|
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | gimruis - 5/30/2024 10:29 AM
I still don't understand why we think muskie fishing with FFS is "unsustainable" to the population. People are not targeting muskies for harvest. The muskie crowd is arguably the most devoted group of C & R anglers out there. Fish are taken care of and released with upmost care.
Sitting there with a big sucker is much worse for a fish. Even with a quick strike rig. Ban live bait instead for muskies.
The is from: Gord Pyzer, Outdoor Canada (in case the link doesn't work down your way.
https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/wanna-double-the-population-of-mammoth-...
"If we could reduce the handling mortality of big muskies, like this beauty being released by Lake of the Woods guide, Darcy Cox, by only four percent we would increase the muskie population by a staggering 70-percent
Crossman and Casselman were also able to show that the benefits of returning large muskies unharmed to the water resulted in an increase in the mean length of the fish, which was precisely the news that muskie anglers wanted to hear.
But the cleithrum study also showed something else.
The scientists calculated muskellunge mortality rates and compared them to the maximum age, to see if the age of the trophy fish had changed over time. And they found that that the maximum age of muskies may be decreasing. In fact, they believed that the maximum age of the fish may have decreased by 2 years—from 23 to 21 years of age—during the study period.
Now, the difference of a couple of years may not sound significant. But remember that fish spawn throughout their lives, the biggest muskies lay more eggs than the smaller fish, and that the mammoth muskellunge nearly always result from the very largest year classes.
When we view it in this context, Casselman and Crossman concluded that we would need a 70 percent increase in annual recruitment to ensure the same number of fish reach their maximum age and thus, maximum trophy size.
Now, let me read your mind.
I bet you’re wondering, if 99-percent of muskies are being released, how could the age of the oldest, trophy size fish be decreasing?
Two likely reasons: the ranks of the muskie fraternity are swelling at the same time that our knowledge base is better than ever before. There are quite simply more of us muskie anglers, we’re better skilled, better equipped and we’re catching more fish. And, while we’re putting them back, catch-and-release only works if the fish survive.
Or, to put it the way good my friend and legendary muskie angler, Dick Pearson puts it: ego kills.
Take a look at any social media site these days and you know what he means.
Gotta’ give Dick credit, too, for walking the talk. He wrote the amazing, Muskies on the Shield, one of the most comprehensive “how to” books on muskie fishing, but if you recall the front cover, it doesn’t feature an angler holding a muskie as you would suspect, but rather a beautiful Lake of the Woods sunset. I know, because I took the photo and gave it to Dick.
He has caught more big muskies than almost any angler on the planet, and yet, almost every time I call him for a photo to illustrate a feature on which I am working and have interviewed him, he tells me he doesn’t have any. Like I said, Pearson walks the talk. He keeps his fish in the water at all times, and handles them exactly like what they are: the proverbial geese that lay the golden eggs.
And if we all did the same thing this fall, and for the rest of our muskie fishing careers, and in the process reduced the handling mortality of the oldest and biggest fish by just four per cent, we would initiate the same effect as if we had increased the annual recruitment of muskies by a staggering 70 per cent.
Let’s give Casselman and Crossman the last word on the subject: “The largest trophy muskellunge in the population are usually the oldest individuals. The largest year classes produce the greatest number of old individuals; hence, extremely large year classes are required to produce the largest, oldest trophy muskellunge. If catch-and-release methods can be improved to reduce mortality, they would have the same effect as increasing recruitment and would help maintain year-class strength, longevity, and the size and number of trophy fish in the population.” - GORD PYZER.
AO: We don't need anymore information, studies, nothing. It is already figured out by folks who have done the legwork.
CPR is all fine and dandy, but more fish caught equals more dead fish, especially in the open/deep water scenarios and with more ill-equipped anglers just out for the ego shots.
I believe FFS should be banned and not going to give quarter on that because it is only going to get better and thus exacerbate the problem more rapidly.
The "no sharpshooting' statement by Muskies Inc. is a good start.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/30/2024 10:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2010
| Correct, please push Canada for an October only season, I promise you less muskie will get caught! Or we should all limit ourselves to only catch 2 or 3 muskies per year, that should help a lot too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| Howdy,
To Pyzer’s point, and to reiterate what I said in the other FFS thread this spring, simply going to a mandatory barbless hook regulation for all fish would have a significant impact on improving fishing for the better.
Take care,
Ruddiger |
|
| |
|
Posts: 15
| gimruis - 5/30/2024 11:29 AM
I still don't understand why we think muskie fishing with FFS is "unsustainable" to the population. People are not targeting muskies for harvest. The muskie crowd is arguably the most devoted group of C & R anglers out there. Fish are taken care of and released with upmost care.
Sitting there with a big sucker is much worse for a fish. Even with a quick strike rig. Ban live bait instead for muskies.
there are three issues at hand here:
-wealth inequality of modern times
-legal vs moral standpoints
-the effect on the fishery
issue one:
the growing disparity in current generation's ability to procure their own assets is an increasingly severe problem. can you fish without underwater optics? absolutely. can you fish without a watercraft? absolutely. can you reliably pursue one of the most complex and elusive freshwater species on the planet effectively without them? herein lies the moral standpoint.
issue two:
many people have a knee jerk response to possible legislative pursuits towards underwater optics. this is understandable, as the judges and politicians may not hear, understand, and ultimately interpret the intent in a way that is truly beneficial to the fishery.
the moral/ethical standpoint is the gray area in which we currently stand. I can't tell you or anyone else how to interpret your way of fishing on public water as one way or another. I don't think it's a stretch to say that many people may not share my own perspective on what is considered fair chase - in fact, the very concept of "fair chase" may not be a concept at all to some on the water.
there is a juxtaposition at play here: the nature of the "hunt" for this species, and the increasingly effective technology at which to find them. notice how the concept of fair chase remains an entirely moral choice - the fish could not comment, and while some anglers may refrain from muddying the 'sanctity' of their pursuit, others may not concern themselves with the idea at all and simply pursue them as effectively as modern technology allows.
which leads to the third point:
there is simply no way for anybody on any side of this technology to say that an increase in fish handling will NOT increase the rate of fish mortality.
there is simply no way for anybody on any side of this technology to say that underwater optics do NOT increase the amount of fish found, and therefore handled, and therefore increase the mortality rate.
the truth about the fish itself? the mystery, the difficulty, the enigma? the truth is that they're just another apex predator. there aren't as many of them and they don't feed mechanically. at the end of the day they are just another fish. some will be smarter than others and remain in areas that are overlooked or out of reach and remain uncaught - until somebody finally throws something in its face enough times that it responds. some are more aggressive than others and will readily bite presentations in their radius, and will be found with increasing presence via underwater optics, and subsequently handled more than they already were. we now find ourselves back at the initial statement of this third point.
I do not think it is a stretch to say the above is already happening whether it is noticed or not. You don't have to get into the legality of the technology to see that the increasingly effective use of said technology will inevitably poison the entire fishery, for everybody involved whether they use it or not. barbless hooks and state of the art c&r techniques will not change this outcome.
at the end of the day, this is a question of how much are we willing to impose ourselves on an increasingly closed system - the fish can't speak on its behalf. the resources to pursue the fish for the decades to come for others than ourselves is in question. and forgive me here, but if a fishery dies due to mismanagement in ANY way, especially before any kind of legal intervention was necessary or even possible, is the moral handwringing over whether or not we can hold the collective standard towards muskie fishing as more than a meritocratic "**** you, I got mine" the best we can do? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | IAJustin - 5/30/2024 10:58 AM
Correct, please push Canada for an October only season, I promise you less muskie will get caught! Or we should all limit ourselves to only catch 2 or 3 muskies per year, that should help a lot too!
You don't want folks shooting turkeys at 70 yds but you are okay with FFS? Enigmatic, you are.
If you can catch large numbers of muskies traditionally then good on you.
If you are not using FFS or in waters (ie Sab??) where FFS doesn't really make sense, then why are you allying with those that are fishing where it works and where it will have an effect?
I would rather you not debate at all if your debate is I don't want to debate. When I go musky fishing I want to see (and maybe) catch big muskies. That is what I'm debating.
If we continue on the this trajectory, yes, musky fishing up here will be 2 or 3, notch your license and a short season.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
| While many of serious musky fishermen seem to take handling seriously, there is also plenty of evidence that many don't, such as credible stories of floaters in Minnesota that are linked to guides using this tactic in open water. Guides of all people should demonstrate the most care for the resource. Also, in the video linked in this thread where the fisherman catches three 50+ inch muskies his FIRST time musky fishing you see him lay the fish down on the carpet of the boat. You'd hope a YouTube fishermen with a huge following would educate themself about musky handling before trying to catch them but apparently that is too much to ask. I would have even less hope his followers, who are mostly bass fishermen, will be much different.
I also personally believe that C&R is not a cure-all for anything goes in regards to catching fish. By that logic C&R should be open year round and snagging fish should be legalized. However, I think many realize there is some mortality associated with C&R even in ideal scenarios, and when all signs point towards reduced natural reproduction combined with reduced stocking, increased angler efficacy is not sustainable. What particularly concerns me are lakes that still have natural reproduction, since, if lost, that is much tougher to replace than a 100% stocked population.
Edit: Seems like others expressed similar views to mine before I could finish writing.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 5/30/2024 11:58 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Tyendinaga - 5/30/2024 11:14 AM
at the end of the day, this is a question of how much are we willing to impose ourselves on an increasingly closed system - the fish can't speak on its behalf. the resources to pursue the fish for the decades to come for others than ourselves is in question. and forgive me here, but if a fishery dies due to mismanagement in ANY way, especially before any kind of legal intervention was necessary or even possible, is the moral handwringing over whether or not we can hold the collective standard towards muskie fishing as more than a meritocratic "**** you, I got mine" the best we can do?
Well put, Tyendinaga,
It is happening with all the big predators everywhere now: marlin, murray cod, barramundi, zander, wels - even big non-predators like sturgeon and for snagging paddlefish. Carp are wary, musky are just hard to find - until they are not, which is what this spotlighting (sharpshooting) is.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/30/2024 11:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2010
| I just don’t agree with your position on banning it , it’s a slippery slope and yes I fish water about as close as you can get to your location, I’m sure ffs would be very successful, as fact two guys were bragging about how well they did sharpshooting over 80 feet of water…. And yes I out fished them… my 27 caught in a week were probably in as much danger as the 18 they caught |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| IAJustin - 5/30/2024 11:33 AM
I just don’t agree with your position on banning it , it’s a slippery slope and yes I fish water about as close as you can get to your location, I’m sure ffs would be very successful, as fact two guys were bragging about how well they did sharpshooting over 80 feet of water…. And yes I out fished them… my 27 caught in a week were probably in as much danger as the 18 they caught
I'm with you. In the Wegner video, he touched on something that I've often thought about with how deep should you fish in general? Like, there's plenty of reefs I've fished that top out at 18, but my boat is in 30. Should I do that? That's done without FFS as well. I don't know where those fish are coming up from.
Should we only be fishing in under 10 feet of water? 15? What's an ethical spot vs an unethical spot regardless of the use of FFS?
At least if someone is in 40 feet and is using FFS, you can leave any fish laying super deep alone. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | IA Justin....take away their ffs maybe they catch 5? More fish caught equals more dead that cant be debated. Its a simple numbers game. There will be less fish each yr due to it = not good for the future.
Edited by BNelson 5/30/2024 1:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | BNelson - 5/30/2024 12:04 PM
Take away their ffs maybe they catch 5? More fish caught equals more dead that cant be debated. Its a simple numbers game. There will be less fish each yr due to it = not good for the future.
I assume you are referring to IAJustin's post with the 27 to 18 ratio? Yes, probably 27 to 5 if they were newbies without a milk run depending on the density there.
The hours/years of experience per fish learning how to fig 8, spot layout, weeds, rock, sand, where fish lie under certain wind, current, water level conditions, clouds, rain, sun, what lures to use and when - compare that to the FFS open water types just showing up, drive, find, sharpshoot. No talent, no effort, just a matter of covering ground until the next one.
IA Justin, look, I get that if those guys are out doing that they are not hitting the same spots you are - we have seen that too, reduced pressure on spots, but these fish need a break. The really big blondies you see once and a while spend their time out there most of the time, certainly dusk to dawn (the ones Gord is referring to). If educated anglers are out there doing that you know what their ratios would be - I would bet fish per unit effort very high. But honestly, the educated FFS sharpshooter guys probably not wasting too much time on small fish nor reluctant ones, they are sharpshooting when the time is right and putting the hurt on the ones that keep the population going strong.
Not sustainable.
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/30/2024 2:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 145
| OK, I understand a higher mortality with more fish caught using live sonar. I can't refute that. Science also says that live bait results in a much higher mortality than artificial lures do. I don't know how many muskie anglers out there are against FFS but fine with using a big sucker. Heck, in some states you can target muskie year round and use a dorsal spined fish for bait like a perch, sunfish, or crappie. Tell me that isn't killing fish.
But I would still argue its a heck of a whole lot better than harvesting fish with this technology. Like panfish, primarily crappies during the winter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 108
| If the issue is truly the concern about increased fish catches and delayed mortality, then I would highly suggest we lobby to ban map chips. I am very confident that map chips are responsible for more muskie catches on lakes like LOTW than FFS is. I have FFS and I do not "Sharpshoot", but I have told my buddies I will give it up in a heartbeat if I had to choose between that or map chips or even MEGA SI.
You ask any seasoned muskie angler what is a key to catching more muskies and 90% of them will tell you "boat control".
Its a numbers game as was mentioned above and the more efficient you are...the more muskies you catch.
Which tool do you think is more valuable to a muskie fisherman...map chips and GPS, or FFS? I know which one I am choosing!
Brett Waldera |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Just to clarify, AGAIN, after all the spin, MI's statement encourages responsible use of new tech, not banning, eliminating, or whatever else can be made up. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Wow! What Gord says covers so many things besides FFS. It pretty much zero's in on just what is the most important thing in muskie fishing...proper handling (which includes having the proper tools to do the job).
While I personally don't like the FFS thing, if we could ask those using it to refrain from targeting muskies in deep water, it would be a great help.
For all, please learn proper handling techniques and take minim photos. After reading Gord's great quotes there can be no reason not to believe proper handling can only HELP our great muskie fisheries! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
| I don't think you could limit map chips, since map chips are essentially just a map combined with GPS technology. To limit map chips you'd have to ban smartphones on the water since you can accomplish the same with the Navionics phone app. Banning map chips would be essentially like banning the use of OnX Maps or Google Earth in hunting (which I have seen people claim we should do), since even if would make hunters less effective, it's not possible.
However, that has not stopped states from limiting trail cameras, and particularly cell cameras (see AZ, UT, NH, KS, MO) and drones, which are more analogous to FFS than map chips/GPS technology.
To limit FFS you'd likely need to apply some sort of limitation on transducers, which is much more feasible than banning someone from carrying a phone with them on the water. I'm not saying that transducers would need to be banned altogether, but that there could be some limit on what they can transmit. Enforcement would be difficult but not completely impossible.
Edited by xcskier_hunter 5/31/2024 9:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2317
Location: Chisholm, MN | You don't even need a map chip if you have a scope |
|
| |
|
Posts: 78
| It all comes down to ethics. One of my favorite quotes of all time.
Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.
Potter Stewart |
|
| |
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Brett Waldera - 5/31/2024 8:09 AM
If the issue is truly the concern about increased fish catches and delayed mortality, then I would highly suggest we lobby to ban map chips. I am very confident that map chips are responsible for more muskie catches on lakes like LOTW than FFS is. I have FFS and I do not "Sharpshoot", but I have told my buddies I will give it up in a heartbeat if I had to choose between that or map chips or even MEGA SI.
You ask any seasoned muskie angler what is a key to catching more muskies and 90% of them will tell you "boat control".
Its a numbers game as was mentioned above and the more efficient you are...the more muskies you catch.
Which tool do you think is more valuable to a muskie fisherman...map chips and GPS, or FFS? I know which one I am choosing!
Brett Waldera
Brett, it is truly about that.
My question to you is do you think that catching "too many" muskies is an issue?
I think you do think that, but it you don't, then there is nothing that can be said to convince you that FFS is a problem than needs a solution. No one is suggesting banning anything else, and it is not going to happen given we are talking here about a musky issue, not a rec fishing or boating issue.
I say "ban" as I believe that will protect our native musky populations. I am pragmatic enough to realize that a ban is unlikely, but I have no evidence that suggests that the tech will be used responsibly and that our natural reproducing musky are safe from overexploitation; in fact to this point my encounters and feedback from the lodge owner regarding its use for muskies have been entirely negative.
Obviously you are very influential so I'm not sure what more we need to do to get your support other than the collective wisdom of all the experienced folks who have weighed in on the topic here, on podcasts, YouTube, etc.
Maybe there are other solutions, but I don't know what they could be.
To answer your question - the GPS trolling motor is by far the greatest advance overall (ie spot lock, jog) in terms of fishing efficiency for me personally (for walleye, catfish, pike, musky, lake trout and smallmouth).
Edited by Angling Oracle 5/31/2024 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE/WI | Kirby Budrow - 5/31/2024 12:32 PM
You don't even need a map chip if you have a scope
Technically u just need a blank SD Card...
I can use my SI transducer on my Garmin Echomap and drive around and record/scan lakes and make a custom map if one doesn't exist for that body of water or it doesn't seem too be accurate enough. Just need to insert a SD card so it can record and saves it for you. It's called Garmin quickdraw.
https://youtu.be/GM9DYMLP_x0?si=p81k__0or77xeHVi
I have the Navionics North Lakes 6 states chip in the Garmin and have Lakemaster chip in my Bird, no complaints with either really so haven't needed to use it much but it is a pretty cool feature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2010
| Angling Oracle - 5/31/2024 12:49 PM
Brett Waldera - 5/31/2024 8:09 AM
If the issue is truly the concern about increased fish catches and delayed mortality, then I would highly suggest we lobby to ban map chips. I am very confident that map chips are responsible for more muskie catches on lakes like LOTW than FFS is. I have FFS and I do not "Sharpshoot", but I have told my buddies I will give it up in a heartbeat if I had to choose between that or map chips or even MEGA SI.
You ask any seasoned muskie angler what is a key to catching more muskies and 90% of them will tell you "boat control".
Its a numbers game as was mentioned above and the more efficient you are...the more muskies you catch.
Which tool do you think is more valuable to a muskie fisherman...map chips and GPS, or FFS? I know which one I am choosing!
Brett Waldera
Brett, it is truly about that.
My question to you is do you think that catching "too many" muskies is an issue?
I think you do think that, but it you don't, then there is nothing that can be said to convince you that FFS is a problem than needs a solution. No one is suggesting banning anything else, and it is not going to happen given we are talking here about a musky issue, not a rec fishing or boating issue.
I say "ban" as I believe that will protect our native musky populations. I am pragmatic enough to realize that a ban is unlikely, but I have no evidence that suggests that the tech will be used responsibly and that our natural reproducing musky are safe from overexploitation; in fact to this point my encounters and feedback from the lodge owner regarding its use for muskies have been entirely negative.
Obviously you are very influential so I'm not sure what more we need to do to get your support other than the collective wisdom of all the experienced folks who have weighed in on the topic here, on podcasts, YouTube, etc.
Maybe there are other solutions, but I don't know what they could be.
To answer your question - the GPS trolling motor is by far the greatest advance overall (ie spot lock, jog ) in terms of fishing efficiency for me personally (for walleye, catfish, pike, musky, lake trout and smallmouth ).
Good stuff from Brett, and why it’s a slippery slope, Oracle you want to fight the good fight? Get everyone to go back to paper maps and flashers. I catch lots of open water fish on a lot of lakes including the Winnipeg river system. I do it through experience, does it suck someone with no experience would outfish me with technology strictly open water sure, I don’t care though. Same as some guy might shoot the goobler im hunting at 70 yards, I’m set on my Hoyt and 10-20 yards in the decoys, it how I like to do it….Fun tidbit.. After I caught my 57” from V in 2012, a well known guide and I were talking back at the lodge, he’d been seeing that fish on SI the last few days, in fact he and clients were in front of me 30 minutes before the bite. I’ve hated advanced electronics since about 2009, why I’m over it…I don’t want to know what’s in front or to the side of me, to Brett’s point some guys have been really dialed into SI for the last 15 years and it probably puts another 50-100 fish a year in the boat for them…I like the hunt …honestly I’m good to go back to paper and a flasher … I can run the Winnipeg without either, I often have no electronics on fishing, I think it may spook fish. Anyway, will som fish in Canada be caught in Big Sand, Clearwater Bay, Crow, West Arm of Eagle, on and on that had a refuge sure… release them right boys! Ramble over  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 318
| "I like the hunt …honestly I’m good to go back to paper and a flasher … I can run the Winnipeg without either, I often have no electronics on fishing, I think it may spook fish. Anyway, will som fish in Canada be caught in Big Sand, Clearwater Bay, Crow, West Arm of Eagle, on and on that had a refuge sure… release them right boys! Ramble over "
Exactly!!Absent the mystique,difficulty,hard earned experience,etc muskies become just another fish to me.It's the hunt not the catch.Iajustin,love to share a boat sometime. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 353
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | IAJustin, as I said before, I'm okay with going back to the Q-beam to get around on those waters (and bring a mini tent if we don't get back). We fish the same way, same places up here obviously, but we diverge on the optimism on the additive mortality rate of catching those open water and deep dwelling fish will have on the long term sustainability of the population. Sure, if all of us caught less (to Brett's point and yours), it would be better, but we are not controlling these other things (other than Eagle with the night ban). Those with the skillsets to sort out the patterns are also those most likely to be best equipped to ensure fish get handled and released properly. Some of the folks "sharpshooting," are, and some are not, and to be frank, many of these are folks are not tourists as it were (ie. not enamored by scenery or bear sitings, only how big and how many). The additive mortality overall on these big open water fish, to Gord Pyzer's point regarding the effect of tiny percentage shifts in mortality rates, is not sustainable. It is not like these fish only have to survive being caught one time, they cumulatively have to survive being caught essentially EVERY time if CPR is to be effective.
The Muskies Inc. statement is a very good first step. Hopefully it is sufficient.
The message has been created, up to us now to carry and send it.
Edited by Angling Oracle 6/1/2024 10:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Use your money to find a way to identify, educate and address baro trauma. It does zero good making useless statements about a technology that is not going away. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4amuskie - 6/4/2024 12:28 PM
Use your money to find a way to identify, educate and address baro trauma. It does zero good making useless statements about a technology that is not going away.
First, the statement from the MM EC cost zero $. As we discussed at length on Facebook, I disagree. with your take on the MI statement. We are, as discussed, asking anglers to seriously consider the possible impacts on the sport FFS and emerging new tech pose, nothing more.
One gentleman has called the statement hypocritical and really got up in my face on FB.
MI states we disseminate muskellunge information and are the largest fishing and conservation organization in the world, dedicated to the conservation of muskellunge.
I'd argue that the subject should motivate MI to do our best to create substantive discussion on issues like the advancement of tech and possible impacts on the sport.
Those who take the statement personally and attack it are one edge spectrum we expected to speak out loudly. Those who take the statement as intended are the other. The discussion continues. So far, so good.
In the end, it's always going to be a personal choice. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1345
| We all use or used some type of Depth finder over the years with some of the following, given depth, how fast is the boat going, GPS, surface temperature, spot lock and on and on. And myself I have a Cline finder (temp gage where I can lower it down and see temp changes in the water column) We also have talked of how large do Muskies get?
Question: What are we seeing? Anyone seeing very large fish? How deep? Any relation to the Thermocline? and how deep is the Thermocline? For the record I haven't been in the north country during summer in years I come in the spring, Early fall or late fall. I bring my temp gauge in the early fall to see if the water has turned yet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1036
| Just me thinking out loud about this.
I get the issue(s) concerning FFS and muskies. Totally.
I never thought I'd have FFS. But recently a unit was donated to my boat. I've now used it for walleyes and smallmouth.
The technology is simply amazing. What it did for me was reinforce what I already knew. I was in the right spots, throwing the correct baits.
And it was really cool telling my wife where to cast and then watching a bass eat her bait on the Livescope.
I'm going to take the scope out on my local lake for muskies. See what I see. And I'm going to document what I see. I'll even document what I think I'm going to see before the trip. Then I'll compare notes. Maybe I'll be surprised and it shows me fish that I didn't know were there, but I really doubt it.
I haven't learned anything new yet, concerning FFS. Just reinforced what I was doing already. What I did notice is that I was able to eliminate water quickly, which led to being on better spots and ultimately fish that helped increase my catches of eyes and smallies.
We shall see on muskies. I still have little want or need to cast a bait and watch it come in on a screen versus focusing on the cast. But maybe that changes.
No real dog in this fight, other than i was against the technology until it was gifted to me. So maybe my initial reaction to the technology (negative) was more about the purchase price than the actual product itself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2317
Location: Chisholm, MN | vegas492 - 6/6/2024 2:09 PM
Just me thinking out loud about this.
I get the issue(s) concerning FFS and muskies. Totally.
I never thought I'd have FFS. But recently a unit was donated to my boat. I've now used it for walleyes and smallmouth.
The technology is simply amazing. What it did for me was reinforce what I already knew. I was in the right spots, throwing the correct baits.
And it was really cool telling my wife where to cast and then watching a bass eat her bait on the Livescope.
I'm going to take the scope out on my local lake for muskies. See what I see. And I'm going to document what I see. I'll even document what I think I'm going to see before the trip. Then I'll compare notes. Maybe I'll be surprised and it shows me fish that I didn't know were there, but I really doubt it.
I haven't learned anything new yet, concerning FFS. Just reinforced what I was doing already. What I did notice is that I was able to eliminate water quickly, which led to being on better spots and ultimately fish that helped increase my catches of eyes and smallies.
We shall see on muskies. I still have little want or need to cast a bait and watch it come in on a screen versus focusing on the cast. But maybe that changes.
No real dog in this fight, other than i was against the technology until it was gifted to me. So maybe my initial reaction to the technology (negative) was more about the purchase price than the actual product itself.
I hope you report back with this idea. It's a good way to go about it. Although I think you'll be surprised at what you think you know. I guess it depends where you fish but I know I was. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 87
| Safe to say eliminating water quickly is one of the main tenants of this technology? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 15
| ...and to nobody's surprise, the complications regarding the subject revolve around the complete lack of empathy and compassion for the environment and the fish, because "**** you, I got mine." |
|
| |
