Tags:
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
...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...
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.
Posted by Tom Melowitz on September 7, 2019 at 2:45pm
Posted by Eric Urstad on April 3, 2019 at 7:38pm
© 2024 Created by Jordan Doucet. Powered by