|
|
| I meant "legal" fish per hours fished. Who cares about the little ones, until they grow up. I understand all the different "situations"...so that's way the question was for the season. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Are you for real? Or are you the same muskie fisherman who has fished muskies for 36 years and doesn't know how to fillet a fish? Legal? How do you qualify that one? On Lac Seul there is no legal, even a 60" fish is illegal. What about lakes w/ 54" limits like Crow (Kagagi) or Dinorwic, etc ?
I suspect you have watched to many episodes of "Numbers"! Let's go straight to the recycle bin, this is like herding rabbit's!
Have fun!
Al |
|
| |
|
| Esox maniac... Try kissing some girls when you get bored ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Not sure as I would have to total hours and do the math. I will say this for you guys doing a fish every 3 or 4 hours is great. I just wonder are you counting all skies or just legal ones. I also am curious as to what waters your fishing to do that. Its impressive to me to average that. Good job to you that are.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| 3000 Hours no "legals" on Lake of the Woods - does that help you Water_prix? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Don - I count all fish- to me counting just legals makes no sense at all, i.e., because legal really has no fixed length definition throughout the muskie's range. Don't get me wrong either, I like, everyone else have days when I get skunked-don't even see a fish. However, I also don't have a lot of time on the water chasing muskies - family/job etc. The economics are also tough right now- just working my butt off to help the company bottom line & keep jobs. Like the State of WI employees, we were notified we had to take two weeks vacation this year - 1 week in -> July-Sept and 1 week over Chjristmas. That doesn't bother me. I just don't know if I can afford to fish muskies in N. WI or MN that week in July-Sept. So I'll probably just fish locally.
I count myself lucky to be able to fish muskies 100hrs a year. Would I like to have more time to fish muskies, sure! But, a man has to have priorities. Why am I sitting here on Memorial Day? - Just finished plowing & disking the garden's. Now it's back outside to straighten out the garage and other honey do stuff! Then it's off to the Cemetary to see my Dad and pay my respects to the other Veteran's who sacraficed their lives or a part of their lives so my family can do what we do-> live free!
The 9 fish in 7 hours was on the WI River. Reef Hawg (MF member) knows the area. The 17 fish on the Canadian flyin was on the lake that got me hooked on muskies. Bob Pieske (MF member) also knows that lake. The really interesting part is that those fish were at the end of the season.
The Canadian flyin was last week of September, whereas the WI River fish were last week of November. Both time period's had very similar weather patterns, including rain, sleet & snow. We were the last ones into the flyin cabin - when they picked us up, they shutdown the cabin and loaded up the boat motors.
God Bless all the Veterans!
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 5/28/2009 5:36 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Al, I'm perplexed why you jabbed me on the 23rd. Your last post was good. I fish like you maybe 100 hours for musky a season and the rest of the time other species. I was just looking for a ratio, especially from the people that exclusivly fish for them. It seems to me the "musky hunters" are "extremely" passionate about fishing for that species. I wanted to how much time spent for success...I used "legal" more for a realitive state of mind, rather than a quantative result. Sorry if it was confusing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
Location: c.wis | over 6 years of part time fishing/ 60 hrs a season- 18 fish, most under 40" 4 over 45" |
|
| |
|
Location: Right Here | We actually do a breakdown for the Indiana Muskie Classic every year to put in our booklet for the following year. This was what it looked like after one of our BEST years.
(Sorry for the length, but it is good reading.)
----------------------------------------------------------
2006 IMC “fun or not so fun” facts
While the muskie is certainly not the fish of 10,000 casts here in the Hoosier State catching one is not as easy as they make it seem on those fishing DVDs we consume during the long cold off season. After getting pumped up all winter on those TV Muskies I just know that come spring I’ll have a fifty in the boat by noon the first day on the water. Right? Yea, right.
Just to help me keep my muskie catching or not catching in perspective I have compiled some data from the 2006 Indiana Muskie Classic. Reviewing what 200 good sticks did on Indiana’s best muskie lakes over a productive three day period helps me to “keep it real” regarding my muskie catching expatiations.
From a fish catching point of view the 10th Annual IMC was one of the most successful Classics ever with over 100 fish caught, but on the other hand it’s still muskie fishing after all.
So here we go with the 10th Annual IMC fun or not so fun facts.
Who caught fish:
Over three days 206 fisher folk caught 104 fish.
36 percent or 71 of the anglers caught a fish in the tournament.
9 percent or 10 of the anglers caught two or more fish.
5 skilled slash lucky fishermen caught 4 fish.
Information breakdown by day:
45 percent of the fish were caught on the first day.
28 percent were caught on day two.
27 percent were caught on Sunday.
Information breakdown by lake:
Webster: Produced 51 fish or 49% of the total 2006 IMC catch
Average length was 35.39 inches
55% were less than 36 inches
45% were 36 inches or larger
15% were 40 inches or larger
6% were over 42 inches in length
The largest fish was 47 inches.
Tippy: Produced 27 fish or 25% of the total 2006 IMC catch
Average length was 40.18 inches
15% were less than 36 inches
85% were 36 inches or larger
50% were 40 inches or larger
42% were over 42 inches in length
19% were over 44 inches in length
The largest fish was 49.4 inches.
Barbee: Produced 26 fish or 25% of the total 2006 IMC catch
Average length was 36.5 inches
37% were less than 36 inches
63% were 36 inches or larger
19% were 40 inches or larger
15% were over 42 inches in length
The largest fish was 44 inches.
How long does it really take to catch a muskie:
200 plus folks fished a three day, three lake tournament for a total of about 4,400 angling hours.
It took:
42 angler hours to catch a 30 inch or better fish.
169 angler hours to catch a 40 or larger fish.
400 angler hours to catch something over 42 inches.
880 angler hours to catch a 45 plus.
2,200 angler hours to a 49 incher. Ouch, that’s 275 work days or almost 7 work weeks
Each lake received about 1466 angler hours of fishing pressure.
On Webster
28 angler hours or 3.5 work days to catch a 30 inch fish.
63 angler hours or over one and a half work weeks to catch a 36 inch fish
290 angler hours to catch a 40 plus inch fish. That’s over seven work weeks.
On Tippy:
56 angler hours or 7 work days to catch a 30 inch fish.
69 angler hours, again over one and a half work weeks to catch a 36 inch fish
117 angler hours to catch a 40 plus inch fish. Obviously the best bet for a big fish!
On Barbee:
30 angler hours or almost 4 work days to catch a 30 inch fish.
85 angler hours or over two work weeks to catch a 36 inch fish
290 angler hours to catch a 40 plus inch fish. That’s over seven work weeks.
Please don’t think I am a dork. I really don’t enjoy punching the numbers on a calculator mostly because it makes me feel stupid that I don’t know what all of those little squiggly signs and symbols mean, but I do take some comfort in knowing just how challenging it is to boat a muskie and keeping my expectations real makes the hours and days, okay I confess its more like weeks, between fish a little easier to stand.
Keep the faith. You are on the right lakes at the right time of year. Keep your bait in the water and it will happen. I’ll see you out there. I’ll be easy to recognize. I’ll be the guy scratching my head and shrugging my shoulders.
(Written By somebody else)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 413
Location: Madison WI | If we are talking about legal fish then my ratio for 2009 is about 250 hrs per legal fish, otherwise my ratio per fish for 2009 is about 31 hours per fish so far, being skunked for five 12 hour days didn't help the ratio either. |
|
| |
|
| J Routt thanks alot. I wonder, on the daily breakdown the catch goes steadily down from day 1 to 3. The $64000 question ; is it because of pressure on the fish or fisherman fatigue ? any thoughts from the" tourney guys" ? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Personally I don’t think the number of hours it takes to catch a fish means a rats butt. A lot of variables can make great looking numbers, and a lot can make for terrible looking numbers. Knowing the right water can make one look good even though they may just be an average fisherman. On the flip side if a great fisherman doesn’t have the “right” kind of water available to them they may end up looking like a terrible fisherman just by numbers. It’s all in context.
I use to keep records of fish caught, but not hours. I quit keeping track a few years ago of fish caught. This year I may pick it up again, but for the reason for crunching some numbers in the off season and to deep dive into some theories. Too much of a pain in my opinion to try and be get too geeked out into the data collecting, and for me it takes some of the fun away.
Huge number days throw your average for a loop, and in my opinion more so than do “dead” stretches. A 6 fish day can really skew the average even if you fish another 5 days and didn’t boat a thing. A great weekend will skew things even more. Those that have the privilege of fishing whenever they want may have skewed results compared to the weekend warrior. Jumping on a pattern and only fish 3-4 hours an outing but boating 3 fish is not uncommon when you are on a hot pattern. If you have the luxury of fishing that pattern for several days guess what, your average may be skewed. Take those that fish when they can, for as long as they can. Take me. 20 hour day is not uncommon. String 2 or three of those together and by golly I would need an average of 4 fish a day to just be under a fish every 5 hours (just picking a number). On some occasions very do-able. Most of the time that doesn’t happen. Take a guy that may only get out for 2-3 hours after work. Unbeknownst to the poor angler the pattern is in the morning, and the afternoon bite is pretty much nil. It doesn’t take long for hours to add up without any fish boated. If the angler got too wrapped up in numbers they may just quit fishing rather than enjoy just getting out on the water.
To each their own I guess. In my opinion a body of water can make someone look like a hero, and on other bodies of water a zero. Picking a body of water doesn’t make one a good fisherman or one a bad fisherman.
|
|
| |
|
| my 2 cents ; I can understand crunching the numbers CAN be a "geek" thing. However....I have alot of experience offshore and crunching the numbers is very important , because of the MONEY involved. The process on salt water is very expensive; boats, captain/crew, mooring costs, electronics, equipment, large tournament fee's, fuel, etc. BIG INVESTMENT. So with sports where there's big money, the numbers matter,example: baseball--batting average, golf--under/over par, football--passer rating, hockey--plus/minus, basketball--freethrow % ,on and on. Espn is all about the numbers. Today, IMO, musky fishing has evolved into a big money sport and people are very passionate about that fish. They spend countless hours and money i.e.,vacations, boats, guides, touraments, equipment, etc. to catch a 50". The numbers ARE important to the full time musky hunter. Their not casting a zebco with a five of diamonds off the dock anymore. For the casual guy, I agree, the numbers don't mean a much. But fishing full time for Mr. Musky.... Time is money / money is time. just ask a scout for the Minnesota Twins about the numbers...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Some data is useful I agree whole heartedly. Number of hours per fish is not important in my opinion. Knowing that my hours per fish of lets say 3 last year will not help me or my clients put more fish in the boat this year. Now knowing that last year the water temps ran fairly cool and that the 10” Jake put 30% of the total fish in the boat IS important in terms of helping to get desired results this year.
Geeked out wasn’t meant to be a bad thing. Going that far into it makes it fun, for some. There is a point though that spending too much time at what doesn’t matter will only hurt you when it does matter.
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | My question is this. When you catch a stocker, or lose a fish in battle, does that mean another 10,000 casts? Kidding of course. |
|
| |
|
| Agreed, it's about enjoying what your doing, whether it's for silver or sport, but watch out; you might get a client this year who's the dean of mathmatics for some big ten university....karma and Neptune are buddies |
|
| |
|
| I think keeping a journal and looking at past success / failure helps you figure out where and when to be to capitalize on the right situations.
looking back at my journal can help me plan on what lakes I should be, when the water temps or conditions are right so my fish per hour ratio is low.. I'm not out there to wash baits for 20 hrs and not catch fish...that isn't enjoyable to me..maybe for some 20 hours of no fish can be fun...no thanks, I like action and fish in the net! it's only a stat that you can use to compare your own seasons/trips as we all fish diff waters, diff times and diff ways...but it is interesting if someone is boasting about x # of fish they caught only to find out they had 1000 hours to do it..puts some things in perspective |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | Wow. Passionate discussion.
I keep a journal/log. The way I have it set up, I'm capable of tracking hours per fish. Fish per trip. Average size. And all kinds of statistics.
I think most of the "debate" in this discussion revolves around HOW those stats are used. If they are used to pad one's EGO.... or to boast about themselves.... well... then those stats are futile for reasons outlined by Kopke, BN, and others.
I use Hours per Fish and Average Size to help me understand whether the changes I make in a season are a good INVESTMENT. For me, its all about ROI. Pending what my goal may be.... I will make changes to my gameplan in hopes to achieve that goal as easily and effectively as possible.
If my Hours per Fish are going down.... well... that's a good thing, right? However if my average size is also going down.... that may NOT be such a good thing. Thus, I may want to make a change to what I'm doing.
Or.... if I'm fishing the way history suggests I should.... and my stats are not up to par.... that might be an indicator to me that I may need to "step out of the box" and fish a little differently that season. Old patterns may have fizzled and its time to look for new patterns. Thus, I find personal value in keeping these types of measurements.
But, if someone wants to say "I average 3 hours per fish with an average size of 49.5 inches" as a vehicle to demonstrate their superiority.... well... I say those people need an ego check.
Fun discussion and thanks for the laugh. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | The point I was attempting to make is just what Brad and Long brought up in their last posts. Average hours per fish is only beneficial to THAT particular angler. I would argue though if it really is beneficial to THAT particualr angler though. We all have good years, and we all have bad years. If I am coming off of a great year like Brad is, and end up having a so-so year going or a terrible year going how will last years average hours per fish number help me this year? I think subconciously, without knowing the average hours per fish, we already know we need to do something different to turn things around or accept the results thus far as such.
Perhaps I don't get it as I haven't tracked it, and perhaps I should try it before I knock it anymore. |
|
| |
|
| Cisco, assuming the fisherman new what he was doing, and he was spending a lot time on the water without the previous success, wouldn't knowing ratio's be helpful ; changes in lake conditions(pollution,new resort, more lake traffic etc) lake becoming fished out, or the fisherman himself. Fatigue, boredom, age or just plain bad luck. The numbers would lead him somewhere....maybe golf next year??????? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | If you wait a whole year, or even half the year to get the numbers that are telling you either you have to change what you are doing or that the lake has changed is much too late. Not responsive enough for me. Lakes go through hot/cold streaks all the time. We are all aware of that. Relying on a number to tell me that the lake is perhaps "cold" isn't being very intuitive. A lot of fisherman know on any particular water what to expect for action. I don't need a chart, graph, spread sheet or whatever else to tell me when I should perhaps change a lake or change what I am doing. I need to realize that on the water as I go, and make the call at the moment.
I rely on intuition and the fabled sixth sense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Making the correct decision isn't important, but just making a decision promtly IS important. Sure some can use their data and quickly make decisions, but knowing musky fisherman or just fisherman in general most start wondering what to do with that data. They start wasting time on the water.
Again, much more important factors in making decisions than an average hours per fish number. To me some keep track of the number just because it is something fun to keep track of and interesting to look back on. I'd rather be sharpening hooks, tying leaders, looking at maps, and so on!
I thought about taking up golf, but then I would have to start wearing a visor! 
Edited by CiscoKid 5/27/2009 8:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Cisco, yea, sometimes just good old fashioned gut instincts are the best solutions. Wearing a visor.... Now that's funny. If you give up fishing you might try stand-up comedy.....lmao |
|
| |
|
| Water,
I keep very detailed records and have been muskie fishing for the past 19 years. Last year I fished muskies for 142.45 hours and caught 22 fish. That means that "on average" I caught one fish every 4 hours out. Those fish ranged in size from 24 inches to 49 inches (average 39") I primarily fish Wisconsin but take a trip to LOTW every summer. I hope that helps answer your question
G |
|
| |
|
| it depends on when u fish.......if u work the "WINDOWS" your ratio per hour can be very high...i too keep logs and time fished and it really varies season to season.It also depends on what body of water u fish....I can go to some small musky lakes up here in Ontario and have 20 -30 fish days yet the reality is you have to work for your fish.. |
|
| |
