The Online Source for Washington Fishing Information
Uses of Side Imaging (SI) and StructureScan (SC) technology
Now that everybody and their mother will have SI or SS in the next couple of years - what are some thoughts from some of you current users? Before everybody rushes out to invest some serious cash into it, let's recognize that the technology has already been out for several years, and many know very little about it. What are your experiences with the technology so far?
Maybe people aren't ready (willing?) to get into a serious discussion about the uses of the technology yet. I know, and if others are honest, part of the initial hesitation that some had about discussing the subject was they felt they had an advantage and to keep quiet about it while little was known. Similar to when the first paper graphs came out and then the first LCD screens came out - those that had them and knew how to use them felt they had an advantage. Today, there are guys who "know their electronics" and those who don't - but everybody has them (sonar/gps).
But within the next year or two, SI/SS will be standard equipment on most bass boats. I know I've been using the Humminbird SI for the past year and feel like I've learned alot - though it hasn't always translated into putting more fish in the boat. In fact, initially I think it may mean less fish for many who jump into the technology, especially if you really try to use it, and I'm sure many will be disenchanted and give up on it a year from now. But then others will REALLY learn to use it and will experience the real rewards of it.
At the same time, there are many out there who know squat when it comes to understanding their current electronics, yet feel they can catch fish just fine.
Maybe people aren't ready (willing?) to get into a serious discussion about the uses of the technology yet. I know, and if others are honest, part of the initial hesitation that some had about discussing the subject was they felt they had an advantage and to keep quiet about it while little was known. Similar to when the first paper graphs came out and then the first LCD screens came out - those that had them and knew how to use them felt they had an advantage. Today, there are guys who "know their electronics" and those who don't - but everybody has them (sonar/gps).
But within the next year or two, SI/SS will be standard equipment on most bass boats. I know I've been using the Humminbird SI for the past year and feel like I've learned alot - though it hasn't always translated into putting more fish in the boat. In fact, initially I think it may mean less fish for many who jump into the technology, especially if you really try to use it, and I'm sure many will be disenchanted and give up on it a year from now. But then others will REALLY learn to use it and will experience the real rewards of it.
At the same time, there are many out there who know squat when it comes to understanding their current electronics, yet feel they can catch fish just fine.
Views: 65
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Don Hogue on
-
Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Edwards on
-
In THAT case your under water camera is showing you the 'sleeping' area for the fish. They WON'T bite when they are there. If you stay on that spot and just sit there, for hours maybe, sooner or later you'll see a fish, then more fish, start yawning. Then they'll start to swim away, THEN you can catch some of those that are swimming away.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
-
As cute as your theory sounds, I actually agree with it. Most fish, more of the time than we want to admit aren't even catchable. We'd like to think we have the skills/lures to make them bite, but I think it would humble us to really know the truth.
Tom Edwards said:In THAT case your under water camera is showing you the 'sleeping' area for the fish. They WON'T bite when they are there. If you stay on that spot and just sit there, for hours maybe, sooner or later you'll see a fish, then more fish, start yawning. Then they'll start to swim away, THEN you can catch some of those that are swimming away.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
-
They have shown videos of fish yawning. And I've seen the 'theory' being discussed on a couple of the tv fishing shows, and read about it in magazines. And those people know a whole lot more than I do. So ya, it sounds like good reasoning to me.
Don Hogue said:As cute as your theory sounds, I actually agree with it. Most fish, more of the time than we want to admit aren't even catchable. We'd like to think we have the skills/lures to make them bite, but I think it would humble us to really know the truth.
Tom Edwards said:In THAT case your under water camera is showing you the 'sleeping' area for the fish. They WON'T bite when they are there. If you stay on that spot and just sit there, for hours maybe, sooner or later you'll see a fish, then more fish, start yawning. Then they'll start to swim away, THEN you can catch some of those that are swimming away.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
-
I've had the same experiences with a camera - see fish, but can't catch them even on subsequent visits. I've seen others comment on not being able to see fish with SI, but I've found it very easy to see fish with it. I've pretty much quit using a camera except for a few rare cases just to confirm something or when I'm totally stumped. I feel like I can tell what the structure/cover is and what type of fish are on it much quicker with SI.
Overall, I think they are great tools. I'd hate for people to get unrealistic expectations about them and not understand that it will take more work than before and that your fishing may actually go downhill for a time, before you start to understand how to use it- at least that has been my experience.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
Permalink Reply by Troy Pattillo on
-
Is this a ploy to keep all the sweet spots to yourselves, by discouraging noobs, like myself ,from acquiring the latest technology due to a whole new set of dauntingly unconquerable hurtles? Criminey, I just learned how to properly tie the palomar. LOL!
Actually, it's kind of cool that you guys share this insight of yours. I am one of those people that assumed a depth finder would increase my catch rate and how wrong I have been. Granted, I have only used it a total of 4 times and each one has resulted in complete consternation. How can it be that those fish I see on the screen can pass up a slow moving FB adorned with a Paca Chunk doused in BANG?
Don Hogue said:I've had the same experiences with a camera - see fish, but can't catch them even on subsequent visits. I've seen others comment on not being able to see fish with SI, but I've found it very easy to see fish with it. I've pretty much quit using a camera except for a few rare cases just to confirm something or when I'm totally stumped. I feel like I can tell what the structure/cover is and what type of fish are on it much quicker with SI.
Overall, I think they are great tools. I'd hate for people to get unrealistic expectations about them and not understand that it will take more work than before and that your fishing may actually go downhill for a time, before you start to understand how to use it- at least that has been my experience.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
-
I think it's a great tool. I'm just seeing/hearing alot of talk about the Lowrance stuff that's coming out like it's way better than any sliced bread. The technology has been around for a few years now, but who really understands how to use it and what's the verdit on it all? I mean we all know guys that don't hardly even turn their current electronics on let alone mark a waypoint, yet they still yard fish. I think it can increase your catch rate, but so can a crankbait.
It will absolutely increase your understanding of what's out there and give you a better understanding of what your sonar has been showing you all along. It will also humble you to no end when you start to realize how little you knew and how wrong what you thought you knew is.
Troy Pattillo said:Is this a ploy to keep all the sweet spots to yourselves, by discouraging noobs, like myself ,from acquiring the latest technology due to a whole new set of dauntingly unconquerable hurtles? Criminey, I just learned how to properly tie the palomar. LOL!
Actually, it's kind of cool that you guys share this insight of yours. I am one of those people that assumed a depth finder would increase my catch rate and how wrong I have been. Granted, I have only used it a total of 4 times and each one has resulted in complete consternation. How can it be that those fish I see on the screen can pass up a slow moving FB adorned with a Paca Chunk doused in BANG?
Don Hogue said:I've had the same experiences with a camera - see fish, but can't catch them even on subsequent visits. I've seen others comment on not being able to see fish with SI, but I've found it very easy to see fish with it. I've pretty much quit using a camera except for a few rare cases just to confirm something or when I'm totally stumped. I feel like I can tell what the structure/cover is and what type of fish are on it much quicker with SI.
Overall, I think they are great tools. I'd hate for people to get unrealistic expectations about them and not understand that it will take more work than before and that your fishing may actually go downhill for a time, before you start to understand how to use it- at least that has been my experience.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
-
...Or a lot less Sparky...
SPARKY said:Maybe a little less BANG!!!
Troy Pattillo said:Is this a ploy to keep all the sweet spots to yourselves, by discouraging noobs, like myself ,from acquiring the latest technology due to a whole new set of dauntingly unconquerable hurtles? Criminey, I just learned how to properly tie the palomar. LOL!
Actually, it's kind of cool that you guys share this insight of yours. I am one of those people that assumed a depth finder would increase my catch rate and how wrong I have been. Granted, I have only used it a total of 4 times and each one has resulted in complete consternation. How can it be that those fish I see on the screen can pass up a slow moving FB adorned with a Paca Chunk doused in BANG?
Don Hogue said:I've had the same experiences with a camera - see fish, but can't catch them even on subsequent visits. I've seen others comment on not being able to see fish with SI, but I've found it very easy to see fish with it. I've pretty much quit using a camera except for a few rare cases just to confirm something or when I'm totally stumped. I feel like I can tell what the structure/cover is and what type of fish are on it much quicker with SI.
Overall, I think they are great tools. I'd hate for people to get unrealistic expectations about them and not understand that it will take more work than before and that your fishing may actually go downhill for a time, before you start to understand how to use it- at least that has been my experience.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Marcantonio on
-
Catching more fish due to the Structure Scan (and I'm convinced it will) is not the goal I'm ultimately trying to achieve. For me it is all about exploring new ways to enjoy my favorite activity, and to learn more. I have used my Lowrance StructureScan exactly two days, and they have been two of the most fun days I have had all year (and I have had a fun year).
But then again, I'm one of those guys that started with the little green box flasher, and red Ambassador 5000A reels on a Garcia Conolon rod before graphite was invented. I agree that most guys don't even learn how to tell the difference between a hard bottom and silt on their sonar, and in those cases the value of any new technology for increasing your catch is questionable. But if you are like me and appreciate technology and the fun it can bring, and learn how to use it, you may find it teaches you a little something that just might put an extra fish or two in the livewell.
There aren't many short cuts, but if you take the time to learn how to use your tools to help you fill in pieces of the puzzle, then this kind of technology can make a difference and be quite satisfying.
ciao,
Marc
Troy Pattillo said:...Or a lot less Sparky...
SPARKY said:Maybe a little less BANG!!!
Troy Pattillo said:Is this a ploy to keep all the sweet spots to yourselves, by discouraging noobs, like myself ,from acquiring the latest technology due to a whole new set of dauntingly unconquerable hurtles? Criminey, I just learned how to properly tie the palomar. LOL!
Actually, it's kind of cool that you guys share this insight of yours. I am one of those people that assumed a depth finder would increase my catch rate and how wrong I have been. Granted, I have only used it a total of 4 times and each one has resulted in complete consternation. How can it be that those fish I see on the screen can pass up a slow moving FB adorned with a Paca Chunk doused in BANG?
Don Hogue said:I've had the same experiences with a camera - see fish, but can't catch them even on subsequent visits. I've seen others comment on not being able to see fish with SI, but I've found it very easy to see fish with it. I've pretty much quit using a camera except for a few rare cases just to confirm something or when I'm totally stumped. I feel like I can tell what the structure/cover is and what type of fish are on it much quicker with SI.
Overall, I think they are great tools. I'd hate for people to get unrealistic expectations about them and not understand that it will take more work than before and that your fishing may actually go downhill for a time, before you start to understand how to use it- at least that has been my experience.
Ronald Hobbs, Jr. said:I found the use of an underwater camera brought up more questions than answers as well. I have found strucure spots with my regular graph then looked at them with the camera and found there were 100 fish sitting there waiting to be caught, yet I have never to this day caught one there, but yet those fish are always there.
I think your post is totally correct, if you are looking for the golden ticket, you will not find it by buying a SI unit. It takes all the hard work as before during prefish hours on the water.
Don Hogue said:Agreed Ron,
Especially with the notion that the technology is some sort of magic bullet. If anything, it will cause you to work more because you will be so caught up in finding something. I've been burned by it a few times where I went on a hunch with something I found with the SI and tried to base my whole tournament day on something that looked "cool" and I thought was a sure thing. The bottom line is not all structure is created equal and just because something looks good to us doesn't mean it holds catchable fish. It's easy to spend hours looking, and overload yourself with hundreds of waypoints that may or may not mean something. In many ways, SI will create more questions than answers... -
-
Permalink Reply by Josh Potter on
-
My Humminbird SI unti was the first graph I ever owned with exception of the bottom end graph that came with my boat. I found it very intuitive to use and it makes perfect sense to me. It is very easy to determine bottom composition because you are not interpreting anything. It is a picture not a graph. I think it's great but don't doubt there is or will be something better. It drastically cuts down on scouting time due to the wide range it covers. It has not won me a tournament yet and I don't expect it ever will but I think it is worth the money my wife paid for it.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Bess on
-
It has not won me a tournament yet and I don't expect it ever will
You said it, not me......
Josh Potter said:My Humminbird SI unti was the first graph I ever owned with exception of the bottom end graph that came with my boat. I found it very intuitive to use and it makes perfect sense to me. It is very easy to determine bottom composition because you are not interpreting anything. It is a picture not a graph. I think it's great but don't doubt there is or will be something better. It drastically cuts down on scouting time due to the wide range it covers. It has not won me a tournament yet and I don't expect it ever will but I think it is worth the money my wife paid for it. -
-
Permalink Reply by Nick Berto on
-
I got to watch C-Rides on Washington on Sat. It was a pretty cool tool. And that is what I feel it is. For those people who can take what they see and then apply it to a fishing technique or use what they saw to help them figure out a structure, it would be great! But it doesn't mean you are going to find fish easier or catch them better, you still have to know how to fish!
It is definitly on my "to get in the future" list... -
Blog Posts
Old Farts Tournament on Potholes
Posted by Tom Melowitz on September 7, 2019 at 2:45pm
New Group Added!
Posted by Eric Urstad on April 3, 2019 at 7:38pm
© 2024 Created by Jordan Doucet.
Powered by
