Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Benny

lorance x85?

5 posts in this topic

I have a Lorance X85, up in Canada I mark fish every where on Lac Suel Res. But here on Mille Lacs, it doesn't seem to pick up the fish. I did not change any settings, just ran on auto in both areas. Is it do to the rock botom on Lac Suel that the fish show there? I tried shallow and deep (5ft to 45ft ) and fish swoed up in all depths, but on Mille Lacs all I saw was weeds and some bait fish. I find it hard to believe there were no fish there as others were catching walleyes.
Thanks, Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be many reasons that you do not pick up fish on Mille Lacs. If the fish are laying right on the bottom they are extremely hard to spot on sonar. Also fish on a heavily fished water will move away from a boat even in deeper water putting them out of the cone angle and unable to be seen on the screen. Direction that you are moving on the structure can make a difference too, going from deep to shallow will give different readings that shallow to deep. The rock bottom of Lac Seul could effect the reading but not that much. On Mille Lacs wwe have never marked a great many fish usually on here and there. Without knowing all of the settings on your X-85 it is hard to give you a real clear answere. Even in auto no sonar unit is perfect at determining all of the water conditions. Sometimes you have to override its settings to get the best presentation.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob, I usualy try changing the settings but for this test I did nothing differant. I may have been as you said the fish are just moving away from the boat. Up north it is not uncommon to go all day and only see one boat.
Thanks for the confedance boost, Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Doc, I have marked fish both in canada and mille lacs in less than 15ft. But it seems to be 20 times more in lac suel res than in mille lacs. I try adjusting the sensitivity all the time, usually get faverable results. But for the test I did this year I only used auto. We caught fish every time we marked them on lac suel , but no marks on mille lacs and no fish. Others around us were catching tons of walleyes trolling raps, maybe as said before the fish moved away from the boat and we did not have enough line out?
Well I will keep trying to get it come next year, my storage place is waiting for me to bring it in. He locks the doors just before deer season starts.
Thanks for your input, Benny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming you are fishing in more than 20 feet of water. If you are fishing shallower than that, I wouldn't expect to mark too many fish because of the area of the transducer cone.
I have has my best luck using the sensitivity set on manual. I have a LMS-350 which is basically the same sonar system as the X-85. On my unit I set it at 53% and never change it. Unfortunatly on the LMS-350 this forces you to adjust the depth range manually as well. I have never had much luck consistantly marking fish in auto mode.
I determined the 53% value by jigging a 1/4 ox jig directly below the boat in 30 feet of water while in creasing the sensitivity until I could see the jig on the sonar screen. This is easiest to do on a calm day since you have to be right under the transducer.
Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
    •  Come on.   The world, life is a bit more complicated then that.          Quit passing the blame. Your whole thesis is on choice and owning it.   Let me guess, you hate big banking also since they made it easy to refinance and purchase.   It just proves that general society is incapable of making the right decisions as a whole.   Sorry, you go down with the ship.    
  • Our Sponsors