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.
Gotta love all the great info you get on Frank's BS (Bay Store) Outdoor Reports forum. Here's my hackers 2 cents worth.
Predictability is always a tough subject. But... In the early part of the year it goes without saying that for the most part, weeds play probably the most important role in finding fish.
When it comes to weeds one thing I notice that does come into play quite a bit and varies from year to year, spot to spot, hour by hour is how current effects them. Not only where the weeds are growing and how fast, but what they're like under the surface. How you'll fish a spot and notice the weeds that were so thick and up near the surface last night you could barely get through them with your 300# of thrust trolling mtr, yet this AM they are now lying down so much you don't even know they are there.
The problem is there are so many things that effect current. The weather, not only where you are but several miles away. Wind direction, and even wether or not they're letting in or out water, etc. etc. I hate to admit it but Dick's right. Probably one of the best ways to predict current is "Syzygy".
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."
Dave,
A couple things about what you quoted stick out and the first one resonates louder now than years ago when I wrote it.Should you move?
"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."
While boats and Navchip changes have altered this statement some,the 'wallet permitting' part likely hasn't with todays gas prices.Likely to be less 'worthwhile'.
Secondly,guess who the camera man in the incident described was?Maybe I shouldn't say.
Dave,
Thanks for reminding me of the ERC site.Since we sold I had forgotten about a few of the articles still located there and one in particular is a good thought provoker at the beginning of any season.It never has been well received or discussed much but IMO merits reading for anyone.I'll take the liberty of referencing it.
"SIDEBAR
Folks years ago I created a ‘Think Card’ that I still carry in my wallet to help when my confidence level sags.Its merely a checklist of many of the things mentioned above(including a long list of possible structures to consider trying)but it sure helps me in tough times.I believe such checklists are great.
Pete Maina and I are in the process of creating a number of ‘checklists’(including a revised ‘Think Card’) that will be laminated and easy to access.These will be available soon,cover key topics in muskie fishing,and I believe helpful to all."
Dick
Dick, did you and Pete ever make these cards, and if so, are they available for hacks like me to purchase? Some guys are lucky and some are just good, and while I'm neither, it doesn't take more than reading a few lines of articles like this (or put some time in the back of his boat) to know which dp is. It's so easy to get bogged down in that which is muskie fishing, and getting yourself unbogged is as important, or likely more so, than any of the baits or gear you use.
Thought I'd responded earlier today but...????
Anyway,I hesitate to respond cause Oh boy do I love this stuff.I'm sure not short of theories and opinions here.A few facts even but hell,who needs facts?
I'm in the hunting mode for a couple days but here's another 'oldie' to ponder Mike-at least til I can respond further.
" FISHING ‘OUT THERE’
Hi Folks.Sure hope your season has gone well so far-complete with big fish and smiles.
What I want to talk about in this column is fishing ‘out there’,you know,the ‘open water’thing.Some of you have been doing it since opening day,some are thinking its time to try it out there,and some I suspect have never tried it,or have,but without success and have no intention of seriously trying it again.Regardless of what category you’re in,I suspect all of you at times have concerns about how random it seems when fishing out there.How much water there is,how little ‘structure’there appears to be,in reality how futile it seems..Well,lets take a closer look at that and see if we can’t crank(no pun intended)your confidence level up a notch or two.
First a few threshold concepts:
1.Clear your mind a little with regard to what structure is-or isn’t.Don’t get hung up in meaningless terminology-ie,whether structure is just traditional hard things like points,reefs,weeds,breaklines,etc;or non-traditional like current,weather,moon phase or bait;or whether’edges’are structure;or are comfort zones structure;and on and on.Forget it.As I’ve said before,if fish relate to it or are affected by it,consider it structure and move on.
2.Remember,species don’t survive by random movement.Fish are related to structure out there,its just that we have trouble finding much of it.Understand we are conditioned to throw at or troll around structure and the sense of futility is fed by our difficulty in locating what structure exists out there.
3.There are two keys to finding fish out there.One is eliminating as much sterile water as possible(shrinking the box).The second is combining as much structure as we can identify while out there and focusing on those ‘busy’areas.
First lets focus on eliminating some water.Every body of water will have certain key areas’out there’that are consistently good.For years I’ve called them golden triangles just because my best area in one of my favorite open water lakes was roughly a half mile square area between 3 pieces of traditional structure that formed a triangle.Whatever you call these consistent hot spots,all lakes have them but how do we find them short of fishing everything out there?What follows are my ideas on how to eliminate water and find these spots.
1.Consider what I just said regarding my favorite spot.A logical area to consider is between and/or adjacent to good traditional structure.If you have a great point or weedbed and a quarter or half mile out in the lake you have a favorite reef,isn’t it likely the open water between should be fished?The same can be true with respect to deeper traditional structure such as isolated humps IF they appear to have the consistent bait I’ll discuss next.
2.Pay attention to your electronics and the birds to monitor‘bait’whenever you are on the water.You will eventually find areas that consistently hold the heaviest bait concentrations and these almost undoubtedly will be some of the key open water areas on that lake.Thats nearly guaranteed if there happens to be fairly consistent current(natual or wind induced)in the area as well.(ie,the open water areas on each side of good saddles or above or below neck down areas on larger bodies of water.)
3.Speaking of current,I believe it plays a huge role here.It affects bait distribution,temperature and oxygen distribution,and lord knows what else but the open water areas adjacent to my favorite current areas are solid winners.A separate article in itself but see and reread the two part article on current in Esox Angler last year by Pete Maina and I if you’re unsure of what areas I’m talking about.
4.So far we’ve looked at the body of water in a horizontal fashion.Where should we travel to and focus our attention while on this lake?However,equally important,we should consider the body of water in a vertical sense if our goal is to eliminate sterile water.If the lake is 100 or more feet deep and you have to be concerned with only the top 10,20 or 30 feet did you eliminate some water?Lots!Likely the bulk of it.
THINK and err SHALLOW out there.I gave a series of seminars on this subject this past winter and hopefully some day I’ll finish the book I’m working on where this will be covered in detail but my theory after all these years is that 99% of the muskies are shallow 99% of the time.By ‘shallow’ I mean they rarely if ever are below what I’ll call the photo zone,the zone or depth wherein there is sufficient light penetration to allow photosynthesis to take place.Briefly,and somewhat oversimplied,that’s a depth approximately twice the secchi disc reading on a given body of water.Light penetrates further but in an amount insufficient for the creation of life.This zone therefore is easily ascertainable.Maps,the internet or your DNR can give you this secchi depth or determine it close enough on your own by dropping a white object(I use a white anchor)down until it disappears.Measure that distance,double it,(add a few feet if you’re skeptical)and then don’t fish below it.Ever.If its 10 feet,double it to twenty,and ignore totally the 60,80 or 100 feet below that.Because of the location of a muskies eyes, feeding habits,and some points that follow I’d urge you to err shallow if anything.
Support for my theory?Lots beyond my personal experiences accumulated over the years which I’ll not discuss here because of space constraints.
First consider that this zone is where the meaningful food chain lives most of the time.From photoplankton to zooplankton to ciscoes or whatever,that’s where its at.As Dan Cravens article in the last issue and the installment in this issue points out,even ciscoes are shallower than we thought and even if they go deeper,almost all sub species rise to this zone to feed.Necessarily.Guess who’s waiting for them to come to dinner?Perhaps waiting in that ‘twi light’zone of murky,light deprived water which Gord Pyzer has written about that really is the bottom of the photo zone.(studies suggest big pike utilize this zone to ambush prey silhouetted above-think muskies do?I do and my trolling records confirm it.
Next consider a muskies ‘comfort zone’.We can quibble whether its 68 degrees or 72 degrees but regardless,their comfort zone in terms of temperature,unlike big pike or trout ,is clearly within this photo zone.If you wish,ignore telemetry studies that show they are never below this zone pre turnover,dismiss the phenomenom of muskie porpoising on the surface regularly,forget the big ‘swim bys’we all see while fishing away but get real,why in the world would the king(queen)of freshwater fish leave their comfort zone when their food is there as well.Stay shallow-eliminate sterile water.
Okay lets talk briefly about the second key to finding fish out there-combining structure.
Actually we really can’t ‘combine’it,that is create it or move it around but we can all develop a thought process of trying to recognize and be aware of as much ‘structure’as possible being present at a given time and place.The more present,the better our odds of fish contact.’Busy’places are fish places.By way of anology consider a traditional point in your favorite lake.Points are often great fish spots but a plain old barren point is not very exciting-particularly on say a cool,sunny,calm day.Now though add a weed bed and a little wind.Better?Add a few boulders,some baitfish and dusk coming-or thunder rumbling in the distance.Now better?For sure.In the open water context we may not have hard traditional structure to focus on but we can still try to recognize and’combine’as much structure as possible.Look for open water‘complexes’if you will.
Well can we really do this out there?Sure,to an extent.Key structure out there like current,water temperature,oxygen levels that fish are relating to may be difficult or nearly impossible to ascertain meaningfully with existing technology but you can try.For sure you can find and focus on bait-or consistent bait areas-that likely are telling you a lot about temp,oxygen and current anyway.Bait,as structure,is as good as it gets out there absent actual muskie sightings or contact.But there’s a lot more.Wind(often chaos and turmoil exists out there as well),solar/lunar phases,weather(anticipate and use it),dawn and dusk(light changes),in short lots of things that affect fish,and which to me is therefore structure,are recognizable and combinable with some thought.
Finally you have two critical structures out there nearly as important in my view as bait.The surface(busiest place there is for big muskies-where extremes of noise,temp,wind and water movement,light,oxygen etc are at their greatest)and the bottom.Not the sterile actual bottom,but the bottom of the photo zone,that murky light deprived twi lite zone where muskies can quite easily ambush prey above or prey coming through to get to the meaningful food zone.
Weather, light conditions,bait depth and other ‘structure’present,often will suggest whether to focus on the surface or just above that bottom,but its hard to argue with keeping it simple and focusing on one or the other.If two or more are in the boat,try both.
Well folks,hopefully this has made some sense and you’ll agree its not futile out there,that there really is less area and water than you thought to concentrate on,and that with some thought on your part there can be method to the madness of going ‘out there’.
Catch-and release-the fish of your dreams this fall!
Remember:thinking is just being thoughtful.
See you next issue.
Dick
That is very interesting. I was very misunderstood on how long the rusty have been in the Ontario section. Perhaps another factor or element contributing to our recent weed loss???
Nope Ryan your right top water has gone way down in the last 10 years I bet in the last 5 years caught 3 fish on top water?? And it's thrown a lot Carol loves the Top Raider !
Darren
Junior Member
I bet in the last 5 years caught 3 fish on top water?? And it's thrown a lot Carol loves the Top Raider !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote