|
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | One thing I made an effort to do this past year was to raise the average size of the fish that came into my boat. I had a few ideas how to do this, and none of them involved doing all my fishing out of WI.
Now please don't condemn me for self promotion, but I was able to raise the average size in my boat by over 2 inches, and I did it by following one simple rule. I spent the majority of my fishing time in areas immediately adjacent to deep water. I was not necessarily always fishing in deep water, but tried to stay adjacent to it. I think if Mr Worrall thought back to the areas he saw me fishing on Pelican this year, he would agree that I always had 20'+ of water at my back.
Don't get me wrong, I occasionally still fished some of my old favorites that had no deepwater access, but looking back at my log I only caught one fish over 42" from areas like this all year, 43" , all the rest of my 42"+ fish came off of the spots that had 20+feet of water a cast or less away. Even more interesting to me, I was still catching some big fish in very shallow water 2-4', but there was always deeper water immediately available.
I am wondering if any one else sees these results with the bigger fish almost always relating to some type of deep water, or was this a self fulfilling theory being as I spent so much time fishing areas like this. If this theory is true it eliminates a huge percentage of fishable areas if you are targeting bigger fish. My biggest fear is that someone else saw the same results (higher average size last year) fishing all shallow water, if that's the case I am back at square one.
Edited by nwild 2/3/2005 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | I think deep water gives fish a place to hide and feed without our #*^@ baits buzzing around, but to be 100% honest, both my fish over 50, my brother's largest at 47-48, my partner's largest at 50 and seeing a slew of others in the mid 40's to 50" range come in water that was less than 4ft deep means to me that these big hens can be anywhere.
Time of year, in my opinion, means more as to where the big ones swim, than does water depth.
I just watched a Mehsikomer video where he's practically begging guys not to fish water that's deeper than 10'-15' deep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | GMG,
I do agree with the fishing shallower water, but the shallower water I was fishing always had deep water within a cast length. For instance, one spot I fished alot this year gave up 5 fish to my boat that were over 44". This spot was in only 2' of water. I think what made it good however, was the fact that 25' of water was only about 20 yards away.
Edited by nwild 2/3/2005 11:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | You are way off Norm! The big fish only come from big, shallow flats!  Honestly now, what you mentioned is the reason I spend my time fishing suspended, and deep water structure. I almost always try and fish areas that are near deep water when I do fish shallow water. I started doing this a few years ago, and my size has gone up considerably.
The big fish like the security of deep water, and lets face it. There is a lot of baitfish to be found in deeper water. Panfisherman know in the summertime to head to deeper water to catch the big bull bluegills and slab crappies. Only makes sense big muskies, and pike, will be there too.
Norm think about your spots on LOTW where you have contacted your biggest fish. Were they near deep water also?
As a side note. I think in general the average size of fish in the boat this past year was larger. My average size also went up, but not as dramatically as yours. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 686
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin | I vote no!!!!!!!:)
I don't know if you can quantify anything when you are spending a majority of your time on the Dead Sea!!!!!!
Edited by Muskydr 2/3/2005 12:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I believe deep water access is the key to finding big fish, but muskies can be holding shallow for extended periods of time depending on weather and bait fish movements. I have also learned to understand that deep water is relative to the water system you are fishing. "Deep" could be 15 to 20 feet in some lakes, 30 to 40 feet in other lakes, or 10 to 15 feet in flowages or rivers. The fish might hold in slop or shallow structure but there is usually something about the area that enables easy transition to deeper water as bait fish migrate deeper. Spots on the spot usually feature this characteristic and they are typically multidimenstionally complex.
Some fish stay deep most of the season except for spawning, using deep water structure and suspending around pods of baitfish. These fish are less presured and can be caught if you find them. Sometimes trolling helps you locate these fish, and then you can cast for them once you find them. Certainly a concept in need of testing!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| I feel that the forage base has a lot to do with it. Lakes with shad or ciscoes seem to have more large fish in deep water. Time of year and water temp. has a lot to do with where I fish. This fall I did not take a fish in less than 25 feet of water and most came from water 35 to 50 feet deep. Most hit lures running 3 to 9 feet down and the smallest fish was 32 inches and only one that small. I work schools of shad that are in small round balls. If they are spread out and flat nothing is eating them. I work more shallow water in the spring. Early summer and early fall I work the shallows at daylight and last light or at night. Deep water nearby always seems to be where the bigger fish are and when I say shallo, I mean I work my way out from a couple of feet to 15 feet. It seems there are fish that are shallow, weed related fish and those that seldom, if ever, leave the deep water. My average size went up this year too. Later |
|
| |
|
| This is a great question. Your solution brings up a slightly different question that I've been pondering for awhile: what makes a good shallow spot? Obviously the entire lake is rimmed by shallows. Do you only fish shallow areas that are adjacent to good deeper structures? Or do you fish shallow protected 'spawning' type areas throughout the season? I've always approached it the way you are talking about, go to good deep structures but just fish shallower.
However, I was surprised during the fall two years ago to find big fish in shallow areas that were nowhere near big, deep, open water. I just kind of bumped into them out of desperation. So I started thinking I was on to something, that good shallow spots were characterized by something other than proximity to good deep spots, and that movements back and forth were longer. Now you come along with all this really good data, and throw me for a loop.
Makes me really wonder about deep to shallow or shallow to deep movements that aren't related to seasonality. Why do they do it? Or are they even the same fish? |
|
| |
|
| It really depends on the time of the year and the lake your fishing. I sometimes fish in 2 feet of water during the summer. You have to go shallow to be successful on some of the lakes I fish. These areas will be about 50 yards from deep water and still hold 48 inch plus fish. This pattern is only for 2 weeks out of the season. Then you have to switch your tactics and fish points that are related to deep water. So in my opinion, it really all depends on the lake patterns for that time of year. The number one way to up your percentage is to fish waters with trophy potential. You might have to give up action and numbers, but you'll have a shot at a monster fish. If you've increased your catch ratio by 2 inches, you're definetly finding out new patterns.
Great job
Todd |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| I fish Kinkaid and deep water is never far away. A couple of hudred yards is not that far. The best places have several srtuctural elements close together with deep water between them. Long shallow point bars that run out to deep water and have deep water on either side are good spots. Muskies can slide deep and slide up on the bar. Baitfish like to hold on the sides of these and early and late they come up over them. A Musky can sit at ten feet on the bar and the shad are confined to some very narrow water. Weeds don't have to be present to make these good spots. Don't just hit the weeds, yurn around and cast out on the bar. I have one that is my favorite spot that I am over two hundred feet from shore and only in fourteen feet of water. This fall I had good success fishing a bank that looks straight, but has two shallow points comming out. The bank is sand and gravel, comes out moderately to eighteen feet, then plunges to fourty. On sunny days the shad would stack along this south facing bank. The Muskies were hanging over the fourty foot water. The main thing is not to be one dementional. Change lures, depth, and structure if you are not finding fish. Don't wait till you are going home and do the" I should have done this game." The lakes I fish up north are the same type of lakes as Kinkaid. They are deep and have ciscoes, I just can't troll them so I fish countdowns over deep structure in the middle of the day and shallow structure mornings and night. Find the spots that are not on the map and you have something. Yeh, the locals know about them, but they catch a lot less pressure. Better than taking a number and waiting your turn. Be the first on the water and the last one off. What is a pirates favorite animal? AAHHRRdvark! Later |
|
| |
|
| Great job Norm,
Did your number of fish caught go up or down? I too targeted larger fish this year and the size per fish went up but the number of fish went down significantly. I believe the numbers will increase this season and hopefully size will follow as I was learning many new bodies of water last season. I hope to accomplish this by trolling large baits at night. Good luck this season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What Norm describes is part of the Muskie anatomy of a mid meso lake. I find that the areas I really like are ALL contact points and other spot on the spot areas that are adjacent to deep water. I don't think security has anything to do with it; it's water clarity coupled with good structure and forage that are similar to the same spots for any multiple of reasons.
Open water fish need to have the deeper water to get out of the light. It isn't a 'security' issue, there isn't any 'fear' there at all. That's a clear case of anthropomorphism. You will find that if there is structure caused shade, or at least an area of 'less light' or shadow on one side of a break, the fish will be dead on that line. Ask any southern crappie angler about the sunline, he'll know what I mean. If the light is down because of time of day or cloud cover and the shallow water prey is there as it is on Pelican an the water temps are acceptable, the fish will be as shallow as 2' or even less. These fish live there because no one told them less than a couple miles away there is a great weedbed in a bay next to 30' of water. Not too many folks fish this water right, so not to many put the lure in front of the fish. I got my fanny handed to me last year on Pelican on League night because I didn't go shallow enough on the stones, by only a foot difference.
Now let's talk flowages. If I'm after spotted muskies on a flowage, current is king, and shallow water off the current breaks is queen, both coupled with forage. I find BIG fish hundreds of yards away from any really deep water, but almost ALWAYS near a current break or eddy. Some of this applies to barred fish too, but spotteds love shallow, warm, weedy water. They like reeds, docks, pontoon boats, float planes, ANYTHING that provides cover off the current breaks if the forage is there. No, they are NOT there 'digesting', they are, many times, actively FEEDING there. If they are not there, thay are well off the nearest edge, which can be represented by 50' and current, or 12' and current. Either way, I can't get them to go out there, trolling, casting, whatever.
Open water fish? Yes, they are there if the forage is there, and very few anglers know how to get at them. Since the base population sees less angling pressure and as a result suffer lower mortality, there will be larger fish out there on the average. Ask Howie.
How about the eutrophic lakes? Well, anywhere the food is seems to work. I have the worst time on this water, and usually do my best shallow only because I hit that very hard knowing the fish will be there, at least a representative sample.
Do I think big fish=deep water? Not necessarily, the average sized fish in those areas on any given body of water could be a result of many variables that could INCLUDE easily accessable deep water, but it is not exclusive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I can say I see a correlation, but things also happened to me this year that made me really think about where I fish, or would fish. We had the best year ever in my boat for size, and this fall was the craziest ever. We were catching the big fish(stuff over 25 lbs) on at least three different large meso lakes in water 1-4' deep with no deep water anywhere withing 150 yards. We were put onto the pattrn by a guy on one lake, and it worked on several others. Yes, far up on very shallow flats. It was a topwater bite and lasted into mid november with water in the lower 40's. Other guys on the same lake were getting fish around ciscoe schools, and on classic steeper breaks, or shallow flats close to deeper stuff, but the super shallow flats away from the deep were hot and remained that way until water hit 36-38.
That said, I have, until this fall, beleived just what Norm said, and it is still the overriding factoe on many/most lakes before we even put the boat in. The crazy season that was 2004, maybe was just an anomoly......
Edited by Reef Hawg 2/3/2005 11:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I don't think that the depth of a lake has much to do with the possible size of a Muskie what's more important is the forage base, there are some lakes that have cisco / whitefish & trout that are no deeper than 30 feet that produce monster fish, I know of a lake in Vilas Co that is only 20ft max but does not have cisco / whitefish & trout and has produced some real pigs what it does have is an abundant supply of panfish, suckers, and bullheads.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 389
Location: Presque Isle Wisconsin | Does deeper water=Bigger fish? Id have to say yes because Ive made a living fishing deep water for over thirty five years;however the type of lake,forage base,and a host of other factors come into play when discussing this topic.Everything said in the above posts are true including that some big fish will be on the shallow flats or on any other structural elements mentioned above.I never have argued that you cant catch big muskies shallow on structure or in open water;however show me the thermocline and im a happy man. On the deep clear lakes in Northern Wisconsin where I Guide this can be anywhere from 25'to 35'.I put my lures down there ,and with a few tricks of the trade learned over the years ,Ive been able to stay in business.
Is it the only way or the best way to pursue the biggest fish in the particular system?Im not sure.Its just what experentially has worked for me over the years.Is it a methodology that a serious Muskie fisherman should learn? Absolutely!The proper techniques for this type of fishing are more complicated than just putting a lure down deep and retreiving it. Deep water fishing demands a discipline and exact knowledge of retreive angle,speed,action etc that isnt as neccesary in most other situations.Those are the real keys to successfully understanding the deep water fishery. Heres a fish story for you: Last fall I took my first trip ever to Minnesota and Lake Vermilion.Wow! were those fish shallow. We had follows and caught a couple over 50" including my friend Mitch Wagners 531/2" est. 40#. On the second and last day for me I couldnt take it anymore and headed out to deep water.Running a lure on the bottom in 36' of water we had a follow by a super tanker- I mean a fish easily over 58".That was just one of those moments that confirms for me that what im doing and have been doing for many years is a #*^@ good way to find very big Muskies.Again I dont dissparage or argue that other methods dont produce big fish.I guide on flowages and other types of water and certainly adapt to that situation.Fishing deep is just one method, but it should be a part of your Muskie fishing expertise in my opinion.Its not an either or proposition. If I had to some up everyhting Ive learned about Muskies it would be simply that some of the biggest fish in a system will be in deep water at virtually all times given a sufficient supply of food and oxygen- PERIOD!
Great topic by the way- I learn as much as the next guy by reading the well thought out posts found on this sight.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 341
| Agree with Howie. Over 95% of my time fishing there's 15-20 feet of water at my back. I'm not a top water hound so maybe that's why. Howie I had the same experience on the big V during the tourney except we didn't see the whole fish, we only saw it on my Pin point and a huge flash. The mark of all marks almost the width of my tuffy we estimate. We brought her up fishing 40-65 feet deep that came up almost vertically to a rock off a point using your deep bait technique. It sat there for a while then disappeared. If only we had a sucker! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 585
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland | What's deep water? I remember reading what the famous Musky trollers said about this. Most fish were caught in water in the 12-20 range.
No pro here and we fish local reservoirs for Tiger Muskellunge. I've found that the bigger fish generally suspend at around 15' feet in water up to 60' deep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | I'd have to say it depends on the specific water that you are fishing. Obviously on big water there are big fish suspended....but are they exactly deep in the water column? Not always IMHO. Then take into account waters that current is a huge factor, and you will find shallow beasts (wabigoon, various rivers).
Edited by tomyv 2/4/2005 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Steve when I refer to to security I think of several types of security. Perhaps I shouldn't say security, but comfort instead.
One is getting away from fishing pressure. While fish can dig themselves deep into weeds to get away from the "crowd", I feel they would rather slide off the structure to deeper water. Whether they go to the bottom or stay suspended is a whole new ballgame. I strongly believe that fishing pressure pushes more muskies deep, and most of the lakes I fish are Pressured! The way you fish on the weekday can be quite different from the way you fish on the weekend simply from the pressure the fish get.
Secondly, I feel that large muskies prefer the cooler water of the deep to minimize energy used. A musky that stays in warmer water burns more energy than one that slides shallow, eats, then back to the cool, deep water. Long muskies can be found shallow all the time, but it's the fat ones that are the deep water roamers that only make brief appearances shallow. Rather than the weekend warrior trying to time and predict when that fat musky will slide shallow to eat, they could be more effeciant by fishing deeper where that fish may spend most of it's time.
Third is how the weather affects the fish. Now I have no clue exactly how and why the weather affects fish in a certain way, but it does. I have found and have been tought by Paul Klein that deep water muskies are not affected the way shallow water fish are. While the fishing in shallow water often shuts down or has a very small window of opportunity during fronts, the deep water fish seem to go on as if nothing was happening with the weather. There are exceptions of course, but I do just as well during a cold front as I do during prime conditions while fishing deep. During these cold fronts I often catch larger fish than I may during stable weather.
Sorry for the rambling, but these are my thoughts on why larger fish are near deeper water. I could be way off, but until I can consistantly catch big, fat muskies shallow (away from deep water) I will continue to believe this. Maybe I have a case of a self fullfilling prophecy like Norm mentioned he may have experienced. |
|
| |
|
| Interesting replies. I have little to add other than if given a choice of structure near deep water, or structure far from the deeper water, I would still choose the most complex and biggest piece of structure there is in the lake, particularly if has outgoing bars from a center position. Deep water is only one choice of habitats and is often a very poor choice for action. I would caution newcomers to the sport that some of the things talked about here, 36 feet of water, suspended deep water muskies, are special case scenarios and may be something they put off fishing until further along the expertise ladder. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Define 'pressure' to me. Jet Skis? Runabouts? Ski boats? Fishemen casting? I don't think the fish give a hoot about any. All are part of the normal environment, are they not? Are you saying the fish will leave areas where anglers are casting and go deep to 'avoid' them, and if so, why would they do that? Unless the fish are VERY shallow, and are selectively chased out of the area by anglers I just don't see why the fish would pay any attention at all. Also, too many times I have seen fish in shallow (15' or less) water 'turn on' and the action become intense, then quit as fast as they started right in the middle of the day's pressure, but one can get them to move a bit, following, etc. I feel the fish are still there, wherever food and cover exist. Keep in mind that 40' is only two boat lengths, hardly enough to provide any respite from the noise, traffic, or whatever one thinks they might become 'annoyed' with. Sound travels at 16 football fields per second down there, so the racket is immense anywhere in the water column. If you are saying the lures and activity in the shallows chase the fish out because they identify the activity as dangerous, become irritated, or any other emotion, you're anthropomorphising.
I feel where there is food and cover there will be fish. Where the fish are caught and kept less, there will be more big fish. There are other factors, no doubt, like dissolved oxygen, light penetration, thermocline and water temps in general, barometric pressure, and much much more. FSF has it nailed I think, fishing suspendos or very deep fish is tough for many reasons, the largest in my humble opinion figuring out the where and the why, and then the presentation to get 'em to go. If you are good at that, you've done your homework and applied it very well. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 393
Location: Kawarthas, Ontario | sworrall - 2/3/2005 8:36 PM
Open water fish? Yes, they are there if the forage is there, and very few anglers know how to get at them. Since the base population sees less angling pressure and as a result suffer lower mortality, there will be larger fish out there on the average. Ask Howie.
Do I think big fish=deep water? Not necessarily, the average sized fish in those areas on any given body of water could be a result of many variables that could INCLUDE easily accessable deep water, but it is not exclusive.
On my home lake which is eutrophic, I've caught my smallest fish in deep water. On the other hand, on a favourite mesotrophic lake with oligotrophic tendencies, my biggest fish have come from the deepest, open water sections of the lake. Time of year, forage base and low angling pressure contribute to the success of getting to these fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: WI | Steve I have just started focusing on the suspended and deep water the last few years so I am by no means an expert, but if you ignor the deep water you are ignoring alot of fish, and from what I have been noticing the last few years most of my bigger fish have been coming off suspended fishing or on areas immediatly adjacent to deep water. On one lake in particular which I always thought as more of a numbers lake, when started pounding the deep stuff it changed my whole perspective of the fish in that lake as they are some huge fish in there that I never saw fishing in less than 15 FOW. I am totally convinced that in that lake the big fish are deep, for whatever reason. And when I started thinking about the big fish on other lakes I have caught most have come where they have quick access to the deep water. And its not just lakes, I grew up fishing the Fox River and Green Bay I have 4 fish over 50" out there and they all came from 25'+ FOW. Why? well I dont have any solid explanation and I dont really choose to guess all I know are the results I have gotten. So to ignor this would be dumb on my part. Learning to fish them suspended has not only improved my numbers but also the size. Take it for what you will. But nobody will change my mind that the bigger fish for the most part are deeper most of the time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32934
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I didn't say anywhere in any post here that one should 'ignore' deep water, I sure don't; I've fish over and next to very deep water more than most because of the system I used exclusively for years, Creatures. Some systems will support a great deep fishery, some will not, and some are very good both in the slop and out in the deeper water. What I AM saying is that one needs to know WHY those fish are there, so one can know WHEN, and apply a presentation that will work.
I agree that in some systems some of the big fish, perhaps the majority, are deep a good deal of the time. In others, they are not, and the red zone for me can be as little as 2' MOST of the time. There are other systems where I find big fish BOTH shallow and deep, and on the edge, as well. Where slop doesn't get fished, there is current, and forage, I catch big girls in almost no water at all. Why? Because, I feel, no one else fishes there, and those fish do not get harvested.
Take Sioux Narrows for example. That water is crystal clear. I fished that every year for a couple weeks a year, and found big fish in very shallow, and out on the deep edges. I found them suspended, and relating to sheer rock wall style breaks. I fished them in all those areas, and did OK in all. The biggest fish I saw there? On the very edge of rock pile style reefs, round rock on the breaks, seeming to come out of about 13 to 15' most of the time. During high light periods with sun noon direct light, they would slide off the break into deepepr water. I could see them on the sonar, but most of the time couldn't get them to go. If there was ANY shaded area though, there she was! If the light was too direct and I couldn't get those fish interested I'd go to the weed/rock/breakline structures, back way off, fish the 'shaded' side of the structure and barely hit the edge of the thick weeds with the presentation. I could literally see the fish pop up out of the cover, nail the lure, and dash back in. The 'red zone' there is about 15' wide, and I found I had to be a casting distance from it so the fish focused only on the lure.
Another thing I've been trying to convey:
If MOST anglers fish shallow, and the main reason for fish not reaching say, 50" in a body of water is harvest, then doesn't it follow that the fish from 48" up frequenting the shallower water suffer higher harvest than the fish working the deeper forage and structure? Wouldn't there then be more big fish where they don't get caught and subsequently harvested? Just a thought. |
|
| |
