year in review?

[fishwizard]

So... what's your take on this past muskie season as compared to others?

My timing was impeccably poor in my two trips to Frank's this year, that, and I don't seem to be getting any better at catching muskies the more years I do it. While I could go on with the details of crying you a river, I'm more curious to see if my down turn 2013 is consistent with other reports, or if I need to revamp my game plan.

Although I will say I had one of my best years ever for large pike, and while they can be fun, that wasn't exactly my goal.

Ryan

[jimmyb]

So... what's your take on this past muskie season as compared to others?


Hey Ryan,
Thanks for asking. When I think about it, I actually had one of my "best" years. Had a PB on both # of ski's in the boat as well as # over 50. Weird part is I really had to think about it and take a look at my logs.
I would say (again, looking it up) it was feast or famine depending on what week you were there. I was just lucky enough (for a change) to be there more on the feast weeks...

Jimmy B.

[Muskie Junkie]

Hello Ryan and all. This year was one of the worst for fish in my boat. While we did well on LOTW, fishing the local ponds was inconsitent and the worse we have seen in over 10 years. Can not explain it. Even the fall sucker bite was inconsistent. Wally thinks it was the changing of boats. I don't think so but wonder if DP sucked up all the mojo out of my new boat. 2014 will be the tell tale year for that answer.

Steve

[Frank Walsh]

Have to agree with Jim. It was all timing this season. Your spring trip was one of the worse I've ever seen. Fish were non existent. The following week was great. I did very well over the following weeks.

The week you were here in the fall was slow for you casters, and marginal for the trollers. The following week was much better, and the second week incredible. I would say my best trolling week ever. Great for the whole camp both in size and numbers.

Overall I would say my best year for fish over 50". I have no explanation for the inconsistency, but luckily for me, being here all season gives me balance.

Did have a neighbor up here in the fall before your trip, that went out a few times, and rarely saw a fish.

[dpear]

Weird year.Great numbers but they came in spurts except early season which was consistently good.Had 4 partial days in the Fall where it was hard to see a fish compared to a 4 day stretch earlier where one was upset with less than a 6 pack a day and I caught 3 very 'biggies'.
Frankly I fear all is not well in Wonderland and there are trends that disturb me but I'm still in hunting mode and don't want to be disturbed.
Wiz, ask for opinions on why 'top water'success has declined - I would but don't want to hi- jack your thread.

[Frank Walsh]

Don't know if top water has total declined, or become cyclic. Three days it doesn't work, and the fourth day you crush them. Maybe all stems from pressure, and repetition?????

[dpear]

Well deer season here closed at sunset last nite so will briefly comment before I launch into my next season.
I think surface action has steadily decreased over the last 3 years.To hopefully promote a discussion and thinking(knowing)full well there are a number of reasons,I'll throw out that one of the primary reasons is 'pressure'-not 'conditioning' necessarily but pressure in it's various forms and consequences including mortality.
People with lots of history and experience muskie fishing on the Lake likely know what I'm talking about but all is not well in Wonderland.I've been privy to some discussions about this over the last few months but IMO no doubt the 'times they are achanging'.And not for the better.
Couple pressure with very significant environmental changes(loss of weed growth for example)and you have problems.In fact some of these are accelerating in nature.For instance,reduce weeds and you'll increase pressure on certain areas and spots.
I recommend the ministry outlaw navigational chips and immediately order 'cha cha chia' seeds to correct these problems.I think we'd all then have more 'chia pets'to play with.
Seriously though the wonderland world we've had is changing.All gloom n doom? No but one must adapt or face much poorer success IMO.
How?Well we don't need another 18K hit thread here but if you can find them,consider all the ranting/raving I did years ago in articles about 'traditional vs non-traditional/ structure' and how to fish it.Those who are doing so are still smiling.
On the other hand Wiz,impeccable timing or not,the areas you fished and or filmed with me many years ago still produce.Here's a suggestion for next year:

Day 1:Fish to Morson(say to Barry's dock)going the south route.Then fish back on the north route.Hitting just the 'old' spots.
Day 2:Fish to Wylies via the south entrance to B Narrow-then back via the Tug.
Use only 3 lures which I'll recommend based on time/conditions etc.(not the beat up walleye DoubleD either).If you don't at least 'see' your dream-and catch 3 or 4,I'll devote 2 days to 'guiding' you.On the other hand,I have a price if it goes as I suspect and .......

[dougj@wiktel.com]

I too think things are slowly changing and not for the better. The loss of weed growth concerns me greatly. Glad I go to fish the last 50 years and not the next 50. Muskie reproduction success is closely linked the weed growth.

Doug Johnson

[musky1969]

For my boat best year for #'s 16 days on the water and 49 fish in the net with a 9 fish day being the best "Trolling", most all new spots old spots did not produce at all and we traveled a lot just ask uncle Frank how many times he had to get gas shipped in this fall!!! The fish that eat on the figure 8 is just crazy IMO this summer had about 5 fish eat away from the boat and about 20 on the figure 8's and only 1 follow on top water and Carol threw that a lot??
Darren

[fishwizard]

I'm sure many if not most all of you can commiserate. The number of spots that 4-5 years ago were almost automatic to hold fish, that now pretty well never show you a thing is very depressing. Will those spots ever recover? Old favorites that are now seemingly dead as can be. Sure while some spots decay and wither away, others seem to bloom and flourish. The thing that gets me the most is that from what I've seen fish seem to be considerably more concentrated on fewer spots. Obviously my sample size is not what it once was, but there seems to be far more unproductive water out there, and a few gold-mine spots that get beaten heavily.

Adapt or die for sure. Just really surprises me each year how much the lake has changed. I don't know of anything like it for comparison, and not sure how long it will continue. I don't see a fraction of the big fish that I used to either. I know that's NOT consistent to everyone else's experience, especially those of Ihree-50's-a-day-Pearson. Topwater barely produces follows in recent history, let alone a fish in the net. At the same time with continued experience and new mapping technology, I think I fish more effectively than ever.

The violin plays on.

Ryan

[pgutmann]

IMO we have a variety of factors thar are coming into play today including invasive species and a decrease in weed growth. We still see numbers of fish but IMO where are the "big fish" of LOTW, those 54" and greater? Is the average lifespan of a muskie on LOTW not conducive to reaching 54” or more. Maybe a very, very, very small % gets to this mark. Genetics probably plays a role here as the "genetic pool" is homogeneous over the many decades. Very little to no new genetics. Wonder would happen if the "Great Lake Spot" strain was introduced to diversify the genetic pool even more. Seems like a generation of fish is gone from 10-12 years ago. God only has put his creatures on earth, including us, for a certain amount of time. The good and positive thing though is we have a fairly good generation of fish in the 42-49” classes coming through. My average muskies boated 2 out the last 3 years has been around 42-43”. There also seems to be great recruitment of smaller fish in the lake which bodes well in the next 7-12 years. Has the fishing pressure on the NW Angle area caused incidental mortality of these bigger fish? I believe so, it is part of fishing!
Seems like ever since the Control Board implemented better control of the water flow on the lake, the clarity has been improving (which is good in some respects). Has this caused the bigger fish to be more suspended than structure oriented most of their time? If so, why are they not being caught in higher numbers in the fall when trolling? Are the baitfish patterns changing? Has the earth’s climate changes affected the fish behavior and location? Do these larger fish have bigger “ranges” during the calendar period than we believe? There are many questions we can ask each other and ourselves because IMO if you do ask, you do not learn!

[Tim Kelly]

I wonder whether it's simply a matter of constantly improving GPS technology and mapping making people braver about travelling distances and able to actively target more of the better spots in a session? I would imagine that before GPS was widely available and used people would stay fairly local to the camp they were staying in and using paper maps learned the local part of the lake only.

[Ed Spoerl]

Glad to know that others are concerned with the changing LOTW’s. I would agree that the pressure is an issue however know low pressure spots still seem to show the same trends. I am by no means an expert but it would appear that a definite environmental change is taking place. Obviously the biggest change is weed cover. I remember the days back just 10 years ago of multiple big fish relating to small weedy bays that are sand now. You could raise those fish every day until either caught or hooked. Those spots still hold an occasional fish and are worth fishing, but even the last few years has shown a decline in opportunities.
I think with the reduction in weeds most educated LOTW muskie hunters have targeted warmer time periods when the rock bite is in full swing. It doesn’t take a genius to determine prime rock structure and thus leads to more pressure on primary and secondary spots. The weeds provided more cover and security for big fish but also spread the pressure. I think we all had many less than obvious weed pockets or shorelines that were real sleepers over the years that are now barren of weeds and no longer hold fish.
Like Phil said another issue I see is water quality improving over the last 5 years. The years where it might take several days for the water to clean up after a down pour or days of wind are rare. I see fish turning off half way to the boat more often than not. One good thing is many secondary structures are exposed and spots gain more of your attention, but on the flip side structures you learned over many years are now exposed to new fishermen on their first pass. Second observation is how fat the average fish is now compared with fish caught 5 years ago. On average fish are not missing any meals and almost seem less aggressive when it comes to chasing down baits including topwater!! I made adjustments reluctantly the last several summers to treating these fish like it’s fall. Slow down and find a bait that hangs in their face long enough to entice a strike.
Gone are the easy days of casting a bucktail and topwater all day….well almost anyway. :o)
IMO these fish are becoming more open water roamers, We always had the fleet fish and shallow water fish but I think more fish are being pressured off structure. I think in the years to come we will have to work for our fish off breaks lines like the rest or the world. God I hope not!

[dpear]

Lots of good stuff here IMO.Suspect if one sifts carefully through the comments made one gets very near the truth.I'll likely throw out my thoughts on this and how to deal with it after New Years but did want to make a quick comment on pressure and mortality.NO DOUBT whatsoever there is incidental/unintentional mortality-I believe significant mortality.I'll be the Christmas grinch here and say picture taking plays a significant role in this mortality.I'm guilty as hell and have suggested I'll quit but now WILL quit.The vast majority are extremely careful with fish but...It's still legal but consider asking yourself,how many pics of muskies do I need?Will my balls fall off or my ego deflate if I quit?Wouldn't a water measurement satisfy my ego?If I throw away the bumpboard couldn't I carry more food,beverages and lures?

[Doonan]

Lots of good stuff here IMO.Suspect if one sifts carefully through the comments made one gets very near the truth.I'll likely throw out my thoughts on this and how to deal with it after New Years


when are we going to hear the rest of the story?

[dpear]

Kyle,(think it's Kyle that posted?)
Just saw your post.Haven't had time to ponder and put together a somewhat coherent response but assuming:less weed growth,increased water clarity,increasing pressure,to me means focusing more on less traditional structure,a conscious focus on 'edges' and weather,different presentations in terms of color,depth,etc and a more thoughtful approach overall.For now perhaps consider looking at the 'Fishing Guru' thread on here and posts such as # 25 and #86-90 in that thread.That's the sort of stuff I'm focusing on.

[Mr Musky]

I do not believe mortality is a factor at all, I firmly believe the amount of pressure on the NW Angle of LOTW over the past 10 years has severly affected the fish location more then anything. These fish are getting pounded week in week out with double tens all summer long especially in the milk runs off main channel areas. I think it's a combination of the pressure, cleaner water and lack of weeds that make the big girls feel uncomfortable hanging up shallow for longer periods of time then they used to. They certainly didnt leave the lake, I feel a very good portion of the big mammas no go basin for the summer just like many do on any other pressured water. They roam with the ciscoes and whitefish without ever getting bothered. I think the final frontier on the Woods is going to be open water fishing, there's certainly no shortage of water to cover but if one can find a fishable basin loaded with the motherload of baitfish I think some opportunities are certainly there to score on some crazy big fish. My 2 cents.

Mr Musky

[dpear]

Mr Musky I agree with much of what you say but disagree about 'mortality'.I think it's a large factor.Not necessarily angler incidental mortality but just plain mortality in general.Angler related IMO is probably 1-4 % but increases the larger the fish in question is.One could debate that indefinitely citing all sorts of studies ranging from 30%(47% of 'bleeders')through 16% to 6.4% to zero % but it's largely meaningless cause of so many factors involved.There are NO studies pertaining to the classes of fish I'm primarily talking about because for the most part they are not caught in the numbers required to do so.Age and condition obviously is key as it progresses.30 years ago,hit me with a pool cue,throw me in the bottom of the boat and then roll me into the water and I'd likely bob up looking for more.Look at me wrong and push me off the dock now and I'd likely tip over.Fact of life for us and muskies.
To me then,the question becomes cycles and numbers(year classes etc).Do you remember the 80s-90s on the Woods and/or in Mn?(sorry don't know your age)IMO the bonanza of big fish in Mn and to an extent on the Woods had it's start then.Tons of little fish to a few classes of great fish is what occurred IMO in significant part due to successful catch and release.IMO that is ending in both places and a partial new cycle is in progress.The final outcome of future classes is,IMO,not as clear as catch and release arguably seems to make it-and some fisheries people agree.Is the long term effect of catch and release guaranteed to produce numbers of big fish?Only time will tell but a new study may shed light on that in the next couple years.I hope so.
In the meantime,care of the BIG fish we have only makes sense.

[musky1969]

We had some good luck on deeper stuff last August stuff I would not of fished 5 years ago??? I was actually surprised!!
Darren

[dpear]

Sent to me by a friend.The plot thickens.So many boat experts,so little knowledge.
http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_25914335/minnesota-muskies-growing-huge-but-numbers-falling

[Tim Kelly]

We have a number of heavily stocked trout fisheries which for years carried out a netting policy to keep the pike numbers down by netting the spawning areas in the spring. What happened was that they killed the larger (female) fish that were spawning and it lead to an explosion of small pike. The bigger fish definitely eat the smaller ones and keep the numbers in check. When the reservoirs stopped netting the pike (as they realised people would pay good money to fish for the pike) the first few years were hopeless for pike anglers. You could go out and catch as many sub 10lb pike as you could put up with, but over the years the average size has started to increase and the numbers of little ones decrease, ending up with a relatively balanced population (for a stocked trout fishery.

I would imagine that the opposite is also true, so if there has been a new rule, or change in angler attitude, leading to less of the larger musky being killed it is likely that there is a year class or two of fish which are reaching their growth potential and probably eating a greater proportion of the smaller musky. As the big year classes grow old and die off there will be a gradual restoration of a more usual range of sizes and numbers.