I agree with MT on this one. Yes on both counts, sometimes rattles good, sometimes not so good. The thing is, as fishermen, we do what has worked for us in the past. If you use rattles a lot, you will catch fish and say, its the rattles....why change, it works. This is of course true. Conversely, guys who don't like rattles are still catching fish, so they say, no, its better without rattles. The key is that you gotta try different things and constantly assess. The lure is really like a scanning or probing device. It gives you lots of info. One thing I often do, is that if a lure I'm using is just killing them, I remove it and try something else. For me its, hmm, wonder if this other lure will work as well? That's the fun part. Especially something new or even something very old...I'm sure a lot of you guys do the same thing. One thing I will say, again agreeing with MT and others, is that for the biggest fish around, I think no rattles will work better. This is said from experience. Rattles will pick off smaller fish, aggressive fish. Not to say big fish won't hit them, as I've caught lots of really nice fish using rattles, I'm talking about the biggest fish around. You can see this sometimes with smallies if you are fishing clear water from an elevated position, say a high shoreline bank. You cast of a floating rap say. Smaller fish will hit it almost any way you work the lure. The bigger fish sit underneath watching. Often times you can see that big fish and if you are more aggressive with the lure, it will sink out of site or even turn and swim directly away...I've found one of the best approaches in this situation is to cast out maybe near where you think the big guy is heading, but over a bit deeper water. Just let the lure sit. Thats it. Keep a tight line. Doesn't work all the time, but more often than not, whamo! The same approach can sometimes work even better with a jig. The rap will keep catching fish mind you, even some fairly big ones, but for that huge bruiser you can just barely see, cast a jig (bucktail or marabou in natural colours work best in this situation), and just let it sit on the bottom - again, keeping a fairly tight line is important. Works even better if you tip it with a small piece of worm. That big fish knows your jig is there, guaranteed. He'll just watch it, sometimes coming over and tilting down on it. Closer, closer....if you aggressively move you jig, especially after only a few seconds, nada. The fish is gone. Just let it sit. If you can stand it, this approach is deadly. After more than a minute or two, maybe just roll the jig an inch or two with a slow pull, never hopping it. Whamo!

Of course, this is just my experience. Lots of ways to catch fish. But this approach definitely works for the big ones.

Moonman.

What's really fun about fishing is that it can be so unpredictable. (Perhaps this is my tip of 'next month'). While following various patterns produces fish, there are always exceptions to the rule (loud patterns in clear water being one of them). I have also caught fish in places they shouldn't be. Yes, I follow the general 'rules' about finding and catching fish, but on a good day, I like to experiment with different methods and lures, to see what else is working...

Please be patient with me as I again present "what ifs" that seem on the face of it to be just purely for the sake of being disagreeable......that is not my intent.

I seldom if ever use loud colors/loud rattles in clear water even if I seek a reaction strike. On negative fish I prefer, and this is only my opinion, subtler colors and sounds. What I want is for that fish to not even know that lure is there until it is almost on top of it. It has but a second or two to make a decision. Loud colors/loud rattles let a fish "think" about it for to long IMO.

Of course the fascinating thing about fishing is there are days where either approach is the ticket to the exclusion of the other. Likely best to try both........I would be out of luck as I carry no loud colors at all to canoe country and I would just have to sit there as Jax says "Oh, I got another one" .

for the neutral/negative fish that reaction strike i feel obnoxious colors with loud rattles are the way to go. firetiger especially. its not really an 'i want to eat you bite' but rather a 'what is that and why is it here' reaction. its like a dog that mouths things. thats how the test stuff out. but the rest i agree with. i dont think you get a reaction strike from a negative fish using a natural pattern without some obnoxious rattles.

with that said, ive sorta started to fall in love with minnow raps. very cisco shaped and the natural shad pattern has my mouth watering.

Man, I know I can be a pain the rear at times..........but in the best spirit of furthering the discussion

I am with you on trolling picking up active fish......no question about it.

I'm also with you on casting is probably the very best way to work a particular piece of structure (although I can follow a break line pretty dang well while trolling).

And I'm also with you on being able to "tease" neutral or even negative fish into nibbling by casting and retrieving.....lots more control.

But......(you knew that was coming didn't you) I also think I can get neutral and even negative fish to strike a trolled lure. It is called a reaction strike and I know Mr. Jax is very familiar with the concept. Whats nice about a trolled lure is that I can keep it in the strike zone for extended periods. Sooner or later while bumpin bottom a walleye is going to have to decide to get out of the way or smack the crap out of this obnoxious cisco that is so stupid as to disturb its repose.

good discussion. i agree trolling covers more water. no denying that. however, fish school and congregate on food supplies and structure, so once i find those by trolling, i zone in with casting. i dont cast for trout because they move around too much and trolling is more effective. walleyes hug structure (or follow baitfish schools) so they are more easily caught casting. i feel like i can catch negative fish casting around them when they dont want to bite, whereas trolling picks up active fish but leaves the negative fish untouched.

Preacher wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:


I agree with Preacher here in a big way. Sometimes I do target shallow fish when trolling and that is when I let a lot of line out. Not at all unusual for me to dump 1/2 my spool with an original floating rapala. Keep in mind that with mono there will be substantial line stretch and for that reason I am apt to generally point the rod at the lure much more than otherwise. This makes the connection between hook and jaw much quicker.

Most of my fish are caught trolling.  Even discounting all the time I spend trolling while exploring, which is near half my fishing time.

The only exception is bass.  I'll putter around hitting structure for them all day long.  Depending on the lake & the fishing I might still be in sight of the camp by the end of the day.  Going from Mosquito Point I barely made it to Pickerel Narrows and back in time for dinner!

Trolling simply covers more water.  Also, with more line out there's fewer spooked fish around.

I make this post at some risk of being a disagreeable type chap (who me ). While I love casting for walleyes and feeling that "tick" when they hit a jig, I honestly find that I catch most of my eyes by trolling Jax.

I think I have it down pretty well though and they generally need to be 15' or deeper lest I spook them. I like 6lb test mono, a 9' steelhead rod and I find a good rod holder a must. The long rod gets a nice bend, I ease around nice and quiet with an occasional glance at the depth finder and before you know it there is a walleye......."oh, its a nice one to" . 

i guess i should mention a few points of interest. when considering trolling lures i pretty much aim for what i think the trout will like most and let the rest fall into place. i dont think trolling up in the Q is the best way to pick up walleyes. i view it as a trout first, because you are paddling and there is a rod and a holder and a lure so why not second sort of option. i know not everyone is of the same mindset, but let me continue. i wonder what lures have caught the most trout over the years. flies, spoons, and inline mepps spinners would be my first guesses(when it comes to artificials). flies are silent completely sight based lures. spoons are big and flashy but on the silent side. and mepps are quiet but provide turbulence for the lateral line. and here we chat about rattles. i must think on this further!