38 AM Absolutely none of it. Quite a bit was very simply fabricated. The authors actually eventually admitted the 'data' was not actually available to them and would never be available for examination. Why? Because for the most part there was little or none in any form that could be used. Nothing published about the CFMS by the study 'authors' can be trusted to be anything but entertainment. Very unfortunate, although I must say that it *was* an entertaining read. Thanks for the clarification Steve. I'd like to hear more about the study some day, when we're wetting lines together. TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | We'll get that conversation done this year! | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Tom, My interpretation is their primary interest was to fabricate things to attempt to prove the descendents of the Chippewa Flowage mythical past were still swimming. When the Lawton record was removed, and subsequently Sprays fish moved to the top, this created quite a stir and Sprays records were naturally put under a finer microscope. Not that there was even much doubt before that, but I remember reading the article in Musky Hunter where Brad Latvaitis located one one the smoking gun photographs proving Sprays record was bogus. Dettloff was quick to get a lid on that can of worms, and for all we know this CFMS was only conceived by them to further defend their meal ticket. Either way, like Steve says… it was pure bunk and when you read some of the key points of the article below in that light, their conclusions become almost laughable if it wasn't such a waste of resources... just imagine how far that amount of money could have went towards valid research. “Problems Surface These claims were made before a comprehensive and careful analysis of the data gathered was available, and the study participants were openly trying to provide and explain a factual basis for reduced capture and sightings of Chippewa Flowage muskies before the study was completed-or for that matter, even fully underway. The study coordinator, Mr. Allen, is a guide on the Flowage, one of the study participants and authors, Mr. Dettloff, owns a business there, and all the participants had a potential financial interest in proving the Chippewa Flowage was and is as fine a fishery as ever. The potential for bias is probable, and that potential is problematic throughout the publication of the study ‘results’.
Scott Allen, speaking to the Milwaukee chapter of Muskies Inc. stated that:
The only "spooky" thing is how far they were willing to go to deceive the public. Edited by Jerry Newman 4/7/2012 12:50 PM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | About the only piece of information that I would find useful there for my purposes, if it were indeed true, is the last thing you quoted: Muskies become conditioned to avoid anglers, especially electric motors and gas motors, after a single capture, suggesting a ‘learned’ response to capture. Muskies also moved deeper after capture, and never returned to the area in which they were caught.” I would find this information most helpful from the standpoint of potential research in the Green Bay fishery. If we are trying to determine the degree to which angling pressure is detrimental to the fishery here, then this bit of information might be very useful. For example, let's say that this information is accurate--then the large fish being caught and released here in the southern bay may not remain in the area that exposes them to further risk. So as long as they survive the catch & release process for that particular year, then they might be "safe" until they return to the area the next time. However I am quite skeptical of this notion. For one thing, I've heard several reports of fish with very similar (if not identical) markings being caught a couple weeks apart by different anglers here in the Fall. But the thing is that I am not sure what this claim would accomplish, if indeed the data was bogus or fabricated. What good is to claim that once a fish is caught, it goes deep and is no longer susceptible to further angling pressure until it returns shallow? What would be the motivation to make such an assertion? So I guess what I am saying here really is that I wonder if there isn't any useful data at all that we might gain from reviewing that first year summary? To think that every piece of data was fabricated or falsified, is quite possibly assuming a little too much in my humble opinion. I am not defending or accusing anyone here, but I find it very unlikely that a bunch of people could conceive and execute such a conspiracy with perfection. Human nature strongly suggests otherwise. I find it much more likely that portions of such data were (successfully) fabricated or misrepresented, and not the data in its entirety. Admittedly this places ALL the data under doubt, so we may never know what information we might use to our benefit...and therefore the entire matter seems to be a waste. It is very unfortunate indeed... TB | ||
| Tim R |
| ||
Posts: 174 Location: Ontario | The biggest connection to fish feeding or not feeding...in particular to bigger fish is noise.I believe these bigger fish associate the sound of boat motors with trauma.Often wonder why the fishing always seems to get so much better in October and November??? Regardless of a muskies intelligence,there has to be comfort level in its thoughts when it decides to eat a 3lb walleye or whatever.I cant see a 30lb muskie swimming into a bay with jet skis and kids screaming casually looking for lunch. If a predator that has lived 20 years and been caught a few times to live through the battle...I believe its the noise that is the natural alarm for them. I saw a 40" plus muskie caught in Georgian Bay mid summer in 140 ft of water... The reasons could be many.Just dont happen to see to many mid summer fish up in these parts. Everyone always associates the colder water for the trigger,and maybe thats partly true.But.These waters are silent for 8 months a year,there has to be a connection between the sound of motors and hooks in the head. By the way. Happy Easter to all who celebrate it Edited by Tim R 4/8/2012 8:01 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Actually, that CFMS year-1 summary mentioned that as well--that muskies, once caught, would move away from the sound of an approaching boat. Larry Ramsell's report from the Eagle lake study didn't go into that much, as I recall. I think those fish were first captured by methods other than angling, so they might not have been so conditioned to avoid boats...at least initially. I'll have to review his article(s) again, but I don't recall him saying much in there about how the fish responded to his approach in the boat. However my first-hand experience in Green Bay suggests that the shallower the water, the more hesitant the fish are around the boat. But this does not explain the success of those who've reported caught fish by trolling lures right in the prop wash--something I've never been able to duplicate in relatively shallow water. TB | ||
| Tim R |
| ||
Posts: 174 Location: Ontario | Ive experienced the prop wash catch a few times.Its confusing and unexplainable to be honest. I just dont think you can ever underestimate the intelligence of a species in its natural environment. Possibly the muskie sees the lure in the prop wash as vulnerable or as a threat. I almost only troll for muskie...many hits I feel are associated with reflex attacks in protecting territorial areas as much as they are feeding.Who knows...Ultimatly people connected to this species are beyond just being fishermen, and border on insanity. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Muskies become conditioned to avoid anglers, especially electric motors and gas motors, after a single capture, suggesting a ‘learned’ response to capture. Muskies also moved deeper after capture, and never returned to the area in which they were caught.”' The tracking data was almost totally invalid. One tracking boat reported being in two places at once several times. Some tracking data was supposedly gathered on nights where the weather would have been absolutely prohibitive. The most important thing is the comments you read were not ascertained by looking at any of the data. Pure make believe. Again, that stuff was created to sell seminars and create the belief the Chip still had monster muskies swimming everywhere and fill a resort by convincing people the Chip was teeming with huge muskies...they were just incredibly adept at avoiding capture by angling. Pure bunk. Look at the Pewaukee study for real telemetry data. In my experience, muskies could care less about boats. If they were worried about boat traffic, they'd die of starvation trying to get away from them all day and in many cases, all night. Measure off 50' from your boat. Not very far, is it? If you find muskies in 50' of water following bait, it's rare you find them truly near the bottom. And with sound traveling at 16 football fields a second under water, the noise is absolutely unavoidable. I've caught numbers of muskies in bays with jet skis and powerboats. I don't like that traffic, but the fish could care less, it's part of the normal environment. Think about it. If the stuff that article quoted was even remotely possible, one would never catch a muskie trolling, and C&R would be stupid because the released fish would never again be caught. On many lakes with good muskie populations, the fishing would be impossibly bad. I've caught 'em in the prop wash. And I've caught the same tagged fish several times, and a couple only a day or two apart between. I have observed muskies underwater now for 12 years using my Aqua-Vu gear. I see muskies in 3', 5', 10' and the basin over the sandgrass and where they are....there's ALWAYS food. They follow the camera frequently. The camera is directly below the boat, gas motor sometimes running, electric sometimes running. They move around allot, from what I see under the ice, cruising large areas. Other fish are around them all the time, especially pike, and I've yet to see one try to chase any other fish away, they ignore each other for the most part. I've yet to see anything that resembles 'territorial' behavior. Anglers have attempted to explain how tough it is to catch muskies for years by creating a far to complicated picture of their behavior, when it's easier to explain by simple numbers. If there were as many muskies as there is Pike or Bluegills in any body of water, I believe you'd catch them as easily as pike or bluegills. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Does water depth seem to have any effect on your success Tim? I hypothesize that deeper water muskies might be more willing to attack a lure in the prop-wash, because they have the safety of that vertical buffer of the water column. They can easily escape deep, and thus may be more willing to hit lures closer to the boat in deeper water. While I've had other anglers tell me they've had success with prop-wash trolling in shallower water (5-8 feet even), I just haven't seen that myself. Having said this though, Don Schwartz' experience (as seen on his video trolling DVD) seems to be that the fish will come right up behind the prop to investigate a lure...and the prop! And as I recall, he had some footage on the video to support that behavior. So it is indeed conceivable that these fish will hit a lure in shallow water prop-wash, and I simply didn't give it enough of a chance to see success. TB Edited by tcbetka 4/8/2012 9:13 AM | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/8/2012 9:07 AM SNIP... I've caught 'em in the prop wash. And I've caught the same tagged fish several times, and a couple only a day or two apart between. All valid arguments Steve. As I said, I am very skeptical about several of the data reported in that summary of year one. You raise valid points and as I mentioned, I've gotten several reports of the same fish being caught in a relatively short period. So I certainly don't believe all reported there--I was just hoping that there was *some* useful data there. Sadly, it appears that whatever useful information exists is so mired in controversy that it is simply impossible to use it, and thus the entire study is useless. TB | ||
| Tim R |
| ||
Posts: 174 Location: Ontario | Tom, the beauty of fishing in Ontario is that we have many lakes and water systems for Muskie.Many I do fish,have no pike.Even so, there is very little pressure on the species.Any prop was fish caught where on these lakes in water in about 20 ft or so. Now my primary spot to fish is in Parry Sound area of Georgian Bay.Water levels are down around 6ft.The zebras cleared out so much vegetation its unreal. Areas that were beautiful weed lined bays have been replaced by sand islands and rock. The old timers I fish with kept taking me to spots they fished in for years and we caught squat...so I started trolling.My opnion is that the big fish have become more transitional.They must hunt for success,and therefore trolling gets me into more potential spots vs. chucking lures into weedless bays. I agree with Steve,the sound of motors may not deter them from feeding. But I think it sppoks them when they are in their "homes" I think its more a matter of getting that lure into different depths and structure continously to find the fish that are feeding. My prefered depth is anywhere between 12-30 ft with the lure running around 12ft. Everyone in my club now trolls with minimum 7" lures and the fishing has been really good. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You know, something just occurred to me. One obvious attraction for all of us to fish muskies is the size of the fish. Another, and one perhaps more powerful, is the mystery of how difficult they are supposed be to catch consistently. Perhaps if we ever reduced it to the biology and reality, the fun and challenge would be lessened. The mystery of it all is easy to understand...we can't see the darned things to tell what they are really doing most of the time. | ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Exactly. I've said many times that I really don't even care if it's me that reels in the fish or not, when we're trolling. (Casting is a different ballgame mind you, because it's mono a mono in that sense--especially when they hit by the boat on a figure-8.) But for trolling, the challenge for me is to find the fish, and then get them to hit. So I always got more of a kick out of taking people out who have never caught big fish, and put them on a big fish, especially when they really have no idea of what's going on. I've had people fishing in my boat who literally could not drive the boat on a compass course, and I had to do absolutely everything. Those folks are the most fun, because they almost come unglued when they get a big fish on! My uncle had never caught a legal musky prior to catching the 53-54" fish we got in 2007. So for him to have gotten that fish was an awesome experience--and then to see him struggle with trying to get it unhooked and released while battling the 28-degree air and 35-degree water temps was surreal. This was a guy I'd always known as the "big bad hunter;" but yet here he was, trying everything he (we) could possibly think of to get this 8" lure out of the fish's throat without killing it. And then hearing him when the fish threw water at us on the release, and now listen to him talk about the Lax reproduction and describe the catch to people who haven't seen it before...is beyond incredible! Now THAT is why I fish. TB | ||
| Dog Fish Dave |
| ||
Posts: 19 | I have observed muskies underwater now for 12 years using my Aqua-Vu gear. I see muskies in 3', 5', 10' and the basin over the sandgrass and where they are....there's ALWAYS food. They follow the camera frequently. The camera is directly below the boat, gas motor sometimes running, electric sometimes running. They move around allot, from what I see under the ice, cruising large areas. Other fish are around them all the time, especially pike, and I've yet to see one try to chase any other fish away, they ignore each other for the most part. I've yet to see anything that resembles 'territorial' behavior. So Steve with what you have seen, do you feel fish can be conditioned or not. Or do anglers feel they get condiontioned because we catch so few of them? | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | tcbetka - 4/8/2012 10:18 AM Exactly. I've said many times that I really don't even care if it's me that reels in the fish or not, when we're trolling. (Casting is a different ballgame mind you, because it's mono a mono in that sense--especially when they hit by the boat on a figure-8.) But for trolling, the challenge for me is to find the fish, and then get them to hit. So I always got more of a kick out of taking people out who have never caught big fish, and put them on a big fish, especially when they really have no idea of what's going on. I've had people fishing in my boat who literally could not drive the boat on a compass course, and I had to do absolutely everything. Those folks are the most fun, because they almost come unglued when they get a big fish on! My uncle had never caught a legal musky prior to catching the 53-54" fish we got in 2007. So for him to have gotten that fish was an awesome experience--and then to see him struggle with trying to get it unhooked and released while battling the 28-degree air and 35-degree water temps was surreal. This was a guy I'd always known as the "big bad hunter;" but yet here he was, trying everything he (we) could possibly think of to get this 8" lure out of the fish's throat without killing it. And then hearing him when the fish threw water at us on the release, and now listen to him talk about the Lax reproduction and describe the catch to people who haven't seen it before...is beyond incredible! Now THAT is why I fish. TB Tom, I only copied and pasted that so you can see how ridiculous some of their statements were. Steve obviously combed through the report and then even went beyond that by checking on local weather for the dates. He did his homework and caught those bums red-handed… without it you might be referring to the CFMS as gospel now. This statement sure raises a red flag with me; “During the ‘dog days’ of summer, tagged fish, according to Allen, were observed stacked up in groups of as many as nine fish or more in areas not usually fished by muskie anglers.” … Really Scott Allen, how is it even remotely possible to have nine tagged fish in one area? Steve, regarding the 3-year Pewaukee Lake study, according to Anderson; "We're finding that every time a boat comes by, the fish go down deeper in the water column," Anderson said. "They tend to be near the surface until the boat approaches." I believe you are speaking more from your own experience, and not necessarily referencing the study. Tom, I think Homer LeBlanc was catching fish in the prop wash before I was born. My personal experience is that the larger muskies in the system take the prop wash offerings, you can certainly catch smaller fish in the prop wash (just not as often percentage wise) and definitely larger fish hit boards regularly. But as a general rule, I'll take a prop wash over board rod about any day of the week. Now, after reading about the Pewaukee study, days with a lot of boat traffic will find my boat probably trying to get those baits down a little deeper eh? Last September I fished with a friend who couldn't get out much due to a new job. I was fully prepared to let him and his son wind in all the fish, (along the lines of what you do) but after several nice ones on both boards and in the prop wash, he started inquiring about me taking a rod. I told him I'll take the next prop wash rod… 54+”, longest fish in my boat for the year. If you still don't think they'll take prop wash lures in shallow water... dig this, when there are optimal conditions, we just crush them trolling top water lures in the prop wash while steering around weed beds. My favorite way to catch a ski!!!
| ||
| tcbetka |
| ||
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes, I had a thought along those same lines regarding the presence of over 20% of the tagged fish all "stacked up" together. It's almost like they formed a club, and you had to have a radio tag to be a member! I haven't read the Pewaukee study though, so that seems to be a logical thing to do next. Maybe you or Steve can vector me to it, and I can read it this week. Regarding the prop-wash trolling bit, it sounds fun! I probably just didn't give it enough of a chance to work out here. But I fished by myself a lot, and only fish with two lines while alone. And because I seemed to be able to catch just about as many fish as those boats around me, from what I could tell, I really didn't see the need to change things much. Well, off to Wausau for a few hours. Have a happy Easter! TB | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Steve, regarding the 3-year Pewaukee Lake study, according to Anderson; "We're finding that every time a boat comes by, the fish go down deeper in the water column," Anderson said. "They tend to be near the surface until the boat approaches." ' I'm not at all in disagreement with this, in fact I believe fish of all species also head out a bit to the side IF the boat isn't roaring over full speed, hence the success of planer board trolling. Dropping a few feet doesn't equate to running for cover and avoiding all boat traffic because they have learned boats are carrying anglers who throw or troll lures which are dangerous and therefore need to be avoided at all costs..... | ||
| Jerry Newman |
| ||
Location: 31 | Same, I know they are not "boat shy" as far as catching them goes. I don't have nearly as much experience watching fish like you do, but that's certainly been my experience as well… that's why that part in the Pewaukee Lake study caught my eye. I would add that it's my belief that muskies kind of “learn” (for lack of a better word) to actively feed in the prop wash. Maybe that's why we have experienced more success with big fish there? The way I envision it is a muskie is eyeballing some pray and along comes this boat, they drop-down slightly, or off to the side and then crash the churning water looking for an easy meal. I think they also swim along some in the prop wash waiting for something good to happen, but that's just speculation. I’ve certainly seen fish following and hitting baits there numerous times, it's totally cool. I suppose because I believe that, I believe they can be conditioned too. I typically run the prop wash 10-20' back and down to about the lowest point of the motor if possible. FYI, Marc Thorpe sometimes runs with basically just a leader out… we're talking 4’ from the rod tip to lure… I just can't bring myself to choke it like that. I'll tell you what, it sure makes checking for weed teasers easy, and to clean it, just pick the rod up and swing the bait in. Talk about a simplistic and effective approach… pretty amazing to watch firsthand. | ||
| addict |
| ||
IAJustin - 4/6/2012 11:23 AM 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. Isn't what you've just said EXACTLY what lure conditioning is? Hunger strike vs reaction strike. Speeding a bait up to fool it, (pick your reason for why you now HAVE to fool it in order for it to strike) because it won't eat a slower bait anymore. Don't give the fish time to ID their target, just play onto their instincts. Your scenario talks about a "stressed" or what I'm inferring might be a sick fish. So, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. A sick fish is a sick fish. Its likely not going to behave normally. For instance, a raccoon with the mange will eat out of your bird feeder at noon, but a healthy one will wit until midnight. But I'll pick the speed aspect to soapbox about....... Every issue of every exox genre magazine talks about speed retrieves, speed trolling, burnin' big blades, etc., on and on, and on. There's umpteen threads out there on new high ratio reels to get stuff moving faster. Manufacturers have been scrambling to build faster and faster reels. Why are we now moving baits faster? | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | addict - 4/9/2012 7:38 AM IAJustin - 4/6/2012 11:23 AM Why are we now moving baits faster? to win the swimming pool reeling contest ... ?? | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2015 | addict, you think burning buck-tails or speed trolling is new? These are technique that are being refined from over 15 years ago - speed has always caught muskies. My point was - they will hit fast moving baits, the same fast moving baits over and over and over and .... they have to eat what they "perceive" is food. The fact that a muskie will hit the same bait same color - a half dozen times in its life, that doesn't sound like conditioning to me. | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8780 | addict - 4/9/2012 7:38 AM IAJustin - 4/6/2012 11:23 AM [...] Manufacturers have been scrambling to build faster and faster reels. Why are we now moving baits faster? Because it's a proven trigger. They can swim a LOT faster than we can reel. I don't think it's got anything to do with the fish being conditioned to slower presentations. More likely it's a result of muskie anglers constantly trying to find better tools; tools that make it easier on us. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2015 | the price of rice in China is about 4 yuan per kilo | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |