|
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | curleytail - 7/23/2012 10:30 PM
...studying a map can shorten the learning curve, especially if fishing a new lake where you might have only a day to spend there. Not enough time to learn the lake, but looking at a map should up your odds. Don't you think?
Tucker
Ahhhhhh yeah. Use the map to define target areas and/or high percentage spots. Makes more sense then going to lake X and just bombing away. IMO, lots of time wasted in that approach.
Like you said Tucker, you targeted the area you caught that fish on the map... You may have caught a fish at some point drifting 1/2 mile across the basin too which I've admittedly done. But when coming up on spots such as the hump you mentioned Tucker, you have to expect your odds to increase a bit.
Go back to the beginning of the thread where Sled talks about mapping and the article from JLong that Travis linked is definitely worth the read. Lots of valuable info in this thread if you can filter out much of the run around.
Edited by MartinTD 7/24/2012 7:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Tucker yes I agree that absolutely you can pick out some spots to catch fish in deep water by looking at a map. However just like shallow water fishing there are lots of great spots that a map does not show you, and the only way you find them is by exploring. Often times it’s the spots that you don’t pick out on a map that end up being the goldmines. I am not here to tell people how to read a map. I am here to try and help people connect with fish in deep water. I am not going to say what all the books, magazines, and videos tell you and that is the obvious stuff. However that obvious stuff is only half the story, and is not always the most important part of solving the puzzle.
Again if you always fish spots you pick out on a map and have success of course you will think that is the way to go. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. I say fish once in a while with no pre-conceived notions in your head, and you may just be surprised at what you find and where you find it. From there you can start putting the pieces together.
We are not talking deep water fishing 301 here. We are talking deep water fishing 101 for those that have no clue how to tackle it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i like the 301 ... it puts big fish in the bag almost with reliability. the icon method is almost like cheating ... :0) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jonnysled - 7/24/2012 7:45 AM
i like the 301 ... it puts big fish in the bag almost with reliability. the icon method is almost like cheating ... :0)
For someone starting out 301 is not the way to go. Some can handle it, and some cannot. You have to learn to walk before you can run. Also the icon/map deal is just fine for structure related suspended fish. However there is a good population of fish in many lakes that are true "abyss" fish that are caught away from any structure. Again if you never fish the abyss you'll never know what is there. 
Regardless this thread has 101, 201, and 301 info. Good for a multitude of readers.
Edited note: Removed cheap shot at Sled
Edited by CiscoKid 7/24/2012 8:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | travis ... and here i thought i was going to play nice.
how many fish did you put in the net during opener? how many leading up to the hot-water? how many over 43"??
mapping is easy. i did all the icon mapping on my electronics, when i fish with the others (whom you know), they map just like i do and just like we are explaining in this thread. it is the simple use of the electronics we choose to use and the results are just what they are. the system is tried, true and works with great reliability.
if you come to the chain sometime, jump in the boat with me and i'll show you some deep water waypoint mapping and how to do it yourself. it takes some time, but as i "learned" from a couple folks and chose to employ. sometimes mapping for 60-80% of the time and fishing 20-30% you can be more accurate and score more consistently.
it works ...
Edited by jonnysled 7/24/2012 8:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jonnysled - 7/24/2012 8:00 AM
it works ...
Never said it didn't. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | when does 401 start?  we might not have as many contributors then tho...d'oh! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | that's when the dive suits and scuba come in smellie ...
edit: ... as a kid who grew up living on a lake we used to have to teach a lot of people how to water ski. our system changed (cuz of convenience) and we started to just teach people how to start deep-water slalom instead of wasting time on dropping etc... it was more efficient.
why not start with the answer??
Edited by jonnysled 7/24/2012 8:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | like the guy in the Badfish video! watch closely...you'll see em... no wonder that sand grass fishing is so easy for those guys...JK...Sled we need Aqua Man on our team...lol.
Edited by BNelson 7/24/2012 8:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I'm a total newbie, so take this with a grain of salt...but I'm confused. I fish Lake Champlain in Northern VT and New York. 15 miles wide, 110 miles long, there are both extensive shallow areas and deep--the biggest part of the lake has very extensive areas that are close to 400 feet deep with some large shallower bays, while the northern quarter and southern quarter are generally fairly shallow, weedier, etc. It's not quite a great lake, but it's pretty darn big, too big to cover it all. There are loads and loads of underwater humps and islands at all depths, as well as points, breaks, bays, river deltas, big wind to create currents, you name it. There are a few (very few) muskies here, but I mainly fish for pike. The lake has traditionally been both a warm and cold water fishery--bass and pike were always assumed to relate to the perch in shallower water, and the salmon and lakers to smelt in the abyss. Alewives were introduced some years ago, and many people think they are changing the habits of the bass at least, and probably the salmon and lakers as well. Due to both proximity and water temp, in summer I mainly fish the big lake.
Anyway, back on point, I've been catching too many small pike for my liking and have been looking for ways to up the size of the fish I'm catching, I want to to catch a 45 incher, I know they are there...and find myself turning to a lot of musky info, something new for me. I'm upping the size of tackle, etc, but also fishing a little deeper at times and/or more strategically. A couple questions regarding this topic:
Do you guys who fish suspended fish use the baitfish schools to judge a depth where you should fish in open water? The salmon/laker guys all troll a variety of depths and then set most of their riggers to the depth they are seeing schools of baitfish, which is often well below the thermocline. For instance, right now most of the salmon are being caught 40' down where many of these bait balls are, but the first major thermocline is only about 15 feet down. However, I would not have thought to include an ambush predator like an esox in with fish targeting pelagic baitfish over 200 or even 300+ feet of water--I would think that any fish in truly deep water would be in transit between shallower feeding areas, and as such targeting deep schools of forage fish is at least to a degree not the most productive use of time?
In a huge lake like I'm talking about, I assume even the people who fish suspended fish are still going to concentrate their efforts in smaller areas (say a bay, rather than the big/deep lake) where a fish might have multiple ambush areas, cover, deep water, access to spawning areas, etc, etc? I'm sure there are fish in the open water in these areas, but it is still a "travel route" or at least in ralation to the nearby cover where they might feed more actively, right? Or do these fish routinely travel really long distances, i.e. move from one bay and go 5 or 15 or more miles up the lake to another area?
I guess what I'm asking, is whether I should be thinking about each bay or self-contained area that has all of the food/cover/reproduction/deep water factors as a "separate" lake, or whether it really pays to spend a lot of time (a LOT of time!) to cover the broad lake areas in between? If the broad lake is indeed much less productive by a wide margin, then of course it makes it much easier to focus on more productive areas.
Another questions is, does the abyss in a big lake like that form a BARRIER to fish movement, i.e. is it effectively dead water that would to a degree prevent fish from moving between areas? If so, would it be better to focus on areas that do not have such vast areas of abyss? Or is it still worth targeting some of the shallower areas within the big abyss (especially since it's much cooler water in summer...we just hit surface temps of 70 a week or two ago)??
Thanks for any insight anyone has, and hope this isn't off topic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2687
Location: Hayward, WI | CiscoKid - 7/24/2012 7:39 AM
Tucker yes I agree that absolutely you can pick out some spots to catch fish in deep water by looking at a map. However just like shallow water fishing there are lots of great spots that a map does not show you, and the only way you find them is by exploring. Often times it’s the spots that you don’t pick out on a map that end up being the goldmines. I am not here to tell people how to read a map. I am here to try and help people connect with fish in deep water. I am not going to say what all the books, magazines, and videos tell you and that is the obvious stuff. However that obvious stuff is only half the story, and is not always the most important part of solving the puzzle.
Again if you always fish spots you pick out on a map and have success of course you will think that is the way to go. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy. I say fish once in a while with no pre-conceived notions in your head, and you may just be surprised at what you find and where you find it. From there you can start putting the pieces together.
We are not talking deep water fishing 301 here. We are talking deep water fishing 101 for those that have no clue how to tackle it.
I fish a lot of the other stuff that isn't as obvious too, but some of MY most consistent spots are the fairly obvious spots. Your mileage may vary.
You say some of the spots that aren't on a map are the best ones, and you just have to cover water to find them. I agree with that too. When you are out just covering water, is there anything you look for? Anything that makes you get excited when you find it? Say a deep patch of weeds growing in 22 feet of water that isnt on the map and nobody else fishes or a 18 foot hump the size of your living room surrounded by acres of 26 feet of water?
Do finding things like this send up a flag for you, or are some of your best spots just because, and it's hard to put your finger on why.
Maybe I over analyize, but I feel a lot better if I can understand the 'why.' If I get that, I might be able to replicate it on a different spot, or a different lake. It should also help me eliminate some water (at least initially) when on a trip or trying to learn a new lake. I know fish can and do suspend out in the middle of nowhere, with no ryme or reason. BUT, I still have to believe most of the time there's an answer to why that fish was there. Was it related to nearby structure, was there a bottom change below it? Maybe it's that I don't have 100% confidence in just fishing plain looking flats or basins. I do it some (maybe not enough), but my ROI still seems a little better trying to loosely target 'something.' I might not cast to structure but I am probably related to it. I might be fishing the basin, but I'm probably trying to fish a bottom transition, etc.
I've had success out in deeper water with fish I would consider suspended, but I feel like I still have a lot to learn. The basin on a 3,000+ acre lake is intimidating to me, but I still feel like there's a way to rule out some water and focus on higher percentage spots within the basin. My thoughts are structure or bottom content transitions HAVE to be higher percentage areas, even though they might not be obvious.
Tucker |
|
| |
|
| Jerryb, am I the kid you're talking about? I'm not an old man as some are, but the last person to call me a kid meant it as a put down. I'm sure you wouldn't talk to someone you don't even know in that manner so I'll chalk it up to losing the correct tone in writing. It's the lake I fish, why get off it? Just because it's hard to fish? That's the beauty of it, and thats the point as far as im concerned. If anyone has insight I'm all ears. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's stay on topic, please. Great discussion that doesn't need to turn into a train wreck argument. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Confused first off I can’t help too much in the way of finding fish on a very large lake. I intentionally target waters under 2000 acres because for one I can only cast where I am located, and two they are much easier to breakdown when it comes to finding fish deep. The second is because of #1. Because I don’t target huge waters I am not going to start speculating on how best you should target those fish “out there”. I think JSkarie commented earlier in this thread on what he does. Also Pike are a bit different than muskies in that they prefer much cooler water. If all you are doing is catching “snakes” you need to probably get much, much deeper than you are currently fishing. Lots of guys that target really big pike are known to vertical jig near the thermocline in 40+ feet of water.
Baitfish. Yes I use the depth the baitfish are at on my graph as an indication of where I may need to be at with my baits. If I am consistently marking bait 30’ down and nothing higher I will usually go to a countdown bait like a countdown crank, a big joe, or a hardhead. If I am still not contacting anything I will change my train of thought, and run my baits high. Why? Because if there are active fish that is where they will be a lot of times. Also because I am banking on there being some high riding baitfish that you will not mark on your graph due to them constantly moving away from the boat.
If I am not marking any baitfish on a lake I normally do than I know I better be keeping my baits high! If I mark bait 15’ down I run standard cranks and such as they typically don’t dive much deeper than 10’ on a cast. If the bait is 10’ or shallower I go to shallow running stuff to keep me in the top 5’ of the column. I usually don’t want to be working my baits deeper than I am marking the bait, but will start going deeper if the keeping the baits above the bait don’t work. I think Sled asked earlier in this thread what I use my graph for…this is it. I don’t use it to find the bait per say to cast like structure (still cracks me up), but rather use it to gauge where I should probably be working my baits. Yes I also use it to see what the bottom contour is doing for future reference.
As far as depth of water, and whether it pays to target the great expanses in a large lake. The muskies aren’t afraid to swim over deep water. If there is food there they will be out there. If trolling is legal, and I was on a large lake as described, you can bet I would be out there trying to connect. However I am not foolish, and if I didn’t contact fish after several trips I would start targeting smaller confined areas to try and put the pieces together.
Tucker, what do I look for when I am drifting? Lots of little things. I don’t usually look for any kind of weeds as if I am doing true suspended fishing I am in too deep of water for weeds to be growing in. Besides if I wanted to fish weeds I would be up shallower. Not every fish, or baitfish, has to relate to weeds. In the true basin dwellers small hard bottom areas in a basin can be good, and likewise a small soft bottom area that is surrounded by hard bottom. Springs can be a gold mine, but are often very hard to find. Narrow “spines” that may only be 1-2’ shallower in deep water get my goat especially if they are nowhere near any structure and the only way to find them is by being “out there”. In structure related suspended fishing I look for the deeper humps others ignore that top out in the 20-30’ area surrounded by deeper water. Lots of those are not located on any maps, and are even missed on some of the mapping chips.
While finding some little things while out there can be important, there is also a lot of productive water that is flat out ugly looking on the graph or map. The true basin and deep flat fishing scenario. The fish are out there in these areas. Perch and cisco are two good reasons they are in these areas as that is often what I find for baitfish. One other little thing I think a lot of guys don’t pay attention to, or don’t experience is phytoplankton. You probably don’t see it if you fish shallower water or structure out in deep water. You also really don’t see it during the day except early in the morning. The “rise” is something to experience as it gets dark and you are in deep water. On some lakes it is the key to fishing suspended. Find areas at night that have the heaviest concentrations of it and those are usually the best areas to fish during the night. Keep those areas in mind for the daytime as well though as they also make great areas to target at that time as well. I think I have a picture of it I can post for those that haven’t seen it, and if I can find it I will post it.
We as anglers would like to believe fish have to locate to structure as it makes fishing for them easier. In all reality fish don’t need structure at all.
Some lakes the true open water is useless and you need to be fishing related to structure. Other lakes the featureless open water can be better than the fishing suspended just off of structure. The only way you find this type of information out is by going out there and fishing it all through several days and years, or by getting info from other anglers. Good luck finding the anglers to give you info on the true open water stuff though as indicated by this thread very few do it or believe in it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Lots of guys fishing suspended in Champlain, they just aren't targeting esox. Find out if those guys are getting bite offs or catching any esox, chances are the trollers out there have a certain time period or conditions when they are getting some accidental esox, adjust your schedule and tactics accordingly.
And watch out for Chompy.
|
|
| |
|
| You mean "Champy"? I'll make sure and watch out for him!
Thanks guys, that's really helpful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Sorry, I'm just a backwards Northerner.
|
|
| |
|
| Backwards Northerner...that makes two of us! Nice to meet you!
I just looked, and Champlain is almost 315,000 acres. Quite a difference.
For what it's worth I actually managed to pose my question to one of the state fisheries biologists--who happens to be an avid pike and musky fisherman originally from most of your neck of the woods--and he basically said that although the big guys could become essentially "dwellers of the abyss" targeting pelagic baitfish, that he thought the highest % places to look for them would be deep water directly adjacent to larger expanses of shallower, weedy water--that playing the odds alone they seem to like to stay somewhat related to the shallower areas. He thought it would be a relative waste of time to target the big deep-water areas (say over 100 feet deep) specifically, and that also for this reason mid-lake humps, islands, etc that were relatively isolated and surrounded completely by large very deep areas were not high% places to find a big fish. He also said something to the effect of "on the other hand, if you do find one chances are no one else has cast to that fish a zillion times so it may be a good fish to target". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Better late than never, nut here is the "rise" pic I mentioned in my last post. Thought I had a better picture of the rise itself, but here is a picture of the rise that is complete and later into the night. Just imagine the 10' thick cloud at the surface coming up through the water column. Looks a lot like a huge school of baitfish, but is really phytoplankton. This area was good the entire week (day and night), and coincidently had the thickest phytoplankton at night.
Note the difference in the two sides of the graph, and that is due to using duel transducers with different frequencies. I also turned the gain down on the one so as to see what was there other than the phytoplankton. On the right side I left the gain up to know where the concentrations of plankton were.
Edited by CiscoKid 8/1/2012 9:48 PM
(Bottom Rising (Medium).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 Bottom Rising (Medium).jpg (29KB - 234 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Perhaps I have taken some liberties in my interpretation of this quote, or maybe not. Only way of truly knowing is to have Tom elaborate on it. Until then I found this excerpt from Tom Gelb’s new book in the chapter about suspended fishing interesting and pertinent to this conversation. For those that haven’t read it yet:
"There are areas in a lake that I call "special locations." These are areas that never appear to have any recognizable characteristics or food chain inhabitants. But at specific and usually repeatable times over the years, they will be very productive. The only way to discover any of these areas of the lake, and where the zone is located throughout the seasons, is to spend lots of intelligent time on the water. I know of no shortcut to this."
Tom Gelb in "Musky Strategy"
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Intelligent time on the water, eh?
Guess I better stick to the weed edges or spoonplugging. |
|
| |
|
| I have been following this discussion on fishing open water and It got me thinking about the suspended fish that I have seen on my locater in the past. So I went out to my favorite musky lake and did some scouting out in the deeper areas of one of the bays.
No reefs no points no break lines just flat mud bottom in 20 + feet of water. I found what I think are white fish scattered from+20' to 10' down. Thought they my be walleyes but could not catch any. Surface Water temp was 75 deg. So it can't be Cisco. Maybe small mouth bass. Don't know. The arches on my graph showed there where nice sized fish. Every once in a while 13' down I would see very large red arches on my color graph. I trolled a 13" bait down to about 12' after a bit I neted a mid 40" class musky. I was a 1/2 mile away from any struckshure. Wish I know what them muskys where feeding on out in the middle of the bay. Thanks for all the info that you guys share with everyone!
Dan. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 26
| I suppose its a lil late to throw in my 2 cents? But when i'm fishing 20ft-25ft I love my bulldawgs, but i usually have 2 or 3 friends in the boat so we try to each work a different depth, i usually favor the 10ft.-12ft. Depth and they work with jakes and grandmas to fill in the gaps and we see where they're biting, and YES find the schools of baitfish and work over the top or below them cause musky's love to attack from below, so if you hang the bait about a foot below, the musky will definatly see it and they'll pick off the "straggler" but i mean as we come into the fall season its all about deep fishing! So keep workin em it'll start to come to ya! When i started i couldnt do any deep fishing either but now i'm better deep then workin weed beds in 5ft-8ft good luck and happy fishing! |
|
| |
