T,I think it's anyones guess on the crayfish.Whats amazing is that if bass can't control them on the Woods,hard to believe they can be controlled naturally anywhere. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/ais/rustycrayfish_invader
F Whiz,Did you conduct the experiment in the materials cited?Results from that will be as helpful as most speculation here.After that experiment,no harm in doing more experiments on the water on your own.
There is only one true source for the answers you seek-the musky gods.Unfortunately they talk only to me and,to be honest,I haven't had any meaningful communication with them since I quit drinking.
Tim, The funny thing with the weeds is if they are gone I have found out that the fish still just use the sand there are bays that have no more weeds but still hold fish. And the hot area always seems to be the area we are not in .lol
Darren
As someone that would come up for a few weeks each summer for about 12 years, I really never took the time to ask why fish related to an area or spot one year and then gone the next. Too busy getting on a pattern.
Now that I have had a couple full summers on the woods I have noted a couple interesting things.
Definitely a migration takes place in some areas where the fish pack moves towards the open water. You can kind of follow the pack in their progression.
Some spots can be terrible during the day and crazy good late in the day and evening.
Water temp is a big player on mid lake rock spots.
Wind direction is a big player on mid lake rock spots.
Speaking of rustys, one thing we noticed last year when we were up walleye fishing was that the bite was getting a little tough and people were just trying different things and one guy had a package of Powerbait Crawfish that he got on the Wal-Mart clearance pile and within minutes he was catching more and bigger fish than the rest of us combined. I thought it was a fluke but he just kept catching fish. I have added a few packs to my arsenal for this year as a result.
Here's another thought, and I find this at times. If you are going though what you think is a killer area and not having much action, it may well be that you are right behind someone else (Pearson?). Sometimes this happens and it will seem like the fish are off in an area, but that's because they where just caught. If you are running into a lot of fishing pressure in an area it doesn't hurt to move a little.
Over all (45 years of trying it) I don't think I've ever seem an area that was slow and another area that was hot on the same day. However, I've seen lots of areas that are effected by fishing pressure, or at times bad water conditions (muddy/algae, etc). Then it's time to look else where.
you see the same thing around here where the fish will be absent on one lake while a hot bite is going on another lake just a few miles away. since the Woods is a "lake of lakes" might it be a version of the same phenomenon? that doesn't do anything to explain the cause, but it might suggest approaches.
when approaching that issue around here, people will "lake hop" until finding somewhere the fish are active. once those fish are found, it's often true that other lakes nearby with similar characteristics are also going.
if we have the luxury of multiple boats on a trip, we like to plan out a coordinated approach: each boat fishing different kinds of structure or different kinds of water to get more information more quickly. it's a version of "lake-hopping" on a big lake like the Woods. and rather than fishing the same kinds of structure over and over waiting for the fish to show up where we're fishing ("you will eat a bucktail on shallow rocks or else!"), we also plan out a run for each boat that forces us to fish different kinds of structure, depth, and water during the day - especially the first couple days of a trip. by sharing info, once someone's on fish the other boats can seek out similar areas and pick up the pattern.
Mike I like that 'lake within a lake' concept and once upon a time actually gave a seminar in your State on that subject.Will comment in a paragraph or two but first I see Mr Sully has been active since my last visit so a brief comment on that first.
Sully I love ya man but these last posts confirm the validity of 'string theories' and the concept of 'parallel universes'.(I hope the few friends you have will do a search on those cause undoubtedly it would lead to a better understanding of you).No doubt you are in or from a dimension or universe the rest of us can't access.
Mike my earlier thoughts and feelings on this arose out of my travels from one part of the lake to another within a day or a few days-finding some areas productive,others not FOR ME.This lake is not only large but many parts are significantly different from others.For instance contrast the 'trout water'(Whitefish or Clearwater Bays for example)from say other Meso parts.Differences in temps,depth,fertility,water clarity,weed growth and on and on are very significant.
Then consider geography a bit.Small bays vs large open tracts;deep underwater ravines and narrow necks/channels often running for miles vs massive shallow flats;etc.
Then throw a number of inflows into the lake and a massive natural water movement generally south to north in opposition to massive wind induced water movement often prevailing from the west and north and one can certainly conceive of 'differences' occurring throughout the system.AND,all this before considering day to day weather influences that may well present one with pre front opportunities in one section vs post front misery in another.(god,isn't this chit great!!!I love the lake!)
I honestly could write a book on this but in an effort to wrap this up i'll try to sum up my view briefly:This lake is in constant change and transition.Always has been and will be.Every day is somewhat different at least in some respects from one section to another.We not only have(I believe are blessed to have)daily changes to challenge us and keep us focused but we,of course,have the seasonal changes or transitions(feeding peaks or valleys???)occurring and varying from section to section.Soooo,MY 2 CENTS=When we experience hot/cold areas it only means an area may not be conducive to OUR chosen locational and presentational approach.Where we are focusing and how/what we are presenting and doing-keeping in mind that others usually are doing things different successfully in the very same lake sections.AND,as Doug mentioned,their 'doing it' in itself(ie,'pressure')can be a factor that screws us in that lake section.(as can algae at times)
IT always IMO boils down to applying the formula- F+L+P=S.
Mix it up-or move I guess.
Ryan,you may recall some years ago in my EA column I interviewed 'Big Mother',a huge fish from the Lake.Dig that out,her comments might help you.
Good FLPing!!!!!
Here is part of an article by Mr. Pearson on the ERC site which seems on-point, or at least related:
"3. Areas and Style: When things are slow or inconsistent should one travel, or stay put? Run and gun, or slow down and pick structure apart? Do a little of all of the above?
Tough questions and who really knows, because if it lands right and flashes right the musky gods can make you happy no matter where or how you fish, but here’s a broad stroke picture of where I’m at on these questions after the past few months’ experience.
First of all I believe the grass can in fact be greener in different areas. I’ve known for years some areas of a massive body of water such as Lake of the Woods can at times be better than others—likely for good environmental reasons. However, I’m not talking a change of a few miles. I mean really different sections of the lake. No doubt in my mind that for a while other sections were better than, say, the Northwest Angle area, and vice versa. So do you travel and see? Sure—if your boat, knowledge of the lake and wallet permits. Why not try? On the other hand, if you have limited time, I suspect it may not be worthwhile.
OK, if I don’t travel, do I go slow and pick apart an area? Or do I run and gun and cover lots of water? There are good arguments both ways, but to me it depends on what I’m after. I’ll go faster to just find fish but there’s no doubt in my mind that slowing down and picking apart structure is the better way to catch ‘good’ fish.
“OK” you say, “but what area? Anywhere?” For me it’s a matter of sticking to known good or big fish areas, then picking them apart and being patient.
Let me give a few examples. This past month we spent 9 days filming for a video. Moving fast, we covered water and got a decent number of fish on film. However, the two biggest fish came on spots that hold few fish but were spots I had confidence in for big fish based on past experience. These were spots that I slowly—very slowly—picked apart despite nagging fears of wasting valuable (and expensive) camera time. How slowly? How patiently? How thoroughly? Rarely are we ever fishing spots too slowly, patiently or thoroughly I’m afraid.
One that got away gives us all a clue perhaps. We arrived at a small rock saddle—say, 40 yards wide and 50 yards long. I fished it thoroughly—or so I thought. When done, we decided the camera man should get out on a rock and we’d film a segment of how I would normally fish such a spot. Being a type A, I can’t just stand there while he gets his gear ready to get out, so I fire a jerk bait down an edge that the same jerk bait had visited at least twice just minutes before. Nothing. He’s still messing with his gear so I fire the same bait to the same spot. Two jerks, and the sea parts, a black hole opens up and a huge, slowly thrashing head emerges chewing on my bait, which ultimately is sent back to me via air mail. On film, even the loss would have been priceless, but all we end up with is dismay and the sickening acknowledgment that we often really are casting to she beasts, but most times they don’t move with just a cast or two in their general area.
A few days later I was telling my friend and retired DNR biologist Bob Strand about the incident, and he related the view of an old time Eagle Lake guide on this issue. This guide, with many huge fish to his credit, advocated that when on a known big fish spot, a minimum of 20 casts or so to each part of the spot should be made. Wow. Afraid I can’t go that far, but as time goes by, and such experiences accumulate, I’m beginning to wonder. Food for thought I think."
Reply With Quote
