"Graph" fishing

[eyepatrol]

Just wondering how many people rely on seeing fish on their graph before they decide to fish a spot. For myself, there's been times when I haven't graphed fish, but have yet caught fish, especially in shallower water and along weelines. I'll fish areas where I don't graph fish, but I don't spend much time there if I don't get a hit within about 30 minutes. I'll move to my next spot.

Thoughts? Comments?

[james_walleye]

One thing i definately rely on with my graph is schools of baitfish. If i find schools of baitfish there are walleyes around.

[LocalGuide]

To me it depends on how deep I am going to fish too. If I am targeting fish in like 15' or shallower I don't rely on the graph to much except for weedlines and bottom structure/content. But if I'm fishing +20' then sometimes I will rely on my finder.

Normally anywhere next to a weedline I wont count on the finder that much. Since walleyes can sit deep in the weeds and see your bait and dart out. But if them fish are active and roaming you should be able to see them above the weeds depending on how deep your fishing.

On one lake I fish the weedline is at about 26' of water. Its that sand grass or w/e all over down there since the lake is so clear. It can grow up to about 4' or so. Once them walleyes start moving around a top of the weeds I can see them plain as day. But if they are in some little pockets then it get real tough to read on the finder.

Then if I do mark fish I will definitely sit and try to fish them for a while. If I don't I might stop at a spot for 15 mins or so and if I don't catch anything move onto another spot.

Like james_walleye mentioned, its useful to find schools of baitfish and then target eyes around them also.

[musky hunter]

I'm constantly using the graph, but not necessarily looking for fish. You don't see that many walleyes in shallow water, almost never. Shallow being 10' or less. But seeing the structure and bait fish is invaluable. Of course, if I did find a group of fish in, say, 20', it's worth a try.

As for how long you'll stay in a spot without catching a fish: 5-10 minutes is long enough. Either the presentation is wrong, the fish aren't there, or they are in a negative mode. I've always felt the first few casts have the highest probability of success in any one given area. If no results, the question sooner or later becomes "is more of what isn't working the answer?"

[leechlake]

In shallow water the sonar cone is relatively small and the fish can spook to the sides therefore you don't "graph" them very often. Depending on the degree of the cone angle you can search for fish at deeper depths with sucess, the light penetration isn't as good so the boat doesn't make a shadow spooking fish and the noise is less. When you see fishing shows showing pro's scouting for fish I think it can be a bit misleading, if you're targeting fish in 8-12' in the Spring cruising at 8mph and looking for them is pretty fruitless from my experience. Maybe I'm just bad with my electronics somebody correct me if they have different experience. If you have a vexilar you can turn it to LP (low power) in the weeds and you will mark fish that are laying in the weeds.

[eyepatrol]

That's pretty much how I typically use my locator. Finding structure, bottom content, weedlines and other features. I've found that fish will show up on my graph when fishing say 13' or deeper, but the shallow water fishing typically doesn't show much other than content/structure.

Biggest problem I have is identifying suspended fish on my locator. The areas I fish (McLeod Co., Meeker Co., Nicollet Co) all have plenty of carp in them and I sometimes naturally assume if I mark suspended fish, that it's carp. But, in other discussions I've had on the forum, those could very well be walleye. Next time I do mark suspended fish like that, I'm gonna pull out a shad rap and make a few casts or troll it along over them!

Thanks for the replies!

[Captain B.R.K]

Great post and glad I stumbled on to this one! I'm in the "which graph do I buy" stage and this was one of my biggest questions as to utilize the graph effectively.

[eyepatrol]

Captain BRK

I'm getting to the point of "which graph do I buy" pretty soon also. Right now I've got a 7-year old Lowrance X-65 which will show fish, weedlines, structure, etc. BUT, I really want to upgrade! I really like those color graphs they got now. I'm not so big on GPS and ones you can download lake maps onto as the lakes I fish are typically less than 1000 acres (except Rainy, but there again I really don't need GPS or anything). It's probably wishful thinking for me at this time, need to come up with a little bling bling! The new graphs though are so much more advanced already compared to what was available 7 years ago. Kind of like computers....when they get 3 or 4 years old they're out-dated!

[Captain B.R.K]

The bling-bling $$$$ would be nice right about now huh for both of us:)

I debating w/ the LMS-480 or LMS-332c. I really like the option of putting in a navionics chip if I wanted to buy one. Fishing on contours and knowing the lay of the land is 10 times better than fishing in the dark.

But if it comes down to it, any graph on the market today is better than what I got. I have an older lowrance, a model that Cabela's sold exclusively with Gary Roach's endorsement. To this day I have not graphed any BANANA's on it....frustrating.

That is why I'm looking to upgrade!

[Bushwacker]

Two summers ago a buddy and I were pulling cranks at sunset and there was a long line of boats getting off so we decided to troll in front of the access until the everyone else was loaded. Up to that point I never had any trust in my graph except for finding depth. We were in 65 feet of water and fish started showing up 20 ft down. I said to my buddy, "this thing is showing fish 20 feet down in 65 feet of water, yeah right," Bam, zing line was spooling. I pulled in a nice 25" walleye. I made sure we had the graph in the picture before the release because that was the first fish that I ever used a graph to catch. After that I have relied on my graph for archs to locate baitfish and gamefish.

By the way Captain BRK, I have debated the 480 or the 332 for a couple months and now I am sold on the 332. The selling point was finding a store that had both of them set up next to each and walking back a few feet. The color makes a huge difference.

[gspman]

Get the color graph. There's no comparison. Especially if they have the same pixel count.

[Guido]

Quote:

---

Get the color graph. There's no comparison. Especially if they have the same pixel count.

---

Why?

Can you detect fish inside schools of bait/ fish. Or what?

Better Separation?

How Important is Separation?

i could go on all day about depthfinders.

[gspman]

The separation isn't different as that's a power and sensitivity of the transducer thing. Separation is important but you don't get more separation just because of color.

Our eyes were built for seeing colors. It's so much easier to discern between different colors than different shades of gray. A fish could be in weeds and you'd never or rarely see it on a gray scale graph. But on a color graph it'll be easier to see. Even fish laying on the bottom are easier to see. Also the color screen is simply just easier to see under most conditions.

There's a reason why most walleye pro's now are using color graphs and it ain't because they get them for free. It's because it helps be better fishermen and fisherwomen.

[steel24]

Pixels and Power are your two main things to look at. the 104c would be the unit I would go with if you have the cash. A color unit with great power and a high pixel count.

PS- I own a color and a standard model and the color is easier to read period. Also it is a more expensive unit.

[Captain B.R.K]

Yipper's going to pick up a LMS-332c unless something drastic changes in the next few weeks! Basically put the LMS-480 next to the LMS-332c and for $100 more- I'm going color. I mean I'm spending that kind of money anyhow, might as well buy what I want.

The selling point--being able to pick up fish vs. fish blending into the bottom (gray colors).

Enough said.