Sk8man

WTG Keith

Wish they still had the 30 Sutton 44's that I donated years ago Mike. I believe the barge itself is in exactly 500 ft with the cables stretching outward to a little greater depth Years ago I talked with one of the workers about it. When they are testing he said the sonar would be influenced by the motor noise of my (at the time) 4 horse kicker for about four miles or more and he requested I shut it down at the time.

I have contacted Elmer Hinckley lures about the copper finish concerns Brian. As I am sure folks realize copper is a "touchy" material and moisture (even high humidity)can wreak havoc on it. He is looking at and working on solutions as we speak. He takes a lot of pride in his product so I'm confident it will be solved (possibly by lacquering etc.). In any event the lure action seems the most critical variable and these spoons really work very well.

Crestliner I have used Suttons for nearly as long as you have been alive and I agree with your comments regarding them. I now have mainly switched to Elmer Hinckleys for my primary flutters on Seth Greens and riggers. They have slightly different action and the plating is much better than the current Suttons and the hooks are stronger. I also have a few Suttons that my grandfather used too back in the early 1900's which I very much treasure. The Suttons and Hinckleys were developed on Canandaiugua about the same time (around just before the turn of the century ( late 1800's) and they both work great on all the Fingers that have trout/salmon, and some work for walleyes as well. Both spoons were designed at a time when fishermen used rowboats to fish them so they were designed for slower speeds than some of today's spoons seem to excel at running, Some run better at select speed ranges so knowing these ranges can make things more effective when using them. I consider the Sutton flutters a bit fragile for Lake O especially the trebles they come with. I have had a king actually rip the hook right off one of them previously and it tore the rear hole open. The heavier versions work Ok with the hooks changed out to single SS salmon hooks.

My hunch is that increasing GPS speed may be irrelevant. Subterranean currents are complex and often follow structure in most lakes and Lake Ontario has mixed currents as well but not as much structure and drop-offs that may you see in other lakes; BUT it has strong inflow from the Niagara River at the west end and strong outflow at the east end and the St.Lawrence which probably greatly influence the currents along with wind direction and velocity. So underneath the water is anyone's guess about strength and even in some cases direction as with mixed currents and you can run in and out of them as well in different parts of the lake and even within the water column at different depths.

Yes that video really captured the reality of the situation. Trolling into or against the current and across it may be one of the most important factors out there and just randomly changing out spoons because of no fish action may not be the answer. Aside from the obvious changing lures for the color and size etc. it does have a couple or more useful functions though. Taking care of flea build-up, which in addition is a pain to clean off in bulk it may also allow fish to see your line and possibly spook them, and especially with downriggers the release of the line may trigger following or nearby fish and sending it back down may attraction as well. When I release downriggers I usually let them "float" upward for a bit and sometimes they take hits this way (rather than fast reeling them in immediately). When trolling for browns near bottom in 40-90 ft of water this can be very effective. Two seemingly "identical" lures may in fact not be so identical in action as even minor changes can influence this like two different sized or types of swivel snaps for instance or slight bends in a spoon (possibly unnoticed). I think trolling WITH the current is mostly a waste of time but I'm sure others may swear by it but as in the video it kills the action of the spoons.

Not exactly sure where that is coming from but maybe my rationale for thinking the way I do should be mentioned. Starting with physiological factors: color perception is different for most species and is thought to be different from human color perception as well as many species including fish see more of the electromagnetic spectrum (.e. wavelengths) than we do, and possibly including UV for example. Color perception is complicated and there are other physiological components that are more basic to functioning in most living organisms and more important to their survival. a primary one is detection of movement, another is the perception of figure/ground. These are more primary (primitive) functions in the brain and neurological systems and relate to survival of the species. In this case, the fish needs to detect movement and determine whether predator or prey. Trout and salmons eyes are located forward and toward the top of their heads so they mainly locate possible predators and live food sources looking forward or up when swimming in the water column. Any movement may either attract or repel them. Figure/ground (or the discrimination of foreground object from the background and contrast) comes into play here while looking up or forward the fish detects the shape and size of an object along with the movement and its shape is highlighted by the sky and gives the characteristic shape they know as bait or else something to stay away from possibly. This may also be a reason why black or dark lures often seem to work real well as they stand out more against to sky. If the object appears "vulnerable" in some way they go after it if determined to be potential food and not something to stay away from. This relationship can occur (and does) even in very unclear water along with possible vibrations, chemical scent etc. If a fish was highly dependent on color alone it would not be adaptive to their survival. Is this a "personal" theory ? Yes. It is based on knowledge of fish physiology, animal behavior and perception/cognition, and over seventy years of fishing for salmon and trout. Are there other factors? probably and including color perception. That is why I said what I said.

I've been saying for years that the most important factors seem to be action of lure, proximity to the fish. and appearing "vulnerable" to the fish attracted to it. I have believed for some time that color is down the line in priority. Most fish are "opportunists" so the above fits that model.