Crappie Fishing Beaver Lake

[Feathers and Fins]

http://reviews.cabelas.com/8815/016016/scotty-planer-board-releases-reviews/reviews.htm

[kjackson]

The minis may be the ticket.. I'll have to check them out.

[Feathers and Fins]

Ya it sucks to be me I walk in cabelas and see other uses for everything. Wife hates taking me to hobby lobby I buy more fly tying stuff there than at the fly shop

[kjackson]

The Chamberlain release gets some pretty good reviews from kokanee guys. The fish they're catching often are less than 12 inches and shaped like a trout. (They are landlocked sockeye salmon, FYI, but usually are anything but salmon-sized.)

Offshore planerboard releases are supposed to be pretty good as well. The Shuttle Hawk releases don't fare well.

Scotty also has a release they call "hair trigger." Haven't read anything about it.

[kjackson]

Here's something that I will be working with this year--it's UV enhanced lures. Last fall, I was doing some exploring in Table Rock below Holiday Island. I was pulling both Flicker Shads and Storm's Smash Shad. The Smash Shad caught twice as many crappies as the Flicker. Both were about the same size nd were fished at roughly the same depth, and both have about the same dive profile. BUT, the Smash Shad had a UV finish.

Ultraviolet-reflective finishes are a big deal in the trout-salmon-steelhead world because they catch more fish, as those species generally see UV light in at least part of their life cycle. Not all fish see UV, and of those that do, they may gain or lose the ability at different stages. Unfortunately, so far there isn't a lot of research done on many freshwater fish, so it may not be possible to look up a fish and tell whether or not it sees UV bandwidths. So it really comes down to experience--catch a lot of fish on a UV bait, and it may be because the lure reflects that light. Or it could be a lot of other factors--the base color, the action, the depth, the day, the usual stuff.

What makes UV important, IMO, is because it penetrates water better (can be seen deeper), and it penetrates murky water better than the visible wavelengths. It is visible deeper in the water column. It is also something that some insects and fish reflect as well, and some fish may be able to use it to find food. You'll find that natural materials such as fur and feathers may reflect UV as well, and that is why some fly patterns do better if they are tied of natural materials rather than dyed.

Whether it is something crappie can see is up for grabs. In my online research, I've found that scientists think bass don't see UV. Some perch and perch-like fish may (this might include walleye) and that some salmonid species will, again depending upon life stage. But it will be interesting to test.

[J-Doc]

I see your point but I don't think baitfish naturally give off UV.

Here's the devils advocate to your observation.....

I once had access to a very old pond that I know had a few lunker bass in it. The water is SUPER dark. Like a pond full of dark roast coffee dark. Visibility is less than a foot. But it is full of fish. Great bluegill fishing too.

I took all my gear, fished from a small Jon boat and had an old man whoop my tail by 10-1. I was throwing everything I had trying rattle traps, spinnerbaits, buzzbaits, jigs, crankbaits, etc.

The gentlemen I fished with was a distant family member and he had one old Abu pistol grip rod/reel combo where I had 7 hi quality rods. (See where this is going don't you?)

So he had one rod and one plastic worm. I had a big tackle bag full of stuff. He caught 10 bass before I could get a bite. I finally switched over to a plastic worm like he was using but it wasn't the same worm or color. Only close. He still caught more than me. The fish wanted that Zoom Centepede worm in Junebug color. Just a plain ole Texas rig.

I had a trick worm that was very close to Junebug but had red flakes instead of green flakes. I got bites but he was still whooping me. Now the water is black and had a brown tint to it at the bank. Super dark. A white spinnerbait just vanishes barely below the surface.

Now.....my point is there is no way the tiny green flakes reflected light at 4-8' when red flakes didn't. The fish wanted the Junebug worm because it had a different vibration signature in the water. We was deadsticking the bait and barely moving it at all. So it wasn't how he worked the worm or the color. It was because a centipede worm has rings on it and a trick worn is smooth.

I just can't see how green flakes in water that's coffee black in 8ft could make a difference. So UV light doesn't make that big of a difference to me more than vibration signature and presentation.

That's my opinion anyway. But I'm always open to new ideas.

[Feathers and Fins]

red is the first color to disappear in water

[J-Doc]

I've heard opposite before. I've heard a guy (on here actually) used a senko without flake got no bites and a senko with red flakes got bites. Not clear water wither. Slightly stained.

[kjackson]

That's a valid point and well worth remembering, J-Doc. There are so many variables that can decide whether a fish is going to commit or not, and visibility of the lure is just one.

Your point about baitfish--It's not that some baitfish give off light but rather that they reflect it. UV is part of the light spectrum, and it's there all the time. I did a lot of research when I was writing an article for one of the trade magazines on the UV phenomenon, and indeed some fish reflect it just as some fish see it. Some fur and feathers (and plants and flowers) reflect it. One example is the blue jay feather found in the UK. It reflects UV, and it is a popular feather in many trout and salmon flies. It isn't the blue that is necessarily the attractant, but rather the UV reflectance.

And your comeuppance whupping is a good example of why there is no silver bullet in fishing. UV-reflectance isn't anything more than saying that a lure may be more visible to fish. The lure or bait or whatever still has to have action, motion, size, or whatever to get the fish to bite.

It could be that the water I was fishing in wasn't Beaver clear, and it could be that the purple color of the Smash Shad was more attractive than the pearl Flicker Shad, or they rattled better or had a better action that the fish preferred that day. Or it could be that in the darker water they were more visible because of the UV reflectance. Dunno, y'know.

Somewhere in my fly tying stuff, I have material specially treated to reflect UV. It would be interesting to tie some jigs with it and non-reflective material and test 'em.

[kjackson]

While this doesn't apply to crappie, I can say that there are times that the color of flake will make a difference to walleyes. This particular time was in Washington's Lake Roosevelt, a clear lake on the Columbia that is similar to Beaver in a lot of ways.

M buddy and I are fishing down a rocky bank, casting leadhead jigs rigged with four-inch plastic worms. He's kicking my tail using a salt-and-pepper red flake worm while I am using the same thing but with blue flake (or vice versa...don't recall who was using what). I mean it was a serious tail thumping like 10 to 0 on smallish walleyes. I change to his flake color and start catching them about as fast as he was--the same worm and the same flake color.

So after I break off on a rock, I tie on a new jig and see a Kalin's worm in my bag that is a laminated red salt-and-pepper over a chartreuse salt-and-pepper. And I start catching fish about as fast as I did before.

So I had the wrong color flake and couldn't catch fish, but when I try something off the wall, I get back on it? Fish and fishing can be weird; that's what I say at times like that.