Can someone explain to me why a person might want to use a fly-rod while trolling?  I thought the advantage of a fly-rod was superior presentation possibilities; for trolling, I would think the presentation would be pretty much the same, whatever rod you are using.   :question

The flyrod is my primary rod when I travel to the BW's, it's not a matter of it being a "better" rod for trolling, it is just usually the one I have rigged up.  As far as trolling, It's not my primary fishing method, I prefer casting, but If I am in travel mode, why not drape a line out behind me?   I've picked up some nice pike this way.    If I am on an unfamiliar lake, it's a great way to find weed beds/reefs etc.

Mike

Thanks guys.  I haven't been a fish guy.  And I can learn some things easily--like how to tie a knot.  But there's also a culture, and that's harder to learn.  And in fact, as I read various folks who contribute here, I think there are several cultures going on.  Some of you want records.  Some of you want finesse.  Some of you want specific kinds.  And now here's Moonman--I suspect he would enjoy a single catch on his own fly when no one else is succeeding on anything, than I would a whole bunch of nice fish--forget the fact that mine were caught when anyone with a hook in the water got their limit.  

One thing I thought I should mention is a presentation method that really works for me on summer walleyes. A slow troll along drop offs or the deep weed edge in around 12-15 feet of water with a streamer and a clear intermediate line. A sink tip, or type 2-3 sinking line do not work near as well.

This has been deadly the last few years. The line seems to be the reason. Also maybe in combination with the streamer pattern. My usual canoe partner only spin fishes and is usually trolling a rapala (floating/husky jerk/shad rap), while I am trolling the streamer. With this clear line that sinks about 1.5 -2 inches per second, I am just above the deep weeds. The pattern that has been really working is an angel hair streamer, about 3 - 3.5 inches long, pearl belly and blue or goldish green back. With 3D eyes in gold for gold/green back, and silver with blue back. We'll make repeated trolls over a known good area and I will get a fish or hit almost every time. My buddy, nada.

Besides the line, maybe the fact that the streamer is more silent. Even without rattles, all lures are very loud if you listen to them under water. This same pattern has been working on a wilderness lake we fish every year, late June or first week of July.

Still, I can't say that this approach is better than spin fishing, its just different and I'm sure a worm harness would work great as well, but it truly has been killing 3-5 pound walleyes the last few years.

Moonman.

Those would work I'm sure - especially on pike. Almost anything works on pike. Those flashy profile flies and others similar are found in a book I have, Innovative Saltwater Flies. Great read. A big head, either deer hair or wool etc really sends out some vibrations and adds to the effectiveness of the fly. Larry Dahlberg has some great tips on his site, 'Hunt for Big Fish'.

I tie up some really big nasties for muskies though, some up to 14 inches long...some articulated etc. I usually only toss them (troll them) in fall on Georgian Bay. As you know, those muskies are few and far between compared to some inland waters but they are monsters. A friend of mine who has a cottage there and downrigs for salmon said a guide told him that muskies occasionally attack salmon being brought in by guys downrigging. We're talking adult salmon 12-20 pounds on average!

A lot of muskie guides use smaller flies though - 6 to 10 or 12 inches. The key is castability. For walleyes anything up to 3- 6 inches will work I'm sure, basically mimicking typical forage. I also catch walleyes on nymphs/dragon fly patterns.

Maybe I'll take a few pics and upload some of my muskie flies...

Moonman.

Hi Tim.

I read that article, good stuff. Attached you'll see a pic of a huge muskie (52") caught by Nick Pujic, a Canadian fishing writer/guide/filmaker. I don't know him or anything, I just love this pic!

Moonman.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Mountain_Paddler wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 3:14am:

While that rigging would be OK for Colorado, you'll find that you won't be boating many fish in canoe country with that.  Its not so much that you can't work a fish to get them to the boat with 1 lb line.  Its just that most species up there have teeth, so you'll likely suffer numerous bite-offs.  So unless you are boating a small mouth bass, I'd not recommend you sticking your fingers in the fish's mouth (and gill plates on fish like pike can be like razor blades).

dd

solotripper wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

The shadow cast by the fish seems inconsistent.

dd

mikea wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:


I don't mean to impugn him as a person or a fisherman, but who's to say he wasn't the butt of a prank?

I found a on-line Muskie site that you enter length/girth if known and you get estimated weight. I don't know what they use for a calcualting point for girth, but I would say that muskie was fairly big in that regard.
Just entering length, it would way at least 40+ pounds.

Now I can't tell by picture, but it doesn't appear that Nick is a real big guy? Look how he's holding that huge fish. His right arm/hand from what I can tell is extended away from his body. Same with his left. He's kneeling on a boat deck. I never held a fish of that size, but I do know something about handling heavy weights from work/exercise. Unlike a solid weight, a live object is more like handling a sack of wet sand. It moves and shifts as you hold it. Try holding 40+ lbs of "loose weight" out away from your body, with your arms extended, kneeling on a surface that may/may not be bobbing up and down? A lot harder than you would think. I bet most people would have a hard time balancing in the position he's in under such a load.

Most pics of fish this size, the guy holding them is either using a two handed grip and holding the fish vertical off of his body, tight in to shoulder for support.
Either that, their clutching them with both arms/hands into chest for support/control.

Even the ratio of his right hand size looks off to his body size, unless he's, got hands like a NBA player?

Nice fish never the less, but the more I look the less authentic it appears.

Its just that this version of the fish looks more realistic.  Perhaps the other photo looks out of scale due to the camera angle (or a lens change).  This one looks to be 52 inches.  The other looks more like 70".

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Either way, its an impressive fish.

dd

A_A,

If it's good enough for your experienced eye, then who am I too doubt it.
dd's comment make sense, and the 2nd pic looks more " natural", so I apologize for being a little skeptical.

Ancient_Angler wrote on Mar 16^th, 2011 at 8:55pm:


A_A,

I'm more skeptical now than I ever was.
With the ability for "pranking" now mostly limited only by someone's computer skills, the old adage " Seeing is believing", no longer holds true

As for my judgment being good, that's a subject that's open for debate on any given day