-
If you are posting pictures, and they aren't posting in the correct orientation, please flush your browser cache and try again.
Edge
Safari/iOS
Chrome
fishing reports
- Thread starter bueller
- Start date
bueller
Moderator
Yep in a river. 4-6' foot of water with deeper water nearby.
Bill
Administrator
Not yet. February, March and April had the Gulf Stream so close to the coast that it looked like this was going to be a killer year. It rolled back.
I have faith. The killer year comes when everyone else stops fishing. August and September
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
There are a number of pro fishermen voicing the same sentiments. It will be interesting to see where this goes. A number of state fishery dept have done studies and are changing fish bag limits - in large part - because of more fish being removed from the system due to ffs. So instead of regulating ffs, they are penalizing all fishermen - including those who have never used ffs.
Ethics aside, it is interesting to me that those same agencies, who quickly ban baiting for deer hunting in a cwd zone because they feel baiting has a negative affect on the resource - yet when ffs has a negative effect on the resource they reduce bag limits. And I do realize that baiting and ffs dont necessarily affect the resource in the same way - ffs is not spreading disease among the fish - but at what point do the agencies say enough is enough. MN is planning on going from a six walleye limit to a four walleye limit, in part due to new advanced technology. Why not just ban the advanced technology? Do they wait until the fish population is reduced by 50%, 75%? What will be the breaking point - if ever - when there are laws that restrict ffs?
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
In a weird way, I’m enjoying watching all of this from the sidelines. These are the laws of unintended consequences. You want to make things easier and easier and lower the threshold for success and it inevitably comes with repercussions. To me, the baiting thing is a good example. Both of these items reduce the effort required to be successful and both of these items make the activity less about the pursuit and more about the outcome. The part I love is where the guys rail on it and talk about it’s evils and consequences on one hand and then the other hand say yeah, but we still use it. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
I think MDJ knows it is hypocrisy - but he also realizes he cant make a living bass fishing if he does not use ffs. I see the parallel with baiting and ffs in some ways, but different in other ways. I am right there with MDJ, only with baiting. We started baiting ten years ago to help the grand daughters kill a deer - but continue to do it mainly to reduce the harvest from the neighbors. Selfish, isnt it. Our overall annual harvest has not increased since we started baiting - with the exception of one outlier of a day.
But on the same hand - I would pay decent money if they would stop all baiting here. My hunting would get much better - for several reasons. - and cheaper. But yes, I am going to bait as long as my neighbors do. Like going duck hunting and there are four hunting parties within 400 yards - and they are killing all the ducks using spinning wing decoys and you havent fired a shot without. Does the fact that you keep going duck hunting and not killing ducks - but stay true to your ethics - while all the neighboring hunters are pounding them - make it worth the effort? In some individual cases - maybe - but not in the big picture.
Like duck hunting hot crops. Yes, it is legal, but is it ethical. If LA Senator Kennedy has his way, it is going to be stopped. I have literally had hunters tell me “yeah, but you kill your deer on private - that aint nothing like hunting public”. And they are not wrong. Most of us tend to employee easier hunting and fishing methods in an effort to aide our success - at least to varying degrees.
I dont even see ffs being effective in fisheries management because of the propensity for fishermen to seek out the larger of the species. If it was not for baiting, you could not drive down the road in many southern states without hitting a deer. I dont think allowing ffs only on lakes that are over populated with small fish is going to work.
It is going to be interesting how all this shakes out. Some states that allow baiting are still seeing over population of deer - like KY. Game and fish departments are proving ffs is negatively affecting the fisheries resources and they are not restricting its use - yet
Telemark
5 year old buck +
I think Ohio has been relaxing regulations intentionally in order to make it easier to harvest deer. The number of deer hunters has dropped significantly, especially adult residents. Senior hunters are increasing, and youth and non-resident hunters are stable or increasing. Crossbow harvest is skyrocketing, presumably among senior and youth hunters.
The state puts out detailed harvest reports. It's an interesting read, but it's been months since I went through one thoroughly. I certainly got the impression the ODNR has no intention of backing off on baiting or crossbows. They need the dwindling number of hunters to be as successful as possible in order to keep harvest numbers on track with their management goals.
It would be interesting to see the result of a minimum point restriction for bucks. My guess would be a serious increase in buck quality, which would cause a surge in participation, driving up revenue as well as overall harvest numbers. I would be quite happy to at least give it a try for 5 years and see how it goes.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Obviously this is not the same as bait. Totally different beast. The comparison I see though is both of these things make it easier to be successful. I don’t think that success will ever necessarily endanger most species. What I think it will impact is quality. Just like bait I believe reduces quality of bucks, I think ffs will reduce the quality of all fisheries. Between catching and keeping species like perch and walleye and catching and stressing species like bass and musky, the overall net effect will be a reduction is quality
I believe ffs and baiting reduce quality of fish and quantity of fish. The MN study showed diminished catch rate of all walleyes. An older AR study showed ffs users caught twice as many crappie - but didnt keep significantly more than non-ffs users - but the ffs caught fish averaged larger. But with fish just like deer, as availability of quality diminishes, lesser quality will make up the difference. I have four or five neighbors who hunt over bait. They are non selective. They want freezer fillers. The first four or five adult deer that show up get killed - mosly does but a few small bucks - rarely a quality deer. Point being - bait is used to kill a lot of does. My neighbors would have a tough time killing any deer without bait. My wife and I keep a smaller grade of fish now on our home lake because fishing has become horrible. When we had a lot of ducks, we never shot a wood duck or ring neck. Now we pray for one.
The majority of folks are gonna do, legally, what they need to, to be successful hunting or fishing.
Telemark
5 year old buck +
What is the great benefit of FFS to the average fisherman in an average lake?
I just saw a detailed video of a Lowrance Eagle Eye 9, and I don't think it would help me one bit. It seems basically useless in clear water under 10 feet deep, because I can see the fish with my eyes from farther away with a pair of polarized sunglasses. In water deeper than 10 feet I can see a fish 20 feet in front of my boat? Is that supposed to be some big game changer over my ordinary chirp sonar?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's neat. I intentionally looked at the cheapest one to get a realistic idea of what technology I could afford. But I don't think it would help me catch a lot more fish.
I just saw a detailed video of a Lowrance Eagle Eye 9, and I don't think it would help me one bit. It seems basically useless in clear water under 10 feet deep, because I can see the fish with my eyes from farther away with a pair of polarized sunglasses. In water deeper than 10 feet I can see a fish 20 feet in front of my boat? Is that supposed to be some big game changer over my ordinary chirp sonar?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's neat. I intentionally looked at the cheapest one to get a realistic idea of what technology I could afford. But I don't think it would help me catch a lot more fish.
I fish a clear water lake a few times a year - Lake Ouachita. I can see a fish ten feet away with my naked eye. Probably cant see a fish 20 ft away. I am FAR, FAR AWAY from a ffs expert. I would classify myself as a beginner, even though I have had my setup five years - I dont use it very much. In ten feet depth of water, I can see a fish 50 ft away with ffs. Others can probably see a 1 lb fish 75 ft or farther. I can see a 1/4 oz jig 50 ft away. You dont know how many fish you might be spooking. You can spot a 2’ diameter boulder in ten ft of water, 40 ft away and cast all around it. If you see fish coming out from behind the boulder and not biting, you can change your presentation in real time - change your bait and see how they react. Fish swims off 40 ft away - follow it and keep throwing different baits until you piss it off and it bites. In 3 or 4 ft of water, switch to perspective mode and see a fan shaped visual 50 ft out from the front f the boat.
You are describing water ffs really shines in. Clear water where fish might be spooky. Your situation is perfect.
Angus 1895
5 year old buck +
My buddy in Texas said it works great for catfish. You can
see their eyes as they lay on the bottom of the resivoir.
see their eyes as they lay on the bottom of the resivoir.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Poor musky are going to get hammered. They can’t hide
Telemark
5 year old buck +
Seriously? That's amazing. What model do you have?
I have the Gamin Livescope with 106sv screen and started with the LVS32 transducer but upgraded to the LVS 34 transducer about two years ago. I live on a shallow lowland cypress reservoir where we fish a lot of 3 to 5 ft water filled with a cocktail of emergent and submergent vegetation. Not a great place for ffs - but still plenty of areas it is applicable. Mine is a ten inch screen. A lot of serious fishermen have upgraded to 16” - and larger.
My biggest problem is in the back of the boat - my wife. She hates livescope. With ffs, In many instances, it is like the guy in the front of the boat is watching a super action movie and the person in the back of the boat is in a dark closet sucking hind tit.
I just leave it on a lot while we fish down the bank and if I see an obvious target i will fish it. My home lake is full of fish of all sorts and I am not adept enough to know one from the other. I might be fishing for a gizzard shad or a gaspergou - I dont know because I dont have enough screen time. I have been with some guys crappie fishing - where it really excels. We would ease along scanning trunks of long dead standing timber - broke off just below the waters surface. You could see nothing above the surface. There are fish of some sort on 1/4th of the dead trees. These crappie experts could tell if they were bass, white bass, catfish, bream, crappie - and the size of them. They would not put a bait in the water if they didnt think it was a crappie - and of decent size.
Earlier this year, we were fishing down the bank and came to a creek mouth and the creek surface was covered with logs and floating vegetation. My screen showed a number of fish holding under that stuff. We threw some plastic worms but no takers. The water was eight feet deep and the fish were holding two feet off the bottom, three or four feet back under the mass. I switched to a slip cork with a 1/8 oz splitshot and crappie minnow. I held the boat about 25 feet back from the edge of the logs and cast up a foot or two from the logs. I could see my minnow and split shot - and the fish. I could target each individual fish, watch them swim two or three feet to the minnow, and I knew a fish had sucked the minnow in before the bobber moved.
I use ffs a lot more on lakes with less vegetation in the water. Lake Ouachita is a clear water upland lake with very little submerged cover where we fish. We fish a lot of breaking fish - which are visual, but when they go down, they cant get away. We can throw a minnow like grub at them forty feet away and drag it right across their nose. And I am a babe in the woods with this technology compared to a lot of folks who have it. And it scares me because I have seen what it can do.
To be honest - I dont think the bass fishermen are going to rape the resource down here in the south because a lot of them dont keep fish. The crappie fishermen are a different story. Most people catch crappie to eat. Until ffs, we didnt know in winter time crappie would school in open water holding 20 ft deep in 100 ft of water. We always thought they were structure related fish and no one could successfully fish the open water crappie before ffs. No one even knew they were there. It was a crappie’s refuge from fishermen. No more. Easy pickings.
This technology is only going to get better. And the MN walleye study showed a steady increase in users year over year. I think the most vulnerable fish will be those targeted for eating - like walleyes and crappie - and the big fish of any species - muskies, bass, alligator gar, catfish, lake trout, etc - especially if they live in open water lakes with little cover.
