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
mrklean

Decoy Color

9 posts in this topic

Its not to early to think about spearing, this will be my first year spearing and was wondering what are good decoy colors and what to look for in decoys? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i prefer red and white or the decoys with like the floresent green. my personal favorites are the ones that look like a little nord. i also use a salmander decoy, its custom made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree i also like the red and white decoy most of the time. A red and orange decoy has worked great of some others in my spearing group, but i still like the red and white better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do like the red and white as well, but my best decoy i have is the pike looking one from Big fork, and its Orange. Cant beat it. Sorry guys, but its true, its tough to beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have found is that it is up to the individual fish.

I like to have 2 decoys and one live decoy down.

95% of the time one of them will be red and white.

I have kept the same 2 decoys down all day and some fish zero in on the one and others zero in on the other. I have even noticed some prefer decoys and some prefer live bait. Size maters also, some prefer small decoys some prefer larger. Overall I think it is best to keep a variety down there.

As far as shape goes, I have read that northerns prefer baitfish that are cigar shaped (like a northern, perch or sucker) rather than round (like a sunfish) just because they go down easier and “fit” into the cigar shaped northerns stomach better. On the other hand I have seen many small sunfish in the northerns I have speared. I always take a look at the stomach contents of the fish I spear and that tells me a lot about what the “local” fish eat. Once I know this I adapt my decoys to meet the “local conditions”.

This year I would like to try a big decoy painted like a northern (maybe 3 ft long) and see what comes up to that. I am thinking that might make the big fish more territorial and come over to check out the new kid on the block. Just a thought??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried tons of different sizes shapes and colors I like the Red and white northern style bout 12" long with an egg beater attached up top. I also have used a live decoy with a stationary decoy and has worked. I've also tried misc stuff that is shiny, Door latches (gold and silver) along with putting aluminum foil on decoys. Might sound stupid but my grandpa told me to try it and dam i was suprised how well it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try a red eye lure with no hook? Very old guys told me this dont know but would like to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew a older fisherman who fished with spoons in the winter, he took the hooks off and used the split rings to hook 3 together. If I remember right one was a red eyed wiggler , one a red-white dare devil and I can;t remember the 3rd. He told me to just jig them, raise them up about 6 in. and let them free fall or put them on a spinner and let them turn slow. I sometimes use a small red eyed wiggler under a bigger sucker, this works fairly well as I have seen bigger N.P. on this setup. The way the D.N.R.fishing law is wrote now, you can have a line and spear at the same time, I think you could leave the hook on one of the spoons. Check first though.

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