Seneca Lakers going deep

[Tripleduece50]

Any one ever tried going extremely deep for large lakers on Seneca? I know during the derbies I always see boats over 300-500 fow fishing. I have tried it before and did pull a couple lakers from like 150-160 ft down. If you guy's read the great lakes anglers you know that alot of articles lately focus on extreme depths. Would love to hear if any one has any experience on this.

TD

[ray koziatek]

I used to drop stuff to 220 ft during the derbys thinking the "big one " was lurking there ..maybe he is but the 100ft ish seems to be the "hotter zone"

[chowder]

I've targeted lakers at 200+ w/ fairly poor results so far. Although I mark good numbers of fish down there, especially post spawn and coming out of winter they do not seem to be actively feeding.

[blueghost1]

This past April we did well 140-160 down on the North End when surface temp was 38. That is the deepest I ever trolled lakers

[GAMBLER]

Not Seneca but Lake Ontario. I have caught some really big lakers on the bottom in 180 -220 off of Rochester. There may be some laying on the bottom in Seneca also. Worth a try.

[Gill-T]

The deep unknown really intrigues me. Any underwater footage of deep water in the great lakes shows infertile waters devoid of life. Some diver friends of mine confirm this. Maybe gobies have reached those depths, but I wonder why the fish end up that deep. The spring Scotty events will have contestants pulling Kings off 2 colors of lead or 225' down on the bottom. My best guess is those depths are where fish end up after inactivity. If you witness a fish in a fishtank at night sleeping, it will either be suspended and maintaining it's depth with slight fin movements, or they are on the bottom, resting on the tips of their fins. Neither type of orientation would lend itself to actively chasing a bait very far. I think first you have to wake them up with a sound signature like the thump and clank of a flasher or a gang troll or a rattlebait or maybe a loud downrigger ball. When the fish snaps to attention your bait hopefully won't be too far away, so troll SLOWLY like 1-1.5 mph. I do think larger fish with their larger body mass are more likely to sink to a deeper depth where the colder water is dense enough to make them neutrally bouyant upon inactivity and sleeping. I have heard stories from divers witnessing smaller fish refusing to swim through the hazy thermocline so are therefore more likely to be above it. Personally, I have caught PLENTY of small kings below the thermocline, so maybe that theory is species specific. I know I almost never catch Steelhead below the thermocline. Of course I might just be full of shiiite

[perch predator]

I think alot of those deep marks are sturgeon. It makes sence that they would be down there eating whatever sank. I've trolled, and drifted sawbellys down below 200' and never had any luck. Next year I plan on trying to stick some big dead suckers down there on some big marks. I know you're not suposed to target those dinosaurs, but I need to pull one out of cayuga at least once. I see them dead on shore every year. A couple of years ago I found a 5'er on the shore at stewart park. They're really cool up close.

[lakebound88]

of course fishing deep in senenca seems to produce fish, very slow fishing tho, and i like to troll over towards dresden, between long point and the barge(300-500 fow) and run dippsys and riggers to a max of 100 ft. pulled a nice ten pounder up this past mem day, and some nice bows and stickbaits!! anyone doing hot for browns this year? i couldnt seem to get the "big one"