Posts: 4,139
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2002
Reputation:
0
[font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3]When WH2 and I were up there Friday we saw the exact opposite. There were very few fish deep and several fish in the 20 ft and shallower. Same results though.....no bites! At least you had the luxury of glass smooth water and no wind. We fought the wind and waves all the time we were out. We had 200 ft of anchor rope out and still had a rough time not pulling loose.[/size][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3]If you didn't catch any of the fish you saw on sonar, how do you know the fish you were looking at were lake trout? Just wondering..... I've heard reports of several nice cuts being caught though.[/size][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 1,919
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
0
To answer your question BLM, because when you fish for lakers, thats what is not biting your hook. It is really a simple concept. [sly] Ha Ha. Thanks for the report Rip n lips. I keep waiting for the news to be good so I can put the shot gun and rifle down and feel the cork again.
Posts: 582
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation:
0
I'm assuming most of the fish I saw on the fish finder were Macs because they were hugging the bottom (undetectable by sonar until they raised for the jig) and in 70 - 80 feet of water. A few could have been Cutts, but it's unlikely that many of them were at that depth and hugging the bottom. There is the possibility that they could have all been white fish however. BLM and I have both seen such behavior by marks on the bottom and out deep and after a few hook-ups they've proven to be all White Fish.
Stone had a blurb in the latest F&H News and seemed to think that although the Macs are not actively feeding during the spawn, they could be enticed to byte on occasion if you put the right lure right on their nose. Of course we already knew that didn't we.
[signature]